House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
1. What progress his Department is making in implementing the recommendations of Lord Levene’s report on defence reform.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Before I answer my hon. Friend’s question, I confirm to the House that a British serviceman is missing in Afghanistan and that an extensive operation to locate him is under way. The individual was based in central Helmand and was reported missing in the early hours of this morning. His next of kin have been informed and will be updated as the operation continues, so no other family need be concerned. I recognise that there will be many questions, but speculation on an issue of this nature is unhelpful. I urge restraint from colleagues and the media, and assure the House that the United Kingdom and the international security assistance force are taking all necessary and appropriate action.
In answer to my hon. Friend, all parts of the Ministry of Defence, civilian and military, are committed to making the reforms happen, and some have already been put in place. I have chaired the first meeting of the new Defence Board; we have introduced the new infrastructure organisation and corporate service models; and the new Defence Business Services organisation stands up today. We will put all the other elements in place as quickly as possible. Lord Levene’s recommendations will mean the biggest change to the MOD in a generation. It will take time to do it all and get it right.
Matthew Hancock
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know that our reports have frequently shown that attempts to reform the MOD have failed through lack of consistency and leadership, and that as a result the Secretary of State is having to deal with the shambles that he inherited. Will he assure me that he will not make the same mistakes as the previous Government, and instead see through the radical reform that is needed?
Dr Fox
The new operating model incentivises delivery by accountable senior leaders. We understand entirely the need for the transformation process to be rigorous and for the reforms to be pushed through. I assure my hon. Friend that we will give all the energy required to ensure that that happens.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
How many people will be made redundant as a consequence of the Levene report?
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
When will the Ministry of Defence’s three-month review of procurement projects report? Will it, as the name implies, take three months? If so, when did it begin?
Dr Fox
We are approaching the end point of that review, and it will certainly be in the next few weeks. There are a number of complex issues to sort out, as my right hon. Friend understands, not least how to go about setting a long-term budget that allows the MOD to plan with certainty. When we have finished those deliberations, we will make them known.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Secretary of State is aware that the decision on military basing is imminent and that an all-party submission has called for the retention of RAF Lossiemouth as an air base on defence and security grounds. He is also aware of the unique economic threat to the economy of Moray and the north of Scotland of a double base closure. Will he take this opportunity to say when he will make a statement to the House on the military basing review?
Dr Fox
I fully understand all the hon. Gentleman’s arguments. As I have always said, we regard the military elements as having paramount importance, but we understand the other elements. Having taken a number of the key decisions over the weekend, I hope that we will make progress very shortly.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I warmly commend my right hon. Friend for the determination he is bringing to bear to push through the Levene reforms. Does he agree that one of the most important issues affecting the three services is the need for “purple” command and control and for decisions to be taken on a tri-service basis, and that that should be pushed through?
Dr Fox
That is the natural way in which defence is developing in this country, as in others. We wanted to set up the joint force command to carry that process forward in a constructive and transparent way. It will also, as I said in my statement to the House, allow career progression right up to four-star level for those who might not get preferment through the traditional single-service structure. It is therefore not only good for defence but a thoroughly meritocratic reform.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments about our missing soldier in Afghanistan, and I appreciate the fact that he took the time to brief me personally earlier this afternoon. We all know that our forces are both brave and brilliant, and this is a reminder of the daily danger they face. The Opposition, the entire House and, more importantly, everyone in the country, regardless of their view on the conflict in Afghanistan, will wish the Government and our forces well in rescuing this individual soldier.
Will the Secretary of State assure us that not a penny piece that is currently planned for supporting the operation in Afghanistan will be affected by the implementation of the recommendations of the Levene report?
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
2. What role he expects his Department to play in establishing post-conflict security in Libya.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
We are in discussions with Whitehall colleagues, international organisations and allies regarding a post-conflict solution in Libya. It is too early to speculate on what might be required and who might be involved.
Mr Crausby
Can the House be assured that the plan for peace in Libya will be as robust as the plan for war? Is the Secretary of State absolutely certain that we will not underestimate the size of the task in the way that pretty well everybody did in the case of both Iraq and Afghanistan?
Dr Fox
The hon. Gentleman asks a key question. How the transition occurs is of key importance. If there is some political settlement and an orderly handover to a new authority in Libya, the chances of maintaining order are much greater. We are working towards that with the contact group and others, and it makes sense for NATO and the United Nations to plan for all eventualities when we see the back of Colonel Gaddafi, as we all hope will soon happen.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in paying tribute to the work of the stabilisation unit on post-conflict security in Libya. Given the restrictions of the existing United Nations resolution, does he feel that a further UN resolution might be required to carry out that work?
Dr Fox
It will depend on the situation on the ground and how benign the environment is. At the moment we do not envisage the need for another UN resolution, and we believe that the orderly handover to the UN and a new Libyan authority should be possible without one. Of course, that is constantly kept under review by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Although it is understandable that the Secretary of State might be a little reticent, it is worrying that he says it is too early for planning. The situation in Libya could go on for some time yet, but equally the forces of the uprising could be in Tripoli at any time. Is he seriously suggesting that we still have to wait to plan for the conflict’s aftermath? I do not think it is going to be like what happened in Tunisia—it will be a lot more difficult than that, and somebody will have to provide some support.
Dr Fox
A great deal of planning, looking at a range of scenarios, is being undertaken by the National Security Council and across Whitehall Departments, and a range of important discussions are being held with our allies, not least at the large gathering of military leaders in London last week. We could well see the collapse of the Libyan regime over a short period, but it could take some considerable time yet. I am afraid that I think it is unlikely that the opposition forces will enter Tripoli in the near future.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the middle east and north Africa; and if he will make a statement.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
8. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the middle east and north Africa; and if he will make a statement.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
16. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the middle east and north Africa; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
As the Foreign Secretary has said, demands for greater political, social and economic participation will continue in the middle east and north Africa. We assess that the security situation will remain fragile unless Governments in the region work to fulfil the aspirations of their people.
Karen Lumley
Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the UK has sufficient resources in place to honour its commitment under UN Security Council resolution 1973 and continue operations in Libya for as long as is necessary?
Nick Harvey
I am pleased to give precisely that confirmation. As the Chief of the Defence Staff has said, we can sustain the operation for as long as necessary. We have flexible and adaptable forces. That is not to say that sustaining operations will not put stress on people and assets, but we are perfectly capable of doing so, and nobody should be in any doubt about our determination.
Paul Uppal
It is as well to remind the House that the international community came together to avert an injustice and a massacre in Benghazi. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we keep that international community cohesion and effort on this most pressing issue?
Nick Harvey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The international community acted very speedily to deter the threat to civilian life in Libya. The sustaining of that effort in Libya is absolutely international in nature. It is essential to a successful outcome that all involved retain that cohesion and determination of purpose, and that all involved plan for what will follow, which was questioned a minute ago.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a Palestinian state with Hamas in part control is a major defence threat, not just to Israel but to the wider region? Does he also agree that there should be no recognition of a Palestinian state until Hamas recognises Israel’s right to exist, renounces violence and recognises existing treaties?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure the Minister will answer with reference to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Defence.
Nick Harvey
Those are pre-eminently matters of foreign policy which my hon. Friend should put to the Foreign Secretary, who will have heard the question and will reflect upon it.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
In terms of the killing of civilians, torture, repression, and the export and support of terrorism, does the Ministry of Defence draw any distinction between Colonel Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad of Syria; and if so, what is it?
Nick Harvey
Again, that is predominantly a question of foreign policy, but clearly the foreign policy circumstances are very different in the two countries. In the case of Libya, a regional power invited an intervention and a UN Security Council resolution authorised all necessary force. In the case of Syria, no regional body is inviting an intervention; more to the point, as yet, there has been no progress on a UN resolution, although the UK has a draft before the UN.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the situation in Yemen is now critical. Have the Government received any request from the acting President of Yemen for military assistance by way of advisers or any other assistance whatever?
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise that new threats to the UK following the Arab spring make the national security strategy out of date? Will he update the strategy in the light of those recent events?
Nick Harvey
The national security strategy anticipated a variety of threats from different parts of the globe throughout its 10-year time frame. It proposed that we should have flexible and adaptable forces that are capable of responding to different scenarios in different ways at different times. The momentum of activity following the uprisings in north Africa and the middle east has called us into action, but that action has so far shown to be perfectly manageable within the arrangement that the strategic defence and security review laid down. No reason has been provided at this stage for anybody to contemplate a different arrangement.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
4. What steps his Department is taking to promote defence exports.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
11. What steps his Department is taking to promote defence exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
We are supporting defence exports through an active and innovative defence diplomacy initiative, working closely with the UK Trade & Investment Defence & Security Organisation. Exports help to build and enhance relations with allies, to support UK defence industry, and to reduce the cost of equipment for Britain’s armed forces.
Ministers and officials from across Government, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are already actively promoting British defence exports overseas. We are also embedding exportability into the early stages of the Ministry of Defence acquisition cycle. By considering export issues early and offering partnership at the design stage, we aim to increase export opportunities, which should result in reduced acquisition costs to the MOD.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. The Government have made positive changes in how they work with the UK defence industry to achieve better mutual benefits. However, what more can the Government and industry do so that we take an even better approach to exports throughout the whole of the UK defence sector, including MBDA and many other companies in my constituency, to maximise opportunities for the UK?
Mr Howarth
I am glad that my hon. Friend noted the extraordinary efforts that I and my ministerial colleagues across all Departments are making. There is no complacency. The defence exports support group was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State specifically to act as a forum for Ministers to plan and focus their support to defence exports. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate MBDA on the fantastic job it is doing in supporting current operations in Afghanistan through the provision of some outstanding equipment. I hope that he will convey that message to his constituents. I am working with MBDA to see what we can do to help promote further exports.
Chris Skidmore
Airbus has recently set up a new research and development centre at the national composite centre in my constituency at the Bristol and Bath science park. Will the Minister welcome this development, and does he agree that effective research and development is crucial to promoting defence exports?
Mr Howarth
I assure my hon. Friend that I am very aware of the work going on his constituency—I have been briefed on it—and I think it is a sector in which the United Kingdom enjoys outstanding strength. I have also visited the Airbus facility at Filton, where the wings for the A400M are built. That aircraft has fantastic export potential, and I hope that it will be a world-beater.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
How does the Minister expect successfully to sell British industry abroad when his muddled defence review is squeezing firms at home? Is he aware that the pioneering lighting firm in my constituency, Oxley, has been forced to shed another 13 jobs and cites the difficulties created by the Government’s defence review as a key factor in that decision?
Mr Howarth
It might have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that the difficulties that the MOD faces are entirely the fault of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Prime Minister, who destroyed the country’s public finances and forced the Government to take measures to try to restore them. We are ensuring that we maximise the defence industry’s opportunities for first-class British kit in the export market. If he would like representatives from Oxley to come and tell me about it, I would be happy to meet them.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has made his position clear: defence procurement will be based on open competition in the global market and buying off the shelf. How does that square with supporting UK industry? The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) asked whether he recognises the absolute necessity for ongoing support for research and technology within the sector to make it clear to companies in the sector that the Government are firmly behind what they are doing.
Mr Howarth
We fully recognise the importance of research and technology, which is why the Government have sought hard to protect that budget and why my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology is also working hard and will shortly produce a White Paper on the subject. I assure hon. Members that nobody is more aware than the Government of the importance of the British manufacturing defence base as a basis upon which to generate wealth for the UK through exports.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
5. What steps the Government have taken to strengthen the defence industrial base; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
We will publish a White Paper later this year, following up the recent public consultation on last December’s “Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security” Green Paper. The Government are already taking effective steps to provide much greater support to UK defence exports and to make it easier for smaller enterprises to do business with the public sector, including with the MOD.
Jack Dromey
Britain’s defence industries lie at the heart of our economy. The Government are delaying vital defence orders for our armed forces, and the Secretary of State has said that he will buy off the shelf using open competition in the global marketplace. Does the Minister not recognise the anxiety and uncertainty that this is causing to tens of thousands of defence workers all over Britain who, like our armed forces, give outstanding service to this country?
Peter Luff
First, I am happy to say that the shelf is stacked high with British products, and that makes us extremely successful in the international market. Britain is the second greatest exporter of defence equipment—and long may that be the case. On the other comments of the hon. Gentleman, whom I hold in high regard—we have had discussions on British industry before—I would point out that our life would be so much easier had we not inherited a total mess of a defence budget, including a £38 billion black hole. The things he is complaining about were the fault of the previous Government.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The previous Labour Government sold the defence contractor QinetiQ to a City firm that, a couple of years later, sold it for eight times the value and closed its plant in Bedfordshire with a consequential loss of employment. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he does a better job of defending our defence industrial base than the previous Labour Government?
Peter Luff
Speaking as someone from Worcestershire, where QinetiQ also has a very large presence, I absolutely understand what my hon. Friend is saying. It certainly would not be difficult to do a better job than the last lot did.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Government promised a White Paper on defence procurement in the spring of this year, but it still has not appeared. They are continuing to take major decisions on procurement and the process of procurement in the MOD before they have set out any strategy on the industrial base. Will the Minister tell the House exactly why the White Paper has not yet been published? Is his definition of “spring” the time of year when the clocks go back and the leaves come off the trees?
Peter Luff
I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I can give him an answer to that question. We have delayed publication because of the large number of defence-related reviews that the MOD is conducting at present, including the Levene review, the reserves review and the basing review. These will all lead naturally to the defence equipment and support White Paper, which will be published later this year. The Yellow Book review on non-competitive contracts will be released at the same time, not in July as originally intended, because the two documents will naturally sit together.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
6. What assessment he has made of the shape and size of the future surface fleet of the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
As we set out in the strategic defence and security review, under Future Force 2020 the future surface Navy will have a world-class carrier strike capability, with 19 frigates and destroyers, including the state-of-the-art Type 45 destroyer; an amphibious fleet able to land and sustain a commando group from the sea; 14 mine countermeasures vessels; a global oceanographic survey capability; and a fleet of resupply and refuelling vessels. Work is also under way on the requirements and design of the Type 26 global combat ship, our next generation frigate.
Dr Lewis
I am encouraged by that response. Does the Minister remember when he and I sat on parallel Opposition Benches under the previous Government as the size of the frigate and destroyer fleet went down successively from 35 to 32 to 31 to 25 and then to 19? Will he specifically confirm that that figure of 19 frigates and destroyers will not be reduced to a pathetically inadequate baker’s dozen, as posited in some parts of the press?
Nick Harvey
I can certainly confirm that the situation remains unchanged from the SDSR. The future force will comprise 19 destroyers and frigates. It was a matter of great regret that the Government had to make a range of cuts in the SDSR, but that was a result of the general economic climate and, specifically, of the defence black hole that we inherited.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
On the size of the surface fleet, the First Sea Lord told the Defence Committee on 11 May:
“We would be challenged to find further platforms to rotate through, and to continue to maintain the overseas commitments that are standard operating requirements.”
Will the Minister tell the House exactly how the Royal Navy will sustain its operations in Libya, and what impact those operations are having on the Royal Navy’s ability to deliver what was set out in the SDSR?
Nick Harvey
As I said in answer to an earlier question, there is no denying that the pace and longevity of operations in Libya put a stress on the fleet. However, the Libyan operation is a high priority, and we will ensure that it has the necessary resources. HMS Liverpool remains on task in the Mediterranean in support of the NATO-led operations. We have plans for her relief in due course but, for operational security reasons, I am not going to say which ship will be involved.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the Typhoon and Apache platforms in Operation Ellamy.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
18. What assessment he has made of the performance of Eurofighter Typhoon in Operation Ellamy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
Typhoon aircraft and Apache attack helicopters have performed very well in Operation Ellamy, proving their military worth and fulfilling all the operational tasks asked of them. Typhoon, in its first multi-role mission in providing both air defence and ground attack, has demonstrated exceptional levels of survivability and, in its ground attack role, a targeting capability with minimal collateral damage, proving that it is a truly formidable aircraft.
Mr Hollobone
Given that both platforms are being deployed in theatre in roles beyond their original specification, will my hon. Friend please comment in more detail on the ground attack role of the Typhoon, and on the Apache being deployed for the first time at sea?
Peter Luff
The Apache has been on about 20 sorties with no known civilian casualties—an exceptional testimony to that aircraft. Typhoon is performing exceptionally well in Libya. My hon. Friend is right that it was originally conceived as an air defence aircraft; it is now in its first multi-role combat aircraft role, and it is performing superbly. As Wing Commander J Attridge, the operational Typhoon detachment commander said,
“the Typhoon has come of age”
over the skies of Libya and we are seeing the maturation of the RAF’s first multi-role combat fast jet aircraft since world war two. We are all delighted with its performance.
Mr Carswell
Given that historically we have invested many billions in cold war era Eurofighters, but perhaps a little less on the unmanned aerial vehicles we need, does the Minister have any plans to switch resources from the former to the latter?
Peter Luff
It is not an either/or situation. UAVs have their role to play, but Typhoon is not a cold war legacy; it has proved to be an exceptionally capable modern aircraft, taking on the world and proving its exceptional worth in Libya. I am very confident of success in the large number of ongoing export campaigns around the world. Typhoon is a remarkable modern aircraft with a very bright future ahead of it.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
9. How much his Department spent on accommodation in London for military officers and staff of his Department in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Over the last 12 months, the Ministry of Defence spent some £25 million on renting 3,000 service family accommodation properties and 1,000 substitute family and single accommodation properties in London for entitled service personnel. Substitute properties were rented only when no suitable MOD accommodation was available. We seek to get best value for money. Travel and subsistence payments for service and civilian personnel relating to short-term detached duty, permanent transfer, which involves move of home, or temporary transfer in London cannot be identified separately. However, for civilian personnel in London, the MOD imposes a monthly rental ceiling of £1,250. Personnel based in the London area are undertaking essential duties in a range of locations.
Mr Cunningham
Given the financial difficulties of the MOD and the worldwide economic situation that we inherited, the present Government have made the position worse. With all these defence cuts going on, particularly among specialist police in the MOD, how does the Minister justify spending £500,000 on a trip to America, which was cancelled last year?
Mr Robathan
I am not entirely sure how that question relates specifically to my previous answer, but I will of course answer it. As I understand it, the trip is part of the Defence Academy course, and 300 people went to America for a week or whatever. It seems to me that this is a reasonable use of defence expenditure to ensure that people are properly trained at the Defence Academy and that they gain a proper understanding of the United States, which is, after all, our most important ally, with which we are much engaged in Afghanistan at the moment.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
10. Whether he has discussed with ministerial colleagues the effectiveness of co-operation between French and UK armed forces; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues about our bilateral co-operation with France, following the signature of the defence and security co-operation treaty last November. The aim of the treaty is to develop further co-operation between our armed forces and to improve their ability to work together more effectively.
Neil Carmichael
I have considerable experience of dealing with our allies, as my wife is French. Does the Secretary of State believe that this alliance means making better use of our budget for cost-effectiveness and for strategic planning?
Dr Fox
I am pleased to hear about my hon. Friend’s personal entente cordiale, and I hope that the relationship we have with France in defence will turn out to be as fruitful. We certainly aim to ensure the best use of money in future procurement and the development of projects, but above all we have been looking at the respective doctrines of our armed forces to ensure greater interoperability. France is a natural partner of the UK in being willing both to spend and deploy, which cannot be said of a number of our other European partners in NATO.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will any of the discussions with the French Government on working more closely together and on cost cutting lead to the scenario suggested in Jane’s that 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines could be disbanded? I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure my constituents, who have close links to the Royal Marines currently serving in Afghanistan, that that will not happen.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the co-operation between the French and the UK armed forces will enable in 2015 celebrations of that great away win over the French—the battle of Waterloo?
Dr Fox
It is for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to celebrate, and carry the budget for celebrating, historic events. It does no country a disservice, however, to remember that we have benefited from our armed forces in security not only today but throughout our history.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the likely date for achievement of the objectives set for Operation Ellamy.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
Operation Ellamy is helping to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. We have made it clear repeatedly, and I have done so in the House, that we will continue operations until Gaddafi stops attacking the Libyan people and they can live in peace and security.
Mr Hanson
I assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition support the objectives of the operation. For clarity, however, will he tell the House the cost to date of the operation, its ongoing monthly cost, and the financial provision he is making for the hopeful post-conflict activity that we discussed earlier?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
13. What input his Department has had to the arms export review being undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
MOD officials have engaged with Foreign Office colleagues on the review of export licensing previously announced on 16 March by the Foreign Secretary.
Simon Hughes
Given the considerable interest that there has been in export licences in relation to the middle east and north Africa, and the desire of many of our constituents to see a change in the old regime and system and a reduction in arms sales abroad, will my hon. Friend tell us whether we are likely to have the results of the review before the summer recess, and whether we will have an opportunity to debate them on the Floor of the House?
Nick Harvey
I understand that the intention is to publish the findings of the review before the summer recess, but whether there will be the opportunity to debate them in the House is not a matter for me. I assure my right hon. Friend, however, that we continue to operate on a case-by-case basis in the middle east in relation to fresh applications for export licences.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The recent joint report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls recommended that the Government publish a full statement on how they apply criterion 8 relating to sustainable economic development when making decisions about arms export licences. Will the Minister give his commitment that the Department will follow and adopt that recommendation?
Nick Harvey
I must make it clear that the responsibility for defence export licences lies with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which consults the Foreign Office on specific criteria and the Ministry of Defence on other criteria. I assure my hon. Friend that, in so far as is relevant to the issues on which we are asked to advise, the Ministry of Defence agrees entirely with the points that he makes, but such matters are pre-eminently for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
15. 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)
I visited Afghanistan in recent weeks and gained a clear sense of the progress being made. I was also able to thank our armed forces in person and on behalf of the House for their fine efforts. Following that visit, I am in no doubt that the transition of security lead to the Afghans remains achievable by the end of 2014.
David Rutley
Given this country’s strong efforts to create a secure environment in Afghanistan, and our commitment to withdrawing British troops by 2015, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what progress is being made in building the capability of local Afghan forces, and in ensuring a clear transition in military command?
Dr Fox
I have had the opportunity over time to see the Afghan national security forces—both the Afghan national army and the police—and as anyone who visits them will recognise, their capability is enormously enhanced. Things that may appear small to us, such as literacy training, have phenomenally increased their capability. When I look at the Afghan national training mission, I have cause for great hope that we will achieve the levels of security competence required for that transition.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give us some idea of the percentage of children who are attending schools in Helmand province as an indication of how successful we have been in the operation there?
Dr Fox
It is difficult to give an accurate figure, but I will try to obtain one from the provincial reconstruction team and write to the hon. Gentleman. What is clear is that, while we have taken a large amount of military equipment and money to Afghanistan, perhaps the most important thing that we have taken there is hope: hope for a generation who may be able to be educated and to have some economic capabilities of their own in the future, which events have denied to recent generations in Afghanistan.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
We read in the newspapers this week that the Prime Minister plans to announce a further troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. The whole country will feel disappointed that our forces have again had to learn of news through media leaks. As we head towards the 2014 deadline, can the Secretary of State repeat his guarantee that decisions about troop numbers will be based on conditions on the ground and on best available military advice, not on politics or other arbitrary factors?
Dr Fox
Given the last Government’s record, for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan being leaked to the newspapers is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. We said very clearly that there would be a reduction of 426. Some 200 troops have already been withdrawn, largely because they were involved in logistic tasks above and beyond our core number. Any reduction in the core number, particularly in our force in Helmand, will be announced after discussions in the National Security Council between the relevant politicians and Departments and the military.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
17. What recent assessment he has made of the export prospects for Eurofighter Typhoon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
Typhoon has already been exported to Saudi Arabia and Austria, where it is in operational service. It is also competing in a number of other important markets. Oman has announced its intention to buy Typhoon, and India has selected it for the final phase of its medium multi-role combat aircraft competition.
I expect an increase in interest in Typhoon following its highly successful air defence and ground attack roles in current operations, in which it has consistently demonstrated exceptional levels of reliability, performance, accuracy, and overall cost-effectiveness.
Stephen Metcalfe
SELEX Galileo in Basildon, along with many other businesses throughout the United Kingdom, will benefit hugely from increased exports of the Eurofighter Typhoon, and my constituents will also benefit from improved job opportunities. Will my hon. Friend update me and the House on the progress of the tender process with India?
Peter Luff
The Indians are sticking to their timetable, and we are very optimistic about the prospects for Typhoon. My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the contribution of companies such as SELEX Galileo. We already have a highly capable radar on Typhoon which matches, or exceeds, many electronically scanned radars operating elsewhere, but SELEX Galileo is on track with Europe’s first and only second-generation scanned radar, which will make Typhoon a truly outstanding, indeed unmatched, multi-role fast jet and a world-beater in the export markets as well. I hope that that includes India.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
19. What recent representations he has received on arrangements for members of the public to pay final respects to fallen servicemen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Over the last two weeks we have received a number of e-mails and letters following a campaign on Facebook about arrangements for members of the public to pay their final respects to fallen servicemen and women.
Mark Pawsey
I recently spoke to a lady in my constituency who is a member of the War Widows Association. She expressed concern about the forthcoming change which would mean repatriation flights arriving at RAF Brize Norton. Like many other people, she believed that it was important for the British public to continue to be able to pay their respects to fallen military personnel. Will the Minister assure us that that will still be possible under the new arrangements?
Mr Robathan
I can certainly assure my hon. Friend and the House that that is the case.
Because of the number of e-mails that we had received, I went to Brize Norton on Friday to reassure myself about the plans that are being made. The RAF is spending £3.2 million on a new repatriation centre specifically for the families of the bereaved, who must be the focus of our attention. It is an excellent centre, which will give them a very good view of what is happening when the aircraft land. There are private chapels of rest where they can go and be with their loved one’s remains. The cortege will then head down a very dignified avenue of limes to the nearest gate, which is being refurbished and will be called the Britannia Gate. It is dignified, respectful and solemn.
Once the cortege has left Brize Norton, it will be the responsibility of the police and Oxfordshire county council. The county council is building a memorial garden with a great deal of car parking so that people who wish to show their respect—the general public and the Royal British Legion, which approved the arrangements—will be able to do so in a dignified and proper place.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister misses the point. As recently as 12 o’clock today a representative of the people of Brize Norton expressed his disappointment and anger, because they wish the very moving scenes that took place at Wootton Bassett to be replicated at Brize Norton. That cannot happen because the cortege route is being taken through rural roads and not through the urban area. Should not the people of Brize Norton and the surrounding areas have the right to express the grief of the nation, in order that we are all reminded of the true cost of war?
Mr Robathan
First, as I have said, the families of the bereaved must be the most important consideration. Oxfordshire county council has carried out a great deal of consultation. The hon. Gentleman mentions Brize Norton and, as it happens, the route will go straight through the village of Brize Norton. It will not go through the nearby village of Carterton, whose streets are both very narrow for a modern village and have speed bumps, which are not suitable for corteges. This has been decided by Oxfordshire county council in consultation with local people, and there is no suggestion of its having been done covertly. If I may say so, I think the hon. Gentleman should go to Brize Norton—as I did—and see the alternatives, as he would find that we wish to allow the British public the right to show their respect for these heroes, but we are not necessarily going to be driven by one person on the radio.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
There can be no finer sight than the last four Hercules from RAF Lyneham flying down the line of the high street of Wootton Bassett on Friday afternoon on the way to Brize Norton, but does the Minister agree that it might not be possible, nor indeed quite right, to seek to replicate the Wootton Bassett effect elsewhere, as that was a chapter in our history? I am not sure we necessarily want to see it repeated elsewhere.
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The route from Lyneham to Oxford passes straight through the centre of Wootton Bassett, and the route from Brize Norton to Oxford is being drawn so that it can go past somewhere where people can pay their respects. As my hon. Friend will know, the facilities at RAF Lyneham were fairly ad hoc, but we have now built a repatriation centre which, I have to say, is very impressive. It will be finished at the end of July, and I think people will come to realise that this is a different situation, and that the RAF, Oxfordshire county council and the police are doing the right thing for the bereaved and the servicemen who have been killed.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
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 our armed forces covenant.
Simon Kirby
Has the Secretary of State considered the effects of off-the-shelf procurement on UK jobs, UK tax revenue, and the future capability of UK manufacturing?
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The creation of the office of the chief coroner would make a significant difference to the families of fallen service people as they go through the very difficult inquest process. The Royal British Legion believes this is a matter of priority, not of cost. When will the Secretary of State stop passing the buck to his colleagues in the Justice Department and make this one of his priorities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
As you will understand, Mr Speaker, this is not a question of passing the buck: the Ministry of Justice is responsible for the coroners department. This has been the subject of much consultation, and the MOJ must answer on it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) asks what it is doing: it is ensuring that coroners are better trained, as training was the problem beforehand.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
T2. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree with me and the British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign that the recent MOD medal review was wrong to suggest that there is little appetite or desire in this country to recognise our brave service veterans with a UK national defence medal?
Mr Robathan
I would not agree with my hon. Friend on that. What I would say is that groups such as the British Veterans National Defence Medal Campaign are being consulted on the medal review. What that campaign proposes would mean that some 4.5 million to 5 million people would qualify for a national defence medal, and we have to take into account all representations before determining whether that is the right thing to do.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
T3. On 24 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that a £10 billion black hole in the defence budget will lead to cuts having to be increased beyond the current 8%. Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny that report?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)
I am delighted that the Labour party now studies The Daily Telegraph in great detail, as it may be able to learn something from that side of the press. There is no doubt that the size of the budget deficit we inherited—about £38 billion of unfunded liability, on the assumption of flat real growth between now and 2020—had to be tackled. We have taken a huge amount out of that already and we will work, not only through this strategic defence and security review, but into the next one, to ensure that as we progress towards the end of the decade we eliminate that horrific inheritance from the Labour party.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
T4. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that enough British-trained RAF pilots are operating in Libya, especially at the moment? If there are not, will he ensure that even more pilots will be trained by RAF Linton-on-Ouse, in my constituency? Will he also assure the House that that base will remain one of the top training bases for the RAF for years to come?
Dr Fox
Not only can I give the assurance that we have sufficient British pilots and sufficient British assets in Libya, but I can tell the House that as we go ahead with the greater devolution of powers to the single service chiefs it will be up to them to determine, and make it clear to me, that they have proper training mechanisms in place to ensure that that position remains.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
T8. Given the widespread opposition in west Fife to becoming a nuclear submarine graveyard, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence will be using the same principles for identifying the long-term waste store as are used by the civil industry? Will he specifically confirm that the store has regulatory support, makes financial sense and has community buy-in?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)
The hon. Gentleman will understand that two sites have been identified as potential candidates for submarine dismantling—Devonport royal dockyard and Rosyth royal dockyard. I can give him the assurance he seeks: we will be following a similar approach to that of the civil nuclear sector and we will take account of a wide range of factors. I do not have time to enumerate those in this answer, but I would be happy to talk to him in detail later, if that would be of help to him. I can particularly reassure him on the subject of consultation, because we recognise the keen local interest in this subject and are keen to ensure that local people have the opportunity to express their views. We will work with all the local authorities and the devolved Administration in Scotland before and during public consultation.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T5. My constituency is home to a large number of reserve armed forces members, who welcome the review of their role. May I ask the Secretary of State whether that review will recognise their capacity, capabilities and willingness to integrate with the regular armed forces?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the excellent work done by our reserve forces. I have been thoroughly impressed with the commitment and skill that they have shown when I have met them, including in Afghanistan. As he knows, a review is being led by the Vice-Chief of the Defence staff and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), and their report is in the process of being finalised. I expect them to deliver that report shortly and it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has any plans to reduce the size of the Army post-2015?
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
T6. Like many in the House, I welcome the recent removal of arms export licences to Bahrain. However, given the earlier answer by the Minister for the Armed Forces, may I ask Ministers how many times they have raised concerns about arms export licences to Saudi Arabia with their colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth)
On Bahrain, I can tell my hon. Friend that a cross-Whitehall review of export licences to that country was held on 18 February, and licences for equipment that could be used for internal repression were revoked—to date, 23 single licences have been revoked and 16 open licences have had Bahrain removed from them. On Saudi Arabia, I can tell him that, like all other countries, we subject all defence exports to a rigorous review against the criteria set by this country and elsewhere.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On 28 April, I received an answer from the Minister to a request for a breakdown of outsourced transport costs from the Bicester logistics centre. The response was that £4 million had been saved and that the amount spent by Bicester on private couriers between 2008 and 2010 was zero. In my office, I have copies of literally thousands of transport documents that show that the answer is millions of pounds. The answer I was given therefore could not be further from the truth. Will the Minister provide urgent clarification on this very important matter?
Peter Luff
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern, based on what he has told me, and would be delighted to meet him to discuss the matter in more detail. He has brought a very serious matter to the attention of the House and I look forward to meeting him to discuss it further.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T7. Following recent debates about the restructuring of NATO, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the future of Northwood as a key NATO command headquarters is secure?
Dr Fox
In the recent discussions at NATO ministerial, the maritime headquarters for NATO were going to be in Lisbon, Naples or Northwood. First, Northwood is an effective and efficient place from which to carry out that command and, secondly, the UK Government do not believe that it is acceptable to see another northern European command move to the south of Europe at a time when many northern European forces are carrying more than their fair share of operations in Libya or Afghanistan.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I was pleased to be at Staveley Armed Forces day on Saturday, where I met a soldier who had recently returned from his third tour of duty in Afghanistan. He expressed his fear that political expediency would outweigh the military concerns about troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and, specifically, about the impact that was having on their efforts to train up Afghan nationals. His fear was that those nationals would return to the Taliban if they felt that Britain had withdrawn from Afghanistan prematurely. Does the Minister share that fear?
Dr Fox
I think the key element is the confidence we can give the people of Afghanistan that the international community’s relationship with that country will not end when our combat forces leave at the end of 2014. As we have trained up the Afghan national security force to have greater capability, there is now greater emphasis both on the political space and on redevelopment and reconstruction, rather than on the purely military arguments.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T9. What plans do the Government have to mark the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, which ended a quarter of a century of conflict in Europe and packed Napoleon off to St Helena?
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend may know that I spent some 15 years in the Coldstream Guards and he will know—he has historical knowledge—that the Coldstream Guards shut the gates of the chateau, or the farm, of Hougoumont. Wellington said that the battle would have been lost had that not happened. Our relationship with France has changed a little since the Napoleonic wars, and this is now an historical matter. I understand that our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have set up a Waterloo 200 committee to discuss the commemoration, but it will certainly be commemorated by the Coldstream Guards, among others.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
May I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), for agreeing to meet me yesterday to discuss the potential implications of the SDSR on organisations that depend almost entirely on Ministry of Defence contracts for their survival? I was perhaps a tad parochial at that meeting in stating the case for the Remploy factory in my constituency. Is the Minister in a position to give any assurances and an update to the people employed at Remploy in Dundee West and to me?
Peter Luff
I am afraid I cannot go beyond what I said at the meeting with the hon. Gentleman, which I greatly enjoyed. I look to him to carry on making the case for an important facility and factory that does excellent work for the people it serves and who work for it.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
T10. Like the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), I had the honour of joining Armed Forces day celebrations and, in my case, they were at Bulkington in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this annual event not only raises public awareness of the contribution made to our country by those who serve and have served in the armed forces but gives the opportunity for the entire country to show its support for all the men who make up that community? [Interruption.] And women.
Dr Fox
Men and women. I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a valid point that will resonate throughout the country. Armed Forces day gives us all a chance to be aware of what the armed forces do and gives the public the chance to thank them. I visited the Armed Forces day celebrations in Edinburgh, which were magnificent. The city put on a great display and I look forward to seeing what Plymouth is capable of doing next year.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State may be aware of the excellent research carried out by Professor Al Rowland into the exposure of our atomic test veterans. Since conducting that research, Professor Rowland has been honoured by the Queen. The UK Government are now the only Government refusing to accept their responsibilities for Christmas island, so will the Secretary of State now agree to do so?
Mr Robathan
I do not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I happen to know that neither do those on his party’s Front Bench. What happens in New Zealand is, of course, up to the people of New Zealand. However, I note from the article in The Times today, which he might have read, that Neil Sampson of Rosenblatt says that he wants a compensation fund worth £30 million to be set up. It should be asked of Rosenblatt—perhaps the hon. Gentleman himself might wish to ask this question—how much its fees are, because I understand that they would take up more than half that compensation fund, and would—I think everybody in the House would agree—therefore probably be a little large.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that RAF Leuchars in my constituency continues to fulfil its responsibilities for the air defence of the northern half of the United Kingdom with the professionalism and commitment that we have come to expect. Has he assessed the extent of the effect on the ability of Leuchars—or, indeed, of any other air base in Scotland—to operate if Scotland was not under the umbrella of NATO?
Dr Fox
I had a chance to visit Leuchars recently to thank those who carry out those duties on our behalf. My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. Those in the Scottish National party in the Scottish Government who pretend that they can enjoy both the security of the Crown forces and the luxury of talking about leaving NATO leave a lot to be desired intellectually.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
What is the status of the Chinook helicopter order?
Peter Luff
Nothing has changed since the strategic defence and security review.
Business of the House
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow and Wednesday remains unchanged to that announced previously. However, the remaining business will now be:
Thursday 7 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by consideration of a business motion, followed by all stages of the Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.
I can advise the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make the final draft of the Bill available to hon. Members in advance of its formal introduction and publication tomorrow. I have been advised by the Home Office that copies of the final draft will be available in the Vote Office by 6 pm this evening. I will of course make my usual business statement on Thursday.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his statement and for advance sight of it, which responds to the point that I raised with him last Thursday. It has taken Home Office Ministers far too long—six weeks now—to respond to a court judgment that was originally given on 19 May. The result has been a complete mess, with doubt about the enforcement of bail conditions—for instance, in domestic violence cases—and the Leader of the House having to make this statement, completely changing the business for Thursday. Can he give us any news on the application to stay the judgment pending the appeal hearing, which I understand is scheduled for 25 July, because it might have a bearing on Thursday’s business?
As I indicated last week, we are very willing to assist in getting the legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible, because we all want to ensure that the law is restored to what everyone thought it was before the judgment. However, let me ask the Leader of the House two questions. First, can he confirm that the Home Secretary will be leading the debate? We see from his statement that all stages will be taken in one day, including the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. Secondly, when does he anticipate the Bill being considered in the other place?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his renewed offer of support for getting the legislation on the statute book. On his first point, the timeline was dealt with on several occasions on Thursday by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice.
On the application to the Supreme Court, the greater Metropolitan police are asking for a stay of execution. It would not resolve the main issue, and it would not happen until later this month, by which time the House will have risen. The Home Secretary will indeed be taking Second Reading. I anticipate that the Bill will then go to the other place on Thursday evening, and I hope that it will be dealt with early next week.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just remind the House that this is a narrow business statement and that questions should relate exclusively to announced changes to the business on Thursday? The wider, routine business statement will, as the Leader of the House has made clear, be on Thursday.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The very important business that the Leader of the House has announced will mean that an hour and a half debate on the use of electronic devices in the Chamber will not now occur. Will the Leader of the House tell us when he intends to allow that debate to occur?
Sir George Young
First, may I say that in replying to the shadow Leader of the House I should have said the Greater Manchester police, not the greater Metropolitan police?
I am sorry that the debate on Thursday will not now take place. I will make my normal business statement on Thursday outlining the business for forthcoming weeks.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
In his business statement on Thursday, could the Leader of the House tell us what the Home Secretary seems not to be capable of telling us about the case of Sheikh Raed Salah, including when she signed an order that he was to be deported from this country, why he has been held for some days in Her Majesty’s Prison Bedford, why he is being denied legal access until tomorrow and why, and under what pressure, she decided to make what I believe to be a retrospective decision?
Mr Speaker
Order. I think this is a question for Thursday, unless the Leader of the House has any plans to indicate that the matters will be debated on Thursday.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I assume that the Leader of the House is not going to move item No. 2 on the Order Paper tonight, but has he considered whether it could be moved and tacked on to whatever time we finish our debate on the emergency Bill?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend is quite right that there is now no need to move the motion that protects the Backbench Business Committee debate for 90 minutes. We do not propose to add that debate to the end of business on Thursday; it will have to be dealt with on another occasion.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Obviously, no leader of the House likes having to change business, although that is often necessary under the force of circumstances. We fully understand why that is being done in this case and the Opposition have indicated that they support that. However, I hope that the Leader of the House has satisfied himself regarding this question: did officials, when they knew about this decision, not tell the Minister, or is it the case that the Minister was told and did not act on it? What is the answer?
Sir George Young
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard for last Thursday, he will see the timeline outlined by the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. Ministers were told on 24 June.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have Hansard for last Thursday, and the Minister made it quite clear that the original decision was on 5 April and that a judicial review gave oral confirmation of that decision on 19 May. Can the Leader of the House say whether he was alerted, after 19 May, to the possibility of the need to legislate on the Floor of the House to reverse that decision?
Sir George Young
This is rehearsing to some extent the arguments that were dealt with on Thursday. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said on Thursday, we had to wait for the written judgment to follow the oral one.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
When will the House consider Lords amendments to the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill? Given that the Leader of the House has effectively included an extra day of legislation into Parliament’s proceedings, does he anticipate that the House will run for longer than intended in the current Session?
Sir George Young
That is not the Government’s intention. We plan to adjourn on the day that has already been announced.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
We had a statement last Thursday. Why are we waiting until this Thursday when we could have debated the exceptional Bill today? There is an increased cost to the police in not understanding what the position is and having to do bail at the doorstep level. Could we not have had the opportunity at least to see the draft Bill given that the Minister had the statement ready on Thursday?
Sir George Young
The Bill had to be drafted before it could be presented to the House. We have worked as quickly as we could and the Bill will be available to Members by 6 o’clock this evening—in good time for discussion on Thursday.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I do not understand why we cannot have the Bill earlier in the week. I am particularly concerned about the people who are suspected of domestic violence and have conditions on their bail, which I understand will not be enforced. That is clearly a major problem and I wonder why it is taking so long—until Thursday—to bring forward the Bill.
Sir George Young
The announcement was made on Thursday and the Bill will be available later today. I think that is moving at good speed. On the specific issue the hon. Lady raised, the police service is dealing with the implications of the ruling, including in the circumstances that she outlines, and the Home Secretary has been told that the police will be able to manage operationally in the meantime.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has taken five weeks to deal with this matter? Is an investigation going on to find out why this important legislation has taken five weeks, and is it true that the Government are only acting on the back of the report and legal advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers?
Sir George Young
Again, this is rehearsing to some extent the exchange we had on Thursday, and an exchange that can take place again this Thursday. The announcement that I have just made relates to the business we are dealing with on Thursday; the substantive matters will be dealt with on that day.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Although it will be good to have time to debate the Bill—that is all very well—can the Leader of the House allow us time for a separate debate about the general shambles in the Home Office and which Ministers and Law Officers were clearly asleep on the job?
Sir George Young
If the hon. Gentleman comes along on Thursday, he can put in a bid for such a debate. I am not sure whether he was here last Thursday, but there was a protracted exchange involving the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice on precisely the issues that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues continue to raise.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Two promises were made last Thursday. The first was on the request from the police that they should have the best legal advice from the best legal brains. I am sure that refers to the Solicitor-General. The second promise was that the Bill would be discussed with the Select Committee on Home Affairs and with the shadow Home Secretary before the final draft appeared. As the Home Secretary will be appearing before us tomorrow morning, could she please bring her latest version to the meeting?
Sir George Young
Indeed, the Home Secretary will be bringing a copy of the Bill with her, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also have his copy—available from 6 o’clock this evening.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
With regard to the timing of the debate on Thursday, is it not true that parliamentary business is being lost and legislation is being made in an emergency because the Home Office was not on top of its brief in the first place? Is any investigation going on to make sure that next time round we get legislation to protect the police earlier?
Sir George Young
Again, these issues were raised last Thursday, and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity this Thursday to discuss the background to the Bill. My responsibility is simply for announcing the changed business on Thursday, and in response to requests from some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues we are dealing with this as quickly as we possibly can.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Why did it take the Home Secretary so long to tell the Leader of the House that there was a need for this change?
Sir George Young
The moment the statement was made last Thursday, and it was clear that legislation was needed, we decided to change the business of the House, and a statement was made at the earliest opportunity.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
What a fiasco! Why does the House have to wait until Thursday before it debates the emergency legislation when the Home Office has known about this for six weeks? Will the Home Secretary be able to tell us what the current situation is with respect to those on police bail? How many people are being let out who should not be? How many people do not know what is happening? Should there not be an emergency statement now, rather than waiting until next Thursday?
Sir George Young
Yes to all the questions except the last one, which is no.
Reform of Social Care
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
With permission, I wish to make a statement on the reform of social care.
The coalition Government have from the outset recognised that reform of the care and support system is needed to provide people with more choice and control and to reduce the insecurity faced by individuals, carers and their families. By 2026, the number of people over 85 years old is projected to double. Age is the principal determinant of need for health and for care services. It is further estimated that in 20 years’ time, 1.7 million more people will have a potential care need than do today.
People often do not think about how they might meet the costs of care in later life. They assume that social care will be provided free for all at the point of need, but since the establishment of the welfare state that has never been the case. Currently, people with more than £23,250 in assets, often including their home, face meeting the whole cost of care themselves.
The cost of care can vary considerably and it is hard for people to predict what costs they may face. The average 65-year-old today will face lifetime care costs of £35,000, but as the Commission on Funding of Care and Support notes, costs are widely distributed: one in four will have no care costs, but one in four will face care costs of more than £50,000 and for one in 10 it will be more than £100,000. The lack of understanding of how the system works and uncertainty about costs means that it is difficult for people to prepare to meet potential care costs, and there are currently few financial products available to help them. This means that paying for care can come as a shock to many families and have a severe impact on their financial security.
Change is essential. That is why we took immediate action last July by establishing the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, which was tasked with making recommendations on how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support for all adults in England. In response to its initial advice, we allocated an additional £2 billion a year by 2014-15 in the spending review to support the delivery of social care as a bridge to reform. This represents a total of £7.2 billion of extra support for social care over the next four years, including an unprecedented transfer of funds from the NHS to support social care services that will also benefit health.
Since then we have taken forward wider reform. Last November we published our vision for adult social care, setting out our commitment to a more responsive and personalised care and support system that empowers individuals and communities, including the objective that all those who wish it should have access to a personal social care budget by 2013. In May, after three years of work, the Law Commission published its report on how to deliver a modernised statute for adult social care. Making sense of the current confused tangle of legislation to deliver a social care statute will allow individuals, carers, families and local authorities to understand more clearly when care and support will be provided.
Andrew Dilnot’s report comes at the same time as the final report from the palliative care funding review, which I received last week. Tom Hughes-Hallett and Sir Alan Craft have made an excellent start in looking at this complex and challenging issue. We want to see integrated, responsive and high-quality health and care services for those at the end of life. We will now consider the review team’s proposals in detail before consulting stakeholders on the way forward later this summer. We will also consider how best to undertake substantial piloting, as recommended in the report, in order to gather information on how best to deliver palliative care services.
We are also responding to events at Southern Cross, which have caused concern to residents in Southern Cross care homes and their families. We welcome the fact that Southern Cross, the landlords and the lenders are working hard to come up with a plan to stabilise the ownership and operation of the care homes. We have also made it clear that we will take action to ensure proper oversight of the market in social care. That is why we are seeking powers through the Health and Social Care Bill to extend to social care the financial regulatory regime that we are putting in place in the NHS, if we decide that that is needed as part of wider reform.
A central component of those wider reforms will be the long-term funding of care and support. Over the past 12 months Andrew Dilnot, who chairs the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, together with the noble Lord Warner and Dame Jo Williams, has engaged extensively with many different stakeholders. They have brought fresh insight and impetus to this most challenging area of public policy. We welcome the commission’s excellent work and its final report. I would like to thank Andrew Dilnot, Lord Warner and Jo Williams for their work, which has made an immensely valuable contribution to meeting the long-term challenge of an ageing population.
The report argues that people are unable to protect themselves against the risk of high care costs, leaving them fearful and uncertain about the future. The commission’s central proposal, therefore, is a cap on the care costs that people face over their lifetime of between £25,000 and £50,000—it recommends £35,000. Under the commission’s proposals, people who cannot afford to make their personal contribution would continue to receive means-tested support, but it proposes that the threshold for receiving state help for residential care costs would rise from £23,250 to £100,000. People would make some contribution to their general living costs in residential care, but the commission suggests that this should be limited to between £7,000 and £10,000.
The commission also proposes the following standardised, national eligibility for care, which would increase consistency across the country; universal access to a deferred payments scheme for means-tested contributions; improvements in information and advice; improved assessments for carers and better alignment between social care and the wider care and support system; and considering changing the means test in domiciliary care to include housing assets. The commission makes recommendations about how as a society we can organise and fund social care. We will consider the recommendations as a priority.
The commission recognises that implementing its reforms would have significant costs. In the current public spending environment, the Government will have to consider the recommendations carefully against other funding priorities and calls on our constrained resources. The commission’s recommendations present a range of options, including on the level of a cap and the contribution that people make to living costs in residential care, which could help us to manage the system and its costs. We intend to engage with stakeholders on those issues, including on the trade-offs involved.
Reform in this area will have to meet a number of tests, including whether the proposals would promote closer integration of health and social care and increased personalisation, choice and quality; support greater prevention and early intervention; whether a viable insurance market and a more diverse and responsive care market would be established as a result of the proposals; what is the level of consensus that additional resources should be targeted on a capped costs scheme for social care; and what a fair and appropriate method of financing the additional costs would be.
The Government have set out a broad agenda for reform in social care. We want to see care that is personalised; that offers people choice in how their care needs are met; that supports carers; that is supported by a diverse and flourishing market of providers; that has a skilled work force who provide care and support with compassion and imagination; and that offers people the assurances they expect of high-quality care and protection against poor standards and abuse. Andrew Dilnot’s report was never intended to address all those issues, but it forms a vital part of that wider agenda.
To take the matter forward, we will work with stakeholders in the autumn, using Andrew Dilnot’s report as the basis for engagement and as a key part of the broader picture. That engagement will look at the fundamental issues for reform in social care, such as improving quality, developing and assuring the care market, integration with the NHS and wider services, and personalisation. We want to hear stakeholders’ views on the priorities for action from the commission’s report and on how we should assess the proposals, including in relation to other priorities for improvement in the system. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and I have discussed, the Government will engage directly with the official Opposition to seek consensus on the future of long-term care funding.
We will set out our response to the Law Commission and the Dilnot commission in the spring. There will be full proposals for the reform of adult social care in a White Paper and a progress report on funding reform. It remains our intention to legislate to this effect at the earliest opportunity. The care of the elderly and of vulnerable adults is a key priority for reform under this Government, and I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Health Secretary for the copy of his statement, and for making it to the House himself.
We welcomed the Hughes-Hallett report last week and we welcome the Dilnot report on social care today. The Dilnot report sets out important recommendations on capping the catastrophic costs of care; lifting the wealth threshold for state help; immediate free support for children with care needs on becoming adults; universal disability benefits continuing as now; a standard national needs test; and better information and advice, led by local councils.
The important elements in the Dilnot report are similar to the plans that we set out in government in the care White Paper in March last year. Our concern was and is to protect the one in 10 people who have to pay more than £100,000 for the cost of their care in older age; our concern was and is to protect hard-working people on modest incomes, who are more likely to care for their relatives and a lot less likely to get any help in doing so; and our concern was and is to protect people from the lottery of where they live, rather than what they need, determining their assessment for care and the level of support.
It should be a cause for celebration and pride that one in five of us in this country who are alive today will live to 100, and that our children are likely to spend a third of their lives in retirement. Instead, too many of us approach our older age in fear—fear that we will need care that will not be there; fear that our savings will be wiped out by the open-ended costs of care; fear that we cannot protect our families from that risk; and fear of becoming a burden or being left alone.
Today’s report from Andrew Dilnot is a starting point, but it is what the Government do with it now that counts. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made a big offer to the Prime Minister to put politics aside and work to see a better, fairer and lasting system of support for our older and disabled people in England. Labour is willing to talk to and work with the Government and all other parties to do so, because we know that any new system of care must give all of us long-term confidence about what will be on offer for us and our families as we plan and prepare for older age.
That requires the Prime Minister to give the lead, because discussing and agreeing an affordable, sustainable system and how we pay for it involves important parts of Government beyond the Health Secretary. It requires the Prime Minister to give a guarantee that the Government will not kick Dilnot’s recommendations into the long grass, because as Dilnot says, the system needs “urgent and lasting reform”. If the Government are serious, we are serious; and if they are serious, we need to hear more. Dilnot recommends a White Paper by December this year, so why are the Government already saying that it will be spring before publication?
Any solution is a solution only if it is available and affordable to everyone, so what assurance can the Government give that the voluntary insurance protection will be an option for all? Dilnot states that the current system is
“under extreme strain, and people are experiencing tightening eligibility and reduced care packages.”
Do the Government accept his conclusion that additional public funding for the means-tested system is urgently required?
The corporate crisis at Southern Cross is causing extreme anxiety for many people living in its homes. Do the Government accept that there is a case for regulating business standards as well as care standards, to give people greater confidence in their care?
The Secretary of State said that he would engage directly with me. I thank him, but this is a big challenge not just for him but for the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Will the Government accept that cross-party talks are required across Government? This is a once-in-a-generation chance, and the House and the public will need to hear from the Prime Minister himself to believe that his Government are determined, as we are, to build a better, fairer and lasting system of care in our country.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gives to the report by Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues, and indeed to the report that Tom Hughes-Hallett and Alan Craft produced on palliative care. They are both immensely valuable.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that it is important for us to move beyond many of the suggestions that have been made in the past. One of the essential purposes of the Dilnot commission was to seek something that was affordable and sustainable, that met tests of choice, fairness, value for money and ease of understanding, and that would be sustainable for the longer term. Dilnot has responded immensely well to the issues that we put to him, but that is part of a broader process of reform. In that sense we have not waited for Dilnot, because we have made progress on the wider aspects of reform. Now we have to ensure that we bring them together in a way that is coherent and works to deliver long-term, sustainable reform across the whole social care sphere.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly points to the fact that we inherited a fragile system in which there had already been a substantial tightening of eligibility and loss of care and support, with increasing levels of unmet need. That was precisely why, in an interim report last year, Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues asked us to make additional resources available in the spending review. I set out in my statement precisely how we have done so.
The concerns in relation to Southern Cross are particular to that company, and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), has made clear to the House how we are interacting with those who are involved with the company. We are making it very clear to the public—I reiterate it today—that we are prepared to act to secure the interests of individuals if there were any threat to their position in care homes. We are working with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and local authorities to ensure that those contingencies are in place. What I said today in the statement, and which people have not previously recognised, is that as early as last year we set out in the Health and Social Care Bill that we were prepared for regulatory powers to be available to ensure the future viability of social care providers, as we intend to do in relation to health care providers.
Let me may make one final point. I believe that my statement makes it absolutely clear that we will engage on the basis of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, and that we will do so on a timetable that will work and that gives stakeholders and the public, and indeed the Government and the Opposition, an opportunity to come forward with a consensus. I discussed that timetable with Andrew Dilnot, and he is clear that he supports it. It will lead to a White Paper in the spring and an associated progress report on funding reform. I am clear that that assures stakeholders that we will take this forward as a priority.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the report and the Secretary of State’s statement. It was the previous Government who kicked the fixing of our broken care system into the political long grass. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that we will work with all parties in both Houses to find a lasting solution?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is indeed what we will set out to do. There have been many false starts, and not just under the previous Government. It is important for us to make progress, and for us to do so on a basis that is sustainable for the longer term.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that all sorts of new and innovative ways of caring for elderly and disabled people are developing. The terms “domiciliary care” and “residential care” will become obsolete as services are provided in different ways. Will he ensure that whatever funding mechanism is being developed does not limit the type of services that can be provided, because providing for elderly people to be cared for in their own homes and in settings where they can live in a more normal way will be enormously important in future?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady very well illustrates one reason why Andrew Dilnot’s commission is, among its recommendations, looking to eliminate discrimination between residential and domiciliary care services. We should not have a system that tends to provide perverse incentives to go into residential care, or indeed one that prevents that from happening when it is the right thing. However, part of the reason why the Dilnot commission should be seen in its wider context is that we are looking towards innovative and more effective means of supporting people’s independence at home. The Department is now looking towards the evaluation of the telehealth whole system demonstrator pilots, the world’s largest randomised controlled trial of telehealth, which should come in a matter of weeks.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that it will be easier to get agreement on the principles underlying the proposals than on the mathematics and the cost? Does he agree that only a renewed NHS focus on the chronic diseases of old age will ultimately make the latter bearable?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although we are looking to ensure that we have a sustainable system of social care and support both for social care and the NHS, the linked priority of our Department and our Government is to improve and increase the effectiveness of our public health services. That is why I was this morning with the Faculty of Public Health to discuss precisely how we can improve health planning at local level, not least with local government, to try to reduce the prospective burden of disease in future.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
As a vice-president of the Alzheimer’s Society, and like many hon. Members, I am aware that it is dementia awareness week. The most enormous resource is needed to help both individuals and their carers, particularly with residential support. Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) entirely right to draw attention to the fact that even within Andrew Dilnot’s acknowledgement of the perverse incentives, there is still an emphasis on the care market and the drive to encourage people to take up, or to consider the option of, residential care? Do we not need to put the glue back by supporting families and neighbourliness, so that we can keep people independent in their own homes as long as is humanly possible?
Mr Lansley
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes and in the past some of the criticisms of previous proposals have been made because they would have led to a situation in which informal care and family care would not have been properly supported—indeed, there would have been perverse incentives for people not to have family carers. We need to support family carers rather than bypass them.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raises the issue of dementia. It is tremendously important that we understand it is one of the principal reasons for such a rising burden of disability and requirement for care and support. It is why we are looking to the longer term, not least to improve research into dementia. I am grateful to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, who has chaired the work on research into dementia, and he was able to announce substantial additional funding to support dementia research just the week before last.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I declare an interest as I have an elderly step-mother who is in a home and this will be very important news for her family and my family. Have there been discussions with the Treasury, and does it recognise that this is one of the key issues? How far have those discussions reached, or if they have not started, when will they do so?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the statement I have made is the product of collective discussion, which of course fully involved the Treasury.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a big mistake to miss this opportunity for root-and-branch change of the present system? Would it not be handy if local authorities played a bigger role than the billionaires who run Southern Cross, Winterbourne and the rest? Would it not also be nice for him to acknowledge that when he blurted out about the death tax he got it all wrong?
Mr Lansley
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about local government, he should remember that the overwhelming majority of the residents in Southern Cross care homes are funded by local authorities, and that is precisely why we are working with local authorities to ensure that those residents’ interests will be protected. I recognise the problems that we have seen with Southern Cross, although I do not know of any other companies in a similar position. None the less, it is one of the reasons why we seek the powers in the Health and Social Care Bill to regulate social care provision in the same way as health care provision.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
If we are to see elderly and disabled people needing more carers, my right hon. Friend will need to work with the Secretary of State for Education to enhance the status of those who work in the care industry, because we will need far more people willing to work in it and with the skills, qualifications and commitment needed to give the enhanced care that people would like to receive.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. During the engagement that we are undertaking, one of the areas that we should certainly pursue is the work force development strategy in relation to care and support—and we will do that.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell us why one part of the UK gets care free and the other has to pay? Is it because the other part—Scotland—pays more taxes?
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has gone wider than the Dilnot report today. It was at least two years ago that the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the regulator, called for wider powers to deal with financial regulation, and it is very welcome that that is to happen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level at which the cap is set under the Dilnot regime will be important in deciding whether an insurance market can develop? If it is set too low, the risk that is being shared will not be great enough, and if it is set too high, it will be too expensive.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely why we drafted the Health and Social Care Bill in the way we did. I hope that people will bear that in mind when debating the need for, and appropriateness of, this further regulatory measure. He made a perfectly valid point, and it is one reason we need to ensure engagement. It is not only a matter of whether the insurance and financial services industry would respond: along with stakeholders and the public, we need to understand what the public’s attitude would be were they to have greater clarity about potential care costs and if they were willing to engage with financial services products in meeting those care costs. If they were, significant benefits would be derived, not least through bringing additional resources to bear and through creating organisations with a direct incentive to undertake more prevention.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Dilnot offers a new dawn but not for three years, and in the meantime the fabric of social care is coming apart at the seams because the Government have imposed a 28% cut on local government, leading to such councils as Birmingham cutting care all over England. Will the Secretary of State act now to ensure that in the meantime the elderly and the disabled get the support that they deserve and which any civilised society should provide?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the maximum reduction in local authorities’ spending power this year compared with last year is 8.8%. We removed the ring fence from Department of Health social care grants but we did not reduce the scale of those grants. In addition, he must remember that, as is not always recognised, the NHS is making specific provision to support social care. This financial year, £150 million will go to support reablement, and £648 million will be transferred, as I said, to support social care, which will also have health benefits. That will be spending power in the hands of local authorities to support adult social care.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I welcome the Dilnot proposals, but does my right hon. Friend agree that he should resist the demands from the shadow Health Secretary to rush into a White Paper this side of Christmas? It is more important to get it right, and there may well be ways to improve on the Dilnot proposals, particularly with regard to the cap and by making provision more affordable and fairer.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It was clear that had we sought to publish a White Paper before Christmas, the net effect would have been that we did not give the public, stakeholders or the official Opposition the time needed to discuss the issue and to do the job properly .
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is clear that there are two issues: not just the future funding of social care but the current funding—the crisis referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Only 15% of councils are now meeting moderate need, but that figure used to be 50%. The Secretary of State cannot say that there is no crisis. It seems to me that building a future funding solution rests on not letting current provision deteriorate much further—but it is deteriorating rapidly. What, then, will Ministers do beyond the excellent cross-party work that probably will go forward to do something about the resources that are leaking away and the current crisis in provision?
Mr Lansley
I do not believe I did say that there was no crisis. The hon. Lady and the House must recognise, however, that last year the Dilnot commission, in an interim report, sought additional support specifically for social care and that we provided it through the local government grant and a transfer of resources from the NHS. She says that few authorities now provide social care for those with moderate needs, but that has been the product of years of change—it has been happening for many years. That creates a risk, but we are addressing that risk through the transfer of NHS resources and by helping people with lower levels of need through home adaptations, community equipment and reablement if they leave hospital, in order to make certain that we avoid the risk that we are running: of large numbers of people with moderate need falling rapidly into severe need.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I understand the need for the timetable to allow for adequate consultation, but Andrew Dilnot’s excellent report draws attention to several areas including a lack of transparency, a lack of information available to families making decisions about care homes and, in particular, a lack of portability, which results in many patients being trapped and unable to move closer to loved ones. Does the Secretary of State feel that he could expedite any of the report’s recommendations to allow such proposals to receive more detailed consideration?
Mr Lansley
I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. In the course of the engagement during the latter part of this year, some of those issues will certainly come to the fore. My colleagues and I felt that it was better for us not to cherry-pick Andrew Dilnot’s report now, but rather for us to give people an opportunity to comment on the recommendations in full. That will, however, take place over the space of weeks rather than many months.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I should remind Government Members that this issue has already been delayed because the Conservatives broke ranks before the election in order to score political points. However, there is now cross-party support for the recommendations, so why has the Secretary of State let the timetable slip from the autumn to next spring? Can he reassure the House and the country that there will be no further slippage in the timetable?
Mr Lansley
I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise. I am not going to revisit the past, but the truth is that, since I became directly involved, I initiated cross-party discussions before the election on the reform of social care, and I did not leave those discussions. It was her former Prime Minister who effectively broke them down.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I think everyone knows where we want to get to on palliative care. We want to provide those people who want it with a much better opportunity to die at home or to die in a hospice while being properly cared for and supported. How does my right hon. Friend see us getting from here to there? What process will be involved, and who is going to drive that process to improve palliative care?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. This is very much about ensuring that, at the same time as engaging on the palliative care report, we build pilots that will enable us to see how the proposals would work in a number of places across the country. I know that some areas of the country are ready and willing to do that. The essence of what we are doing is to be increasingly clear about what quality services for those at the end of their lives look like, and to be sure that we can integrate those services by developing a system of per-patient funding. That would enable the providers to work together within the funding framework, without the current constraints and demarcations, and without the silo system that currently divides palliative care and end-of-life care services in a way that makes the system immensely confusing and difficult for people at the end of their lives. This is a real opportunity that has been fashioned by Tom Hughes-Hallett and Alan Craft’s report.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Funding for care is clearly a hugely important issue, but so is the quality of the care that older people receive. The parliamentary ombudsman and even the Financial Times have reported the need for greater respect and dignity for those receiving care. When will the Secretary of State return to the House and inform us in detail of the standards of care that older people can expect?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will know that we are continuously seeking to improve the standards of care that older people receive, and, in so doing, we sometimes have to tackle what are clearly serious abuses. In the wake of the Winterbourne View events, for example, we will bring forward a report to Parliament on standards and the means by which they are to be met. With regard to hospital care, it was I who asked the Care Quality Commission to undertake specific unannounced nurse-led inspections to look at dignity and nutrition. We will work continuously to ensure that we deliver the standards of care that people have a right to expect.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend might be aware that more than 100,000 people a year are not receiving the palliative care that they need. Can he assure the House that that will be a key priority, following the issue of this report?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is right. I very much welcomed and encouraged the dialogue that took place between Andrew Dilnot’s team and Tom Hughes- Hallett’s team, and they have made complementary recommendations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, as far as end-of-life care is concerned, there is widespread unmet need. The disparity in the quality of care and the services provided in different parts of the country is staggering. Just as the Dilnot commission deals with care and support, we certainly aim to deliver greater consistency in eligibility and in the quality of care provided.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that there are concerns nationally—and locally in Coventry—about Southern Cross. Can he be more positive, because so far the answers we have received from the Government have been very vague? Equally, there is concern about the regulator being undermanned, so how does he intend to improve that and improve the quality of care?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that the Government have been anything other than absolutely clear about what we are setting out to do. This is a problem that derived from the commercial decisions that the company made and it should be resolved by further commercial discussions between the company, its landlords and its lenders. We are constantly in touch with all of those, but it is not the Government’s responsibility to step in and take those decisions. What is the Government’s responsibility, which we are clear about and ready to take action as necessary, is to ensure that individuals in those care homes and their families are not abandoned and do not fall through the gaps or find themselves without access to the care and support they need. I hope that, in the midst of the perfectly legitimate concerns being expressed, people do not stray into causing people to be more fearful than they need be.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are taking the action necessary to ensure that residents in Southern Cross care homes, such as Harmony house in my constituency, will not be left without the care that they need?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have a Southern Cross care home in my constituency and I am sure that most Members do. We cannot know precisely how the commercial discussions will turn out, but what we can be sure about is that we have put together with the directors of social services in local authorities clear contingency plans to protect the residents if need be.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that many people both inside and outside the House believe that this matter is going to be kicked into the long grass by the Government. Can the Secretary of State set out the time scales for the consultation process and for the introduction of the legislation that will be needed?
Mr Lansley
Many people would therefore be wrong in that respect, because we are clear about taking this report forward as the basis for engagement in the autumn, publishing a response and carrying out other related work on palliative care in the spring, publishing a White Paper and a progress report on funding reform and legislating at the first available opportunity thereafter.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Through the broad principles of the Dilnot report and the work already carried out by the Government, we at last have a framework that we can work towards to bring security, dignity and fairness back to elderly care, which I believe is really important. Will my right hon. Friend assure us, however, that we have a sensible and workable time frame within which to deliver?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of this, we know that additional resources have to be brought to bear and that given the financial circumstances we face, we also know that this will have to be a partnership between taxpayers, families and individuals—it cannot simply be handing costs over to the state. Although Andrew Dilnot makes no specific recommendations about how to pay for his proposals, he is very clear that even if it were to be through a tax mechanism, he believes it should come from an existing tax and should bear particularly on the same groups of older people rather than be a further intergenerational transfer from working age adults. What that immediately points to is the necessity of engaging fully with some of the stakeholder groups such as Age UK and others and of engaging properly with the public so that before we embark on this major reform, they can feel confident that they understand those trade-offs and precisely how these costs are to be met.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The increased availability of care at home is to be welcomed, but it also poses increased challenges for safeguarding vulnerable adults. Given that personal budgets can be spent on unregistered and therefore unregulated care providers, what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that taxpayers money can be spent only on good quality and safe care provision where the rights of care workers are also fully respected?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady makes a number of important points. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, made clear recently, one purpose of legislation in due course will be to put the safeguarding on a statutory basis, which is important. Working with the CQC, we must ensure that in domiciliary care as well as in residential care homes, mechanisms are in place that enable us to assess the quality of care and get feedback from residents. The social care outcomes framework must be developed in a way that captures an understanding of the experience of care users, their families and supporters.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and I welcome the Dilnot review. As other Members have said, however, hundreds of thousands of families across the country are already worrying about how they will pay for care bills for their relatives, including the Strachan family in my constituency, who said publicly this morning that they have only two months’ money left to pay care home bills and are not sure what they will do after that. When my right hon. Friend launches the consultation, may I urge him not to forget the needs of those already in the care system who are worrying about paying bills, as well as being rightly concerned about those facing future care bills?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend’s point relates to the degree of uncertainty and insecurity that the current system tends to engender. It is important that we deal with that, and that people understand the circumstances in which the state pays and will continue to pay. We should not give people who have no assets the sense that they will be required to pay when they have no means of doing so. The state will be there to support them. There will be a safety net, and the commission makes recommendations about how further to develop it in future. Beyond that, we must arrive at a place where people are able to understand better the nature of the care costs that they might meet, and where there are good, affordable, secure mechanisms through which they can prepare for those costs, so that they do not have the gross insecurity that exists at the moment.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that improved palliative care will be enormously helpful to those of us who wish to resist the calls for the legalisation of euthanasia, and that a reduction in the number of deaths in hospital could save tens of millions of pounds each year for reinvestment in patient care?
Mr Lansley
I share with my hon. Friend the feeling that if we can improve the quality of end-of-life care and give people an understanding of the recent great developments in symptom control at the end of life, people’s perception of the decisions that they might have to make about end-of-life care might change, and that might give them greater confidence that they can have what most people would regard as a good death.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I welcome the Dilnot report’s many practical suggestions, which will be very important in Devon because it has the highest level of retired people—22%. With regard to the need for any new funding proposal to cover a range of different provision, given the change in relation to when people need to go into residential care, the contracting will need to be looked at carefully. Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to have contracts, they need to be standardised? For example, the contracts that councils enter into with care homes are not standard, so although in theory they offer the same quality of care—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think that that is an excellent subject for her to pursue in an Adjournment debate, and I feel sure that she will.
Mr Lansley
There is the nub of a very good question there. If we develop greater national consistency in eligibility and in assessment, we might also start to engender greater consistency in quality, including the contracting that supports it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My local borough, Bromley, tries very hard to use its resources for social care as efficiently as possible. Might boroughs such as Bromley and others throughout the country be given more resources to help them to ring-fence funds for social care, particularly palliative care?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will know, local authorities were keen for many of the grants that we provided not to be ring-fenced in future, including the social care, public health and learning disability grants. We aim to give local government more flexibility, but, through the NHS, we are providing additional resources—in Bromley and elsewhere—to support preventive interventions that benefit both social care and the NHS, and I think that that will make a big difference in Bromley. As we know, however, all local authorities are, of necessity, having to seek greater efficiencies, and we are working with local government to identify where they can be delivered. There is still a dramatic variation between the costs of care services provided in different parts of the country.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
As we know, going into a home is long on cost but short on life expectancy. I particularly welcomed my right hon. Friend’s comments about greater prevention. What more can be done to promote access to—and promote in general—day care and respite care?
Mr Lansley
We have made specific additional provision to support respite care. I hope that people will be given more independence and support at home not only as a result of NHS support—the £648 million that will be provided this year is a great deal of money, which will substantially increase access to such facilities as community equipment, home adaptations, reablement and rehabilitation —but through, for instance, telehealth, which I mentioned in response to an earlier question. I think that we can transform the quality of care and health services provided at home.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Because Haunton Hall nursing home in Tamworth is owned by Southern Cross, its fate is of grave concern to residents and their families. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any advice he receives from the regulator about companies such as Southern Cross, which the Labour party unfortunately ignored, will not go unheeded by him?
Mr Lansley
In the past, Governments received advice from the regulator about the desirability of their being able to undertake proper scrutiny of the financial circumstances—the financial viability and sustainability—of organisations. No powers in that regard have been taken in the past, but we are seeking such powers in the Health and Social Care Bill, and one of the debates that we will need to have concerns the extent to which it will be right for us to use them in the future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How will the Secretary of State ensure that the very best examples of the hospice movement, such as Cransley hospice in Kettering, can become involved in the establishment of the new framework for palliative care, so that best practice is extended throughout the country?
Mr Lansley
As my hon. Friend will know, Tom Hughes-Hallett, the chief executive of Marie Curie Cancer Care—who is leading the palliative care review—has engaged fully with Help the Hospices and the hospice movement. I understand from my conversations with hospice representatives over a number of years that they do not want their funding to be subject to the vagaries of public expenditure. Individual block grants that vary from year to year give them no confidence about the services that they provide. They do not want additional resources as much as clarity about what resources will be provided for the individuals who seek their care. They particularly hope that there will be a corresponding transfer of resources to hospices which provide services that replace the NHS and support people at home, as many are increasingly doing.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I have four Southern Cross homes in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Southern Cross situation highlights the need for a dedicated financial regulator for social care services?
Mr Lansley
As I said earlier, this is one of the issues on which I hope we will have further discussion as part of the debate on wider social care reform leading to the White Paper.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
End-of-life care is massively enhanced by Kirkwood hospice in my part of west Yorkshire, and the construction of a new children’s hospice has just begun on the outskirts of Huddersfield, funded by the West Yorkshire Forget Me Not Trust. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when considering the hospice movement in our country, we must always remember the children’s hospice movement?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The children’s hospice movement has done immensely good work over the years. I am aware of that in my own constituency through the work of East Anglia’s Children’s Hospices, and I am sure many Members also completely understand. That movement’s work has been done in circumstances in which a very small proportion of the resources for children’s hospices comes from state sources. The palliative care funding review addresses both adult’s and children’s end-of-life care and palliative care and identifies per-patient funding for children as well as adults, and it therefore offers children’s hospices precisely the same kind of security in the future as adult hospices.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Dilnot report goes some way to addressing the long-standing issue that for many years the current system has been punitive to those who have been prudent and frugal in planning for their old age?
