House of Commons
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I was about to say, “The Question is that the Bill be now considered.” Objection taken. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) is always quick off the mark.
Bill to be considered on Wednesday 2 November.
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in central America; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O'Brien)
First, on behalf all right hon. and hon. Members, may I express our sympathy, concern and deep condolences to the people of central America who are affected by the floods, especially those who have lost loved ones and their homes? The hon. Lady will have noted the statements made on 14 and 20 October by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). We have made an assessment of need, and currently we judge that the Governments and national relief agencies of those countries, supported by neighbouring countries such as the United States, and agencies such as the United Nations and International Committee of the Red Cross, are responding well and providing sufficient essential humanitarian aid.
Kerry McCarthy
I appreciate that the Department for International Development is not involved in central America, but it is the best agency in the world for delivering disaster relief, as has been shown in places such as Pakistan. May I therefore urge the Minister to keep a close eye on the situation? Will he be ready to respond if our services—not just funding, but expertise—are called on?
Mr O'Brien
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for noting the technical expertise of the UK response and the Department. Of course, with official advice, we are keeping very close track of the situation, and we will take the necessary steps as called upon. However, our attribution through the multilateral agencies that we fund is clearly playing its part. Therefore, the UK taxpayer is indeed supporting the relief effort in that part of the world.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
May I thank the Secretary of State for his excellent recent meeting with central American ambassadors, including the high commissioner of Belize? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will work more closely with the countries of central America—an important part of the world with which we have a lot in common, and with which we should co-operate more closely?
Mr O'Brien
I am delighted to note that excellent meeting—the Secretary of State found it extremely enjoyable and helpful. Those many nations and our country are working to strengthen and develop our relationships, particularly on climate change and trade.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The people of the UK are very generous, but it is estimated that some 30% of humanitarian aid is removed at the harbour at which it arrives. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will have discussions with the countries that receive humanitarian aid to ensure that all of it gets to the people for whom it is intended?
Mr O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about ensuring that the money reaches the destination and serves the purpose for which it is intended. That is absolutely central to the redirection of the Department for International Development’s aid effort in the past year. We are ensuring that we align every effort to results, to ensure that the money reaches the purposes intended.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
2. What steps his Department is taking to meet the consequences for developing countries of a growing world population.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Britain is extending to at least 10 million more couples the availability of contraception, so that women can choose whether and when they have children. We are also boosting programmes in health and education with a particular focus on girls and women.
Richard Ottaway
The world’s population will go past 7 billion this week, with profound effect. We have millions living in poverty, shortages of food and water and inadequate health provision. Does the Secretary of State agree that one root cause of that is the unmet demand for contraception from some 200 million women living in sub-Saharan Africa?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend, who knows a good deal about this matter, is absolutely right. Indeed, I have been reading a pamphlet that he published—within the past two days, I believe—entitled “Sex, Ideology and Religion”, which is a treatise on population. He refers to the 215 million women who want, but have no access to, contraception. The Government are directly seeking to tackle that, not least in respect of the extra 10 million women. That is a good start, but we will do more over the next four years.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to help women to enforce their legal rights to a minimum age for marriage, and to property and succession, which are clearly important to ensuring that women have a proper economic entitlement in their countries and to supporting planned families?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady is right to mention early marriage, which we are seeking to tackle in particular. We have conducted a pilot study with the Nike Foundation, with which we work closely, on preventing early marriage in the Amhara part of Ethiopia. The results of that pilot are excellent, and I can assure her that we are including in all our programmes, as a fundamental pillar of our work with girls and women, the point that she accurately made about stopping early marriage.
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
The Secretary of State is right to stress the rights of women to choose when to have children and how many to have, but does he also agree that the evidence is that if we can promote sustainable development the necessity for large families diminishes and population pressures tend to reduce, and that that ought to be at the heart of the Government’s objectives in partnership with our development partners?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. A classic example is the work that the Government are doing and the priority that we accord to getting girls into school. We know that girls who are educated get married later and have fewer children. That is a good example of what he is saying.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of budget support aid provided to Uganda.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
There is a narrow role for general budget support in Uganda, but I am reducing its level by 80% over the next four years.
Mr Carswell
Is there not a danger that budget support paid to the Ugandan Government helps to make them accountable to British officials, when we should be trying to make them more accountable to their own people?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend, who knows a good deal about Uganda, is correct to say that that is a danger, which is why the Government have made it clear that wherever we use general budget support, we will always ensure that up to 5% of the money is spent on enabling civil society to hold its own Government and Executive to account.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to provide support and aid to the 2 million people forced from their homes by the terrible conflict in Uganda?
Mr Mitchell
First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. He has emerged from six and a half years in the Whips Office, so it is a relief for everyone to hear that he can still speak.