Mr Lansley
Yes I do, and one of the essential reasons why the Dilnot commission was rightly established is that there are many people who have worked hard, saved and accumulated assets and expected to be able to enjoy them in their older age or to pass them on to their families, but who instead found that all those assets were destroyed as a result of the sheer chance event of, for example, long-term disability or dementia. That is a tragic situation, and as Andrew Dilnot well puts it, if people have a health care need and are seriously ill the NHS will look after them, and if their house burns down or they have a car crash there is insurance for that, but here we have a potential catastrophe in people’s lives for which the state will not provide and nobody else is willing or able to offer them that similar kind of protection. It is therefore vital that we take forward the Dilnot recommendations in the way we are proposing.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the statement, and it is particularly welcome in Cheshire east where we anticipate a 120% increase in the number of people living beyond 85 in 10 years’ time. The Dilnot report stresses the importance of the awareness campaign. Does my right hon. Friend envisage an active role for third sector organisations such as Age UK and Citizens Advice not only in delivering the awareness campaign, but in helping to shape it, and is there also a wider role for such organisations within the Dilnot framework?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I hope we will be able to take up and develop that during the coming weeks.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in a modern, responsive and caring social care system, we need more transparent and effective decision making and improved integration with the NHS, so that the person in need of care can navigate their way around the system?
Mr Lansley
I agree with my hon. Friend, and in his county the early implementation of health and wellbeing boards, which are to be legislated for under the Health and Social Care Bill, will provide precisely that opportunity for the integration of health and social care services.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
A constituent of mine who is 61 years old is the full-time carer for both her disabled husband, who lives with her, and her elderly mother, who does not. Since she drew her state pension, she has not been allowed any kind of carer’s allowance. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising all retired people who do such work, which saves the taxpayer a fortune, and will he look into what we can do to provide more support for such people?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question, and I will, indeed, join her—and, I am sure, the whole House—in expressing our support for those who care for their relatives. It is absolutely vital work, and we should understand and support it. As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is currently reforming welfare, and he has made it clear that although carer’s allowance does not form part of universal credit, it is important for us to continue to understand how it should in future meet its aim of supporting carers.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State and all colleagues who participated.
Points of Order
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Both you and “Erskine May” have made it very clear that, by a resolution of this House, Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest. Nineteen days ago, this House completed debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, including a measure to place a cap on benefits. During the debate, on 17 May, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) said that she had “heard” that Department for Communities and Local Government estimates forecast a rise in homelessness of 20,000 if the measure was introduced and that the policy would cost more than it saved. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) replied by saying
“I have no clear evidence that further information is available”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 985.]
beyond the impact assessment.
Yesterday, we learned that the DCLG had, in fact, written to the Prime Minister’s office, ahead of a meeting of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to say that, yes, the DCLG’s assumptions were that homelessness would rise by 20,000 and the policy would cost more than it saved. It seems inconceivable that this cast list and the hon. Member for Cardiff Central all knew about this and the Department for Work and Pensions Ministers did not. In addition, the Secretary of State has signed an impact assessment which makes no mention of the DCLG’s concerns. He said that his picture was
“a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy”,
even though it does not contain the warning that was issued to the heart of government. My question is, therefore, very simple: how do we in this House bring Ministers to account for who knew what and when, and why did they not disclose crucial, material information to this House?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I will take other points of order in a moment. First, I would say to him that he has recourse to the Table Office and may want to avail himself of that opportunity to see how, through the Order Paper, he can pursue the matter. Secondly, he has raised, on the Floor of the House, an extremely important issue. He will appreciate that I have not had the opportunity to study in detail the force and potential significance of what he reveals, but I am happy to look into it further, reporting back to him and, if necessary, to the House. Thirdly, Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said, and the text of it will very soon be available to them, and it is for them to decide whether, on the back of his observations, they think it necessary to say something to the House sooner rather than later.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Monday, the Home Secretary answered an oral question from the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) by giving the view that she was able to consider whether or not to grant an exclusion order against an individual—in this case, Sheikh Raed Salah. He was subsequently arrested and is now being detained in prison. Only after great difficulty are his lawyers being allowed to visit him tomorrow morning, and no other visitors have been allowed. I realise that the House cannot debate the matter today and I understand that no legal process is before any court on this matter but, at the very least, do you not agree, Mr Speaker, that the Home Secretary should, out of courtesy, come to the House to explain what she has done and take questions on the subject? She seems to find great difficulty in communicating with MPs on this issue, despite the fact that the gentleman in question was invited to this House by a number of colleagues to address a meeting here last Wednesday evening.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Whether the Home Secretary chooses to make a statement on the matter or not is a judgment for her, and it is not something in relation to which I have any formal power. As he will be aware, I, too, was conscious of the fixture of the individual in question. He was to address a meeting in the House, which was perfectly orderly so long as he was not a person of concern, and was freely at large and legitimately so. When that situation changed, the arrangement whereby he would address the meeting also changed. All I would say is that the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I know that he has sought communication with the Home Office and at least an explanation of the situation. That approach seems to me to be entirely reasonable, and I hope that his legitimate curiosity on this matter will not for long remain unsatisfied.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the past few minutes, it has been revealed by The Guardian newspaper that Milly Dowler’s phone was hacked by private investigators working for the News of the World. The company subsequently revealed the information to the Surrey police, who were investigating the matter. As well as being a despicable and evil act that will shock parents up and down the land to the very core, it also strongly suggests that Parliament was misled in the press standards inquiry held by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in 2010. Is it possible to know how we can address that matter?
Mr Speaker
My response to the hon. Gentleman is threefold. First, the first I heard of this was when he courteously sidled up to the Chair to mention it to me fewer than five minutes ago. Secondly, my initial procedural advice to the hon. Gentleman is that he might wish to take the question up with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he judges to have been misled or misinformed in this matter. Thirdly, in view of the gravity of the issue he has raised, the detail of which I was not previously familiar with, I can say only that it will have been heard by Ministers on the Treasury Bench and if they judge in the circumstances that some sort of public response is desirable—as they might—I hope that that response will be made on the Floor of the House of Commons before it is made anywhere else. I hope that that is helpful.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We do not often find the issue of high-cost credit lending in the headlines, but it is critical for many people up and down the country. Many of our constituents would expect to see it addressed in the Finance Bill, because there is growing concern that a large number of some of the poorest people in society are becoming prone to high-charging payday lending, doorstep lending, new variants of hire purchase and illegal loan-sharking, especially as the mainstream banks restrict credit availability.
I gather that since 2007 we have seen a fourfold rise in payday lending. The high-cost credit sector is now estimated to be in the order of £8.5 billion in value. The situation is familiar to many hon. Members across the House and particularly so to my hon. Friends, who represent some of the poorest and most challenged constituencies in the country. In my constituency, Nottingham East, the citizens advice bureaux and other advice organisations, such as Advice Nottingham and the St Ann’s advice centre, have recently published an anthology of modern poverty as they encounter so many stark stories of personal indebtedness daily. There are too many instances of companies—legal ones—preying on the vulnerability and desperation of stressed consumers who need to bridge their spending with short-term but, unfortunately, ultra-high-interest credit. A quarter of consumers who use high-cost credit cannot access any other form of borrowing. Apparently, 7 million people in the UK are denied credit and bank accounts that many of us would take for granted.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
May I lend my support to my hon. Friend’s endeavours on this critical issue? Is it not a fact that the pressure on debt advice in our constituencies has increased dramatically because of the economic circumstances and the tightening of the criteria for social fund and care grants, and that this situation will get worse as people get caught up in a spiral of borrowing to pay existing debt?
Chris Leslie
My right hon. Friend, who has an excellent track record in raising many of these issues, is completely correct. The vice in which many of our poorest constituents find themselves being squeezed is very much apparent. The changes to the social fund that he mentions are part of the context in which we would want to review the circumstances in which high-cost lending takes place. That is the objective of our new clause 11: we want to examine the possibility of regulatory and/or tax measures to address this problem.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fourfold increase in payday loans. Would he acknowledge that a substantial amount of that increase occurred in the period 2007 to 2009, at the start of the recession, and that although the rate has subsequently increased, its growth has tapered off somewhat? Does he also agree that payday loans are but a sub-segment of the sub-prime, high-cost credit sector?
Chris Leslie
Yes, payday lending is indeed a facet of the broader problem. I am not sure about the trends and how things have been moving—the hon. Gentleman may have other statistics that it would be worth sharing if he makes a contribution to this debate—but there is no doubt about the trajectory of that growth, which has been quite marked, which I know is a concern for all Members, in all parts of the House.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
Government Members share Opposition Members’ concerns about this issue, and we want to do the best that we can. However, new clause 11 asks for a report on the impact of all tax and non-tax measures on the cost of high-cost lending when we have not yet heard the response to the Government’s call for evidence. I am hopeful, as are many Members, that this will address the issue and provide further help, so does the hon. Gentleman not feel that his new clause might be a little premature?
Chris Leslie
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, because it is important that we engage with the Government properly on this agenda. We are still waiting for that report, although I hope that new clause 11 has been framed in such a way as to be pretty harmless and to command widespread support. Ultimately, all that we are looking for is a review of the circumstances; and indeed, some of the tax measures that may need to be included—although they may not—would not currently be part of the arrangements that I understand her hon. Friends are reviewing. New clause 11 is simply about ensuring the widest possible capability for those policy levers that the Government would be able to consider. There are so many measures necessary to help protect the consumer. They include not just action on payday lending or interest rates, for example, but the support needed for financial literacy education—something to which the Government have regrettably taken the axe, by terminating the £26 million financial inclusion fund. That decision is a particular regret, given that it will hit citizens advice bureaux up and down the country, along with other face-to-face advice agencies. Indeed, the financial inclusion fund was an essential bit of seedcorn funding, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification about its future.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
There is no need for clarification: if the hon. Gentleman had done his research properly, he would know that the Government have extended the funding for debt advice for a further year, and it is the intention that the Money Advice Service—which is funded by the financial services industry—will take on that work.
Chris Leslie
I did indeed know of the hon. Gentleman’s announcement of some time ago—not quite a full year yet. We are now into July, and the funding is due to run out next April, expiring at the beginning of the financial year 2012-13. Many advice agencies are quite anxious about what will fill the gap. It is clear that he has kicked the issue to the Money Advice Service, although we do not yet know what its approach will be. One crucial point is whether it will be interested in face-to-face advocacy and supporting such activity.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Money Advice Service now constitutes an online source of advice for those who have money on where to invest it and does not address the issue of people who are in debt?
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In addition, it does not necessarily address the face-to-face advice that is given by many citizens advice bureaux and other agencies that have been reliant on the financial inclusion fund. The Minister says sotto voce that it will do face-to-face advice as well; I will be interested to see whether the £26 million of investment is maintained. No doubt he will want to clarify that when he addresses the new clause.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), whose tenacity is to be commended for the fact that this issue remains front and centre on the political agenda. The Back-Bench motion that was passed last February called on the Government to introduce measures to increase access to affordable credit and to take regulatory action to control non-competitive examples of excessive charging, but we still have not seen any action since then. That is another reason why it is important to move forward and get a sense of priority and urgency into this issue, and this Bill is a good opportunity to consider these matters.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) spoke earlier about why some of this action is needed now. The changes to the social fund and crisis loans that were announced in March—after the Back-Bench motion was passed in February—mean that social fund crisis loans will no longer be available to pay for basics such as cookers and beds, and the living expenses rate is being cut from 75% to 60% of the benefit rate, thereby limiting the number of loans that can be applied for. In addition, there is a backlog of unprocessed claims and the Government are planning to cut the discretionary social fund from £872 million last year to just £183 million this financial year—all under the axe of a Liberal Democrat Work and Pensions Minister of State, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb).
At the same time, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, are being disfranchised from access to credit. After the credit crunch, as the banks recapitalise, we see withdrawal from anything vaguely “sub-prime”, as it may be categorised. However, it is also known that there is money to be made from vulnerable customers. Many hon. Members will have experienced pushy sales calls, which are randomly generated, and text messages, which many people are receiving. It is about the desperate customers that I worry most and their responses to some of those apparent offers of help and assistance. It is all part of the allure of high-cost credit, which we need to regulate far more effectively.
It had been hoped that the promises of mutuality and support for the credit union movement in the coalition agreement would by now have tried to make some inroads into this problem, but despite the promise in the coalition agreement that
“detailed proposals to foster diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry”
would be brought forward, all we have seen from the Government so far is the Northern Rock trade sale, local authority discretionary help for credit union squeeze because of the cuts to their budgetary position and, of course, the Treasury’s pre-emption of the Lloyds Banking Group disposal. The Vickers commission was looking at how to handle that particular issue, but Ministers have pressed on with the disposal of 620 branches rather than pausing and waiting for that report.
At the same time, funding for advice and financial education is falling away, as we have been discussing, as local authorities cannot pick up the tab. The basic problem is that not all customers are informed and logical when it comes to financial issues. The Money Advice Service, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) mentioned, may well be there as a guide for people who have the time and space to make those decisions, but many of our constituents are not only busy but often confused about financial services. They can be distracted and stressed and in many cases they have an aversion to small print. Coupled with that, there is massive inertia in credit services.
There are some fantastic charities, such as Citizens Advice, which I have mentioned, and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, of which I was a board trustee for five years. They pursue a number of ways to help those in most distress. Creditor-funded consolidation is a very good approach, but we need other reforms in the sector; facets include, for example, the fee-charging, customer-charging debt management plan providers. Charging customers rather than looking to the creditor to cover the administrative costs is an unacceptable business model in this day and age. The practice should be phased out and I hope the Minister agrees.
Lorely Burt
I entirely agree. I had a meeting with Wonga the other week. The company advocates a maximum of three rollovers. It is in nobody’s interest, not even the lender’s, to have people in a cycle of debt, because they are less and less able to pay it off. Perhaps something like that could be included in the regulations.
Chris Leslie
The sector itself ought rapidly to produce suggestions for self-regulation. I hope the new clause will make the sector aware of the seriousness with which the House takes the issue. We have had enough of people in desperate circumstances being exploited. The House of Commons passed a motion in February. We should pass the new clause, simply to ask for a review and a report on the range of regulatory and financial powers that the Government ought to take to stamp out some of the worst practices.
Customers need a fair deal from financial services generally, but our duty is to start with the people who are most at risk—the vulnerable and the exploited. If Parliament cannot stand up today to protect those most in need, who will?
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I rise not to support the new clause but to say to Ministers that I would like to hear exactly what they intend to do about doorstep lending. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) mentioned Wonga, which can charge up to 4,500% interest on its loans. Uncle Buck can charge 2,500% and PaydayUK can charge 1,200%. With a base rate of 0.5%, how can charging such inordinate interest be justified? These companies—I call them all loan sharks, to be blunt—travel around our poorest areas. I would be the first to admit that my constituency is not the most deprived in the country, but I have many poor and vulnerable constituents, and I think that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about what action we should take.
I know that Ministers are not keen on dealing with this problem through regulation, but perhaps we should consider our approach to smoking: we do not stop people smoking—although we have banned it in public places—but we put large health warnings on cigarette packets. The Financial Services Authority, or whichever body will be responsible, should at the very least take action so that there are serious health warnings for those considering taking out these loans.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one aspect that should be looked at is television advertising?
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman is right that the advertising and promotion of these products is a great concern. These products can seriously damage someone’s financial health, because they not only get them into huge debt, with huge interest to pay, but can often prevent them from securing mainstream credit, which can affect them enormously.
I am not greatly in favour of regulation, but I do not think that we can stand idly by and let some of the most vulnerable people in the country be exploited. They are desperate for money, and people knock on the door and offer them it. In fairness, many of them do not look at all the details or consider the fact that they will have to pay such high interest if they do not repay the loans. They do not realise that they will probably be charged even more interest if the loan is renegotiated, and that if they do not pay on time the loans company is likely to impose huge fines. That is unacceptable in this day and age and we must do something about it.
About 50% of the population in Ireland are involved in credit unions. In the US and Canada, the figure is about 40%, in Australia and New Zealand it is about 25%, but in the UK it is only 2%. I know that the Government are looking into increasing the availability of credit unions across the country, but we need to act much faster. In the meantime, we have to act against these companies, the loan sharks, because people who take out the loans sometimes have to pay back 10, 20, 30 or 100 times as much as they originally borrowed.
If the loan sharks’ argument is that they lend on those terms because the people to whom they lend are a security risk, we must question whether they should lend the money in the first place, and certainly at such massive amounts of interest. They must take the view that if 25 of the 100 people to whom they lend are forced into bankruptcy they will make enough money from the other 75 to make a profit. Is that moral and right? The answer is certainly not. Regardless of one’s political persuasion, that cannot be right in this day and age.
I have mixed views on the new clause, but I do not want Ministers to wring their hands and say that there is nothing they can do. In fairness to the Government, I should point out that the Opposition cannot hold their heads high, because they had 13 years in which to do something about this issue. It is right for the coalition Government to take the issue on. Instead of wringing our hands and saying we can do nothing, let us do something.
Lorely Burt
My hon. Friend is talking, almost interchangeably, about loan sharks and high-cost credit lenders regulated by the FSA. The Government have put even more money into the loan shark operation to clear them from the streets. It is important that we do not mix the two, because whatever one thinks about high-cost credit loan companies they are at least regulated and we are doing things to improve them. Loan sharks are totally unacceptable in this country.
Neil Parish
I agree with the hon. Lady to some degree, but I say to her bluntly that charging 4,500% interest, whether it is done legally or not, is theft. As a farmer, perhaps I have slightly jaundiced views about bankers, who offer an umbrella when the sun is shining and want to take it away when it starts to rain. We cannot go on letting vulnerable people be exploited—it does not matter whether it is being done legally.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The challenge is that people always say that we have to do something about this issue, but it is never clear what that thing is. For me, the vital thing is awareness. The issue is not just loan sharks but extends to organisations such as BrightHouse. Does my hon. Friend agree that people need to understand the true cost of what they are borrowing?
Neil Parish
I share that view entirely. At the start of my speech, I spoke about a financial health warning on a loan, including what the rate of interest will be. There should also be an example, perhaps showing what the principal amount would be to repay if one started with £100.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree even when people know the rates, they have little choice because they cannot borrow from any other type of organisation? Research shows that a quarter of these companies’ customers cannot get credit elsewhere, so even when they know the rates they have no option.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady is right that parts of the population cannot borrow elsewhere, which is a problem. That is another reason for clear warnings, if not restrictions, on the rates of interest charged.
The problem is not just that there is a population who cannot borrow from anywhere else but that many companies and loan sharks knock on people’s doors. Credit is often dished out in cash, which is very tempting. Some people could, if they went to a great deal more trouble, secure money from proper lending companies at a competitive rate.
Mr Jim Cunningham
People also borrow against their wages, which puts them on a financial treadmill that is hard to get off when there are such extortionate interest rates.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman refers to payday loans, which also incur huge amounts of interest.
I am not against people being able to borrow. In a capitalist system, people need to be able to do that, but we must stop companies exploiting people’s vulnerability and lending at such vast rates of interest. That can be achieved either by legislation or by companies having to provide a clear statement of what a loan will cost when their representatives arrive on somebody’s doorstep and try to lend them money. If someone who borrows £100 will end up paying £2,000 back, that should be absolutely clear. That is the very least I should like the Government to do.
I have made, I hope, many good points, and I hope too that the Government will not just wring their hands but do something to help vulnerable people and stop legal loan sharking companies taking money from people in a way that I believe is theft.
Stella Creasy
I have come here today to speak in favour of the new clause, and to vote for it, too, which I believe will be a powerful expression of the need to act to tackle the problems caused across our country by high-cost credit companies, or so-called legal loan sharking.
I promised when the House debated the issue previously that I would congratulate those who took action to protect vulnerable consumers, and I want to do so. I welcomed the announcement of the consumer credit review and the coalition agreement promise to tackle the cost of borrowing on store cards and credits, but it worries many of us that it is already overdue. To meet the timetable, that work will have to be done within the next two weeks.
Even more worrying for the Opposition is the fact that we have had to drag the Government kicking and screaming to the table to discuss high-cost credit, because the coalition agreement made no commitment to tackle it. There is still uncertainty about whether it will be tackled in the consumer credit review.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I am a huge supporter of what the hon. Lady is trying to do. I agree that there is concern about how quickly we are moving, but we had 13 years of her party’s Government. Can we try to keep this a cross-party matter? Members of all parties are concerned about it, so let her not bash the Government, and when I speak I will not bash the Labour Government for their inaction. Let us all try to keep it positive.
Stella Creasy
I very much hope that there will be cross-party agreement, but, as I will explain, I fear that that consensus is being broken for the purpose of choreographing coalition conferences. That worries me greatly. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that when so many people are suffering by having to pay the high costs of credit that companies charge, any delay is unacceptable, and I hope he will vote accordingly.
I know that we are not alone in wanting action as soon as possible. The campaign has the widespread backing not just of MPs or policy makers but of debt experts, campaigners and members of the public. They are deeply concerned that doing nothing to regulate these firms is feeding a growing crisis of personal debt for families across the country, and they want action.
I fear that I am going to end up condemning the Government today, because we are debating not whether to act, or whether regulating for a cap on the cost of credit would be effective, but when to do so: debating when, not if, is unforgivable.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I am concerned that the action that the hon. Lady recommends might well drive people into the worse position of having to appeal to really rather unpleasant loan sharks. That must be the great worry.
Stella Creasy
The evidence on which that presumption —that myth—is based is very uncertain. I would argue that there is a strong parallel with the debates on the minimum wage and the fear that its introduction would drive companies out of business. We now know that that is simply not the case. Evidence shows that a cap on the cost of credit would lead to a fairer deal for consumers, for which we are arguing today. It is important that we get it right, given the number of people involved in the market. I ask Members to support the new clause because it proposes regulatory action now, given the consensus that there is a problem. It states that it covers
“other measures relevant to the high cost credit lending sector that may prevent consumer detriment.”
By consumer detriment, we mean lending that drags people into debt.
We might all agree that there is a problem in the market, and that something needs to be done, but the coalition’s choreography is getting in the way, and I fear that our constituents will lose out. In making the case for Government Members to change their mind about the political fancy footwork and instead dance with us to action now, I want to set out what the problem is, what is causing it, what could be done about it and why doing nothing, or even delaying doing anything, should not be an option.
This question is important when we are debating a Finance Bill, because we can use taxation and regulation to deal with social and economic problems. For example, we could tackle problem drinking by raising taxes on high-strength alcoholic drinks. Indeed, in Committee, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said:
“We can see that such a measure will have a disproportionate impact on tackling problem drinking, because the change in taxation will make it less attractive for producers to make such strong products.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 166.]
By the same principle, the Treasury could tackle problem lending by penalising companies that fail to meet certain standards in their provision of consumer credit.
The problems in the lending market make the issues clear. The UK has one of the highest levels of personal debt in the world. As of April last year, Britain owed more than £1.4 billion in private debt. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) pointed out, borrowing money is sometimes essential, whether to enable someone to pay for training or a house, or to start a business. Indeed, borrowing is critical for our future economic recovery. I am therefore saying not that we want to stop people borrowing, but that we want to stop problem borrowing. However, the current signs are that personal debt is on the rise, and that is a problem.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence suggests that this country is now becoming a haven for such companies, which are targeting this country because of the lack of regulation? Does she also agree that that is making things far worse for our constituents?
Stella Creasy
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is not just evidence; the companies have specifically said that the lack of regulation in the UK compared with other countries makes it a target market for them.
We know that borrowing is becoming a problem for people. More than four in 10 people are worried about their current debt, and in recent months 4 million have taken on more debt than they ever have before. One third of families say that they have no emergency savings whatever. However, this debate is not about a lack of rainy-day money. The number of people who say that they are likely to exceed their overdraft limit has more than doubled in the past year, and the number of people who say that they are likely to use an unauthorised overdraft this month has nearly doubled since July last year, from 900,000 to 1.6 million.
That means that more people are getting into financial difficulties. In recent years, personal insolvency in the UK has reached a record high. On average, there are more than 160 personal insolvencies every year in each constituency, which is a dramatic increase since the start of the last decade.
New clause 11 covers not only those who are formally in financial difficulties but those who are affected by debt and who have not sought help. The proposal reflects the growing inequality in our society between those who can borrow affordably and those who cannot. Research by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shows that most households have a debt-to-income ratio of 10% or less, but that one in five households have debts worth more than 100% of their annual household income. There is growing evidence that such households are using multiple forms of unsecured credit—a mixture of high-cost credit and credit cards. Thirteen per cent. have four or more types of debt.
The question for many of us is this: who is borrowing? Eleven per cent. of lone parents use non-mainstream loans compared with just 3% of households overall. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service tells us that one in eight people who contacted it during the first half of 2010 were claiming jobseeker’s allowance. However, one thing that might concern many hon. Members is the growing evidence that the people who are suffering in this market are not just those whose incomes have always been fragile, but many middle-class families. Experian data show that the biggest increase in insolvency is among those with suburban mindsets—people who are in work, married and have kids, and who are trying to make ends meet.
Lorely Burt
Is it a matter of regret to the hon. Lady that the previous Labour Government presided over the greatest expansion of consumer credit in the history of this country? In their 13 years, the previous Government tried to do a number of things, but rejected the proposal in new clause 11. Does she agree that this Government, one year in, should be given the opportunity to finish their consultation and make proposals of which she might approve?
Stella Creasy
I am interested in the hon. Lady’s impression that consumer credit is a bad thing, because I do not agree. I would also be interested in her views on research by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which shows that as a direct consequence of the Government’s Budgets an extra £10,000 of debt is being put on to households. Perhaps she would like to comment on the implications of that for family finances. No? Then I will continue.
The problem is not just the high-cost credit industry but the nature of the industry and the way in which it operates, which is causing so many problems. What most worries many Opposition Members is that so many families are struggling. Indeed, we know that 46% of families say that they do not earn enough in a month to pay all their bills. Crucially, of that 46%, 10% say that the reason they are struggling is the repayments on high-cost credit. It is those very products that are pushing them into financial difficulty.
For the avoidance of doubt, I say clearly that I am not trying to put Wonga and the other companies out of business. I do not hold with the constituent of mine who argued that we should learn a lesson from Dante and put them in the seventh circle of hell, but we can make the credit market fairer for all concerned. It is important to set out, therefore, the kind of companies we are talking about and just how quickly this industry is growing in the light of recent economic circumstances.
Many people know about payday lending—the form of credit whereby a borrower gives a creditor a cheque or an authorisation to make an automatic withdrawal from their bank account. That is used as security for a short-term loan to be repaid, supposedly on the next payday. It is a long-established form of credit in other countries, but it is relatively new to the UK—and it is growing rapidly. By 2009, the payday lending industry was worth more than £1.2 billion, and the figures I have gathered from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which were released under a freedom of information request rather than being put in the public domain, show that it is now worth £1.9 billion. Indeed, in its “Keeping the Plates Spinning” report, Consumer Focus estimates that payday lenders are expected to quadruple the scale of their operations in the UK in the next few years alone.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady says that the payday lending market was £1.2 billion in 2009. According to the Office of Fair Trading review of the payday loan market, it was £600 million. To clarify the situation, and for my education, will she explain the difference between the two numbers?
Stella Creasy
I will happily explain the difference between the two numbers. The hon. Gentleman might have heard me say that I made a freedom of information request to obtain the most up-to-date data from the Department, and it is a source of concern that Ministers did not share the information with MPs. Research shows clearly that the market has grown to £1.9 billion. If I tell the hon. Gentleman that 5% of the population have taken out a payday loan in the last year, representing 2 million, perhaps he will understand the discrepancy. Perhaps he might like to account for why the Government did not want to put that information in the public domain.
Richard Fuller
I just wish to point out to the hon. Lady that I think there is a lot of consensus, which I hope she does not destroy in her passion for this issue.
As a point of clarification, the 5% figure in the OFT’s analysis came not from the payday loan market but from participation in the high-cost credit market, which includes credit unions and credit cards. Given that my source is the OFT, perhaps she will clarify that point too.
Stella Creasy
I am happy to share the figures with the hon. Gentleman, although I am afraid to say that his interpretation is incorrect. One of the things that I have done—perhaps I am getting a reputation for it in the House—is my homework on this market, and I have sought as much accurate information as possible. That was why I made the freedom of information request, and I would be happy to share the data with him. One of the challenges is that the Government have information about how quickly this market is growing, but they are timid about confirming it.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out carefully and deliberately the challenges that people face. Does she agree that the exponential growth in this high-cost credit lending is the very reason the Government need to act to address this issue sooner rather than later, in line with the consensus across the House?
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree. I am quoting research by the consultancy practice, R3. It is conducting surveys because it is worried about the mix and range of credit that people are taking out and the high-cost credit itself, which is causing people to get into debt. That is why I am passionate about tackling the problem sooner rather than later. Contrary perhaps to some of the briefings that hon. Members might have had from the payday industry, the majority of people borrowing from these companies are on comparatively low incomes. In particular, one in 10 UK payday customers has an income of less then £11,000, and 46% have incomes of less than £15,000 a year. It is evident how quickly high repayment charges eat into an already meagre wage.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The hon. Lady just made the hypothetical point that a 2% increase in interest rates would cause those costs to rise. Undoubtedly that might be true were rates to rise, but they have not risen, and one reason market interest rates have not risen is that the Government are dealing with the deficit at a time when the Labour party has not come forward with any policies to tackle the emergency.
Stella Creasy
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not being complacent about the cost of living, its impact on people in his constituency and the fears of many about what an interest rate rise would mean for their monthly mortgage payments. One thing that worries me is that a lot of people are borrowing just to make ends meet; they are borrowing not for investments, holidays or fancy televisions, but to pay their rent and mortgages and to put food on their families’ tables. His complacency about interest rates not rising any time soon is misplaced.
David Rutley
I have heard the hon. Lady speak with passion in this debate and others, and I respect the point being made. However, some of the points being made by Government Members are important, particularly those concerning fiscal constraint and household spending constraint. The gap in her argument is that it is vital that households bear down on their spending. It is not just about the cost of financing a television or whatever else; it is about not going for it in the first place. There is a wider scope for this argument. This debate is not just about the cost of the debt, but about people avoiding it in the first place by lowering their expectations of what they need.
Stella Creasy
I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s advice to the nearly 500,000 Londoners who are having to use their credit cards to pay their mortgage or their rent. Right now, people are borrowing to pay for everyday essentials, and I fear that he sounds a bit like Marie Antoinette saying that people should just eat cake. That is very misplaced, given the dire financial situation that many people are finding themselves in, certainly in my constituency and, I will wager, in his as well.
Indeed, Shelter’s research shows that it is not only people in London who are using their credit cards to pay their mortgages. There are 2 million people in this country who are doing it. It is horrifying to think of the situation that those people are getting themselves into, given the interest rates that they are paying on their mortgages, let alone the rates that they are paying on their credit cards.
We also know that changes in the cost of living affect some more than others. The Resolution Foundation points out in its low earners audit that those on low to middle incomes spend a higher proportion of their incomes on the goods and services that are hard to cut back, such as their housing, their fuel, their transport to work or the food that they put on their children’s plates. That is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Those low to middle income earners spend 40% of their spending on those everyday essentials, compared with the 26% spent by higher earners. One in five pensioners have had to cut back on essentials such as food because of the rising cost of living.
This is not just a demand-side issue; it is also about the way in which the high-cost credit market is stacked against the consumer. That is why I believe that the market merits regulation. In order to make its profits, the high-cost credit market makes use of a number of the attributes of the people who have to borrow from it and of the way in which the market is structured. As has been mentioned, a quarter of the customers of high-cost credit companies cannot access any other form of credit. Indeed, Consumer Focus’s research shows that many users of payday loans are unable to access mainstream credit such as overdrafts because they have already maxed them out. That means that they have no choice; they have no power to shop around for a cheaper loan. Also, they cannot build up a credit history that would show a mainstream lender, who might lend at a lower rate, that they could be trusted to pay a loan back.
Because high-cost credit companies have fixed costs, they make their money by repeatedly lending to people. That means that their business strategy is geared towards encouraging repeat borrowing and the rolling over of loans. Friends Provident has found that 29% of payday loans are refinanced, with the refinancing rolling over on an average of two occasions. Some 15% of home credit loans are refinanced and rolled over into a new loan before the end of their term. It is worth explaining what that means for the cost of borrowing from these high-cost credit companies.
One person who got in touch with me took out a loan of £650 with Wonga, in two instalments, to be paid back within a month. When the repayment date arrived, he found that he could afford to pay only the interest that had accrued on the £650, which was £163. The original £650 loan was then rolled over for another month. At the end of that month, he paid off the loan, which cost him another £858. That was the original £650, plus interest of £208 accrued in the second month. The clock starts ticking in the first month of these interest payments, which is how 4,500% interest rates are reached. The longer a loan is rolled over, the closer it can get to the 4,500% APR that Wonga charges. The process of rolling over meant that he had paid £1,021 for borrowing £650 over two months. It is difficult to see what level of cap on the number of roll-overs would make a difference in this market, because the industry consistently refuses to release information about its business model. We can therefore only guess at the impact that the number of roll-overs has on people’s debts.
Furthermore, we know that the rates charged by high-cost credit companies often do not reflect an economic rate, due to a lack of competition in the market, a lack of regulation to drive down costs, and the absence of any ceiling being set. I recognise that using APR is problematic in understanding the cost of borrowing, especially in the payday loans industry, but as a yardstick it can help us to illustrate the issue. We know that payday loans can cost 4,500% from Wonga. They can cost 2,100% from Uncle Buck, 1,200% from Payday UK, and 1,700% from KwikCash.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for coming in late to the debate. My hon. Friend uses the same tube line as I do. Did she notice on the way in that one company was advertising on the tube, offering a decision by text within a minute for a loan at an APR of 1,734%. That cannot be right; we have to do something to crack down on it.
Stella Creasy
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. There is no ceiling on this market, which means that company rates are going up, not down. We also know about the lack of competition with other sections of the market. Provident owns 6% of the market. In 2004, the Office of Fair Trading referred the doorstep lending industry to the Competition Commission and, in 2006, its report confirmed the lack of competition. As Citizens Advice argues, however, the fact that these problems are getting worse, not better shows that the measures suggested in 2006 have not worked and that it is time to strengthen the intervention we make in this market.
Although I am an avid supporter of the credit union movement, it cannot at this moment present any kind of alternative to this market within any relevant timetable. Credit union membership is growing by 8% a year, but the payday lending industry alone is three times as big as it was two years ago. Credit union lending therefore remains relatively small scale, equivalent to just 5.9% in value terms of the high-cost commercial sector. As a consequence, it is unlikely to exercise any real competitive restraints on the prices in the high-cost credit sector.
With all the signs that this market is growing exponentially, this new clause and the review it recommends would allow us to look at a number of issues on how to tackle it effectively. First, it could consider excess profits—
Neil Carmichael
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I think that credit unions are really important. I have promoted them in my own constituency and I will continue to do so. I have joined one myself to demonstrate that it is something that we should all think about. Surely it would be a good idea to put out a more positive message about the role credit unions can play and encourage people to start thinking about being responsible in the management of their finances through the use of credit unions.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to accuse me of not putting out a positive message about credit unions, given that I worked long and hard to set up the Waltham Forest community credit union and to secure it more than 4,000 members from my borough. My point is that when only 2% of the British public are part of a credit union, it cannot be the answer to the problems caused by these companies. The question is how to get the right mix, and I believe that regulation needs to be part of that mix. Of course extending access to affordable credit is part of the solution, but it will take decades for credit unions to provide a serious alternative to these companies from which people are borrowing and getting into debt with now.
Frank Dobson
In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), is it not a further problem that because of the cuts to citizens advice bureaux, welfare rights units and law centres, good advice, which might help people to steer clear of loan sharks, is less and less available? As the years go by and the cuts continue, the problem will get even worse and the inequalities will grow.
Stella Creasy
There is a real concern about the lack of advocacy services and about people’s inability to get help in negotiating with their creditors. I believe that we have to make credit affordable for all; payday lenders could be part of the mix if they were properly regulated. That is all that the new clause calls for.
Let me present some figures that might tempt Treasury Ministers when they see what could be achieved in the way of tax through this review. The Competition Commission inquiry into the lack of effective price competition in doorstep or door-to-door lending estimated that companies were making an excess profit of at least £150 million a year. The commission considered that 90% of that excess profit was made by Provident Financial alone. On that basis, Provident has made £675 million in excess profit out of low-income communities since 2005—a sum greater than the total amount of credit union lending that took place in 2010.
The Competition Commission’s findings showed that excess profits amounted to additional costs to the consumer of approximately £9 for every £100 lent. A cap on that basis would have allowed Provident to charge no more than £53 for every £100 lent in 2006—still a lot of money. Even allowing for inflation at about 4.5%, taxing credit lent at a rate of £63 per £100 lent in this market would save consumers some £18.80 on every £100 borrowed or about £94 on the cost of a typical £500 loan. Even if Ministers rejected looking at tax measures, they could look at how to introduce an effective cap on the cost of credit.
Let me be very clear: I do not want to see a cap on interest rates. I know that Members have been lobbied extensively on this and been given information about capping the costs of credit based on caps on interest rates. I do not believe that caps on interest rates work effectively. The European research shows that low caps in America have been problematic, but it points out that the more flexible caps in Europe have been effective in controlling the market.
There are many myths about capping the costs of credit, as there were about regulation and the minimum wage. To those who argue that capping the costs of credit would cut lending and put firms out of business, I say that they should look at Poland, France and Germany, which all have such caps. To those who fear that caps would encourage all banks to start charging 4,000% interest, I say that that clearly would not happen. The EU research shows that interest rate caps have in some cases led to less illegal lending, as consumers are better able to manage their borrowing requirements without turning to informal sources of credit.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Having listened to the lengthy speech made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in the Public Bill Committee, and having checked Hansard to find that it was almost identical to the speech that she just made, I congratulate her on raising, yet again, both her profile and the issue of unscrupulous and high-cost lending. As she knows, she has a great deal of cross-party support on the underlying problem, but I fear that her new clause has little to do with identifying a workable solution, and I found her speech today disappointingly partisan.
I have been rather bemused by the hon. Lady’s recent Twitter stream, which refers to the campaign to persuade Members to vote for her Consumer Credit (Regulation and Advice) Bill. Perhaps she does not realise that we are voting today not on her Bill—although many of us may agree with its principles—but on amendments to the Finance Bill. For reasons that I shall give later, her new clause is fundamentally flawed.
The problem of vulnerable consumers being preyed on by high-cost credit lenders is not new. It did not suddenly appear following last year’s general election. It is a problem about which Members in all parts of the House have felt strongly for some time. My constituency contains areas of severe deprivation, and I deal regularly with case work relating to debt. I am active locally in trying to ensure that those with debt understand that there are good people to turn to, such as local credit unions and citizens advice bureaux, and that they need not rely on high-cost credit lenders.
Through the local media I have highlighted my own earlier debt problems, incurred when I worked as a researcher here in the House of Commons in the mid-1990s. I have received messages from local people saying that it was brave and courageous of me to be so honest, but I do not think that it was anything of the sort. I saw it merely as a way of removing some of the stigma from debt, and demonstrating not only that anyone from any background can get into debt, but that there are good people out there who can help to put those in debt back on the right track.
Increasing debt is an issue that should concern Members in all parts of the House. It, too, is not a new issue. I remember talking about the nation’s personal debt topping £1 trillion before I entered the House. For some time my local citizens advice bureau has been advising clients with debts totalling £1 million per week, including priority and non-priority debts, but the figure is now nearing £3 million per week. Unfortunately, Medway has a high repossession rate: on average, about 70 repossession hearings take place each week. In these worrying times, what we do not need are unscrupulous credit lending and, indeed, debt management companies taking advantage of those who are in financial trouble and at their most vulnerable.
The new clause proposes taxation measures as a means of clamping down on, or even stamping out, the industry. I fear, however, that the Opposition have not thought it through in any great detail. For a start, they have not addressed its unintended consequences. It is likely that any additional tax on the companies in the industry, just six of which control about 90% of the market, would simply be passed on to the consumer in the form of even higher rates. What is being proposed as a solution to the problem could exacerbate it by increasing the cost to the consumer and creating an even larger debt.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The new clause asks for a review and a report. It does not suggest that the proposed measures should be implemented immediately. I fail to see the detriment that the hon. Lady seems to have identified.
Tracey Crouch
The hon. Lady obviously did not listen to the Minister’s response to a point made earlier. As he said, a review is currently taking place. The new clause proposes
“a review of all taxation measures contained in this Act”.
I think that, on this occasion, the hon. Lady is wrong.
Andrew Percy
Surely any tax review is likely to come up with a suggestion for raising taxes. It is unlikely to propose that taxes should be cut. If that is on offer, however, I certainly do not intend to vote for a measure that would cut the taxes of the people whom we are discussing.
Tracey Crouch
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Whether or not the tax goes up following a review—and the hon. Member for Walthamstow will probably say that it will go up—the result will be passed on to the consumer.
Organisations such as Citizens Advice recognise that the problem of debt is not confined to the high-cost credit industry. It is also caused by other practices, such as irresponsible lending, the imposition of high contingent charges, and the mis-selling of debt management services. I am not a supporter of the high-cost credit industry, but a tax on one part of the sector would not only be anti-competitive, but would not address problems in other parts of the consumer credit market.
The simple truth is that the industry needs better, if not more, regulation. Although the House may not often hear Conservatives say that we need more regulation, a number of Government Members believe that in this context, and particularly in the context of debt management, it is the appropriate solution. We have met the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and have told him that.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The hon. Lady is right to refer to the need for regulation. What troubles her more, the profitability of high-cost lenders or the techniques that they use to entrap their customers? Does that not provide a clue to where we should focus any Government interventions?
Tracey Crouch
That is a good point. In fact, what troubles me most is the impact on consumers. As we have been told by Members in all parts of the House, these companies prey on people who are incredibly vulnerable, and we need to ensure that the industry behaves much more responsibly.
A response to the Government’s call for evidence on consumer credit is due shortly, and I look forward to the findings of the review. I have always had some sympathy for the proposal of a rate cap. However, it is interesting to note that Citizens Advice does not share the hon. Lady’s view, and nor does the money-saving expert Martin Lewis.
Stella Creasy
It is true that Citizens Advice opposes a cap on interest rates, but I think the hon. Lady will find that both it and Martin Lewis have been very positive about the proposal for a cap on the total cost of credit, which the new clause would allow to be investigated. I hope that the hon. Lady will correct the record accordingly.
Tracey Crouch
The total cost of credit involves more than just the high-cost lending industry, but the hon. Lady spent most of her speech talking about individual high-cost credit lending companies such as Wonga. We must find a focus, and the fact is that wider issues of consumer credit are involved. I hope that the review will come up with a solution on which we can all agree.
The Government are considering specific product regulation as part of their draft Financial Services Reform Bill. Under the proposals to establish the financial conduct authority, a new model of conduct regulation will be established that will use early and proactive intervention to ensure that consumers are protected. That is a far more pragmatic solution than the blunt instrument of taxation, which, as I noted earlier, could have the adverse and opposite effect of creating a greater problem.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that it is often very convenient, and made very easy, for a person to take out a loan? A door-to-door salesman may appear and try to build a relationship with someone. Part of the battle is to provide responsible institutions such as credit unions, and to ensure that people know how to contact them. I think that there should be far more advertising and signposting so that people know how to get in touch with their local credit unions.
Tracey Crouch
I met the members of Kent savers credit union on Saturday, and look forward to meeting members of the Medway credit union in the autumn. I am a keen supporter of credit unions, and I think that all of us here are responsible for ensuring that our constituents are aware of alternatives such as lending and debt management advice. Citizens advice bureaux also offer a fantastic service. We should take it on ourselves to ensure that the message reaches our constituents.
The House should know that there is a cross-party consensus on this issue, and that the consumer credit market—particularly the high-cost credit industry—is an area of concern. In Committee, new clause 11 was billed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow as a measure in line with nudge economics. While there are some taxes that have arguably altered behaviour, such as those on cigarettes, it is highly unlikely that a tax that could be passed directly to the consumer will halt the growth or the unscrupulous practices of the industry. It would be far better to concentrate on regulation rather than taxation, and it is for that reason that I urge Members to vote against the new clause.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on initiating and devising this new clause. The UK is a long way behind other countries in its regulation of this sector. Action is being taken in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, and therefore increasing numbers of companies are seeing the UK as the ideal place to operate because they know we are behind in respect of regulation. Indeed, as they do not anticipate regulation any time soon, they also do not anticipate leaving the UK in the near future, and they consider now to be a good time to invest in the UK market. Therefore, BrightHouse says it will triple its number of high street shops here in the UK. That is not only a worry for consumers, who are, by and large, exploited by these companies; it is also a threat to our high streets, because I for one do not want my high street to have signs saying “Cash for gold” and shops such as BrightHouse; I do not want what I would call unscrupulous companies populating our high streets.
The high-cost lender lobby is lobbying within an inch of its life. It is inundating those of us who are speaking out on these issues with documents, offers to meet, conversations and phone calls about why it is right and we are wrong. However, Members who represent places such as Darlington see the effects week in, week out in our surgeries, so we know the impact that these companies are having. They are not doing what they do for the benefit of the consumer, as they would lead us to believe; they are doing it because it is a pretty good business for them. I do not have an issue with their having a good business and making money, but I do have an issue with people who are least able to make such financial decisions being exploited in this way, and that is what is happening.
I am not a big fan of Jeremy Kyle, but in the interests of research I have sat through a bit of morning television, and I was disgusted at what I saw on our screens. Such companies are deliberately targeting people who are at home during the day and who they know are on low incomes. They are making their products look affordable, easy and cheap, which they are certainly not, and, most disturbingly, they are making them look the norm. They are making these products appear to be an everyday solution of which people from all walks of life throughout the country are taking advantage. That is the single most concerning aspect of this market.
Lorely Burt
I must confess, somewhat ashamedly, that I have also seen Jeremy Kyle’s show and the advertisements that accompany it. I want to pick up on the fact that Labour Members do not feel it appropriate to meet short-term loan companies. I do not tweet, but it is my understanding that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) says that Wonga has refused to meet her. That is not the case, however. [Interruption.] This is my understanding; I am just going on a letter from Wonga, and I do not want to get involved in the dispute. My point is that we must fully understand the situation. The hon. Lady knows it intimately; I do not deny that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. This is supposed to be an intervention, not a speech. I call Jenny Chapman.
Mrs Chapman
I am unclear as to the point that was being made, but I recommend that the hon. Lady follows my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow on Twitter, as she might therefore become more familiar with my hon. Friend’s efforts to secure meetings with senior officials at Wonga and might also understand the frustration felt by Labour Members. It is frustration not only with the high-cost lenders, but with the Government too. Five months ago, the Backbench Business Committee initiated a positive debate on this issue, but there has been no movement since then—no announcements and no indication that something is in the pipeline. That fosters a great deal of frustration and a lack of trust among Opposition Members.
Neil Carmichael
The hon. Lady is expressing her case very well, and I sympathise with everything she is saying. However, is she not impressed by the work of, for example, the Office of Fair Trading in issuing its guidelines, and does she not recognise that it has the power to withdraw licences if the guidelines are not respected? I could also draw her attention to a number of other possible actions that have been put in place to enable movement in the direction in which she rightly wishes to proceed.
Mrs Chapman
All those steps are very welcome, but they do not go very far at all in addressing the fundamental issue. The Competition Commission says that what the OFT wants to do is nothing like enough. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention: it is to give the Government a background against which they can decide not to support this new clause, but we are trying to force this issue to the fore and get something done about it. We are all for cross-party consensus—that is wonderful when it can be achieved—but what we actually want is something to be done. I hope the hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive Opposition Members if we are sometimes slightly intemperate in the way we express our views on this issue.
As I said when talking about my ten-minute rule Bill, for me the key issue is the advertising of these products, which is irresponsible. It might be argued that people are being given a choice, but people are not making that choice on value-for-money grounds. They are not shopping around. They are not thinking, “What’s the best product for me?” They are instead thinking, “What will get me an answer to my problem as quickly as possible, and who will say yes to me? I don’t want to go to the bank and be told ‘No’ or ‘You can’t have this but you can have something else and do you want to make an appointment to come back next week?’” These people have very immediate financial difficulties, and these products are deliberately targeted at them.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
First, may I apologise for missing some of the earlier speeches?
I have a great deal of sympathy with much of what the hon. Lady has said, but the fact that these companies have high costs and in particular high marketing costs, and the fact that there is no evidence that consumers are making rational choices based on which is more or less expensive, suggests that taxation is not the answer to the problem. There may well be an answer to the problem, but hiking up taxes is almost certainly not it.
Mrs Chapman
The new clause does not only address taxation. The hon. Gentleman should read it thoroughly, as it talks about other measures too. I do not think there is any one measure alone that will address this problem; there will have to be a package of measures.
There is no real competition in this market, as there are only a few companies in it. On Friday my attention was drawn to a company operating in the north-east called Provident. I was very disturbed to hear that last Christmas Provident representatives were going door to door deliberately targeting single mothers—as members of political parties, we all know that can be done. Its representatives were knocking on doors just before Christmas, saying, “We can offer you £500 and you don’t have to pay it back until after Christmas.” They were saying it could be paid back in a number of easy payments, thus making it seem attractive and ordinary. That is completely exploitative, and it will happen again this year unless the Government do something about it; indeed, it will happen Christmas after Christmas after Christmas. This House should neither accept nor tolerate that.
All Opposition Members are big supporters of credit unions.
Mrs Chapman
Yes, Members on both sides of the House are, of course. The people behind the credit union movement are hard-working and honourable. I work somewhere where everybody is honourable, but these people really are hard-working and dedicated—many of them are volunteers—and they work in our communities to promote low-cost credit to people who are left out of mainstream credit. However, even with the best will in the world credit unions are not going to be able to compete with Wonga and Uncle Buck and so forth, because they lack the high street and web presence.
Mrs Chapman
I understand that the experience is different in Northern Ireland, and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I suspect will explain that further.
Mark Durkan
The low membership of credit unions in Great Britain has been mentioned. Credit unions in Northern Ireland have a high membership; well over a quarter of the population—in some constituencies the figure is more than 50%—are members of the very well-developed and well-funded credit unions. The credit union movement in Northern Ireland has made it very clear that it expects Parliament to take action against the predatory credit sector. The movement does not expect Parliament just to wave to credit unions; it says, “Tackle the sharks, don’t wave to the dolphins.”
Mrs Chapman
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, as he put it extremely well. I was aware that credit unions in Northern Ireland were incredibly advanced. I have found that although the fledgling credit unions in my constituency are doing a marvellous job, they are unable to do the very thing that he says is unable to be done in Northern Ireland. That strengthens the argument for accepting this new clause.
Stella Creasy
I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment on the irony that credit unions have a cap on what they can charge, yet these legal loan sharks do not.
Mrs Chapman
That is an excellent point, with which I shall finish my remarks. I am aware that many colleagues would like to contribute and, having heard my hon. Friend’s comprehensive speech, I will allow others to do so.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to debate this new clause. I have worked with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on a number of occasions to highlight the need to protect the most vulnerable people in society, and we have been supported by hon. Members from both sides of the House. Let us be clear that a consensus is essential, as has been said by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). This is an extremely complex and challenging issue, and although we all agree that action must be taken, we need to be careful not to make the situation worse. I will set out a number of reasons why that could happen.
The new clause would require the Government to review how taxation could be used to penalise high-cost credit that is detrimental to consumers and competition. However, the current consumer credit review is examining all the options through which we can hope to secure a measured and effective response. I first wish to highlight the need to use credit reference companies, because it is unacceptable that so many of these loan companies do not even simply check whether the person borrowing the money can actually service the debt. We would all agree that we are not against people borrowing money if that is what they wish to do, but they should have the opportunity to be able to service that debt. Secondly, we need to limit the number of customer extensions and roll-overs, as a number of hon. Members have said. It is unacceptable that people can be trapped into a cycle of increasingly expensive debt. Thirdly, there needs to be a cut-off point, when fees and the interest stop being accumulated. Too often we have seen people borrow a relatively small sum that has built up over many years. Many horror stories have been related in previous debates.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been far too much of a rush to litigation by credit companies and that a far better approach would be to seek mediation before pressing the button to go to court? Such an approach would relieve a lot of the burden and pressure on the hard-pressed consumers.
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, with which I absolutely agree. Help should be provided at the point where we freeze that debt, and there should be an examination of the reasons why a consumer was unable to service the debt before that debt gets even further out of control.
Another crucial element is to make sure that those who can pay early are not penalised for doing so. That would mean that if circumstances change to benefit them, they would be able to break away from high-cost lending. A number of hon. Members have mentioned the need for there to be greater access to credit unions, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has highlighted the issue on a number of occasions. Interestingly, and aptly, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) made the point that we should be encouraging those organisations that will lend with the consumer’s interest at heart.
The particular issue I wish to discuss, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), is the need to examine the techniques that are being used. In previous debates, I have directed the majority of my anger at doorstep lenders and their nudge-nudge sales techniques. They build up personal relationships, face to face, in the homes of vulnerable consumers, suggesting ways in which people can borrow money. For example, in the run-up to Christmas the lender will ask people whether they have organised the Christmas presents for their children, the consumer will say that they are not sure whether they can afford them, and the lender then says, “It’s lucky I’m here. Just add another £3 a week and you can get the presents that your children want.” These lenders continuously build up people’s dependency on high-cost lending, so we really have to look at these techniques.
Stella Creasy
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not acceptable for banks to do what he just described? What does he make of the evidence suggesting that one of the challenges in this market is the fact that a quarter of their customers cannot borrow from banks, so even if they wished to use unauthorised overdrafts, they could not actually do so and the only source of credit available to them are predatory lenders such as Wonga?
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely, and that highlights my first point about using credit reference checks. These people should not be getting money from high-cost lenders. Many of the more reputable high-cost lenders will not lend to them, but many of them do and prey on these people—that is particularly true of the doorstep lenders. We have to try to ensure that more people have access to the affordable banking arrangements—the credit union arrangements—but we must not fall into the trap of thinking that the banks always get things right because, as in the example I just gave, they can prove a lot more expensive—
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady may shake her head, but my interest lies in ensuring that people get the clearest information and the cheapest possible price. I will not defend any organisation that is going to exploit the most vulnerable people.
Unsurprisingly, the final item on my tick-list is the need for financial education. I chair the all-party group on financial education for young people, and I thank the 224 Members who are now signed up to the group. People do not understand APR and, as I have argued, it needs to be removed and replaced by a transparent approach. In addition, we need consumers to be able to understand the implications of what they are signing up for, its true cost, how to source alternatives and the best way to address the situation if they get into difficulties.
I am conscious of the time so I will conclude. We are all agreed that action is needed—nobody, from either side of the House, disputes that. I welcome the consumer credit review, but we must not fall into the trap of a quick fix to chase political headlines which simply makes matters worse. We need a measured and wide-ranging response that puts the vulnerable consumer first. Let us not chase a fix that makes things a hell of a lot worse for the most vulnerable people.
Jon Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
May I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her tenacity in pursing this issue and say that her speech was a tour de force? Equally, I commend her for getting this issue discussed on Twitter, as this must be the first new clause on a Finance Bill to have generated this much interest on that site.
I wish to make only a few brief remarks, because a lot of what I wanted to say has been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), in particular, and by some Members on the Government Benches. Early on, I want to pick up on one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow in her speech and at business questions last week, which is the suggestion that some funny business is going on and that the Government are deliberately delaying making a decision to help the Deputy Prime Minister at the party conference—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish!] Some hon. Members are shouting from a sedentary position, so I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary, who will, I presume, respond to the debate, could guarantee that the Deputy Prime Minister will not make an announcement on this matter in his conference speech. That would help Opposition Members—[Interruption.] I invite the Financial Secretary to make a few remarks on that point in his closing speech.
There is some consensus on this issue on both sides of the House. I was not a Member of Parliament when it was debated in February, although I have read many of the speeches. Many Members, on both sides of the House, take the issue very seriously—and rightly so. Before the general election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition took it very seriously. When he was rebranding the Conservative party, he did not only hug hoodies and huskies. The party launched a campaign about resisting—I hope this is not unparliamentary language—your “inner tosser”, which encouraged people not to fall into the trap of personal debt that we have discussed. At the time, the current Prime Minister said that—and I paraphrase—although the campaign was provocative, we needed to do something about personal debt. The Opposition agree.
Today I visited a money advice centre in my constituency to talk about some of the issues faced by many of my constituents who are getting themselves into trouble. I was told stories about how Wonga and quickquid.com target many vulnerable people in my constituency. Members might not be aware that my constituency contains some of the most deprived estates in the country and we have had many examples of such companies targeting people such as single mothers, as in the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, when they have no choice but to sign up to such deals. Such people end up in great difficulty.
Another issue mentioned at the centre, although it does not fall within the narrow confines of the new clause, was illegal loan sharking. The problem is that many people who find themselves in deep trouble through legal loan sharking feel that they have no alternative but to turn to illegal loan sharks. I hope we will be able to debate that in future. I was told many tragic stories about people who have fallen foul of illegal loan sharking. Such people might be in work—it is not always a matter of gangs preying on vulnerable out-of-work people on estates. One example involved somebody who took out a loan from an illegal loan shark for £7,000, which soon became £70,000.
Lorely Burt
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about illegal loan sharking, which is a scourge of this country. Does he welcome the fact that despite the cuts the Government have made in other areas, we have increased the amount of money we are using to fight illegal loan sharks?
Jon Ashworth
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) tells me that the Government have cut the financial inclusion grant. I always welcome action to tackle illegal loan sharking, so I would be very disappointed if the money going into those funds was cut.
This is an important issue, which particularly affects my constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, it is not just the constituents we would traditionally think of as the most vulnerable in society who are being hurt. Increasingly, the money advice centre I visited today is finding examples of people from lower and more middle income-backgrounds getting themselves into trouble and falling prey to such organisations.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that that income group—some of whom claim housing benefit and will be hit by the housing benefit changes and will have to find a lot of additional money to pay their rent out of their own pockets—could well fall victim to both official and unofficial loan sharks simply to meet their rent?
Jon Ashworth
I know that my hon. Friend has a good track record in raising such issues, particularly those to do with homelessness, and she is right to bring that matter to the attention of the House.
I want to focus on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about lower and more middle-income people being hit. Increasingly, such people are turning up at the money advice centres in my constituency in a way that they had not in recent years. That might reflect our economic climate, with inflation running at twice the rate of earnings and with the cost of living, food and utilities putting a great strain on the budgets of many people in my constituency. Those issues came up time and again in my by-election campaign and the Asda income tracker, which my hon. Friend mentioned, shows that families are some £165 a month worse off than they were a few years ago.
The final point raised with me today concerned credit unions. Labour Members have always been huge supporters of credit unions—the co-operative values on which they are based are values that we share—and I concede that Government Members support them, too. If we simply say, however, that credit unions can step up and fill the gap, we are somewhat mistaken. They do not have the capacity to compete with organisations such as wonga.com and quickquid.com. I would welcome it if more resources went into credit unions so that they could compete, but realistically they cannot carry out the door-to-door activity that wonga.com and so on can. Although we are great supporters of credit unions, I do not think they are the answer, although they are part of it.
In conclusion, I would welcome it if the Government could give us some indication of what is happening with the review, if they will not support the new clause. We need some regulatory reform of the sector. People in my constituency, in particular, are being hit. The situation is getting worse and unless the Government take action, I am worried about the future.
Andrew Percy
I was not sure when I came into the debate whether I was going to speak—[Interruption.] Well, I can never resist the temptation to hear the sound of my own voice. I have found this an interesting and fascinating debate with some very good speeches from Members on both sides. Some speeches have been a little political at times and it is best that we brush over that, because the issue should not be political. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is, I know, passionate about this matter and I agreed entirely with a great deal of her speech. She has been in a Twitter conversation with a constituent of mine in Snaith. Very sound people live in Snaith—very sound people, because they re-elected their Conservative councillor with a massively increased majority in May, but we will gloss over that.
The issue has sparked an interest across the whole country. The letters and tweets we are getting from our constituents reflect the fact that a lot of people are interested in this matter. This has been a good debate and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) made a particularly good speech, I thought, which was very consensual. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). I always listen to her on such matters because of her vast experience. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) has a huge interest in the subject, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who used to work with me at McDonald’s in Hull when I first started to get into debt. Although I have never personally had to borrow from a high-cost credit company, I certainly understand having debts to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds.
In my case, it was credit card debt, and I am not alone in that. It started at university and I went down the line of paying off one credit card by transferring it to another on 0% for a year or a number of months before conveniently forgetting that and maxing out the one that I had just cleared. I now pay about £600 a month to clear all my credit cards, which I have had to roll into a loan since my election. I understand what debt is like and I know how once someone is on the conveyer belt, it is difficult to get off, and that is just with credit card debt. That conveyer belt moves faster for those on the high-cost credit side of things—I guess that is the only difference.
A lot of my constituents come to me with debt issues, which is why, following the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon, I am getting the staff in my constituency office trained in the debt management side of things—not so that we can issue particular advice, but so that we can point people towards the most appropriate advice.
Mrs Chapman
I have found myself wondering who the hon. Gentleman disagrees with in this debate.
Andrew Percy
I am feeling the love in the Chamber today, which is a good thing—there must have been something in the water in Goole this morning. However, the serious point is that that hopefully proves that although there are concerns, and although lots of Members who will vote differently from each other this evening have made incredibly passionate speeches, they clearly all want to see the same thing. We might disagree on how to get to there, but the fact that I am agreeing with so many people is perhaps a sign that there is consensus on this issue, which is a good thing.
Stella Creasy
At the risk of increasing the love in the Chamber, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the new clause would put beyond doubt—along with other measures that could be taken to tackle the problems that we all agree exist—tackling the question of regulation and acting on it by the Government? At the moment, we have no guarantee that that will happen in the consumer credit review; rather, we have only vague assertions that they are thinking about it. The review proposed by new clause 11 would guarantee that that would happen, which is why we want action now.
Andrew Percy
Of course that is what we all want to see, but we await the response of the Minister. At one point, some Opposition Members seemed to be saying that the Government were going to announce something at the Liberal Democrat conference, suggesting that it would no doubt be a well attended—I will not be going —and joyous occasion. Indeed, the hon. Member for Walthamstow seemed to suggest that the Government already had a solution that they were about to announce in October, so we all look forward to hearing what they have to say.
To end where I began, this is a hugely important issue for a lot of my constituents, as it is for constituents up and down the country, and it is time that we did something about it. It is appalling that people end up on a conveyor belt and seem unable to get off it. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response, and I genuinely hope that we have some action soon, in the interests of all our constituents.
Yvonne Fovargue
At any one time there are 5 million to 7 million people in this country who are unbanked or who do not have a credit history. In the main, they are the people who turn to high-cost lenders, because they do not have a credit history and they have nowhere else to go. Personal debt is rising, with 46% struggling until pay day, up 8% this year. Again, they are the people turning to the payday lenders.
I take issue with the claim that the rate has grown in the last decade. When I started in the advice field 20 years ago, there was one high-cost lender, Provident, which targeted a specific market. Provident went round the estates, using neighbours and talking to people. The company would go in—here I also take issue with the claim that people use the money on luxuries—and find people who needed to replace their broken cooker. The neighbour would come in, look at the cooker and say, “Oh yes, I can lend you that money.” When the loan was nearly repaid, Provident would come back and say, “Tell you what, your sofa’s looking a bit shabby. It won’t cost you much more to get a sofa,” and people would get trapped in a cycle of debt. However, in one respect, Provident was reasonably easy to deal with, because there was one company with a specific target group. It was possible to go round and talk to individuals, target schools and visit the residents groups that the people concerned attended. It is much more difficult now. The explosion of advertising and the normalisation of the process have made it so much more difficult to control the market and tell people what the dangers are.
I had a constituent come to me in February, as soon as he realised my interest in the subject. He could not quite manage to the end of the month—I think his car tax was due—and he had taken out a payday loan. The company immediately took the payment and the interest out of his bank account the next month. He realised that he could not get to the end of that month either, so he took out another payday loan. That carried on and in the end he had 10 payday loans and all his salary was being taken from his bank account. That was a man who was working. Such companies are supposed to check that people can afford to pay the money back and that they do not have other credit, but that did not happen in this case. For such companies, self-regulation absolutely is not working. That company was not an illegal loan shark: it was a legal company and it did not threaten to break the man’s legs, but it left him in a cycle of stress and depression that he found very hard to get out of.
I am also concerned about the double whammy that these companies are operating, as many of the companies that put people into debt are opening debt-management arms to get people out of debt as well. When the financial inclusion fund was finishing last year, those companies were circling like sharks. I cannot tell hon. Members how many companies contacted me basically gloating and saying, “There will be no, or very limited, free debt advice, so people will have to turn to us and you will have to deal with us now.”
I welcome the Money Advice Service because any advice on budgeting is welcome, but that service does not replace face-to-face debt advice. There is a need for that kind of service to be available—and more freely available than it is now. People have what I call behind-the-clock syndrome. They get into debt and cannot face opening the letter about their debt so they put it behind the clock. When they get the next letter, that also goes behind the clock. I cannot tell hon. Members the number of people who used to come into the bureau with a carrier bag whom I would look at and think, “They are in debt”. They would have a carrier bag full of letters that they could not face opening. People are not going to deal with a telephone or online service if they cannot even open a letter. There is a need for free, impartial, face-to-face debt advice and for regulation of debt management companies. Self-regulation is not working. It did not work in America, and when America regulated, those companies started coming over here because they like what they see.
Damian Hinds
Does the hon. Lady agree that while the availability and accessibility of free debt advice are important, visibility is also important? When people do get around to opening letters and starting to seek help, if they search on internet search engines for debt advice, Citizens Advice and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service ought to come at the top of the list even though they cannot afford to compete with debt management companies on pay-per-click rates. Should we not exhort Google and others to make sure that those services are duly highlighted?
Yvonne Fovargue
I think that is an excellent suggestion, but there also have to be appointments available when people need them. It is no use searching for citizens advice bureaux if appointments are not available for six to eight weeks because funding to provide the very specialist advice that is needed has dried up. We have to make sure, first, that people get information about where they can go, and, secondly, that appointments are available.
Regulation of debt management companies is needed. They come at the top of Google and other search engines on the basis that they will be going out of business in two years’ time anyway, so they might as well make as much money as possible by charging up-front fees and charging as much as they can. If they do go bust, as two have recently, it does not really matter to them. I had a client come to me who had been paying £40 a month to a debt management agency for 18 months, at the end of which he owed his creditors more than when he had started. Those companies need to be regulated.
The new clause is one of the range of measures we need. We have to keep this issue high on the agenda because the longer we leave it, the more people will go to high-cost lenders and debt management companies and the more people will get themselves into a spiral of unaffordable debt. We have to act now. It is no use leaving this for another five or six months—how many thousands more will have got themselves into debt in that time?
Oliver Heald
In the circumstances, I shall not trespass on the House’s good will for too long.
I want to start where the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) did by making the point that if a child of people on low incomes or on benefits needs a pair of trainers or some piece of equipment is broken, it is often a disaster and the money is needed right away. That is the background to this issue. The social fund does a good deal. [Interruption.] I think the hon. Member for Makerfield would acknowledge that 400,000 people a year make more than three claims on the social fund, so they are obviously finding it useful. It is important that a credit facility is available, and it is excellent that in Northern Ireland mutuals and credit unions are so well established. We need to do more in this country to develop that idea; otherwise, we will be in the hands of the high-cost operators we have been hearing about.
Yvonne Fovargue
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people do not realise that some credit unions offer loans to people who have not saved with them? The growth fund has been very useful in that regard, but many credit unions do not have access to the growth fund with which people have to save before they can get a loan. That makes the situation impossible for many people.
Oliver Heald
The hon. Lady makes an important point, which I imagine will be considered by the consumer credit review. I am a member of a credit union, and I think that all MPs should be because it is a good way of illustrating—
Oliver Heald
I am a member of one, and membership is a good way of trying to convey knowledge about credit unions. I pay tribute to the all-party group on credit unions, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). We need to do more to increase the amount of credit that is available on reasonable terms.
I am a member of the all-party group on financial education for young people, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). The move to teach children the basics of budgeting from quite an early age is long overdue. In households that are chaotic and at the bottom of the economic pile there is very little understanding of basic budgeting, which we must resolve.
Finally, I want to support the point about advice. In the past, I have given free legal advice and dealt with welfare rights. I have experience of the people the hon. Member for Makerfield described, who come to see us carrying bags of documents from companies and unpaid invoices. The people who sit down with them, go through everything carefully and present their case to creditors do a marvellous job. The other day, I went to the Shelter facility in Hatfield, which offers debt advice in that part of Hertfordshire. Someone there had been working on debt advice for 29 years and she had lots of letters on the wall from people saying how grateful they were to her for trying to sort things out for them. We must certainly support debt advice, but we need to do other things in relation to education and credit unions. I would like more regulation in this field and, possibly, a cap.
Sheila Gilmore
Unfortunately, it seems that debates on this subject are beginning to follow a pattern: we all agree that high-cost lending is terrible and a scourge of many of our communities and that we would like something to be done about it, but the problem arises in agreeing to act. In February’s Back-Bench debate, the teeth were drawn from the motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The amendment agreed by the majority of Members of the two Government parties removed any impetus for immediate action or any agreement that the regulator should consider doing something. I see exactly the same pattern beginning to emerge. We are told that we all agree that high-cost lending is bad, but when Opposition Members want something to be done about it we are accused of breaching the consensus. In the words of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), we are the ones who are being political.
Andrew Percy
That is not quite what I said. I said that if we were to be political, we could bandy about the suggestion that all Governments had done nothing. I argued that we should await the Government’s response to the consumer credit review. We can condemn them if they do not do what we want, but until then we should at least try to pretend to be on the same side.
Sheila Gilmore
I am afraid I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s confidence that the review will indeed cover the issues, although something might be pending. The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) is no longer in the Chamber, but I was interested to hear her say that “we” would all be happy to see the regulations “we” would be bringing forward. I do not know who “we” were, but it suggests that the Government’s plans are quite well advanced and that the hon. Lady is privy to their thinking, as we are not. At the end of the debate, I hope we shall hear what the regulations are and what will happen.
Warm words are not enough. Some of the organisations involved have tremendous resources behind them, yet there is so little control of their operations. Their services can seem attractive because they “solve” people’s immediate problems. Regrettably, at this stage credit unions cannot compete. Castle credit union in my constituency had to give up its shop-front premises in the main street because it did not have the resources to continue to pay the rent. It has moved into an office in a community building and is still functioning, but it has much less presence than it would have if it were still on the high street, where people would be able see it from the bus and pop in when they were doing their shopping. Now that it is tucked away in the community office, people might not know where it is. The situation is not helped by the fact that the local community newspaper, which used to advertise such facilities, has had to shut up shop owing to cuts in its funding. That will make it even harder for people to find the credit union.
Stephen Williams
I agree that sometimes it might be hard to find a credit union, although the one in my constituency is based on Cheltenham road, a main road. Perhaps credit unions need to go out and find customers; for instance, Bristol credit union had a stall at St Paul’s carnival this weekend.
Sheila Gilmore
Indeed. On Saturday, I was at just such a festival in my constituency. It was a beautiful day—the first sunny Saturday for some time. Volunteers from Castle credit union, who help to keep it going, were there for exactly the reasons the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, if, unlike credit unions, high-cost lenders have a high street presence—extremely attractive, brightly lit and hardly missable—it is much easier for people to find them.
Regrettably, only 2 % of people in the UK are members of a credit union. We can all work harder to increase that number, but one thing that would clearly help would be real resources to build the movement. Experience in my city is that real resources, far from being put in, are declining, and there are even fewer members. Despite the efforts of the volunteers who man stalls at local fairs and festivals, credit unions are not providing the competition we want with high-cost lenders. I should dearly like people to use credit unions instead of those institutions.
I understand that this is politics, but when Opposition Members make proposals we meet the accusation that Labour should have done things over the past 13 years, and it is suggested that the fact we did not debars our making proposals and expecting them to be listened to. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow had been a Member during our period in government, she would have been harrying Ministers in exactly the same way as she has harried the Government over the past year. She would not have been afraid to speak.
We should not accept too lightly the suggestion that the previous Government did not look seriously at financial inclusion. The present Government say that they are interested in it too, but they do not put in the means to make it happen. It is not good enough to say they are interested. In my Westminster Hall debate, I referred to our manifesto proposal to oblige banks to provide basic bank accounts. The Minister’s response was, “Oh, we don’t really want that sort of regulation. We want it to be voluntary and we want to work with banks.” That is all too often the Government’s response. They say they want the ends, but they are not prepared to put in the means.
The previous Government did a lot of work on financial inclusion, but no one thing is enough: credit unions will not do it; basic bank accounts will not do it; and taking action against high-cost lenders alone will not do it. We need a range of measures.
Some of the steps that would help have been positively stopped by the Government. The growth fund, which helped to boost credit unions and other community-based financial institutions, has not been renewed or extended.
Damian Hinds
Is the hon. Lady aware of the modernisation fund of up to £73 million?
Sheila Gilmore
I might be wrong, but I understand that the fund is not a substitute for the money that was available through the growth fund. When it was introduced, it was hoped that banks would lend to community-based lending organisations; they have not done so, yet high-cost lenders can get finance to expand their businesses to make them attractive.
Stella Creasy
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a cause of concern that the Wellcome Trust, which is supposed to advance charitable endeavours, has lent £73 million to Wonga so that it can expand its operations in the UK? Such companies can easily access credit; indeed, that sum is the entire amount left from the growth fund for credit unions across the UK.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If we are to put the money where our mouth is, it is extremely important that we do not just sit in the House constantly agreeing about how bad something is; we need to take action. On that basis, I urge Members, and perhaps even the Government, to accept the new clause.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I thank the House for its indulgence. I was at a meeting of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government so I missed the beginning of the debate. I shall try to be as brief as possible, because I am sure that Government Members will have heard the compelling case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my colleagues and will have been won over by the powerful arguments they articulated.
Those outside the Westminster bubble sometimes question what we as Members of Parliament do in this place. I am sure that there are moments when even we wonder what it is all about and why we parliamentarians put ourselves through the rigorous demands of elected office. I realise just how privileged I am to be here and to represent not only the people of my community, for whom I have the highest regard, but a great city such as Liverpool, and then I have the opportunity, such as the one put forward tonight, to change the lives of ordinary people and realise that my time here is anything but wasted.
Oliver Heald
There is of course wide acceptance across the House that some regulation is needed in this area, but why should it be about taxation? A Finance Bill obviously provides an opportunity to raise the issue, but does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a risk—[Interruption.] He should at least let me ask the question before learning the answer from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Does he not agree that there is a risk, through the law of unintended consequences, of high-cost companies simply passing on the costs of higher taxation to the poor people in Liverpool he is worried about?
Steve Rotheram
I always listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, as she is much more of an expert on these matters than I am. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention is not indicative of the thinking of all Government Members.
I have a particular reason for wanting to see a cap on the cost of credit. I come from a family of eight kids, and unfortunately my beloved mum was often a victim of door-to-door credit. She took it not to pay for luxury goods, but so that she could afford to buy us things like school blazers and winter coats. She would get a Provident or Sterlers cheque and pay it back on the “never-never”, as it was known colloquially. This meant paying back hundreds of per cent. of the original loan in interest charges, but like millions of others she did not really understand the rudimentary economics and looked only at how much she could afford to pay back each and every week, rather than the interest rate or the cumulative payment total. Unfortunately, she was not unique in this respect and, even four decades on, far too many people are still caught in this poverty trap.
The high cost of credit has not improved much for families at the wrong end of the socio-economic ladder. Home credit lenders often charge astronomical annual percentage rates of up to 3,000% or 4,000%. I had to check those figures, because the current bank base rate is only 0.5%, but I found that interest charges of thousands of per cent. are not uncommon. In fact, the UK’s poorest pay the highest price for credit in Europe. This is an obscene state of affairs and the Government must act. Before we hear the same old mantra from Government Members, I admit that we in the Opposition did not do enough to tackle the issue head-on when we were in power. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly pointed out, this is an escalating problem that needs to be tackled immediately.
I urge Members on both sides of the House to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is trying to do to stop this most socially iniquitous of practices. Even Boris supposedly supports measures to protect the financially vulnerable, and if he can do it, there should be nothing stopping Government Members doing the same.
Members on both sides of the House have highlighted the problem and provided examples of the unfairness, but it is worth reiterating that credit lenders can charge, in real terms, £82 in interest and collection charges for every £100 lent. A gentleman came to my constituency advice surgery only last Friday and told me that his wife was suicidal because of the level of debt that they had got themselves into. I highlighted last week in a Westminster Hall debate the fact that the banks are failing to meet the Project Merlin targets for lending and the adverse effect that this is having on the construction sector. The banks are also failing ordinary families as they are refused credit from high street lenders, which often results in them taking the only option left: high-cost lending through payday and doorstep loans and hire purchase.
The rising cost of credit traps those least able to cope with the pressures of economic stagnation as they struggle to make ends meet, and believe me, the VAT increase has not helped those families. Some payday lenders are rubbing their hands at the expansion in their “target audience”, as one put it, 70% of whom have a household income below £25,000. I know that we will never completely stop this most lucrative of immoral trades, but we can certainly put a cap on lending to regulate the total amount that can be charged for supplying credit.
This is one of the occasions on which I do not understand how a proposal could not receive unequivocal support from both sides of the House. I have listened to some of arguments against taking action, such as the suggestion that it might make things worse or restrict credit to those who need it, but that is an absolute cop-out with no basis in evidence. Therefore, I ask Government Members to support the new clause to ensure that consumers are protected and simply pay a fair price for credit.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
I think that the debate has demonstrated the potential for cross-party support for the analysis underpinning the discussion we have had this afternoon, but I gently point out to Opposition Members who seek to turn this into a partisan political issue that their Government had the opportunity over 13 years to tackle this. In fact, we had a debate on it while the Financial Services Act 2010 was going through Parliament, not long before the general election, during which my opposite number at the time ruled out acting on interest rate caps because of the impact of depriving the most vulnerable of credit services. It is not a new issue, or one that is fresh to this Parliament. Ministers in the previous Government were opposed to the idea of caps because, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) indicated, it could restrict the supply of credit, forcing those who need it into the hands of illegal moneylenders, an outcome that Members on both sides would not want to see.
Let us be clear that credit can be a good and positive force that enables people to meet needs when there is a sudden shock, such as an unexpected expense or a cut in income, but it must be used sensibly and sustainably. When people decide to borrow, they must be mindful of what that means for them and realistic about their ability to repay the loan. That is true whether the loan is over 10 years, five years or a matter of days, as is the case with some instant or payday loans. However, all lenders have a responsibility in this regard. Lending more than borrowers can afford to repay does not benefit anyone. Under the recently introduced consumer credit directive, all lenders, including high-cost credit lenders, must ensure that when they decide to advance a loan they do so after making a thorough assessment of the lender’s ability to repay.
We know that consumer debt grew significantly under the previous Government, more than doubling from £620 billion in 2000 to more than £1.4 trillion by May 2010. Some of this debt is now being repaid as consumers begin to come to terms with their borrowing, with the amount of unsecured debt reducing in the past two years. Although much of this debt will be repaid without any problems, some borrowers get into difficulty. Lenders have a responsibility to help customers and treat them fairly when they get into difficulties with loans, not push them further into debt. Continuing to add excessive arrears and default charges is a lose-lose situation; the debt increases out of all proportion to the amount borrowed, the lender is less likely to be repaid and the borrower may have difficulty borrowing again. Lenders should work with borrowers, not against them.
We should all be concerned about people borrowing at high rates of interest. However, the high-cost credit market, whatever its faults, provides a service for those who cannot get credit from any other source. We should be careful about describing high-cost credit providers as legal loan sharks. We all recognise from our own communities that real loan sharks are far worse, resorting to violence and intimidation to recover their debts. High-cost lenders are licensed and operate within a regulatory framework, which provides some recourse when things go wrong.
We should be clear that action has been taken over the past year to improve consumer protection in this area. First, under the consumer credit directive, which came into force earlier this year, consumers now have a right to withdraw from any credit agreement within 14 days. If they do so, they have to pay back only the money lent and the interest accrued over that time. Secondly, consumers have a right to repay a loan early at any time, in part or in full. Thirdly, lenders now have to provide information in a standard format so that borrowers can easily compare the costs of different loans. Improving the transparency of information will help consumers. Fourthly, lenders must conduct a full credit assessment before advancing any loan. Lenders will also have to explain the key features of the credit agreement.
In addition, the Office of Fair Trading has recently published its guidance on irresponsible lending, which clearly sets out that deceitful, oppressive or otherwise unfair lending practices are not acceptable. The OFT, which is responsible for the regulation of credit—something that whoever tabled the new clause seemed to forget—has the power to remove the licence of those who breach the irresponsible lending guidance.
Much good work is going on, including the excellent work of credit unions, which many of my hon. Friends have mentioned. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is not in her place. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is right that there is £73 million to help to expand and modernise credit unions. The money that the previous Government put into credit unions is diminishing, because the money that credit unions were able to earn on the debt was lower than the default rate on the loans given. I therefore welcome the money that the Department for Work and Pensions has found to strengthen credit unions.
As a number of hon. Members have said, we are reviewing the wider consumer credit landscape. At the end of last year, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a joint call for evidence on the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, which covers all aspects of the consumer credit life cycle, including what happens when things go wrong. This is an opportunity to ensure that the regulatory framework is fair to consumers and the industry. Part of that review focuses on the high-cost credit market. Following an OFT review that took place under the previous Government, we have asked for evidence on five of its recommendations.
Mr Hoban
Let me just finish the recommendations, and then I will give way.
The first recommendation was to provide information on high-cost credit loans to consumers through price comparison websites. The second was to introduce a “wealth warning” on high-cost credit products. The third was to collect essential information on the high-cost credit sector so that the OFT can track developments. The fourth was for the Government and industry to develop a code of practice. The final recommendation was to work with credit reference agencies to explore ways in which payday lenders could provide suitable information about the payment performance of their customers. That would help those who use high-cost credit to build up a credit history that they can use to access more mainstream lenders.
Stella Creasy
I wonder whether the Minister can deal with an anomaly that has driven the new clause. I received a letter on 25 May, which set out that the high-cost credit market was not specifically included in the consumer credit review. Is the Treasury taking the lead on this and does BIS need to follow? Will the Minister clarify this matter, because the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) said that BIS was not looking at this area per se?
Mr Hoban
Her Majesty’s Treasury and BIS have joint responsibility for this matter, which is why we issued a joint call for evidence. As I said, the consultation includes gathering further thoughts on the five areas from the OFT review.
The Government will respond to the review in the coming weeks and we are still assessing the evidence that has been provided. I can tell the House that a number of responses have been received on introducing a cap on interest rates, including from Members of this House. This is clearly an area that we will consider properly and carefully. We have been clear that we are not afraid to take action where there is evidence of consumer detriment.
I turn to the new clause that was tabled by the shadow Chancellor and a number of hon. Members. It asks the Government to review the impact of all taxation measures on lenders who are seen to engage in high-cost lending. I appreciate that this may be a probing new clause. I pointed out in Committee that the new clause as then drafted would lead to the perverse outcome of forcing up the cost of credit. The new clause before us has similar defects and unintended consequences.
I will point out the defects first. It is the Office of Fair Trading that regulates consumer credit, not the FSA. I would have thought that a Member who is so proud of her reputation for doing the homework would have got that right. It is well known that the OFT regulates high-cost credit.
Secondly, unlike the new clause tabled in Committee, which focused on the bank levy, this new clause looks at tax measures that are applicable to high-cost credit lenders. It would require each tax measure in the Budget to be assessed to see whether it is applicable. I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Walthamstow—she is probably tweeting about this as we speak—to find out what tax measures they had in mind. I did not hear a single tax proposal being put forward by Opposition Members. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that we should propose the measures. I have been listening carefully for any sensible tax proposals from Opposition Members, but I am yet to hear one.
My concern is that there is a degree of price elasticity for those who use high-cost credit. Such people pay for high rates on their borrowing. If we increased taxes on high-cost credit, the costs would be borne by the borrowers through higher charges and the benefit would be gained by the Exchequer. That would run counter to the interests of those who use high-cost credit.
Chris Leslie
If taxes and levies are invariably passed on to the consumer, will the Minister elaborate on the banking levy? Presumably he feels that that, too, will be passed straight through to the consumer. Are there not other tax measures that disincentivise or demerit activities?
Mr Hoban
There are a number of taxes that disincentivise certain activities. We could be here all day identifying them. The challenge is to what extent an increase in tax is passed on to the consumer and to what extent it is borne by the shareholders. There is a lot of evidence that in areas where borrowers are relatively insensitive to price, such as payday lending, the additional costs of tax measures would be passed on to the consumer. I am yet to be persuaded that that would not be the case. It might help if the Opposition had some concrete proposals on tax that could be assessed, but so far they have not. Perhaps the hon. Member for Walthamstow has a proposal.
Stella Creasy
I am saddened that the Minister did not feel that any proposals were made in the debate. I thought I had caught his eye when I talked about whetting his appetite with the excess profits that companies make. I made a specific proposal on that, which I will repeat for his benefit. Provident has taken £675 million in excess profit out of low-income communities since 2005-06, according to the Competition Commission’s investigations. Perhaps he could look at taxing the excess profits that these companies are making. Does he agree with that proposal?
Mr Hoban
I listened carefully to that point, and the hon. Lady again demonstrated the problem that she is long on analysis, but short on solutions. She talked about excess profits, but of course there is a range of solutions for that, one of which is to increase competition in the market to force prices down. I am not sure that a windfall tax, which I think is what she is proposing, would have the impact that she expects.
Mark Durkan
The Financial Secretary suggests that taxation would inevitably be passed on to consumers, but Ministers insisted not so long ago that the North sea tax would not be passed on to consumers. The Chancellor himself was very clear that it would not, and that he had means and measures to ensure that it could not be. Many Government Members said that they were happy that consumers would not pay the VAT increase, because hard-pressed businesses would just have to absorb it. Why are the Government protecting the predatory credit sector?
Mr Hoban
The hon. Gentleman needs to look carefully at the impact of tax in different sectors. Just because one rule applies to one sector does not mean that it applies to others. We know that there is real concern, for example, that if we forced excise duty up too high, people would resort to smuggling to evade it. The impact varies from tax to tax and from area to area, and we need to consider which measures will be effective.
There are broader concerns about how the Opposition want to use tax. As I said, tax is used to change behaviour from time to time, but it is a blunt instrument, and if it is not properly thought through it can lead to perverse outcomes. An increased rate of tax on lenders would not have any obviously positive impact on how consumers are treated. Studies from other areas show that lenders will find ways to circumnavigate regulations and pass costs on to borrowers. A different tax rate for those businesses would be detrimental to consumers and would raise the cost of providing credit to those who may be unable to access mainstream credit.
Members have a responsibility to take seriously the potential for such measures to drive lending underground. I am sure that no one in the House would like to see a rise in illegal loan sharking, which can so devastate lives. The risks to individuals’ financial and personal well-being would be increased by loan sharks, who do not follow regulations or take legal action when debts remain unpaid. They use whatever means they can to recover their money, often forcing borrowers into more debt, or much worse. The provision of short-term credit can prevent financial exclusion, and it has allowed more consumers to access credit in a regulated market.
A number of comments have been made about an interest rate cap. There were three separate reviews under the previous Administration that considered, among other things, price controls in the high-cost credit market in the UK. They all came to a similar conclusion—that introducing price controls may lead to unintended consequences that would not be beneficial to consumers. The OFT review found that
“introducing price controls would not be an appropriate solution to the particular concerns we have identified in this market”,
and that
“developing a system to enforce and monitor price controls or interest rate caps in the UK would be complex, expensive and difficult to administer”.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned a recent European Commission study published at the start of this year, but it found that restrictions on interest rates could deny people access to small amounts of credit, do not reduce overall average interest rates and lead to increased fees and charges being imposed by lenders. The idea of a cap on the total cost of credit sounds appealing at first, but it would have its consequences.
Oliver Heald
Does my hon. Friend agree that two initiatives that were described earlier are valuable? One is credit unions—my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) chairs the all-party group that is promoting their work—and the other is financial education for young people, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and his all-party group are pursuing vigorously. Are those not two positive things that the House can get behind?
Mr Hoban
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The provision of better education, information and guidance to help people manage their money is extremely valuable. That is why we have been very supportive of the Money Advice Service in its work to help improve financial capability and capacity.
Sustainable solutions to the issues raised by the Opposition are not simple or obvious. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said, an individual making the minimum repayment on their credit card could be subject to a higher total cost of credit than someone using payday lenders. The vast majority of people who borrow from payday lenders and then re-borrow pay off the amount that they borrowed by the third time. That shows that careful and considered thought needs to be given to the impact on consumers of a cap on the total cost of credit, and how it would be implemented in practice. The majority of available research focuses on interest rate restrictions rather than such a cap, but some of the same challenges apply.
We need to gather evidence before we introduce new rules, or else risk unintended consequences. That was why we launched the consumer credit and personal insolvency review, and we are considering carefully the evidence that has been provided. The Government will announce the next stage shortly, and are committed to taking action when we can be sure that it will be effective. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), and I will continue to engage in the matter, along with the hon. Member for Walthamstow. However, I am afraid the new clause is not the right way to take things forward. It is flawed in both detail and effect. We need sensible, well-thought-through interventions to improve the functioning of high-cost credit markets and get better outcomes for consumers. The new clause would not achieve that, and I ask the Opposition to withdraw it.
I know that it cannot be easy for the Opposition to work with the Government on this issue and appear to concede on the new clause. It could seem like a climbdown for them to accept that more work is needed before action is taken, but that is the sensible, responsible approach.
Chris Leslie
I am sorry that the Financial Secretary has taken that attitude to the new clause, which is pretty innocuous in calling for a review. We have not put specific proposals in it, because we thought that in the spirit of cross-party working it would be useful to set up provisions to allow the Treasury and the OFT, working together in harmony, to work through the options and possible policy devices. Asking for a review on an extremely serious issue such as this is a bit like motherhood and apple pie; it really should not be objected to.
Tracey Crouch
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that a review is already under way, and that all these issues are being considered as we speak? The new clause would serve only to delay the outcome of that review.
Chris Leslie
I must correct the hon. Lady. I know that there is a review of sorts going on, but it relates to credit card lending and high bank charges on lending. The letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) received in May from the Under-Secretary said that the high-cost credit market
“was not specifically included in the call for evidence”
for the current review. That was what the letter of 25 May said—from the same Minister, incidentally, who refused to meet my hon. Friend.
The Financial Secretary is far too relaxed about this issue, and the Government are not exercised enough about it.
Chris Leslie
Members of all parties, including the hon. Gentleman, to whom I may give way in a moment, have made the point that there is great concern among our constituents in our surgeries about the real suffering and punitive charges that they sometimes face. The organisations in question admittedly engage in legal lending, but their activity feels immoral to many of us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said that help from the financial inclusion fund ought to be there for our constituents. The Minister tried to explain that that fund will remain for another nine months, but as my hon. Friend said, it will end, and for those who struggle even to open the envelopes containing the bills as they stack up, there is no substitute for such face-to-face advice. The Government need to do better to ensure that face-to-face advice services remain and do not fall away when the cuts to them are compounded by local authority cuts.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 14—Group filing for corporation tax—
‘The Chancellor shall direct the Office of Tax Simplification to report by 31 March 2012 on the potential for the introduction of a consolidated corporation tax filing for UK-resident companies meeting the current definition of a group for corporation tax purposes, to include an assessment of the potential cost savings for companies and HMRC, and the potential for reducing tax avoidance.’.
Amendment 15, in clause 4, page 2, line 16, leave out ‘is treated as having come into force on 1 April 2011’ and insert
‘shall come into effect when legislation shall have been enacted requiring that all public limited companies registered in the United Kingdom shall be required to submit the arrangements for the payment of salaries and bonuses of their directors to a binding vote of approval by their shareholders at an Annual General Meeting.’.
Amendment 20, page 2, line 16, leave out ‘is treated as having come into force on 1 April 2011’ and insert
‘shall come into effect when legislation shall have been enacted requiring all public limited companies registered in the United Kingdom to publish the current salaries and bonuses of their directors.’.
Amendment 51, in clause 7, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
‘(10A) The Chancellor shall produce, before 30 August 2011, a report on the Government’s discussions with the industry on the implementation of the increased charge’.
Amendment 17, in clause 42, page 27, line 4, after ‘appoint’, insert
‘after a Report has been submitted to the House of Commons detailing the number of EIS schemes previously approved, their total cost in terms of tax relief, the number of jobs created by the companies enjoying such relief and the number of companies that failed subsequent to relief being granted allowing for an estimate to be made of the cost of each job created under the terms of this scheme when compared to the cost of tax relief given.’.
Amendment 9, in clause 43, page 27, line 35, at end insert—
‘(11A) In section 1052 in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert—
“(e) incurred on premises costs
(f) incurred on design costs
(g) incurred on patent, trade mark, registered design, copyright, design right or plant breeder’s right (see section 1139)”.
(11B) After section 1142 add—
“1142A Premises costs
(1) In this part “premises costs” means rents and business rates costs of the studio where R&D is undertaken.
1142B Design costs
‘(1) In this Part “design costs” means—
(a) user interface costs,
(b) user testing costs,
(c) aesthetic costs,
(d) new business model costs.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) “user interface costs” means—
(a) costs occurred from designing the visual and functional appearance of the application,
(b) costs occurred from designing the code that reacts to user inputs.
(3) In subsection (1)(b) “user testing costs” means—
(a) costs occurred during product testing.
(4) In subsection (1)(c) “aesthetic costs” means—
(a) costs occurred from the artistic design of the product.
(5) In subsection (1)(d) “new business model costs” means—
(a) marketing of building a new business monetisation model,
(b) marketing of testing a new business monetisation model.”’.
Nigel Mills
The aim of new clauses 12 and 14 is to encourage the Government to move a little faster in simplifying our corporation tax system, which is far too complex to meet modern needs.
On a day on which we have celebrated the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan, it is appropriate to start with a quote from that great tax reformer. He said in 1985:
“Later in this session of Congress, we’ll be presenting our proposals for tax reform that will lower tax rates, broaden the tax base and make the tax code simpler and fairer. We’re looking at a top rate on personal income taxes of 35 percent, very possibly less. And we’ll be sure that incentives for capital formation are maintained. And I just want to reemphasise one thing: Tax reform will not be a tax increase in disguise.”
Those words are as relevant today as they were 26 years ago. To be fair, the Government have received that message. The Exchequer Secretary recently said:
“Taxation in Britain is far too complex. A clearer and more straightforward tax system will bring benefits for tax payers, tax professionals and the Government alike.”
I hope that the whole House would entirely agree with those sentiments.
The Government have taken welcome steps in the right direction. We have established the Office of Tax Simplification, and I commend the work it has done. In fact I am keen to ensure that we get maximum value out of it by giving it a bit more work to do under these two new clauses. At a time when we are assessing the value of all our quangos and outside bodies, the more work we get out of them the better.
We need to hasten the work of the OTS along. We are already a year into this Parliament and we rightly have a process now whereby we consult in detail on major changes to the tax system. If we do not bring forward our proposals in the next year or so, we will struggle to get any benefit from them in this Parliament, and that is the direction in which I am encouraging the Government to go tonight.
The Exchequer Secretary has made such a great start in tax simplification that he has had the honour of being named the tax personality of the year. We could start making various jokes about accountants’ personalities, but we would probably cause grave offence to all my former colleagues, so perhaps we should leave that subject. We have had a consultation on removing a few simple tax allowances, such as the reliefs for angostura bitters and black beer—if going that far gets the Minister that award, just think what garlands could be thrown at his feet if he tackled some of the real complexities of our tax system!
It was just last week that the Government announced the next areas that they want the OTS to consider, rightly including the taxation of pensioners and employment taxes. However, at a time when we need business to drive the growth that will sort out the deficit and our economy, we need to look at the taxes that encourage—or perhaps discourage—business from making the investment that we need. That is why new clause 12 would require the OTS to consider ways to simplify the capital allowance system, or to replace it if simplification is not possible. If the Minister questions why we need that provision, I draw his attention to the Bill, in which we have had to introduce various measures that tinker with the capital allowance system, because we know it is out of date and not working. It is hard to imagine that anyone would design from scratch a system in which we have to introduce a modification to ensure a different system for short-life assets and then we have to change the definition of short-life assets to eight years. I wonder how often businesses invest in assets that they expect to have a useful life of eight years, never mind any longer. That is a clear sign that the system is not working, out of date and far too complex. It needs to change.
I am sure that Members have taken a fascinating look through this country’s tax code and seen how many types of capital allowances we now have. We have a basic regime—the general pool—which from next year will produce an allowance on a reducing balance basis of 18%, meaning that it will take a long time for a business to get the full economic relief for its investment. It would take well in excess of six years to get the majority of that relief. We then have the short-life asset pool for assets that a business thinks might have a life of less than eight years. That effectively means that it has to track those assets and work out when to scrap or dispose of them to get the final balance. We also have a long-life asset regime for assets that have a particularly long life, but which are not suitable for the general pool. Furthermore, we have different rules for cars and environmentally friendly assets, and completely different rules for assets on a finance lease, where effectively we allow account depreciation.
This range of reliefs for simple investments in plant and machinery beggars belief. Frankly, if I was an overseas business or someone with some cash wanting to start a business in the UK, and if I wanted to invest in a heavy manufacturing business, was investing in large numbers of plant and equipment and went to my adviser and said, “I want to invest in the UK. Can you tell me how I get relief for all this investment?” and I got the answer, “Well, it depends on whether it’s a long-life asset, a short-life asset, an ordinary asset, an environmentally friendly asset, and it depends whether you lease it, hire purchase or buy it outright”, I would start to wonder whether it was really worth the effort. Surely there must be a simpler and better way of doing this than having to go down all these different routes.
We know what happens. The system creates complexity for businesses having to track and make all these returns. Then the Revenue has to audit and scrutinise those returns and ensure that everything is done properly. It therefore takes work on both sides to support a system that I suspect is achieving the opposite of what we want, which is to encourage existing and new businesses to invest in new, modern and environmentally friendly equipment, and to create more jobs in the manufacturing sector that we so value in this country.
Louise Mensch (Corby) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I share his interest in this subject because, like him, I have large amounts of manufacturing industries in my constituency. Have any businesses in his constituency made representations to him about how much such a measure could save them or help them to invest?
Nigel Mills
I can think of many things on which businesses lobby their MP, but the details of the tax system are a little way down that list. We would find that businesses take a different view of whether they benefit from the current regime. However, as we continually reduce the rate, this will become of greater interest to more and more businesses. Yes, businesses come to me and say, “The general tax system is just far too complex. The corporation tax system as a whole is far too complex.” The issue I have raised is just one particularly good example of where the system is now out of date.
If the Minister needs more encouragement to simplify the system, I would add that the more complex we make a system, the more attractive we make tax avoidance and the more loopholes we create for tax avoidance. Through the Finance Bill we have had to introduce anti-avoidance measures to try to stop people exploiting the system’s complexities. How much more attractive would it be if we simplified the regime either by retaining capital allowances that provide the attraction of a simple fixed rate of relief, or by allowing a business to relieve the depreciation charge it makes in its accounts? In previous debates, we have heard of the risk that businesses could massage their tax results to accelerate the deduction in advance of the economic life of those assets ending. These things can be tackled, however. In effect we are allowing a business with an intangible asset to take relief for its accounts depreciation. It is strange that we allow that for intangible assets that we cannot, by definition, touch and for which there is no scientific data proving the lifespan, yet for tangible assets—the core things we want businesses to invest in—people have to go down this hugely complex route.
In reducing the allowance rate from 20% to 18%, the Government think that they will more closely align rates with the economic life of assets these days. I am not sure that businesses in my constituency are saying that that is their experience. These days, things move on so fast that the life of an asset is quite hard to predict. If someone is looking for a return on an asset over six years-plus, it is hard to be confident in the current market. There are many issues with the capital allowance system, and I suspect that each year a different aspect will become the hot topic. The Minister will be lobbied by different interest groups, as I suspect he was this year in his attempt to move—quite rightly—from four years to eight years, but when he is next lobbied and gets proposals in his Red Box to add another layer of complexity to the system, I hope he will say, “Actually, there must be a better way we can do this.” This is fundamental to our corporate tax system, it is fundamental to how we encourage investment in our country, and there must be a better, simpler, fairer way that removes some of the potential for abuse. New clause 12 would get the Office of Tax Simplification to consider whether a better system could be introduced. I would strongly encourage the Government to consider carefully going down that line.
Let us step back in history to the time of President Reagan. One example of how not to simplify a tax system was his Tax Reform Act of 1986, which introduced what was called the “double-declining balance method”, switching to the straight line method at a time to maximise the depreciation allowance. I raise that issue only to show that this is not as simple as saying that we need either the current system or accounts depreciation—different things could be done that might encourage investment, although I am not sure that the double-declining balance would meet my aim of simplifying, even if it might give businesses the joy of accelerated relief. I shall not ask the Minister to respond in detail on that particular method, however, as I suspect that it will not have featured in his recent studies.
New clause 14 addresses a slightly less hot topic—groups of companies. These can range from groups with two companies through to multinationals with dozens or even hundreds of UK companies. For corporation tax purposes, we currently ask groups to file a tax return for each entity. Then we ask them to file separate claims and elections for all the various inter-group transfers and allocations. They are allowed to transfer a loss from one company against the profit of another, and they are allowed various elections on the transference of assets around the group. All these things create a huge compliance headache for taxpayers and the Revenue.
It is worth considering whether there is a simpler way of getting groups to deal with their corporation tax compliance by filing a tax return covering the whole group. There are precedents: many other tax regimes under our competitors allow groups to file a single tax return for their whole group, and in fact we allow groups to make group VAT elections and effectively file single VAT calculations. I wonder how much easier it would be for a group if it had the same basis for VAT as for corporation tax. Let us consider all the potential savings for businesses and the Revenue in not having to go through dozens of individual tax returns. We should bear in mind the fact that many entities in a group will have few entries and will add very little. Under my proposal, we would no longer require all these group relief returns when businesses allocate losses from one company to another, then make a change following submission and have to change all those returns, after which one company makes a loss the next year that changes the previous year’s return, meaning that they have to re-file them all. All these things add huge complexity and costs but very little value to the tax system.
I accept that they add some value to the Treasury, however, through the hope that, somewhere in a group, some losses or something else will not get relieved but will get trapped, whereas under a simplified system they would get used. I am not sure that our predecessors, when they passed these reliefs to support and encourage business, were aiming to put in place systems so complex and out of date that some relief would get denied when it ought to be given.
There are further reasons behind my proposals. We impose on UK group companies various requirements to review the pricing of transactions that take place between them. There is no tax at stake if company A sells something to company B for £100, then has to work out whether the price ought to have been £95 or £105. The only result is that one entity ends up with a slightly reduced profit, and the other with a slightly higher one. Both pay the same rate of tax, so the present arrangements simply result in a paper chase that creates compliance headaches for business and the Revenue alike. All such transactional requirements between group companies would disappear if they were allowed to file one tax return.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on moving his new clause and on the deployment of his expertise for the benefit of the whole House. He could well be a candidate for tax personality of next year, but I would advise him that it might help his prospects if he were to lay off the Reagan quotes.
I wish to speak to the amendments tabled in my name. Amendment 15 deals with directors’ salaries and payments, and proposes a binding vote by shareholders on such payments. Amendment 16 deals with the publication of information on the salaries and bonuses of directors in all public limited companies. Amendment 17 deals with a number of issues relating to enterprise investment schemes, and it would be helpful to receive certain information from the Government in order to assess those schemes in future.
I want to deal with salaries and bonuses first, as they have been a matter of contention in the House for a number of years now. Statements have been made by leading members of all political parties expressing concern, if not outrage, at the levels of increase in the pay of company directors. The Leader of the Opposition said in a recent speech that the
“danger today is that pay and performance have become detached…Over the last 12 years, chief executive pay in Britain’s top companies has quadrupled, while share prices have remained flat.”
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has called for greater disclosure on pay and bonuses and their link to company performance. He was reported as hitting out at the
“ethics of the wild east”
in the City. He described some directors’ pay and bonus settlements as “ridiculous”, “outrageous” and “rewards for failures”. I agree wholeheartedly with the Leader of the Opposition and the Secretary of State on this matter. I believe that the Secretary of State’s sentiments have been echoed by the Prime Minister himself.
My amendments seek to address the fact that the present system for the control of directors’ pay and bonuses by shareholders is not working. The current system for judging and rewarding remuneration in major companies is clearly not linked to performance, and evidence for that now abounds. The Business Secretary was referring to the dramatic increase in the remuneration of directors and executives of the top 100 companies. In 1998, that remuneration was 45 times the pay of the average employee in the company. By 2010, it was 145 times the average pay, and if it continues at that rate, it is predicted to reach 214 times the average salary in the company that the director or chief executive controls.
At the moment, the chief executives of the FTSE 100 companies have total remuneration packages averaging £4.2 million a year. Last August, it was reported that the financial crisis had resulted in ordinary employees’ salaries being frozen in at least one third of Britain’s biggest companies, yet the average pay of the top directors increased by £500,000. Hewitt New Bridge Street has reported that the typical bonus has now increased from 90% to 120% of salary, and the total remuneration survey conducted by pay and reward consultants MM&K showed evidence of a total disconnect between rewards, actual performance and shareholder value. Performance-related pay has just gone through the roof, however, with extremely complex packages being devised. The average top award under share allocation schemes and incentive schemes in the FTSE 100 has risen from 174% to 328% of salary.
In some instances, outrageously large awards have been agreed even before the director has demonstrated any value to the company. An example is Lloyds, which gave its new chief exec, António Horta-Osório, a welcome package worth close to £13.4 million simply for joining the bank. This is a bank that we, as taxpayers, now own. Lord Oakeshott, the Liberal Democrat peer, said that taxpayers would be “appalled” at paying someone
“£5,000 a day, just for turning up at the office for the next three years”.
I wholeheartedly agree with him on that. Ironically, Sir Victor Blank, the former chair of the Lloyds group, described top bankers’ pay in The Sunday Telegraph—not a newspaper I regularly read—as “unconscionable” and warned that the widening pay gap could lead to dangerous divisions in society and more strikes. I shall quote him directly. He said:
“You can’t have an ongoing widening gap between the top pay and the average pay…I think we are at a time now where you have a certain amount of unrest over pensions and other issues where if we don’t start early to have a degree of moderation in the levels of pay we risk more industrial unrest than we have had.”
I could not agree more.
Some shareholders have echoed those concerns. It was perhaps best expressed by a woman shareholder who was disgruntled at the Cable and Wireless annual general meeting. She complained—and it was a heartfelt plea from the floor:
“All the money and all the profit seem to be going towards the salaries of the Board, and I did not necessarily think that they were worth that amount of money.”
I believe this is undermining confidence and engendering cynicism—and, of course, division and disenchantment—in the whole process.
Clearly, the billowing packages of directors’ pay, bonuses and overall remuneration has to be addressed. The Government have acknowledged that, as have all parties in the House. My amendments are designed to prompt action and to make action more speedy and decisive.
If we are to tackle this issue, we need to understand why it is occurring. The Joseph Rowntree charitable trust funded an independent inquiry, the High Pay Commission, to which I believe a number of Members have submitted their views over the last year. It has looked at the drivers behind the trend of increases in directors’ and executives’ pay and remuneration. It provides some understanding of how the system operates to determine directors’ remuneration and puts forward the reason for the excesses.
Governments have addressed the issue over the last two decades. Legislation has been there to establish the current system of corporate governance. For publicly listed companies, it is based first on the establishment of a remuneration committee on every board to advise on appropriate remuneration; secondly, on disclosure; and, thirdly, on the shareholder having a vote on the pay and remuneration of directors. All the companies with a premium listing of shares are required on the Financial Services Authority listing rules to report on how they have applied the UK corporate governance code in their annual reports and accounts. This includes explaining how the pay was arrived at and determined.
The remuneration committees that have developed since the 1990s grew up as a result of pressure from successive Governments. They aim to overcome the conflict of interest in directors setting their own salaries. The Greenbury report on corporate governance called for them to be fully independent and to comprise wholly non-executive directors. The committees agree the pay packages for top execs and produce the report that will eventually go before shareholders.
The problem identified by the High Pay Commission and others is that the non-execs that sit on the remuneration committees are often executive directors in other companies, so setting benchmarks of remuneration is important for them. There have been charges of cronyism as executives and directors appoint each other to each other’s remuneration committees—a relationship of incestuous self-interest—while the non-execs sit alongside executive directors supporting them and unwilling to challenge them on pay. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of remuneration consultants who advise the remuneration committees on the setting of pay, but these are unregulated and they are often working for or are commissioned by the company directors on whose salaries they are giving advice.
On disclosure, quoted companies must publish directors’ remuneration reports. These appear in the annual report and are put to shareholders for a vote. This information is required to be put to companies as an ordinary resolution for approval at the AGM. The problem, however, is the UK corporate governance code guidance, according to which:
“A significant proportion of executive directors’ remuneration should be structured so as to link the rewards to corporate and individual performance. There should be a formal and transparent procedure for developing policy on executive remuneration and for fixing remuneration packages of individual directors.”
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend’s amendments help with the sort of situation we faced with HBOS? It was driven into the buffers by its highly paid executive team, who seemed to lose nothing while the shareholders lost everything.
John McDonnell
My amendments would go some way to ensuring that the information is published, enabling the Government to look in more detail at such information, while also enabling shareholders to have at least some opportunity to hold the directors to account. As I said, the advisory vote system worked initially, but it certainly has not worked in recent years, as the HBOS example demonstrates. Having a binding vote will give the shareholders some authority. The amendments are an attempt to redress the current imbalance of power between the shareholder and the board. It will not solve all the problems of directors being unaccountable on pay or bonus awards, but it would put another weapon in shareholders’ hands to tackle the issue.
Amendment 17 relates to enterprise investment schemes and accountability. Just as shareholders need information to hold company boards to account, the House should ensure that taxpayer’s money and tax concessions are allocated wisely to groups in society and that value for money is achieved. The amendment would invite the Government to justify in more detail future enterprise investment schemes on the basis of past performance of previously approved schemes. The amendment would seek information from the Minister on the total cost of tax relief with regard to the tax income forgone, the number of jobs created by the companies that have gained tax relief under the schemes, and the number of companies that have failed after the tax relief has been given—calculating the cost of each job created compared with the cost of the tax relief given. The information provided in the paperwork in relation to the Budget and the Finance Bill is not clear. The Treasury briefing on enterprise investment schemes and venture capital trusts sets out the proposals but provides no analysis of past measures and their performance. The Treasury Committee, in its comments on tax relief for EIS under the Finance Bill , suggested:
“The measure also needs to be viewed alongside the other proposals for EIS and whether the existing EIS conditions encourage investment in growth businesses.”
The Treasury Committee, therefore, points us in the direction of undertaking a proper value for money exercise on the proposals.
The amendment would enable the Minister to respond to that. Before we venture into such schemes, particularly EIS, we must ensure that their objectives are achieved with value for money, and the information is not currently available for us to make that judgment.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I shall speak briefly to amendment 51. Since the Government announced the additional corporation tax on oil companies in the Budget, I have been urging and, I hope, taking a constructive part in getting the companies and the Government to talk through how field allowances can be used to ensure that projects reviewed as a result of the tax changes can still go ahead. The purpose of the amendment is to get feedback from the Government on the progress of such negotiations, which I hope will have a positive outcome. Immediately after the Budget, Statoil made the most controversial, and certainly the most high-profile, announcement: that it was putting on hold the Mariner and Bressay fields. I imagine that those fields involve up to £6 billion of investment, with 600,000 barrels of oil recoverable and the possibility of a headquarters building being located in Aberdeen. I hope that the Government will find a way to ensure that the project goes ahead.
Next week, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) and I are taking a number of oil companies that are members of Oil & Gas UK to meet the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to discuss in detail the implications of the tax. The difficulty is that the tax changes impact differently on every field and on every company and its planned investments. I hope that active negotiations will lead to a recognition that allowances can be adjusted for particular types of field or circumstances, and that as a net result we will not lose too many of the investments that were originally at risk. I also hope that engagement over time will lead to both parties agreeing that a simplification of the tax system might be desirable. When prices are high, the industry might reasonably be expected to make a contribution; equally, we should recognise its need to know with some certainly the return that it is likely to get on significant investments.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a powerful and persuasive case regarding rewards for work not done or risk not taken, but it is easy to look at the oil companies as rich fat cats, which is how the public and the House often view them. However, developing oil from under the North sea involves huge risks in relation to technology, geology, exchange rates, markets and weather. Many people engaged in the industry use their technical knowledge and expertise to make a substantial return for their companies and for the UK economy, and although they have good, well-paid jobs, the payments and returns they receive are not in the same league as those received by people in financial services.
The Government have acknowledged that they do not want to lose the production from marginal and mature fields, and they are prepared to use field allowances. According to conversations I have had, negotiating in detail over a project for a field is incredibly complicated, requiring an enormous amount of civil service time, expertise and engagement, as well as executive management time, so I hope that the system will be simplified. Perhaps everybody is prepared to devote such time to significant projects, but the Department has a limited capacity to engage in too many of those negotiations, and companies sometimes have a limited capacity and willingness to engage, to the extent they might say that investigating or investing in other projects is more worth while.
I want to be encouraged by the knowledge that constructive engagement is taking place. I get good feedback from the industry about talks that it hopes and believes will lead to agreements that ensure that investments go ahead. In the long run, I hope that we will have a system in which there is trust and understanding and the Government get the revenue from high oil prices to which they are entitled, but the country gets the investment in the expertise, people and resources that will maximise production of oil and gas in the North sea, maximise jobs in the UK, and maximise and sustain the export industry, which is growing substantially. I hope that the Government will give a positive response in due course.
Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
I support amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). As neighbours, we share the same interest in the oil and gas industry and know full well its importance not just to the north-east of Scotland but to the whole United Kingdom. One of our disappointments about the imposition of the tax is that the Government seemed not fully to understand the industry and its importance, which I hope they understand now.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am pleased to hear from my contact with the industry that discussions are under way, with the possibility of improvements to field allowances. If the Government had thought the tax through properly, they would have already prepared the ground for field allowances to mitigate the damage done to the industry. It is not possible to overstate that damage. A huge blow was dealt to confidence, not just because the industry had been involved in regular discussions with the previous Labour Government and the current Government about a review of the tax system to deal with a host of areas that had been remained untouched over the years, but because of how that was done. It seems from all the available information that the politicians had no contact or discussions even with tax experts in the Treasury. This was a purely political decision that did not arise from the review, from consultation, or from any wider consideration than the need to raise money.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
As I listened to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speak to amendment 15, I thought that my ears were deceiving me because I felt so much sympathy for what he was saying. Indeed, he put me in mind of a book by a reformed Trotskyite, James Burnham, who predicted in “The Managerial Revolution” the system of capitalism—the set of structures—that we now recognise in publicly listed companies. My discomfort evaporated, however, when I realised that the hon. Gentleman was defending the interests of the owners of capital.
Steve Baker
In that case, I am delighted that we are on opposite sides of the Chamber.
It is strange that capitalism has come to this: that, nowadays, the owners of capital need to be defended by the House from their own directors. If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would mean that the change in the main rate for 2011 would not come into force until legislation had provided arrangements for shareholders to approve their directors’ remuneration. It is almost incredible that such an arrangement does not already exist.
We must reunite ownership control and the risk taken with capital, and I believe that the amendment goes to the heart of one of the problems of our capitalist system. I am not sure that it would achieve the aim that the hon. Gentleman has set out because it might not affect the rate for 2011, and I therefore cannot support it. Nevertheless, I think it is an extremely good idea, and I urge the Government to consider it.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
I support amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a shareholder in Shell and a vice-chair of the British offshore oil and gas industry all-party parliamentary group.
The key aim of the amendment is to introduce damage limitation and to rebuild the confidence and trust among investors that the country needs if we are to maximise the benefits of our own oil and gas. The oil and gas under the ground does not provide us with any jobs, tax or security of supply. Those are produced only when it comes out of the ground, and, although it belongs to the nation, we can get it out of the ground only through the expertise and skill of people from my constituency and throughout the country. They apply their knowledge by way of the investment provided by risk capital, and the investors must know, as far as possible, in what climate they are operating and what returns they will obtain. The kind of risk that we rely on their taking is illustrated by a field in the North sea where the geology suggested that three platforms would be enough to sustain production and provide all the necessary equipment. Only when they started extracting the oil did they discover that there was much more sulphur in some parts of the field than in others and that they needed to build a fourth platform at a cost of £1 billion. Such extra risk taken by investors—not by the Government or the taxpayer—must be recognised as being of great importance to our country’s success in this regard.
Last week, we held a reception in Parliament for Subsea UK to highlight an industry that has developed into a jewel in the crown of this country, yielding £6 billion in production from under the sea through engineering skill, half of which is exported from this country. The United Kingdom is responsible for one third of the world’s subsea engineering; we therefore have something very important to nurture and build on.
The field allowance discussions are an important means of trying to unlock some of the fields that will be negatively affected by what has been proposed. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon emphasised a longer term risk that needs to be addressed: the risk not to the projects that are unwinding now and in the next two years, which already had the momentum of contracts signed and delivered before the tax was changed, but to those that will be decided in the culture and investment climate prevailing in the aftermath of the tax. That is why these talks are so important in rebuilding trust and a constructive engagement.
I welcome the fact that industry and Government appear to be addressing the need for constructive engagement, and any updates from Ministers as to how we are progressing in rebuilding trust will be very important. We must remember that the reputations of the country managers—the people in this country who work for the multinational companies and the investors abroad—has been damaged by what happened. They have been encouraging their investors to invest in this country in one set of circumstances, only for the goalposts to be shifted. They need trust and confidence in them to be restored if they are going to persuade their investors abroad—in Calgary and elsewhere—to invest again in our country so we can build on the potential that exists.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Gentleman, his party colleague, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). We have heard about contracts and work that is in place already unwinding, with the likelihood of a gap after 2013 when one set of investment decisions has already been made but others have not yet been taken. I ask the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) to carry on the good work he is doing with his own Government on speeding up this review, so we can avoid that investment gap and the real dangers we will face in a couple of years’ time.
Sir Robert Smith
The purpose of the amendment is to keep the spotlight on this issue by ensuring we get updates from the Government, and that the Government can give a signal on the investment climate showing that they understand the concerns and are willing to take them on board so we can build a long-term future.
There is another gap apart from the time gap as these contracts unravel. We are a mature province so we must ensure that the infrastructure to get the next investments off the ground is still in place in years to come. That infrastructure must not be decommissioned prematurely, and so the investment must not be withdrawn. The owners of the infrastructure need to know that there is a long-term future for investment as more production will be brought in through those platforms. That is another reason why these constructive talks are so important.
I encourage the Government to do all they can to restore confidence and the positive investor climate that will unlock the full potential that exists in this country, build on the skills we already have, and maximise the benefit to the taxpayer in the long run and to our security of supply.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for kicking off this wide-ranging discussion on a number of important tax issues. He certainly enlightened me when he revealed that the Minister is tax personality of the year. I missed that; despite all my “Gauke” Google alerts, I missed the fact that he was tax personality of the year. May I offer the official Opposition’s wholehearted congratulations to him on that?
The hon. Member for Amber Valley gave a number of Ronald Reagan quotes and he said today was the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s birth. That was on 6 February, in fact, but this is the 100th year since Ronald Reagan’s birth. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, today is the day on which we shrank the UK tax base by giving away America 200-odd years ago, and I hope that, as part of his plans for simplification, the hon. Gentleman will recall that.
New clauses 12 and 14 were proposed by the hon. Gentleman and he may be surprised to learn that I am not averse to his suggestion in new clause 14, because there are grounds for discussing the simplification of UK corporation tax returns for multinationals. It is worth while considering the review that he suggests, provided that it examines whether such a simplification will decrease, rather than increase, tax evasion—an increase is always the worry with such a simplification. New clause 14 potentially has merit and although I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to push it to a vote, I hope that the Minister will consider the issue.
New clause 12 proposes to review, or possibly even remove, capital allowances and asks the Office of Tax Simplification to report on replacing them with a different form of relief. The hon. Member for Amber Valley will know that Labour Members had substantial concerns about reducing capital allowances for firms, which explains why I cannot support the new clause. My hon. Friends and I tabled a number of amendments in Committee to oppose the reduction in the capital allowances. I realise that the reduction was tied up strongly with the decision to cut corporation tax to 24% by 2014-15—shortly thereafter it was decided to cut it to 23%— which was one of the flagship growth measures in the June Budget. However, that was paid for by slashing investment and capital allowances, which encourage businesses to take a long-term view by providing tax relief on the purchase of equipment and machinery. The view that I expressed in Committee has not changed, although I know that it will cause disagreement: companies that invest, particularly in manufacturing—car industries in my own area of north Wales, advanced manufacturing, wind turbine manufacturing, plane makers and so on—will benefit from capital allowances, whereas the tax cuts are, unfortunately, aimed at financial services.
At the time of the June 2010 Budget, manufacturers expressed concern at what this approach will mean for industry. More recently, the engineering manufacturers association warned that the Government risk moving to a tax system that contains “a bias” against big manufacturers. Members on both sides of the House are trying to encourage manufacturing growth, and I believe that the review that the hon. Gentleman seeks in the new clause could be damaging to the growth of capital investment and, therefore, to the growth of manufacturing industry.
Nigel Mills
I wish to clarify something. My aim in new clause 12 was not to do what the right hon. Gentleman fears will happen, but to do the opposite. I was aiming to ask the OTS to consider simplifying or replacing the capital allowances regime with one that would match the tax relief more closely to the life of the assets being invested in. My concern was that an 18% reducing balance was giving tax relief over a far longer period than the actual useful life of those assets. I felt that having a simpler system, where a shorter “life” meant that the tax relief would be obtained much faster, would incentivise investment, not discourage it.
Mr Hanson
That is an interesting argument, and I bow to the hon. Gentleman’s detailed knowledge of these matters, which goes back to his professional experience before entering the House. My worry has been placed on the record on Second Reading, in Committee and on several other occasions. For the moment, it is best that we keep our arguments to the effectiveness of capital allowances, and I will, thus, still be unable to support the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) tabled amendments 15, 20 and 17. I suspect that he was even more surprised than me to hear the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) offer his unflinching support for my hon. Friend’s suggestions on this matter. I thank him for tabling his amendments because they make an extremely important contribution to the debate. We face a real issue in how we collectively address what is now a cross-party concern and shed light on the remuneration of executives, who are ultimately paid by the companies for which they work and by us as consumers of those goods in our society at large.
John McDonnell
I had better correct the record. As someone who still sees the relevance of Trotsky’s transitional programme, I am attempting not to salvage capitalism but to expose its weaknesses.
Mr Hanson
Far be it from me to engage with my hon. Friend on the benefits or otherwise of Trotsky’s theory, because I am sure that he would win that discussion hands down.
The key point is that we all seek transparency in remuneration. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington will be aware that there is already legislation on the statute book that means that banks must have transparency in their remuneration. The Government should enact that legislation and should also push for a wider European agreement on transparency, an act of faith that they have so far failed to push for.
The previous Government, in our Financial Services Act 2010, allowed the Treasury to issue regulations that forced banks to disclose in bands the number of staff earning more than £1 million a year. That legislation has so far not been pursued with any vigour by the Government. The Act, which gained Royal Assent in April 2010—just before the general election—gave the Treasury the power to regulate on this issue. It is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has raised and for which the Government must account today. The Opposition will continue to consider it in the future. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made a clear speech to the Coin street neighbourhood centre on Monday 13 June in which he committed the Opposition to ensuring that we had such transparency and that chief executives were accountable not just to their shareholders but to the wider community.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an important feature of exposing those very high bonuses to public scrutiny was to make it clear that other lower paid workers in the banking sector receive some bonus payments? It is very important that we distinguish between the excessive bonuses at the top and the bonuses that top up relatively modest wages for the bank clerks, who are feeling quite attacked personally when the banking crisis was none of their making.
Mr Hanson
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. She will know that the legislation passed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) in the last Parliament allowed salaries of more than £1 million to be open to scrutiny, which would address the issue she mentions.
There is some merit in bringing this issue to the attention of the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for doing so. He will know that there are some issues to do with his amendment delaying corporation tax cuts, but I am grateful that he has addressed the issue and I hope the Minister will respond in due course.
Amendment 17 is about the enterprise investment scheme, which we support. In Committee, we asked the Minister whether he had state aid approval for the EIS and I would welcome an update on whether he has since made progress on that.
I have some sympathy with amendment 51, tabled by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce). On Second Reading and in the Committee of the whole House, we tabled amendments that mirrored his amendment in many ways, asking the Chancellor to produce before the end of September an assessment of the impact of taxation on ring-fenced profits, business investment and growth, including an assessment of the long-term sustainability of oil and gas exploration in the North sea. For the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), the way that the proposal was brought forward contained elements of surprise for the industry. There was a lack of consultation and there have been consequences. The right hon. Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) both mentioned Statoil and the great impact that the decision has had on that company’s potential $10 billion—or £6.1 billion—investment in the North sea.
It is important that the Economic Secretary has had discussions—some potentially very exciting and energetic—with oil companies on these matters as part of her initiation into her role in government. I hope that she will ensure that she reports back. I also hope that the Minister will accept amendment 51, or at least accept an amendment in principle for the future.
Finally, although my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) is not present today because of other matters, I very much welcome his amendment 9, which is part of this group. We raised the issue of video games tax relief in debates on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. However, we need to look at the issue again in detail, if only because the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) said when in opposition:
“We are committed to a tax break along the lines of the video games tax credit. We have been calling for tax breaks for the video game industry for the last three years.”
He said that during the general election, on 13 April 2010. He is now the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, yet he has been sat on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said in his Budget statement last June:
“In the current climate, with the deficit the size…all those reductions in tax must be more than paid for by other changes to business taxation, so we will not go ahead with the poorly targeted tax relief for the video games industry.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 175.]
My hon. Friend’s amendment 9 asks the Government to look again at the issue. I simply put on record the fact that, yet again, those in government said one thing during the election and something else afterwards. We need to encourage the video games industry so that we can compete on a global scale.
In summary, there are some useful amendments in this group. I cannot accept everything that the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, but the other amendments before us have some merit. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, which propose a number of changes to the taxation of business. Let me start by reiterating our position on business tax. The first step in the Government’s plan for growth is a competitive UK tax system. In fact, the Government’s aim is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, and we have been clear about how we intend to achieve that. Last November we published our corporate tax road map, setting out our plans for reform over the next five years and the principles underpinning those reforms. I am quite clear that if we are to provide business with the certainty that it needs to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers.
Let me deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and in particular amendment 15, which deals with directors’ pay, and on which we saw an unlikely alliance between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) in defence of the interests of capital versus workers—if I can phrase it in a way that will please my hon. Friend but not the hon. Gentleman—albeit the highest paid workers. It is worth noting that both hon. Members have made many declarations of independence, and today was no exception. As I have said, a competitive tax regime is the foundation of our plan for growth, and the consequence of amendment 15 would be to delay the reduction in corporation tax.
The Government take the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s concern—directors’ remuneration—seriously; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills raised it on 22 June in a speech to the Association of British Insurers, asking how we can ensure that directors’ remuneration is effectively linked to company performance. To help answer that question, the Government already have plans to consult in two relevant areas. In July, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will look at the narrative aspects of reporting directors’ remuneration, examining the provisions dealing with the disclosure of directors’ remuneration and making the link to company performance much clearer. In the autumn, the Department will explore other policy options related to the role of remuneration committees and company accountability to shareholders.
Turning directly to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, let me first remind him that UK-quoted companies are already required to publish a directors’ remuneration report. That includes full individual details of each director’s pay, including salary and bonuses, share schemes and all other forms of remuneration. His proposal to make the remuneration vote binding in nature would raise difficulties, as such a vote would inevitably cut across contractual arrangements already entered into between the company and the director. That is why the vote is currently advisory in nature.
John McDonnell
Is this issue to be part of the consultation in the autumn? Will it be addressed at all?
Mr Gauke
As I have said, the consultations I have announced will focus on the narrative provisions, the role of remuneration committees and company accountability to shareholders. I am sure that representations could be made to the latter consultation. However, there remains a difficulty with cutting across contractual arrangements and I dare say that there might be issues with the Human Rights Act 1998 were that to happen.
John McDonnell
First, I think it would be greatly reassuring to the House overall if the issue of the binding vote was within the scope of those consultations. Secondly, the issue of contractual commitments has always been the red herring brought up on any future reform. The way around it is simply to make future contracts subject to that binding vote of shareholders.
Mr Gauke
I know that my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are watching this debate very closely and will have listened to the hon. Gentleman’s representations. I noticed that when he referred to the House as a whole, he gestured to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. Whether the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend necessarily represent the views of the House as a whole on all issues I am not sure, but the hon. Gentleman raises a fair point.
Steve Baker
May I say that I think the reason for this unlikely alliance is that the workers now are the capitalists through their pension funds and other investments? I remember a trade unionist explaining to me with some care the new movement for workers’ capital and I think we will be missing a trick as a free-market Government, if indeed we are a free-market Government, if we do not recognise that the workers now are the owners and that we need to help them take control of what they own.
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is trying to lose the support of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington on this, but I fully take his point on board and I shall ensure that BIS is aware of this debate. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has said that shareholder accountability is an area that his Department will be looking into in the autumn.
John McDonnell
This is a serious point, and I say to the Minister that this will come back time and again, because every Government structure put in place by successive Governments on this issue has been unsuccessful in controlling remuneration. There is outrage among the general public about what has been happening, not just in recent years but today with £6 billion bonuses in the City and elsewhere. I say to him in all seriousness that any Government need to address this issue, which concerns the democratic control of what are now public companies in terms of ownership.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman makes his point forcefully. It is worth pointing out that the UK leads the way internationally on the reporting of executive pay and accountability to shareholders. I hope that he will acknowledge that, just as I acknowledge the legitimate concerns he raises. It is our intention to make sure that the framework remains fit for purpose and in line with our approach to delivering long-term returns as our economy grows out of the recession.
The hon. Gentleman’s second amendment, amendment 17, would delay the introduction of clause 42 until a report on the impacts of the enterprise investment scheme had been published. In contrast with corporation tax as a whole, EIS is a focused relief with a particular purpose and is a vital component of the Government’s plan for growth. The scheme encourages investment into smaller, riskier companies by offering a tax incentive to investors. For example, it benefits new start-ups in high-tech sectors such as IT bioscience. Since 1994, about £7 billion from private investors has been contributed to qualifying companies. The Government are building on the success of the scheme with changes in this Finance Bill and in the Bill next year that will increase the incentive for people to invest in smaller companies, helping them to establish and grow.
John McDonnell
How do the Government assess value for money with regard to those schemes, if not in job creation?
Mr Gauke
There have been assessments of the enterprise investment scheme, which has been in place since 1994. We want to encourage greater investment, particularly in smaller companies. We recognise that sometimes there is market failure in that area, which is why tax incentives are justifiable. We have set out as much information as we can, but it is not something on which we can provide precise numbers. That is not the nature of the economy, but the scheme will encourage greater investment and that should be welcomed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for his remarks on my award as tax personality of the year. Some may think it a somewhat oxymoronic award, but I can tell the House that it has changed my life considerably.
My hon. Friend brings much greater expertise to these matters than I do. I welcome the fact that he seeks simplicity, which is not always the case with new clauses and amendments to Finance Bills. I want to make a couple of points that relate to both his new clauses.
First, we do not see it as our role to direct the Office of Tax Simplification. The office has done a lot of good work, but it is important that its independence is respected. Secondly, in its broad work the OTS has looked at the various allowances and reliefs in the tax system and has concluded that they are not areas where it wants to devote its efforts. None the less, I know that the OTS will closely read my hon. Friend’s speech. We are always keen to look at areas where we can improve the administration of the tax system, including his proposals in new clause 14 on consolidated filing.
On new clause 12, the OTS has given initial consideration to capital allowances as part of its review of tax reliefs and its ongoing review of small business taxation. The Government have set out their approach to capital allowances in the corporate tax road map. Allowing each business asset to be written off for tax purposes in line with its own depreciation rates would not necessarily bring the benefits to businesses that the new clause anticipates. Some business assets would depreciate more slowly than they currently do under the capital allowances regime, and it should be noted that the annual investment allowance gives immediate write-off for the plant and machinery expenditure of 95% of UK businesses. There is thus a danger that the new clause could increase business tax complexity.
I know that my hon. Friend tabled his new clauses as probing provisions. I may not have entirely satisfied him, but he has put his case on record and the OTS will of course look carefully at what he says.
I turn finally to amendment 51, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who has played a constructive role on the issue in the three months since the Budget announcement on oil and gas. He made an important contribution when the House debated clause 7 in the Committee of the whole House. He has stressed the importance of working closely with the industry in the months ahead, which the Government committed to do at the time of the Budget. We announced then that we would work with the industry in three key areas: setting the right trigger price for the fair fuel stabiliser; looking at whether we can find a way to provide long-term certainty on decommissioning relief; and looking at the case for new categories of field qualifying for the field allowance. I am pleased to tell the House that we are making good progress in these discussions. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is here this evening, will update the House on progress on those discussions as soon as is appropriate. I hope and expect that she will be able to do so in the very near future. I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling his amendment. Although I have been unable to respond in full detail, I hope that the Government will be in a position to do so shortly.
In conclusion, I remind the House that it is the Government’s aim to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20. We have set out our plans for reform over the next five years in the corporate tax road map, which was published last November. In order to provide businesses with the certainty they need to invest in the UK, tax reforms need to maintain stability, avoid complexity and ensure a level playing field for taxpayers. Therefore, although we have had a good debate, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley to withdraw the motion.
Nigel Mills
My purpose in moving the new clause was to encourage the Government down the route of tax simplification, which I hope I have achieved tonight. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Charge and main rates for 2011-12
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 14, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3) A report on the impact of the current rates of income tax on inequality in the United Kingdom, also taking into consideration all other direct and indirect taxes including duties and excises, council taxes and mandatory charges for the use of cars and televisions and making specific reference to the overall tax rate of taxpayers grouped by decile in the United Kingdom and by each individual constituent country shall be prepared by HM Treasury and laid before the House of Commons not later than 1 December 2011.’.
Amendment 30, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
‘(3) All public sector employees whose earned income does not exceed £21,000 shall be entitled to a £250 reduction in tax liability for the tax year 2011-12.’.
Mr Hanson
I do not intend to detain the House for long on these amendments, although they are important. I particularly welcome amendment 30, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and which I will touch on briefly. Clause 1 deals with rates of taxation and, if approved, will set the rates for the next financial year at 20%, 40% and a special rate of 50%. Amendment 10, which is simple and straightforward, has been tabled by the shadow Treasury team because we want to shed a little light on how the Government will report on their future plans for the 50% rate of tax.
We already know certain key facts. We know that the Chancellor has asked HMRC to collect tax receipts for this financial year and that he has assessed the revenue levels of the 50% rate for this year. In Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said:
“The Chancellor’s Budget statement to the House on 23 March simply highlighted the fact that he has asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as part of that ongoing work, to see how much the additional rate actually raises. HMRC will look at all the available evidence about the impact of the 50% rate, including data from the 2010-11 self-assessment returns, which will become available next year.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 3) Public Bill Committee, 10 May 2011; c. 22.]
My concern, which I will put directly on the table, is that the Government have already prejudiced any decision on the 50p rate of tax by stating clearly that they believe it will do lasting damage to the economy. We want further explanation of the methodology that they will use to consider the 50p tax rate for future Budgets, and I think that the best organisation to do that is the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Government set up the OBR and gave it a number of key roles, one of which I have helpfully drawn from its own website. Under the heading “What we do”, it states:
“We scrutinise the Treasury’s costing of Budget measures: During the run-up to Budgets and other policy statements, we subject the Government’s draft costings of tax and spending measures to detailed challenge and scrutiny.”
All the amendment would do is formally recognise that role in relation to the Government’s forthcoming review of the 50p additional rate.
The Chancellor has said to the House of Commons, the public and anyone who will listen that he sees this as a “temporary measure” and that it will do “lasting damage” to the economy. He has signalled that he will abolish the 50p rate as soon as he can, in line with Conservative thinking before the election. However, the timing remains uncertain. I believe that the Chancellor has pre-empted the review. When HMRC undertakes the review, it will do so on the assumption that at some time around 2013 the Chancellor of the Exchequer will abolish the rate on incomes above £150,000.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
May I congratulate the Opposition on submitting the amendment on time and on its being selected? In relation to this report, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is fair, right and proper that in 1978 the top 1% of earners paid 11% of all tax and that they now pay 25%.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I presume that he does not support the 50p tax rate, whether it raises revenue for the Treasury or not. We do not want HMRC to do a private report for Ministers, and for Ministers then to make political judgments about the 50p additional rate. Through the OBR’s involvement, we want there to be a public report on the impact of the rate which is open to scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) will know that about 308,000 people are affected by the 50p rate. I am not surprised that he supports its abolition and a lower rate, because he knows that it is paid less in my region in Wales, in the north-west region of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and in the north-east region of my other hon. Friends. The benefit of this tax cut, if it happens, will predominantly affect south-east and east England and the wealthier parts of London, although it will not particularly affect the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I understand why the hon. Member for Dover wants to get rid of the rate. If he does, there will be a tax benefit for the richest people in our society and for certain parts of the United Kingdom.
All I am saying to the Minister is that we want to see the evidence on whether the additional rate raises money. If it does not raise money, we want to see it openly scrutinised. If it does raise money, we want to expose that, so that if the Minister and his hon. Friends cut the rate, it will be clear that they are doing so for political reasons and not because it is ineffective.
Charlie Elphicke
The right hon. Gentleman should know that in Dover there is a lot of deprivation. My case is not that we should get rid of the 50p tax rate tomorrow, but that we should do so at the right time. My question was simply whether it is safe and sensible for so much of the tax base to depend on so few people in this country?
Mr Hanson
I just say to the hon. Gentleman that in south-east England, which I recollect covers Dover, some 67,000 people pay the additional rate, whereas in north-east England, which is represented by some of my hon. Friends who are present, only 5,000 people pay it. Clearly, there will be a regional imbalance if this tax cut goes ahead. We will consider those issues in due course. I know that there are areas of great poverty and deprivation in Dover, where people do not pay the additional rate, but the hon. Gentleman has imposed value added tax on those people through votes in the House of Commons, and that is an unfair tax.
The simple point I make to the Minister is that we want open scrutiny of the decisions he takes on the ending or otherwise of the 50p additional rate. The leader of the Labour party has said that we would maintain that rate for the duration of this Parliament. The Minister and his colleagues have indicated that they want to do away with it. They are now trying to produce the information to show why that should be done. I believe that the Office for Budget Responsibility would provide greater scrutiny of that decision than—dare I say it?—the Minister in an in-house decision. We will test the matter tonight, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will accept the amendment. It relates to a core role and duty of the OBR, which is on its website, and I cannot see why he would not wish it to review the Government’s decision formally.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not important that the matter is subject to scrutiny, because the Government continue to tell us that they are looking after everyone in the community, including the less well-off? A review would show whether they have plans to reduce the burden on the highest paid.
Mr Hanson
That is true. My hon. Friend will know that “We’re all in this together” is one of the Government’s refrains, and a review would show whether that is true. I want to know that preferably from the OBR, as suggested in the amendment, but otherwise from the Exchequer Secretary. The Government need to set out why they have decided to reduce the 50p rate in 2013, if that is their decision; what it will cost; what the forgone income will be; and who will benefit. There should not just be internal discussions—the decision should be open to public scrutiny through the OBR.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead for tabling amendment 30, which highlights an extremely important issue. Again, I wish to hear the Exchequer Secretary’s response today. I do not wish to steal my right hon. Friend’s thunder, but he will know that the Conservatives pledged in their manifesto to freeze public sector pay, but to exclude from that 1 million of the lowest-paid workers. It stated that they would
“freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011, excluding the one million lowest paid workers.”
Through great effort, he has used parliamentary questions to uncover the fact that that is not the case, and that the Conservative Government have yet again broken a promise in their election manifesto. I believe that he will make a strong case that we need some explanation from the Government of what they are doing about the impact on low pay of the public sector pay freeze that has been put in place.
My right hon. Friend will know that there are issues to consider about the applicability of his amendment to clause 1 and its workability, and indeed its fairness. However, he has highlighted an extremely important issue, and I want the Exchequer Secretary to explain why the Conservatives’ words about ensuring that low-paid workers were not disadvantaged have proved to be weasel words.
Charlie Elphicke
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s position and that of the official Opposition that they support amendment 30?
Mr Hanson
I have not yet heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has to say about it, but the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that we have discussions not just in the Chamber but outside it as party colleagues. My right hon. Friend will make his case in a moment, and I will listen to it and respond in due course. There are some issues that we need to consider, but it is not for me to respond to amendment 30; it is for the Exchequer Secretary to say why he has let down low-paid workers across the United Kingdom through his promises before the elections and his actions in the Budget. I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend in short order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has yet again tabled an amendment that has a great deal of merit. Although I do not expect it to be pushed to a vote, I want to hear what he says about it, because he has important points to make. The key point on all the amendments is that the Government need to provide clarity. We need clarity about what they are doing on the 50p tax rate and on low-paid workers, and on the points raised by my hon. Friend’s amendment. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the Exchequer Secretary in due course.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I shall not press amendment 30 to a Division tonight, because we will return to the subject in greater detail later in the Parliament. However, I want to address some questions to those on the Treasury Bench. I accept that there are problems with the amendment, but it was the only way that I could find to debate the matter in the House.
I wish to remind the Minister that in the Budget debate of 2010, the Chancellor said that
“the Government are asking the public sector to accept a two-year pay freeze, but we will protect the lowest paid…They will each receive a flat pay rise worth £250”—[Official Report, 22 June 2006; Vol. 512, c. 171.]
He said that the cut-off point would be not £18,000 but £21,000 a year, and he, not the Opposition, estimated that 1.7 million people would receive that pay increase.
A number of Opposition Members, including those who put their names to amendment 30, and many hon. Members, have constituents who believed what the Government said. They believed that they would be protected. The Chancellor’s announcement was a crucial part of protecting those workers, but it was also a crucial part of selling to the wider public the pay freeze that the Government announced. However, those people have so far received no £250 pay increase.
I should therefore like to ask the Minister two questions. First, of the 1.7 million whom not I, but the Chancellor, said would be eligible, how many have received the £250 across-the-board pay increase? Next year’s earnings figures show that the numbers eligible will rise to 2.2 million. Therefore, my second question for those on the Treasury Bench is this: how many of that 2.2 million will receive their £250 pay increase?
I conclude by merely trying to express, perhaps inadequately, a sense of how low-paid workers in my constituency feel. They feel that they have again been let down. The previous Labour Government did not do too well by that group, with the 10p tax rate abolition, and this Government have done not too well by them. Many are women coming up to retirement age who now learn that they must work two years more. They thought they would get £250 as a lump sum to protect them against rising prices and a general wage freeze, but many now find that no such increase is forthcoming. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could give us answers to those two questions.
John McDonnell
May I associate myself with amendment 30, which I also signed? For my constituents, £250 means a lot. It is a lot of money in terms of paying daily bills, but it is also the difference between some children having a summer break this year and not. I hope the Minister responds positively and examines that matter, but I will give him this assurance: if we do not have positive assurances from the Government, we will be back time and again until that money is paid.
I wish to speak to amendment 14, which is in my name. The amendment simply proposes that, as we determine personal income tax rates for the coming year, we look carefully at their impact on inequality. The proposal is from various lobbies in recent months, from religious groups, churches, welfare rights groups, trade unions and other civil society organisations, which have expressed their anxiety about inequality in our society. Like them, I believe that our country is disfigured by inequality and the extremes of wealth and poverty. Consequently, I believe that we should use every legislative weapon possible to address it.
I mentioned some of the extremes of wealth and poverty in the earlier debate on executive pay—some top executives earn a salary that is 145 times the average salary of their workers. The Government’s assessment of wealth distribution last year showed that the total wealth of the top 10% of the population is now 100 times that of the bottom 10%. The simple reason is that the poorest have so little wealth.
In 1986 in the UK, the richest 1% held 25% of marketable wealth. Twenty years later, that had risen to 34% of total national wealth. The poorest 50% had gone from holding 11% of the nation’s wealth to holding just 1% today. That is not solely the result of economic trends or globalisation—it has been Government policy, largely in the 1980s and 1990s, to pursue the systematic redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, and the last Government at least held back the tide for a period.
Taxation policy has a key role to play in addressing inequality and I note that the Treasury Committee quoted Wendell Holmes’ popular dictum that tax is the price we pay for a civilised society. I agree, but civilisation has a range of definitions, one of which is that we should not live in a society that is so starkly unequal—
Kate Green
I very much support the sentiments my hon. Friend is expressing. Does he agree that it is not only the income and consumption taxes that need to be encompassed in his amendment, but the wealth taxes, especially in light of the examples that he has just given us?
John McDonnell
My amendment proposes examination of the whole range of taxes, indirect and direct. It is interesting that the direct taxation system can be progressive in redistribution, but that the indirect system is so regressive in this country. It has a considerable impact on ensuring that we see these vast extremes of poverty and wealth.
It is not only the lobbyists from various organisations who have expressed their concerns about this inequality, because the general public are averse to high levels of inequality too. In recent surveys, 80% to 90% have been in favour of a more equal distribution of wealth in our society. We have had various discussions in this House about the impact of inequality, and none better than the debates around the work by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, “The Spirit Level”, which was ground-breaking.
Richard Wilkinson was an adviser to my party in the early 1990s, when he did the earliest work on the impact of inequality on health. That was revisited in 2005, when he came to the House and briefed several MPs. “The Spirit Level” confirmed what he had suspected in the 1990s and started the debate. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have both accepted that inequality is an issue that must be addressed. In 2009, the Prime Minister quoted from Richard Wilkinson’s book in a major speech, demonstrating that the Conservative party at that time was keen to address some of the issues of inequality. He said that
“among the richest countries it’s the more unequal ones that do worse according to almost every quality of life indicator.”
In his first major speech as leader, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“I do believe that this country is too unequal and the gap between rich and poor doesn’t just harm the poor, it harms us all.”
That is based on the work in “The Spirit Level”.
The argument in “The Spirit Level” is straightforward—that when people in the same social class, at the same level of income and education, are compared across countries, those in more equal societies do better on every measurement, be it health, mortality, obesity, teenage birth rates or mental illness. Their quality of social relations is better too. Inequality is socially divisive, increasing the rate of homicide, hostility and racism. The level of trust in unequal societies is lower than in societies that are more equal, and social capital is less —the engagement in civil society and even in political processes. That is why we need to address the issue of inequality when we consider taxes and our financial strategy.
I realise that this has been a contentious debate, and I have read the arguments made by the TaxPayers Alliance, which has tried to rebut Wilkinson and Pickett’s work, but I have also read the more recent independent research studies that have simply reinforced the inequality argument. Whichever side of the argument Members fall, it is clearly an issue to be considered, and that is why I suggest that we look at taxation as a whole—
Stephen Williams
I agree with virtually everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. I have “The Spirit Level” at home and it will be part of my summer reading as I have not had time to read it yet. Does he at least acknowledge that one of the good things that the coalition Government have done is reduce the exposure to income tax of the lowest paid in society, while at the same time increasing capital gains tax? His Government did the reverse.