The hon. Gentleman rightly makes it clear that the importance of tackling conflict should be at the heart of development policy. Of all the 28 countries with which we have a bilateral programme, about three quarters are directly engaged in or have recently come out of conflict. That is an important aspect of everything that we do.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
5. What steps his Department is taking to assist countries in the Caribbean to develop greener economies.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
We are supporting the Caribbean to develop greener economies both bilaterally and through multilaterals. That support includes the development of renewable energy, such as bioethanol from banana waste in St Lucia, developing and implementing a low-carbon growth strategy in Guyana, and helping Anguilla implement a 10-year plan for achieving carbon neutrality.
Dr Poulter
The Minister will be aware that at the Copenhagen summit there was discussion about funds being made available to islands such as those in the Caribbean, which are particularly susceptible to climate change, in order to combat the challenges that they face. Will he update the House on discussions his Department has had with those in the Caribbean, and other small islands, on supporting them in that respect?
Mr Duncan
Negotiations on designing the green climate fund instrument are not due to be concluded until the UN framework convention on climate change conference in Durban this December. The proposal that will be submitted to the conference would make resources for adaptation and mitigation available for all developing countries, including those in the Caribbean, and hence should also include other small island developing states.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
As well as prioritising the need for developing greener economies in the Caribbean and other islands ahead of the Durban conference, what are the Government doing—I want to reiterate this point—to provide international leadership to ensure that the commitment made in Copenhagen to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 is met by the international community, so that, as has been said, the most vulnerable countries get the support that they need for adaptation and mitigation?
Mr Duncan
I can assure the House, and the hon. Lady, that climate change is one of the three pillars of our development policy in the Caribbean. The UK is working bilaterally in the overseas territories, as well as regionally across the Caribbean with institutions such as the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre and the Caribbean Development Bank, as well as other donors, to promote green economies in the Caribbean and address the broader challenges of climate change.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
6. What plans he has to visit Palestine to assess the humanitarian situation.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
I visited the west bank in July and saw at first hand the difficulties faced by Palestinians, particularly in Area C. The Secretary of State is keen to visit when his schedule permits.
Michael Connarty
I am grateful for that positive response from the Minister. I am sure that, like me, he reads the reports of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs occupied Palestinian territory, which I believe every Member should look at regularly. Some 90% of the water in the aquifer in Gaza is undrinkable, while up to 80 million litres of raw or partly treated sewage is going into the sea, and the Israeli authorities have just bulldozed six wells on the west bank. Surely nothing can be more pressing than a man-made humanitarian disaster on this scale. We must take positive action, and the Secretary of State must go and see it for himself.
Mr Duncan
Notwithstanding the difficulties of getting into Gaza, we have a broad measure of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are deeply concerned about the impact of restrictions on Palestinians living in Area C and Gaza. Access to water and land is restricted, food insecurity is high, and 18% of Palestinians in the west bank are living below the poverty line.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
The minority Bedouin population of Israel and the Palestinian territories is particularly vulnerable to the conflicts over water, land use and boundaries in that part of the world. Will Ministers raise their plight with the Israeli and Palestinian authorities as an urgent humanitarian priority?
Mr Duncan
We do that regularly, and—in answer both to that question and the previous question—we also reiterate that Palestinians have access to only 20% of west bank water resources, which means that Palestinians have the lowest access to fresh water in the region. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, 90% of drinking water in Gaza does not meet international standards. We continue to call on Israel to cease actions that prevent Palestinians from gaining access to the clean drinking water to which we are all entitled.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the international development outcomes of the UN General Assembly; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Our focus at the United Nations General Assembly was threefold: maintaining momentum on the girls and women agenda; driving forward the lessons of the Government’s humanitarian and emergency response review; and ensuring that people focus on achieving the millennium development goals by 2015. Progress is being made in each area.
Nick de Bois
I thank the Minister for that answer. A year on from the Secretary-General’s Every Woman, Every Child initiative, launched at last year’s General Assembly, what progress is the UK making on the commitment to save the lives of 50,000 women and 250,000 newborns?
Mr Mitchell
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. We now publish—in the bilateral aid review and the multilateral aid review—precisely who we will support to achieve those objectives and how we will do it. Over the coming years we will be able to demonstrate that we are going further than we set out in the bilateral aid review, and the results that we achieve in all these areas—particularly in saving lives and advancing contraception—point to extremely good progress.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
What priority is the Secretary of State giving to improving food security and agricultural markets and, in particular, the role of women marginal farmers?