John McDonnell
I believe that the hon. Gentleman joined the House at the last election.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been reading my alternative Budgets that I table year after year and which address some of those issues, although he is not alone in not having read them—but there you are!
The purpose of amendment 14 is to examine the issue again and regularly. The equality assessments that we receive from the Government in the budgetary papers consist of one sentence telling us who will gain and who will lose. They do not address the issue of inequality. A wider debate is needed, however, and my amendment would ensure that that debate is revisited and kept in close focus as we determine our financial policies. There have been previous attempts at this, and various reports by various governmental bodies have partly addressed the issue, but they have not been related to specific policy decisions or policy development.
This is more of a plea. The previous Government, of which I had occasional criticisms, set up an excellent initiative in founding the national equality panel under its chair, Professor John Hills. The panel still exists within the Home Office, and it produced a major report in January 2010 entitled, “An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK”. It was extremely detailed and brought together the evidence on economic inequality in our society. It was enlightening and depressing but at the same time motivating. It was enlightening because it exposed not only the scale of inequality but the trend growth over time, which, as I said, was only arrested in the previous decade, not reversed. It was depressing because, as the report stated, the sheer scale of inequalities in outcome—for instance, the sheer scale of differences in wealth—was shocking. The report even implied that it might be impossible to create a cohesive society given the scale of inequality.
The report identified a backdrop of widespread ignorance of the scale of inequality and the lack of awareness in society as a whole among the rich and the poor. It was not just the poor who did not realise how unequal society was; it was also the richest. The report was motivating because it demonstrated that public policy interventions can reduce inequality, particularly interventions around tax and welfare benefits. They can narrow gaps between the rich and the poor and create a more cohesive and successful society. My plea, through this amendment, is that before we agree tax levels, we address the issue of inequality and that we bring forward a further report. I suggest that the national equality panel continues its work, assesses the taxation policies set out in the Budget and brings a report back to the House so that we can be sure that the policies we are pursuing are addressing inequality in our society.
I am obviously aware that through the Child Poverty Act 2010 the previous Government set up the Child Poverty Commission, the remit of which has now been extended to include the issue of social mobility. I am sure that the commission could play a valuable role in assessing the tax decisions in the Finance Bill and their impact on inequality.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be an important opportunity to look again at the assertion that the countries with the highest levels of inequality are also those with the least social fluidity and therefore at the role that tax could play in achieving the Government’s social mobility objectives?
John McDonnell
That is particularly important given that we are in if not a recession, a period of economic inactivity in which the economy has been scraping along the bottom. We have 2.5 million unemployed, of whom nearly 1 million are young people and 1.7 million people are in enforced short or part-time working. As Richard Wilkinson demonstrated, during the ’80s, the social psychological response was either fight or fright: fright meant depression, alcohol and drugs, and fight often meant violence on our streets and, unfortunately, an increase in violent crime.
We should be addressing those issues now, as we pass through this economic recession, which might last some time. It behoves us, as we discuss taxation and if taxation can play a role in addressing inequality, to examine the matter in detail. The amendment simply tries to emphasise that inequality is an important issue that has to be addressed and that all legislation needs to be reviewed and assessed in the light of its impact and effectiveness in addressing inequality. The amendment therefore calls for a report to be brought back to the House addressing that matter. In that way, we might at least acquire an understanding of the impact of taxation policies on inequality, even if we might disagree on specific taxation policies.
Mr Love
I associate myself with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and its focus on inequality. I want to pick up on that focus, and on the discussion we had a few moments ago about the Government’s claim that we are all in this together. I shall subject that to scrutiny through amendment 13, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). As my right hon. Friend said, and as has been said by those on our Front Bench, the Conservative manifesto at the 2010 general election included a commitment to
“freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011, excluding the one million lowest paid workers”.
It was announced in the 2010 Budget that there would be a two-year pay freeze, except for those earning £21,000 or less, who would receive an increase of at least £250 a year. In his statement, the Chancellor went on to say that 1.7 million public servants would benefit from that and receive the £250 for two years.
In the Budget statement this year, the Chancellor had changed his tune somewhat. He said:
“I can confirm today that in the coming year all workers in the armed forces, the prison service and the NHS, and teachers and civil servants, earning £21,000 a year or less will receive a pay uplift of £250.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 508, c. 963.]
That is considerably less than the commitment given in the 2010 Budget, and it is different from—and, in a sense, considerably less than—the commitment given in the Conservative manifesto. Some work has been done that shows that if the measures include only public sector workers who are under ministerial control and subject to pay review bodies—that is in essence what the Chancellor is saying—that commitment is very considerably less. As I understand it, it equates to less than half the original number affected.
In supporting amendment 30, I want to ask the Minister directly whether he accepts that the Conservative manifesto misled the people of this country. Does he accept that, in his Budget statement in 2010, the Chancellor misled the House and the people of this country? Does he also accept that the present number of people who will benefit from the £250 uplift is considerably lower than the number originally envisaged? In those circumstances, and given the difficulties that we face in a debate of this nature on taxation, will he accept the thrust of the amendment? Will the Government recommit to doing something to address low pay for those earning less than £21,000 a year? Will the Minister also ensure that everyone earning under that amount will receive the £250, given that only some are doing so at present?
Mr Gauke
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Amendment 10 would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to report on the revenue raised by the additional rate of income tax. Amendment 14, meanwhile, seeks a report on the impact on inequality of all taxes, and amendment 30 seeks to provide a £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector workers earning less than £21,000.
I deal first with amendment 10. At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor asked HMRC to assess the revenue raised by the additional rate. As I explained during the extensive debate on this clause in Committee, which the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) will well recall, HMRC will consider all the available evidence on the impact of the additional rate, including data from the 2010-11 self-assessment returns, which will become available next year. Data from tax returns are clearly essential in any assessment of the revenue raised, but of course they contain confidential taxpayer information and are best reviewed by HMRC. It already has the expertise in monitoring and evaluating tax measures and is resourced to do so in future. The Office for Budget Responsibility has a different remit in producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts, judging policy against the fiscal mandate and analysing the sustainability of the public finances.
Kate Green
I understand what the Minister says, but does that not suggest that one useful role that the Office for Budget Responsibility could fulfil would be to take a dynamic look at the effect of the 50% tax rates on, for example, the propensity of people to remain in the country and pay that tax and the longer-term impact on the economy?
Mr Gauke
I would not necessarily have put the hon. Lady down as an advocate of a more dynamic assessment of the tax measures, but perhaps I was mistaken in my understanding of her views. The purpose of the review that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced will be to enable HMRC to see what has happened in the first year. It is right to say that there are long-term effects that will not necessarily be incorporated in that first year’s data, and I think anyone with an understanding of these matters would acknowledge that.
It is perfectly reasonable to make the point that if the 50p rate were to become a permanent feature of our tax system, it could damage the UK’s competitiveness. That is a point that the noble Lord Mandelson appears to support and I believe that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who introduced the 50p rate as Chancellor, saw it as a temporary measure, while Tony Blair has made it clear that he thinks the 50p rate is a mistaken policy—full stop. Our view, however, is that at this time, because of the sacrifices we are asking people to make, the 50p rate does play a role, but we want to analyse what revenue it brings in the short term and to gain an understanding of its long-term effects.
As the additional rate was introduced by the previous Government, I can perfectly understand why the right hon. Member for Delyn is so interested in establishing whether it was a successful policy, but when he talks about public scrutiny of Budget measures I must ask him what public scrutiny was there when the 50p rate was introduced? To what extent was the analysis published then, and to what extent was it published when the 10p rate of income tax was doubled? What information was put into the public domain at that point? As a Government, we have done much more on putting information into the public domain by publishing our analysis. Announcements in this area will be made by the Chancellor at the appropriate time. It is peculiar, however, to hear the Opposition proposing more evidence-based policy making only to reject the notion, it seems to me, that this Government should consider the evidence before making any further commitments.
I turn now to amendment 14, which deals with the impact of tax on inequality. I realise that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has his own views on inequality, some of which may not necessarily be shared by his Front-Bench team. I thank him for tabling this amendment, however, as it provides me with an opportunity to highlight the significant steps that the Government have taken in 13 months to address inequality through the tax system.
First and foremost, the Government are committed to ensuring that the income tax system gives more support to those on low to middle incomes, and rewards the efforts of those who choose to work. That is why the June 2010 Budget announced a £1,000 increase in the income tax personal allowance for those aged under 65. A further £630 increase was announced in Budget 2011. That will make the personal allowance £8,105 from next year. Together, those increases will benefit 25 million individuals, and take 1.1 million low-income individuals out of income tax—an important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) highlighted. Basic rate taxpayers will gain by £210 per year on average. That is part of our stated objective to increase the personal allowance to £10,000, with real terms steps in that direction every year.
Income tax is not the only area in which the Government are tackling inequality. All local authorities in England have voluntarily frozen or reduced their council tax in 2011-12 and as a result have qualified to receive additional Government grant equivalent to a 2.5% increase in their band D council tax. We have committed £1.9 billion to ease the burden on motorists, including the 1p cut in fuel duty as opposed to the 6p increase under the plans of the previous Government. We are supporting pensioners through the triple guarantee of state pensions being uprated by earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is highest. The television licence will be frozen for the next six years.
Clearly, the Government have taken great strides to tackle inequality in this country.
Kate Green
What steps have the Government taken to reduce inequality by concentrating on taxation not at the bottom of the income spectrum but at the top?
Mr Gauke
As was mentioned earlier, we have increased capital gains tax rates from those that we inherited, and our income tax decreases have been focused on the low paid. That is an example of what we are trying to do. The point is how to ensure that we have a competitive tax system so that we have the growth that the economy needs and that benefits all our constituents.
Let me turn to the report requested by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.
I draw his attention to the detailed analysis that the Government have published on the impact of direct tax, indirect tax, tax credits and benefit reforms, which can be found in annexe A to “Budget 2011”. The Government have gone further than any previous Government in presenting distributional analysis of how changes to taxes, tax credits and benefits affect households. We have published detailed analysis at Budget 2011, the spending review and the June Budget 2010. That analysis shows that the top decile sees the largest losses from the cumulative impact of tax, tax credit and benefit reforms introduced at Budget 2011 and previous fiscal events. In cash terms, the top decile loses more than twice as much as the ninth decile, and 10 times as much as the bottom decile. That is the case if one looks at the overall impact or in cash terms, as a percentage of net income, or across income or expenditure deciles.
John McDonnell
Will the Government publish anything with regard to the distribution of wealth—for example, the impact of such policies on the Gini co-efficient?
Mr Gauke
We will make further announcements as and when necessary, but we are publishing much more information on distributional analysis than any previous Government have. It is right to do so, and to take steps to ensure that the House and the whole country can debate such matters with as much information presented in future. A striking contrast can be drawn with regard to one policy—the doubling of the 10p rate—about which the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) had concerns. It was difficult to obtain any information on that policy’s impact, although we have learned in recent weeks that much of the information about that was available to Ministers at the time.
Amendment 30 seeks to provide a one-off £250 reduction in the tax liability of all public sector employees earning less than £21,000. In the June 2010 Budget, we announced a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000. That is one of the many difficult choices that we have had to make to help put the UK’s public finances back on track, and it does not mean that we do not value the work done throughout the public sector. All Members know that those in the public sector work hard for the benefit of society. However, pay freezes of this sort save jobs. Given that we are having to constrain public spending and given that the fiscal deficit requires cuts, a pay freeze will help to mitigate the effect of those cuts. Because we recognise that the freeze will be hardest on the lowest-paid public sector workers, it was announced in the June Budget that those earning a full-time equivalent of £21,000 or less would receive an uplift of at least £250 in both years of the freeze.
Both the Labour party’s manifesto at the time of the last general election and the 2009 pre-Budget report announced a 1% increase for public sector workers across the board, apart from the armed services. No distinction was made between the low paid and the high paid. Under a Labour Government, none of those earning less than £21,000 a year—including nurses, teaching assistants, police community support officers and hospital porters—would be receiving a £250 increase.
Mr Frank Field
What we said at the last general election is not very relevant, because we lost. The other side won, and made a commitment in the Budget. The Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box where the Minister is standing tonight, and said that 1.7 million low-paid workers in the public sector would receive an increase of £250. What we now want to know is how many are being paid the £250, and, if 1.7 million are not being paid that sum, what steps the Government will take to ensure that they are paid it.
Mr Gauke
The policy advocated by the Labour party when they were in government would have resulted in none of these public sector workers receiving £250.
We will ensure that the policy on pay increases for low-paid local government workers is applied across the civil service and to work forces with pay review bodies. That will include civil servants, NHS staff, teachers, members of the armed forces and those working in prisons. Many civil servants, nurses and prison officers, and the armed forces, have already received the £250 increase this year and can expect a further £250 increase next year, but other work forces have responsibility for negotiating their own pay deals. Decisions on the pay of local government work forces are for local government employers, rather than central Government, to negotiate. Provision was made in the local government settlement for local authorities to pay the £250 increase, but the fact remains that the decisions are made by local authorities. We gave them the opportunity to pursue the policy that we are pursuing at national level, but it is ultimately for them to decide how to pay their employees.
Mr Field
At the Dispatch Box, the Chancellor said that 1.7 million low-paid workers in the public sector would receive increases of £250 this year and next year. Will the Minister please tell the House how many of those 1.7 million have received the promised sum—promised by the Chancellor, not by me?
Mr Gauke
Where it is within the Chancellor’s control because the money is paid through central Government, those low-paid public sector workers will receive the £250. For those who work in local government, which is not within the control of central Government, we have provided local authorities with the funding to be able to meet that policy objective.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
My own Tory council totally ignored the Chancellor’s directive to give that money, and in the debate on the budget refused to give the £250 to our low-paid workers and said it had put in place a balanced budget that was in line with the Chancellor’s requests. What does the Minister think of that?
Mr Gauke
It is for local authorities to determine what they pay their employees, but we have given them the extra money to fund this, and we would like local authorities to fulfil the objective that we are achieving at national level. We do not control local authorities, but we can provide them with the funding, and we did that. Our intention was that all low-paid workers would receive the £250, but we do not—and should not—have the ability to mandate local authorities to pay their workers, and that is currently up to them.
John McDonnell
When the Chancellor made his statement, there were no caveats; it was a straightforward commitment to pay 1.7 million workers the £250. The Chancellor gave a moral commitment; it therefore behoves the Government to intervene to ensure the Chancellor’s pledge is fulfilled to all 1.7 million workers, without any caveats.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that the Government had specifically given this money to local authorities. If we are now hearing that authorities—of all political persuasions, perhaps—such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) have not been paying it as they should, will the Government take that money back?
Mr Gauke
No. The funding settlement with local authorities was made on the basis that the money would be available for them to pay to low-paid public sector workers, but it is ultimately their decision.
Returning to the amendment of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I understand that it is intended to help enforce the Government’s policies, and I am sure he intends to be helpful. However, we do not believe that using the tax system is the right way to address this; we do not think that will be practical. It would add complexity to the tax system, and I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment, especially as I know he will return to this subject at a later date.
Mr Gauke
I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions, and I think it is time to conclude.
I have explained why the assessment of the additional rate of income tax requested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must be prepared by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I have explained that the analysis the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington seeks already exists, and I have explained why the Government’s approach to assisting the lowest-paid public workers is the right one. There is no need for these amendments, so I ask for them to be withdrawn.
Mr Hanson
What is clear is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has exposed completely the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised one thing at the election and one thing in his Budget, and has not delivered on that promise completely. I know that we will return to that issue during the next few weeks and months.
On the issue of the Office for Budget Responsibility, I wish to press amendment 10 to a Division and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Musculoskeletal Diseases
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The genesis of this debate was four reports into musculoskeletal disorders from about two years ago. The first was from the National Audit Office, one was the King’s college report, there was another from the umbrella organisation, the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, and the final one was the clinical advice from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Those four reports led to an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on 19 January 2010 at column 1WH of the Official Report. I advise the Minister to take a look at that hour and a half debate in which many more points were made than—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting. There are Members behind the Chair making a frightful racket and it should not happen. They should leave the Chamber and show some courtesy to the Member who is developing his speech. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman who should now resume.
Graham Stringer
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Many more points were made in that debate than it is possible to make in a half hour debate in this Chamber. What the then Government were essentially being asked was to take action to ensure better clinical outcomes for the money being spent on musculoskeletal disorders. The real ask from the community was for a clinical director or so-called tsar. In a sense, however, the most important ask is not that, but that there is an outcome strategy that improves the outcome for people suffering from musculoskeletal disorders. In many ways, in spite of those four reports and the debates that have taken place since, the situation nationally remains much the same. The statistics are worth going through in some detail. The amount of money spent on musculoskeletal disorders is large—£4.76 billion, which is the fourth-largest category spend within the NHS. That money is spent on 25% of the population as one in four people have a musculoskeletal disorder. That is 9.6 million adults and 12,000 children. Many people think that arthritis and rheumatism affect only older people, but that is not true. They can affect people of any age, as is perfectly illustrated by the fact that 12,000 children suffer from it. In terms of costs, the magnitude of the issue is that one visit in every four to a general practitioner concerns musculoskeletal disorders and 10.8 million working days are lost because of such disorders.
Those are the statistics. The problem is that there is no equality of outcome and no sense that when money is put into the system outcomes improve. About two years ago, partly in response to the reports, the previous Government put £600 million more into the system, but there was no noticeable improvement in outcomes. The NHS atlas of variation shows a threefold difference in spending in different parts of the country, but it does not relate to differences in incidence, prevalence or severity of the problem; nor does it necessarily relate to better outcomes. Although there is a threefold difference generally, the difference for rheumatoid arthritis is five times, for hip replacements 14 times, cemented hips 16 times and for uncemented hips it is 30 times. Clearly something unusual is happening in that area of the service and it requires examination.
Quite simply, current services do not ensure swift treatment of arthritis, which in many cases is vital. I shall give an example from one category of disorder: rheumatoid arthritis. People think it is the same as any other arthritis but it is not; it is an auto-immune disease and few people suffer from it. Many GPs see only one new case every year or so, which is surprising but true. Because GPs do not see such cases regularly, patients often have to visit their GP about three times before they receive treatment, but early treatment is vital. The time before treatment means not only pain but also that the rheumatoid arthritis is not cured. Since a third generation of drugs—the biologics—has been developed, the disease is curable in a large number of cases if treatment is given quickly enough. Even if the disease is not curable, what matters is getting the patient to a multidisciplinary team of physiotherapists, consultant surgeons, doctors and community nurses as quickly as possible.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out his stall powerfully. It is a difficult subject. Does he agree that early intervention is good not only for the patient, because they can recover faster or get to grips with the condition, but also for the economy, because the person is more likely to be able to continue active employment, and for the health service because early intervention is likely to cost less in the longer term?
Graham Stringer
Precisely. I mentioned the total number of lost days. In the vast majority of cases of rheumatoid arthritis, people stop working two years after diagnosis, but if diagnosis and treatment are earlier it is most likely that even if the person is not cured they could continue working for longer.
The Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance—ARMA—is calling for a number of things, but before I put its case I note the following points. The fact that there are unsatisfactory differences in inputs and outcomes is not completely an accident. By and large, the services have not had the attention they deserve. I am not making a party political point; the situation has been going on for a number of years and unfortunately it continues. The quality and outcomes framework contains no indicator for musculoskeletal conditions. Why not? The musculoskeletal services framework of 2006 lacked leadership and was largely ignored by the centre in the NHS, GP training in musculoskeletal conditions remains poor, despite the evidence I have just given about the importance of GPs recognising precisely what form of musculoskeletal disorder a patient has, and only two of the NICE policy standards announced so far relate to musculoskeletal conditions—for hip fractures and osteoarthritis—out of the vast range of some 200 conditions covered by this generic term.
ARMA is calling for an outcomes strategy as a vital first step in addressing the current failures in provision of treatment and care for people with these disorders. What would that strategy look like? It would cover a number of areas, including outcomes, demonstrating how high-quality musculoskeletal services can deliver improvements in the outcomes measured in the NHS outcomes framework, particularly gaining independence and returning to work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) pointed out.
The useful slogan, “no decision about me without me”, should also be a guiding factor, enabling patient involvement and shared decision making at all points in the patient pathway and, in particular, encouraging better self-management and at the same time improving general public awareness of musculoskeletal conditions. The information revolution is also relevant for setting out and making public the key sources of data on the performance of and expenditure on musculoskeletal services and improving our understanding of outcomes beyond hip and knee replacements, which account for only 20% of expenditure. There must be co-ordinated service delivery, joining up delivery across the NHS and social care services. Commissioning should describe the measures of success that will be used to assess clinical commissioning groups and set out the support that will be provided to commissioners. Training for GPs in musculoskeletal medicine is also important. We must enhance the currently small component in training to support GPs in providing effective and timely treatment and care to patients, as well as informing their commissioning decisions.
ARMA’s request of 18 months ago for a direct musculoskeletal service was reasonable. Even if there is to be no service director, ARMA’s requests are quite reasonable, because surely the Minister cannot be satisfied with how services are being delivered across the country, with different inputs and massively different outputs.
I finish by quoting Professor Emery of Leeds university. He was talking about rheumatoid arthritis, but this applies to any of these conditions. He said that it is the “most common treatable disability”. Essentially, it is not treated as well as it should be and the disability could be removed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and hopefully he will respond positively to what should be a reasonable way forward.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing the debate and bringing to the House’s attention an important issue. He has rehearsed the statistics, but behind them are people with real lives, in some cases suffering in agony and having difficulty getting on with their lives as a consequence of musculoskeletal disease.
Let me make it clear from the outset that the Government fully recognise the impact that musculoskeletal disease has on individuals and society as a whole and that, although there are excellent services in some parts of the country, there is still far too much variation in the availability of services and the outcomes they secure for people. This debate is about how we will respond to that evidence and to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House tonight, and about how we will deliver the change on the ground that we all want to see as constituency Members.
The hon. Gentleman argued for a national outcomes strategy on musculoskeletal conditions. He made some important points and I will try to address directly some of the concerns that sit behind them. The 34 organisations in the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Alliance, which he has spoken on behalf of this evening, make some important points. They have been in discussions with the Department of Health about their concerns over how we will ensure that the differences between services around the country are addressed so that people get access to the right services at the right time.
On 19 April, officials wrote back to the alliance to confirm that we would
“ask the National Quality Board to look at this area as a potential topic for a national outcomes strategy”.
By that, we mean that it will consider whether there are problems in our approach to these conditions that go wider than the NHS. It is important to understand that an outcomes strategy produced by the Department of Health looks out from the NHS to wider impacts on health and considers how those might be influenced to improve health outcomes for people. It will also look at what needs to be done about efforts that are already in hand, to ensure that the NHS is more responsive to patients’ needs and that there is an uptake of good clinical practice.
I do not believe that the case has been fully made for such an outcomes strategy, and I want to explain to the hon. Gentleman, and through him to members of the alliance, why that is. A number of steps have been taken in the past 12 months that have moved us on significantly from the debate that the hon. Gentleman spoke about at the beginning of his remarks. I understand that the National Quality Board will consider its future work programme at its meeting this month. It will decide whether it is appropriate to commission the necessary work to look at the case for a Department-led outcomes strategy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will ensure that not only this debate but the debate that took place in 2010 are cited by the members of that board.
I will spend a little time describing what is happening now. The hon. Gentleman referred to the musculoskeletal framework that the Department published in 2006. He spoke about the impact of that strategy, and I will say more about that in a moment. The document was developed in collaboration with a wide range of patient and professional organisations. It set out a vision for services based on the concept of an integrated care pathway—exactly the sort of pathway that the hon. Gentleman talked about. The clear aim was to help the NHS to organise services so that patients could access a variety of primary and secondary care services according to their need, including physiotherapy, clinical psychology, specialist rheumatology and surgery, and have a seamless transition from one service to another.
The model proposed depended on the idea of a multidisciplinary clinical assessment and treatment service, or CATS, for musculoskeletal services. That would bring together clinicians from primary and secondary care, assess patients’ needs, treat them locally where possible, and where necessary refer them on for specialist hospital care. The document recognised that different health communities would implement the framework in different ways, and that it should be possible in some circumstances to offer patients a choice of pathways.
Three years after the publication of that document, in spring 2009, the British Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine held a symposium to review progress in implementing the framework. Today’s debate echoes the frustration that was felt there. Although the symposium found that a number of excellent services had been developed, incorporating the vision of services integrated around the needs of patients, which this Government strongly endorse, interestingly it also found that those services were very different from one another. Some were still based in hospitals, some were in the community. Some were a see-and-treat type of service, but others had triage-based systems to refer people on to the most appropriate service. However, as the hon. Gentleman identified, there was still a patchiness to the provision.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the need to integrate services, which the Government are determined to drive forward in order to deliver better results for patients. We need to do that at the same time as acknowledging that people want to be able to exercise the maximum possible control and choice over their treatment. We set out our course clearly last year in the White Paper on the NHS, and just recently in the response to the NHS Future Forum we made it clear that we would be placing explicit duties on clinical commissioning groups to promote integrated services for patients. We will also further strengthen existing duties planned for the NHS commissioning board. We will amend the proposed duty of Monitor to make it clear that its core duty is to promote and protect the interests of patients, rather than to promote competition as an end in itself.
We intend those amendments, taken together, to create a strong incentive for local commissioners to take forward more integrated services, which I think all of us in the House wish to see delivered for people with musculoskeletal disorders and other patients. However, we have to go beyond just health integration and ensure that we achieve integration across health and social care. The hon. Gentleman was right about the concept of “no decision about me, without me”. We need to ensure that it is hard-wired into the way the NHS works.
Paul Burstow
As ever, there is a clear obligation on us to respond to reports and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, which we happily fulfil. I am sure that we will do that if we have not already done so, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking.
I turn to the specific issue of outcomes. The Government believe that a focus on outcomes is key to how we can drive improvements in the NHS. It is also how we can hold the NHS to account. That was why we published the NHS outcomes framework, to which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton referred, in January. It has five key domains that are populated by measures that will be used to judge outcomes. They are preventing people from dying prematurely; enhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions; helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury; ensuring that people have a positive experience of care; and treating and caring for people in a safe environment and protecting them from avoidable harm.
The second domain, improving the quality of life of people with long-term conditions, is clearly the most relevant to the debate. It includes an instrument known as EQ-5D, which is to measure people’s quality of life in a number of respects including mobility, pain and the ability to carry out the usual activities of daily living. The inclusion of that measure was the result of feedback from the public consultations last year on the outcomes framework. It is clear from the analysis done by the Department’s economists that almost half the total burden of disease, as measured by that instrument, is due to musculoskeletal disease.
In other words, the inclusion of that instrument in the NHS outcomes framework highlights clearly the importance of musculoskeletal conditions to the population, and why commissioners and clinicians need to focus their efforts on designing and delivering care pathways of the type outlined in the framework in 2006. It shows how that can have a significant impact on the aggregate score in the outcomes framework on enhanced quality of life for people with long-term conditions. It will not be possible to achieve success, as set out in the framework, without making progress in that way. There is a powerful new lever in the system as a consequence of the outcomes framework.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the atlas of variation, which is also a powerful tool for identifying outliers and allowing the appropriate challenge of commissioners and others on the decisions they have made. We intend it to be used by commissioners in that way, to drive improvements in the service.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman sees quality standards as a useful tool. NICE has already developed a quality standard for osteoarthritis, and we are looking at the scope for the development of a quality standard in pain management. We are about to see a further consultation on a range of subjects for the next batch of clinical quality standards. We have the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions on a musculoskeletal condition standard in mind.
This short but timely debate has highlighted an important area of health policy in which we need significant improvements on the ground. The evidence and clinical advice to provide excellent services is there, but we need clinicians to use their leadership role in the NHS to drive change, and we need to take the opportunities of changes in clinical and commissioning leadership to drive forward those reforms. I shall certainly ensure that the debate is referred to those who need to take such decisions, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Taxation: Domicile
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of non-domiciled UK taxpayers who will pay the annual levy in (a) 2011-12 and (b) 2012-13;
Mr Gauke
There is currently a £30,000 annual charge for non-domiciled individuals who have been resident for at least seven of the past nine years and wish to retain access to the remittance basis of taxation. In Budget 2011, the Government announced that it would consult on raising this charge to £50,000 for non-domiciled individuals who have been resident for at least 12 years with a view to implementing this change from the 2012-13 tax year. The number of individuals estimated to pay the annual charges of £30,000 and £50,000 are:
Rounded | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|
£30,000 | 7,400 | 5,900 |
£50,000 | 0 | 3,700 |
Total | 7,400 | 9,600 |
Those individuals liable to the charge but who choose not to pay it will instead be liable to UK taxation on their worldwide income and gains.
The Government have no estimates for the change in the number of non-resident taxpayers between 2009 and 2010. Information relating to the tax year 2010-11, ending in April 2011, is not yet available.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Gauke
There is currently a £30,000 annual charge for non-domiciled individuals who have been resident for at least seven of the past nine years and wish to retain access to the remittance basis of taxation. In Budget 2011, the Government announced that it would consult on raising this charge to £50,000 for non-domiciled individuals who have been resident for at least 12 years with a view to implementing this change from the 2012-13 tax year. The number of individuals estimated to pay the annual charges of £30,000 and £50,000 are:
Rounded | 2011-12 | 2012-13 |
|---|---|---|
£30,000 | 7,400 | 2,600 |
£50,000 | 0 | 3,700 |
Total | 7,400 | 6,300 |
Those individuals liable to the charge but who choose not to pay it will instead be liable to UK taxation on their worldwide income and gains.
The Government have no estimates for the change in the number of non-resident taxpayers between 2009 and 2010. Information relating to the tax year 2010-11, ending in April 2011, is not yet available.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Extraordinary EU Competitiveness Council (27 June 2011)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Baroness Wilcox, has today made the following statement:
I represented the UK at an extraordinary EU Competitiveness Council which took place in Luxembourg on 27 June 2011.
The presidency had organised this extra Council to reach agreement of general approaches for two draft EU regulations on the creation of an EU unitary patent under the enhanced co-operation process (involving 25 member states); and on the EU unitary patent language translation arrangements. The UK had successfully lobbied the presidency to postpone these decisions until this Council in June to allow time for parliamentary scrutiny.
At the Council the Hungarian EU presidency and the Commission repeated their support for the unitary patent. In my intervention I supported the general approaches for both draft EU regulations and I commented on two particular elements of the proposals—first that the system for the distribution and renewal of fees will need to be administered in a way that does not impose unjustified extra costs; and secondly that future implementation would need to be legally robust. All the 25 member states in the enhanced co-operation process unanimously confirmed their support for both general approaches and they were therefore agreed. The presidency and the Commission however confirmed that work would need to continue on the details of the proposals over the next six months, under the forthcoming Polish EU presidency.
There were also three short any other business items taken without any discussion among member states. These comprised information given by the presidency about EU energy research activities and confirmation that agreement had been reached on the Euratom framework research programme and on the EU consumer rights directive.
Exotic Notifiable Diseases of Animals
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I have today laid before Parliament the “National Contingency Plan for Exotic Notifiable Diseases of Animals” in accordance with Section 14A of the Animal Health Act 1981 (as amended); this provision came into force on 24 March 2003.
This plan sets out the operational response arrangements DEFRA will put in place to deal with any occurrence of foot and mouth disease, avian influenza or Newcastle disease. The plan is also applicable to all other exotic diseases of animals.
The plan outlines the systems and structures which are established and details the roles and responsibilities of Ministers and officials during an outbreak of disease and also highlights the work undertaken on preparedness for an outbreak.
It replaces DEFRA’s “Contingency Plan for Exotic Animal Diseases” which was laid before Parliament on 15 December 2009.
DEFRA’s contingency plan is very much a “living document”. It will be subject to ongoing revision taking on the latest developments in science, research, and epidemiological modelling together with lessons identified from outbreaks.
To meet the provisions of the Animal Health Act, the plan will also be subject to annual review.
Consular Evacuation Procedures
(12 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)
In the light of the challenges posed by the evacuation of British nationals from Libya, I announced on 23 February that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would review its arrangements for leading the evacuations of British nationals in a crisis. I said that the review would consider the contingency arrangements that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London and all posts have in place, and the triggers and procedures for moving to a crisis footing and mounting civilian and military evacuation operations.
That review is now complete and I am today placing a copy in the Library of the House. I have given instructions that its recommendations should be implemented in full by 31 December 2011.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, working closely with the Ministry of Defence and key allies and partners, evacuated over 800 British nationals and over 1,000 other nationals from Libya in the space of a number of days. This was a significant achievement but the operation presented huge challenges because of the volatile and deteriorating situation in Libya. It stretched the FCO’s crisis response capability, taking place as it did against the backdrop of a wider and unfolding crisis in the middle east and north Africa region that had already seen evacuations of British nationals from Tunisia and Egypt. The earthquake in New Zealand, with British nationals among the fatalities, added to the pressure.
Both the Prime Minister and I have told the House that there are lessons we would wish to learn from this evacuation and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has already acted on a number of the recommendations in the review, including: extending the range of suppliers who we can call on to provide charter flights to support any assisted departure or evacuation; increasing staffing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s crisis management department; enhancing crisis training for staff; making ever greater use of both traditional and digital channels to communicate with British nationals in a crisis; and developing a better crisis management command and control structure within the FCO.
Implementing the findings of the review will help further strengthen the FCO’s crisis response function. The security and well-being of British nationals is always our absolute priority in a crisis. The evacuation of British nationals from Libya was the most complex FCO-led evacuation in recent years. Learning the lessons from recent events will ensure we are ready for the different circumstances the next crisis will present.
Commission on the Funding of Care and Support
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The final report of the Independent commission on the funding of care and support, “Fairer Care Funding”, has been published today and a copy has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
I shall make an oral statement later today.
Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (Final Report)
(12 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 final report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD), prepared at the request of the British and Irish Governments, has been published today by both Governments. I have placed a copy of the report in the Library.
This final report reflects on the IICD’s 12 years in operation from September 1997 to the ending of the decommissioning amnesty in February 2010. It provides an account of arms decommissioned by paramilitary organisations, a summary of key factors that enabled the commission to deliver its objectives and highlights the lessons learnt.
The commission’s remit was to provide a mechanism, entirely independent of Government, to execute the decommissioning of paramilitary arms in a manner that rendered them permanently inaccessible or unusable. The task was difficult and the commissioners worked tirelessly to achieve it. There is no doubt that their independence and high level of commitment were crucial in gaining the confidence of paramilitary organisations. The resulting major acts of decommissioning they secured have contributed to making Northern Ireland a more peaceful, stable and inclusive society.
Many will be expecting an inventory to be included in the report. The IICD did not provide the British and Irish Governments with an inventory when they submitted their final report. This was rightly a decision taken independently by the commission. The commissioners say in their final report that
“providing details now of what paramilitary arms have been put beyond use, could, in our opinion, encourage attacks on those groups which have taken risks for peace. This is true of both loyalists and republican paramilitary groups. We would not wish, inadvertently, to discourage future decommissioning events by groups that are actively engaged today, nor to deter groups that have decommissioned their arms from handing over any arms that may subsequently come to light” (paragraph 30).
The IICD has made arrangements for the safe retention of the records of decommissioned arms by the United States Department of State in Washington who will hold them securely.
Sadly, as recent violent events revealed, there remain those who have rejected peace and politics and who want to drag Northern Ireland back to its troubled past. However, the majority of paramilitary organisations have decided to pursue their goals by political and democratic means exclusively. The IICD’s final report is a valuable insight into how this has been achieved. Northern Ireland has made great strides towards stable, local democracy and I wish to place on record my immense gratitude to the Commission and their staff for their enormous contribution and longstanding commitment to their work.
Independent Monitoring Commission (Final Report)
(12 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 26th and final report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC), prepared at the request of the British and Irish Governments, has been published today by both Governments. I am laying the report before Parliament.
The IMC was set up in 2004. The commission’s remit was to independently monitor and report on paramilitary activities, on security normalisation, and any claims that any Minister or party in the Northern Ireland Assembly was not committed to democratic means.
During the seven years over which the IMC carried out this role, the level and nature of paramilitary activity has changed significantly. Operation Banner was successfully completed and the political situation in Northern Ireland has been transformed with devolution now complete and the Northern Ireland Assembly entering its second term.
The IMC has played a significant part in supporting and enabling historic changes over the years. Its independence has been vital in gaining the confidence of all those it worked with and is clearly illustrated in what they have delivered. I would like to place on record my deep gratitude to the IMC commissioners and staff for their sustained commitment over the past seven years.
The commission’s final report documents the changes that have taken place during this period and provides an assessment of the factors that helped it in delivering its remit and the lessons learnt. It is a valuable document which will be of interest to those who are, have been and continue to be involved in the peace and political process in Northern Ireland as well as to those who are involved in conflict transformation more widely. I am grateful to the IMC for its detailed and thorough report.
As the IMC themselves note, while the commission has completed its remit, the security position In Northern Ireland is far from ideal. As the violence in a part of East Belfast recently revealed, there remain those who have rejected peace and politics and who actively work to undermine it. The Government remain committed to doing all they can to end violence and to enable all the people of Northern Ireland to live peacefully and safely as is their right. I am conscious that Parliament and the public will wish to be kept informed of progress on a regular basis. I therefore intend to make statements to Parliament every six months summarising the threat, in keeping with the time scales on which the IMC used to issue its reports.
The Work Programme
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I am delighted to announce that the Work programme is now fully operational across Great Britain. The Government’s vision of a high-quality, personalised employment programme for those benefit claimants who need more intensive support is now a reality. Many individuals are already actively engaged and receiving the support they need to find work.
Last week I visited our providers in the north-west and was impressed by their commitment and drive to deliver. I will be visiting all Work programme providers through the course of the year. I look forward to seeing the real differences to people’s lives they are achieving and how the investment we are making will have long-term impacts to achieve sustained job outcomes.
As you know we are giving providers more freedom than ever before to work with those that have become long-term unemployed or who are at risk of becoming so. By having longer contracts and allowing providers to work with customers for two years, providers have the space and time to work innovatively and creatively to really make a difference. The flagship payment by results funding model sends the message that we want hard outcomes, and by paying more for those who face greater challenges we are saying to providers that we will reward them for hard work.
I am confident we have given the Work programme every chance of making a real difference to long-term worklessness. We expect to see substantial indications of the success of the programme from spring 2013.
Grand Committee
Education Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
My Lords, we have done as much as we can to make more room for your Lordships by providing smaller chairs. That is all that we can do. If noble Lords consider that it becomes too hot in this Room, I shall allow them to take off their jackets if they so wish. It is the Chairman’s prerogative. If there is a Division in the Chamber, I shall ask the noble Lord who is speaking at the time to cease speaking and we will resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 4 : Exclusion of pupils from schools in England: review
Amendment 37
Baroness Walmsley
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 38, 40, 44 to 47, 53 and 55 to 59 in my name.
I thank the Minister for the letter that I received today following our debates on Thursday. I particularly welcome the pilot to which he referred that allows children to apply in their own right to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, with the possibility of that being extended across the country. He also referred to the possibility of regulations to allow them to appeal in their own name to the independent review tribunals when they come into force, and which we are about to debate. I should point out, however, that it would be discriminatory if children were not allowed to appeal.
I and others have been very troubled by the proposed changes to the right of appeal against exclusions. None of us wants to undermine the authority of head teachers and we understand their concerns. However, the fact that some appeals succeed indicates that not all decisions to exclude are correct. The effects of an exclusion on the life of a child are so extreme that it is vital to get these decisions right. I appreciate the Government’s attempt to put some sort of appeal in place in the form of the independent review panels but, frankly, that is not really good enough. I believe that if the appeals go to the right body with the right powers, expertise and experience, all will be well and justice will be done.
These amendments remove the education review panels created by the Bill and replace them with the right for all excluded pupils to appeal against permanent exclusion to the First-tier Tribunal for Special Educational Needs and Disability, as consistently recommended by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council. Here is the problem: the new review panels can only uphold the decision to exclude, recommend that the governing body reconsider the case or quash the decision and order the governing body to reconsider where it finds the decision to be,
“flawed when considered in the light of the principles applicable to an application for judicial review”.
The new review panels will not have the power to direct reinstatement. They will have less scope within which to operate and make decisions, but the nature of those decisions will be increasingly complex because they will have to decide whether the governing body’s decision was flawed in the light of the principles of judicial review. The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the AJTC have concluded that this does not provide adequate access to a fair and independent tribunal or an adequate remedy, and is contrary to Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR.
There are many unanswered questions, including how the recommendation or direction to review will operate and the consequences of a governing body not complying with a recommendation or reaching the same decision to exclude again, following a direction to review. What happens to the pupil? Do they get another appeal? What timescales will operate and how do budgets cope with these additional procedures, especially given the additional powers given to the review panels to adjust school budgets, following a permanent exclusion?
One might ask: does the right of access to a court or tribunal apply to school exclusions? The Government state that it does not because of R (on the application of LG) v Independent Panel for Tom Hood School, decided in February 2010, which found that exclusion is not determinative of a civil right to which Article 6 applies, and Simpson v UK, which found that Article 6 does not apply to educational disputes. However, in Oršuš and Others v Croatia, decided a month later in March 2010, the European Court of Human Rights stated that Simpson v UK was no longer good law, so that Article 6 does apply to educational disputes. In Oršuš, the dispute related to discrimination. The JCHR is of the view that, if Article 6 applies to discrimination in schools, it would also apply to exclusions, which is a strong case. In Oršuš, the court also referred to its case law, which establishes that where a state confers rights that can be enforced by a judicial remedy, those rights can in principle be regarded as civil rights to which Article 6 applies. So the judicial review bit is very significant.
The JCHR is of the view that in a case of permanent exclusion, the right in question is not just the right to an education but the right to continue to attend the school at which the child is enrolled. That right is enforceable before the ordinary civil courts by way of judicial review. The JCHR therefore finds that, as a matter of convention law or of the common law, the right to access to an independent court or tribunal applies to permanent exclusion from school.
Therefore, we now need to ask whether the new review panels are really an independent and impartial tribunal. The Government’s view is that they are. However, the review panels will be able only to quash a decision and order reconsideration. That does not create the possibility for a proper review of the facts, so does not meet the requirements of a fair trial. Given the consequences of exclusion, it is especially important that the cases are examined carefully to ensure that the decision was correct and can be justified, as I said.
The AJTC has the statutory remit to keep under review the administrative justice system and the constitution and workings of tribunals within its oversight. It has taken a keen interest in the operation of school exclusion appeal panels for some years, and has concerns about the Government’s proposals. It notes, as has been mentioned in Committee, that 70 per cent of permanent exclusions affect children with special educational needs. It has consistently recommended that all appeals against permanent exclusion should be heard by the First-tier Tribunal, which it points out can easily be renamed the “first-tier tribunal (education)”.
The AJTC notes that the Government’s proposals are based on the assumption that all exclusions concern children who have been violent against teachers or pupils. That is not the case. I have here a table that shows exclusions in 18 local authorities across the country and 82 exclusion appeals in a particular year, of which 22 were successful. Of the 82, just under 80 per cent were for violent offences; one in five was for non-violent offences.
The AJTC has found that the small percentage of exclusions which go to appeal, which is around only 9 per cent, are more likely to be cases where the parent feels a real sense of injustice. It is therefore interesting to look at the reasons why some appeals succeed. The majority succeed either because the panel did not accept, on the evidence before it, that the pupil had done what he or she was alleged to have done; or because exclusion was a disproportionate punishment for the alleged offence.
A couple of other points need to be made. The Government claim that the SEND reviews take too long. It is true that there is clearly room for improvement, but they are piloting an eight-week turnaround time for appeals, which is very much better than they have been achieving. Secondly, since 70 per cent of all exclusions concern SEN and therefore go to the First-tier Tribunal anyway, it would be much more economical for all exclusion appeals to be heard by the tribunal, instead of requiring each local authority to set up and operate a separate system of review panels to deal with only 30 per cent of the total number of appeals. Also, I regard it as discriminatory to allow SEND pupils to apply to a proper tribunal, while fully able pupils can apply only to a panel with reduced powers.
I have tabled two groups of amendments that do roughly the same thing. I shall mention the difference. Amendments 37, 53, 55, 56, 58 and 59 have been proposed by the AJTC. The rest achieve roughly the same outcome but with one small difference. My noble friend Lord Storey will speak to Amendment 47 in this group, which covers a slightly different matter and has to do with the fine.
What do my groups of amendments do? The right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is separated in the Bill from the power to exclude, since this would have the effect of not requiring the tribunal to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, and so maintain the tribunal’s independent discretion. The AJTC group gives the tribunal the power to state that reinstatement would be appropriate but is not practicable in the circumstances. This could happen if, for example, the pupil, parent or guardian does not want reinstatement, even though they have a right to it, but has brought the appeal because they want to state their case. It could happen where relationships have broken down to the extent that it would be more in the interests of the child and the rest of the school community if he were to go elsewhere. The other group of amendments does not give this power, but the tribunal should have it; it is crucial. Where relationships have broken down to such an extent that the head, for various reasons, does not want to let the child back into the school, this would give the tribunal the opportunity to take that into account and make the case that the child has been unwarrantedly excluded, without insisting on reinstatement.
Should the department maintain its argument that sending all exclusion appeals to SEND tribunals suggests that all exclusions concern children with SEND, this could easily be remedied by changing the type of tribunal. This may require a consequential amendment, but I am advised by the Public Bill Office that this could be tabled at a later date. I am also advised that consequential amendments to Schedule 1 may be needed. Again, these could be tabled at a later date when the fate of these amendments is known.
I have received a note of support for these amendments from the National Governors’ Association, which says that the majority of its members support the right of appeal and think that the current government proposals to change to a review panel will be more bureaucratic, and will cause more work, delay and confusion for the parties concerned. I hope I have made the case, albeit rather long-windedly, that justice requires some changes to the proposals in Clause 4. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I should advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed I cannot call Amendments 40 to 47, inclusive, for reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I pick up initially on some of the points that were made previously, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has rehearsed. We start from the recognition that a permanent exclusion can have a significant impact on the life of the excluded child, both in the short term on their education, and in the long term. In other words, a permanent exclusion is a very significant decision in the life of that child. It is very important that, in taking such profoundly significant decisions, it should be evident to everybody involved, including parents and children, that there is a process of natural justice whereby schools not only act fairly but are transparently seen to act fairly.
We have all variously recognised some of the dilemmas and difficulties for schools. However, exclusion without the right of appeal to an independent arbiter, with the possibility of reinstatement, is not a positive example of fair treatment. It sets a bad example to the very children whom we are seeking to influence, telling them that this is how things can be done when it suits the authorities.
My second point is one which we started to rehearse when we debated this issue last week but which I think we need to explore further. We know that, even now, schools permanently exclude a disproportionate number of very vulnerable children from specific groups. Last time, we talked a lot about children with special educational needs and disability, and we heard the figures for the number of those children who are excluded. However, there are other groups. The Runnymede Trust has pointed out that in 2008-09 more than 16 per cent of all black Caribbean boys were excluded compared with 8 per cent of white boys—that is, double the proportion of black Caribbean boys. Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children have similar problems, as do looked-after children and those in care.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My noble friend is making an important case, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Later, we will talk about behaviour and attendance partnerships. Does my noble friend think that the notions of fairness that have been discussed would shift if schools had to remain within behaviour and attendance partnerships and therefore had to make sure that excluded pupils were properly found a place within that community of schools?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My noble friend makes an extremely important point, which I was also going to try to make but he has made it very well. This is one of the problems with the way that the Bill has been constructed, tearing down, as it does—in my view, somewhat recklessly—a whole range of requirements and apparatus. When you look, as we will shortly, at the proposal to repeal the responsibility of schools to be in a behaviour and attendance partnership, and set that alongside the measures before us, you see that the situation is compounded. At least if schools were in such a partnership, they would have a responsibility to work with schools in their federation or partnership to find solutions for those difficult children whom some schools propose to exclude. Taking both away makes things very difficult. One cannot see what will happen to children when they are excluded through this process.
If the Minister is not minded to reconsider, will he explain to the Committee what safeguards the Government would put in place to assure the groups whom we have been discussing who are already adversely affected by permanent exclusion and would be more so through these measures? What safeguards do they propose to put in place, not just to contain but to reverse that trend?
Many organisations in addition to those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have expressed their concern about these proposals. The Children’s Society, the National Children’s Bureau and the Children’s Commissioner have asked the Government to think again. Some trade unions have raised a slightly different but equally important point, arguing that rather than reducing bureaucracy there is a danger that, unless either the amendment that I am speaking to or that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is enacted, removing the panels and taking away the power to reinstate may lead parents to think about taking legal action against schools. That would involve a great deal more work and unnecessary bureaucracy for schools.
The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would mean that all parents of permanently excluded children would be able instead to appeal to the first-level tribunal. That has much to commend it. Those tribunals, unlike the review panels, would be led by somebody who was legally trained, which is a big advantage. One could ask, as did the noble Baroness, what the consequences would be in terms of time, delay and expense of all the cases going to such a tribunal. Might there not be an argument for a remedy at a more local level for at least some of those cases? I am open to debate on that point; the main thing, as we have both said, is that there should be somewhere in the system a right of appeal to a body that has the power to reinstate.
Sir Alan Steer recommended in his independent review, Learning Behaviour:
“Independent exclusion appeals panels should be retained, both in the interests of natural justice and to prevent schools becoming embroiled in time-consuming or costly alternative legal processes”.
I have mentioned the Runnymede Trust, which has provided a number of case studies, one of which is particularly salutary. It is the case of the Formula 1 champion, Lewis Hamilton, who when he was 16 was excluded from school in a case of mistaken identity after he witnessed an attack. In his autobiography, he writes:
“I knew I was innocent but”,
the head teacher,
“did not appear to be interested. Subsequent letters to the local education authority, our local MP, the education secretary and even the prime minister, were of no help. No one appeared to listen—no one either wanted to or had the time. We were on our own, and I was out of school”.
However, Hamilton’s school career was saved due a successful case made by his father to an independent appeal panel, which reinstated him at the school.
While there is a chance of even a small number of cases such as that occurring, and given the arguments that we have all made about natural justice and fair process, it would be wrong to remove the power to reinstate. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, asked at our previous sitting what would then happen if that decision was taken. Yes, we can have a conversation about where that child goes. However, to have won your appeal puts you in a very different position from being excluded and there being no power to reinstate.
Lord Peston
I express my sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and her amendments. I do not have her expertise on this matter, but there are some general principles which, it seems to me, we cannot avoid looking at. First and foremost of those principles is the fact that the young people whom we are talking about come overwhelmingly from the lowest socio-economic group in our society. This is not a random group of misbehaving young people; it is a highly limited group. Indeed, the latest research, which I have looked at, says that what the experts call young people with socio-emotional problems occurs to an enormous degree among the poorest in our society and to virtually no degree at all among the richest. We cannot avoid that fact, if we take deprivation as one of the main criteria in judging how we run our education system.
The thing that horrified me was the discovery that we can see these socio-emotional problems arising at a very young age. The evidence overwhelmingly is that it can be seen at the age of three, or even less. I do not remotely believe that this Government would go down this path, but my immediate thought was that it could end up like George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. I can easily imagine someone or other coming up and saying that what we ought to do is to filter these people before they go to school and not let them go there. That is the kind of background that we have to bear in mind as we look at this.
The second point that I make, which the noble Baroness herself made, as did my noble friend, is that the fact that these people are young children does not mean that they have no human rights. None of us would tolerate being treated in this way on anything else that we encountered as adults. Whatever was going on, and if we were doing something wrong, we would certainly expect to be dealt with with due process and the right of appeal against anything that was relevant.
I as a teacher have never had to deal with disruptive pupils. I dealt for years and years with students who had not the slightest interest in what I had to say, but my experience was that they just shut off. They did not bother me, and I was perfectly happy for them to shut off, because I could then talk to the people who I really felt wanted to learn my subject. But my heart goes out to teachers who have to deal with disruption in their classrooms. None of us doubts that, or I hope they do not. But that is quite different from saying that these people who disrupt are in full control, when very frequently they are not. Overwhelmingly, it does not mean that they have no rights.
My view therefore, as is typical when we meet as a Committee in your Lordships' House, and particularly in a Grand Committee, is that we should have our say and hope that the Minister listens sympathetically and sees whether anything can be done to meet our worries. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has put her finger on something that is not minor at all. It is a major question that confronts how we run our education system, and I should like her to know that I, along I am sure with many of my colleagues, am very much in sympathy with what she has to say.
Lord Morris of Handsworth
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, dealing with the issue of exclusions. As we have heard, the issue is not exclusions per se but one of process and, of course, procedure. More importantly, it is one of basic natural justice.
All of us in this Room and in this debate start from the position that good discipline is important to good learning. We start from the position that everyone associated with the education system needs to be and should be supported. Teachers should be supported, heads and governing bodies should be supported and parents need support. In the overall context of those stakeholders, however, the children themselves need proper support.
So these amendments, which I support, are necessary to prevent what I call the end game—exclusion without proper review, given the possible consequences of exclusion on the future of those pupils affected. The decision to exclude, without the process for the facts, the information and all the consequences that led to the decision, means that it is neither properly heard nor properly examined.
Fairness and justice lie at the heart but it seems that the Secretary of State has taken the position that the heads and governing bodies are always right and that the pupil is always wrong. That cannot be sustained because here we have a situation where those associated with a decision, whether it is the heads or governing body, are the accusers in the first instance. They are the investigators, assembling the facts and putting together the arguments. They prosecute in the case and, in the end, they are the judge and jury, all without any recourse to justification. The review panel, as we have heard, has no powers for reinstatement, however unjust the decision might have been.
In her introduction to the amendment, the noble Baroness set out the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and here I declare an interest as a member of that committee. Moving beyond its view, however, the fact of the matter is that legally decided opinions on the issue of expulsion without review are not on the side of the Government. The decided cases that the Government have used in their defence claim that expulsion from education is not a human right. But that is not the issue. There are equally strong legally decided cases which indicate very strongly that the real issue is not a question of whether education is a human right. What is a human right is the right of the excluded individual to return to the school from which they have been excluded. That is fundamentally different from the Government’s legal position that they cite in support. With that conclusion, I support the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, some of you might have heard buzzing noises, sounding like bumble-bees, coming out of the speakers. That is because some people have got mobile telephones in their pockets and they are too close to the microphones. Could we leave our telephones well away from the microphones or even switch them off for a little while?
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I support the sentiments behind these amendments, and those in the opening remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Hughes. Some of these amendments are quite technical, but there is something underpinning them in that the proposals before us are, first, unjust, and, secondly, not the best way of dealing with a significant problem. In particular, I support the group of amendments that give a right of reinstatement if an appeal should be successful.
I invite the Minister to revisit the Government’s assumptions that brought about this group of amendments. It strikes me as the sort of thing that is great in opposition but which you hope that people have realised is not very good by the time they get to government. Its starting point was something that we can all share: there are children whose behaviour is such that they ought not to be in schools. They ruin the educational chances of other children and make the lives of teachers a misery. Nobody ought to have to put up with that.
There is another starting point that I support: that the head needs control of their own school. They need to be able to set the rules and regulations. Within a framework their writ must run. That is the nature of leadership. Where this went wrong to some extent is that there is a feeling out there that the problem of reinstated children is bigger than it actually is. Somebody will quote the figures at some point, but it is not a big issue. It does not happen often. On most occasions, the tried and tested system which will now be repealed completely has worked well. Schools, parents, governing bodies, head teachers and pupils will on the whole say that it works well. In any structure in a social organisation like a school or society, there will be times when it does not work well, is a bit frayed at the edges and you might want to second-guess a judgment. We should always try to make that better, to improve the law and improve the process.
I do not know how the Government have concluded that this is the way forward from there. What I really want to test with the Minister is that there seem to be two either/or assumptions underpinning this bit of legislation. The first is that heads are always right and pupils are always wrong, which is a case of infallibility all over again. The second is that even if heads are wrong, we must not admit it. If one of those two assumptions does not underpin this set of amendments, I do not know what assumption does. Both are deeply flawed. I hope that I do not have to say more than “heads are not always right”. I have taught where heads have made the wrong decision about exclusion; sometimes there have been sets of circumstances. It has been absolutely right that the child has been reinstated, and the school has not collapsed. Nobody can say that the head is always right.
I agree about the power of the head, but it must be about having a set of rules that the school community and the parents have bought into, and about enacting those rules. I do not agree with this notion of leadership and headship which says, “I can make the rules up as I go along, and if I decide that you have broken them then I can act accordingly”. It is only by giving that sort of power of rule-making to the head that this legislation makes any sense.
Let us say that we do not agree that heads are always right. I sense that where the Government are coming from is that, in order to support heads, we must support their every decision. That is a miscalculation and a misjudgment, and I choose my words carefully. There are heads in this room who will tell me whether I am right or wrong in this but, to be honest, if a head teacher needed this sort of legal protection to keep order and discipline in their school, I would question the quality of the school leadership. A half good head teacher can manage a reinstatement and the house will not fall down. What seems to be feared here is that, if a reinstatement goes ahead, the head will lose control and authority within the school. Good heads do not do that; they manage it, because exclusion is not the only way in which to ensure discipline and good behaviour in schools.
If we make laws to protect weak heads so that they never have to admit that they are wrong, we will not be producing laws that are good for discipline in schools. We need laws that give heads the right to run their schools, and in our utterances and judgments we always need to support heads in what they do. They live in the real world; the children live in the real world; the parents and governors live in the real world, and nowhere else in the real world is someone proven innocent but not given the right to reinstatement.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I was for many years one of those utterly infallible heads until my governors thought otherwise. Will the noble Baroness comment on the other factor that she has not mentioned? There is a misconception that the organisation that reinstates these children against the wishes of the head and the governors is the local education authority. That is another fallacy that underpins so much of this proposed legislation—that somehow it is pernicious local authorities that want to keep the heads under control. Perhaps she would like to comment on that, given her experience as a Minister and a Secretary of State.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
The noble Lord is right. As a not so infallible Minister, I remember the legislation because there was a fear that local authorities would make life difficult for head teachers. If my memory serves me right—and I am absolutely sure that it does on this—there was a requirement in previous legislation to make sure that someone with educational experience was on the appeals panel. Previous legislation has done the mending that needed to be done in terms of the appeals panel. People who have served as Members of Parliament may also know that there has always been a feeling among parents and students that appeals panels lean over backwards to support the schools. If there is a feeling in society, it is not that the appeals panel leans over backwards to exclude the child; it is the other way about. As the noble Lord said, many people on the panels have educational experience and want to support heads. Therefore, the people on the appeals panel are not anti-heads, anti-discipline, anti-order, anti-fairness or anti-justice; they are people who know about education and they try to do a difficult job.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
When the noble Baroness talks about heads, I wonder what her thoughts are on the pupil premium that has been introduced by the Government. Interestingly, it motivates heads to admit pupils from poorer backgrounds; and we know that, because of the chaotic backgrounds that some children from poorer backgrounds might have, behaviour might then be an issue to some extent. Does she think that there might be a danger of selection by exclusion, whereby heads take in children to get more money and then, whether deliberately, up front or otherwise, exclude those who are more difficult and damage the education of others?
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My thoughts had not gone that far, but my noble friend puts forward a very interesting proposition. I think that perhaps why he thinks that—and why he is right—is because some heads have always sought to manage their admissions through some element of exclusion. There are times when that is right. Some heads, in their first year of taking over a school that has been in very challenging circumstances, have excluded to lay down rules and regulations and to make sure that they can set standards. I understand that, but what the noble Lord suggests would be a terrible thing—and I hope, having put that on record, the Minister will bear it in mind.
I will finish there, because I wanted only to make that brief point. Either assumption is wrong, whether it is about the infallibility of heads or whether it is that when they make a mistake we pretend they have not made a mistake. Worse than that, this is not only unjust and unfair but will do nothing to improve discipline, because the kids and the school community will know that a child was excluded, that the appeal found for them and that the child has not been reinstated. That will do nothing to encourage the school community to support the head. Kids are really good about fairness, and so are parents. The legislation as it has been put to us will not help in that regard.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. I am very pleased that she brought our attention to two factors—that the children who tend to be the subject of exclusion have made the lives of their fellow pupils in their class pretty difficult and seriously hampered their education, and that they have made several teachers’ lives very miserable. There is nothing worse than having a seriously disruptive child in a class when you are trying to teach the rest of the children.
Where I part company from the noble Baroness, on a purely factual basis, is when she says that the clauses in the Bill assume that the head is always right. Of course, they do not. New subsection (4)(c) says quite firmly that the review panel may consider,
“that the decision of the responsible body was flawed when considered in the light of the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”,
and that it may,
“quash the decision of the responsible body”.
In other words, the Bill clearly assumes that sometimes the head will be wrong.
The other point that the noble Baroness made was about the importance of the head being in authority and being able to control and show leadership in his or her own school. As many of us have said in previous debates and as much research has shown, the authority of the head is paramount in the success of the school. It is not only that the head must be right—and you would hope he or she would be right more times than he or she is wrong—but that the head must be seen to be in control and in authority. If the head is constantly overruled by an outside body, it is very difficult for that to be seen. I agree with that the noble Baroness said—that kids are very quick to recognise what is fair and what is not fair. But we have already established—thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, giving us the figures—that there are very few occasions when the decision of the head has proved to be wrong. Most of the time, the head gets it right, and the excluded child leaves the school a bit more peace and the other pupils more ability to learn than there was before.
My final point is that this does not involve the head alone. It involves the head with the governing body, which will have made the decision as well. There will already have been considerable investigation of the head’s decision. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will speak for the authority of the governors. I find it very hard to believe that many cases will go wrong, when the head has made a decision on behalf of a teacher who wishes to exclude a pupil and if that has been reviewed by a governing body. Of course, some will, and the review panel has the power to say so, to stand the decision on one side and to ask the head to go again. I disagree with the noble Baroness when she said that, when the review panel sends it back to the school, it will always repeat what it said before. I do not think that that is so. I think that after the very solemn and rather frightening business of being found to be wrong by an external review panel, the school will certainly think again.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
That may be the case but will the noble Baroness agree that in those circumstances at the moment, if the appeals panel decides that the decision was wrong, it has the power to allow the child back into the school? What is proposed now is that, when the review panel puts the decision aside, it cannot make its own, informed judgment—it can simply ask the governing body to reconsider—and it has no power to give the child redress if it is really of the view that a mistake has been made. Does she really think that that is a just process?
Lord Peston
My reading of the Bill is somewhat different from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry: it is that it gives the head enormously more power than he or she had before. Is she saying that that is not true?
Baroness Perry of Southwark
I am not saying that it is true or untrue. The difference—it is very small—is that in the past the appeals panel could insist that the child went back to the school, while the review panel can now simply say, “You got the decision wrong. We ask you to consider again”. The only difference between what a review panel can do and what the previous appeals panel could do is the power to reinstate. In any case, to allow a child to go back into a school when all this process has taken place is a terrible thing for the teacher who asked for the exclusion in the first case, for the governing body which made the decision and supported the head, and for the authority of the head themselves.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
I know what effort heads and teachers make when children are reinstated into schools in difficult circumstances, so I am very pro what is going on; they work very hard. Does the noble Baroness not accept that the child who finds that their case has been upheld but is still told that they are not able to go back to their school would see this as a total injustice? As many of these children are struggling anyway, this simply reinforces their feeling that society is simply not just, so why should they conform and join in with it?
Lord Storey
My Lords, I want to talk about Amendment 47, and then make some general comments on the other amendments. Amendment 47 is clear and concise: it is about the £4,000 fine, which is a blanket fine for all schools. For some schools, that might not seem a lot of money; for others, it is a considerable amount. For a small school—a rural village or a small urban school—it is a significant sum. In my area, there is a secondary school with 10 forms of entry. Next to that is a small Roman Catholic primary school with 101 pupils on roll, I think, and £4,000 equates to that school’s entire literacy and numeracy budget. Down the road, there is a small maintained school, for which £4,000 equates to its entire special needs budget. For a large secondary school, £4,000 is perhaps its promotion budget. We might need to link the sum in a fair and equitable way. On this occasion, one size does not fit all.
I turn to some comments made during the debate. I declare an interest as a head teacher of 25 years. I have never excluded a pupil at all. Why? First, we forget that the important thing is not the end of the process but all the things that you put in place beforehand. As I think I said last week, if you have a robust behaviour management policy, you will involve parents at every stage, and the parents are the greatest way of ensuring that a pupil does not have to be excluded from school.
Having said that, my wife is a secondary teacher in a large inner-city school and I have seen teachers’ careers destroyed by disruptive behaviour. We are not talking about teachers who should not be in the classroom but, because of the circumstances—because of poor leadership, because the other issues have not been put in place—their lives as teachers can be wrecked, as indeed can those of the pupils.
Some of you may recall that I said two things last week. I agreed with a noble Lord opposite who said that any exclusion is a tragedy. I also said, however, that teachers have a right to teach and pupils have a right to learn. Pupils also have a right to ensure that a system is fair and just and they are the first to know if something is not fair. In any school it is the pupils who say, “Hey, sir, that’s not fair” or “Hey, miss, why are we doing this?”. If we have an exclusion policy which is not fair and just, pupils will be the first to see that and that is why I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I fully support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley and I congratulate her on her tireless efforts to highlight children’s and young people’s rights and well-being. I want to make the case for a group of young people up and down the country, especially in our urban cities, which are littered with potholes of deprivation, low self-esteem and practically no aspiration. As we have already heard, it is a sad fact that many black Caribbean and mixed-race white and black Caribbean boys experience a high number of exclusions. We have heard that 16.6 per cent of all Caribbean boys and 16.3 per cent of all mixed-race Caribbean boys experienced a fixed-term exclusion during 2008-09, in comparison to 8 per cent of their white and 4 per cent of their Asian counterparts.
We have to ask whether society is failing these young people, who in many cases grew up seeing themselves as victims, partly because of the harsh and sometimes abusive lives they encountered. They feel anger and frustration about their situation and their place in society, which becomes overwhelming, and in turn they become aggressive and disruptive.
As part of my charitable work, I once accompanied 100 children from disadvantaged backgrounds with some of their parents to Euro Disney. A 10 year-old Caribbean boy did not listen to what his mother and others told him about jumping over a barrier on a wet marble floor. Not surprisingly, he fell with a hard thump and hit his head. Instead of his mother rushing to comfort him, as you might have expected her to do, she violently kicked him while he lay on the floor injured. Eventually, after the doctor arrived and things calmed down, she had to be persuaded to go into the ambulance with her son but not before she broke down and, in between her sobs, she cried for help. She explained that she was on her own, that her son had been excluded time and again from school and that she could no longer cope because he would not listen to her. Goodness knows what she did behind closed doors.
They were both victims of circumstances. Family life is tough for many but for that family there was a happy ending. They were counselled by trained charity project workers who put the family back together again and helped them to heal. That boy’s behaviour changed in school.
These are some of the types of children that are being excluded from schools. They need to be dealt with by staff who have been properly trained by trained play therapists, who know how to deal with damaged children, and to be shown love, understanding and—yes—discipline too but not exclusion and rejection, which only cause long-term damage way into adulthood.
I welcome the fact that the Government have decided to retain exclusion appeals panels. However, the decision to strip them of the power to order reinstatement of a pupil decreases their ability to hold a school to account. Many believe that appeals panels with powers of reinstatement represent a vital safeguard against miscarriages of justice and offer a chance for parents’ voices to be heard.
As so eloquently stated by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, despite claims from the Government that the reinstatement of pupils subsequently undermines the authority of teachers, evidence shows that only 2 per cent of exclusions are overturned and that approximately 90 per cent of exclusions are simply not brought before appeals panels, highlighting that the situation is not widespread.
We heard the case of our famous Lewis Hamilton. Goodness knows what would have happened if his appeal had not been successful and he had not been reinstated in school. We would not have seen the brilliance of that champion and have felt that pride to be British.
It is crucial that teachers are properly held to account on exclusion decisions, particularly given the massive impact that those decisions can have on a child’s future. Therefore, I believe that the Government should allow appeals panels to reinstate excluded pupils in schools if an appeal is successful, and that the Bill should be amended accordingly.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for arriving late. Sitting on the M11 was not the best place to be; I would rather have been with all of your Lordships. I wanted to ask a series of questions of the Minister. I regret missing the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because I always enjoy her speeches on behalf of children. We have just heard that disruptive children are challenged children; they are not very often evil children. However, they can be very difficult. From my time as a director of social services and an assistant director looking after assessment centres where some of the most dangerous and difficult children are contained, I know that there are children who cannot be on the school floor. Those children who destroy classes for teachers and other pupils should not be in school. But those are not the children we are talking about. We do not need to change the legislation for them, and we do not have to change the legislation to make it successful.
One of the points that I was going to make was made eloquently by the noble Lord; that is, in good schools, the work is done beforehand, with the child, with the family and with the involvement of the local community. In my local primary school up in Norfolk, I know that things get done beforehand.
There is of course a great lack of services for some of these children. We know that teachers are crying out for good psychiatric support, psychological assessment and therapeutic support. Those are the areas where we should look if we want to provide for the next generation. However, what concerned me when I was looking through the legislation, apart from its fairness, was how decisions would be made across the country. The Government are setting up a range of new sorts of schools which will be settling their ways of working. What will the criteria for exclusion be? Will the powerful head set the criteria? How will we therefore ensure consistency? Will a child be able to move districts and find that their behaviour gets them excluded in one area but not in another? How will we ensure consistency? If Ofsted will not be inspecting all schools, how will we achieve that balance from one area to another, as we can at the moment?
How will we ensure that an assessment is made by those responsible for children’s education and welfare to understand the circumstances leading to the problem? Who will carry out that assessment across the country? Most of all, what will happen to the children thereafter? We know that some will go to a referral unit. I was a social worker on the ground, if you like, in the days when my kids went off to the sin bin, as they called it. I am not against special provision if it is properly put together, but if it is a constant stream of children moving in and out, with some children not moving at all, I should like to be clear about the basis on which the children are being put together. What worries me most is that the heads of those special units can also exclude children. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will express more than anxiety about what happens to children who will often have been in care and are showing difficult behaviour, for all the reasons we know.
I did not want to make a long speech. I simply wanted to ask that series of questions to get a clear picture of how this is going to work by the time we get to Report stage.
Lord Ouseley
My Lords, my name is associated with Amendment 41, which adds a provision to,
“direct that the pupil be reinstated”.
Much has already been said and I shall try to not repeat it and to be brief. My real concern is that we are talking about relatively small numbers of children with regard to reinstatement. There surely cannot be an argument that it adds to the bureaucracy. The Government clearly want to reduce the burdens on schools and heads. I cannot see the logic of why we are removing opportunities for appeal and reinstatement. That is why I support Amendment 41 and all that I have heard.
This is what concerns me most. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said about the processes for ensuring that we look after the needs of each child—educational, social, cultural and emotional—as part of a process of trying to avoid getting to the point of exclusion. That is an indication of what schools do, and they did it so successfully in the case of the school of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that there was no exclusion. There are other schools like that and we are not talking about a problem that will wreck the school system if reinstatement occurs, especially as it occurs so infrequently.
What I am worried about is the labelling of groups of young people who are to be excluded. An important part of the process is the management of moves from one school to another and involves all the groups to which we have referred in this debate—those with special educational needs and poor backgrounds, black and ethnic-minority children, looked-after children and those who are in receipt of free school meals. They are the most vulnerable children. In the process that leads to exclusion, even if appeal is reached, it is those who have the power and who have already labelled these young people who still call the shots. Even when reinstatement takes place, we have already accepted that it is not necessarily in the best interests of that child to go back to the school from which he or she has been excluded. However, the inclusion of a natural justice element that demonstrates that fairness has occurred and that exclusion is not justified is an important part of our natural justice process, and we should ensure that we retain it.
It is important to get answers to some of the questions that have been asked. We need the information that would justify preventing the possibility of reinstatement. No basis for that argument has been put forward, and perhaps the Minister can provide the evidence that would justify the Government’s proposal and improve the processes.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, having listened to the arguments I have a great deal of sympathy with all these amendments. As noble Lords have already heard, the National Governors’ Association is broadly sympathetic. It has been stressed that we are talking about thoroughly disadvantaged children, the majority from the SEND group. The fact that it is a relatively small number has been drawn to our attention. I put my name to Amendment 43; I did not speak to it because the noble Lord, Lord Storey, had played out exactly what it said when we discussed it last week. That spells out all the areas that need to be gone through, particularly that the child concerned is able to understand the information that they are given. Combining that with the fact that there is a pilot scheme around the country, if it is ultimately decided via the process in the Bill that that is not the best place for the child, the cost of placing them in another school must be borne by the school itself. That is possibly how to meet that objective. We are talking about a small number of children who are pretty much all disadvantaged anyhow. It should be for the school with the right training and up-skilling of teachers to get it right in most cases, but that will not be appropriate in every case. Let us look at this alternative, and see whether there is an answer there.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I share the starting assumptions for this debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, but I would be horrified if the Bill tried to make out that head teachers are always right. It clearly does not. The provision for a head teacher and governing body to be required to think again if a review panel found their decision to be wrong is a powerful way of ensuring that people are held to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, said earlier that this Bill sets a bad example to our children. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. To put somebody in a situation where they have to review their decision, and perhaps be confident and strong enough to say that their initial decision was wrong and they are happy to now reverse it, is a much better way of ensuring a proper process than somebody being forced to change their mind.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
First, would the noble Baroness not agree that, in that situation, most of us would expect an independent arbitration of that decision? Secondly, does she think that it is right that, in the event that the governing body thinks again and decides to stick with its original decision, which is thought to be unreasonable, it can then pay its way out of that situation instead of having to give the child redress and accept the child back into school? Is that a good example of what we should be showing children?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
It is right that we reach decisions based on responsibility and that the head teacher and the governing body should be able to decide what is right for their school. If they are clear, for very clear reasons that they believe in, about what they feel is the right future for that child, they should be able to decide that and put in place the necessary new arrangements for that child.