Mr Mitchell
This is a particular priority for the Government, not least in the horn of Africa, where we have seen severe food stress and food insecurity, especially in Somalia. It is also likely to be a focus next year, as we build on the progress being made through, for example, our work with the World Food Programme in Karamoja, where food insecurity and food aid are being replaced by progress and food security.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
8. What steps he is taking to support reconstruction in Somalia.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Reconstruction in much of Somalia remains difficult because of the ongoing conflict. My primary concern is to help to save the lives of the 750,000 people, mostly women and children, who are facing starvation and disease.
Kevin Brennan
Does the Secretary of State agree that the recent interception of two young men from Cardiff—one from my constituency, the other from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael)—shows that it is in our national interest to ensure that we are engaged in reconstruction in Somalia? Will he commit to sustaining the Government’s support for the response in Somalia through 2012, and urge our Disasters Emergency Committee partners and others to do the same?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The whole of our development budget is spent in Britain’s national interest, and a large chunk of it goes to support our own security and prosperity here at home. Somalia is one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world. It is a classic example of a failed state where, because we were unable to tackle the causes of deep poverty, we are now dealing with the symptoms of both poverty and deep insecurity.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
9. What steps his Department is taking to promote fair trade projects in developing countries.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
12. What steps his Department is taking to promote fair trade projects in developing countries.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)
DFID believes that people can never escape poverty without the opportunity to produce and trade freely. By promoting open markets and a strong framework for international trade, we are helping to support fair market access for poor people. We aim to double the number of fair trade certified producers to 2.2 million by the end of 2013, and to improve working conditions in global supply chains.
Steve Rotheram
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that fair trade best practice is reflected in the Government’s public procurement policy?
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
We do indeed need more fair trade projects in developing countries, but that also relies on people buying more fair trade products here. Will the Minister commend and wish well the campaign to make Yorkshire and the Humber the first UK fair trade region?
Mr Duncan
We strongly support objectives of that sort. There are many towns across the country that have secured fair trade status. The Department and I—and, I hope, all of us—are enthusiastic supporters of fair trade, which is not just a notion but a sensible and practical approach to supply chains that ensures that some of the poorest people in the world can benefit from their hard work.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
10. What his most recent assessment is of the humanitarian situation in Somalia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Stephen O’Brien)
Somalia remains in desperate crisis, with 4 million people affected and 750,000 at risk of starvation. Life-saving aid is getting through, but insecurity, access constraints and displacement are undermining effective delivery. The scale of need means that continued support is required through 2012.
David Rutley
Sadly, many people in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya are suffering from a terrible drought, although an official declaration of famine has been avoided. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what lessons can be learned from this about the importance of long-term investment in food security?
Mr O’Brien
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In addition to relieving the humanitarian crisis in Somalia, we must also recognise that resilience and the efforts to address food security as a strategic priority in the medium to long term underpin all our efforts, even in the humanitarian response, in Kenya and Uganda, where famine has not been declared. We have just heard from the Secretary of State about the efforts being made in Uganda.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
We are supporting the national transitional council’s stabilisation work in Libya, which we have helped to plan since the beginning of the conflict. We are heavily engaged in helping to save lives in the horn of Africa, and we are boosting development in the Commonwealth ahead of discussions at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia later this week.
Mr Campbell
I understand that the Secretary of State will meet the President of Colombia in a few weeks’ time. Will he raise the issue of the assassinations and the killings? This year we have already seen 56 people killed for being human rights defenders. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the President that the Arab spring might knock on his door one day?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to underline the importance of promoting human rights wherever we can. When I have discussions with the President of Colombia, I will certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There are far too many noisy private conversations taking place. The House will want to hear Mrs Helen Grant.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
T4. What action is the Secretary of State taking to tackle forced marriage and early marriage in the developing world?
Mr Mitchell
As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), we are supporting specific pilot studies to try to reduce the awful levels of early marriage, not least in Amhara in Ethiopia, where we have secured extraordinarily good results. This is a key pillar of the activity that we support in all our programmes.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
May I begin by paying tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my predecessor in the role of Opposition spokesperson on International Development? I can tell the Secretary of State that we will continue to support the Government where we agree on the 0.7% commitment and the importance of demonstrating aid effectiveness, but we will also challenge them where we think they are wrong.
What measures will the UK propose at next week’s G20 summit to ensure that there is a renewed push by the world’s leaders to achieve the millennium development goals? More specifically, now that the Department for International Development has launched its nutrition strategy, will the UK use the summit to urge other G20 members to endorse the Scale up Nutrition movement?
Mr Mitchell
May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position? I look forward to working with him as appropriate. He is quite right to identify the G20 summit next week as a key point where we can boost the interests of the developing world. He specifically mentioned nutrition, which is clearly very important, but the whole agenda for economic growth, which the G20 will address, is one that we should all support.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T5. We are exceptionally lucky to have a Secretary of State who is so passionate about relieving poverty in developing countries—but does he agree that what we want is not more and more taxpayers’ money going in aid, but more and more trade? What can he do to open the European Union’s markets to developing countries?