I concur with the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made about piloting the new arrangements. Schools being responsible for the education of children whom they have decided they can no longer take care of in their own school is an important new provision, and one that I would certainly support.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Morris, I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As has been said several times today, the committee reviewed this part of the Bill carefully and reported on it in detail. It is worth me highlighting the fact that the committee divided on this matter. At that time, I abstained—I did not vote with the committee, because at the time I was not persuaded by the legal arguments one way or the other. After the committee, I looked again at the Bill when preparing for Second Reading, and the conclusion that I came to was that the reason why I had not been persuaded by the legal arguments either way was because this is an issue of principle. It is right that people in charge of schools—head teachers and governing bodies—should be able to make decisions for themselves. Obviously, there needs to be a review process, which this proposal provides for, but I want to see us having a system that is based on responsibility rather than people simply being able to exercise rights. For that reason, I do not support the amendments and I support the Bill as it is drafted.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am hopeful that my noble friend will answer the question that I asked him at Second Reading on the statistics behind this. I think that he quoted a figure of 600 pupils a year being reinstated. For the average secondary school, that is one every 10 years. What proportion of them are children who, it is accepted by everybody, have actually committed the sort of crimes that must mean their exclusion from school, such as serious bullying or drugs or bringing knives in? I am aware that a case was mentioned in the Sun a few years ago, but are there more than that? Why are we unbalancing the scales of justice to deal with such a tiny and infrequent problem?
My noble friend has already outlined the right approach, which is to make schools responsible for the future of the kids they choose to exclude, because most exclusions are due to problems with the school, not the kids. The example that I would choose is St George’s in Maida Vale. When I first got interested in schooling it was unbelievably awful, with children running around corridors and abusing and hitting teachers. There was a total paucity of education going on. It was the school, as noble Lords will remember, where the headmaster was murdered at the gates. Last year, it received grade 1 from Ofsted, with the same intake and no exclusions. Nothing has changed with the kids, but everything has changed with the school. That is what we should bear in mind when we think of exclusion as a punishment following something done by the kid, rather than as something caused by other people that is being demonstrated in what the kid is doing.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I remember sitting in a school classroom in a secondary school that is five minutes’ walk from your Lordships' House and seeing one boy disrupt the whole class and the poor teacher clearly at the end of her tether at the end of the period. The boy moved to a different seat as soon as she turned her back, and it was a great joke, but it clearly caused her a lot of anxiety.
This is a very complex question, as this debate has shown. Further to what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, in my experience many looked-after children have families who are not working well before they are taken into care. However, after that, the key stepping stone into care is their exclusion from school, which puts all the additional pressure on the family that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to. Excluding a child is a very grave step to take without the right means to ensure that the child goes somewhere appropriate, where they will get the support that they need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Storey spoke for us all when he said that we all agree that exclusion should be the end of the process. We have debated this point many times. I state again that that is absolutely the Government’s position. That is why we are holding exclusion trials. We are trying to reach a point where exclusion is a far less frequent outcome for pupils and that the number who end up in this category shrinks. That is what we all want. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley. I strongly agree. My noble friend Lady Walmsley set out the case for exclusion appeals to go to tribunal with her customary clarity. Other noble Lords argued in favour of retaining a right for a panel to order reinstatement.
I shall start by restating what we are proposing in this clause, which provides for independent review panels that will be responsible for hearing appeals brought by parents against the permanent exclusion of their child. The panels will have to consider permanent exclusions very carefully. They will be free to reach their own conclusions and to conduct an independent fact-finding exercise. They may then uphold the decision, recommend that the governing body reconsider its decision to take account of the panel’s findings, or quash the decision and direct the governing body to reconsider the exclusion. If the decision is quashed, the panel will have to provide the school with the reasons for its decision. At that point the governing body will have to reconsider its decision. As several noble Lords have argued, in those circumstances most governing bodies would be likely to offer to reinstate pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, asked whether we assumed that the school would always be right. The answer to that question is no. If we thought that, we would not have gone for an independent review panel, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out. However, there may be local circumstances in which the detrimental effect on the wider school community of a pupil being reinstated means that the school decides not to do so. This, in essence, is what the whole debate boils down to, and is the root of the difference of opinion between us. As we have already discussed and will return to in more detail, in those circumstances the panel would be able to impose a financial penalty. In addition to the general safeguards associated with the independent review panel process, we are putting in place measures to protect the interests of vulnerable children, especially those with special educational needs. As we discussed earlier, parents will be able to request an SEN expert.
My noble friend Lord Lucas asked about scale. I heard my noble friend Lady Walmsley whispering but he may not have heard her. We are talking about a small number of cases. In 2008-09, there were 6,550 cases of permanent exclusion. Appeals were lodged in fewer than 10 per cent of cases. Of those appeals, around one-10th resulted in the pupil being reinstated, which is the “60 pupils” figure that we are talking about.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend, have asked why we are making changes when the numbers are so small. We do so for one simple reason: while the numbers are fortunately small, each case can create significant problems for the school, creating anxiety for pupils and undermining the position of staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, spoke of schools being “left to their own devices”. Because of the review panel process, they would not be left to their own devices, but I am sure that she did not mean this. Her comments seemed to suggest that schools might have an agenda to exclude pupils, and I do not believe that that is true either.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I did not mean that, and I do not generally think that schools have an agenda. However, the crux of the Minister’s argument seems to be that in most of those cases where a review panel comes back to the governing body and says, “We think that this decision is wrong or flawed”—or whatever—“so reconsider”, he expected the schools to reinstate the child. What evidence does he have for that assumption?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The evidence was a point made by a noble friend. It is reasonable to think that where the process is conducted properly and the independent review panel comes back to the governing body saying, “We think that you are wrong for this, that and the other reason”—so that the governing body is confronted with that evidence and realises that others have reached a different view, or that they have made mistakes in how they have gone about it—most people will listen to what is being said to them. Obviously I do not have hard evidence because we do not have the system in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, talked powerfully about the example of Lewis Hamilton. I understand that example. Because the numbers are so small, one ends up having anecdotal exchanges of that nature. When this was debated in another place, a letter from a chair of governors was quoted which reads:
“In February a violent incident occurred at our school and after an exhaustive investigation the Principal took the decision to permanently exclude both the pupils involved in the attack. In short, they had come into school after issuing threats on ‘Facebook’ and sought out an individual to beat up. Failing to find him, they subsequently violently assaulted another boy, leaving him with concussion and in a state of shock. The police wanted to pursue the matter further but the family of the victim were fearful of reprisals and refused to press charges. In March, an exclusion hearing took place and the Governor’s Disciplinary Committee upheld the Principal’s decision to permanently exclude both the pupils involved in carrying out the assault. The mother of one of the excluded pupils appealed and the IAP overturned our decision and directed that we should reinstate the excluded pupil … The whole school environment was deeply shocked”.
That is an anecdote, but is illustrative of the effect these decisions can have on other pupils and the school. I wanted to start the point about the exclusion trials because there may be an assumption that the Government want in some way to be gung ho or vindictive about this, or that we start from the point of view that heads are Victorian figures of authority who must never be questioned and their writ must always run. That is not our position. Our position is that there could be a small number of cases where the effect on the attitude of other pupils and staff is worth giving the school space to take that into account. The principal of Burlington Danes Academy gave evidence to the Education Select Committee in the other place, where she said:
“I am very pleased that the appeal panels have gone, having had a permanent exclusion overturned. A teacher was attacked with a knife and the child was able to come back to the school”.
Although incidents are fortunately rare, these events are not unique. Schools have to be safe environments where pupils can learn. To achieve this, as we have already discussed, schools need to be able to manage behaviour, and heads and governing bodies need to know that they can go about that with confidence.
I turn to the specific amendments on the First-tier Tribunal and the amendment about giving panels the power to reinstate. Clearly, requiring all cases to be taken to the First-tier Tribunal with a power to order reinstatement would defeat the purpose of Clause 4. Our proposals reform the current arrangements for exclusion appeal panels, remedying what we consider to be a weakness in relation to the power to force reinstatement. We believe that the new review panels will ensure quick resolution, which is in the interests of all parties.
I think that there was a question about the timing. We believe that the panel will have to meet and consider a case no later than 15 school days after the parent requests the review.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Storey for speaking to his amendment, which addresses an important issue about the amount of adjustment to a school’s budget that an independent review panel can set. Again, there are balances to be struck in wanting any financial penalty to be sufficiently high that the governing body would want to reflect seriously upon it. However, I understand my noble friend’s concern that the adjustment should take account of the size of the school and its total budget, as well as his point about a flat-rate penalty. Therefore, although there are arguments in favour of such a scheme because of its simplicity, I am happy to accept the principle behind his amendment and say that, when consulting schools and local authorities later this year on the new arrangements, we will include the issue of whether the penalty should take account of the size of schools—for example, having different penalties for primary and secondary schools.
Lord Peston
Will the noble Lord clarify a minor matter of logic? If he is saying that the review panel has the right to fine a school if the school does not go along with it, how can it be in the interests of any school to have its budget reduced when it is doing what it thinks is the right thing? Whatever we do, that seems to be about as absurd an idea as you could dream up. Who would suffer from having less money? Presumably, the school would buy fewer text-books or less of this and less of that. To me at least, none of this makes any sense. Why the Government have gone down this path, I have not the slightest idea. I have worked very hard to follow this issue since Second Reading but the fine business makes no sense to me whatever.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the purpose is to compensate the local authority for the additional costs of the services that it would then have to pick up because the school was no longer providing them. That is the benefit.
We have heard important points raised about the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I shall make a couple of points about that. The JCHR set out its views on the compatibility of Clause 4 with convention rights. We disagree with the view that the proposal to establish review panels is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Our central legal argument is that the existing statutory framework around exclusion and educational provision for children who are excluded, whether on a fixed-term basis or permanently, is not determinative of a civil right, so Article 6 does not apply. In all the Strasbourg cases where civil rights have been found to engage Article 6, the civil right in question must have a basis in the domestic law of the state concerned. There is no domestic law right in the UK which guarantees the right to be educated in a specific institution. The right to an education, which is a right guaranteed at Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the convention, is not a guarantee of education at or by a particular institution. Article 13 of the convention requires that everyone whose convention rights and freedoms are violated shall have an effective remedy. As no convention rights are at issue here, we are clear that Article 13 is not engaged. We will shortly set out these arguments in more detail in a response to the Joint Committee.
I was asked about the consistency of school rules and the criteria for exclusion. The guidance is clear that a decision to exclude should be taken only in response to serious breaches of the school’s behaviour policy and if allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school. The guidance is also clear that the head teacher should consider all the evidence, taking account of the school’s equal opportunities policies and, where applicable, equality legislation. We will continue to collect data on exclusions, which include exclusions by SEN and by ethnic group.
Lord Elton
May I ask a couple of questions of my noble friend? First, he referred throughout to permanent exclusion. The word “permanent” does not seem to appear in the text of the legislation. The direction was given to the Secretary of State in setting out the regulations, leaving it open to him to decide what sort of an exclusion the panel might make a judgment on. I assume there are important administrative reasons to minimise the appeals as well as practical ones. If it is an exclusion for a week or a fortnight, it will be over before the appeal is heard. For permanent exclusion, that is a different matter. Secondly, I would like to ask the question the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was expected to ask and did not: what is to become of pupils excluded from a PRU, particularly if there is only one PRU available in an area? Thirdly, I am puzzled not to have received representations—I may be unique in this—from the head teachers’ organisations and I wondered whether they had expressed a view.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the Minister replies to those questions, perhaps it might be helpful to ask another question for information. How do the numbers of exclusions break down between primary schools and secondary schools? He may already have mentioned that but I would be grateful for that information.
Lord Hill of Oareford
On that specific point, I do not have those figures in my head and I will try to find them and send them to the noble Earl. In response to my noble friend’s first question, the new arrangements are intended to apply to permanent exclusions. So far as his other points are concerned—again, they are generally not in the Bill—in terms of the way forward with the exclusion trials and with a point that we are trying to take forward and which we will come to later on about improving the quality of alternative provision available, the responsibility for a child in the situation he describes is unchanged and remains with the local authority.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
Can I press the Minister on one point, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who drew attention to the philosophical difficulty of new subsection (6)? I notice that the review panel will have the discretion to impose a fine for an adjustment in budget but it is not a requirement that the review panel would do so. I am puzzled as to how a review panel is going to decide between one case and another and on what basis. You almost then have the prospect of review panels grading the substance of their requirement that a responsible body review it according to a scale of fines. This strikes me as odd. It is in the subjunctive—that the review panel,
“may, in prescribed circumstances, order an adjustment”—
and I wonder whether the Minister would expand a little more on what the “may” represents.
Lord Hill of Oareford
It is our intention to publish guidance to cover these issues which we will be able to then share with Peers so that they can see how that is proceeding. That will address some of these issues.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this fascinating debate. I have a confession to make. I did not declare an interest at the beginning of this debate: I was once actually excluded. At the age of four, the head of my dancing class asked my mother to take me away because I was not prepared to stand in a row with all the other little girls and point my toe and wave my arms in exactly the same way as everyone else. I wanted to stand in the corner, be creative and do my own thing. I was not prepared to be a clone, so I was asked to leave. However, I remember feeling that sense of injustice because I had not been disruptive in any way; I had not been naughty; I just did not like standing in a row and doing the same as all the other little girls.
Therefore, I suppose that what we need to think about is the cause of the behaviour, and there have been many powerful speeches about the underlying factors that lead to these serious permanent exclusions. A large number of points have been made and I should like to take up a few of them. Much has been made by the Minister and my noble friend Lady Perry about the power of the independent review panel to quash the original decision and ask the school to reconsider, but what is the point of asking it to do that if there is no redress and if it continues with its wrong-headed decisions? The child actually has no right to any redress at all.
An innocent child cannot, in the current situation, be blamed for not wanting to be sent to a referral unit because only today there has been a report from, I think, Ofsted about the poor results that are frequently obtained by pupils in referral units. We must do something about the quality of alternative provision and I very much welcome what the Government are doing with the pilots that we talked about last Thursday. They have the potential very much to drive up the quality of alternative provision, and they are a very good idea.
What the Government are proposing is discriminatory because—not perhaps for the reasons suggested in the debate—we are setting up one system for children with special needs and a completely different one for children without special needs. In fact, we are taking away the current independent appeals panels and setting up something completely new to deal with only the 30 per cent of appeals that do not have any special needs connotations. That strikes me as being daft, particularly in the current financial situation. Why are we doing that? As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, commented, we are dealing with very small numbers here. The vast majority of children behave well in school; the vast majority of cases of exclusion do not lead to an appeal; and three-quarters of the appeals are not upheld. We are talking about only 25 per cent of appeals being successful—and a very small proportion of those involve the reinstatement of a child where the school does not want it. We are talking about only 60 cases a year.
I ask the Committee: are we throwing away an important principle of natural justice for the sake of 60 cases out of 11 million children? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that this is an issue of principle—but not the principle that she enunciated. It is the principle that if you have been found innocent or if the punishment has been found to be excessive, you should have a right to reinstatement, as long as other factors do not outweigh that right. We have to bear in mind—I absolutely accept this—the effect on the rest of the school. I therefore draw noble Lords’ attention to proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 59, which states that one of the powers of the tribunal could be to,
“decide that because of exceptional circumstances, or for some other reason, it is not practical to give a direction requiring reinstatement, but that it would otherwise have been appropriate to give such a direction”.
That gives the tribunal the opportunity to say, “This child’s case has been made. We are not convinced that the child did what the child was supposed to have done”, or, “We are not convinced that exclusion is the appropriate punishment for it. However, we accept that if this child were to go back into the school, it would cause major problems for the rest of the school community”.
There may be several thousand people involved in that community. Therefore, for the sake of their best interests, and probably those of the child concerned—who wants to go where they are not wanted?—it might be better if the child went somewhere else, even if the case has been made and it is accepted that the decision was wrong. It could well be that that “somewhere else” can better meet the needs of the child. Therefore, that part of the amendment provides a very important power, which I should like to see given to the First-tier Tribunal that I am proposing.
I thank the Minister for what he said about Amendment 47—that the Government will look at the issue of the fine in the consultation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the fine does not make sense. You have just to ask yourself: who will suffer if money is taken away from a school? It will not be the child who is supposed to have misbehaved. He will have gone to some other school. It will be the children who remain in the school who will suffer if the school is fined. It really is not the sort of deterrent to schools expelling incorrectly that makes sense. I accept that reinstatement can often be difficult but I draw the Committee’s attention to proposed new paragraph (c) in Amendment 59, which would take care of that situation.
I have just one more point on the consultation over the fine. Will the Minister confirm that special schools and PRUs will also be consulted? They are often very small schools. The Minister is nodding; I thank him.
In conclusion, I ask the Committee to think about how adults would respond if, in an employment tribunal, a case had been made in favour of the employee and against the employer, finding that the response to what had happened had been disproportionate, but the employee was unable to get any redress at all. If it is wrong for adults, it is wrong for children. As has been said, children have a very strong sense of what is fair and what is not fair. A decision of this sort could turn a child totally against society. As one noble Lord rightly said, it could flip somebody who already feels disengaged or victimised—as though nobody understands them and everybody is against them, or as though they have no opportunities and are discriminated against—into becoming an extremely antisocial person. Although I accept that there are enormous difficulties in this situation, I ask the Minister to consider very carefully whether it is right to throw away a principle of natural justice in favour of doing something in only 60 cases a year out of 11 million children. It seems a disproportionate act by the Government. I hope we can have more discussions about it over the next few weeks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“In section 31A of that Act (consideration of adverse reports), in subsection (3)(c), for “exclusion appeal panel” substitute “exclusion review panel”.”
Baroness Brinton
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Walmsley and Lady Jolly. This is a very simple amendment to provide the safeguard that parents know about, and agree to, a same-day outside school-time detention being given. We recognise the benefits of same-day detention. For the child concerned, the punishment is swift and close enough to the judgment of the incident for there to be a clear link, and it is important for the school as it significantly reduces the administrative arrangements that are required if the detention cannot be taken for a day or more.
I am mindful of the evidence of Sir Alan Steer to the Commons Bill Committee. He said:
“It is nonsense to be discourteous and rude to parents with no notice detentions. You are actually exhibiting poor behaviour. It is thoroughly unreasonable and designed to annoy the parent. The vast majority of schools will not do it because it would run against their principles and how they operate”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education Bill Committee, 1/3/11; col. 51.]
I absolutely accept that the vast majority of schools would talk to parents and take the view of Sir Alan Steer but, sadly, not all would, and therefore we believe that two key issues would give serious cause for concern should no further measures be put in place.
The first is safeguarding. If children are kept in school for a detention and walk home alone without a larger group of children leaving together and without their parents’ knowledge, we argue that parents must have agreed to this delay so that they can make the necessary transport or meeting arrangements to ensure that their child travels home safely. The press has, very sadly, been full of the recent trial of Levi Bellfield over the murder of Milly Dowler. I want to make it absolutely clear that she was not detained at school but she travelled home later and via an unusual route. Parents are rightly concerned to know how their children get home and at what time so that they can be confident that they will arrive safely.
Secondly, same-day detentions cause a practical problem for rural schools. Many children can access their school only by bus or rail, and often there is only one bus that they can take home. For parents who do not have cars and are unable to collect their children, there is an equity issue about short-notice detentions.
Our amendment is very straightforward. It aims to protect children by ensuring that their parents give consent to the detention and are able to make arrangements for the child to get home safely. We do not want to be prescriptive about how that consent is made—schools will know how best to reach a parent urgently. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I support Amendment 62, which very much follows on from Amendment 61 and has a similar intent to that described by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
We also recognise the arguments put forward by some school leaders that punishment is more effective if it takes place nearer to the time of the original incident. Therefore, we understand that there will be occasions when same-day detention is preferable if the necessary safeguards can be built into the child’s welfare. Indeed, that is why detention at lunchtime, which we introduced in previous legislation, is a very useful additional tool. However, to be safe, we regard it as essential that parents are properly informed for same-day detention when it is intended that it should take place after school.
Therefore, our amendment, in the form of a new clause, would require schools to give parents or carers reasonable notice of detention and to obtain an acknowledgment from the parent or carer within 24 hours. Where that acknowledgement has not been received, detention would still take place, but only after the original 24 hours—the current system.
A number of concerns have been raised about Clause 5 as it stands. For example, Ambitious about Autism made a point that I hope noble Lords will take seriously, which is that you need to prepare autistic children for the disruption to their plans and routines. Therefore, short-notice detention of children with autism is not only disruptive to their life and organisation but can cause them considerable mental distress.
Secondly, even Sarah Teather, during the progress of a previous education Bill said:
“For the record, we would not be in favour of removing the period of notice. It would be totally impractical”,
as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said. Sarah Teather continued:
“In rural areas, especially on dark evenings, parents would not know what had happened to their child and would be extremely concerned. It is perfectly acceptable to give 24 hours’ notice, as it will allow parents to make other arrangements for travel … Anything else would be unacceptable”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education and Inspections Bill Committee, 10/5/06; cols. 855-56.]
Equally, we need to be aware of the needs of young carers who could be stopped from doing vital caring work at home, with no warning and no ability to make alternative arrangements. We need to be aware of the fact that some schools are not aware of the full caring roles that their pupils are carrying out when they get home, and the schools may thereby not be sensitive to some of the pressures that they are putting on the children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has made the case about rural areas and I shall not repeat it. Unamended, the clause could disrupt the relationship between schools and parents. The NUT made a good point when it said:
“Behaviour systems and policies always work best when they are fully supported by parents. Detention without notice does nothing to bring parents on-side”.
That is also important.
Our amendment therefore helps to redress the balance. It recognises the advantages of short-notice punishment while acknowledging the need to build parents into the disciplinary equation by requiring parents to be made aware of the sanctions the school intends to take. It fosters good relations with parents while allowing them to raise any genuine and practical concerns about a child’s late journey home. In the event that it is not possible to contact the parent or carer, it should remain that the default position is 24 hours’ notice. I hope that noble Lords will see the sense in both amendments.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that this did not rise just out of a vacuum and that a large number of teachers and teachers’ organisations have indeed been in contact to support this piece of legislation. It is hugely important that where punishment is going to happen in schools it happens quickly in order to be effective. This legislation will not actually place a duty on schools to do this but simply provide a power to do it. Some schools could decide in their wisdom that they want nothing to do with having detentions under these circumstances. Others could decide that only certain members of staff under considerably constrained conditions may do so. Therefore, we can expect a variety of responses among schools in order to do this. However, there is absolutely no doubt that this power is needed by schools—or at least by some schools. It is part of a series of new tools for the toolbox that I am sure the Minister will agree he is trying to provide, and sends a message to teachers, pupils and parents that a lot of the misbehaviour that we have heard so much about is being combated. It is not one thing—there are other things, all of which are hugely important. They send a clear message to those people that they are going to be supported by government under these circumstances, and that teachers will not have to put up with the kind of misbehaviour that we have heard quite a lot about.
According to the thrust of the Government’s position, these decisions should be left to individual schools. We trust individual schools to make these kinds of decisions. Frankly, it is good so to trust them. Given that kind of trust, the response is always more professionalism. We do not need any more safeguards built into this. Where things are, there they should stay.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I will briefly make three points, unless something else occurs to me as I am on my feet. First, will the Minister tell us how many schools have actually asked for this? I have listened carefully to what the last noble Lord said, but in my three years as Schools Minister no school ever asked me for this power. I would be really interested in what evidence there is for a demand for it.
Secondly, I listened to what the noble Lord said about the fact they we should trust schools and leave it to them to decide whether to use the flexibility that they are being given in this Bill. I refer back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said about schools not necessarily fully understanding the circumstances of some of their pupils’ families; her example was whether or not they have caring responsibilities. I was shocked to talk to some schools where they did not know that parents might be in prison. All sorts of things happen that families do not necessarily want to go around talking about but which affect the nature of the home environment, and would then affect whether it would be appropriate to give a detention without notice on the same day after school.
Finally, on reinforcing the discipline from the school at home, when I was given detentions at the prep and independent private schools that I went to for things like forgetting my towel or—God forbid—being cheeky and a bit mouthy, which I know would shock noble Lords, there was always a letter home that went with the detention. That was always the worst part of the punishment: your parents knew that you had been given a detention. Giving 24 hours’ notice so that your parents are informed of the detention is a really important aspect of linking up the discipline of the school with home. We know that the single most important determinant of the success of a child’s education is the involvement of their parents in that education. I strongly believe that it is really important that we ensure that that linkage through the notice is there in every school.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight, because I found it extraordinarily surprising that this Government, who stand very much for working with and alongside parents and making sure that there is accountability and responsibility at home, can suggest that they would give a detention without informing parents. Having worked with the Minister, Tim Loughton, on other issues and knowing how important it is for the Government that children should be safeguarded, I find it astounding that they can suggest that children can be detained in the evening and be allowed to go home without their parents knowing and without safeguards. I expect better.
Detention is not always about discipline. I got my detention for leaving my French homework on the bus and not producing it.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I, too, support both these amendments. There are real concerns, as we have already heard, about the proposals to remove the requirement for written notice of detention outside school hours, given the safety concerns of parents for the whereabouts of their children, particularly if their children are at risk due to family circumstances or where they live or the nature of their journey from home to school. It is essential that the school gives parents notice if their child is to remain at school outside school hours and that the child’s safety and well-being are considered and given top priority.
Many have considered this proposal to be in direct opposition to the current insistence that the parents of excluded children must account for their whereabouts in the first five days of exclusion. It is only fair that, in return, parents are kept up to date by schools on their child’s whereabouts. I therefore support the amendment to retain the requirement for written notice of detention outside school hours.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I rise very briefly to ask the Minister a specific question, which arose from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, without any support or evidence at all to back up his claims. We should not have any legislation on the statute book unless it is actually going to do something—to improve or rectify a situation. The Education Act 2002 gave schools two powers. One was the right to earned autonomy and the other was the power to innovate. I am sure the Minister’s officials could tell him, or her, immediately how many schools since 2002 have applied under those powers to innovate to have detentions on the same day.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, as we have all agreed, improving standards of behaviour in our schools is of great importance. We know that having a clear behaviour policy, which is consistently applied and includes positive incentives as well as sanctions, is essential to ensure good behaviour. This clause is one measure that the Government are taking to help schools to achieve this. Its intention is to allow teachers and head teachers to use detention in a way that is appropriate to the circumstances of their school and individual pupils to maintain a safe and orderly school environment.
My noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Benjamin and other noble Lords have raised concerns about the safeguards, but safeguards are already in place to make sure that parents know what to expect with regard to detention outside school hours. Section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires that head teachers develop a behaviour policy in line with the principles drawn up by the governing body, and publicise it to parents annually. This policy must include all the penalties that the school uses to maintain discipline, including whether the school issues detention outside school hours.
The amendments in this group seek to place additional requirements on schools in relation to contacting parents when they wish to give a detention. I understand the intention behind the amendments. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly consider that courtesy to parents and issues of child safety are of the utmost importance. Of course, I agree with them about that. However, noble Lords asked where these requests had come from. They may have read the briefing by the Association of School and College Leaders, which read:
“We welcome removal of the requirement to give parents 24 hours notice of detentions. We note that at second reading there was concern that this power could be abused. School leaders are well aware of the position of child carers, as well as other concerns such as children walking home alone in the dark and in the vast majority of cases will continue to give 24 hours’ notice. We are confident that schools can and should be trusted with this additional discretion”.
We have had meetings with school heads who support that to the hilt.
I believe that teachers and head teachers will consider the circumstances of their schools and pupils in setting their policies on detention so that they can promote good discipline but also safeguard children’s welfare and support good relationships with parents. However, I shall also set out the existing legal safeguards that protect children’s welfare if they are given a detention. Section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires that disciplinary penalties must be reasonable in all circumstances. When considering whether a disciplinary penalty is reasonable, teachers must take account of the special circumstances of the pupil, including—but not limited to—their age and special educational needs, or any disability they may have. That would include the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about autistic children and their very special needs.
The Section 91 requirement applies when issuing detention outside school hours. This means that a detention will be lawful only if a teacher acts reasonably given the circumstances, including in relation to giving notice to parents. My noble friend Lord Lingfield raised the fact that this is a power, not a duty, that schools will have.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Do those legal safeguards mean that the noble Baroness’s expectation is that parents’ recourse would be to the courts—and the expense of going to court—if, for whatever reason, they did not feel that they had been given notice that their child would not be at the school gates to be picked up and that had caused them to worry? Is there another third party to whom they could appeal?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Lord raises a valid point. There will be a school complaints procedure to which parents can normally turn in the first instance. Given the special circumstances in which this might arise, one would have thought that that would be the first line of action.
I also understand noble Lords’ concerns regarding the safety of children when travelling home from school, particularly in rural areas. I should reassure noble Lords that, in addition to the safeguards I have just described, Section 92(5) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 makes it clear that, when considering an out-of-hours detention, teachers must consider whether suitable travel arrangements can be made via pupils’ parents. For some rural schools, out-of-hours detentions may never be appropriate, whatever the notice period, as has already been raised in discussion. I believe that head teachers will make sensible decisions in their individual circumstances.
In our debate on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, described some of the difficulties that schools can face in working with a minority of parents. There is a risk that requiring parents to give consent for a same-day detention or to confirm that they are aware of it could, in a small number of cases, allow parents to obstruct appropriate disciplinary penalties. I should reassure noble Lords that the department has released new concise guidance on teachers’ legal powers to discipline. This guidance makes it clear that the school must act reasonably when imposing a detention, as with any disciplinary penalty. In addition, when deciding the timing, the teacher should consider whether suitable travel arrangements can be made by the parent for the pupil. I believe we can trust teachers to consider this and act appropriately.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, a study carried out for the Department for Education found that teachers reported a lack of support from parents, describing a “them versus us” mentality. That same study found that teachers felt that the removal of the requirement for 24 hours’ notice of detention would empower them. I can send the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, a copy of that study. We stress that the vast majority of parents would be likely to be supportive if they could see that the detention was in the interests of their children. However, this measure is to take account of cases where that might not be seen as an appropriate action.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Is it not the case that the amendment asks for parents to be given notice? It does not require consent. I completely understand that there may be problems over consent if the relationship between home and school is not great. The important thing is that parents know that their child will not get off the bus.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Parents do not necessarily answer their phone. The fact that one has sent a letter home with the child does not necessarily mean that the child has passed it on—I can remember that being the case when I was a teacher. In some cases it was difficult to get hold of the parents to ensure that the message had been sent through. I come back to the point that, were there a difficulty at home, teachers and head teachers would be aware that it might not be an appropriate action to take. It would be taken only where it was deemed to be the right thing to do.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Is the Minister aware that quite often teachers and heads are not aware that there might be a problem at home? My noble friend gave the example of young carers. Young carers often do not wish to be known as young carers. I find “appropriate” and “reasonable” quite difficult to grasp in these circumstances.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
In the case of pupils who were young carers, one hopes that that would be known by the schools, although I grant you that it might not be. Once again, we come back to the fact that detentions without 24 hours’ notice would occur in very exceptional circumstances. Teachers would ensure with the pupils concerned that there was no reason for it to be inappropriate for them to be detained in those circumstances. Teachers are already legally required to take appropriate and reasonable action in giving an out-an-hours detention and to consider all the relevant circumstances. I do not believe for one moment that they would be gung-ho. We should listen to head teachers when they tell us that this measure will help them.
My noble friend Lord Willis asked how many schools applied for a power to innovate. The answer is probably none, because few schools have ever applied to use the power for any reason. It would simply be something that they had it in their power to do if the need arose.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I am grateful to the Minister for responding so quickly and to the Box for finding the response. She makes exactly the point that I want to make; namely, that these powers already exist. You do not need additional legislation to have an impact here. If a school wanted the power, it could simply apply to the Secretary of State under the 2002 legislation and the Secretary of State would gladly give it to them.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, there is currently a ban on giving a detention without 24 hours’ notice. That is why we are legislating here to enable schools to have the additional power if they wish to use it in very special circumstances.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I apologise if I am being incredibly stupid, but the 2002 Act gives the Secretary of State the right to grant to any school in England earned autonomy and the power to innovate. If you have the power to innovate, surely that takes precedence over any legislation, otherwise—I say with due respect—the 2002 Act becomes meaningless.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
With due respect to my noble friend, I think that it would be quite a time-consuming process for each school to apply to the Secretary of State for a power to innovate for a circumstance which would be likely to arise very seldom and which would need immediate action. Processes for expecting in advance to be able to do this are not practical.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I am sorry to take up the Committee’s time but this is important. It would not be done on every occasion. As a school, you apply for the power to innovate and you put it into your polices that you have the power to give a detention without notice—end of story. Why is new legislation needed?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Each school would have to apply individually for that power to innovate. We are setting in legislation the fact that each school would not need to apply individually to the Secretary of State; they would have it as an additional power which they could use on the rare occasions that the school deemed that it was an appropriate way of dealing with a pupil’s behaviour.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The power to innovate gives schools the right to ask whether they can be covered by this piece of legislation. You do that in advance; you do not do it because you want to keep a child in that night. I support what the noble Lord is saying, which is that the Government are making the case that only a small number of schools will use this power. If it is so important to them, looking across the array of legal powers they want to take themselves, if they think the most important thing is that they can keep children in on the same day, the power is there to do it. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The point is that this legislation leaves so many loopholes and so many risks of children not being safely looked after. We do not need to take that risk. If a school thinks it is important to them, they can apply for the power to innovate in advance. My understanding is that they have the power for five years.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am the Minister who is in receipt of applications for powers to innovate. I have not been overwhelmed over the last year and a half by applications for powers to innovate. It may be there but the point is that for it to be there it is a more complicated process than it ought to be. Every school would have to apply individually. They apply to officials and officials put up submissions and Ministers decide and opine and then the power to innovate, like Zeus, is given. It is time-limited.
As a way of dealing with the issue, if one accepts that this is a permissive power, as it clearly is, and if you say to schools that all those that might want to use this power have to go through the rather cumbersome and protracted process of applying for a power to innovate, no one will go through the process of applying. They will say that this has been made difficult for them, whereas something that is simple, which gives them the opportunity and which applies to all—to choose either to use or not to use—with safeguards in place, seems a more rational way than making every school try individually.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
Could I respectfully say to the Minister that this is not about powers and process, it is about message. If the message you want to convey is that you want to support schools and head teachers in whatever powers they wish, that is a message that will go out. But it will not be generally helpful in forging relationships between families, communities, parents and schools or indeed between children and their teachers. That is what it is about. It is about ethos and message. A better message is that these powers do exist. I am a strong believer in discipline in schools. Children learn much better if you have discipline. You need these sorts of structures in schools. But it is unhelpful to put into statute something which every speaker in this Room, even those who think we should do something, sees as unsafe and as poor communication with parents. I hope the Government will re-think how they convey that message of support to teachers without putting children into danger.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I want to be clear what she is saying. Is she saying it is okay to have short-notice detention and not to tell the parents, because that seems to be the message? That raises all the concerns that people around the Room have raised. By all means have short-notice detention but make sure the parents are told. It seems she is saying it is not necessary. All our amendment is doing is to make sure the parents are told. That is a safeguard—the check and balance that is needed. I have not heard a convincing case why we should not insist that parents are told.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
We are talking here about a detention which might be as short as 10, 15 or 20 minutes after school. In that case there would not be time to get hold of most parents to tell them their child was being detained. If all the safeguards were in place to indicate that there would be no danger or damage to that pupil in detaining them, it might be a short, sharp shock that would just rectify a situation that was getting out of control. It is simply an additional power that the school would have, without all the delays. It will build up into a much bigger issue if you then wait and send a letter back to the parents or try to contact them. The whole thing might escalate into a much bigger punishment than giving a brief and immediate punishment on the spot to a young person who had committed some misdemeanour where all the safeguards were in place to make sure that that child would not be at risk for being kept back for a few minutes at the end of school.
We are obviously taking account of transport and all the other circumstances where this type of detention would not be appropriate. We are doing so in response to head teachers, who have indicated that they would welcome this power. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, this is, in a way, a message about something that could be available to them should they need it in very specific circumstances and when appropriate with all the safeguards surrounding it.
We hear the strength of feeling around the Room about this measure but I hope that noble Lords will see that it is a very measured proposal. Teachers would not be inclined to abuse the system but it could be extremely helpful in some circumstances to give an immediate punishment. It would show a young person that they had stepped out of line and that such a punishment was appropriate.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, we certainly have taken on board the debate on this matter in Committee and the strength of feeling that it has aroused.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, we have had two debates on this amendment. The latter one that has emerged about the power to innovate and accessibility to current legislation for schools has been interesting. I urge the Minister to reconsider whether the existing law enables the Government to achieve what they want to happen. Should it not do so, I shall want to come back to some of the comments made by other noble Lords today.
There are key safeguarding issues relating to short-notice detention outside school time. That is the fundamental concern behind both these amendments. It is a question of trust in teachers, as espoused by the Ministers, or safeguarding children. Frankly, I think that the balance there always has to be in favour of children. I absolutely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and others about children who act as carers. Children may also have non-caring roles that they need to fulfil or other commitments outside school with classes to go to where their non-attendance would cause problems. There are many things that schools do not know about where a short-notice detention out of school time could cause very serious implications for a child.
Parental support is absolutely vital, as many noble Lords have commented. Since the beginning of Second Reading, we have talked repeatedly about partnership between parents and schools. Parents’ support for outside-school-time detention must be a priority, not least because that gives them the chance to make alternative arrangements and it also gives them a chance to say to the school, “In this instance, it is not appropriate to do it straight away”.
I have to take issue with my noble friend Lord Lingfield about this being a new tool in the toolbox. It is a very weighty tool and an absolute sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Minister cited Section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, as well as another Act, and was confident that all the legislation was in place and that all we were being asked was to trust teachers. However, this amendment and Amendment 62 set out a simple and clear way of making it absolutely unavoidable for a school to contact a parent and get a response. My noble friend Lady Benjamin talked about the importance of a letter going to the child’s home. She is right that in this day and age there are much faster ways of contacting parents, including by text and mobile telephone. Even five or six years ago, as a parent I got messages from school as my eldest had accidents at school and was required to be taken to A&E. If something is that urgent, frankly the school can make contact. If the school is required to contact parents, they must do so.
I come to the final point about a nine year-old at primary school walking home late in November without their parents’ knowledge. In the main, most schools would not want that to happen, but there are occasions when it might. That is why I come back to safeguarding. If it is safeguarding versus trust, safeguarding must come first.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That simply would not happen. It would not be the case that a nine year-old was kept back late in school and allowed to walk home on their own under these circumstances. That is not how this measure is either intended or framed.
Baroness Brinton
Whether it is a nine year-old, an 11 year-old or a 12 year-old, the same safeguarding issues are still absolutely there and valid. I am afraid that the problem with the plethora of legislation that was quoted earlier is that it is too easy to miss. There were comments earlier about the message that the Bill sends out about this. There is a clear message from both of these amendments that children’s safeguarding comes first, which is why parents should be notified.
I hope that Ministers will take into account much of the discussion that we have had today, and will able to come back at later stages of the Bill. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, when we talked in a previous debate about the Bill’s approach of removing what the Government see as burdens from schools, I said that I and my colleagues had approached this issue not simply by arguing, as we go through these detailed debates, that everything that the Government want to take out should be put back. I hope that the Minister can see that we have been selective and judicious with our amendments in this regard.
Like the duty to co-operate, Clause 6 would repeal a duty on secondary schools to co-operate with other schools to promote good behaviour, discipline and attendance, and also to make an annual report to the Children’s Trust on how they have done so. I move the amendment only because, like the duty to co-operate, we think that the repeal of this particular duty on behaviour and attendance partnerships will have such a negative effect on some of the things that the Government actually say that they want to achieve.
The amendment would reinstate the duty to enter into behaviour and attendance partnerships but remove the duty to produce an annual report. We have no difficulty supporting that part, but the duty to co-operate with other schools in partnerships to tackle behaviour, discipline and attendance are very important, not least because of the debate we had not long ago on exclusions and that entire discussion about behaviour and discipline. Everybody in that debate, including the Minister, said that we want exclusions to be a last resort. We want schools to work to prevent exclusions by having a strong, robust but comprehensive approach to inculcating good behaviour and dealing with discipline problems in a creative way so that they do not have to exclude pupils. That is what behaviour and attendance partnerships are all about.
They came into being following Sir Alan Steer’s review of behaviour, in which he said:
“It remains my firm view that all secondary schools—including new and existing Academies, Foundation schools and Pupil Referral units—should participate in behaviour partnerships”.
I know that the Minister may well come back and say, “Look, we think partnerships are a good idea but we want schools to participate in them voluntarily. We don’t think this duty is a good idea because, to be meaningful, a partnership is best when everybody is committed and enters into partnership voluntarily”.
What Alan Steer’s review pointed to was the fact that good collaboration between schools over these issues is often prevented by what are perceived, by other schools in the area, to be unfair practices by a minority of schools over such things as admissions and exclusions. The resentment that that engenders because of some schools behaving unfairly and not collaborating with others means that the whole approach to partnership is damaged and fragmented, and that it becomes very difficult to get partnerships going. He also said that such partnerships sometimes need a helping hand to become established. They need the kind of momentum that a duty on all schools equally to participate can create.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, briefly, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, has just said. It seems eminently reasonable to support such a mode of working—of sharing the burden of the most difficult children among a group of schools. From speaking to head teachers, I have not experienced that model. However, I have spoken to the head teacher who was responsible for something called the Greater Manchester Challenge in the Greater Manchester area. It gathered together teachers and head teachers in Manchester to support each other. I understand that there is something similar in Greater London. This, perhaps, was one of the strengths of the previous Government. One of the good things that they brought forward was a mode of encouraging heads to work together to produce better outcomes for children.
One sees that the new coalition Government are moving in the opposite direction. There is a lot that we will support in that. Perhaps we can all support greater autonomy and respect for individual professionals, but I would be very sad if, in the process of that move, we went from one extreme to another and we lost some of the good things that came out in the years of work that the previous Government put in. To my mind, it would be very sad to lose that co-operation and recognition that some problems are bigger than any one school can deal with.
The Minister may say that there are new modalities in developing these sorts of collaborative approaches. I recall what his noble friend Lady Ritchie said in the previous Committee session when she expressed concern, as the person responsible within the Local Government Association for the safeguarding of children, that the academies programme has given rise to concerns about fragmentation. There is a swing in the pendulum from one extreme to another. Some really good things came out from the previous swing in the direction of collaborative working, and I should be grateful to the Minister if he can reassure the Committee—as I am sure that he will—that he recognises the importance of schools working together to deal with these issues, and say what new mechanisms he is helping to bring into place to make it work for children in the future.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
I shall speak very briefly in support of the amendment because it is perhaps one of the most important that we will discuss in Committee. I know that we can return to the issue at a later stage. I very much support what my noble friend Lady Hughes said—out of all the obligations that schools have been freed from, this is probably one of the most important to discuss. My reasons for saying that are twofold. I completely accept the need for schools to be independent and I acknowledge and recognise that the Government are working to push that agenda as far as they can. Can the Minister say whether the Government also accept the need for schools to be interdependent? Does he understand the concept that sometimes schools cannot do well for their own children because they are not interdependent with other schools in the system?
If the Government accept that, I have a second question. Of all the things that schools can do, the thing that can most harm a neighbouring school is the exclusions policy. That is what makes exclusions different than a lot of other things. I am sure that the Minister and the Government fully understand that the actions of one school can make it difficult for another to raise standards. That is the powerful case for leaving there the obligation and duty to be part of the partnership. It is, first, about the interdependency of schools as well as the independence and, secondly, it is about understanding that the actions of one school can be very detrimental to the ability of the other to raise standards. Will the Minister reflect on that in her response?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I understand and have much sympathy with the intention of the amendment to promote partnership working between schools to improve behaviour and to remove bureaucratic burdens, and with the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. I agree that working in partnership to improve behaviour and attendance can help schools to meet the needs of their pupils. Very many schools are already doing this very effectively. We heard from Sue Bainbridge from National Strategies, who worked on behaviour in schools for the previous Government. She said:
“One really good example of partnership working is in Tower Hamlets. No one told those schools to work together; they decided to work together. They share their data now. They not only openly share data with heads and senior leadership teams, but flag up the youngsters who are causing them concern. They ask each other for help with strategies to address a problem.”
The Education Select Committee when conducting research into their report Behaviour and Discipline in Schools, published this February, observed:
“During our visit to Leicester City Council, local partners were confident that there existed an established culture of less challenged schools supporting those with greater challenges in terms of pupil behaviour. Therefore, the removal of the requirement to form BAPs [behaviour and attendance partnerships] was expected to have little impact on local partnership working”.
The fact is that Section 248 is not yet commenced. Therefore, schools that are part of a behaviour and attendance partnership have been doing so on a voluntary basis. No arrangements were planned to monitor or enforce the requirement for schools to form partnerships, and no resources have been allocated to schools to help them with the administrative burden that that would have imposed.
One feature of behaviour and attendance partnerships is that schools pool resources to buy in specialist resources, including SEN provision. There is no reason why this should not continue, because it has taken place without any need for this section of the Act. These examples—the noble Earl came up with an example as well—demonstrate schools’ willingness to work together on behaviour without being required to do so.
Of course, we must hold schools accountable for the outcomes that they achieve for their pupils. Our reforms to the Ofsted inspection framework, which will focus it on the core functions of a school, will ensure that schools are held accountable for the behaviour of their students. How they achieve good behaviour is for each school to decide. If poor behaviour and attendance is identified as a key issue for a school, the management and senior leadership team should prioritise this and take appropriate action. In looking at the effectiveness of a school’s leadership and management, Ofsted will consider how they work with other schools and external partners to improve pupil outcomes.
We have already discussed in debates on previous clauses the Government’s overall approach to improving behaviour in schools. As noble Lords know, one element of this is our trial of a new exclusions process, where schools take responsibility for the education and attainment of pupils whom they exclude. The trial will give us a further opportunity to explore how schools can work effectively together and with others to reduce exclusions and how government can incentivise them to do so.
Perhaps I may respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. In another place, Kevin Brennan said in a debate on exclusions that he would raise the issues of how—oh, I am sorry. All schools and admissions authorities are required by School Admissions Code to participate in the locally agreed fair access protocol to ensure that children without a school place, especially the most vulnerable, are found a place at a suitable school as quickly as possible.
I hope that I have demonstrated that repealing the legislation will not affect existing partnerships or stop new partnerships from forming. Behaviour and attendance partnerships appear to have flourished without ever becoming mandatory. This part of the legislation has never been put into force. I look forward to seeing this continue in future. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lady Morris for their contributions, emphasising as they did the importance for all schools of collaboration and partnership working, and the great contribution that they can make and are making to the creative management of some of the most difficult problems of behaviour, discipline and attendance that schools are addressing.
I am sorry to say that I was not greatly convinced by the Minister’s response. We hear constantly from Ministers that such requirements on schools are regarded by the Government as bureaucratic burdens. I do not think that they are. They have been necessary in order to inculcate the kind of behaviour that we want from schools. The fact that the legislation has not yet been implemented in full does not mean that its repeal will not have any effect. Schools were anticipating this legislative requirement; it was the whole direction of travel of the previous Government. The fact that schools are doing it effectively now—some of them; not all of them—does not mean that the duty to engage in partnership is no longer required. As I said in my opening remarks, Alan Steer pointed out that some schools behave very badly, particularly in relation to exclusions. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, when that happens, it greatly affects all the other schools in the area. His clear conclusion was that all schools needed to be in these partnerships and that all schools should have that duty placed upon them.
I am not convinced that repealing the requirement will not have a negative impact on the partnerships that exist at the moment. We have to look at this matter in the round. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, today about messages. Taken together, a lot of the messages in the Bill say to schools, “It’s not just about your independence. You can act in isolation. You don’t have to co-operate with the local authority; you don’t have to co-operate with the health service; and you don’t have to co-operate with each other in the development of solutions to these difficult issues”.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“Prejudice-based bullying
(1) Any school to which this section applies shall collect and publish information on the extent of bullying related to any of the protected characteristics.
(2) The section applies to any maintained school, Academy within the meaning of the Academies Act 2010 and to such other schools as may be prescribed by regulations.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “bullying” includes negative behaviour directed at an individual or group which is intended to cause either physical, emotional or relational hurt or damage;(b) “the protected characteristics” has the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010.(4) The Secretary of State shall prescribe what information is to be collected for the purposes of this section and how it shall be published.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
In moving the amendment, I acknowledge the support that I have had from both Stonewall and the Equality and Human Rights Commission in preparing it.
At Second Reading, I highlighted that homophobic bullying was reaching epidemic levels in our schools. I made it clear that this type of bullying affects young people regardless of sexual orientation in all schools including faith schools, academies and free schools. Stonewall recently published disturbing polling evidence revealing that nine in 10 secondary schoolteachers say that pupils, regardless of their sexual orientation, currently experience physical homophobic bullying, name-calling or harassment in their school. One in four teachers says that this happens “often” or “very often”.
The Government’s schools White Paper states that,
“tackling bullying is an essential part of raising attainment”.
However, while debating provisions within the Bill giving teachers the power to tackle bullying when it happens, we should not forget that schools must be in no doubt that they have a fundamental responsibility to prevent such bullying happening in the first place. Schools need to be environments where young people feel comfortable in reporting homophobic bullying. The amendment proposes that a requirement be placed on schools to record and report incidents of prejudice-based bullying. The requirement would apply to all schools, including free schools and academies.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill which attempt to deliver on the commitment to tackle bullying as set out in the White Paper, The Importance of Teaching. Nick Gibb, Minister of State for Schools, confirmed at Second Reading in another place:
“The coalition Government are committed to tackling all forms of bullying in our schools, including homophobic bullying, and the Bill makes a start by tackling the root cause of bullying—poor behaviour in our schools”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/11; col. 261.]
There is scope in the Education Bill to do more explicitly to tackle identity-based bullying, which, as I have detailed, is a significant and growing problem.
Both Stonewall and the Equality and Human Rights Commission recognise the importance that government places on freeing schools from unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. Therefore, a new requirement for data collection should not be proposed lightly—and I do not propose it lightly. However, the evidence of the size of the problem, its persistence over time and its impact on young people’s lives suggest that this is a proportionate and necessary measure that will enable Ofsted, parents and pupils to hold schools to account for their progress in tackling bullying.
The EHRC evidence shows that reporting on racial bullying is already widespread, with 75 per cent of local authorities collecting data from their schools on the extent of racial and ethnic bullying. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be straightforward for existing collection and reporting mechanisms to be extended to allow for the collection of data on other forms of bullying, such as bullying on the basis of sexual orientation and religion or belief.
Another concern is the lack of data gathering to monitor incidence of prejudice-based bullying by schools, perhaps compounded by new draft guidance issued by the Department for Education. This guidance provides information on preventing and tackling bullying and streamlines previous advice, but ultimately leaves decision-making on whether to keep written records to schools. In my view, keeping records is an essential tool to tackling bullying. It is an evidence-based approach to tackling this problem. The public sector equality duty requires schools to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and to consider how they could positively contribute to the advancement of equality and good relationships. As such, they are required to analyse the effect of their policies and practices on all the protected grounds.
Prejudice-based bullying is clearly one of the key issues affecting pupils, and a requirement to record and report across all protected grounds would help schools to meet their duty to support improvement in educational experiences and outcomes for pupils. I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this amendment. He makes many powerful points about homophobic bullying. This is a very serious issue. Research has shown that many young people who are gay feel excluded and even suicidal when they are bullied because of their sexual orientation. Bullying has become a very much more complex issue in recent years. It can happen to any child, and some more than others. The person who is doing the bullying also has problems, as well as the child who is being bullied. We have to tackle all that complex mix.
Mobile phones and the internet, in and out of school, have driven some young people who are bullied to suicide, not just to suicidal feelings. We need to look at this very seriously. The issue of keeping records is important, but I would go back to something that I remember Graham Allen saying recently. One thing is having the firemen to deal with a situation but, before that, we need to have smoke alarm systems. I want to talk about the smoke alarms here, not literally but metaphorically.
We need to teach about bullying, in PSHE or wherever, and address the reasons why some people are bullied, why some people do the bullying and the feelings involved there. That is the first point. We need to discuss bullying with pupils in school and have them express their feelings about it. It is also a matter of what is happening in lessons and within the school’s own ethos: how does the school tolerate this?
There is another issue about having a school policy on bullying and on behaviour generally. We mentioned school councils the other day, and I gave the example of the school where I am a governor having a council which sets for each classroom, in an agreed form, the classroom behaviour code. This should be encouraged by schools because it is devised by the pupils themselves. Where the pupils have an issue and make the policy—on bullying, for example—it is much more likely to be effective. While I agree with my noble friend about keeping records, it is also important for schools to have a policy on bullying which is kept to and agreed by the pupils.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment for all the reasons that he set out so comprehensively, but also because identity-based bullying is a particularly prevalent experience for Gypsy and Traveller children. Indeed, it is thought to be responsible for much of the 20 per cent drop-out rate at secondary level. I have heard harrowing examples from Gypsy and Traveller members of the UK Youth Parliament about their own and their siblings’ and cousins’ experience, which included sometimes indifference, or even collusion, on the part of the teachers.
About three-quarters of local authorities collect information on racial and ethnic bullying. I am not sure that they always think that bullying Gypsy and Traveller children is ethnic bullying. In any case, the schools which do not supply the information or collect examples of that and other identity-based bullying most need their practice exposed and improved. It will surely help to address poor behaviour and, as my noble friend says, it will not be an onerous addition to raise the standard of the worst to the best. I hope that the Minister will entertain the possibility of accepting this amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment and the reasoning behind it. We seem to have been through this process on a number of occasions during the passage of a number of different education—indeed, other—Bills. Above all, it constantly takes me back to the business of early intervention, setting standards and leadership within schools. I am back again to Graham Allen. All his theories and ideas are exactly what we should be thinking about.
Things such as Sure Start have done a great deal to show us the way forward. Equally, some schools have taken positive steps with early mentoring for every new student who comes in, with a positive responsibility—through the ethos of the school and the head teacher—to look after and integrate a new child into the school community. All these things are necessary, not least, as has already been mentioned, in a society where particularly nasty practices can take place using phones and photography—not to put too fine a point on it—thoroughly disturbing, if not worse, the life of a young child emerging into the world.
We may not have the right answer here. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. This is an important issue and I am glad that it has been raised in this context. Of course, it is not just homophobic bullying; it is a whole range of issues. We all need to keep an eye on them.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I also support this amendment. It is a helpful move to ensure that schools, Ofsted, the Government and responsible bodies within our wider communities are aware of prejudice-based bullying as a result of anything in these categories.
Severe bullying in any form is wrong and much has been done in recent years. I know from my own time in Cambridgeshire in the 1990s that we had trained staff in every school not just to spot bullying but to support other staff in the implementation of anti-bullying policies. School councils existed to work with pupils even at a primary level to talk about the issue. One of the fundamental problems over the years has been that some schools have refused to admit that bullying exists in their schools. That is why collecting data becomes extremely helpful.
Over the last decade or so, I have also had the privilege of seeing the work of the Red Balloon Learner Centres, which are set up specifically to help children so severely traumatised by bullying they can no longer go to mainstream schools. Their intention is, and they mainly succeed, to get these children and young people back into mainstream school within two years of being unable to attend. These children have been so badly affected that it is not just about being afraid of going into school, but they stop learning as well. That is critical. As has been mentioned already, some threaten to take their lives and very sadly some have taken their lives.
I have one concern about the amendment, however. Those schools who deny bullying is a problem are probably less likely to accept that there is, for example, homophobic bullying going on in their schools. Guidelines to schools, therefore, should be absolutely clear to make sure that there is a requirement on schools to really think about incidents that are reported and what the root cause is. Let me give you an illustration why. I know a young man who, when he was 12, was taunted repeatedly for being gay and he found it impossible to manage at school. He also, incidentally, had a disability. His confidence plummeted, his educational performance was also significantly reduced and it took some time for these incidents to be taken seriously by the school, which prided itself on its pastoral care. Once it accepted that there was an issue, things swung into action. But by that time his confidence was at a seriously low ebb.
If required to report the bullying, I doubt that school would have picked it up in the first year of those incidents and the impact on the young person concerned was significant. Fortunately, in his case a move elsewhere gave him the chance to recuperate and his life was turned round, mainly by his own self-confidence once the bullying had stopped. Once he got to FE college, he championed the young Liberal Democrats’ Homophobia is Gay campaign within his college, much to the astonishment of his family, but it gave him confidence and allowed homophobia to be discussed at his FE college. He is now happily at university and doing extremely well.
The reason I cite that illustration is that it is often more complex than it appears when somebody falls into a particular category. That is why any guidelines need to recognise that often there may be more than one category and that would need to be recognised.
As has already been mentioned, the recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report and evidence on prevention and response to identity-based bullying is illuminating. Two-thirds of young lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils have experienced direct bullying. That this rises to 75 per cent in faith schools is a shocking statistic. Despite my concern about reporting, monitoring will help to improve the situation and it is right that it must be by all schools, including free schools and academies. It is evident that racial bullying is being reported. As has already been commented, 75 per cent of local authorities are now collecting data. Let us protect all children and young people in the prejudice-based groups, including sexual orientation, disability and religion or belief.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I also support the amendment moved by my noble friend. He made a powerful speech at Second Reading and raised a very important issue, not least because it is still overlooked in this day and age and is still a difficult issue for some people to address. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just said, Stonewall and other organisations have reported on a very high incidence of bullying of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils. A feature of such bullying is that it is often hidden from adults because it takes place through text messages, social media sites and so on. It is often covert. However, as has been alluded to, the impact on young people can be absolutely traumatic. They fear going to school and being attacked, all of which impacts on their learning, sense of security and well-being. We have heard of some tragic cases in which people have harmed themselves or tried to commit suicide as a result.
There are three reasons why we ought to support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins. First, it would ensure that important first steps are taken to discover the extent of prejudice-based bullying through the recording of incidents. That is a picture that needs to be fleshed out. Secondly, having to record the incidents would, in itself, raise awareness of and sensitivity to the issue among teachers and schools. Thirdly, as we have heard, there is an apparatus and a system in place to record ethnic and other kinds of bullying, to which this could be added without much onerous work or demands being made on schools or local authorities. Those are three powerful reasons. I hope the Minister will find that he can support the amendment.
Lord Lexden
Does the noble Baroness also endorse something to do with recording that is tremendously important—that is, discussion? Discussion should not be of the covert kind to which she referred, but brought out more openly by kind and sensitive teachers who are in touch with the temper of these times, which have changed so markedly over the past few years. Teachers are now in a position to handle these matters sensitively and to encourage more general discussion of them in schools, reaching a fuller, more mature, more balanced and good understanding.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord’s point, which reflects that of my noble friend Lady Massey. These issues should be discussed more openly in the round through personal, social and health education and other discussions that take place in schools. If such bullying happens to them, pupils will then feel safer and more confident in declaring what has happened to them.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I briefly add a point about this being a Forth Bridge issue. It is perpetual and we must work at it all the time. I am interested in what the Government’s strategy for tackling bullying in schools is. The previous Government certainly had a strategy, which I assume the current Government will carry on and build on.
When I was involved with Childline, bullying was the most significant issue for children. I understand that this is still the case now that the NSPCC runs Childline. It came above safeguarding, relationships and issues to do with friends. It had an emotional impact on children. I know this because I spoke personally to hundreds of them over the telephone about their view of themselves, particularly young children from ethnic-minority communities, for whom this was a very confusing issue. More recently, we know that homophobic bullying has become much more rife, with names being called in the playground. Therefore, I recognise that collecting statistics may not be the Government’s way of taking this forward but I should like to hear more about what they are doing strategically. This is not something that needs a plan for today or yesterday; it has to happen all the time.
I remember advising the head of a school in the south of England where a young man had taken his own life. He said, “But we don’t have bullying in this school”. I said that the healthy position was to recognise that every school has bullying, but to have a strategy to deal with it that involves its pupils. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the strategic position.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, first, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for raising this important issue and, if I may say so, for doing it in a very thoughtful way and getting the debate off to such a good start. He and other noble Lords have described the terrible impact that bullying can have on a child. I agree with him and other noble Lords that schools, pupils, parents and the Government must work together to tackle bullying in schools, and prejudice-based bullying in particular.
We set out in our White Paper, as the noble Lord mentioned, our clear expectation that schools should take a tough and firm stance on all forms of bullying. They should seek to identify what bullying is happening in their school and take steps to support pupils who have been bullied and prevent it happening in future. To support schools, we have issued the guidance to which the noble Lord referred, setting out their legal powers and duties, the principles that underpin the strategies used in successful schools, and the specialist organisations that can provide information to help schools to understand and tackle different types of bullying. This guidance makes it clear that primary legislation, introduced by the previous Government, already requires head teachers to determine measures to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils. The Equality Act 2010 further requires them to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and to consider how they can positively contribute to the advancement of equality and good relations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said—and I agree with her—bullying is a problem which happens to children and young people in schools on a spectrum of severity and for all sorts of reasons. The noble Lord’s amendment addresses a particular kind of bullying, which is particularly horrid, but if one is on the receiving end of bullying all kinds of bullying feel completely horrid and vile. It is, as has already been explained, a complex issue that is too often hidden from parents and teachers, as noble Lords have said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that in order to tackle bullying schools must have a good understanding of what is driving bullying in their schools. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, made as well. We need a much broader approach. Schools must also understand the types of bullying that are a problem. It is crucial that they create an environment where pupils know that bullying is not tolerated and feel able to report it where it occurs.
The nature of bullying changes over time. If the noble Lord, Lord Rix, were here, he would talk about the concerns that he and others had about the rise in bullying of disabled children. If we had been here 10 years ago, we probably would not have had a debate about the rise in homophobic bullying. Therefore, understanding the issues and how they change over time is extremely important and will require different action in different schools. I have been told that 35 per cent of bullying goes unreported, so any system that relies on reporting alone cannot give a full picture of what is happening in a school.
The most effective schools use a range of approaches to monitor bullying. They combine evidence from incidents reported with other sources of information, such as anonymous surveys of pupils, surveys of parents and making use of school councils. We want to see more schools take a sophisticated approach that allows them to understand the problems in detail, address them and improve their approach based on evidence of what works. The new, more focused Ofsted framework will encourage schools to do this. Inspectors will have more time to look at how schools address poor behaviour, including bullying. That greater focus will flush out some of these things. The report that Ofsted will produce will provide information to parents about the detail of a school’s approach and how effective it is.
All that having been said, on the specific amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I fear that there are potential practical pitfalls with requiring all schools to collect and publish information about bullying in one way. That point was alluded to by my noble friend Lady Brinton. Information about bullying is by its nature fairly subjective, and the amount of bullying recorded will not necessarily depend on the amount of bullying taking place. I can envisage a situation where a low number of recorded incidents could mean that a school was exemplary at tackling bullying. Alternatively, it could mean that staff were not aware that it was going on or that children were afraid to report it.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his remarks and all noble Lords for their contributions to this positive debate. In moving the amendment, I did not want to give the impression that bullying was not a complex issue; it is complex, and we need to develop positive policies. I know from my own personal experience that often the first defence from homophobic bullying at school is to be a bully yourself. That is what we have to address.
The world has moved on. We are about setting standards. What happens in school carries on in later life and affects behaviour outside school just as much. I still can walk past a school with my partner and suffer taunts from inside the school. It is that sort of behaviour that we have to try to change.
I was not attempting to say that this was about targets or registering the amount of bullying; it is not about that. This would be just one tool to support the policies that I hope the Government support. If we do not have it, some kinds of schools in particular may hide behind the idea that the problem does not exist.
I welcome the Minister’s comment that he will look further into this, particularly with the commission and other organisations. In that setting, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Puttnam
“( ) This section shall only come into force if its provisions have been approved, by a simple majority, in a vote of registered teachers.
( ) For such a vote to be valid, 50 per cent of registered teachers must have voted.”
Lord Puttnam
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to challenge the Government but in effect also to challenge the profession itself. During Second Reading, I and the Minister disagreed on one issue. I suggested that the Bill challenged the professional status of teachers and diminished them, while he felt otherwise. If there are two overused phrases in this Bill and in discussions on education generally, they would have to be “world-class education” and “professionalism” in relation to teaching. I have not done a word count on the Bill but it is literally littered with the words “profession” and “professionalism”, normally prefixed by the words “enhanced” or “increased”.
It is the refuge of a pedant to look in the OED but the words are very clear. Under “professional” and “professionalism”, it says:
“Reaching a standard or having the quality expected of a professional person or his work; competent in the manner of a professional”.
Or there is,
“raises his trade to the dignity of a learned profession”.
A professional is:
“One who belongs to one of the learned or skilled professions; a professional man”.
As someone who comes from outside politics, I have never ceased to be amazed by the sometimes brilliant ability of politicians to oppose, which in my judgment is only matched by the apparent hopelessness to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors. It is something that I have observed over the past 15 years and I have no reason at all to think that I am wrong.
I declare an interest as a former chair of the General Teaching Council. I make two points. I genuinely loath government by assertion, which is what we are dealing with here, whereas I celebrate government by evidence. We came in in 1997 on a mantra of evidence-based policy-making. Sadly, that had died by the millennium. None the less, it was a good idea in its time. Creating policy involves learning lessons from the past and gathering evidence from the present. In support of my contention that scrapping the GTC was the coward’s way out, I started looking for lessons from the past and I found more than I could ever possibly have hoped for. In the process, I have become a quasi-authority on the formation and development of the General Medical Council.
I have an advantage over the Minister in that I have looked through a number of interesting and riveting documents from the Library on the development of the General Medical Council—and I shall certainly hand them to him. What strike you immediately are the extraordinary parallels between the development of the GMC and the hoped-for development of the GTC. It is also interesting to see that throughout its history the GMC relied on lessons learnt, and mistakes made, by the development of the legal profession, which in turn relied entirely on the very ragged process of the development of the clergy. Only Henry VIII tried to interrupt this learning process—at least, until now. I will not go into that at this stage, although I certainly could.
The parallel is quite extraordinary. For example, there has always been only a minority of pressure within the profession for increased professionalism. Prior to 1858, when the law was passed in this House, the bulk of doctors did not think that it was necessary that they be regarded as professionals. They were perfectly happy with the way things were and thought that the market operated very satisfactorily. Throughout the history of the GMC, there was very little agreement on the level of the retention fee that ought to be charged to be a member of what was termed a profession.
Here I come to a challenge to the profession itself. I bow to no man in my belief that this is an important profession and that all my futures, and those of my children and grandchildren, are entirely dependent on several generations of outstanding teachers. That is very clear throughout the Bill. It cannot be squared with an attempt to scrap the embryonic professional body that we attempted to create, inadequately, in 1997.
Another fascinating parallel that I dug up a moment ago is that the inadequacy of the original legislation for the GMC in 1858 was described as a sort of disgrace because the public were ill served as the legislation was watered down to a point where they could not rely on the professionalism of an individual doctor. Noble Lords may think that I am overstating this parallel but I think that it is a very important one.
For 153 years, a great deal has been learnt about turning the medical profession into a respected professional body, frequently in the face of fierce opposition from within. I am not pretending that the GTC was remotely what I would have liked it to be—dreadful mistakes were made—but you do not scrap a professional body; you build on it and enhance it. You improve it and nurture it and sometimes you have to cajole and maybe kick it. But our aim is to have a far more professional and far more effective body of teachers adhering to a set of responsibilities.
Finally, I say this to the Minister. If the profession does not want the proposals in my amendment—and I have deliberately used the form of balloting for which the Government clearly have a preference in settling disputes—you will hear not one more word from me. But let the profession decide whether it wishes to be professional, whether it wishes to acknowledge the obligations that go with being professional and whether it wishes constantly to prove itself to the point where we have a generation of teachers of whom we can truly be proud. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, a few of the amendments in this group are in my name and it may help the debate if I speak to them first. I apologise for interrupting. I shall speak to Amendments 64A, 64B, 73A, 73B, 73C and 73D.
We have considerable sympathy with the intent of noble Lords who have supported Amendment 64. We believe that there is a need for government to send out a much stronger, more positive message to the teaching profession about their value and status. Therefore, we believe that a body carrying out the key functions of the GTCE should remain in the Bill.
Like my noble friend Lord Puttnam, we fully acknowledge that the GTCE has struggled to fulfil parts of its mission. However, in abolishing it, we are in danger of losing other functions which it has delivered well and which would be lost to the profession as a whole. For example, in abolishing the GTCE we will deny the teaching profession a self-regulated professional body on a par with virtually every other professional body in this country. As the GTCE itself says:
“The Bill would remove the professional infrastructure that is standard for other professions such as medicine, law and nursing, and for other teachers”.
Equally, teachers themselves are calling for the continuation of such a body. For example, the NASUWT says the abolition,
“will damage the status of the profession”.
Meanwhile, as we have heard, the Government talk endlessly, and quite rightly, about raising the status of the profession. However, if they are serious, it would surely be a regressive step to take away the professional body.
The Bill describes how certain functions will transfer to the Secretary of State and others will stop completely. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hill, for his letter of 13 June setting out in more detail which of the GTCE functions will stop. In that letter he said:
“The GTCE functions which we do not propose to continue include: maintaining the register of teachers; investigating cases of professional incompetence; undertaking a range of surveys and research about the teaching profession; disseminating research and statistics; supporting teachers’ continuing professional development”.
Taking some of those examples, we believe that it is vital to maintain a professional register of teachers, as other professions do and, indeed, as the comparator bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will continue to do. The register of those qualified and entitled to teach in our schools has been successful in enabling employers to make recruitment checks. Under the Government’s proposals, all that will be held is a database of those prohibited from teaching.
Organisations such as the Association of School and College Leaders and the National Association of Head Teachers have made it clear how much they value a register of all qualified teachers that is accessible by schools. The NUT echoes that, saying that it would be a waste of resources if this work were abandoned now. The ASCL said that abolition of the GTCE and discontinuation of the registers removes the public’s guarantee that all registered teachers are,
“eligible, suitable, properly qualified and of good standing”.
It is not just the public’s but parents’ rights to the same guarantees that matter. For example, as part of my other life, I carry out some paid work for the General Medical Council, and I listened with great interest to what my noble friend had to say about it. Not only have I seen how much doctors value the General Medical Council’s register but I have seen how important it is for patients to access details of their doctors’ registration in an open and transparent way. Surely parents deserve the same rights? In a recent survey, 93 per cent of parents want teachers to be regulated, to have an agreed level of training and to be registered with a regulatory body before taking up a teaching post.
Lord Quirk
My Lords, if the only the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had been in charge of briefing for the Opposition in the other place in February, such a massive and very welcome defence of the GTC might well have given this Bill a different course as it has proceeded through Parliament.
Even now, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, we seem still to be assuming that the GTC is no good. We know that it has not been the huge success that those of us who spoke for it 15 years ago naively anticipated, but it has not been a complete failure either. The GMC, the historic model, has been discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Let us not forget that, even at the present time, the GMC’s wheels sometimes grind a little greasily, particularly over the competence of individual practitioners. That does not mean that any patient would want to see the GMC abolished and its role devolved to Andrew Lansley. The GMC is strong in its institutional mechanisms and it can put right the defects that are inevitable in any human institution. That is true for the GTC. I do not know much about it, and I certainly do not know as much about it as the noble Lord, who directed it during its first, uneasy infant steps. The GTC, I am reliably informed by people inside it, knows that it is not working properly. It knows what is wrong, why it is wrong and how to put it right. The solution surely is to fix the GTC, not to abolish it and then have a string of amendments such as we have in front of us today replacing the bits of the GTC that we see as so essential and putting them into somebody’s hands in the Department for Education. Surely the time has come really to think, “If this is a failure and if we did wrong 15 years ago, let us look to see whether this is true”.
In his Second Reading speech, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, who said that teachers in the private sector of education, for whom this Bill is not intended, are very keen to join the GTC. In January this year, research was published that showed that more than 90 per cent of parents wanted the profession to be regulated by a body such as the GTC and not by the Government. During all their speeches in this House and the other place, Ministers such as Mr Gove and the noble Lord, Lord Hill, have talked continuously about trusting the profession and letting teachers use their professional judgment. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, says, “Let teachers be the judge”. Let us go to the teachers and ask—as we had thought and hoped that we would—whether they want to be regulated by someone in Whitehall or are big enough to start regulating themselves properly.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, I will not take you back to Henry VIII, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, did. I sympathise enormously with his position. He did a magnificent job in trying to get the General Teaching Council off the ground. The issue of the GTC arose long before the noble Lord did, but rather after Henry VIII, in so much as the publication of Nicholas Nickleby by Dickens in, I think, 1840 so shocked the Victorian mind concerning conditions in schools that moves towards a general teaching council were started almost straight away. As the noble Lord told us, and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, repeated, the General Medical Council was a great spur to teachers to get moving to get their own profession. What went wrong?
What went wrong was something that went right. In the 1860s and 1870s, as these moves were going on, teachers’ unions and associations started to get their act together. Quite rightly, they were there in order not to protect the customer—which is what a general teaching council and a general medical council are about, by improving professionalism—but to stop teachers being exploited by employers. That is how the unions came together. Unfortunately, these two things became conflated, and they stayed conflated throughout the 20th century. All the moves towards a general teaching council, which were successful in Scotland, died away because of the conflation of ideas on what a union would do and what a general teaching council should do.
I remember being sent by the then Secretary of State, Mark Carlisle, to talk to all the union leaders, because he rather thought that a general teaching council would help to improve professional standards. It was very clear right from the beginning that it was all about how the unions would get certain seats on such a council and what power they would have, and what power they would have to give away.
When it comes to the noble try by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to get that together, we find exactly the same thing. As he said at Second Reading:
“Some of the unions that claimed to want a GTC backed off the moment they realised it might involve power-sharing, and the Government of the day were extremely ambivalent”.—[Official Report, 14/6/11; col. 754.]
Governments of every shade have been ambivalent throughout the history of bids for a general teaching council because they were absolutely unwilling to hand the reins of teacher supply to an outfit that would come to be dominated by unions. Today, if I remember correctly, some 36 of the current General Teaching Council’s 64 members have strong union connections. Therefore, the conflation is still there.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I am happy to support noble Lords’ Amendment 64 and the thrust of Amendment 64A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. At Second Reading, I went on record to defend the GTC for England. On these Benches, we support the removal of quangos that are unnecessary or whose functions are retained elsewhere. However, that clearly will not happen in this case. We will be left with little more than a list of teachers who are no longer fit to practise. There will be no remnant of a professional registration body.
It is said that a society is measured by how it cares for the vulnerable—the elderly, the disabled, those who are ill and children. A teacher has the future of a child in his or her hands. Nurses, doctors, lawyers and social workers have registration bodies that act independently of the Government. Only last week, I heard of plans by the Nursing and Midwifery Council to include the registration of healthcare workers. What is therefore special about teachers in England that this is denied to them? The elegant Amendment 64 calls for the members of the profession to reject the Government’s proposals, should a majority of them so wish, thus maintaining the status quo. Amendment 64A outlines a professional registration body as it should be through proposed new paragraphs (a) to (e), and it is a proposal of which teachers could be proud.
Consequently, on these Benches we support the intention of Amendments 64 and 64A. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, made the point that the GTCE had not worked so far. That is absolutely no reason to dismantle completely something that should exist. It is incumbent on us to leave it there and try again.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I shall be relatively brief; I suspect we shall want to adjourn fairly soon. I was pleased to put my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Puttnam, not just because there is a reasonable presumption that you should always agree with one of the people who proposed you at your introduction but because he is, as ever, right. As we have heard, the amendment suggests that teachers themselves should vote on whether the GTCE should continue. I looked up what the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, said on 2 June last year, when he announced the scrapping of the GTCE. Incidentally, I understand that the people working there, including the chief executive, were at the time as surprised about it as everybody else. Michael Gove said that the Government trust the professionals. This amendment trusts teachers to decide whether they want their professional body to continue.
The other half of the amendment uses the proper threshold. This should appeal to the Government, given that on 26 June, on the “Andrew Marr Show”, the Secretary of State Mr Gove confirmed that Ministers are looking at minimum thresholds in the context of strike ballots. In respect of such a ballot, which I am assuming that the Minister will say he supports, because it is so much in the spirit of where this Government are going, I would argue for the retention of the GTC, but with reform as necessary. Why the GTC? Because, in the end, professionalism is important. Again, I looked up the words of the Secretary of State in November last year in his forward to the White Paper. He said:
“At the heart of our plan is a vision of the teacher as our society’s most valuable asset”.
He went on to say:
“There is no calling more noble, no profession more vital and no service more important than teaching”.
Who could disagree with his words?
The Secretary of State’s actions cause me a little more concern. Given his commitment, if he so believes in them and their professionalism, it is a surprise that teachers have voted overwhelmingly that they have no confidence in this Secretary of State. Perhaps that is because of the reality of his attacks on that professionalism. Look at what he is doing to the pension scheme. When the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was in his place, he renegotiated the teachers’ pension scheme and made it effective and funded. They see that attack. They see anyone being allowed to teach in free schools, and they see a mum’s army being asked to come in and teach during the strike. If he was Health Secretary, would he have had said the same about nurses, and that mums should go and replace nurses in hospital if there was a nurses’ strike? If he was the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, would he ask them to do the same if there was a firefighters’ strike? I suspect not. I suspect that he would respect their professionalism more than he respects teachers.
Then he wants them arbitrarily to close their professional body. As others have said, would he have closed the General Medical Council if he was Health Secretary? No he would not. He would respect their professionalism and their professional body. The other shocking consequence of the abolition of the General Teaching Council is that the teaching agency will take on only the disciplinary functions of the GTC, as we heard in a speech of my noble friend Lady Jones. Can he confirm this? Does this seriously mean that there will no longer be a register of teachers? If so, this is an extraordinarily reckless move by the Government. I assume that the logic is that it is now up to schools to decide whether anyone can teach and what they are paid, and it is all part of this wonderful freedom that we are now going to give head teachers. Hence the assumption is that everyone is eligible to teach unless they fail a CRB check. I find it incomprehensible as to how that will work—and not just in relation to the relationship with Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland and making sure that people can move freely, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I just do not understand how the teaching agency will exercise its disciplinary functions without a register or how this move will improve teaching standards. I see it only lowering teaching standards. There are opportunities to use a register to raise standards. You could introduce a right to continuous professional development to teachers and, in return, they would have to re-register, so that we could ensure that they continued to receive training and raise their professional standards.
Finally, I repeat the point that this is part of the power grab by the Secretary of State. He will be directly responsible for recruiting, training and disciplining teachers as a result of this Bill. That is a massive change. It makes him very vulnerable to problems, when problems occur, as they inevitably will. But that is his problem.
These are just some of the arguments and reasons why I would reform the GTC to distil its statutory functions down to those coincidentally in Amendment 64A, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We could also think about the composition of the council and how it can be reformed better to represent the customer rather than the producer of education. With reform, I think the GTC can be an effective organisation, but I am happy to be hands-off about this and to leave it to teachers—hence my support for the amendment. If teachers do not want their professional body, they should be trusted to get rid of it.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I rise partly to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for calling him Lord Lucas earlier. I am sorry for that. I blame my Front Bench for giving me the wrong information. I do not want like the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to go back to the Middle Ages and end up at 1858 with the General Medical Council or indeed to revisit Nicholas Nickleby and the Dickens novels. I would like to start in 1963 when I became a teacher. It was the proudest day of my life when I got my first teaching post and went into a secondary modern school, Middleton County Secondary Modern boys school in Leeds. I spent 34 years in the teaching profession and I regarded it not only as a profession but as the most noble and decent thing that I have done in my life. If I had my life to run over again, I would do exactly the same thing.
One thing was always missing, however. Those of my friends who, unlike me, did not leave school early to try to play football and fail before going into teaching but who became doctors, lawyers or dentists all had a professional body which not only were they proud of but which decided the standards by which they ran their profession and which they met.
It was interesting that last Thursday we had two of your Lordships, the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Hill, proudly talk about having to visit the dentist. I do not know whether it was an enjoyable experience for the Minister but it certainly was for the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who was speaking perfectly well today. I suspect that when they went to the dentist they wanted to know that the dentist was registered as a dentist with the General Dental Council, which was set up by the Dentists Act 1956. If they had any doubt, they could have gone on the internet, looked at the register and confirmed that the dentist was qualified, registered and hopefully competent. They would not have liked to go on to the web and seen a phrase saying, “It might be a dentist. The only information we have is that he has not been barred for misconduct and that at some time in the past he did some training”.
That is what we are talking about. Let us remember that this Bill comes from the White Paper, The Importance of Teaching. If the importance of teaching is to say that we are not even prepared to let you as a profession have your own register to decide the standards by which you operate, the standards by which parents have confidence in you and the standards by which society has confidence in you, then God help us.
I can say to the Minister that the dentist that he visited last week was taught by teachers. They got the training necessary to go off to university and to train as a dentist from the teaching profession as it stood. I say to my noble friend that the GTC was set up by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 and that I sat on that Bill. To be fair to the Minister, the Labour Party at the time was not desperately keen on it either. I can remember proposing an amendment to that Bill which set up the register, because the original proposal—the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will agree—was to have a GTC but with the Secretary of State having the register. It was through good argument during the passage of that Bill that we persuaded the then Government that essential to a GTC must be a register of teachers who were not only trained and competent. That was the very basis of it.
I support much of what the Minister wants to do in saying to schools that they are going to have greater autonomy, that head teachers will have greater autonomy and that the Government are going to set up all sorts of different organisations, although we may or may not agree with some of them. But to say that the one group of people who cannot have autonomy are the teachers themselves as part of the teaching profession is sad indeed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned, for the Secretary of State to say in his White Paper that there is,
“no calling more noble, no profession more vital and no service more important”,
than teaching and then, at one stroke of the pen, say, “Ah, but you are not even worthy of having your own teaching council”—my goodness, Minister, you really do need to think again.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the Grand Committee normally finishes at 7.30 pm. We have gone into overtime on this. If any other Lords wish to speak, could they please be very brief to make quite sure that we are not going too far into overtime? My noble friend Lord Lexden has an amendment in this group, but otherwise might we please have a plea for brevity for the convenience of the Committee?
Lord True
My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness said. Briefly, I add to the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others, and the work that they have done. I am slightly surprised that some of my noble friends have supported his amendment. As I read it—and this may be something that the noble Lord wishes to reflect on or help us with when he responds—it slightly has the character of a wrecking amendment, or certainly one leading to a disincentive to take part in a decision on the future of the GTC. The amendment says:
“For such a vote to be valid, 50 per cent of registered teachers must have voted”.
As I read it, the assumption would be that the provision was part of the law of the land. Therefore, in order to frustrate the will of Parliament, as its effect would have been if the Bill had been enacted, those who were unconcerned or perhaps led to boycott the vote could decide the outcome of a ballot such as the noble Lord proposes. Having heard the eloquent statements about the ringing importance of the body in this debate, that is a very negative way of looking at it. I would therefore find it hard to support the amendment under any circumstance. It lacks confidence in the case being put, and is potentially a wrecking amendment in that it sets a threshold that would easily fail to be achieved by dint of a boycott, which is something that we should not wish to encourage.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, having made clear my general support for the concept of the GTC at Second Reading, I will quickly make three points. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, kindly mentioned the upsurge of support that occurred in independent schools, with which I was then connected as general secretary of the Independent Schools Council. It was marked and reflected many things, but above all it was in response to the quite extraordinary enthusiasm and determination with which the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam went about the initial work of laying the foundations for the GTC.
Secondly, I emphasise on behalf of independent schools, with which I remain informally connected, the importance that they attach to the maintenance of the register in any circumstances which may exist in the future. Finally, I make the simple observation that there will be a GTC in Scotland, a GTC in Wales and a GTC in Northern Ireland. Will it not look very odd not to have a GTC for England?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, having for some years taken an interest in the low status of professionals working around children, particularly the low status of social workers, I have always been drawn to the model used in the health service and in the law. Senior practitioners in the health service very much have the responsibility for bringing on new blood, having an impact on the supervision and development of juniors. There is the same approach, particularly in law, with pupillage. It is retrograde to move away from a position where teachers were perhaps beginning to take more control over their continual professional development. The GTC might have allowed for that. As all noble Lords have said, it seems extremely ironic and strange when the Secretary of State says that teachers are the key to improving outcomes above all things and then takes away the professional body for teachers without offering a strong replacement. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, on the status of the teaching profession, I agree with everything that has been said. The issue that we are debating today is whether professionalism can be captured only in some national regulatory body or whether it can be found in other parts of the wood.
I was very struck at Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Knight, spoke of the success of Teach First as being great achievement of the previous Government. He could have spoken about the work of National Leaders of Education or Local Leaders of Education, or the work of the National College, which are all very good examples of professionals working to raise standards and help other professionals. He could have mentioned the growing numbers of academies taking on responsibility for helping other schools in chains or clusters. Those all seem to be aspects of a profession taking responsibility for itself. I may be wrong because I was not around at the time, but I am not sure how prominent the role of the GTCE was in taking forward Teach First, National Leaders or partnership working between schools. Having a national body of that sort does not deliver professionalism, raise standards or deal with important issues about continuous professional development. The Government believe that we need a regulatory system that is credible, effective and provides value for money—I think that there is acceptance for that today.
I do not take any particular pleasure in the ending of the GTCE. I know that it was started with high hopes and that there were many who had wanted it, as we have already heard, from the 19th century. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, both today and at Second Reading, spoke eloquently of the practical problems that it faced at its birth—I think that the phrase he used at Second Reading to describe his appointment was “hospital pass”. However, what is clear—I do not want to labour this too much—is its record. Since the GTCE was formed in 2000, nearly two-thirds of local authorities have never referred a case of incompetence to it, despite employers having a statutory duty to do so. Since 2001, the GTCE has concluded only 82 competence hearings and struck off 15 teachers for incompetence. The majority of our teachers, we know, are highly competent professionals, and we would not question that, but it seems unlikely that in the whole 10 years there have been only 15 incompetent teachers.
One fact that struck me as evidence of the attitude of teachers towards the GTCE was the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lingfield; that is, of the modest £36.50 annual registration fee, the taxpayer has to subsidise £33. That does not seem to be a very powerful sign of a profession that feels strongly about the role that the GTCE performs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made reference the views of the NASUWT. I recognise that its views can change over time, and they clearly did, because the general secretary of the NASUWT has said:
“I have frequently said that if the GTCE was abolished tomorrow few would notice and even less would care. I have absolutely no doubt that the Secretary of State’s decision will be warmly welcomed by teachers across the country”.
The key question is that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam; namely, what should replace the GTCE if one accepts that it has not delivered in the way that he and others had hoped at its beginning?
Perhaps I may set out what we are proposing. It is, in essence, the following. A smaller, more cost-effective body, the teaching agency, would deal only with matters of misconduct. Hearings would be heard by a panel made up of representatives of the profession and independent lay people, with a right of appeal, as now, to the High Court.
Issues of incompetence would be dealt with separately. I have always thought that the GTC’s current sanction for incompetence was a surprisingly nuclear option. Rather than a slow, cumbersome process that led painfully to a national process and ultimately—for 15 teachers—to barring from the profession, we think it would be better to have a much more flexible, local system whereby issues are resolved more quickly. We can all think of people who have not made a go of it with one employer, but who flourished somewhere else. We are therefore keen to move to a system with all the same protections in employment legislation whereby employers can exercise judgment, address problems more swiftly, and help teachers to improve.
We have been carrying out a review of the professional standards for teachers, which will give employers clearer national benchmarks for performance and conduct. We are currently consulting on simplified arrangements for performance management and tackling poor capability. That will streamline the system and remove the current duplication that employers have found is a barrier to tackling performance issues. We will also strengthen the training and support available to school leaders, so that head teachers and aspiring heads are better prepared for their management role through a revised national professional qualification for headship. We think that these measures will leave the powers to deal with teacher incompetence in a more appropriate place and help head teachers to exercise those powers more effectively than the current regulatory system does.
So far as conduct is concerned, none of this is to say that we think there is no role for a national regulator. On the contrary, we are clear that where teachers are guilty of serious misconduct, they should be referred to the national regulator for potential barring from the profession. That mechanism is cumbersome for head teachers and the regulator, because every case where a teacher is sacked for misconduct must be referred, even though the vast majority of these cases do not warrant barring. The new arrangements will be more effective by giving employers discretion, while still ensuring that the most serious cases are referred. Where cases are referred to the regulator, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a new power to make interim prohibition orders. This power was always intended for use in the very rare cases where it is in the public interest to bar an individual from teaching while an investigation is under way. Amendments 64AA, 65A 65B and 65C have been tabled by the Government in response to your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendations that the safeguard for this power be put in the Bill.
Noble Lords have asked for reassurance that the element of discretion that we are introducing will not lead to a weaker and less consistent system. It is of course important that the new system protects pupils and maintains confidence in the teaching profession. Let me say straightaway that the proposals make no change to the duty on all schools to refer any cases of serious misconduct relating to children to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
I should also draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that the Bill provides for referrals to the Secretary of State from members of the public. Where a parent or other member of a community disagrees with the judgment of a head teacher who has not referred a teacher dismissed for serious misconduct, they may make the referral themselves. This provides a further safeguard that teachers in the most serious cases will not in some way slip through the net.
I turn to the important issue of the Register of Teachers, which a number of noble Lords raised, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, my noble friend Lady Jolly, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough. The Government said in another place that we would consider the arguments in favour of making available data about teacher qualifications. We have listened to what the head teachers’ unions have said—that point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I have also listened to the case eloquently made today by noble Lords, particularly by my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough. It is right to say that the teaching agency will maintain a database of teachers who have attained qualified teacher status and who have passed their induction period. That seems to be an eminently sensible point and we will take it on board. That database will be available online to employers from April 2012.
Some amendments concerning surveys and statistics—CPD and so on—were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The Government will continue to commission research and to support the effective management, assessment, planning and development of the teaching profession. We are in the process of considering what the data and research needs of the new teaching agency and the department will be.
The CPD part of the GTCs’ work is currently shared with the TDA, and in future work on CPD will form part of the remit of the new teaching agency. However, as I have already said, over time we would tend to see more and more of that work being delivered by schools.
With regard to some of the more technical issues, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised the question of information-sharing between the GTCs in the devolved Administrations. Officials in the department recently met their counterparts and the GTCs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to discuss this issue. We have an agreed approach to sharing information between the four nations and will continue to meet regularly to discuss that.
On cash reserves, I agree with the noble Baroness that, if money was originally paid to the GTCE for the benefit of teachers and some of that money is still available, it should continue to be used for a similar purpose. If there were any cash reserves, we would use them for the benefit of teachers and the teaching profession—for example, to contribute to the continuing administration of the regulatory function, which a large proportion of the GTCE’s fees was spent on.
I recognise that my answer is disappointing to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I never like to disappoint the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect. I hope that what I have been able to say about the register will provide some reassurance to noble Lords who I know were concerned and that, taken together, my response will enable the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Puttnam
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hill. I certainly do not want to detain the Committee but wish to make two points. I was very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, said and was very impressed at Second Reading by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I should like to touch on those for one second. As both of them know, I am conscious of the fact that the job I took on was very much a question of standing on the shoulders of giants. I had read a lot about but, sadly, never met Sir Alec Clegg, and I knew John Tomlinson very well. These were great men. They were noble and decent, and my job was to try to deliver something of their vision. I fought hard and successfully, and I think that it was a good move to bring the independent schools on to the GMC. I could not have had two more heroic figures than Ian Beer and Elizabeth Diggory to support me, and I feel very strongly that, were they both here today, they would not wish to throw in the towel at this point.
I also want to touch on Scotland, which both noble Lords mentioned. I spent a fair amount of time in Scotland and took a lot of advice from the then chairman of the Scottish GTC. He said, “Give it time, laddie. Give it time”. He was right. We needed to give it time but we have not given it sufficient time. I should possibly have listened to him even more. No one is pretending that Scots unionists are any person’s pushover; they have intense pride in the profession. My amendment is simply intended to challenge the English teaching profession to show similar pride, similar determination and a similar commitment to getting their act together. It requires them to create something of which they and we can be proud, and we can be very proud that we protected it when it was under pressure. For the moment, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Interim prohibition orders2A (1) Regulations under paragraph 1 may make provision for the Secretary of State to make an interim prohibition order, pending the Secretary of State’s final decision under section 141B(2).
(2) Regulations about interim prohibition orders must provide that an interim prohibition order may be made only if the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.
(3) Regulations about interim prohibition orders must provide that the Secretary of State must review an interim prohibition order—
(a) within six months of the order being made, and(b) within each subsequent six month period,if the person to whom the order relates makes an application to the Secretary of State for such a review.”
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday at 3.45 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday at 3.45 pm.
House of Lords
Lord Hanningfield
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
My Lords, I have to inform the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received notification from the court manager at the Maidstone Combined Court Centre informing him that Lord Hanningfield was sentenced on 1 July to a term of 9 months' imprisonment.
NHS: University Health Centres
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether NHS university health centres are being disadvantaged by the weighting of the registered list size and the introduction of prevalence quotas for the quality and outcomes framework.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, no. Payments to practices are based on an agreed calculation of health need and on equitable funding. The funding formula recognises patient numbers, with adjustments for the characteristics of the patient population and practice circumstances. The disease prevalence formula in the quality and outcomes framework provides fair rewards to all practices, but with stronger incentives for them to identify and treat patients with the greatest health need.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware that, although some practices in university centres receive support from the university, others are linked to GP practices which run services as a separate contract? Many of those have looked into the finances and found that it is so disadvantageous to them that they are not considering renewing or extending their contracts to supply what I consider to be necessary services. What will the Minister do?
Earl Howe
My Lords, naturally, before preparing myself for this Question, I looked carefully into the way in which university practices are funded. The advice I received is that there is no reason to be concerned on that front. Many university GP practices are funded quite generously. Where they can lose out is over the quality and outcomes framework, which is targeted mainly at elderly patients with long-term chronic conditions, so it is not surprising that university campus practices do not earn the extra money that they could. Nevertheless, we believe that there is no case for making an exception for university practices in the way that they are funded.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on getting her head around the system of weighting for payments to GPs for their patients. It contains such gems as,
“An overall weighted listsize for the PCO is generated as the sum of Practice Weighted Listsizes for all Practices in the PCO, and this PCO Weighted Listsize is used together with the PCO Weighted Population”.
I will not go on, but I congratulate the noble Baroness. Given the mental health problems that students often face, is the Minister confident that the system of weighting takes proper account of that medical issue, which is certainly more prevalent than the chronic conditions that he mentioned in a community general practice?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the characteristics of each GP practice will naturally vary according to the patient population. Although a practice situated on a university campus may have higher numbers of patients who require mental health advice and support, there may well be fewer patients in need of other services. I am not aware that there is a particular issue of underfunding of university practices in relation to the mental health burden. As the noble Baroness will know, the QOF was adjusted in 2008 with a two-year time delay, so university practices have had a chance to adjust and prepare for the change.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Are university health centres gearing up to deal with cases of anxiety and depression among students at English universities who wish to go to Scottish universities for a further degree and who find that they will have to pay the full fees, unlike students from other countries in Europe? Is that not a disgraceful, discriminatory proposal by the Scottish Government? Can this Parliament not find a way of outlawing such discrimination?
Lord Patel
Can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the impact of the QOF on the outcomes for patients, whether university patients or otherwise?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there is no doubt that the QOF had many beneficial effects when it first began, and we recognise those. However, there is a general feeling that it needs to evolve and refocus itself more on those things for which it was originally intended, which were to promote quality and better outcomes in patient care.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, student health does not quite fit the national pattern. Who is currently responsible for public health campaigns within the student body and, with the advent of clinical commissioning groups, is their future assured?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend will know that public health campaigns and health improvement efforts are currently being commissioned and directed by primary care trusts. That will continue until such time as local authorities take responsibility locally for the public health endeavour.
Lord Richard
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that very few people in the House understood the Question and, with great respect, even fewer people understood the Answer? Does he not think that his department has an obligation to put out policies that are at least comprehensible to the people whom they are meant to affect?
Earl Howe
I can only apologise to the noble Lord, but he is right that it is a very complex topic. The simplest way in which I can explain the issue around the QOF, which is an element of the way in which GP practices are remunerated, is to say that before we had a situation where practices with large lists but little recordings of those conditions which QOF is aiming at, such as university practices, were receiving relatively higher reward than practices with smaller lists but higher levels of chronic disease and, as a result of the changes, the true prevalence is being used to weight the payments for all practices. The overall effect is to redistribute the total resource for the QOF among GP practices in a much fairer way.
Sri Lanka
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support calls for an international inquiry into events in Sri Lanka during 2009.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, since the end of the military conflict, the United Kingdom and other members of the international community have consistently called for an independent, thorough and credible investigation into the allegations that war crimes were committed by both sides. We expect to see progress from the Sri Lankan Government by the end of the year. If there is no response, we will support the international community in considering the options available.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the report of 40,000 civilians killed in the last month of the war and reports of other atrocities indicate that the position of the Sri Lankan Government is just not tenable and that these allegations need to be investigated fully and, if proven, the perpetrators brought to justice?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I certainly agree that hideous atrocities and crimes were committed. The UN panel report is very revealing, as are other reports. It is the view not just of the United Kingdom but, I think, of the whole international community that there is an essential need for the Sri Lankan Government and others to be open and prepared to examine the past in an open and unbiased way in order to find at least a basis on which better unity can be created in the future. The noble Lord is absolutely right that to try and bury these things in the past will lead to more suspicion and difficulty, and that is not the way forward.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, the previous Government are to be commended on appointing the right honourable Paul Murphy and Mr Chris McCabe, a former Northern Ireland Office official. It is hard to imagine a more diplomatic, courteous or experienced team. Despite that, President Rajapaksa and his Government showed no interest in engaging with them. Can my noble friend tell the House whether there is any improvement in relations between the Government of Sri Lanka and Her Majesty’s Government? If not, is it likely that we will be able to achieve any engagement and understanding, either directly or through Commonwealth colleagues, or will we have to resort to pressure from the international community, including the United Nations? How will we deliver the kind of inquiry that the noble Lord mentioned earlier in his reply?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We all very much hope that it will not go that way and that there will be an improvement in relations, which have not been good thanks to an attitude which seems determined to try to put up a wall, as it were, rather than embrace the opportunity that the UN panel report offers. Clearly we do need a clear inquiry. The so-called Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission is at work and maybe it will be able to contribute to more openness. However, the pattern is not good, and I would be misleading my noble friend if I said that there had been much improvement recently; there has not.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about wanting substantial progress by the end of the year. If substantial progress has not been made, what is Her Majesty’s Government’s position on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting taking place in Sri Lanka in 2013? Is the Minister in conversation with other Commonwealth members about whether that should then take place?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Of course, this is a matter for discussion among Commonwealth members because it will come up for decision at the Heads of Government Meeting 2011 in Perth at the end of October. It is a concern. Our aim is to see that the Sri Lankan Government in Colombo live up to and reinforce the ideals and shared values of the Commonwealth and therefore prepare themselves for being a suitable host for the CHOGM in 2013. There is a long way to go, but that is what we are going to work for.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the Government have no jurisdiction over Sri Lanka, that there are many awful things that happen all over the world over which we have no jurisdiction, and that it might be more appropriate if Her Majesty’s Government dealt more effectively with the things that are going wrong within their jurisdiction rather than going on endlessly—as do other noble Lords—about matters that are outside the Government’s jurisdiction?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I see the theoretical and perfect logic of what my noble friend is saying, but the facts are the facts, and the facts are that there are large populations in London and elsewhere in this country that are intimately and politically concerned with this issue. If it goes badly wrong, it affects us all in our domestic arrangement as well. To debate whether it is inside or outside the jurisdiction is fine in theory but in practice, if that wonderful country of Sri Lanka continues to be deeply divided and is not able to heal the wounds of the past, that will directly affect us and our interests in a very precise way, regardless of whether we are juridically in charge or not.
Lord Liddle
Does the Minister agree that the recent decision of the UN Human Rights Council to block the recommendation of its commissioner to press for an international inquiry into Sri Lanka was disappointing if not shameful? Does he agree that we have a problem when so many of the world's most powerful emerging nations—here I am in contradiction to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—put protection of the principle of sovereignty above any state's duty to protect its citizens; and that we in the United Kingdom should use whatever influence we have as a nation to persuade these nations that sovereignty is not absolute and that all countries of the world share a common obligation of humanity to uphold human rights?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Those are very splendid sentiments with which I could not possibly disagree. There are a few practical issues to resolve before we can rise to those heights, but I fully appreciate what the noble Lord magnificently aspires to. The decision of the UN human rights commission was disappointing. The commission is not always able to meet the aspirations of those of us throughout the world who are concerned with human rights and the advance of civilisation.
Health: Stroke Care
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what actions they will take to address geographic variations in stroke care identified by the Royal College of Physicians and detailed in the National Stroke Audit Report 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the 2010 audit shows ongoing improvements in stroke care in England. To achieve the high-quality care described in the national stroke strategy and the NICE quality standard, the NHS is continuing to implement the accelerating stroke improvement programme. This aims to go further and faster in delivering improvements in stroke care across England.
Baroness Wheeler
I thank the Minister for his response and his recognition of the tremendous progress that has been made in the past three years with the national stroke strategy. I am sure that he agrees that progress has been most marked where strategic health authorities have provided strong leadership to drive forward strategy. With their abolition, how will the new system, through the subnational elements of the NHS commissioning board—the clinical senates—help facilitate the necessary improvements, and where will accountability lie? Also, I am concerned that the future of the stroke strategy team at the Department of Health seems to be uncertain. I have heard that the national clinical director for strokes will shortly stand down. Will the Minister confirm this and explain, if that is so, who will be responsible for providing strong leadership on stroke improvements at national level both in the short term and under the proposed new system?
Earl Howe
My Lords, clinical leadership is at the heart of our reform plans for the NHS, both at local and national levels. As regards the national director, our officials are currently considering how best to reflect that leadership at national level as part of the work being done to develop the new NHS commissioning board. I say to the noble Baroness that I see the NHS reforms as presenting an opportunity for much stronger partnership working between primary care commissioners and secondary care specialists. The NHS outcomes framework will enable us to track the overall progress of the NHS in delivering improved outcomes, and commissioners and providers will be supported by advice from the stroke networks under the auspices of the board. Therefore, we will have the opportunity in future to drive consistency and quality throughout stroke care in England.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in addition to the availability of facilities in all geographical areas, the other essential ingredient in getting a successful outcome is the level of knowledge that individuals have of the symptoms that might indicate that a stroke is about to happen? What initiatives have the Government in mind to improve public understanding and education in that matter?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I am sure that he will know of the FAST campaign, which stands for face, arm, speech and time to call 999, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, used to tell us. We conducted a renewal of that campaign in March. We believe that it is an extremely important way of raising public awareness of the urgency of the situation. We will keep that programme firmly under our eye and renew it as we feel necessary.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, it is well reported that the incidence of stroke and TIA in the north-west is higher than the national average. It is sad to note that, in my diocese of Blackburn, none of the hospitals in Lancashire manages to come into the best 25 per cent. I am very satisfied with the noble Earl’s Answer about the improvement that has taken place, but can he ensure that there are suitable specialists in place to provide a comprehensive stroke service throughout the country?
Earl Howe
The right reverend Prelate is quite correct to point out that there is variation in the country, as one would expect, not least in the area of rehabilitation after a stroke. The most encouraging progress we have seen throughout the country has been on acute stroke care, but we now have work to do on the rehabilitation side. As it happens, I was in the north-west some weeks ago and saw some encouraging work going on in the area of telecare, whereby stroke physicians can assess and diagnose a patient remotely, sometimes from their own living room. This will make an enormous difference, particularly where there are distances to travel for stroke specialists. I believe we should encourage those initiatives where we can.
Lord Smith of Clifton
My Lords, with regard to stroke in young people, what specific policies is the Minister’s department pursuing, particularly bearing in mind that most strokes in young people are caused by sickle cell disease?
Earl Howe
My noble friend makes an extremely important point about strokes in young people. It is of course true that, thankfully, fewer young people suffer these strokes, but he is right that sickle cell presents a warning sign. There are clear guidelines for ambulance crews and doctors more generally relating to those who have sickle cell disease. We had a debate a while ago on this topic in which the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, made some extremely important points which we continue to bear in mind.
Lord Winston
My Lords, various reports show that the mortality for stroke can be as high as 30 per cent. Sadly, in the United Kingdom mortality is higher than almost anywhere else in Europe, although there is great geographical variation all over the world. One of the issues that Professor Peter Rothwell, of the University of Oxford, has pointed out is that speed is the essence of success. Therefore, it is not merely a question of informing patients, but of making certain that the right availability is present in our hospitals. If we do that we can reduce the risk of a further stroke by 80 per cent and probably, as he says, reduce the cost to the National Health Service in primary care by somewhere between £100 million and £200 million annually. Would the Minister be kind enough to explain how that will work in the future of the health service?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in all that he says. I would just point out that the official statistics are rather historic and it is important that we take stock when the revised figures are before us in some months’ time. As regards how best practice will be driven when the health service reforms are in place, I would repeat my earlier comments about the ability of the NHS commissioning board to drive forward higher quality, informed by the new quality standard produced by NICE. More particularly I think we can do a lot through the tariff. At the moment, best practice tariffs are starting to play a role in encouraging and driving best practice at hospital level.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, tomorrow is the 63rd birthday of the NHS. Would the Government give the NHS the birthday present of eliminating local differences in stroke services by implementing the recommendations in the stroke strategy? In that way, when we all break into song next year when the NHS is 64 years old, we will actually have achieved something very important.
Earl Howe
It is very appropriate that the noble Baroness should remind the House of the NHS’s 63rd birthday. I can think of few better presents than that which the noble Baroness has outlined. I can say only that the efforts within my department, and indeed throughout the NHS, continue unabated to ensure that stroke patients are treated to the highest possible standards and that unacceptable variations are eliminated.
Olympic Games 2012: Tickets
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, 2.2 million Olympic tickets—that is, one quarter of the total—are allocated separately from the UK public application process. Within that, 12 per cent are for purchase by the 205 national Olympic committees, 8 per cent are for purchase by sponsors and stakeholders—global and domestic—and 5 per cent are for purchase by the International Olympic Committee, international federations and other global sports bodies, international broadcast rights holders and prestige ticketing partners. This reflects the host city agreement signed with the IOC in 2005.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, in this instance, the Minister’s Answer makes the whole thing sound even worse than I thought. She will be aware that there is an enormous sense of unfairness among people in this country about the way the tickets have been allocated. Will she confirm that the DCMS is getting 8,815 tickets? I put it to her that the best way of allocating tickets would have been to give every applicant two tickets before multiple applications were dealt with?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the government allocation is 8,815 tickets, which is 0.1 per cent of the tickets available. I will not go into the detail of how that breaks down at the moment. On the allocation of the tickets, no one had ever before attempted to sell 3 million tickets at one go. Trying to weight applications would have added a layer of complexity which would have made the whole thing almost impossible. LOCOG had no way of knowing how many applications would come in, so it followed other rules rather than the weighting one.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, while all of us associated with the London Games have, I believe, the humility to recognise that public expectation setting regarding tickets was unduly high and that lessons can be learnt, would the Minister nevertheless agree that it is welcome news that the British Olympic Association has secured the right to buy two tickets for every living British Olympian for their own sport and two further tickets for other sports and that many volunteers will benefit from the decision of Olympic governing bodies of sport to use a substantial part of their allocations for athletes, families, friends, supporters and, above, all volunteers?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I entirely agree with my noble friend. It is good that the tickets are being spread as widely as they are and that former Olympians have been included in that. Of course, we recognise the disappointment for those who did not get tickets, but there will be plenty of other activities going on over Olympic week, and the Paralympic tickets have yet to come on stream. We hope that everybody will be able to participate.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
My Lords, particular concerns have been expressed about these Games in relation to the immediate families of the participating sports men and women. I have personal experience of the distress that this causes to the mothers and fathers of active Olympians from the UK who, having perhaps sacrificed an incredible amount in their lifetimes to ensure that their son’s or daughter’s ambitions can be realised, cannot then watch them participate. Would the Government consider encouraging public bodies and corporate sponsors, which have so many tickets, to share some of their allocation with those immediate families to ensure that they have the benefit of seeing the result of all those years of sacrifice?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Indeed, I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s idea, which sounds an excellent system for those who have not already managed to get tickets through another method. Having families and friends around is of key importance to people who have done so much hard work to try to get themselves to Olympic standard.
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, I have just read a leading article in the Sunday press which makes it clear that, from the leader writer’s point of view, never have tickets for an Olympic Games been spread and given out so well and never has an Olympic Games had all the tickets sold out a year in advance. Nor could the journalist could remember a more democratic process for delivering tickets to the Olympic Games and all the different sports in any recent Games. I believe that the way that LOCOG has set about this this year is absolutely super. I hope the Minister agrees and will tell me that she has read the article. If she has not, I hope she will.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I have read the article. I agree that Britain should be proud of what LOCOG has done with ticketing.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, 1 million fans applied for tickets and were disappointed that they failed to get them. At the same time, local authorities have each had 100 tickets for the 100 metres final, the diving finals, the cycling finals, and the opening address. Does the Minister agree that this surely goes against the spirit of Olympic fairness?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, there have been allocations to local authorities, certainly to those surrounding the Games and those that have been most involved with them. The allocation of the tickets has been done in the fairest way possible given the numbers and the interest in them. With regard to the opening ceremony, the Government actually have 212 tickets, which out of a capacity of 80,000 is probably not too extravagant.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Baroness was kind enough to say that she thought my noble friend’s idea about trying to ensure that parents are able to see their children compete was a good one. Can she assure the House that Ministers will now take active steps to do everything they can to ensure that my noble friend’s idea is actually acted upon—not just a good idea but one that Ministers will carry forward?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, Ministers are not actually involved with the allocation of tickets, which is a matter for LOCOG. All we can do is advise that there are some people who perhaps are more worthy of tickets than others, but beyond that we have to leave it to LOCOG to do the allocations.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:03 - Division on Amendment 34A - Ayes: 165 / Noes: 219 - Amendment 34A disagreed.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has the opportunity to move his manuscript Amendment 15A, I need to give the House some procedural advice as Leader of the House—it is a very rare occurrence but one that I need to do. I have to inform the House that the Clerk of Public Bills has written to advise me that this amendment is inadmissible and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has tabled it against the advice of the clerks. Paragraph 8.56 of the Companion provides that in such rare circumstances it is for me to ask the House to endorse the opinion of the Public Bill Office, and I readily do so.
I suspect that most Members of the House will not have had an opportunity to consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It reads:
“Page 3, line 14, at beginning insert ‘Subject to section 159(2A)’”.
The Public Bill Office advises me and the House that the amendment is about commencement, not the subject of the clause itself—namely, the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime. The reason the noble Lord, Lord Harris, may have been tempted to attempt this procedural manoeuvre is clear: he is seeking to advance a vote on the commencement of the London provisions of this Bill. That is a matter of political tactics, but tactics, or the policy, are not why I rise to address the House this afternoon. I wish only to deal with a matter of procedure.
The clerks have advised that this amendment is inadmissible under the Companion and I invite the House not to allow the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to move his manuscript Amendment 15A. The difficulty is of course compounded because the amendment is a manuscript amendment. The Companion also provides that,
“the disadvantages and inconvenience attaching to the moving of manuscript amendments on Report are even greater than at Committee stage”.
I have to agree that this is not how we should go about our business. In short, the PBO has advised the House that this first amendment is inadmissible and I invite the House to agree. However, I reassure the House and the noble Lord that he will have every opportunity to speak to the issue he wishes to raise in the proper place when Clause 159 is debated. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Harris, not to move his amendment. If he chooses to do so, and the Companion does not prevent him doing so, the amendment is in the hands of the House.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, if it is in order, I would like to respond to what the Leader of the House has said. It is very difficult sometimes to determine why particular amendments are moved in a particular way and at a particular time. There were a number of reasons for my seeking the indulgence of the House to put forward this manuscript amendment at this time. The first is the question of relevance. There is a specific proposal at the moment that the implementation and creation of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime should proceed in advance of that for the rest of the country and should take place in October 2011, rather than October 2012. Therefore, my manuscript amendment is designed to make clear that preparations, some of which will be costly, should not go forward at this time.
The second reason I felt it necessary to bring forward the amendment in this way was that I had anticipated that there would be an amendment, either from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who moved such an amendment in Committee, or from the Government, about the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the Mayor’s Office, and, indeed, of the offices for policing and crime commissioners. A detailed look over the weekend made it clear that such transitional details were not being put before the House and therefore I thought that it was important that we have this opportunity.
The final reason for putting it before the House is that there are, of course, important security issues associated with this. I am slightly bemused about where we are today because I also tabled an amendment on Friday which does not appear either in the list that we received this morning of amendments supplementary to the Second Marshalled List, nor as a manuscript amendment. It seems to have gone into some void in the Public Bill Office, but it, too, was relevant to this point and might have assisted the House had we had it before us. It was also clear from my manuscript amendment that this related to an amendment later on the agenda in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. That, I know—and, of course, she will speak for herself should we get to the point of debating this amendment—is about security of this country during the Olympics period and whether or not the disruption that will be caused in administrative arrangements is sensible at that time.
Those are my reasons for putting forward this amendment and I hope that the House will agree that they are valid reasons, notwithstanding the inconvenience that I am sure it puts the House to. No doubt the noble Lord will wish to respond and I hope that I will then be able to move my amendment.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I do not think that there is any quarrel about whether or not these issues can be debated. The decision of the clerks is about where the debate should take place. Perhaps I may read out the advice about the grounds of inadmissibility, which is very clear and simple. In the view of the Public Bill Office the manuscript amendment is not admissible on the grounds that it is not relevant to the clause to which it is tabled. That is the first rule under paragraph 8.59 on page 132 of the Companion.
The manuscript amendment would make Clause 4,
“Subject to section 159(2A)”,
as set out in Amendment 310 to Clause 159, which would affect the commencement of Chapters 1 to 6 of Part 1. In the view of the clerks, this amendment is not relevant to Clause 4 as it affects commencement, which is the subject of Clause 159. In addition, Amendment 310 covers Clauses 1 to 79, several of which have already been debated.
My purpose is simply to bring to the attention of the House the strongest possible and clearest advice of the clerks, which is that this is inadmissible. In parenthesis, I can also tell the noble Lord that a transitional government amendment will be tabled today relating to Schedule 15. It will be debated in its proper place next week. It is up to the House and the noble Lord to decide what he wishes to do with his amendment but the advice from the clerks, and therefore the advice that I give as Leader of the House, is completely clear.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that further clarification. I am grateful also to hear that an amendment on transition is being tabled today. I say, in parenthesis, as was the noble Lord’s point, that this demonstrates the problems we have had with this Bill; that is, the late tabling of government amendments and the problems that we have in terms of determining exactly the intention of the Government in terms of various clauses, which is one of the problems that we all face. No doubt we will hear again an apology from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about the problems that the Home Office have faced and we will accept it with the usual good grace.
However, the noble Lord has said that this amendment, in the view of the clerks, is irrelevant to where it is placed. It is placed after the line, which states:
“There is to be a body with the name ‘The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime’ for the metropolitan police district”.
The amendment would insert,
“Subject to section 159(2A)”.
The amendment is tabled there because currently detailed work is going on about the early implementation and the introduction of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in the London area. This is in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, with a view to trying to get the implementation from October or shortly thereafter. That is why it is relevant to the place it is in and why I moved it in respect of this line in Chapter 2. It is not irrelevant to that point, which is why I moved it. The clerks may not see the relevance. Perhaps because of the hurried telephone calls that I had while inspecting security arrangements at Heathrow airport this morning, we did not have an opportunity to discuss it in detail. The amendment is about ensuring that we do not press ahead in advance of legislative authority.
May I move the amendment?
Lord Strathclyde
Before the noble Lord continues, there is no point in having this debate on whether the amendment is admissible. The advice from the clerks is clear. Now the House will need to take a view as to whether the noble Lord should continue.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)
Perhaps I may be of assistance to the House. At the moment, no other Motion is before the House and the noble Lord’s amendment has been called. Normal procedure would be for him to move his amendment.
Lord Richard
Perhaps the Leader of the House could help me. From the muttering around the House, it would seem that there is a feeling that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should not move his amendment in view of the clear indications given by the clerks. However, I am not clear about what the procedure should be now. Should there be a Motion before the House as to whether the amendment should be moved, on which, if necessary, the House can divide? How does it work? I never came across this particular type of issue when I was Leader of the Opposition or Leader of the House, or since. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could enlighten me.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and indeed to the Lord Speaker.
It is true that there is a lacuna in the procedure and when I discovered this about half an hour ago I suggested that the Procedure Committee should look at it. In the normal course of events, there is an underlying assumption in the Companion that the mover of the manuscript amendment would feel so moved as to not move the amendment. However, as I said earlier, under the terms of self-regulation the amendment is ultimately in the hands of the House. There is no Motion before the House. There is the possibility of a closure Motion or indeed the Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard. Both are quite heavy-handed. I dare say that if the noble Lord insisted on moving his amendment the House would take a pretty dim view of it, and if he tried to convince the House of the merits of his case I suspect he would not succeed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, can the Leader of the House advise me? I wish to vote in support of my noble friend’s amendment but I am not clear, on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House, whether any subsequent Division would be about the procedure or the content of the amendment. If it is about the procedure, surely the Lord Speaker has indicated that the Motion before the House is the amendment, and therefore because I support the amendment I want to support it in a Division. However, I take seriously the advice that has been given, so I am sure the Leader of the House can advise me, even though he might not approve of my voting intentions.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the proper advice I would give the noble Baroness, who I know is a stickler for such things, is to advise her noble friend not to move the amendment this afternoon, given the very clear advice of the clerks, and to speak to his amendment when it comes up in the proper place later on Report.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I hope I have been of service to the House in identifying a lacuna in the Standing Orders. I hope therefore that this will be an opportunity for us to look in detail at some of these difficult procedures. All I was trying to do was to avoid unnecessary duplicate expenditure in advance of legislative authority and to enable the House to debate the security of the nation. However, the Leader of the House has three times at least reiterated the firm advice of the clerks on this point, and I would be foolish to persist beyond that. I assume, however, if I wished to bring forward this self-same amendment at Third Reading there would now be no objection to me so doing.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I would have no objection so long as the amendment at Third Reading were written according to the rules.
Lord Harris of Haringey
“(3) There is to be a Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime for the metropolitan police district.
(4) The Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime is to be elected, and hold office, in accordance with Chapter 6.
(4A) The person who has been given the title of deputy mayor and particular responsibility for policing and crime by the Mayor of London at the time this section is brought into effect is to be the occupant for the time being of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.”
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, fractionally earlier than I had anticipated, I move Amendment 16, which is in my name. It is a series of amendments—I apologise to the House for their complexity but I have done my best to try to make them as clear as possible—that would enable the people of London at the same time as they elect—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, please leave the Chamber quietly. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has waited a long time for this moment. I know we want to listen to him.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I waited a long time to move the previous amendment rather than this one. I had anticipated an opportunity during the debate to prepare myself more thoroughly for Amendment 16.
The purpose of this amendment is to enable Londoners to vote, on the same day on which they would elect the Mayor of London, to elect the deputy mayor for policing and crime. The Government have told us that the Bill is about the importance of transparency and more effective clarity about who is responsible for policing. They have said, for everywhere outside London, that there is an advantage to there being direct elections for the person who has responsibility for the governance and oversight of policing. For London, though, they have proposed a completely different construction. There would be no direct election; the Mayor of London would choose an individual to become the deputy mayor, who would have responsibility for policing and crime.
The Government have helpfully tabled some amendments that indicate that in the event of that person not being an elected Member of the London Assembly, there would be a confirmation hearing and the Assembly could veto that appointment by a two-thirds majority. In the event of that person being a Member of the Assembly, the Assembly would have the right to hold a confirmatory hearing but would have no power of veto.
A confirmatory hearing is not the same as direct election, and the only circumstances in which there would be a veto by the democratically elected representatives of all London would be where the mayor of London had appointed an individual who did not hold a democratic mandate in the London Assembly. We are therefore talking about the Mayor of London being able to appoint his poodle or his Rottweiler, whichever model you care to take, to have responsibility for the oversight of policing in the London area.
London has the largest police force in the country with some of the heaviest responsibilities, particularly for counterterrorism and security. However, the Government are saying that, despite it being their objective everywhere else in the country that there is proper governance and clarity, and despite the benefits of direct election of the person with that responsibility, that will not apply in London.
My understanding is that the Government are suggesting this because the responsibility will rest with the Mayor of London. However, the current Mayor of London has discovered that it is not possible to combine the role of being mayor with having personal direct responsibility for the oversight of the Metropolitan Police. That is why, having given a manifesto commitment—I know that the current Mayor of London does not cast aside manifesto commitments lightly—he decided after just a few months that in fact he would not continue to chair the Metropolitan Police Authority and have that personal day-to-day oversight role but would ask one of his London Assembly colleagues to do so.
In circumstances in which the present incumbent is saying, “I cannot combine these duties effectively”, why are the Government saying, “That’s the model that we want to see in the London area”? Why are they saying that it is not necessary in London to have the benefits that we are assured that direct election will bring? That is why I have put forward this group of amendments.
I have also sought to resolve some of the other questions that arise. I have proposed how the electoral system would operate and how, in the event of the deputy mayor being incapacitated and unable to continue his functions, the Mayor of London would act. The simple principle that is most important in these circumstances, though, is that there be direct election, and my understanding was that that was what the Government wanted, and that they believed in the principle of direct election. If it is right for the rest of the country—we are told that the Government are going to reinstate this when the Bill returns to another place—why is it not right for London? What have the Government got against the people of London that they do not believe those people should have the right to elect the person who has responsibility to oversee and be responsible for the governance of policing in the London area? I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey has said, this group of amendments provides for a deputy mayor of policing and crime in London to be responsible for the Metropolitan Police in much the same way as the Government intend their police and crime commissioners to have that responsibility outside London. The Mayor of London would no longer be the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime.
The amendments also provide for the deputy mayor of policing and crime to be elected, with an election being held in 2012 and in each subsequent fourth year. The amendments carried in your Lordships’ House at the beginning of Committee on this Bill removed the requirement for the proposed police and crime commissioners outside London to be elected but left the situation in London largely unchanged. We have heard from the Government that they expect the posts of police and crime commissioners to be full time. Indeed a change has recently been made in relation to a deputy being appointed.
Therefore, the police and crime commissioner in, say, Wiltshire will be engaged full time purely on the role and responsibilities of that position, but in London, which has by far the largest police force in the country, the elected mayor, who has the ultimate responsibility for policing at present, does not devote his time and energy full time to his police role for the simple reason that as mayor he has a large number of other roles and responsibilities. One would have thought that in London the case for a full-time police and crime commissioner was stronger than anywhere else.
The mayor gets over the problem in London by appointing a deputy mayor with responsibility for the police but still retaining in theory ultimate control himself. However, it is quite clear where the real power lies—that is, with the deputy mayor because the mayor does not have the time to keep up to date with what is happening in the Metropolitan Police and to undertake the strategic and other responsibilities of the position because of his commitments to London as a whole. The Government have said that their objective is to increase accountability and transparency, but accountability and transparency are not increased if the in effect police and crime commissioner in London is in reality appointed by the mayor, who does not have the time to do the job himself but who in theory has to pretend that he can be like a police and crime commissioner elsewhere in the country and devote his efforts full time to that role.
We need to take steps to ensure that there is no dubiety over who is in reality—as opposed to in theory—the police and crime commissioner in London, and recognise the true situation by having a deputy mayor who has that role, and with it both the time and the authority of police and crime commissioners outside London. These amendments provide for elections for deputy mayor at the same time as for mayor. The current holder of these responsibilities is ultimately the elected mayor, and the amendments propose to move those overall responsibilities for the police from one elected office holder to another who has the time to do the job in full. I hope that the Government will recognise the contradictions between the situation in London and the situation outside London, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey stated, and by accepting this amendment bring the two much closer together.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would prevent the mayor from holding the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime and would instead create an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime to hold that office. Consequential amendments would apply to the deputy mayor similar provisions to those for PCCs in respect of elections and suspensions. While I understand the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I set out in Committee the reasons why I do not agree with these amendments.
While it is the Government’s policy to introduce a directly elected police and crime commissioner into every force area in England and Wales outside London, the Government do not intend to introduce a new, elected person to hold the police to account in London for the very simple reason that the whole of London already elects a single person to take responsibility for strategic issues such as policing—the Mayor of London.
While I hear what the noble Lord says, the mayor is in the unique position of having responsibility for a whole force area and, as such, it seems sensible for him to have the overall responsibility for holding the police to account. Under the amendment, both the mayor and the deputy mayor have a direct democratic mandate across a whole force area, although in practice of course they could have different ideas about what should happen. That cannot work and would cause a lot of conflict. It is right and fitting that the mayor takes on the formal responsibility for holding the Metropolitan Police to account, and should in turn be accountable directly to the public for how this is done. However the mayor delegates in this area, the mayor, as with PCCs, is still responsible for the decisions that are taken and, as such, is answerable to the public as an elected representative.
I know that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was concerned about the dilution of the democratic principle, but I stress that this can come only through the mayor himself or herself. The mayor is elected by all Londoners, and he or she alone may hold the mayor’s office under this Bill. As such, the democratic principle is clear in the Bill. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these amendments, although I know that he believes in them passionately, and support the government amendments that we shall discuss later. I will not go into great detail as we shall come to them later in our deliberations, but I remind the House that the government amendments require confirmation hearings for the position of deputy mayor to be binding where the candidate is not an Assembly Member, in that the Assembly would have the power to veto the appointment by a two-thirds majority.
Any Assembly Member whom the mayor wished to appoint would be subject to a non-binding confirmation, as already set out in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that on reflection the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has responded and for reiterating the Government’s position on these points. As I said in my opening remarks, I am grateful for the amendments that have been put forward on confirmation hearings and the deputy mayor’s role. However, a veto power of a two-thirds majority of the London Assembly is not a very powerful mechanism. My experience in four years on the London Assembly—I believe that it was the case for the subsequent seven years—is that the two-thirds majority threshold has never been achieved in matters to do with the budget. It is difficult to see how that would not be the case in these circumstances, where it is likely that the elected Mayor of London will have a sizeable block of members supporting his or her position on most issues. Therefore, although confirmatory hearings are helpful, they are not the same as direct election.
The noble Baroness also argued that the mayor is elected for the whole force area, but one of the problems is that the Mayor of London’s writ is not the same as that of the Metropolitan Police. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, confronted me at a previous stage as he was deeply concerned that I might be trying to undermine the position of the City of London Police. The fact is that the Mayor of London has responsibility for two force areas and is elected not just by the electorate who are served by the Metropolitan Police but by the electorate who are served by the City of London Police. Therefore, the noble Baroness’s arguments do not stand up.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, when we discussed this in Committee, we established that the City of London and the force area that covers it represents a very small percentage of the electorate living within its parameters.
Lord Harris of Haringey
That indeed is the case. That is why I was almost incredulous that the Government believed that it was sensible that the City of London should have its own separate police force.
I appreciate that the Corporation of London has enormous antiquity and I know about the noble Baroness’s passion for medieval constructs, as we discussed the other evening, and the question of corporation sole. So, given that the Corporation of London is a construct even older than corporation sole, I shall not press that point.
However, on the issue of boundaries, the Government have to be clear about what the situation will be outside London. If the Localism Bill runs its course and the referenda locally produce it, you will have some very powerful directly elected mayors in major cities outside London. I do not believe that the directly elected mayors of the great cities of Manchester and Birmingham will not feel that they should have significant influence on the arrangements for policing in their areas. Of course they will not cover the entire police area, but I do not think that the Government’s proposal simply to have them sitting on the police and crime panel will be sufficient. The Government cannot get away from the fact that you will have conflicts between directly elected mayors and the people responsible for governance. In those circumstances, if that is going to happen outside London, the Government should have the courage of their convictions about the importance of direct elections and allow that to happen in London.
As I understand it, the Government’s vision is that there should be direct elections for these important positions everywhere in the country, but London is missing out. That is unfortunate and extremely unhelpful. I am disappointed that the Government are not prepared to consider and accept the amendment. However, I shall consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
“(h) the exercise of duties in relation to the safeguarding of children and the promotion of child welfare that are imposed on the Commissioner by sections 10 and 11 of the Children Act 2004”.
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
My Lords, this group of government amendments essentially corrects some drafting oversights and errors to ensure that the Bill is consistent with other legislation. I am happy to touch on each amendment in order to provide clarity for the House.
Amendment 23 removes a duplication prohibiting a PCC from also being deputy mayor for policing and crime. Amendment 82 corrects a drafting error that would mistakenly have granted the deputy mayor greater delegation powers than the holder of the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime. Amendment 170 changes a reference to the Greater London Authority to the London Assembly. This was simply an error as the police and crime panel will be a committee of the Assembly and not of the whole authority.
Amendments 244 and 309 follow the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendations by requiring that any regulations issued in respect of collaboration, or a failure of local authorities to participate in the formation of police and crime panels, are made by affirmative rather than negative resolution.
Amendment 270 removes an inconsistency in the Bill where one provision amends a paragraph in the Police Act 1996 in relation to the Secretary of State's power to issue orders in relation to transitional arrangements for the alteration of a police force area, and another provision repeals it. The amending provision is the correct one so the repealing provision is being removed from the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Bill team. I raised a number of questions on this group and am very happy to have had their answers. I feel no need to raise the points in debate. I am extremely grateful.
Lord Rosser
As the Minister has indicated, these are relatively minor and technical amendments that correct some drafting errors. As she said, they also reflect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that any regulations dealing with mandatory collaboration or the consequences of a failure by local authorities to participate in the formation of police and crime panels should be made by affirmative rather than negative resolution. We support the change to these regulations being by affirmative rather than negative resolution, thus requiring the specific approval of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Browning
“(1) The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must appoint a qualified person to act as chief finance officer, if and for as long as—
(a) that post is vacant, or(b) the holder of that post is, in the Commissioner’s opinion, unable to carry out the duties of that post.(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a person is qualified to be appointed to act as chief finance officer if that person is qualified to be appointed to the post under paragraph 1.
(3) A reference in any enactment to the metropolitan police force’s chief finance officer includes a reference to a person acting as chief finance officer in accordance with sub-paragraph (1).”
Baroness Browning
“(2A) But the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis may not borrow money.
(2B) Sub-paragraph (2A) does not require the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to obtain the consent of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime in order to enter into a contract or other agreement with a person—
(a) by virtue of which the person becomes, or is, a member of the metropolitan police force’s civilian staff, or(b) which otherwise relates to the person’s membership of that civilian staff (including the terms and conditions of the person’s membership).”
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this group of amendments seeks simply to ensure that local authorities are consulted by the police and crime commissioner, along with the police and crime panel, in connection with any preparation or variation of a crime plan. Surely it is axiomatic that a close working relationship between the police and other authorities, particularly local authorities, is essential in dealing with matters of community safety and law and order. A wide range of local authority functions clearly impinge on the duties of the police and vice versa, so it is clearly desirable, if not essential, that in the preparation of any police and crime plan, given the commissioner’s responsibility to liaise and work with a wide range of statutory bodies, local authorities should be among the prime consultees.
The Minister has charmed the House over the past few weeks. I hope that her charm will be matched by a willingness to accept that this is a constructive amendment, designed to ensure the closest possible working relationship between the two most important arms in any approach to the issues which this Bill seeks to address and which the relevant authorities have to address on a day-to-day basis. I hope the Minister will accept these modest but important amendments to reinforce that relationship. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
As my noble friend inferred, we are debating the Localism Bill through which the Government wish to give more freedom to local authorities. As part of that we are seeing the Government present local authorities with an opportunity to have some of the constraints around their leadership role in a local area taken away from them so that the local authority is seen as having a leadership role which is not necessarily tied into statutory responsibilities. We are also seeing in that Bill a requirement on the 11 largest local authorities in England to hold referenda next year on whether there should be an elected mayor. The Government are therefore acknowledging the importance of local government and its place in the wider community. I support my noble friend’s amendments because they seek to ensure that when draft police and crime plans are prepared or varied, the local authority has a right to consultation. In our first discussion my noble friend referred to the potential of an elected mayor in Birmingham. I find it quite remarkable that we have the prospect of the elected mayor in Birmingham not having an ability to be statutorily consulted by the police and crime commissioner when it comes to a police and crime plan or a variation. This is a symbol of the importance of local government and I hope the noble Baroness will accept my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Soley
This issue is an important one and relates back to what I have said before on crime prevention. It took many years to get a good relationship between the police and local authorities on crime prevention and we should not lose that again. Local authorities and the police work together and when the police listen to what locally elected people and local authorities have to say, there is a much better chance of reducing crime and coming up with good crime prevention schemes. So I strongly support my noble friend’s amendments.
Baroness Henig
I have Amendment 47 in this group. I will be very brief. This is about partnership arrangements and improving the link between policing bodies and other partners, particularly community safety bodies. I note the Minister’s Amendment 43 on behalf of the Government specifying that the local policing body has to have regard to the priorities of the statutory partners—
Baroness Henig
I apologise. I am so relieved. I was desperately looking through my notes to see if there had been a major omission.
Baroness Browning
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, provide for local authorities to have the same degree of involvement as the police and crime panel in the police and crime commissioner’s preparation of the police and crime plan. In Clause 6 the PCC is placed under specific duties to send the plan to the PCP and have regard to any report or recommendations made by the PCP in relation to the draft, to give a formal response to any recommendations from the PCP, to afford as much time as reasonably possible for the PCP to consider and review the plan, and to review the plan in light of any recommendations made to the PCC by the police and crime panel.
That is already quite a lot of involvement with the PCP, which is made up of and structured with a representative of every local authority at whichever level, whether it is a two, three or one-tier local government structure. Through the representatives on the police and crime panel—we have discussed the need for those other than local government representatives, but looking specifically at those members—I would expect the views of the local authority to be taken forward by those representatives so that specific local authorities’ views on the plan or any other matter are reflected on the panel.
For each of those duties, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wants the same duty to apply to each local authority within the force area. That would add bureaucracy for the PCC, because the PCC must negotiate to deliver their plan. At the moment, the core of that negotiation is with the police and crime panel. I also think that it would undermine the core responsibility of the PCP in being the check and balance for the PCC in developing the plan. The burden that will be placed by adding the extra tier is particularly disproportionate. I would expect people on the panel to communicate back to their local authority. For example, if the local authority was concerned, that concern would be expressed through their representative on the police and crime panel. That is why we have extended the scope of the panel to include a representative from every authority, compared to the current structure, where not every authority is represented.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, can we come back to the place of Birmingham, which I know is dear to your Lordships’ heart? Let us assume that the referendum takes place next May and that a year later we have an elected mayor of Birmingham. Is the noble Baroness seriously suggesting that the relationship on the draft police and crime plan is between the panel and the PCC, and that the elected mayor for Birmingham has to go through the panel to make representations? I do not think that that stands up.
Baroness Browning
I would hope that elected mayors would be represented on the panel. I see no reason why they should not be. Nothing in the Bill says that they should not and I would expect that link to be formed through those elected mayors. They would not be excluded from the panel. I do not know whether that satisfies the noble Lord’s concern. They will clearly have positions of great authority within the locality and therefore would have that input through the police and crime panel. They would clearly be important in holding to account the police and crime commissioner, and I would expect an elected mayor to have that representation. I will wait to see whether the noble Lord believes that to be a solution to the problem he has raised.
I have no doubt that each representative on the panel will consult their local authority colleagues on the plan in advance of the PCP formally submitting its advice and recommendations to the police and crime commissioner. It is for that very reason that we are placing a duty on the police and crime commissioner: the requirement at subsection (7) for the PCP to be given a reasonable amount of time to consult on the draft plan.
For clarification, it would not be a question of the PCP having the plan submitted to it for a day or two and then having to decide on it. We have included the need for adequate and reasonable time in the legislation.
For the PCC to undertake consultation with a large number of authorities outwith the PCP would, I believe, be bureaucratic and time-consuming. Also it recognises the power which we expect the PCP to have in terms of scrutiny. However, if the PCP utilises its membership, it can, on behalf of the PCC, make a constructive and supportive contribution. Through that local authority membership, it will be able to co-ordinate the views of the authorities and provide an agreed set of recommendations which, I remind the House, the PCP must have regard to.
I appreciate the intention and am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks. However, I am going to disappoint him on this occasion—he is probably thinking “yet again”. I hope that the way in which the Government are seeking to enable the PCP to be involved in supporting the police and crime commissioner is a little clearer, and that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, tempted as I am, I shall not withdraw the kind remarks that I made about the noble Baroness—I shall resist the provocation. However, the answer is extremely disappointing. It seems to take little account of what is needed to develop a whole-systems approach to the issues of crime, disorder, crime prevention and community safety. This is not a one-way street. These matters cannot be tackled just by police authorities, under whatever form they take; there has to be a collaborative exercise between the police and the other agencies, especially local authorities.
The Minister is effectively saying that a mayor or council leader can be a member of a scrutiny committee because that is all that the PCP is: it is not an executive body and has no power to commit anything at all. Frankly, I would be very doubtful whether a mayor or council leader of any significant authority would have the time or the inclination to serve as a member of such a body. Moreover, we need the full engagement of the area’s local authorities with the police in order to develop joint approaches and possibly joint programmes. That is not something that can be done at one remove. You do not send someone to a scrutiny panel to negotiate on behalf of your authority, particularly if it is a large unitary or county authority.
Baroness Browning
I say for the sake of clarification that I would not in any way expect the police not to have contact with local authorities. We are not talking here about the chief officer’s role and communications with local authorities; we are talking about the gateway which the PCP provides for all local authorities in that force area to be represented on the panel.
Lord Beecham
We are indeed. We are also talking about how the commissioner makes those significant strategic decisions, as he would have responsibility for the police’s part of what is not just a policing matter, but a matter which transcends the boundaries between police authorities, however constituted, and local government. This is a two-way street and one way is blocked by the Government’s apparent refusal to recognise that there has to be a partnership arrangement between police authorities and local authorities. I am really at a loss to see why the Minister and particularly her advisers are intent on blocking the way towards a collaborative and potentially fruitful relationship, which cannot be assisted by the way that the Bill is currently drafted. If that is the Government’s position, I am afraid that I must test the opinion of the House.
Reform of Social Care
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I wish to make a Statement on the reform of social care. This coalition Government have from the outset recognised that reform of the care and support system is needed to provide people with more choice and control, and to reduce the insecurity faced by individuals, carers and their families. By 2026, the number of people over 85 years old is projected to double. Age is the principal determinant of need for health and for care services. It is estimated that in 20 years’ time, 1.7 million more people will have a potential care need than do today.
People often do not think about how they might meet those costs in later life. They assume that social care will be provided free for all at the point of need, but since the establishment of the welfare state this has never been the case. Currently people with more than £23,250 in assets, often including their home, face meeting the whole cost of care themselves. The cost of care can vary considerably and it is hard for people to predict what costs they may face. The average 65 year-old today will face lifetime care costs of £35,000. However, as the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support notes, costs are widely distributed: one in four will have no care costs, but one in four will face care costs over £50,000 and one in 10 over £100,000.
The lack of understanding of how the system works and the uncertainty about costs means that it is difficult for people to prepare to meet potential care costs and there are currently few financial products available to help them. This means that paying for care can come as a shock to many families and can have a severe impact on their financial security.
Change is essential. That is why we took immediate action by establishing the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support last July. It was tasked with making recommendations on how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support for all adults in England. In response to its initial advice, we allocated an additional £2 billion a year by 2014-15 in the spending review to support the delivery of social care as a bridge to reform. This represents a total of £7.2 billion extra support for social care over the next four years, including an unprecedented transfer of funds from the NHS to support social care services that will also benefit health.
Since then we have taken forward wider reform. In November last year, we published our vision for adult social care setting out our commitment to a more responsive and personalised care and support system that empowers individuals and communities, including the objective that all those who wish it should have access to a personal social care budget by 2013, and in May, the Law Commission published its report, after three years of work, on how to deliver a modernised statute for adult social care. Making sense of the current confused tangle of legislation to deliver a social care statute will allow individuals, carers, families and local authorities more clearly to understand when care and support will be provided.
Andrew Dilnot’s report comes at the same time as the final report from the palliative care funding review, which I received last week. Tom Hughes-Hallett and Sir Alan Craft have made an excellent start in looking at this complex and challenging issue. We want to see integrated, responsive, high-quality health and care services for those at the end of life. We will now consider the review team's proposals in detail before consulting stakeholders on the way forward later this summer. We will also consider how best to undertake substantial piloting, as recommended in the report, in order to gather information on how best to deliver palliative services.
We are also responding to events at Southern Cross, which have caused concern to residents in Southern Cross care homes and their relatives and families. We welcome the fact that Southern Cross, the landlords and the lenders are working hard to come up with a plan to stabilise the ownership and operation of the care homes. We have also been clear that we would take action to make sure there was proper oversight of the market in social care. That is why, through the Health and Social Care Bill, we are seeking powers to extend to social care the financial regulatory regime we are putting in place in the NHS, if we decide it is needed, as part of wider reform.
A central component of those reforms will be the long-term funding of care and support. Over the past 12 months, Andrew Dilnot, the chair of the Commission on the Funding of Care and Support, together with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and Dame Jo Williams have engaged extensively with many different stakeholders. They brought fresh insight and impetus to this most challenging area of public policy. We welcome the excellent work of the commission and its final report. I would like to thank Andrew Dilnot, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and Dame Jo Williams for the work they have undertaken. It is an immensely valuable contribution to meeting the long-term challenge of an ageing population.
The report argues that people are unable to protect themselves against the risk of high care costs, leaving people fearful and uncertain about the future. The commission’s central proposal is therefore a cap on the care costs that people face over their lifetime of between £25,000 and £50,000; it recommends £35,000. Under the commission’s proposals, people who cannot afford to make their personal contribution would continue to receive means-tested support, but it proposes that the threshold for getting state help with residential care costs would rise from £23,250 to £100,000. People would make some contribution to their general living costs in residential care, but this should be limited to between £7,000 and £10,000.
The commission also proposes: standardised national eligibility for care, increasing consistency across the country; universal access to a deferred payments scheme for means-tested contributions; improvements in information and advice; improved assessments for carers and better alignment between social care and the wider care and support system; and to consider changing the means test in domiciliary care to include housing assets. It makes recommendations about how, as a society, we will organise and fund social care. We will now take forward consideration of the commission’s recommendations as a priority.
The commission recognises that implementing its reforms would have significant costs that the Government will need to consider against other funding priorities and calls on constrained resources. In the current public spending environment, we have to consider carefully the additional costs to the taxpayer of the commission’s proposals against other funding priorities. Within the commission’s recommendations, it presents a range of options, including on the level of a cap and the contribution people make to living costs in residential care, which could help us to manage the system and its costs. That is why we intend to engage with stakeholders on these issues, including on the trade-offs involved.
Reform in this area will need to meet a number of tests, including: whether proposals would promote closer integration of health and social care; whether proposals would promote increased personalisation, choice and quality; whether proposals would support greater prevention and early intervention; whether a viable insurance market and a more diverse and responsive care market would be established as a result of the proposals; the level of consensus that additional resources should be targeted on a capped costs scheme for social care; and what a fair and appropriate method of financing the additional costs would be.
The Government have set out a broad agenda for reform in social care. We want to see care that is personalised, that offers people choice in how their care needs are met, that supports carers, that is supported by a diverse and flourishing market of providers and a skilled workforce who can provide care and support with compassion and imagination, and that offers people the assurances they expect of high-quality care and protection against poor standards and abuse. Andrew Dilnot’s report was never intended to address all these questions, but it forms a vital part of that wider agenda.
To take it forward, we will work with stakeholders in the autumn, using Andrew Dilnot’s report as the basis for engagement as a key part of a broader picture. This engagement will look at the fundamental questions for reform in social care: improving quality, developing and assuring the care market, integration with the NHS and wider services, and personalisation. As part of that we want to hear stakeholders’ views on the priorities for action from the commission’s report and how we should assess these proposals, including in relation to other priorities for improvement in the system. As the right honourable Member the Shadow Health Secretary and I have discussed, we will also engage directly with the Official Opposition in order to seek consensus on the future of long-term care funding.
We will then set out our response to the Law Commission and to the Dilnot Commission in the spring, with full proposals for reform of adult social care in a White Paper and a progress report on funding reform. It remains our intention to legislate to this effect at the earliest opportunity. The care of the elderly and vulnerable adults is a key priority for reform under this Government, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Thornton
First, my Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement today. It is difficult to imagine a more important issue for us to consider. Care of the elderly and vulnerable is probably the most difficult and intractable problem facing our society. It is one that we have to resolve; we cannot afford to let it go on and on unresolved. We can all agree about this.
It should be a cause for celebration and pride that one in five of us alive in Britain today will now live to be 100, and that our children can expect to spend one-third of their lives in retirement. Instead, thousands and thousands of us approach old age in fear—fear that we will need care that will not be there or will not be good enough, fear that our savings will be wiped out by an open-ended cost, fear that we cannot protect our families from this cost, and fear of becoming a burden or being left alone. That is why we on these Benches welcome the Dilnot report and the Statement.
These proposals contain many important elements that were in the plans that we set out when we were in government in our care White Paper prior to the general election. I join the Minister in congratulating Mr Andrew Dilnot and his colleagues, my noble friend Lord Warner and Dame Jo Williams on the excellent job that they have done. I know that many of the organisations concerned with this issue—Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, Care UK and others—have been very impressed by the way in which the commission has carried out its tasks, but they are now, quite rightly, very keen to ensure that the momentum created by this excellent report is not lost. Many noble Lords will have seen the letter, signed by 32 of these organisations, pleading with us not to pass up this opportunity. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that detailed and important involvement of stakeholders will continue.
I am very impressed with the way in which all the members of the commission have seen it as their mission to explain to the widest possible audience what lies behind their recommendations and why they have reached the conclusions that they have. I know that my noble friend Lord Warner has been in major media contact since the early hours of this morning; many of us will have been treated to the masterclass from Andrew Dilnot on the “Today” programme.
In response to the report my right honourable friend Ed Miliband, the leader of the Labour Party, has said on behalf of the Labour Party that we would be willing to put aside our party’s pre-election proposals in order to try to find a solution. I invite the Minister to agree with me that it is just as well that politicians sometimes ignore the cynicism and negativity of commentators, such as Mr Nick Robinson of the BBC, who I heard recently, and show an understanding of the importance of reaching a national consensus on these matters. We will all need to show the kind of determination that my right honourable friend the leader of the Labour Party is showing. Will the Minister comment on suggestions in the media, including from members of the Conservative Party, that suggest that the Treasury is already lining up to kill these proposals? I hope that this is not the case and that the tweet today quoting Stephen Dorrell as saying that the Government must show willingness to find the money for Dilnot’s long-term care overhaul is more accurate.
The last thing Britain needs is for Andrew Dilnot’s proposals to be put into the long grass, or even the medium-cut grass. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that we must address. It is what the Government do with it now that counts. My right honourable friend the leader of the Labour Party has made a big offer to the Prime Minister to put politics aside and to work to see a better long-term system of social care put in place for elderly and disabled people in our country. We on this side are willing to talk to and work with the Government and all other parties to do so, because we know that any system of care must give all of us the long-term confidence to know what will be on offer for us and our families. It requires the Prime Minister to give a lead, because agreeing an affordable and sustainable system involves important parts of government beyond the reach of the Health Secretary. It requires the Prime Minister to give a guarantee that the Government will not kick Mr Dilnot’s recommendations into the long grass, because the system needs urgent and lasting reform. Will the Minister give us that guarantee today? If the Government are serious, we in the Labour Party are serious. If the Government are serious, we need to hear what the plan is going to be as we move forward.
Mr Dilnot recommends a White Paper by December this year, but this already seems to have slipped to the spring. Will the Minister say which is it? Will he also tell the House when we can expect a draft Bill—are the Government aiming for this to be in the next Queen’s Speech? In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will the Minister confirm that the Government welcome and will take forward recommendation 6 on the portability of care assessments? Will the Government be supporting her Private Member’s Bill on this? Does he agree that cross-party talks are required and that the Prime Minister should give this lead? How and when will this start?
Finally, I know the Minister agrees that there is a need for the House to have an opportunity to have a more thoroughgoing debate about this matter, the report and its recommendations. I hope that we can also join forces in trying to secure that opportunity.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome of both the commission’s report and the Statement that I repeated. I believe that the commission has not only provided us with an excellent report but has instilled a sense of impetus in this agenda. We must not lose that momentum now. She referred to the prospect of cross-party talks, and I can only repeat that the engagement that we seek in the coming weeks and months will fully extend to the Official Opposition. We recognise the value of building a broad coalition of support on an issue as important as this. As she rightly said, there has to be security for the longer term so that we can provide citizens with the understanding and predictability that they rightfully expect of the system.
Reforming adult social care remains a top priority for us, but it is complex. As the Statement indicated, a number of related questions need to be addressed. Andrew Dilnot’s report provides recommendations on only one of these questions: how we pay for care as a country. It is our intention to set out our plans for wider social care reform in a White Paper in the spring. The noble Baroness is right that the timetable has slipped from that which we originally indicated, but that is not for sinister reasons. We think it is important to engage as widely as possible on these recommendations. There are many different views and we need to understand them.
Last week, the Alzheimer’s Society called for an open debate on the Dilnot proposals, with which we agree. As I have said, we are committed to a White Paper in the spring of 2012, which will include our response to the Law Commission’s report on the legal framework for social care, and we will publish a progress report on the funding. We remain committed to legislating at the earliest opportunity to take forward the proposals in the White Paper, although naturally I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific indication on the timing of that. That, however, is our ambition.
The noble Baroness referred to portability. In November, in our vision for adult social care, we made clear that we want the greater portability of assessments, which could help people who use social care to move without unnecessary multiple assessments and uncertainty. We also said that we would consider how to pursue this in the light of the work of the Law Commission and the Commission on Funding of Care and Support. We are considering both reports carefully. It is too early for me to say precisely what reaction we will give to the Bill sponsored by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, but we look forward to debating it. I am sure that that Bill will enable us to drill down to some of the more difficult aspects of portability, with which I know that the noble Baroness is all too familiar.
As for a more general debate on these important issues, I well understand the noble Baroness’s wish to have such an opportunity. I will of course relay that desire to my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is not in my hands, and as she knows the available time for general debates of that kind is rather limited at this time of year, but we will see what can be done.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, I was extremely pleased to hear this Statement and to hear it in the form that it has come. It must be well over 20 years since I first started writing to various Prime Ministers about the dreadful case of a constituent who had to sell his house—his life savings went into the house—to go into a care home, who said, “This cannot be fair. People who never bothered to save or to put money aside are getting the same treatment I am being charged for”.
On the other hand, and this illustrates the difficulty of the problem, the view of the taxpayers, also expressed to me, was, “Why should we have to support the inheritance of the sons and daughters of these people?”. There were two completely separate points of view that were very difficult to reconcile. As the problem becomes bigger and more urgent all the time, it is extremely brave of the Government to embark at this stage on a Statement that refers to the priority that will be given to this problem, and I welcome that very greatly.
Earl Howe
I thank my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes for those remarks. The House will know that her experience of these matters goes back many years. She is right; these thorny issues have been with us for a very long time and we have to get a grip on them. There is, as I made clear earlier, a clear imperative to inject certainty and predictability into the system, but there is also a need to strike a balance between the state and the individual. That principle was one that the Dilnot commission articulated—overreliance on the state would be unsustainable and arguably unfair, and overreliance on the individual presents obvious problems of a different sort. It is that balance that we need to identify.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, as a member of the Royal Commission on the funding of Long-Term Care for the Elderly, which so singularly failed to find any consensus—my fault, no doubt, as I signed the minority report—I welcome the Dilnot report very much as bringing us nearer to the kind of political consensus on this issue that is intrinsic to its final solution.
However, we should not take the proposals in Dilnot as written in stone. There are severe problems of cost and the fact that they do so much more for the very rich members of society and so much less for the middle. Will the Minister—who has rather wisely stretched out the consultation period on this—assure the House now that although Dilnot’s fundamental architecture has a great deal to be said for it, the Government will keep a very open mind on the details throughout the process ahead?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and broadly my answer to him is yes. They are clearly a set of well considered recommendations which we think are eminently worthy of serious study as a basis for cross-party consensus. However, I will not be tempted to pin my colours to any mast that the Dilnot commission has erected because it is important that we have this consensus as far as we can generate it, and that will mean looking at the detail and at individual recommendations on their own merits, maybe taking forward some but not others, and maybe looking at a staggered timetable. These are all questions that we have to resolve between us.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I am in danger of agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which is something that always worries me, as he knows. I, too, welcome this. After 13 years of the Labour Government trying in various ways to approach this problem we have, with this report, an architecture that is very important, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that there a great many technical matters within it that should be open for negotiation.
The report and the extent to which its objectives are achieved rely on two areas: first, a broad political consensus that it is a fair approach to take to the problem; and secondly, as the Minister said, a number of specific technical issues, the main one being that there should be a consistency in the criteria between eligibility for state provision and any insurance-based cover. That is perhaps the biggest single factor in determining whether the entire system will work. What work will be done with stakeholder groups, including carers and older people, and the private insurance business on that specific point? Only by resolving that can we enable individuals to have the security of knowing when the state will pay for their provision and when they as individuals will be expected to contribute.
Earl Howe
My noble friend has highlighted a key issue. We know that it is important to people that access to care services is fair and that resources are used wisely. However, the commission is clear that it believes that local authorities should continue to play a key role in the funding and delivery of social care, so we need to consider carefully how to achieve the right balance between national consistency and local flexibility. That is a very difficult question.
During the coming period of engagement in the autumn, we will want to take views on that matter. I remind my noble friend that in the light of recommendations made in CSCI’s review, called Cutting the Cake Fairly, which I am sure she will remember, the department issued guidance to local authorities on eligibility to support fairer and more transparent and consistent implementation of the criteria. We fully appreciate, however, that the concerns on that front continue; the current eligibility framework is subjective and it is difficult for individuals to understand what they might be entitled to in advance of an assessment. We will consider whether to take forward work on a new assessment framework following discussions with stakeholders.
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Government deserve credit for establishing the commission and choosing Mr Andrew Dilnot to chair it. I welcome the constructive way in which the Minister has summarised how the Government intend to take this forward.
I have two questions arising from the Statement. I shall ask them in the sequence in which they arose from the Minister’s announcement. First, he observed that financial markets have no answer to this problem. That is quite extraordinary. Our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Turner, in his capacity as chairman of the Financial Services Authority, told us that much of what goes on in the City is socially useless. Here is an area where the financial community in the City could be socially useful, yet it seems to be turning its back on the opportunities to create long-term annuity products appropriate to meeting people’s expenditure requirements in the later period of their life. Will the Minister raise this with the Treasury and the FSA and consider establishing a working group to investigate particularly whether EU legislation on capital requirements for variable annuities is frustrating a market response?
Secondly, the Minister mentioned Southern Cross. There is much concern in the country about Southern Cross and I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. Will he confirm that no resident of a Southern Cross home will be required to move against their wishes from the home in which they are currently being cared for?
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Myners. I shall address his questions in the opposite order. We have been clear about the situation at Southern Cross: we hope that a resolution will emerge as a result of the current discussions between Southern Cross, its lenders and its landlords. However, we have been equally clear that the residents of the care homes are our prime concern. It is not possible for me to give an absolute assurance that no resident will be required to move, but I can say that we will ensure that if a resident is required to move, there will, in accordance with best practice, be plenty of time to ensure that suitable alternative accommodation is available. It is a fact of life that care home residents sometimes do have to move, but it is our ambition that no care home resident of Southern Cross should move. I do not intend to sound in the least complacent about this because we have set a clear sense of direction to the parties involved that we hope to see this settlement reached.
The noble Lord, Lord Myners, is right about financial products. I have noted over the past 10 years with some disappointment the dearth of suitable financial products to enable people to save for long-term care. The commission has analysed extremely ably the barriers that currently prevent the establishment of an effective market for financial products and we want to consider how best to promote a more effective market for such products. We will consider the commission’s recommendations carefully, of course. An effective market in this area would be extremely helpful. It may help people to become more aware of the costs that they may face in later life, which in itself would be useful, and to take steps to prepare for these. I will bring the noble Lord’s remarks to the attention of my colleagues in the Treasury in the sense that he indicated.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust and the immediate past chairman of Help the Hospices. I agree with my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Indeed, this has been a running sore throughout my entire political lifetime since I was first elected as an MP in 1974. The right metaphor now might be a ticking time bomb in one of those James Bond films getting quite close to where it actually goes off, or does not quite. This is potentially seriously, socially divisive and difficult, so I hugely welcome both the report and the tone that has been adopted by those on the two Front Benches. It is essential that we should seek political consensus, otherwise there will be big trouble for all of us.
Lastly, and more specifically, I come to my question: does my noble friend accept that there are also health implications in the demographics as well as social care implications? A growing number of people are presenting with mental illness problems—dementia, in particular—at mental health trusts, and indeed in acute trusts in the A&E departments, with a knock-on effect on requests for assistance from mental health trusts and their clinicians. There is a serious need for health resources to be directed towards some aspects of this problem as well as to a solution to social care problems. I hope that my noble friend will take that on board.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend and agree with all that he said. The early part of the Statement demonstrates very graphically the demographic aspects of this matter. He is of course right that there are clear health implications in all of this, which is precisely why the work that we are doing in the department lays such emphasis on the need to integrate health and social care commissioning and provision and on the need to place a greater emphasis on prevention both in health and social care. That is also why we have channelled substantial additional funds from the health budget to support social care over the next four years. There is a clear interest for the health service in wishing to see a stable and fair system of social care provision, so I identify absolutely with everything that my noble friend has said.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the emphasis in the Statement is very much on the care of the elderly, some of whom will be disabled. What I am not clear about is whether the report also covers care of the disabled who are still young, who are currently covered by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which was sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, 40 years ago. Is that also up for grabs, as it were, among the tangle of legislation which is being considered?
Earl Howe
My Lords, this area was not overlooked by the commission. Indeed, the commission has made a specific recommendation as regards the cap on costs, which it believes should be, as a generality, somewhere between £25,000 and £50,000, although it has come down in favour of a £35,000 figure. That figure is lower for those who require long-term care at a much earlier age. The noble and learned Lord is right that this area should not be neglected, and I am sure will not be neglected.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the sum of £2 billion mentioned by Andrew Dilnot may strike fear into the heart of the Treasury at a time of financial constraints, it is a puny sum when you compare it with the £119 billion contributed by the main providers of care—the family carers? Therefore, I am sure he agrees that the support offered to family carers in the report is extremely welcome. Will he reconfirm the Government’s commitment to continuing to work with the stakeholder groups, as the Dilnot commission has so admirably done, particularly as the advice and information service for families is developed as we go forward?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I cannot stand here and claim that an additional £2 billion is a trivial amount of money; it clearly is not. That is why it was made clear in the Statement that we need to make some difficult decisions over priorities in public spending. As regards carers, for whom the noble Baroness has done so much in her career, I am sure she will accept from me that we recognise the value and contribution that carers make. We recently published Recognised, Valued and Supported: Next Steps for the Carers Strategy, which announced an additional £400 million over four years for PCTs to pool with local authorities to provide carers’ breaks. In our carers strategy we indicated that assumptions should not be made about who will provide care and to what extent. There has been a 21 per cent increase in the number of carers receiving information. We want to see greater flexibility and portability of assessments for carers. The agenda in this area is proceeding and we shall not forget it amidst the concerns over funding. It is every bit as important as getting the funding system for paid residential long-term care right.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
My Lords, I, too, welcome the political consensus that is bathing us in its glow this afternoon. Several noble Lords have spoken, and so has my noble friend, of the importance of engaging individuals in taking responsibility for their own care. I am sure that he is very aware of this, but does he realise how important it is for there to be a clear financial framework so that individuals and their families can take decisions concerning their own care? That is the important starting point given in the Dilnot report. It is an indicator—I do not know how the Government will treat it—which provides admirable clarity. Wrestling with the complexities of the different organisations involved will come later. However, I remind my noble friend that those complexities are already struggled with by individuals and their families when making these plans. An espousing of the financial certainties of the report would be a great move towards enabling individuals to take charge of their own futures.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend, who has put her finger on an extremely important aspect of the debate. Much of the thrust of our proposals on the NHS revolves around the personalisation agenda, which applies in equal measure to social care. This is about the call to arms that Derek Wanless sounded a few years ago about the need for people to take ownership of their own healthcare if we are to have an affordable and sustainable system over the longer term. That process can be aided and boosted in a number of ways, not only by the rollout of a greater range of financial products but also through mechanisms such as personal budgets, which empower patients inherently, and through telecare, on which this country leads the world in the advances we have made and in the potential that exists for those in receipt of health and social care in their own homes to take ownership of their condition.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I now move on to the next group of amendments. I am sorry, I think I have the wrong notes here.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we are on the group starting with government Amendment 35. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness introduced the government amendments. We could then have a debate and she could then wind up.
Baroness Browning
The noble Lord is quite right. I apologise. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me a second or two to find the correct notes.
The government amendments in this group—Amendments 35, 41, 43, 48, 49, 50 and 240—relate to Clauses 6, 7 and 11 and Schedule 11 and seek to strengthen the relationship between the police and crime commissioners and community safety partnerships in their force areas. Amendment 241 corrects a minor drafting error where the Bill referred to the incorrect clause of the Crime and Disorder Act 2008. I hope noble Lords will take that as a straightforward correction of a legitimate error.
The proposals originally set out in the Bill were debated quite fully and I acknowledge that the relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the community safety partnerships is crucial. It ensures that the public are getting a service that is joined up, coherent and addresses the needs that have been identified locally. We have already set out in the Bill a reciprocal duty for the police and crime commissioner and the responsible authorities comprising community safety partnerships, which include local authorities, to co-operate in order to reduce crime and disorder, including anti-social behaviour, substance misuse and reoffending. This is still the overarching principle of the relationship, which is one of reciprocity and mutual reinforcement. These amendments follow this same principle but also seek to ensure that the police and crime commissioner and the community safety partnership are working together to address community safety priorities. The proposed amendments will require both the police and crime commissioner and the community safety partnership, including the local authority and any other CSP members, to have regard to each other’s priorities. Practically, for the police and crime commissioner these priorities will be set out in the police and crime plan and for the community safety partnerships they will be set out in the strategic assessments and partnership plans that are required by regulations. The proposed amendments will require a police and crime commissioner to send a copy of his police and crime plan to the community safety partnership in the police area. We intend to impose the same requirement on community safety partnerships in respect of their strategic assessments and partnership plans by means of an amendment to the regulations that already provide for the preparation of these documents. I hope that reciprocal arrangement will help to strengthen the relationship which many noble Lords have expressed concern about and have been fearful would not work in practice. These proposed amendments will drive a more collaborative approach between the police and crime commissioner and community safety partnerships. Community safety partnerships, including local authorities, will be able to further engage and influence the police and crime commissioner’s priorities. Importantly, this will be achieved without significantly increasing proscription but instead ensuring that there remains flexibility in how this might be executed locally.
I will be interested to hear other noble Lords speak to their own amendments which form part of this group and will, of course, respond to those when I have heard them.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group but I will first comment on the Government’s amendments. The Minister described Amendments 35 and 41 as allowing flexibility. Indeed they do, but I asked myself when I saw them whether it was necessary to put the words down on paper. Amendments 35 and 41 merely provide for sending the responsible authorities copies of the plan. That is not a very onerous obligation and, more importantly, it is not one which amounts to a consultation. It is something which hardly needs saying. I am entirely with her on the points she has made which we will come to in later amendments about the supportive and collaborative arrangement which we want to see between the two arms of the new model, but I do not think this amounts to much. I hope that is not too unkind.
Amendments 43 and 50 talk about observing priorities and I could not find where the priorities were. I am grateful to the Bill team for explaining to me by email that the Government intend to amend regulations to impose a requirement on the statutory group to send their strategic assessment and partnership plan to the commissioner so that he or she will know what the priorities are. That is helpful. It is sometimes difficult to anticipate precisely what will go into regulations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, has tabled Amendment 47 about membership of community safety partnerships and crime reduction partnerships. Like her, I still feel that relationships between the panel and local authorities have not yet been bottomed out, if I may put it that way.
My amendments largely repeat amendments to which I spoke in Committee. I have tabled them again because they came up in some of the enormous groups we had, which made it very difficult for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to ensure that they covered everything. There were one or two in the group on which my noble friend Lord Wallace, I think, said that he would write; I have not yet had the letter. I am sure that the Minister will understand that, as this is the last opportunity, essentially, the amendments are here again.
Amendments 40, 45 and 46, 54A, 55 and 56, 56A and 57 are about the contribution to be made by both victims and witnesses. I have tabled some of those amendments after contact with Victim Support. I am grateful for its contribution. It makes the point that in obtaining the views of the community on policing, witnesses—interestingly, Victim Support has been dealing with me on witnesses—should also be included. They, too, fundamentally depend on an effective and responsive police force. They are key participants in the justice system, whether or not they are also victims. It is often owing only to witnesses that the criminal justice becomes aware of an offence in the first place.
Victim Support states—I think, rightly—that our justice system requires witnesses to feel confident in the service they will receive from the police and that they will be the subject of sensitive handling throughout the progress of a case, not only, but including adequate protection if their status as a witness means that their safety or that of their family may be in danger. It made the point to me that particularly relevant is the apparent lack of adequate training given to officers about the reality of the court process. It commented to me about witnesses frequently being the victims of basic police misunderstanding about whether their identity will be protected, whether there will be a screen around the witness box, a video link, and that sort of thing. In fact, that is subject to the discretion of the court, and not something about which the police can give blanket assurances. In order that witnesses should not feel overused and underserved, some of my amendments suggest that they should have a role in the way that I have proposed.
A point I made at the previous stage is that victims have suffered a huge range of crimes, some very distressing, some very damaging, and some unimaginable. They or their representatives should have an opportunity to make an input to the police and crime plan and there should be arrangements to obtain their views on policing as part of the community.
Amendment 42 would alter Clause 8 regarding the means by which a,
“chief officer of police’s performance in providing policing will be measured”.
My amendment would change that to the,
“attainment of the police and crime objectives”.
That concentrates on the outcome rather than on the output and seeks to link this part of the Bill not to what the chief officer does but to whether the police and crime commissioners’ objectives, as set out in the police and crime plan, are attained.
Amendment 53 would enable the police and crime panel to request in advance that certain information should go into the commissioner's annual report. Although this is a small amendment, when I chaired the London Assembly I found that similar provision in the GLA legislation was very useful. It merely enables the panel, and the Assembly in London, to say in good time what subjects it thinks the commissioner should cover in the annual report. In this legislation, the annual report seems to have some status.
Amendment 59 would require the commissioner to have regard not only to the panel's report and its recommendations on the annual report but to any other reports and recommendations that it may make. This is not just an annual exercise. If there is to be this supportive and collaborative relationship then the panel will need to work year round. I am sure that it will have plenty of things it wants to say and that it will want to do so not just on an annual basis. This is a mild amendment as I use the words “have regard to”.
Amendment 58 relates to clauses on obtaining the views of the community on policing, and I suggest that local authorities should be included in the process. There should be consultation not just with people in the area but with those who have been elected in our system of representative democracy, who have views about the priorities for spending and whose own expenditure may cover allied or parallel ground.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am very interested in the noble Baroness’s comments on local authorities, but would they not apply to crime plans? I follow her arguments and am very supportive of the general thrust; but if that, why not for crime plans?
Baroness Hamwee
If the noble Lord is teasing me about a previous amendment, he can probably read my answer in the fact that I have stayed put. I am not averse to being teased.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I was merely trying to liven up the debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Far from it. I was just trying to follow in the noble Baroness’s footsteps with lively engagement.
Baroness Hamwee
Let us go on to the Local Government Association. That seems to follow, as Amendment 239A would add police and crime commissioners as statutory partners on community safety partnerships. Under the Bill, commissioners do not replace police authorities as members of CSPs; they simply have a duty to co-operate. The Local Government Association, making the point that this is an all-party view, says that it is concerned about fracturing current local community safety governance arrangements and that placing commissioners as statutory members on CSPs would help to ensure that all bodies involved in local community safety work together through a collaborative approach in the best interest of local communities and that the commissioner does not undertake contradictory efforts to those of the other CSP members.
I apologise to your Lordships for the length of time it has taken me to introduce all those amendments. It is a medium-sized group in the context of the Bill.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, pursuing my usual course of local government recidivism, I will comment briefly on Amendment 49A, which will include local authorities in the rather wide category of criminal justice bodies set out in Clause 11(4). On Second Reading, I rather questioned the extent of that list and wondered whether it is appropriate to regard the police commissioner in the same category as, for example, the Crown Prosecution Service or youth offending teams. However, be that as it may, if there are to be bodies such as those listed here—including, for example, youth offending teams, which are regarded as criminal justice bodies—surely it is logical that local government should be included as well, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seems to acknowledge at least on this occasion. I hope that the Minister will accept that modest amendment. However, I will endorse the noble Baroness’s amendments that refer to the need for local government to be included, particularly, for example, in relation to the annual reports in Clause 13. It would be strange if the elected local policing body—effectively the commissioner—were not to give a local authority a response to a report or recommendations that such an authority might make to the commissioner. Again I hope—possibly vainly—that the Minister will see the logic of that and accept the amendment to that effect which the noble Baroness has moved.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 47 in this group. I apologise that I was premature in attempting to speak to this amendment an hour or so ago, having failed to notice that, in between the draft groupings and the final groupings, there had been some slight changes.
I particularly note the Minister’s Amendment 43 on behalf of the Government, which specifies that the local policing body must have regard to the priorities of the other statutory partners in developing policing plans. That is very welcome, and it begins to improve linkages with community safety partners. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I still think that there are gaps in the landscape and that the Bill proposals could be further strengthened.
Amendment 47 suggests an active role for police and crime panel members in community safety partnerships, and it specifies that a panel member must sit on each such partnership within their area. The idea of this is to enable the panel to influence the strategic priorities of those partnerships before they are set, and to provide information to the panel and the commissioner to ensure that the policing family plays its part too.
It is all very well to say that the local policing body must have regard to the priorities of other partners; but what if these were at cross-purposes? Having a panel member in the partnership would enable an intelligent dialogue to take place and would enable that panel member to pick up on concerns before they became major problems.
The Minister is right in what he said earlier about this crucial set of relationships between CDRPs on the one hand and the commission, as we have it, on the other hand. However, I do not want this to be a discussion just about generalities, and it would be nice if this happened or that happened. Ultimately, all this is about better engagement. It is about trying to get an improved response on behalf of local communities. We are looking to try to get a system that works well for local people.
I recall that in Committee this House expressed real concern that one person, in the form of a commissioner, could not undertake the kind of in-depth engagement that 17 members formerly did, and that there was a real risk that they would be perceived as remote, not just by electors but by the many other bodies—public, private and voluntary—that work with the police. If the commissioner is going to find it very difficult to get round all the CDRPs, who can do it instead?
I think that the Government broadly agreed in their recently tabled amendments that the role of the panel must be as much about supporting the commissioner as about scrutiny. My amendment is a way of letting the panel develop a supportive role in practice. We keep hearing about the panel being supportive and about stricter checks and balances, but I am trying to get the panel to play a stronger role in practice. We know that membership of community safety partnerships would be one way for panel members to help to make this ambition effective and to get panels to be more supportive and play a more practical role.
We know that the police alone cannot solve all local problems that could arise. That is why community safety partnerships were set up in the first place. If we allow local policing bodies to become disconnected from the wider community safety partners, we will go back 15 years to the kind of silo thinking that saw record levels of crime at the end of the 1990s. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want.
It might be salutary if I remind the Minister that police authorities were not originally among the bodies required to be on CDRPs when they were established. Over time, it was found to be an error and was changed so that police authorities became statutory partners. Indeed, police authority members became among the most dedicated and active members of the partnerships. The reason was that it was a good source of two-way information. It was not just that police authorities, and now police panels, would get information back. Their presence was very much valued at district level both by local councils and divisional police officers. That system is working as we speak and I would be very reluctant to see it disappear.
I understand that the concept was not invented here. The charge has often been levelled at police forces up and down the country that they are very reluctant to introduce things that they have not pioneered or invented. I feel that the Government face the same danger here. They are trying to set up a new policing arrangement. I understand that, but there are lessons to be learnt about what has happened in the past 15 to 20 years, and we need to be prepared to learn them. My amendment attempts to restore a link that will otherwise be lost. I am trying to enable panel members to keep their pulse on the local landscape and ensure that both the panel and the commissioner are aware of developments, are equipped to understand problems and are able to co-ordinate effective joint action. Once again, I am trying to be constructive and to assist. I am absolutely certain that in the years to come, sooner or later the links will be restored. They have to be, because it is common sense. That is the way in which things will work at local level; it is just a question of making the change now rather than later.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I do not know why I did not put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig—I ought to have done—but I will say a few words in support of it. First, I welcome some of the government amendments in the group. I will single out Amendments 35 and 43. Amendment 35 deals with ensuring that every responsible authority in the context of community safety gets a copy of the police and crime plan. Amendment 43 ensures—going back the other way, as it were—that local policing bodies must have regard to the priorities of local partners. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, that the Bill could go further. Therefore, I will say a few words in support of her amendment.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is widely regarded as one of the best and most effective pieces of legislation passed by the previous Administration in their early years. It has made a huge difference to the way that local crime and anti-social behaviour is tackled. It is no accident that the general reduction in crime that we have witnessed in the past 15 years began at about the same time as the partnerships were put in place. Therefore, it seems strange that the Government appear less than enthusiastic about maintaining the link between the partnerships and the new police governance mechanisms.
It is particularly strange when one considers that the PCC’s role will include a vastly increased remit in relation to partnership bodies in other areas, such as criminal justice. Community safety partnerships seem to me to be the key fulcrum around which local engagement and local solutions are brought together. Why on earth we are disconnecting local policing bodies from these partnerships when they should be an asset to improving the effectiveness of local policing and partners, I really do not know. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, is right to suggest that panels should be represented on community safety partnerships to preserve this relationship and I certainly support her amendment.
Lord Soley
I also support this amendment, very strongly so. It follows a number of things that I have argued on this Bill on the relatively few occasions that I have spoken. It is the issue on which I feel most strongly. Although it is not the Government’s intention, there is a real danger of breaking the link between the local authority, the local crime partnership and the police. What the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has just said is absolutely right. Particularly before the 1998 Act, it was difficult to get really good relationships between police, local community groups and the local authorities. It was not because anybody was actively willing against it; it was because we did not have a structure for doing it.
It is a long time since I was involved in this sort of thing, but I remember those years and I fear very much us going back to that. I would have great trepidation because it will result in crime and social disorder being less well dealt with and it will therefore result in an increase in crime and social disorder. If the Government would cast their minds back to the period before 1998 they will recall that various groups, particularly those led by local authorities, and the police were trying to find new ways of working together. Some police forces, local authorities and groups managed to do it; others did not. It took that structure of the 1998 Act to give force to it. A situation emerged where, slowly, everybody accepted that the key to keeping down crime was not just more police officers on the beat—important as that is—but really good crime prevention programmes and a close link between the community and the police, headed up, but not always necessarily led by, the local authority. When you got that you suddenly found that everybody began to co-operate on a single target. They also began to identify crime hot spots or particular difficult crimes and you began to get co-operation.
I know that the Minister will say, “Don’t worry, it will be all right on the night, everything will be there to follow it up”. I have to say that I cannot see it in this Bill. You are talking about very large police areas and a remote detachment. When the Minister says, as she did on the last group of amendments, that a member of the panel will be able to attend or discuss with the council or the various groups which have been implied here, then my memory—again it is perhaps many years ago—of that sort of arrangement with local authorities often did not work well. The reason was that the commitment to that level of involvement was not satisfactory. What we need is a much more structured way and what my noble friend is putting forward offers that.
If the Minister cannot see her way to accepting this amendment, I would like to see the Government spell out much more clearly how they think crime prevention is going to work in the new structure and make sure that crime panels, local authorities and everybody else are working together on this. There is a danger with this Bill, structured as it is, that that will cease to function and if we lose that, we will go back 20 years, frankly, and the Government will live to regret it. So if the Minister can spell out to me why she is so convinced it will work I will be delighted not only to listen to her now but to reread her comments and try to understand it. For the life of me, I cannot at the moment see how this is going to improve the situation and it may well make it worse and take us back—as the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Harris, said—to 1998 and possibly further than that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Soley has put his finger on it in supporting my noble friends Lady Henig and Lord Beecham. The argument for this Bill is about enhancing local accountability of the police force. Yet, remarkably, in a number of its provisions, it seeks to reduce the direct involvement of local authorities in these important issues. I accept the House has come to a view about police and crime plans, but surely we should be seeking to involve individual local authorities in a partnership with their local police forces and with the police and crime commissioner.
That is why it is right to seek to encourage the Government to ensure that there are references in the Bill to the relationship between police forces and local authorities. That is why this group of amendments is so important. The argument of the noble Baroness is that the police and crime panel, which will have representatives from local authorities, can do the job. I am sure we all hope that police and crime panels will be effective and I certainly think they would be more effective if the Minister could accept the amendment of my noble friend Lady Henig. The argument she put forward is that the panels, while concerned with scrutiny, could also play a valuable role in supporting the police force and the police and crime commissioner.
I certainly hope that, despite all my fears, there will be a mainly co-operative relationship between all three partners. Otherwise, we could end up with a situation in which the police and crime commissioner engages in political argument with the police and crime panel, with the chief constable squeezed in the middle. One thinks of all the energy that these partners in the local policing situation will spend arguing with each other and seeking to get public support when they should be working together to enhance police activity and effectiveness in a community.
I strongly support the amendments, which seek to place clearly in the Bill the role of local authorities and ensure that the police forces and PCCs of the future are required to engage with community safety partnerships. Surely one of the great advances that we have seen over the past few years has been the way that people have worked together to do everything they can to prevent crime and make sure that all the agencies involved co-operate and collaborate. It would be a great pity if as a result of this legislation those bodies were discouraged from so doing. That must be particularly so in the case of crime prevention and community safety partnerships. On those grounds, I hope that the Minister will be able to come back with at least some reassurance to noble Lords.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, before I deal with these amendments, I would like to clarify the Government’s position on this issue on which we have, as I mentioned earlier, tabled amendments. The Bill already contains provision for police and crime commissioners and the responsible authorities on community safety partnerships to co-operate in the exercise of their functions. The government amendments seek to strengthen that duty at a more strategic level by including provision for both parties to have regard to each other’s priorities. Perhaps I may clarify that. What that new duty adds is that PCCs and CSPs will be required to have regard to each other’s priorities, even in areas where they would not actually be working together—which could be the case—but where there would be benefits in them taking a consistent approach and having a knowledge of, and regard to, what the other’s priorities are. That would at least ensure that they did not take an inconsistent approach, a sort of left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. We are anxious that they work together. It is a very important relationship, and that is why I have tabled amendments to strengthen it, as I have just outlined.
My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley have tabled Amendment 42. My noble friend reminded us that she is due a reply from my noble friend Lord Wallace, who promised in Committee to write to her. I will ensure that I chase up that letter tonight. Amendment 42 would remove the wording that stipulates that a plan should set out how a chief officer will be judged in his or her provision of policing and replaces it with a provision about how standards of policing will be measured. In my view, this goes to the heart of what these reforms are about, despite it being, on the face of it, a relatively minor amendment.
The Government’s model is that the panel and the public should hold the commissioner to account who, in turn, must hold the chief constable to account for the provision of operational policing. The original wording of the Bill achieves this, and it is right that the operationally independent commanding officer of a force, who exercises unfettered direction and control, is held personally accountable in law for the provision of policing. This amendment, perhaps interestingly, removes this subtle but very significant difference. That is not to say that standards of policing are not something that the PCC should be involved in. We are just clear that in maintaining operational independence and clarity of roles the PCC should hold the chief constable to account for meeting those standards. I am not in any way suggesting to my noble friends that the standards do not matter, but I believe that the line of accountability as set out in the Bill is the right way forward.
My concern with Amendments 44 and 45 is that they would significantly increase the burden on PCCs and members of the community safety partnerships. I understand the effect to be that they would have to co-operate with each other in relation to all the functions exercised by members of the community safety partnership and not just in their function of formulating and implementing community safety strategies. This would be a legal duty enforceable by the courts. However, I am concerned that it would give rise to considerable bureaucracy. Local authorities, fire services and health bodies would have to keep all their functions under review in order to show that they were co-operating with the PCC where possible, even though many of their functions have a limited connection to community safety or, in some circumstances, none at all.
The Government are proposing a more proportionate approach in that the duty to co-operate would extend only to community safety functions and there would be an additional duty on police and crime commissioners and community safety partnerships to have regard to each others' priorities, the latter being a much broader set of issues. At the beginning of my remarks, I outlined how I see that working in practice.
Similar concerns arise in relation to the proposal to extend the duty to co-operate to voluntary and statutory bodies concerned with crime reduction and victim support. There may be a significant number of these bodies, both local and national, to whom the duty would apply. We would not wish to create a bureaucratic requirement for PCCs and other bodies to show how they are carrying out this duty. More fundamentally, we do not think that the amendment is necessary as the appropriate links between police and crime commissioners and the relevant bodies will be created in any event, as we are providing the power for PCCs to issue grants, including to the voluntary sector and statutory bodies. In providing those grants, there would clearly be a great deal of discussion and recognition of the function and priorities of those groups.
With regard to Amendment 47, tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, I see it as primarily reverting to current arrangements for police authorities by requiring members of police and crime panels to sit on community safety partnerships. It will be for the PCC to decide how best to manage relationships with CSPs. That is the strategic leadership they will provide. I have listened to the House's concerns on this issue and have introduced amendments that will enhance these provisions and essentially allow the PCC and local CSPs to manage the relationship locally. I have already spoken on these and will not repeat myself here. Suffice it to say that I have listened and, in seeking to amend the Bill in the light of the concerns voiced in this House at previous stages of the Bill, I have tabled those amendments accordingly.
Anyone who has dealings with CSPs will know that they operate very differently across the length and breadth of England and Wales. There is no one-size-fits-all system. These reforms are about reducing bureaucracy and about responsibility being taken locally for delivering quality services. I fear that the provisions tabled by my noble friends could increase the bureaucratic burden and add prescription to the Bill, which I do not believe is needed. The panel is there to scrutinise, not to share the executive functions of the PCC. I know this is a subject on which we disagree, and I see these amendments primarily as consequential to the removal of PCCs from the Bill under the original Clause 1, but I have to reiterate that that is the Government's position.
Baroness Henig
If a commissioner decided that he or she wanted members of the panel to sit on the panel, could that happen as an alternative way of achieving what we all want to see? Would that be within a commissioner’s remit?
Baroness Browning
I have not addressed that question before. I will come back to the noble Baroness. I am probably doing what my officials call “going off piste” here—I do it quite frequently—but I believe the PCC has the authority to build these relationships and if they felt it appropriate for someone, not necessarily a member of the panel, to represent them for a particular purpose, perhaps a particular project or for something that had been identified as a priority, I hope they would have the flexibility and the power to do that. I will write to the noble Baroness before I get into too deep water, but on the face of it I see no reason why the PCC should not nominate someone to do that if it were felt necessary for that to happen, not necessarily on a permanent basis but for a particular local situation where it was necessary to work quickly and rapidly.
I would add that police and crime panels are to be made up of representatives from every local authority in the police area, and each CSP in the police area will continue to benefit from a local authority representative. It seems to me that this negates the need for the PCP to be represented on the CSPs in its own right. The local authority is already represented on the CSP and the PCP so, to go back to my reply to the noble Baroness, if there were special circumstances because of a situation that had arisen, I would hope that the PCC would have the authority to ensure that there was representation to deal with specific issues.
Those representing the local authority are of course responsible for linking up that work. I heard what the noble Lord said about that not always working in practice but, quite frankly, one of the difficulties that we often face is that things do not work because individuals do not communicate as expected. If there were problems in that area, and a lack of joined-up communication, I would expect a rather grown-up approach in that someone, presumably the PCC, would step in and say, “We have a problem here, let us sort this out”; or, from the local government end, if it they felt that there was a problem at their end and they were not getting enough report-back from those who represented them, whom they will have chosen themselves, they would say, “We are not getting enough feedback on this, can we do something about it?”. Sometimes breakdowns in communication actually just need a bit of leadership—it is not rocket science. Of course, leadership is what we expect the PCC to give, and there is certainly plenty of leadership in local authorities to make sure that, if there is a problem, they identify it and do something about it—they do not need that to be in the Bill.
The Government are trying to devolve to local areas and to respect the people who serve on these committees, particularly the people at local government level who are elected to carry out those sorts of functions. I am therefore very resistant to going into minutiae of this kind in the Bill. Given that representatives will hold unique and privileged insights into policing and community safety on behalf of the local authority, it is inconceivable that a competent public servant would not ensure that the appropriate links were made and that the local authority would seek to rectify that situation. On that basis, I ask that the amendment not be pressed.
Amendment 49A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asks us to define local authorities as criminal justice bodies subject to the duty to co-operate. Again, I have some difficulties with this. First, local authorities are not criminal justice bodies. They are, however, concerned with the promotion of community safety. Secondly, Clause 11(1) already provides for PCCs and the responsible authorities that are members of CSPs to co-operate with each other. Local authorities are responsible authorities, so they are covered by the duty to co-operate in Clause 11(1). There is therefore no need to include them in a separate duty to co-operate in Clause 11(2). As I have already outlined, government Amendment 43 in this group strengthens the duty to co-operate in terms of the PCC and responsible bodies having regard to each other’s priorities in exercising their functions. This will apply to local authorities as responsible authorities. I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment, but it does not really contradict what I have tabled.
Lord Beecham
I have just looked up the clause to which the noble Baroness refers—Clause 11 on co-operative working. She is quite correct to say that Clause 11(1) refers to the “responsible authority”. However, that subsection talks about the co-operation between the elected local policing body and the local authority as a responsible authority; it does not bring the local authority within the family of the other organisations in subsection (4) that are obliged to co-operate, which is why I suggested that they should be included there. In other words, this could be seen as a bilateral relationship instead of a multilateral relationship, which was the defect that my amendment sought to cure. Will the noble Baroness take it away and think about it further?
Baroness Browning
Yes, I am very happy to do that. I had rather thought that the noble Lord was seeking to strengthen my own amendment in this matter. I take his point about the difference between bilateral and multilateral relationships. I am very happy to take it away and look at it again, just to be absolutely sure that we have got this right. I had regarded the amendment that he tabled today as rather unnecessary, but I will double-check because I agree with what he is trying to achieve here.
Amendments 53 and 59 seek to increase the panel’s influence over the PCC. Amendment 53 provides that the panel may specify information that it requires the PCC to include in his or her annual report. Amendment 59 provides that the PCC, when carrying out his or her functions, must have regard not only to reports and recommendations made by the panel on the annual report for the previous financial year but to any other ad hoc reports or recommendations issued by the panel. I completely agree that a PCC should be listening to and actively considering the panel’s views and recommendations, and I would fully expect it to do so. This is bound to happen without it being put on a statutory footing. The panel will have the opportunity to scrutinise the PCC, and that will include the PCC’s consideration of any of its advice, reports or recommendations. If the panel believes that information is needed in the public domain, it has the powers to request and publish it itself. Ultimately the public will judge the PCC’s decisions. The Government are clear that we have struck the right balance here, so I ask that the amendments not be pressed to a vote.
Amendments 54A and 56A concern victims and witnesses of crime, and would add witnesses of crime to the list of groups whose views the PCC must seek and have regard to when drafting and issuing the police and crime plan. This is in addition to the present provision that allows for the views of the people in that police area and of victims of crime. This is already covered. I would certainly expect the PCC, in having regard to the views of people in that policing area—particularly, as it says, the views of victims of crime—to consider both the victims and the views of witnesses.
Amendments 40, 46, 55, 56 and 57 add bodies working to combat crime and disorder and assisting the victims of crime to the list of organisations that the PCC and MOPC must consult or have regard to when drafting the police and crime plan. Amendment 58 adds local authorities, including parish and town councils, to that list. There is already provision in the Bill for the PCC to consult victims of crime in the area; by extension, we would expect this to include bodies and services that help to support them. There is no need for this further provision. As for bodies reducing crime and disorder, a PCC will be driven to reduce crime and disorder simply by virtue of his or her position and electoral mandate. This is at the heart of what we expect PCCs to achieve: to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour.
The Government do not seek to tell PCCs how to go about their job in detail where that is unnecessary or disproportionate. Crime and policing strategies must be formulated according to the needs of the local area. It would be a short-sighted PCC indeed who did not consult such groups, including witnesses of crime, or pay attention to local councils within the force area. Amendment 239A seeks to list all PCCs as responsible authorities for the purpose of Section 5 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In effect, it would make a PCC a member of a community safety partnership within each local authority area in his or her force area. To do so would place a requirement on the PCC to agree with each member of a CSP a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder and a strategy for combating the misuse of drugs.
However, the current provisions in the Bill, as set out in Schedule 11, envisage a different role for PCCs in relation to the CSPs. We are taking a power to make regulations conferring functions on PCCs in relation to CSPs. We intend to make regulations allowing the PCC to bring together community safety partnerships within the force area to address the specifics of crime reduction and drug abuse, as listed in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The PCC will not sit on a CSP but will have a commissioning role over its activities, including grant-issuing powers. Therefore, the police service role in delivering those activities will be represented by the chief constable or his or her nominated representative, and ultimately the chief constable will be held to account by the PCC for the force’s role on the CSP. We see the existing provisions as adequate. Therefore, I ask that these particular amendments not be pressed to a vote.
Baroness Doocey
“( ) if the draft plan or variation is referred back by the panel under section 34(1)(c) and (1A), ensure the plan or variation follows the reasons given in the Assembly’s resolution referring the draft plan back.”
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of Amendments 39, 168, 173, 175, 176, 177 and 178 is to make the provisions of the Bill consistent with those proposed in the Localism Bill. The Localism Bill gives the London Assembly a new power to reject the Mayor’s draft statutory strategies by a two-thirds majority vote. The Bill makes no equivalent provision. As it stands, it would not have the effect of applying the Assembly’s new power to the Mayor’s draft police and crime plan. Once these two Bills become law the London Assembly would have the power to reject any mayoral strategy with the sole exception of the draft police and crime plan. This discrepancy makes no sense. There is no substantive difference between the draft police and crime plan and other mayoral strategies, so there is no justification for the police and crime plan, which is probably the most important of the mayoral strategies, being excluded from the new arrangements. This is perhaps why the Mayor of London and every political party on the London Assembly are in favour and fully support this amendment.
Amendment 171 is designed to clarify whether the London Assembly could appoint independent members of the police and crime panel and whether the Assembly could enable independent members to vote. This has now been clarified by a government amendment, so I will not say any more about this at this stage.
My final amendment in this group, Amendment 180, is designed to give the London Assembly’s police and crime panel the power to require senior Met officers and civilian staff to attend meetings and to provide information. The Government have said that the Assembly’s police and crime panel can request senior police officers to attend. This is completely meaningless since there is no way of enforcing a request. The Government have argued that allowing the Assembly to summon senior police officers would blur the lines of responsibility. I simply cannot accept this. I believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the Assembly to be able to question the Commissioner of Police. The Government have not responded so far to the second half of my request—the part about allowing the Assembly to require senior staff to attend and produce documents. Surely their argument about blurring lines of accountability cannot possibly apply to senior police staff. Requiring either attendance or papers would allow the Assembly to have information on which to inform its assessment of the mayor’s policies, actions and decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendments 166, 167 and 179 in this group. The first two would allow the London Assembly to determine whether to discharge its functions under the Bill either through a committee or through the full Assembly. At the moment the Bill prescribes. In responding to a similar amendment at the previous stage, the Minister said:
“The first question to address here is why there should be a bespoke committee of the London Assembly called the police and crime panel rather than, as proposed by noble Lords, the functions being conferred on the London Assembly as a whole. The reason is one of practicality. Having a dedicated committee, representative of the wider London Assembly, will ensure that sufficient attention and scrutiny can be paid to delivering its policing responsibilities and would also allow for independent members to be brought on to the panel … This smaller group will be able to focus its attentions on the important business of scrutinising, in detail, the actions and decisions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.—[Official Report, 24/5/11; col. 1800.]
I am not sure whether I can say this of the noble Baroness, but I thought, reading that, it was really rather paternalistic. The London Assembly is a grown-up body, with its current and past members and, I am sure, its future members, and ought to be able to take its own decisions as to the best way of organising itself.
I remember when we were debating the GLA Bill, which became the GLA Act 1999, it originally provided for the Government to deal with, I think, the standing orders of the Assembly. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, saying from the Government Front Bench, “This is ridiculous. It can sort itself out”. She was quite right then and I make the same point now. There seems to have been some confusion, in any event, on the Government side, because earlier the same day the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said:
“We argue that it is for the London Assembly as a democratically elected body to decide for itself how the membership of the panel should be chosen”.—[Official Report, 24/5/11; col. 1751.]
I accept that this was a slightly different context and a slightly different point, but I argue that the London Assembly as a democratically elected body should be able to decide for itself how it carries out its functions.
Amendment 179 would provide for the Assembly to approve or reject the draft police and crime plan, or a variation, with the veto of a two-thirds majority—unco-ordinated, but the same point as that made by my noble friend. I feel that it is appropriate for the Assembly to be able to treat the plan in the same way as it does mayoral strategies. On this point, the Minister said at the previous stage that it would not be appropriate for the panel to have a power of veto because of the plan being statutory in nature. My short point here is that the strategies to which my noble friend has referred—she managed to say statutory strategies without tripping over the words—are statutory in nature. I do not see that there is any qualitative difference between the two.
Finally, I have two questions about government Amendment 172. I welcome the clarification of the position regarding co-options, but if the Assembly is to be able to fix the number of members of the panel—reverting to my earlier point—can the Assembly create a committee which consists of all 25 members as a result of this amendment?
The third subsection of the amendment states that the,
“panel functions must be exercised with a view to supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”.
That picks up today’s theme of the constructive, collaborative and supportive nature of the relationship. I am not quite sure whether the Government might have gone too far on that because, in exercising the functions, the panel or the Assembly might support the best outcome but oppose the way in which the mayor’s office chooses to exercise them.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments on which a number of issues are raised. The amendments highlight how serious the Government are, or are not, about these scrutiny bodies—in London it is the London Assembly structure—in terms of what they can and cannot do. The amendments would enable some opportunities for the London Assembly to propose amendments and changes to the policing plan.
At the moment, the London Assembly is charged with consideration of a whole series of statutory plans; for example, the Spatial Development Strategy and the transport strategy. I think that there are about seven or eight of these strategies, but that figure may have increased since I was a member of the London Assembly. In addition, there is the biodiversity action plan, which is specifically referred to in the Greater London Authority Act. The Government, or one arm of them, are busy changing the statute so as to give the London Assembly the power for which I have often argued in the past; namely, the ability to amend those plans by a suitable majority. Why is that not part of the Government’s vision for policing? It is absent and I do not understand why. I could suggest that the Home Office does not talk to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which is unthinkable, or that there is a reason why the policing strategy is seen in a different light from the other plans and strategies that the mayor is required to put before the London Assembly.
I suppose I am pleased to see that the Government have responded to the concerns expressed by many Members of your Lordships’ House about the need to ensure that, in the case of the PCPs, the chief officer of police should be able to appear before them or, in the case of the London Assembly, that the London Assembly should be able to see the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. But it is a very weak and watery power that the Government have put forward in the amendment. It is simply the power to invite, which does not need to be written into statute because it already exists. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis appears several times a year before the full London Assembly on the basis of the current implicit right to invite. Therefore, the Government have made no concession at all.
By the abolition of police authorities, the Government are removing the place where the public know there will be visible answerability by senior police officers. The right to invite is not a significant new right. Under most circumstances, any sensible chief officer of police and any Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will accept such an invitation. When there are difficult circumstances, it is important to the public that senior police officers are seen to be required to appear before a public body in that way. I have spoken in this Chamber previously—I will not repeat all the points I have made—about the value of visible answerability and the important opportunities that that gives for the public to see that the police are being held accountable.
It is no substitute that under the new arrangements London will have the deputy MOPC who will not, unfortunately, have the benefit of being directly elected but will hold the commissioner of police to account, while outside London the PCC will hold the chief officer of police to account. That process inevitably will happen in private. A one-to-one meeting cannot be held in public. That will not be a system of visible answerability, so there has to be that visible answerability somewhere else—in the case of London, that should be the London Assembly. The right to invite is not sufficient. On limited occasions, there must be the right for the London Assembly to summons. It is very sad that that has not been the case. In passing, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the London Assembly could decide that all 25 members should sit and carry out this scrutiny function. At present, the full London Assembly on occasions meets as a whole to ask questions about policing. Will that now be precluded by the Bill and the way in which it has been structured? That is the implication. You end up with less visible answerability and less visible accountability, and the arrangements that already exist are diminishing. Surely, that is not the Government’s intention, which is why this group of amendments is so important.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Hamwee, have raised some important points. Like my noble friend, I am puzzled by the inconsistency between government departments when dealing with similar matters in legislation going through your Lordships’ House. We raised this matter previously regarding corporates sole and the absence of effective corporate governance, in contrast to changes that other government departments are making regarding similar governance issues. I specifically referred last week to the Department of Health. As a result of the listening exercise it is changing the proposals on governance to ensure that what were going to be called GP consortia and are now to be clinical commissioning groups, will have effective corporate governance. Another example is the extension of the Assembly’s new power in relation to mayoral strategies not in this Bill to police and crime powers. I cannot see the logic of that. Surely if it is deemed appropriate for the Assembly in certain circumstances to be able to amend plans, why on earth is it not appropriate with the police and crime plan?
I, too, am puzzled about why the panel is not in the last resort able to require the attendance of senior police officers. The Government’s view is that that would blur the line of responsibility. They have also make that argument in relation to police and crime panels outside London. Far from blurring the line of responsibility, it seems to me that two things will happen. When the MOPC goes before the London panel or when—outside London, although I know that it is not part of these amendments—the PCC goes before a police and crime panel, the panel is bound to ask matters on operational issues. That is inevitable. The MOPC will either have to say, “It’s not me guv, that’s down to the commissioner”; or, as I suspect will happen, it will seek to answer on operational issues. Those of us who have been before Select Committees or scrutiny committees know that, in the end, it is difficult not to give an answer.
I suggest to the noble Baroness that the real reason why the Government will not give way on this is that they know we are on a journey towards elected politicians running the police force. That is the inevitable consequence of where we are going. By not allowing the panels to require the attendance of senior police officers, the Government are encouraging that process. Surely on a policing matter that should be the direct responsibility of the commissioner, the panel and not just MOPC should be able to summon the commissioner.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I would like to deal with one or two points that have just been raised before I touch in more detail on the amendments that have been spoken to this evening. We want the Assembly to have a role in informing the development of the plan which is in keeping with the rest of the country and the elected mandate of the PCC. We do not believe that there should be a veto, because no other PCP will have the power of veto outside London. It would take away—this is critical—the mandate on which they were elected. I see the noble Lord looking heavenward but this is at the heart of PCCs. They will be elected on a mandate that will spell out to voters how they see themselves managing crime reduction.
Baroness Browning
I am halfway through the sentence; perhaps I may finish it. At the heart of the Bill is an ability to be elected on a manifesto and on a mandate which people will have heard. People will either support them on that or give their support to an alternative candidate with a different way of taking these matters forward. The right to veto would completely negate what had been put to the people who had voted in good faith on the contents of the strategy. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, there are two issues here. One is London and what happens there and the other is the impact of a decision in London in relation to police forces in the rest of the country. As far as London is concerned, I do not see the difference between the mayor as the MOPC and the mayor as the Mayor of London. The manifesto will contain proposals that relate to both policing and non-policing issues, and since the Government have decided that it is entirely appropriate for the Assembly in certain circumstances to change those strategies, I cannot see the logic of the argument coming from the Home Office. Is it not supporting the overall government position on this? Secondly, if you agreed to this in London, would that differ from the position in other parts of the country? I see the force of that argument but again I refer the noble Baroness to what Mr Pickles said at the conference last week in Birmingham, when he made it clear that elected mayors outside London will not have any additional powers to those held by local authorities at the moment. Already within local government we have a situation where it is accepted, and the Government support, that there will be differences between London and elsewhere. I know that the Home Office is a very distinguished department of state but just occasionally it would be nice to think that it was actually a part of the Government.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I assure the House that there is absolutely no question that the Home Office is not part of the Government. I am shocked to the quick that the noble Lord should suggest such a thing. There is a difference between the Mayor of London and the mayor’s election but, unlike mayoral strategies on which the mayor goes to the electorate, within the Bill there is a lot of detail which is already in statute that relates to policing, structure and the mayor’s function in London policing. This is therefore different from other matters which the mayor may go to the electorate on as part of a broader manifesto. I see the noble Lord, Lord Harris, about to rise.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that she is not relying on a brief from the Home Office which suggests that somehow the policing and crime plan is intrinsically different from the other mayoral strategies. There is the most extraordinary volume of legislation about what the Mayor of London can do on development issues in London. There is an extraordinary volume of legislation about what the Mayor of London can do with transport. The legislation specifies very complicated arrangements for consultation with the public of London before the mayor can frame the spatial development strategy and the transport strategy. To suggest that there is anything special here regarding policing compared with those other pieces of legislation is, I am afraid, nonsense.
To save me getting up again, if the Government are concerned that this sets a precedent for the rest of the country then why on earth are they having a different system of governance in London than in the rest of the country? Once you have accepted a different system of governance in London, then what you do in terms of how London operates does not set a precedent.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, we have been round this circuit quite a few times. The difference is that the mayor, unlike PCCs, covers a distinct police force area. The election of the mayor has already taken place; we are familiar with the structure. I know that the noble Lord is going to jump up and talk about the City of London police, and I accept the point. He has made the point and I think that I have fully understood it.
The structure in London is different from that in the rest of the country. In this uniformity across the country, however, we have tried to identify where there are differences in London—and there are differences—and draft the Bill accordingly. This may come as a surprise to the noble Lord because I have just said that we already have detail in statute on this matter, which we have, but at all levels, whether it is London or elsewhere, we have tried to introduce checks and balances throughout the Bill at the same time as keeping a light touch. We want to give PCCs and the MOPC the opportunity to be flexible and to make their plans according to their local priorities and demands. There is a structure within the Bill that will affect all of the country, including London—and there are differences that affect London because of the precedent of already having an elected mayor—but we want this to be something that is not top-heavy and not prescriptive from the centre, that allows local accountability for local decision-making that is a local priority and not something set down by Whitehall.
I would also like to put this on the record. Some noble Lords were not here on Friday when it was suggested that there is a difference between me and the Home Office. I have heard what has been said about the Home Office. This is not the first time in my career that I have been a Minister. It has never been my practice as a Minister to separate myself either from the department that I represent or from the Government whom I represent. There is hardly a cigarette paper’s width—if that is not being terribly politically incorrect—between us. I take full responsibility for the Home Office in your Lordships’ House. I hope it is meant kindly, but it does not always sound that way. I suggest to noble Lords that if there is criticism of the Home Office in your Lordships’ House, it rests on my desk. I take full responsibility for that. If people have complaints about the Home Office, I would ask that, as with all other complaints, they put it in writing, and I will respond accordingly.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I could not resist the cigarette paper. I have been listening very carefully to the noble Baroness. I have a concern about public examination and questioning of the chief police officer’s ability to respond to what the community wants. I come back to two points in this Bill. The needs and expressed views and wishes of different parts of London can be very varied and the Assembly represents the whole of London. I accept that there is not a cigarette paper between the Government and the noble Baroness and the department, although some of us who have had experience with different departments find that occasionally one department can be slightly more flexible on a Bill than other departments can, but that is by the bye.
I have a growing concern about the role of the chief police officer. Underpinning the Bill is the assumption that everyone who voted will get the policies that they wanted, the whole policies and nothing but the policies. I am deeply concerned about one individual being able to do that. To me, public accountability is critical in this amendment, and in other parts of the country, in terms of protection. Some major areas of police work and the accountability of the chief constable will go to the area of police activity that is wider than the area covered by the authority or the chief constable. It may be that the CPC will be saying, “Look, I vowed that we would do A, B and C but we are not able to do as much of C as we would have liked because the Home Secretary is determined that some of the resources must go to something else”. Being able to be questioned and to air their views and policy initiatives in public is critically important to chief constables. I personally would prefer police authorities not to be according to the Government. However, to protect professionalism, the right to be questioned and heard in public is a basic professional right.
Baroness Browning
I take seriously what the noble Baroness says about chief officers. I appreciate the seriousness of the point that she is making. I hope that the Bill has taken account of that, not least in the protocol that has been discussed with colleagues in this House across all parties. I said on Report last week that we are still considering whether or not to put the protocol or the principle of a protocol in the Bill. That protocol has been developed with ACPO and others to try and get this balance right. It is very much in the interests of chief officers. I am not able to say today what the outcomes are of that decision-making, but I assure the House that we are seriously looking at whether or not to put the principle into the Bill. Did the noble Lord, Lord Harris, want me to give way?
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Minister may have misunderstood what I was saying on a point that I made earlier on. It is not that the ability of the Assembly to vary local plans runs across the thrust of government policy. I understand that the thrust of government policy is to release local energies to determine what the priorities are. If that is the case and you then say that the London Assembly cannot vary what is being determined locally, does that not cut across the sort of localism that the Government say they want? This is not about the problems of the Assembly interfering with national strategies or requirements; it is about the ability of the Assembly to say, “These are the local priorities”. Where there is a clear two-thirds margin—a pretty high target—that is something that the MOPC would have to take on board.
I cannot understand why the Government are saying that policing is different from spatial development strategy—say, the size of strategic tall buildings, the size of the congestion zone area or any of those other issues. These are not laid down nationally; they are determined locally. Of course the Mayor of London has been elected with a manifesto but the London Assembly, representing all parts of London, may well say, by a two-thirds majority, “We think that you should take this back and review it”. That is what the Government are saying could happen in those other areas—why are they not saying that it can happen with regard to policing?
Baroness Browning
We have a situation in London where, although I said earlier that there is a difference between London and the other areas, there will be an opportunity to scrutinise the plan. I do not want this to sound as if it is an isolated case. We have had these discussions now. We have tried to strengthen in the Bill the fact that there is a need not just to scrutinise and challenge but also to support. Where the plan is being drawn up, it is not just something that happens overnight. I would expect it to be subject to a series of consultations so there would be ample opportunity, if there were reservations, for the plan to be amended to take account of different points of view that had been put forward. It is not just an isolated thing.
Perhaps this is my fault but I have a feeling that in the earlier stages of the Bill, when we were talking about the plan, I did not spell out this aspect in more detail. It is not the case that one day somehow a plan is suddenly produced and presented for consultation and people sitting in committee then make their views known. We want them to have time to look at the plan in some detail; I raised this in an earlier amendment. There will need to be that period of time. The plan will not be put together overnight. There will be plenty of opportunities for views to be brought forward and for real consultation to take place.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I do not want to prolong this, but that is exactly the situation that already exists regarding the transport strategy. There is a requirement, which if I remember correctly seems almost unduly onerous, for any amendment to the transport strategy to require two separate consultation processes. I look across the Chamber at those current Members of the London Assembly. So the transport strategy is not something that happens suddenly; it happens after a great deal of discussion and process. Yet the Government are saying that the transport strategy can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the London Assembly. I put this question again to your Lordships: why is policing different from transport?
Baroness Browning
I realise that the mayor will have said things about transport, I appreciate that, but the mandate that the mayor will have been elected on will have outlined how he sees the reduction of crime in London. It is important that that is not fettered by a veto, which it could be.
Lord Harris of Haringey
You could say exactly the same about congestion in London. The mayor has stood on a manifesto that says he is going to reduce congestion in London by various methods, yet the Government are giving the power to the London Assembly to amend the strategy by a two-thirds majority after two separate consultation exercises before the strategy is finalised and those decisions are taken.
I am not trying to be difficult here. Well, I am trying to be difficult because I think that these are important issues, but I am afraid that the Government are being totally illogical when they say that policing is different from those other strategies.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I have to remain illogical to the noble Lord. I can think of nothing else to say to him now that we have not already taken around this circuit, not just in today’s debate but in Committee.
I wonder whether I might start to address some of the amendments that have been raised in this debate, beginning with the veto in Amendment 179 tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley. I am sure it will come as no surprise to them when I say that I cannot accept it, probably for the most of the reasons that have been exchanged not with them but across the Floor of the House in the past 10 minutes. I can also not accept Amendment 178, tabled by my noble friend Lady Doocey. The amendment would give the London Assembly the power to reject the MOPC’s draft plan by a two-thirds majority and have the Assembly’s comments reflected in the plan. Amendments 39, 168, 173, 175, 176 and 177 are consequential to my noble friend’s amendment and can be considered with it.
The House will be aware that the Government have made a concession in relation to police and crime panel vetoes. We listened to the concerns of the House and have introduced amendments creating a new power of veto for the London Assembly police and crime panel in relation to the appointment of a non-Assembly member as the deputy mayor for policing and crime. We are also reducing the majority required for all the various panel vetoes from three-quarters to two-thirds. I understand that that is not as low as noble Lords would have liked. Points have been raised again on Report, as they were in Committee. But it is a concession. It was at three-quarters, so we have listened by reducing it to two-thirds. Noble Lords have said that it would be quite hard to get two-thirds of people there if such a vote were to take place. I have to say that such is my experience of democracy that wherever you set the threshold you are often disappointed that people do not feel that it is as important a matter as you do for them to turn out and vote. The right of veto is in the Bill. If such a matter occurred and people on the panel felt it was very important, they would almost certainly try to make the case to ensure that their points of view were known to those who were eligible to use the veto.
However, I am clear that setting the strategy for the force must be an unfettered decision for the PCC or the MOPC. This is precisely where its electoral mandate will come into play and where the public will most visibly see their views and opinions reflected. I realise that that is not the view of all your Lordships in the Chamber tonight, but it would be against the spirit of our reforms to allow that electoral mandate to be overridden by the panel. There is provision in the Bill for the panel to provide recommendations on the plan. It is a robust, transparent mechanism that ensures that views are heard and debated. However, the final decision on the plan must rest with the PCC or, in the case of London, the MOPC, and not the panel. For those reasons, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Amendments 166 and 167, again from my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, would allow the London Assembly to choose whether its functions in relation to the scrutiny of the MOPC should be discharged by the Assembly as a whole or by a committee—the police and crime panel. We have been clear that having a dedicated police and crime panel perform these functions will ensure that sufficient attention and scrutiny can be given to policing and crime matters. It would also allow for independent members to be brought into the panel to ensure diversity and the right mix of skills. The Government have tabled Amendment 172 to make that clear, having listened very carefully to representations that were made at discussions outside the Chamber and also in the Chamber in Committee. This smaller group will be able to focus its attentions on the important business of scrutinising in detail the actions and decisions of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, particularly in respect of the police and crime plan. In addition to the provisions in the Bill, I would highlight that the government amendment in this group provides for the London Assembly to have an important and extensive say on the membership of its police and crime panel committee. I note that it is common for the London Assembly to operate in committees, one example being the transport committee. I hope that the Home Office has got that right.
Baroness Hamwee
Before my noble friend sits down, I am aware that this is Report stage although it has not always been treated quite that way. My noble friend has been dealt an almost impossible hand but may I tempt her to respond to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on whether there is to be a change in how the Assembly operates? May it no longer in plenary session ask questions of the mayor in his capacity as MOPC? I cannot believe that either of the mayors, of whom London has so far had experience, would themselves be constrained, nor can I think that any chair of the Assembly would say, “I have to stop you there. This is outside the legislation”. I never succeeded in stopping the first Mayor of London when he strayed, as he did rather widely. This seems unbelievable but there is a serious question. In a plenary session when an individual who holds the two offices is answering questions, can he or she not answer them in a holistic fashion, moving between strict policing matters and non-policing matters?
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I understand that there is absolutely no change. There is no reason why they cannot ask those questions.
Baroness Browning
I assume that if a question is asked and somebody has the answer they would have the courtesy to give it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them answering a question they are asked.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I welcome government Amendment 172. I am very happy with that and will withdraw my Amendment 171. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am at a complete loss to understand the points made by my noble friend the Minister. I have listened very carefully to everything she said. Every single mayor has been elected on a manifesto basically of two things: police and transport. All of the issues to do with transport are exactly the same as those to do with policing. Nothing that has been said by my noble friend has made me understand the thinking behind the Government saying that it is okay for the Assembly to be given a new right to reject the mayor’s strategy by two-thirds in transport but it would be completely wrong for the Assembly to be given the right to reject the police and crime panel report. I simply do not understand where the Government are coming from. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
“( ) In its application by virtue of subsection (11)(e), section 43(2) of the 1999 Act (duty to send copies of current version of police and crime plan) has effect with the insertion after “to each London borough council” of the words “and to each of the other persons and bodies that are, for the purposes of section 5 of the Crime Disorder Act 1998, responsible authorities in relation to local government areas that are wholly or partly within the metropolitan police district.”
Baroness Browning
“( ) The elected local policing body for a police area must, in exercising its functions, have regard to the relevant priorities of each responsible authority.”
Baroness Browning
Baroness Browning
““relevant priority”, in relation to a responsible authority, means a priority applicable to the exercise of that authority’s functions which is identified by that authority in compliance with a requirement imposed by regulations made under section 6(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;”
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
In moving Amendment 51, I will also speak to my Amendments 52, 54, 142 and 143, with which it is grouped. I again apologise to the House that my amendments repeat, or are similar to, amendments to which I spoke in Committee. The large groups in Committee meant that we had what I might describe as composite responses from the Dispatch Box.
Amendments 51 and 53 continue the theme of checks and balances in the shape of tools to enable the panel to do its job. Clause 12 is headed “Information for public etc”. Under Clause 12(3), the commissioner must publish information which he or she “considers to be necessary” to enable local people to assess the matters that are set out: that is, information that he—some may be “she”, but I guess they will mostly be “he”—considers necessary. No doubt that consideration has to be done in good faith, but it strikes me that it would be almost impossible to enforce. I do not know who would enforce it. My amendment would insert, as additional matters to be included, those,
“which are required by the relevant police and crime panel”.
As I say, these tools would enable the job to be done and would interpose the strict checks and balances required to check and balance the commissioner.
I have already alluded to the provision that I seek to add to Clause 13. It is not an onerous or difficult obligation but would allow the panel before the beginning of the relevant year to tell the commissioner what it thinks ought to be included in the annual report. This was applied in London under the GLA Act when I chaired the Assembly. After the Assembly had had a preliminary discussion about the items that it thought should be included in the mayor’s annual report, there was a negotiation with the mayor. It was a perfectly civilised but productive process.
Amendment 52 is designed to draw attention to the position of victims of crime and to ensure that “performance” includes,
“the treatment of victims of crime”.
I have brought this up again because I do not think it was answered in the group in which it was contained previously.
Amendments 142 and 143 are a repetition of amendments concerned with the attendance of senior officers and the production of documents and information. I heard what the Minister had to say in our debate on the previous group about allowing the attendance of the most senior officer. You do not need to put into legislation that someone may attend a meeting; the legislation should not set out a narrative of what might happen but provide rules if people are not minded to do the sensible thing. Surely the point of a law of the land is to require attendance—in this case of someone who is not particularly willing to attend. If we think that attendance is a good and productive thing, the role of the legislation is to ensure that it is required.
My noble friend Lord Wallace did not state specifically which amendments he was speaking to—he said that the Government were right about some of them—but he said that the balance was wrong and that he was concerned to protect the commissioner from,
“being inundated with requests for information”.—[Official Report, 24/5/11; col. 1750.]
However, the panel’s role is to advise and scrutinise the police and crime commissioner, especially in respect of the annual police and crime plan. To advise and to scrutinise in the broadest sense, the panel needs information, and not only the information that the commissioner determines that it should have. This applies to every piece of information because everything is relevant to the plan. I fully appreciate where accountability lies—with the chief constable to the police and crime commissioner and with the commissioner to the electorate—but there are dotted lines in there to enable the panel to be brought in. Sometimes it is appropriate and practical for someone a bit less senior than the chief constable to attend, but at other times it is necessary to insist on his attendance and to insist that documents and information are provided.
The Government have tabled amendments in this group. Some of them are about the request to which I have referred; others change the relevant term from “reports” to “information”. They are a minor improvement but still do not seem to my mind adequately to recognise the role of the panel. I beg to move.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 141 in this group, which would provide that outside London the panel should be able to call senior police officers to answer questions as well as the commissioner and members of the commissioner’s staff. As I shall spell out, this amendment complements the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I very much agree with the sentiments that she expressed with regard to her amendments.
It is very important for panels to be able to call in senior police officers. The panels must be able to triangulate evidence if they are to carry out their role of effectively scrutinising the commissioner. It is true that they will be able to gather information from the commissioner under the provisions in the Bill, but they will also need to analyse and test that information. The most effective way of challenging and testing information is to ask questions about it. Certainly, the panel can ask questions of the commissioner under the provisions already in the Bill, but this may tell it only what the commissioner wants it to hear, particularly if the commissioner has been responsible for providing that information in the first place. All my experience in local government and policing tells me that it is extremely important for the panel to be able to reality check what it hears from the commissioner against the views of senior members of the police force.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as you will see in the government amendments in the group, which I shall come to in a moment, we agree that it is important that information is available to the public and the panel in assessing the actions of the police and crime commissioner and the force. Amendments 51, 52 and 54, in the name of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, concern the provision of published information. We are grateful to my noble friends for these amendments. Amendment 51 would compel the PCC to publish information that the panel deems appropriate, while Amendment 52 stipulates that performance information should include data pertaining to the treatment of victims of crime. Amendment 54 states that the PCC must provide documentation as well as information.
On Amendments 51 and 52, the panel already has the right to request information, and provided that it would not jeopardise national security or personal safety it must be supplied, and nothing prevents the panel from publishing it. There is further access to information through regular, light-touch inspections by HMIC and crime mapping. Therefore the panel already has a means of obtaining information, and, as I say, should it wish to see it published, that is perfectly acceptable.
On Amendment 54, the panel can again request any information that it deems necessary from the PCC, and I am happy that it is on the record that we interpret “information” to include documents. This should be provided except where it might adversely impact the safety of the public. I hope my noble friends agree that the provisions in the Bill allow for the outcomes they seek to be met, and I ask that these amendments are not pressed.
Amendment 141, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and Amendment 142, in the names of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, would allow the panel to require the attendance of senior officers from the police force. As I will discuss in bringing forward Amendments 145 and 181, we agree that there are times when it is right that operational matters must be considered alongside the police and crime commissioner’s role. However, these amendments go much further. We do not accept that the panel should be able to scrutinise other members of the force directly. It is the police and crime commissioner’s role to hold the chief constable to account and the role of the panel to hold the PCC to account. Duplicating the accountability of the chief constable is confusing and would only undermine the effective and clear leadership that policing needs.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, if the panel cannot require the chief constable to come before it, inevitably the police and crime commissioner will be called upon to answer operational issues. If that happens, the line between the role of the PCC and the chief constable will become very blurred. I know the Government say that they resist the amendment because they do not want to blur the role of the PCC overall as being accountable to the electorate, but their approach will bring its own perverse incentives.
Lord De Mauley
I see the noble Lord’s point. He is right to point out that there is a compromise in that concession. However, the chief constable has to be responsible for his force. He or she is the person invited to attend with the PCC. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, if they do not know an answer they should go away and find it, like a Minister does at the Dispatch Box. We are trying to avoid a situation where the force is split by allowing the same question to be addressed to different people. That would risk undercutting the authority of the chief constable.
Baroness Henig
I understand that perfectly but it is not what I am trying to do. I want to enable the panel, in exercising strict checks and balances—which, after all, is what we are trying to do—to scrutinise the commissioner effectively. To enable that to happen, the panel should be able to ask questions of a chief constable that relate to a commissioner’s performance. This is all about the scrutiny of the commissioner; it is not about holding the chief constable to account. I agree with the noble Lord that that would not be acceptable; it is not what we want to see happen. We are trying to increase the ability of the panel to scrutinise effectively. That is what we are all trying to secure.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, perhaps I may come back to that point and, for the moment, move on.
Amendment 143 would make the panel’s ability to request information more explicit. As discussed, it is important that panels can carry out their functions. However, panels already have powers appropriate for the scrutiny role they will perform. They can require the attendance of the police and crime commissioner or members of the PCC's staff to answer questions that they deem necessary. They can also require information from the commissioner and their staff, except where this would compromise security, so I hope that I can persuade noble Lords in due course to withdraw these amendments.
We are proposing in this group a number of government amendments which will address many of the issues raised by your Lordships during Committee. Amendments 145 and 181 would allow the police and crime panel to request the attendance of the chief constable in the exercise of their duties. We have noted your Lordships’ comments and we thank my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley in particular for their contribution. It is still one of the fundamental principles of this reform that it is the police and crime commissioner who holds the chief constable to account. As has been said, we believe that such dual accountability would lead to a confusing landscape, with the chief constable being pulled in two different directions and the public unclear as to who they were holding to account for their policing service.
However, it is recognised that in order for the police and crime panel to fulfil its role in holding the police and crime commissioner to account, there might be times when the chief constable’s attendance is desirable, so it is proposed to give the panel the ability to request their attendance. That stops short of it being able to compel him or her to attend and it will be for the chief constable, in consultation with the police and crime commissioner, to decide. As I said, the principle is that the PCP’s function is to scrutinise the PCC rather than the chief constable but we acknowledge that there may be occasions when it is desirable for the PCP to meet the chief constable.
I turn to information provided to PCCs and to government Amendments 182 and 186. Noble Lords will be aware that, as originally drafted, the Bill provided that a chief constable could be required to provide a police and crime commissioner with any report that he or she saw fit. That matched the existing provisions for police authorities and one may well ask what these government amendments add to that. It is arguable that a report is a document containing or consisting of information—we certainly take this view—so that a power to require reports necessarily encompasses a power to require information. While this was not discussed in your Lordships’ House, a number of parties have raised with us concerns about the existing provisions.
Those concerns were, essentially, that by requiring a report rather than information, the PCC might only be able to obtain the chief constable's interpretation of data rather than being able to analyse that data themselves. I am confident that chief constables would not in any way seek to misrepresent data or use them selectively. However, in order for the PCC to be able properly to hold the chief constable to account, they will need to be able to see raw data for themselves so that they can give their own thought and analysis of them. This amendment will ensure that happens and that there can be adequate and appropriate flows of information between the chief constable and the PCC. It will also achieve consistency throughout the Bill, since similar provisions such as Clauses 14 and 94 are couched in terms of information rather than reports. Comment, opinion or analysis are kinds of information, so a PCC will still be able to use this clause to require the chief constable to give an account or explanation of any matter of concern. As such, I hope that noble Lords will support these government amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have learnt one new thing today: the use of the term triangulation. I feel that any response would simply risk going round the circuit again, although I note that the noble Lord has just given some assurances on interpretation of terms, which will be useful, and I must acknowledge them. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 51.
Lord De Mauley
“(A1) The police and crime commissioner for a police area may—
(a) appoint a person as the deputy police and crime commissioner for that police area, and(b) arrange for the deputy police and crime commissioner to exercise any function of the police and crime commissioner.”
Lord De Mauley
(a) appoint a person listed in subsection (3) as the deputy police and crime commissioner;(b) arrange for the deputy police and crime commissioner to exercise a function listed in subsection (4)(a), (e) or (f);(c) arrange, under subsection (1), for a person listed in subsection (3) to exercise any function; or(d) arrange, under subsection (1), for any person to exercise a function listed in subsection (4).(2A) A deputy police and crime commissioner may arrange for any other person to exercise any function of the police and crime commissioner which is, in accordance with subsection (A1)(b), exercisable by the deputy police and crime commissioner.
(2B) But the deputy police and crime commissioner may not arrange for a person to exercise a function if—
(a) the person is listed in subsection (3), or(b) the function is listed in subsection (4).”
Baroness Browning
“(ca) the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime appointed by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime;”
“(g) a member of the staff of a person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f).”
Baroness Henig
“(e) except as provided in sections (Powers of dismissal: role of police and crime panel) and (Powers of suspension: role of police and crime panel), appointing, suspending or calling upon a senior officer to retire or resign;”
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 187, 188, 194 and 195 to 197 in this group. They all relate to the appointment, discipline, suspension and dismissal of ACPO-rank officers—not just chief constables. The House will recall that I addressed this issue in Committee and I return to it now. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said then and mentioned that I might well return to this matter after considering the points that she made. I have fully considered them and, thinking about it, I still fundamentally disagree that the only person who should be responsible for appointing senior officers in a force, other than the chief constable, is the chief constable himself or herself.
Certainly, a chief constable should have a significant say in who is appointed to senior posts. My amendment allows for this. However, the overarching responsibility for the efficiency and effectiveness of the force remains that of the governing body. The Bill specifically confirms that this function will remain with commissioners. They cannot exercise this effectively if they do not have an influence on the shape or make-up of the top team and I therefore return to this topic.
Outlining what these amendments will do, Amendment 69 relates to Clause 19 on delegation and provides that the commissioner can delegate responsibility for appointing and disciplining senior officers in certain limited situations, which I set out later. Amendment 187 effectively deletes Schedule 8, as my amendments in this section return the situation to the status quo, making the new provisions in this schedule redundant. Amendments 188 and 194 give commissioners the overarching role for appointing and disciplining deputy chief constables and assistant chief constables respectively, while enabling a role for panels in these processes. That is set out through the amendments which follow. Amendments 195, 196 and 197 specify a role for the panel in appointing senior officers, in requiring senior officers to resign and in suspending them respectively.
I am still at a loss to understand how the Government think they will achieve the more muscular and high-profile role they envisage for commissioners at the same time as giving them fewer powers than police authorities currently have. Dealing first with the amendments about appointing and disciplining senior officers other than the chief constable, in Committee I heard the Minister point out that Sir Paul Stephenson thought it was a really good idea for the chief officer to do this and, by inference, suggested that the Government should follow this lead. Yet I am afraid I did not hear a great deal about why she thought it was such a good idea.
As I think I also mentioned in Committee, Sir Paul Stephenson and I have known each other for many years. In fact, I was the person who first appointed him as chief constable when I was chair of Lancashire police authority. He is an extremely able man and, as the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, he counts as the most senior serving police officer in the country. Yet I do not agree and never have agreed with him on this issue. I actually find it quite ironic that, in Lancashire, I in fact appointed him to the position of deputy chief constable. It is by no means certain that had the then chief constable held the power to appoint, he would have been appointed. We do not know that but it was certainly the police authority that appointed him to the role of deputy chief constable. I have to say, with no disrespect to Sir Paul Stephenson, that he would say he wants more say over his top team. That goes without saying and I understand the sentiment. But he is the one chief officer in the country, ironically, who will not get this to the same extent as others because the role of deputy commissioner is a Crown appointment and not in his gift.
I noted in Committee that there were a number of equally senior but no longer serving police officers in this House who did not agree with Sir Paul’s position. They have, perhaps, had the benefit of considering this question away from the hothouse and everyday pressures of policing. Their view, if I can paraphrase, was that the chief constable’s position was better protected and less exposed if he or she had a role in the appointment but did not take the ultimate decision. They would have more freedom to manage their own team if they alone were responsible for the appointment of their immediate juniors. If I understand it correctly, that is the Government’s key argument. But it would have a great many downsides for that chief officer, potentially exposing them to unwelcome industrial-tribunal action without any supporting cover, as well as disciplinary action if the commissioner thought they had appointed the wrong person. All of this would detract from other perhaps more pressing matters about managing the police force on a day-to-day basis. I suspect the Government think that if the governing body appoints a senior officer there might be confusion about who manages that officer. This is emphatically not the case under current arrangements. I see no reason to think that restoring the status quo would cause any confusion. There are existing provisions which make it quite clear that this is the role of the chief officer.
I know the Government are keen to achieve a clear separation of functions between the chief officer and the governing body. This is where the principle of the chief officer having the freedom to manage his or her top team comes from. This is not in dispute and would not be compromised by my proposals. The stronger role for commissioners proposed by the Government reinforces the fact that it is ultimately the governing body which should be responsible to the public for the overall shape, style and effectiveness of policing in their area. A commissioner cannot carry out this function properly if he or she does not have the final say on who is appointed to the top team. It is crucial to aligning any strategic vision for policing to the style and skills of the top team. It is not the same thing to say that the commissioner must be consulted about senior appointments, as the Bill currently does. The commissioner’s role must be decisive if he or she is to exercise a proper level of traction over the policing requirements for the area.
I also mentioned in Committee a number of other good reasons why the governing body must appoint the chief officer. The most important reason was the tendency of people in senior positions to appoint people in their own image if they have a free hand. This would give rise to real concerns about improving the diversity of the police at senior levels. The Minister did not really address this matter in her response. I am aware that the whole area of senior promotion and assessment is to be revised, but the problem is that this will be in another Bill and we do not yet know what this will look like. We have had no White Paper or similar on this yet, but it is beginning to look alarmingly as if ACPO will be given full responsibility for overseeing this change and for setting the criteria once the NPIA is abolished. This is the problem with having a rushed and, frankly, rather badly thought-out Bill which covers only half of the policing landscape. We are being asked to take on trust that serious matters of this nature which affect the current Bill will be looked at, without any clear indication of what is going to be proposed. The only amendments the Government seem to have made to this section are ones which effectively specify that the chief constable must be a constable at the time of appointment.
I understand why senior officers are concerned to ensure that a chief constable is an experienced police officer. This relates to issues around operational independence. While I am pleased that the Government are making some concessions, I am not convinced that this is the most important concession to make. There has been one instance already when a non-police officer was appointed to the post of chief officer in a police force, although the police force concerned was a Civil Nuclear Police Authority force and not a Home Office force. None the less, that did take place. This in itself is a comment on the perception of the skills of senior officers among appointing bodies. Although this was a few years ago, there was concern then, which still remains to some extent, that there is not enough focus in senior assessments on business and management skills among senior officers. That is why it is so important to be able to see the whole package of everything that sits behind senior promotion and assessment in this context. This goes back to my point about senior people appointing and promoting others in their own image. It is worrying that chief officers will not only be responsible for appointing individuals; they may also be made responsible for designing the whole package of leadership skills that will be fostered and assessed through the possible new role for APCO that I have mentioned.
It is human nature to undervalue skills which senior managers think they themselves have never needed in deciding who to promote and appoint, and even to over-emphasise some skills which they believe to be important. In my experience in the police service, women officers suffer from this. I have seen over and over again senior officers putting huge emphasis on operational qualities and the ability to oversee certain operations but undervaluing issues of communication, the importance of relationships and the importance of emotional intelligence, which in policing is very important. I am worried that, if we are not careful, we will revert back to some of the things that we used to see happening 20 years ago.
Even if the commissioner is consulted and makes some clear points, there is little the commissioner can do, short of hitting the nuclear button and firing the chief officer. If the Government do not provide some decisive traction for governing bodies over functions in which they have an overriding interest, they are merely encouraging an unstable situation where commissioners take extreme and disproportionate action over disagreements. That is not good enough and if my amendment is not accepted, the Government must at the very least get rid of these clauses until they can be clear about the shape of the whole senior appointments landscape and extend the status quo on a transitional basis until this has been done.
I also made the point in Committee that the governing body should have a role in disciplinary matters, especially suspension and dismissal at senior level. These amendments also provide for this. There was widespread concern in the House at the time that giving responsibility to chief officers alone for senior officer disciplinary issues was a grave mistake and a recipe for corruption. I am disappointed that the Government have not come back with additional proposals about this. I made the point in Committee that there would be few circumstances where, if a senior officer was behaving unethically, the chief officer would not be under some suspicion, even if only of inadequate supervision of the individual concerned. The Bill’s proposals make the chief officer both judge and jury in terms of complaints against senior members of their team, while at the same time providing to chief officers a potential loophole to evade investigation where they could be implicated. This is because it is left to the discretion of chief constables whether to refer the matter to the IPCC, except in some very severe situations where referral is automatic. Clearly, a chief officer might fail to refer matters which reflect badly on him or her to the IPCC. This is entirely inconsistent with the whistle-blowing principles that are the cornerstone of any regime of good governance. While I heard what the Minister said on the first day of Report about ensuring that principles of good governance would be included within the requirements for commissioners and police forces, this is an obvious case where it seems it will not in fact apply. It is clear by any acceptable standards that the governing body must have the decisive role in dealing with complaints against senior officers. This is fundamental to the commissioner’s accountability and to being clear with the public about where they can go if they have a problem. No member of the public is going to have any confidence in a regime where the chief officer deals with complaints against his own senior team. This in no way meets expectations of independence or lack of bias. This is so obvious that I am very surprised that the Minister has not put forward any alternative proposals. I ask her to explain why she thinks the public would have any confidence at all in the arrangements currently set out in the Bill.
Moving on, because I know that time is pressing and I apologise to noble Lords for that, my proposals also give a much stronger role to the panel in relation to appointments, complaints and conduct matters relating to senior officers. This is designed to address some of the concerns expressed in Committee. Again, the concerns were focused on bringing a more collaborative approach to the work between a commissioner and the panel and providing meaningful levers to the panel to address problems about putting too much power into the hands of individuals.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments, to some of which my name is added, which deal with delegation.
The amendments are all about ensuring that all senior police force appointments at and above the rank of assistant chief constable will remain with the governing body, as is currently the case. I envisage that as being the PCC but with a strong role for the police and crime panel from the interview stage onwards. In the case of senior officer appointments other than the chief officer, they specify that the chief officer of the force must be included on the interview panel, and therefore have a role in appointing his or her senior team. I certainly agree that the chief officer alone should not be able to appoint senior members of the team.
Moving on, the amendments state that the responsibility for senior officer conduct and complaints should rest with the governing body, the PCC, with the PCP taking a strong role. It is absolutely unacceptable that police officers decide whether to investigate their close colleagues. That is neither transparent nor proper.
During my time as chair of my police authority, I had to deal with some serious matters touching on the conduct of a chief constable. I could not possibly have dealt with the matter on my own. Even with legal help and support, we needed to work together as a body to come to a reasoned conclusion. As it happened, the legal advice that we were given was wrong, so imagine how I would have felt if I had had to take sole responsibility for making such a decision. Having the panel being supportive—indeed, helping to come to difficult decisions—will be by far the best way to deal with often tricky circumstances. I support the noble Baroness’s amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am conscious of the hour and the fact that our Benches are filled to hear this debate, but this is a very important group of amendments. My noble friend Lady Henig and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, have raised some important points about that come back, really, to the consequences of having a corporation sole, in which one person has enormous power and responsibility.
My amendments relate to the powers exercised by the police and crime commissioner. Under Clause 39, “Appointment, suspension and removal of chief constables”, huge authority is given to the police and crime commissioner to appoint a chief constable and to require their suspension, resignation or retirement. When it comes to the appointment, there are some safeguards, because the police and crime panel has a veto power on the appointment. We may disagree about the number of the panel voting in favour, but it has a veto power. When it comes to suspension, retirement or requirement to retire, the safeguard is much less. Although the police and crime panel can undertake a scrutiny process, as set out in Schedule 8, in the end, the police and crime commissioner can ignore the panel's recommendation.
My worry is that the police and crime commissioner who is seeking re-election when year two or year three is coming up and who is in some trouble may well consider sacking the chief constable as a visible sign to the public that he or she is doing something. There are circumstances—my noble friends have hinted at them—where that would be a jolly good thing to do, but at other times it will not; it will be a political action by a police and crime commissioner. Where are the safeguards? In the end, there are none because, whatever the panel says, the police and crime commissioner can ignore it.
I have a series of amendments which relate not only to the chief constable but to the circumstances where the same may be required of other chief officers and also to the situation in London. Essentially, this provision should apply only where it can be shown: that there is good reason—in other words, that it is in the interests of the force, for reasons of efficiency or effectiveness; that there has been appropriate consultation with the chair of the police and crime panel; that there has been proper investigation of the circumstances leading up to such an action; and that the approval of the Secretary of State is given. If Ministers consider that that gives the Secretary of State overweening powers, I must say that I have not been persuaded that the essential nature of the tripartite arrangement—the role of the Home Secretary, the police authority and the chief constable—should be so torn up that there are no safeguards to be undertaken by the Home Secretary if the police and crime commissioner decides to take such an action where, as I said, there is virtually no effective scrutiny other than the PCP recommendations.
This is a very important group of amendments. There is unease about the power to be exercised both by the police and crime commissioner in relation to the chief constable and other senior officers and then by the chief constable in relation to those employed by him as a corporation sole. We would look to the Government to recognise those concerns and to give some reassurance.
Lord Dear
My Lords, two amendments in this group, Amendments 189A and 192CA, stand in my name. One refers to the appointment of a chief constable and the other to the dismissal of a chief constable.
In Amendment 189A, I suggest that new words are inserted into Schedule 8:
“A police and crime commissioner should take advice from HMCIC before making any decision as to the appointment of a chief constable”.
I shall come back to the word “should” in a moment. This relates to the suggestion that the advice from an outside agency is taken prior to any decision being made by the PCC and prior to the subsequent discussion of that by the panel. We are looking at this in the context—we have talked a lot about context through the various stages of the Bill—of the fear of the untrammelled exercise of power by the PCC. There are a good many examples over the years of police authorities looking only around their own feet rather than at the broader horizon. The risk is somewhat greater when one has a fully elected individual who has very few of the constraints that police authorities have.
Although I am absolutely sure that, in the majority of cases, if PCCs come into being, they will exercise their power sensibly, in your Lordships' House we are often preoccupied with the thought that some of them might not. In this case, the lack of exercise of the sort of expertise that one would look for would lead to the risk of a blinkered mentality or, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, a silo mentality and a failure to take account of the talent that is available in the wider sphere nationally. Quite obviously, that would lead to a very insular approach from that PCC, the appointment of safe bets, perhaps the appointment of candidates who are personally known and favoured by the PCC, and the appointment of people who are locally or regionally accented. In other words, the whole thing would be driven inwards rather than outwards.
At the moment, there is no national pool of talent within the police service, which is managed in much the same way as some multinational corporations, national organisations or the Armed Forces manage their emerging top positions. The report by Mr Neyroud, which was published earlier this year, and the report that we expect to have from Mr Winsor, which is expected at the end of this calendar year, will have an emphasis on leadership within the police service and I dare bet will propose a whole raft of new developments, formalisation, and improvement of the present structure. I hope they do. On various occasions in your Lordships’ House, I have spoken at length about the crying need for better leadership and structured leadership within the police service.
The system at the moment involves a mixture of advice given to police authorities by ACPO, by the Home Office and by the inspectorate. The inspectorate, which I have included in the amendment, offers advice at varying stages prior to the shortlist being constructed by the Home Office and then offered to the police authority. It offers advice on the shortlisting carried out by the police authority itself and then at the interview stage. My experience of seven years as an inspector of constabulary was that I was asked by police authorities to sit on a large number of appointment interviews when chief constables were being considered. Usually, the advice that I gave was followed and sometimes it was not. I did not take it personally when my advice was rejected, but I saw it as an exercise of democratic accountability in the best possible sense.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I shall be very brief. This is an extremely important group of amendments. As noble Lords have said, the amendments address the importance of having appropriate checks and balances in place. In this grouping, while welcoming government amendments, I suggest that it should be possible for the Government to go further in line with some of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to already in this group. The appointment, suspension and dismissal of a senior officer is a very serious matter where checks and balances are essential if proper procedures and natural justice are to be followed.
On the first day of Report, I commented on the lack of checks and balances on both the commissioner and the commissioner’s deputy in making senior appointments to the commissioner’s staff. This group of amendments relates to senior officers, and it is important to ensure that proper procedures are followed and that individuals making appointments are subject to appropriate checks and balances. What I am seeking to do in supporting some of the amendments in this group and in what I said on day one of Report about the commissioner’s own office is to ensure that the public have confidence in the process that is being followed. It is helpful, therefore, to have amendments that clarify the role of commissioners in senior police appointments and it is important that they be consulted as part of any changes to those appointments. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look at Amendments 186A to 186F, 189A and 193A very carefully because they clarify a lot of detail, not least the circumstances in which suspensions should be considered and who should be involved in those.
At the heart of all this is public confidence in the system—the appointment, the suspension and the dismissal of senior officers. The public know that, at different stages, the chief constable, the chair of the panel, the panel, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary and indeed the Secretary of State all might have roles in considering the position of a senior officer. With these amendments, there would be a significant improvement in public understanding and confidence in the system that is being followed. That is why I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider very carefully what is said in debating this group of amendments.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, we have quite a long list of amendments in this grouping, including some government amendments, to which I will come at the end.
I begin with Amendments 69, 188 and 194, tabled by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, spoke, concerning the appointment of senior police officers. These amendments would change the basis on which senior police officers, other than chief constables, would be appointed. They seek to give responsibility for the appointment of these officers to the PCC. The Government believe that responsibility for these appointments should rest with the chief constable. We believe that the chief constable is best placed to identify the mix of skills required for their chief officer team. They have the best understanding of the areas where their force has good skills and the areas where it would benefit from a fresh injection of skills. As a result, the chief constable should be able to determine who should be appointed to their top team.
The Government believe that the PCC has a role to play in this process. That is why the Bill makes provision for the chief constable to consult the PCC prior to appointment. However, if the PCC is to hold the chief constable to account for the decisions that he makes on how to run the police force, the PCC must have some distance from the appointment of individuals in these ranks. It cannot be the case that the PCC is responsible for appointing these officers or involved in the process and then holds the chief constable to account for the way in which the force is run in the light of decisions taken by those officers. This would, I believe, compromise the PCC’s ability to discharge this function.
I move on to HMCIC advice on chief constable appointments and the creation of appointments panels in Amendment 189A, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, and in Amendment 195, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and my noble friend Lady Harris. I believe there would be some blurring of the lines of responsibility in the appointment of chief officers. The Government’s intention is that a police and crime commissioner will be democratically accountable for their decision regarding the appointment, suspension and removal of a chief constable and that the chief constable should be able to determine the appointment of their top team.
I turn first to the appointment of the chief constable. We have put in place a number of checks and balances on the process of the appointment of chief constables, including the possibility of a veto by the PCP. However, while the PCP provides an important scrutiny function during this process, it is not the primary decision-making body. While there is no barrier to the PCC taking into account the views of HMCIC or others as he sees fit, to put this into primary legislation is difficult. I do not mean difficult in terms of the technicality of it; I just feel that it goes a little too far. Therefore I believe that these proposals are unnecessary.
In respect of the appointment of the rest of the chief officer team, it is a fundamental part of the reforms that chief constables have the right to appoint their top team. They will, of course, do this following consultation with the PCC, and I remind the House that they will be required to act reasonably and lawfully. It is not as though they are going to be able to do this outwith the laws that would apply to this and their accountability for it. We believe that chief constables are best placed to make decisions about the make-up of their workforce, in particular, their top team. The involvement of the PCP would, we believe, undermine operational independence of the chief constable.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond have proposed that the role of the PCP be strengthened in the dismissal and suspension of senior police officers. While the PCP provides an important scrutiny function in relation to chief constable dismissals, again, it is not the primary decision-making body. PCCs are accountable to the local communities for their decision-making and they should therefore have the responsibility for determining whether chief constables should be suspended or removed. The decision to suspend or dismiss another senior officer must lie with the chief constable. In both cases, the decisions are subject to the requirement to act reasonably and lawfully under the safeguards set out in Schedule 8. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary or appropriate and I ask noble Lords not to press them.
Baroness Henig
I thank the Minister sincerely for that lengthy response. I tried to follow it fully, but inevitably some points may well have escaped my attention. I will be extremely brief in responding in light of the hour. Again, I do not want to strike a negative note, but not for the first time I despair about what the Government are proposing and what I see as a refusal to listen to sensible advice. I have to say that, because I do not believe that the issues raised by noble Lords were in any way revolutionary or in any way pushing out the boundaries. A lot of the proposals were extremely sensible and based on long experience, and the Government are somehow rejecting them out of hand for reasons that I do not fully understand.
Let me give some examples. The Minister has not addressed the deep concerns about the disciplinary issues and the position the chief constable is going to be in. That has not been addressed, although I may have missed it in the lengthy—
Baroness Browning
I apologise for interrupting. The noble Baroness is quite right. If I may interpose a few words here, I must say that I appreciate that what the Government have set out is not what the noble Baroness is seeking in her amendments and in the debate around the Chamber tonight. I would point out that all matters other than minor complaints—we defined what we thought these were in Committee—are subject ultimately to appeal to the IPCC. Any serious complaint will have IPCC input and ultimately will go to it as part of the appeal procedure.
Baroness Henig
I thank the Minister. My emphasis is on public perception. As I said when I moved this amendment, it is important for the public to have absolute confidence in the system. My concern remains that that confidence may not be there because of the perception that the chief constable is judge and jury. That was what was concerning me.
There are perception issues again, particularly in relation to the amendment about the involvement of HMIC. I accept that it may not be absolutely essential to write this into the Bill, but again it gives confidence. It certainly, I think, gave confidence to all members of police authorities that at certain stages you had to call in HMIC. That was extremely important and it is still important. The Bill should say that HMIC should be involved at certain points in appointments and in certain other situations such as dismissals. That gives the public confidence, and you must underwrite this system. A new system is being proposed, and the more confidence that can be given about how it is going to operate, the better. That is why I am concerned.
In addition, briefly, the commissioner is going to make appointments and the panel’s role in appointments is extraordinarily limited. I feel that it is inadequate. I am worried, as I have already said, that chief constable appointments might lack diversity. There was a point not long ago when the system briefly changed and chief constables actually appointed deputies. It was not all that successful, as I recall, and the system was changed, so again we have experience in this area.
That is all I want to say, but I end positively. I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation or offer to discuss with Members the senior officer pool and other issues. I am sure that the offer will be readily taken up. I would certainly be interested in taking part in those discussions, and I am sure other noble Lords would too. I very much welcome that.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2011
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shutt of Greetland
That the draft order laid before the House on 5 April be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I beg to move that the House does approve the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2011. This order further extends for two years the period during which trials without jury can take place in certain circumstances in Northern Ireland. Without this order, the system allowing for non-jury trials would lapse on 31 July this year. I propose that it be extended for a further two years.
Non-jury trials take place in very limited circumstances, where the Director of Public Prosecutions issues a certificate. The DPP can issue a certificate only if one or more of four statutory conditions, which are laid out in Section 1 of the Act, are met. Furthermore the DPP must be satisfied there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if a jury trial were to be held.
The four conditions relate to the circumstances of the offence and the defendant. Condition one is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a member of a proscribed organisation. Condition two is that the offence was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation or a proscribed organisation was involved. Condition three is that an attempt has been made by or on behalf of a proscribed organisation to prejudice the investigation or prosecution. Condition four is that the offence was committed as a result of, or in connection with, religious or political hostility.
This system, which focuses on risk, is very different from the Diplock court system, which preceded the current non-jury trial provisions. The default position under the Diplock system was that all scheduled offences would be tried by a judge alone. Now, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, there is a clear presumption that jury trial will take place in all cases. Certificates are issued only when absolutely necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and where the particular statutory tests are met.
Of course, we all want to get to the point where trials for all indictable offences in Northern Ireland are heard by a jury and there is no need for these provisions. As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, there has been significant progress in Northern Ireland towards normalisation. This culminated in the devolution of policing and justice powers to the local Administration in April of last year. The local elections in May were the first in a generation to be fought on bread and butter issues. Northern Ireland has come a long way.
Sadly, despite this progress, there remains a serious threat from a small but dangerous minority who have no mandate but who are determined to drag Northern Ireland back into the past. The House will recall the horrific murder of the young PSNI Constable Ronan Kerr on 2 April this year. People and political leaders from across Ireland, both north and south, were joined in their condemnation of PC Kerr’s appalling murder. However, the terrorists have shown disregard for the community’s resolve and continue to engage in acts of terrorism. On 8 April, terrorists abandoned a vehicle containing a 500-pound bomb close to Newry, putting at risk the lives of police officers and members of the public. There have also been a number of other security alerts over recent weeks. On Saturday 25 June, the Gardai discovered improvised mortar components and a substantial quantity of fertiliser in County Louth. The total number of attacks in 2011 on national security targets currently stands at 14. There were 40 such attacks in 2010. The PSNI continues to disrupt those intent on causing harm to the community and so far this year has made 101 arrests in connection with terrorist activity. The disturbances that took place in East Belfast last month show that, unfortunately, paramilitary influence remains an issue in both communities in Northern Ireland.
It is against the backdrop of this severe threat that the Government seek to renew the non-jury trial provisions. The threat brings a serious risk that jurors appointed in criminal trials could be subject to pressure and intimidation by terrorist or paramilitary organisations. There is also the associated risk of perverse acquittals, where jurors may be coerced into returning a not guilty verdict.
In reaching a decision on whether to seek the renewal of the provisions, the Secretary of State consulted a number of individuals and organisations on the need for non-jury trials. They included the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, the independent reviewer of national security arrangements in Northern Ireland, who concluded that the threat from terrorism and the risk of disruption of trials remain live and recommended that for the time being non-jury trials should continue to be available. The chief constable of the PSNI and the Attorney-General, in his capacity as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, also agreed that in view of the current circumstances a further two-year extension should be sought.
The number of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland—
Lord Trimble
The Minister has just given us the views of various people. Were representations and expressions of view given by persons, organisations or political parties in Northern Ireland? What was the balance in those representations in favour of continuing with non-jury trials or otherwise?
Lord Shutt of Greetland
This was a limited consultation in terms of the numbers invited, but all political parties based in Northern Ireland were invited, as well as the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. There was not a 100 per cent return in terms of invitations to respond. I am told that not many political parties did in fact respond. Of the 11 responses, nine were that we should continue with these provisions and two took the view that we should not.
The number of non-jury trials in Northern Ireland remains relatively low. So far in 2011, the DPP has issued 12 certificates for non-jury trials. In 2010, 14 certificates were issued. These figures are low but significant and show the ongoing need for non-jury trial. The Government want to see a return to full jury trial in all cases in Northern Ireland as soon as possible. However, given the current severe threat from residual terrorist groups in Northern Ireland and its bearing on criminal trials, the renewal of these provisions for a further two years is the right thing to do. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I strongly support the speech of my noble friend. Noble Lords will know that I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee for five years before the last general election, and in that capacity conducted inquiries into organised crime, among other things. When we conducted our inquiry into organised crime, it was quite plain that many people were not prepared to give evidence to the Select Committee in public, for fear of intimidation. Things have moved on and it is a very good thing that the majority of trials in Northern Ireland are now trials by jury. However, my noble friend is right to point to the real threat from dissidents, about which both Sir Hugh Orde and his successor have consistently and repeatedly warned us. It is notable that so few responded to the consultation exercise with a negative view.
I will just refer to two particular crimes that my noble friend did not cite: not only the ghastly murder of the police constable this year but also the murder of PC Carroll; there was also the most barbaric murder of Paul Quinn, for which no one has yet been brought to trial. The last inquiry that my committee conducted was into the Omagh bombing and we must remember that nobody has been brought to trial in a criminal court and convicted of that most terrible of all atrocities in Northern Ireland. Against that background, where the most despicable criminals have not yet been brought to trial, largely because of the fear of people giving evidence, it is absolutely essential that the provision in the measure before your Lordships’ House is retained for two years.
There are many noble Lords in this House who know far, far more about Northern Ireland than I do because they come from that glorious part of the United Kingdom. They must feel, as I do, that real progress has been made—all those present tonight contributed to it, and one of the particular contributors was my noble friend Lord Trimble. We are well on the way to normality but we are not there yet. Until we are there—until there is no fear of intimidation—we have to retain this provision. It is right that my noble friend brought the measure before us tonight. It is right that your Lordships’ House should support it. In conclusion, I very much hope that in two years’ time he does not have to come here again and ask for a further extension, but if the circumstances are still as they are today he will have to do so.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
My Lords, I support the Motion before the House, albeit with some disappointment, as one who 13 years ago sat beside the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, during negotiations and hoped that we would no longer, and certainly not at this stage, have non-jury trials. However, a number of people in Ireland want to keep alive the distrust that exists between two traditions. Those people do not have—and I say this with some confidence—the sort of grass-roots support that previous terrorist organisations had. None the less they have the ability to kill policemen and civilians. Just recently they have issued a threat against prison officers, saying that they intend to kill prison officers because the “hotel” at Maghaberry is not quite to their liking. The reality is that this, though it may be a last stand, still presents a difficulty and presents huge challenges to the security services and to the community as a whole.
There are certain things that are going for us. I am optimistic—I am never quite sure that I can be as optimistic as some of my noble friends from this side of the water. There is always a threat, always a hiding place, but I think that it is appropriate at this time—and it is not every day that I say this—that I praise the Garda Siochana, whose attitude, under the leadership of the very recently retired Commissioner Fachtna Murphy, has been exemplary. There is no equivocation, there is none of this, “Well, we’ll find the arms dump, but we’ll let the culprits escape”. They have found the culprits, they have taken them to court and convicted them. That has sent a huge and very important message to Northern Ireland that there is no all-Ireland desire to have violence continuing.
For somebody who has been involved in security and Northern Ireland affairs for as long as I have, there is always the temptation to say that we did it better when it was more difficult. I simply hope that our police service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, does not slip into a comfort zone which assists people who are dissident IRA and a number of other people who would embark on loyalist violence again—I have never, I hope, been someone who looked purely at one side of the community, or the threat to one side of the community. There is a necessity now for a common-sense approach, a need to ensure that fewer people are put under pressure. I am talking now about juries and I think that the Minister is very wise in what he has suggested this evening; that we have to protect not only those who would be targets of the potential terrorists but those who would become targets as members of a jury. Indeed, as recently as this week we have seen prison officers being highlighted for targeting.
I should not sit down without saying something that I hope will be heard by all the authorities in Northern Ireland, particularly the Northern Ireland Office. I have said one or two kind things, I am going to say one or two unkind things—perhaps one unkind thing—and that is that the degree of communication at the moment is not satisfactory. I hope that the Minister will take that message away. There are those of us sitting in this House who have many years of experience and whose advice is never sought. More than that, I feel that sometimes our advice is avoided.
With that, I simply say that I support—like the previous speaker, I hope that in two years’ time, I will not have to support it again—the continuation of the non-jury trials at this stage.
Lord Glentoran
My Lords, I did not intend to come into this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, said two things that worry me. He suggested that the PSNI is getting complacent. I do not believe that to be true. It is under threat continuously. He and I have met widows in recent times. That is not right. For four or five years now, I have worked with the Secretary of State and no one is more diligent or more energetic than my right honourable friend Owen Paterson. The communication is very free and ongoing, and Owen does not hide anything from anyone. He tells it as it is. If the noble Lord does not like the way in which it is coming out, that is different. But it is the way it is.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining the background to the order. I should like to pick up one or two of the comments. Like other noble Lords, of course I regret the fact that it is necessary for this order to come forward again. Perhaps, particularly today, noble Lords might expect me to say that such a thing should not be necessary. In the final IMC report published today, we have said again that it is time for peace process institutions to pass into history and for the proper administration of politics and the rule of law to take place under Northern Ireland authority by Northern Ireland elected representatives.
I and my colleagues very much stand by that but it does not necessarily mean that the particular process to which we are referring today should be set to the side immediately. I want to take that a little further. It is clear that there are those in Northern Ireland on the republican side—we sometimes call them dissident republicans—who simply are not persuaded that political arguments should not be made through threat or actual use of violence. They continue to believe that. For a very long time there have been people who have taken that view in Ireland, north and south as well as elsewhere.
As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, said, it is also clear that there are those in the loyalist community who continue to use violence. With regard to them, I see little evidence that there is any political agenda at all. It is very much about self-aggrandisement and crime. In some cases it is a kind of incipient attack on the police and the historic inquiries team, because some of them simply do not want their past crimes to catch up with them. They want to foment violence, trouble and sectarianism within their own loyalist community.
My difficulty, and I think my noble friend will agree, is that despite the fact that the previous Government indicated that a more substantial process would take place, the consultation was very limited. It seems to me that, the next time round, there needs to be a much more substantial consultation at a much earlier stage. Over the past number of years the majority of people—and I say this from my experience in the IMC—have been increasingly prepared to come forward to give evidence and material, to participate in juries and so on. However, I am not wholly sure that we will get to a place in the next two years, or perhaps even a little longer than that, when there will be no fear and no reason for fear in the community.
It seems to me that there is something fundamentally unsatisfactory about telling ourselves that in two years it will be fine; in two more years it will be fine; and in another two years it will be fine. We know how long the provisional can stay and that it can become rather permanent. I do not think that that is satisfactory. I wonder whether the notion of non-jury trials is such that they will have to be with us for quite some time. They are not for widespread use—we are talking about only a dozen or perhaps two dozen individuals over a period of 12 months. However, it is still a significant number.
I come back to a matter that I and colleagues in the Alliance Party have spoken about in the past—that in such non-jury trials a number of judges might sit together, not on the basis of a two-year order but perhaps on a longer-term basis in circumstances where it proved necessary. We have seen such circumstances in the Megrahi trial, for example, which was a three-judge court, with appeal to a five-judge court.
In the past, the argument made by the judicial authorities in Northern Ireland when there were a very large number of cases was that it was completely impossible as the number of judges required would make it completely impractical. There was some force in that argument. However, where we are talking about a very small number of cases it does not seem unreasonable to believe that the judiciary in Northern Ireland might be able to sustain the numbers required. In theory the Diplock courts were unsatisfactory; in practice complaints about justice during the Troubles were more about perverse outcomes such as the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, which were jury trials, rather than the actions of judges in Northern Ireland. It says a great deal about the calibre of the judges in Northern Ireland over many years that there were not an enormous number of complaints. In principle it was not satisfactory but in practice there was relatively little complaint.
Lord Empey
I want to make sure that I understand what the noble Lord is saying. Is he saying that instead of coming back in two years’ time for another renewal, which in theory could go on indefinitely, we move to a transition proposal? As Dr Johnson said, there is nothing as permanent as the temporary. In other words, would this become a transition period rather than simply coming back in two years for renewal? Was the noble Lord saying that his proposal for multi-judge courts would be a transition to where we would all want to be with jury trials?
Lord Alderdice
As ever the noble Lord is alert and well ahead of the argument. There is a case that, rather than waiting for two years, when we would have little opportunity but possibly a modest consultation and a repeat of the order, perhaps after only one year there could be a much more serious consultation process that would look at the question of whether a more substantial change might be made. For example, a more permanent arrangement which had three judges sitting in such non-jury cases might be considered. I say “after only one year” because quite clearly it would require substantial primary legislation that would require serious consultation and thought. However, I feel that it would not be good for us to get into a position where every two years we repeated this because we could not think it through properly. It is much better to come back for a proper consultation, not with just 11 returns but with a more substantial debate which gave time for proper primary legislation. I fear—from my own experience and I rather suspect that of other noble Lords with experience in Northern Ireland—that those on the loyalist side and the republican side who may be prepared to threaten juries and otherwise use threats and intimidation may not disappear in two years or four years or six years. Some of the cases of violence in the last little while will take quite a while through the process.
Lord Glentoran
To some extent I considerably disagree with the noble Lord’s proposition. I understand where he is coming from but I feel that psychologically to impose a permanent trial system without judges, a Diplock court system, is admitting defeat. I am still an optimist, even now. I still think that we will be able to get back to proper democracy and judicial processes. I cannot go along with the idea that we set up this non-jury system of trials for as long as we want. The other thing I like about the present system is that it reflects the state of play in Northern Ireland because the heart of the state of play on one side is financial and on the alternative side it is terrorism and criminality and the way the judicial processes are working. It is very important that this should come back to your Lordships’ House and to the other place once every two years.
Lord Alderdice
I am grateful to my noble friend for intervening, but in a sense he is already engaging in the process that I was suggesting. I was not suggesting that we immediately jump to that suggestion or any other, but rather that we should engage in a proper process of debate and consultation rather than the more than modest consultation that there was. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, has a point when he talks about consultation and communication. If there is a proper consultation over a reasonable period, the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, can be engaged with, rather than living in hope that everything will be fine, when all our experience, sadly, is that it has taken a lot longer to get where we want to go than we could ever have imagined.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I offer reluctant but strong support to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. It may or may not be a comfort to him to know that he stands in a long line of Liberal Ministers, going back to Mr Gladstone in the 19th century, who have been perplexed by the problems created by the Irish tradition of political violence for the legal system, particularly for the process of jury trials. There was a serious argument in the 19th century that such cases should be taken out of Ireland and tried in Liverpool; serious writers argued that that was a way of preserving jury trial. More generally, it was perceived that the inability to have proper legal procedures in cases involving political violence was pointing up a fundamental crisis in Ireland—the failure of the attempt to combine colonialism and democracy—and that this created a context in which terrorism existed.
What is striking about the situation in Northern Ireland now, though, is that by any standards we have a legitimate democratic system. In the most recent Assembly elections, 107 out of 108 Members of that Assembly were fully elected by the people of Northern Ireland and are full supporters of the political arrangements that are in place. In a referendum, the people of Ireland as a whole showed that they support those political arrangements. We now know that it is too sweeping a judgment to say that terrorism arises simply from a denial of democracy, because we have now established a legitimate and democratic system and we still have these problems with democracy and a situation where it would yet be unwise to return to jury trials in terrorism-related cases. I take very seriously the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in particular, which the Minister mentioned in his introductory remarks.
Like other noble Lords, I have one caveat, one doubt. It concerns the process of consultation, which seems to have been meagre in this case. A few months ago the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, came to the House with a piece of legislation that reflected electoral law. There, in fact, the consultation was actually wider. In some ways this is a more important matter, going to the heart of where we have reached now in Northern Ireland.
I fully recognise what the Minister describes when he says that the Northern Ireland Office was not overwhelmed with advice on this matter; for a number of reasons, people want to turn their eyes away from this. It is actually difficult to have a lively consultation on it, and the Minister’s remarks in this respect are entirely reasonable and fair. I wonder, though, whether we should be thinking along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, of having a genuine debate. I am not convinced that he is right about the desirability of three judges as a solution in this context, even in the short term, but that does not matter; there is no question that if you said, “We are consulting about this”, you would provoke a substantive debate and much more lively contributions.
I ask the Minister to consider ways in which we could ensure that the next time that he has to come to this House asking for an extension in this respect, if there is a next time, we will be able to say that we have had a proper public consultation and a genuine element of vigour in the debate that occurred beforehand. For reasons that are not his fault or the fault of the Government, he has not been able to say that, but if we took a different approach there might be a way of having a better debate.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I have listened with great care to the debate and it is clear that none of us welcomes the order before us. The Government have informed us, and it has been endorsed by noble Lords, that it has been brought forward because of necessity. The Minister’s comments on that were a wise reflection. We are not in a normal situation and we should never regard it as such. We have to continue to move towards normalisation of the courts and the justice system. The noble Lords, Lord Shutt, Lord Bew and Lord Maginnis, all recognised the enormous progress that has been made in moving towards normalisation in Northern Ireland but we recognise that some parts of the justice apparatus are not yet able to be fully normalised. That has to be the right direction to move towards and one that has our total support.
The key issue of importance in this order is the maintenance of public confidence in this position. Obviously, we will not oppose the order tonight, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that accountability and transparency of decision-making if a case is not to be heard by a jury are extremely important. Each decision must be taken on a case-by-case basis. We certainly agree with the Minister and support the reduction in the time before it will expire from four years to two. I welcome the comments he made at the beginning that there should be a return to jury trial as soon as possible. It is clear from the discussion this evening that no one wants to move towards a rolling extension of such an order every two years. Should a further order be necessary in the future, I hope that the noble Lord will take back to his ministerial colleagues the comments that have been made about consultation and the issues that have arisen. That could play into the comments and concerns that I have about accountability and transparency and ensuring that we maintain public confidence in the system.
I have four points to raise with the Minister that I think will be helpful to noble Lords. He set out some of the reasons why he felt it necessary to extend the order. It would be helpful to have a little more detail on that. That is my issue about public confidence in the judicial system. It is always important and prudent to be as transparent and open with us as he can possibly be but I recognise the difficulty. I understand the Government’s concern, which has been raised by other noble Lords, about jury interference. Is he able to tell us about any other action that the Government are seeking to take to deal with the issue of jury interference because that will help towards looking into the future of reinstating jury trials? Furthermore, as the decision will continue to be made by the DPP, can the Minister say more about the criteria that are used by the DPP when deciding whether or not the case should be heard by a jury? He gave the four criteria at the beginning, but I am interested in the weighting of those criteria and the fact that only one has to be met for the DPP to decide on a non-jury trial.
I wonder whether the Minister has further information about the limited circumstances in which a certificate for a non-jury trial would be provided. If he has not, I am happy for him to write to me about this. Fourteen certificates for non-jury trials were issued in 2010 but 12 have already been issued in 2011, which indicates that there will be a much higher number issued in 2011 than in 2010. We are all aware of high profile cases that have yet to come to trial. If we were to see that increase year on year, the Minister will recognise the significance of that. I am interested in the number of cases considered for jury and non-jury trials. What is the balance between those for which the DPP grants a certificate for a non-jury trial and those that he would not grant a certificate for a non-jury trial? We have to be concerned about the numbers increasing when we are seeking to move towards normalisation of the justice system.
I thank the Minister for his helpful explanation that has led to a thorough debate on this issue. I hope that he will take away the comments to his colleagues in the department who can reflect on them to see whether improvements can be made, particularly with regard to consultation in future.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for speaking about his experience in the House of Commons of dealing with Northern Ireland matters and I note that he spoke about people’s fears. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is an optimist. That is a good place to be in regard to Northern Ireland. We need more such optimists. I hope that he continues to be an optimist. I am also delighted that he praised the exemplary work done by Garda Siochana. I noted with concern what he had to say about threats to prison officers. I will ensure that that is taken back to the department so that people are aware of it. I am also concerned that he feels that there is a communications problem. The Secretary of State has spoken to Peers about Northern Ireland matters for a number of years, but such a meeting has not taken place for a while. I will draw to the Secretary of State’s attention that it is time we had another. We have said that we would endeavour to hold three such meetings a year. I think that we are not up to scratch on that. I will certainly take that back to the department.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is also an optimist—what an optimistic day—and that he believes that the police service is not complacent. I am delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Alderdice speaking on the day on which his report—the 26th and final report of the Independent Monitoring Commission—has been produced. I am sure that all noble Lords are very grateful for the work that the noble Lord and his colleagues have carried out over many years in monitoring the willing. Sadly, much of the dissident republican and dissident loyalist violence that we are still talking about is the work of the unwilling. I noted with interest my noble friend’s comments on a possible way forward. I have heard the voices but we will have to make a judgment closer to the time on whether there is a need for a public consultation. Happy would be the day when we could say that we did not need the two-year period. That could happen. It does not have to be a case of two plus two plus two, but we want to take into account the impact and effect of other changes to the criminal justice system which the local Administration is taking forward. At the moment we can extend this provision only for two years. My noble friend suggested that we look at a three-judge system. I will take that option back to colleagues. Obviously, that would constitute a big change but I understand why he has suggested it. We routinely have one judge presiding over a criminal case and if a defendant is not satisfied with a verdict, there are the usual routes of appeal.
In the early days of the Diplock courts, there were more than 300 cases. That figure diminished over time but in the past five years of the present regime there have been 12, 25, 11, 14 and 12 so far this year. However, as the noble Baroness indicated, the figure could now be going higher than the year before and the year before that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, indicated his reluctance but said that he strongly supported the extension. We are all reluctant, I am afraid, and wish that we did not have it to do. He gave a comforting reminder of the splendour of the democratic system. Nevertheless, there are those who do not want to participate in what it brings forward. He was concerned about consultation and I shall take his concerns back.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, agreed that the order is a necessity. She is concerned about public confidence. However, as I understand it, this is an exceptional system; it is used only in limited circumstances on a case-by-case basis and there is a presumption for jury trial, the opposite of Diplock. The noble Baroness asked about other action. I am not aware of any that I should draw to the attention of noble Lords but, if there is, I shall write to her. After looking at all the papers and all that I have read, I am not certain that there is another initiative of which I am able to speak. However, if there is, I shall drop her a line on that. The noble Baroness referred to other steps. This is now a matter for the devolved Administration and the PSNI. All we can do is support them in their efforts to reduce intimidation.
I like to have figures available but I cannot say, for example, that there were 12 cases in a non-jury setting and 3,000 otherwise; I do not have those kinds of numbers. We shall endeavour to provide the figures—I am sure they must be available—but it is clear that the figure for non-jury trials is very low.
I hope I have dealt with the comments made by noble Lords and that your Lordships will agree to the renewal of the order.
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my noble friend on her appointment as a Minister in the Home Office. She had a distinguished career in the House of Commons and we were appointed as two of the first four ever political commissioners to the Electoral Commission. That was a decision by the previous Administration, with all-party support. I was immediately impressed by her grasp of the issues and the immense style she brought to the commission. All her fellow commissioners were delighted at her appointment but disappointed that we had lost someone who clearly had so much to offer. I enjoyed working with her on the commission and hope that we can work together in her new role.
My amendments in this group seek to ensure that the deputy mayor for policing and crime is an elected member of the Greater London Authority. I do not understand how anyone could object to that. I thought that the Government wanted people to be elected to undertake these important roles. Having a London Assembly Member as the deputy mayor for policing and crime must be preferable to having some place-person of an incumbent mayor at any particular time if the Government insist that these proposals go ahead.
I see that the Government have moved some way, in their Amendments 89 and 90, in giving the London Assembly the power of veto over the mayor's nominee if they are not a Member of that Assembly. However, that requires a two-thirds majority, so we could have a situation whereby the majority of the London Assembly does not want the person the mayor proposes but that still goes ahead because they have not hit the two-thirds threshold. Could my noble friend not reconsider this and go just a bit further? I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this group of amendments includes provision for ensuring that the mayor appoints a Member of the London Assembly as the deputy mayor for policing and crime and not just, as the Bill provides, for “a person”. The amendments also provide for the deputy mayor of policing to arrange for,
“another member of the London Assembly”,
rather than any other person,
“to exercise any function of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime”,
that is exercisable by the deputy mayor.
The Government have also tabled amendments on the London Assembly’s veto power over,
“the appointment of the candidate as deputy mayor for policing and crime if the candidate is not a member of the London Assembly”.
That may act as a small incentive to appoint a London Assembly Member. However, those veto powers requiring a two-thirds majority of votes cast would not be necessary if some of the other amendments in the group that provide that the deputy mayor has to be,
“another member of the London Assembly”,
were accepted. The Government have rejected the idea of an elected deputy mayor for policing and crime in London, but if that is a step too far for them surely they can accept the amendments that provide for that deputy mayor to be a Member of the London Assembly and thus ensure that the occupant of the post has at least successfully stood for election.
In reality, the deputy mayor for policing and crime is the one who has responsibility for policing in London rather than the mayor, who has many other duties and does not have the time to give the post his undivided attention. It is only right that the occupant of the post should be a Member of the London Assembly, not simply “a person” known to the mayor and whose appointment—with a two-thirds majority required in the London Assembly to veto it—the mayor can almost certainly secure. I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the argument for these amendments and indicate that when she responds.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Browning)
My Lords, I will first address government Amendments 89 and 90 in this group. The Government have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I discussed it in some detail in meetings across the House with noble Lords following Committee. There are already some safeguards in the Bill as to the appointment of the deputy mayor in the form of strong disqualification criteria and the requirement for non-binding confirmation hearings. However, it was clear in Committee that noble Lords did not consider this sufficient, so we have given this further consideration, including considering the option of limiting the mayor to appointing Assembly Members. On this specific point, the Government accepted that there were arguments in favour, but we were concerned at the relatively small pool from which the mayor would be able to select the holder of this important post. Instead, the Government have brought forward amendments that would still allow the mayor to appoint a non-Assembly Member but would make the confirmation hearing binding in such a case, giving the Assembly the power to veto the appointment by a two-thirds majority.
Any Assembly Member the Mayor wished to appoint would be subject to a non-binding confirmation, as already set out in the Bill. I hope this will go to the core of the concerns that my noble friend Lady Doocey expressed in Committee. I also hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, will feel reassured that the mayor cannot simply appoint one of his or her friends to that position. In saying that, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I, too, enjoyed working with him on the Electoral Commission and I look forward to working with him in this Chamber as well. I had better not say more than that because it will not do his reputation on the opposition Benches any good if I say that we are going to work closely in the future. I do not think his Whips would like that too much, but he knows what I mean.
We suggest adding new powers to this part of the legislation because we understand the unique role the deputy mayor will have, if appointed. Of course, it is still for the mayor to decide whether to make such an appointment. We have tried to listen to the concerns expressed in Committee, and I hope that noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group will be reassured that the deputy will either need to be an Assembly Member or to have the confidence of the London Assembly.
Amendments 75, 78 and 88, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and my noble friend Baroness Doocey, would prevent the mayor from appointing anyone but an Assembly Member to be the deputy mayor for policing and crime. Several other Peers, not least my noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Hamwee, were also concerned that the mayor could appoint a non-Assembly Member to be deputy mayor and that this would cut across the democratic principles that this Bill seeks to establish.
The Bill allows the Mayor of London, operating through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, to delegate the day-to-day handling of policing governance to a deputy. However, in accordance with general legal principles, the mayor will not be able to pass on the responsibility for any delegated work. The mayor will still be answerable and responsible. It is essential to this new governance model that the mayor is always held responsible for the way his or her functions are carried out, whether delegated or not. Clause 20 establishes that the selection must be in line with existing provisions for mayoral appointments. Further essential details, such as the eligibility criteria and terms and conditions for the post, are set out in Schedule 3. The Government agree that more is needed, but we do not think that the solution suggested by these amendments is the right approach. As such, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments and will support the government amendments.
On Amendments 76, 77 and 81, Amendment 76, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, would prevent the delegation of functions to individuals other than the deputy mayor. That is a little concerning, first because it would prevent the mayor from being able to split responsibilities as he or she see fit, as everything from typing a letter to paying funds would have to be done by the mayor or delegated to the deputy mayor. Secondly, it would in effect require the mayor to have a deputy. At the moment it is for the mayor to choose whether to delegate to anyone else.
It is important that the mayor, as the elected person with a mandate to make decisions, has the discretion to decide how their office will function. As such, I ask that the amendments not be pressed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response, and I of course thank my noble friend Lord Rosser. I accept that the Government have moved some way on this, although I am disappointed that they have not moved as far as I would like. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Browning
(5) But the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime may not arrange for a person to exercise a function if—
(a) the person is listed in subsection (6), or(b) the function is listed in subsection (7).”
Baroness Browning
“(f) a member of the staff of a person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e).”
Baroness Browning
(a) ”
“(6) Paragraph 10 applies in relation to such an appointment if the candidate is not a member of the London Assembly.
(7) Paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 are subject to paragraph 10.”;
(b) after paragraph 9 insert—“10 (1) The London Assembly may veto the appointment of the candidate as Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime if the candidate is not a member of the London Assembly.
(2) The exercise of that power of veto in relation to an appointment is not valid unless the London Assembly—
(a) has held a confirmation meeting in relation to the appointment before the exercise of the power; and(b) notifies the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime of the veto within the period of 3 weeks described in paragraph 4(3).(3) If the London Assembly vetoes the appointment of the candidate, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime must not appoint the candidate.
(4) References in this Schedule to the London Assembly vetoing the appointment of a candidate are references to the Assembly making a decision, by the required majority, that the candidate should not be appointed as Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime.
(5) For that purpose, the London Assembly makes that decision by the required majority if at least two-thirds of the votes given in making that decision are votes in favour of making that decision.”
Lord Beecham
“( ) A precept must be issued separately from a local authority’s—
(a) council tax demand, and(b) non-domestic rates demand.”
Lord Beecham
I am given to understand by my noble friend Lord Hunt that I am not required to speak for more than half an hour or so to these amendments. Ever willing to oblige, I shall endeavour to be reasonably concise and thereby break the habit of a lifetime.
This grouping is slightly odd because Amendments 92 to 100 relate to the financial aspect of the work of the commissioner and the arrangements for the precepts. The other amendments relate to other aspects that are not quite connected. Perhaps they should have been degrouped, but as they are not I will confine myself to the first group of amendments. They cover a number of issues.
Amendment 92 would require the precepts to be levied by the police commissioner or authority, however constituted, separately from the council tax demand and the non-domestic rates demand. That is in the interests of transparency. As the whole case that the Government advanced for the Bill is one of accountability and transparency, it seems sensible that the people who are paying local taxation towards the cost of the police service should be aware of that separately from the ordinary demands that they will get for the rest of the local authority’s services. Separate precepts should be the order of the day.
In addition, however, there is the question of how the precept is derived in the first place. Amendment 93 raises again the question of local authority involvement in the process. Under Amendment 93, the local authority should have the opportunity to review the proposed precept. Other amendments require the police commissioner to have regard to any representations made by local authorities in respect of the precept, and the panel to have the opportunity to amend, rather than simply veto, the precept.
Baroness Hamwee
That was only four minutes—it really is not good enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, the first part of the test is about the budget and I have amendments on that as well. Amendments 112, 113 and 114 are my amendments in this group. I tabled them, and I think that my noble friend Lord Shipley’s name would have been added to them had he known I was doing this, as he agreed the wording. I associate him with them.
After a discussion instigated by the Minister at the all-party meeting which she held to discuss the protocol—where she talked about the role of the panel as being supportive as well as destructive, or, at any rate, as carrying on the scrutiny function—we had a discussion about what scrutiny meant. I decided to write my amendments to that effect and these three are the result. “Constructive”, “collegiate”, “collaborative” and so on are words that we have been tossing around in debate over the past few days. We have been talking about checks and balances and, to my mind, this is the balance. The words that I have added in as part of the balance are:
“keep under review the exercise by the … commissioner of the statutory functions”;
“undertake investigations”; and,
“support the … commissioner with regard to”,
not just the functions, but specifically:
“the development of his or her police and crime plan and its implementation and the development of his or her budget”.
That is quite deliberate because we need to recognise the budget as the facilitator, the implementer of the police and crime plan. They are so connected as to be inseparable.
I am afraid that I will repeat what I have said before, but the panel cannot be supportive without a major role in both the plan and the budget. You have to start with the panel’s role in the plan and the panel cannot do its supportive job without the tools to undertake it. The Minister has her version in Amendment 107. Although I welcome the warm words here, I think that the panel needs the specific powers. I realise that we are unlikely at this stage to persuade the Government of this, but my mind is unchanged. We are each a product of our own background, and the baggage that I carry is of spending some years in a scrutiny role. Knowing that I have, as it were, the tools in my back pocket, rarely having to be used but always there, is a very important part of the tool-kit, as the jargon goes.
My earlier amendments in this group, Amendments 94, 96, 97, 98 and 100, again are to make the point—which, I suspect, has not been understood—that you cannot just look at the precept, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made as well. The precept is the last stage in the development of a budget. There may be a fundamental political difference—I do not want to say fault line—between different politicians as to whether one starts by looking at the precept as taxation, and therefore bad, or as the result of a budget and how you spend the money, and therefore good.
My amendments are not just about the precept but about the heads of expenditure that go to make up the budget and the important tool that the commissioner will have, which is virement between the different heads.
Amendment 146 deals with the need for approval of the budget and spells this out in some detail. It includes the veto of the budget, as distinct from the veto of the precept. In response to a debate on these issues, the Minister said:
“Our intention would be for a series of discussions to be held, not just one blanket meeting at which, for example, the precept or the budget was discussed and a decision taken without the panel having a lot of background information”—[Official Report, 6/6/11; col. 34]—
and so on. Of course that must be right, but stating the intention is a very long way short of giving the mechanisms to the panel to do the job that I have described.
Baroness Henig
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 108 and 111 in this group. As my noble friend Lord Beecham said, this is a very diverse group of amendments. The two amendments in my name relate to the functions of the police and crime panel. Amendment 108 revises and rationalises the functions of the panel and Amendment 111 simply removes an existing clause relating to panel functions to reincorporate it in a more rationalised fashion within Amendment 108.
In briefly outlining the effect of these amendments—not too briefly, since we seem to be racing through them, so perhaps I will try to slow down a little—I would say that they are designed to set out a more collaborative approach to the panel working with the commissioner. This includes an essential role in engagement with the public at local level and with police performance at divisional level. My aim is to exploit the strength of local councillors in a way that enables them to contribute constructively to police governance. I emphasise that there is no great gulf between what I, my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are trying to do in these amendments, and what the Minister is trying to do. She talks about the panel having a supportive role. Others of us see that role as being collaborative and constructive. There is not much difference between “supportive” and “collaborative and constructive”. If I could nudge the Minister just a little further, that would be helpful. It is not a big change, but being constructive and being able to collaborate would help the panel to operate in a more tangible way that I will come on to describe.
I want to give specific functions to the panel in relation to working with the commissioner to develop a detailed police and crime plan, budget and precepting proposals. Again, this is designed to encourage a corporate approach rather than, as might otherwise happen in some areas, a confrontational approach to police governance. My amendments also provide that a panel must hold public meetings, which is ultimately a cornerstone of securing true public accountability. The driving concern behind this group of amendments is the attempt to describe a more co-operative approach to overcome the dangers of polarised political differences or overfamiliar political relationships between the commissioner and the panel that would render governance ineffective.
I appreciate that there is a government amendment in this group that attempts to specify a more co-operative and supportive approach for the panel and the commissioner. It is very welcome, but rather unspecific. This is true of a lot of government amendments; they go in the right direction and their spirit is right, but they are very general. My amendments attempt to put more flesh on the bones, to nudge the Government a little further and to describe in more detail how the panel and the commissioner should work together. I draw noble Lords’ attention specifically to the part of the amendment that covers the policing plan, the budget and the precept. These are key areas in which the panel should be involved not just in scrutinising the commissioner but in contributing to developing the shape of these things. That is what it should be doing and that is what I hope my amendment would achieve.
It echoes some amendments put forward by others which specify a more detailed role for the panel in, for example, scrutinising the detail of the budget. Again, my amendment goes a little further and suggests that the panel should contribute constructively to shaping the budget. As I said earlier, it also provides a key role for the panel in providing a link between local areas and the wider police area. We discussed in earlier debates the need for this more local link, which is consistent with what councillors do and puts members of the police and crime panel in a good position to play a more active role at local level. In this context, two elements are particularly important. First, it will enable panel members to complement the role of the commissioner in engaging and consulting with communities. Panel members can bring views from areas and communities that might otherwise not be heard into the wider policing family. Secondly, it will enable panel members to keep an eye on police performance at a more local level, so that they will be in a position to bring emerging problems to the attention of the panel and the commissioner before they become major.
In practice, a lot of this will happen anyway in areas where the commissioner is good at forming relationships. Where there are good commissioners, good relationships will be formed and the commissioner will want to work with the panel in this way. This will all happen as a matter of course. My concern is about areas where the commissioner will not be good at forming relationships and working with others. Of course, it will be in precisely those areas that prescription will be most necessary. In a sense, we are all looking to the areas where things will not necessarily work well, where problems will arise and where the Government will be forced to say, two or three years down the line: “What a shame we did not put this or that in place”. I am trying to envisage how this will work in practice, how it might best be played out and what we can put in the Bill to make it happen.
I will also mention voting. My amendment specifies that all decisions of the police and crime panel should be taken by majority vote. I am sorry about that: I heard what was said about two-thirds, but I am a great majority-vote person. It is what I am used to and it is consistent with other amendments that I will put forward in relation to veto powers, which suggest that these, too, should operate by a simple majority of the members present.
For me, that has the virtue of bringing consistency to the majority required for all panel votes and will avoid confusion that might otherwise arise by having different voting limits for different things. In later amendments I will discuss why I think veto powers should be exercised through a simple majority. Suffice to say for now that I believe it is entirely consistent with strengthening the role of the panel.
As I mentioned, these amendments put some flesh on the bones and set out how greater co-operation between the panel and commission might be achieved in relation to key functions. While they set out some practical ways in which the role of the panel can be strengthened, to perhaps guard against some of the worst problems that could arise, they cannot entirely cure what I still think is a fundamentally flawed model. None the less, I hope they will be regarded as—and they really are meant to be—constructive suggestions about giving a stronger and more balanced role to the panel.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
I speak briefly in support of Amendments 108 and 111 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. I must say that it is without much hope of any movement, as we have seen most of the evening from the Government. Much of the debate and many of the negotiations between the Government and Peers who have expressed concern in Committee have been focused on checks and balances and getting the role of the panels right. I am grateful that the Government have accepted that a more co-operative approach is needed through the amendment that the Minister is about to put forward, which I welcome.
However, I agree that some greater description needs to be included in the Bill about what a co-operative relationship looks like in practice. I therefore support the more detailed amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. The proposal that the panel should be involved in some of the really key functions brings some important clarity to what this might involve, particularly around shaping the police and crime plan, the budget that will help to deliver it and the precept that will need to be raised locally to support it.
I also welcome the role envisaged for panel members at a more local level in helping to engage with communities and monitor force performance. This, of course, goes back to concerns that the PCC is too big a job to be able to engage in detail at very local level on a consistent basis; and I think it is helpful to suggest that the panel should do so. This would enable it to bring concerns and issues to the attention of the governing body, as well as adding to the sources of information available to the panel to assist in its scrutiny of the PCC. I believe that these are helpful suggestions to assist in drawing out how the role of the panel can be strengthened, and I support them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate with slightly curious groupings. I think I should take out my Amendment 109A, which relates to a review by the panel of the police and crime commissioner’s human resources policy. I do not think it belongs here. It might be better taken when we reach Schedule 15.
There is a theme in relation to most of the other amendments in this grouping around the role of the panel in relation both to the public and to the precept. My noble friend Lord Beecham is absolutely right. The precept is a significant proportion—between about 11 and 13 per cent—of the total council tax. We debated this in Committee and I know that when we get our council tax information, we have different leaflets in relation to different bodies. However, my noble friend is right: because of the significance and the fact that this is made by one person, it should be completely separate and completely separately identified. That would discharge more effective public accountability.
In previous amendments, we have debated the role of the PCC, and noble Lords on the government Front Bench have rejected many amendments because, for instance, when it comes to requiring chief constables to appear before the police and crime panel or the equivalent in London, it is argued that that blurs the line of accountability. I think that unless you have completely separate precepts, that also blurs the line of accountability when it comes to raising resources from council tax payers.
My Amendment 96A reinforces the requirement for openness in relation to the precept. I think it quite extraordinary that local authorities are not going to be consulted formally on the precept that the police and crime commissioner proposes to make. The Minister will no doubt say that that can be done through the panel. Of course the panel exists to provide scrutiny, but given the importance of the precept, I think there is a strong argument that each individual authority ought to be consulted as well. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to that.
My noble friend Lady Henig made some very important points in relation to the panels and the question of public meetings. Her amendments link the panel to local areas. West Midlands Police force, which covers the area from Coventry to Wolverhampton, will have one person to be elected the PCC. There is a risk that some of the great work that has recently been undertaken by the police force to develop links at the local level will be dissipated, and the role of the panel to reinforce those links would be very valuable indeed.
The government amendment essentially states that the responsibilities of the panels must be exercised with a view to supporting the effective exercise of the functions of PCCs. It is a tribute to the draftsmanship of parliamentary counsel that such an anodyne amendment could be put forward. It is, of course, completely meaningless because who is to say whether what a PCP does is exercised with a view to supporting the effective exercise of the functions of PCCs? Unless we find ourselves in judicial review territory, I presume that this will never be tested. If I were a panel chair, I would, of course, always argue that everything I did was about ensuring the effective exercise of the functions of the PCC. I think we should congratulate the Government on their ingenuity, but I hope the Minister will confirm that it is meaningless.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, if I may deal with that last point first, it is certainly not meaningless. I will come later in my remarks to why I think it is an important addition to the Bill.
In resisting these amendments before the House tonight, I note that many are addressed through proposed government amendments to which I will speak later. I shall begin with Amendments 92, 93 and 95, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in relation to precepts. Amendment 92 would compel the PCC to bill the public separately from the precept of the local council. I thank the noble Lord for tabling this amendment because I think the effect would be positive. In essence, it would provide clarity to the public about exactly where their money is going and how much they are paying for policing services. However, this is also a matter of proportionality. The debate about hypothecating the local authority’s bill is quite an old debate. I recall having discussions about it on many occasions in the other place. Everybody thought it would be a good thing because there would be more clarity, but nobody has taken it forward, including the former Government, I have to say. To issue separate bills would increase costs, not just in the production of the bill itself but because, if it were separately sent, there would be questions about collection and payment on time which would add cost to collecting the money for the precept.
PCCs will be high-profile figures, and part of the point of these reforms is that nobody should be in any doubt as to who is responsible for the policing precept, strategy and budget. The council tax bill will, as now, clearly set out where the money is going. With that in mind, and looking at the balance of the proportionality of what the noble Lord has put before the House tonight, I feel that the current arrangements will be sufficient. For that reason, I ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Amendments 93 and 95 would require the police and crime commissioner to notify the local authorities in the police area of the proposed precept, and the commissioner would be required to consult with the police and crime panel and the local authorities. The panel already has the power to review the precept, and will be able to reflect the views of the local authorities in doing this. We have already had this discussion with regard to an earlier amendment. Although not exclusively made up of local authority members, the panel will represent every local authority in the police authority area and therefore will be able to reflect the view of the local authorities. For that reason, I see no need for further prescription on this issue.
In addressing the precept, I also refer to Amendment 96A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Beecham and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I understand your Lordships’ view that the views of local authorities should be heard on this issue. However, the police and crime panel membership, with its strong link to local authorities, will be able to make sure that those views are represented in considering the precept. Indeed, this access to local knowledge is one of their strengths. We have not touched on this very much but the representation of local authorities will bring that specific local knowledge to the table. Therefore, I do not feel that this provision is necessary.
The next series of amendments seeks to give the panel a greater role in relation to the budget and the police and crime plan. I reiterate that the Government are fully committed to the model of directly elected police and crime commissioners and it is they who will have the public mandate to develop the police and crime plan and the associated budget. It is imperative that the lines of accountability that run through this reform are clear and that the public know whom they can hold to account for the performance of their police force.
I turn now to Amendments 94, 96 to 100, 146 and 147. First, I will address those amendments tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, which seek to give the panel a direct role in the setting of the budget and heads of expenditure. We have already set out provision for the panel to review and to produce a report and recommendations on the precept level set by the commissioner, and in extreme cases, to veto it. This already gives the panel considerable power in relation to the budget that the Government consider proportionate to its role.
Amendment 109, tabled by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Shipley, concerns the power of a police and crime panel to veto the police and crime plan of a police and crime commissioner outside London. I am clear that setting the strategy for the force must be an unfettered decision of the PCC. This is precisely where its electoral mandate will come into play, and where the public will most visibly see their views and opinions reflected. There is provision in the Bill for the panel to provide recommendations on the plan, which is in line with its scrutiny role. However, the final decision on the plan must rest with the commissioner.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee has tabled Amendments 112, 113 and 114. In relation to Amendments 112 and 113, I note that the police and crime panels already have powers appropriate to the scrutiny role that they will perform. Therefore, I do not see what further value these amendments would bring. In addressing Amendment 114, I am pleased to note that my noble friend’s amendment is in the same vein as the government amendment to which I shall speak now.
Baroness Henig
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. At the end of the day we are doing all this for the public; it is for local communities. The reason I put forward my suggestions is not simply to make for better working with the commissioner, but to benefit the public. It seems to me that that is what all this is about. If I have differences with the noble Baroness, it is because I feel that the public will be better served by local councillors who have a constructive role in representing the local community to the commissioner and vice versa and who can play an active and collaborative role. It is in that spirit that I have been putting forward my amendments, not for any other reason than to benefit the public. I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that sentiment.
Baroness Browning
I do indeed and although we have not been able to agree on everything, I have appreciated the constructive way in which the noble Baroness has brought forward her suggestions, both in Committee and on Report. I know that I have disappointed her in many of my responses, but I hope she will accept that in this change to the Bill I have listened carefully across the House, but particularly to her words. She has chosen her words very carefully, she has had a good point to make and I have tried to encapsulate that in this amendment. Therefore, I propose an amendment to the general provisions in relation to police and crime panels at Clause 29 to reflect the need for the PCP to exercise its powers with a view to supporting the PCC in its duties. The police and crime commissioner will be solely responsible for holding the chief constable to account. However, I accept the noble Lord’s premise that the relationship between the commission and the panel would be one of support as well as challenge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, used the word collaborative to describe the proposed relationship between the commissioner and the panel. My concern with this is that it would ultimately create confusion over who holds the police to account. Therefore, the Government propose to place a duty on the panel to exercise its functions in support of the commissioner. This will mitigate the risk of conflict between the commissioner and the panel without diluting the accountability of the commissioner.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, as regards the final point, I can only agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt. Amendment 107 is the absolute embodiment of a platitude. It is wholly unnecessary and almost insulting to prospective members of police and crime panels as it appears to assume that there may be a case where their purpose will not be to support the effective exercise of the functions of the commissioner. In the real world, that cannot be the case.
I am very disappointed with the Minister’s response in relation to how the precept is arrived at, although less so in connection with the question of the separate precept. Perhaps I may say that she has a monocular and wholly unrealistic view of how these processes are likely to work. As she did in the earlier debate, she is viewing it from the perspective that all we are concerned about is the budget of the police authority, however constituted, and its precept, as if that were something discrete, separate and completely detached from what is going on in local government in the area in terms of the service aspect where collaboration is clearly essential, the totality of the expenditure and the cost to the local taxpayer. That simply is not the case. If it were to be the case, it would be very much for the worse in terms of effective policing and local government. That collaboration clearly has to be facilitated and the arrangements in the Bill do not effectively facilitate it.
The noble Baroness says that it will be important to have access to local knowledge through the members of the crime panels. But that local knowledge in the case particularly of district council members in two-tier areas will be confined to relatively small parts of the force area. In those areas, there will be perhaps one or two county members and many more from district councils. That will not give the police commissioner a realistic view of what is necessary to be done for the whole force area. It is also asking too much in the case of metropolitan areas for a single individual or perhaps two to speak for the whole authority, which in Birmingham’s case runs into hundreds of thousands and sometimes to very many more than that. The West Midlands has 2 million to 3 million people. Even the slightly expanded number to be proposed later in a government amendment as regards the constitution of the police power will leave people representing very large areas. They will not have the authority of leaders of councils. Given the pressures on them, leaders of councils or elected mayors—I see that the Government will move an amendment for elected mayors to serve on police authorities—will not have the time to devote to what is effectively a scrutiny exercise for most of the year.
In my experience as leader of Newcastle City Council years ago, the leaders met the police authority to discuss the budget in some detail. We had a proper discussion, and the authority and the back-up to do that, which is what is required under the new dispensation. You will not get that, with the best will in the world, from panel members. They will not have the authority to speak for the whole council. They will probably not get the back-up that will be required particularly in the case, if I may say so, of district councils whose resources can be very stretched. We will simply not have an effective relationship between the local authority in an area and its police force. For the life of me, I cannot see what the Government have to lose by accepting the amendments, at least in respect of this obligation to consult with the authorities, as opposed to a handful of members from those authorities who will not have themselves any authority effectively to speak for the authorities which send them there.
This will be a missed opportunity. It will weaken the effectiveness of the panel and it will therefore weaken the effectiveness of the whole police authority. It is ironic therefore that Amendment 107, that the Minister moved, which talks about supporting the effective exercise of the functions of the police and crime commissioner, in fact, by the attitude that the Government are taking to the amendments, will achieve precisely the opposite. An opportunity is being missed to cement a productive relationship in the interests of the whole area and I urge the Minister to take this back, to talk to her colleagues in the other place and see whether she cannot induce them to see some sense. I beg leave to withdraw.