Mr Mitchell
I think that I thank my hon. Friend for his first remark. He is right to point out that aid is a means to an end and not an end in itself. That is why the coalition Government have specifically said that wealth creation, entrepreneurialism, enterprise and economic growth should be right at the top of this agenda.
Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)
T2. Later this week the International Development Committee releases its report on the Government’s decision to withdraw bilateral aid from Burundi. Although I cannot comment on the report’s content, the evidence offered by DFID to the Select Committee to support that decision was heavily redacted. Will the Secretary of State explain how the decision to redact squares with the UK aid transparency guarantee?
Mr Mitchell
As I explained to the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee, we release as much information as we possibly can in my Department, and we publish all expenditure above £500. I know that the Committee is concerned about the closure of the Burundi programme, but Britain is doing a huge amount for the country through its multilateral agenda. There are many other ways apart from having a country-to-country footprint to support development in Burundi, and we must make tough decisions in the interests of the British taxpayer as well.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
T7. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to issuing food vouchers rather than food aid in order to promote free enterprise and choice in the developing world?
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This agenda has been championed effectively, not least by Save the Children, and it is one reason why we prioritise social protection rather than food aid. The aim of all these policies is to try to get people off food aid into much greater food security—as seen, for example, in the project between Britain and the World Food Programme, which I talked about earlier.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. In the past decade 4 million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and countless women and girls have been victims of sexual violence. What are the Government doing to ensure that political parties in the DRC refrain from violence during the forthcoming elections?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of focusing on the DRC, because there will never be a peaceful Africa without a peaceful DRC. Britain is giving strong support to the democratic process. We have been responsible for the registering of nearly 30 million people in the run-up to the November elections, and we strongly support the United Nations force in the DRC—MONUSCO—which has a chapter VII mandate and is therefore able to protect citizens robustly, especially the women to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
T9. What evidence can the Secretary of State give that our Government’s global leadership in increasing aid spending is encouraging other nations to adopt similar increases?
Mr Mitchell
Over the last year there has been an increase in many countries’ support for development, which is quite right and in accordance with the commitments that they have given. Britain has been in the lead in that regard. All our spending is in our national interest, and large amounts of it support our security, and indeed our future prosperity.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 October.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning—[Interruption.] At least they do not have to do it in French.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This afternoon I shall travel to Brussels for further talks about the eurozone.
Luciana Berger
Yesterday it was reported that the Prime Minister had compared the families of those who had died at Hillsborough to
“a blind man, in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn’t there”,
and had complained that he was not being given enough credit for the release of all the Government documents relating to the tragedy. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the relatives and friends of the 96 Hillsborough victims for those grossly offensive comments?
The Prime Minister
What I would say to all the victims and their families is that it is this Government who have done the right thing by opening up the Cabinet papers and trying to help those people to find the closure that they seek.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Given that Chancellor Merkel has called formally on the European Commission to produce treaty texts to amend the European treaties, does my right hon. Friend agree with the following statements
“that the accumulated burden of policies, competences, tasks and budgets in the European Union has become too great…that locating ill-justifed powers at EU level can undermine democratic accountability; that the time has therefore come to identify those areas in which EU action is neither logical, justifiable or workable”?
Does he share my surprise that those words were written by the Deputy Prime Minister more than 10 years ago?
The Prime Minister
I have read that pamphlet too, and what it says is good, sound common sense. We do not know exactly when treaty change will be proposed and how great that treaty change will be, but I am absolutely clear, and the coalition is clear, about the fact that there will be opportunities to advance our national interest, and it is on those opportunities that we should focus.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, at today’s European summit, we need not just the sorting out of their problems by Greece and Italy and the proper recapitalisation of Europe’s banks, but an agenda to help Europe, and indeed Britain, to grow?
The Prime Minister
What it will be absolutely necessary to do this evening is deal with the key elements of the eurozone crisis, which is acting as a drag anchor on recoveries in many other countries, including our own. That will require decisive action to deal with the Greek situation and a proper recapitalisation of the banks, which has not happened across Europe to date—and the stress tests that have been carried out have not had credibility—but, above all, it will require the construction of the firewall of the European fund to prevent contagion elsewhere. That is the most important thing. The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that a wider growth strategy across Europe is required. That was debated on Sunday, and all the Commission’s proposals—on completing the services directive, completing the single market, liberalising energy policy and cutting regulation—could have been written right here in London.
Edward Miliband
The point I would emphasise to the Prime Minister is that those are long-term measures, but we also need immediate action for growth, and that needs to happen not just at European meetings, but at the G20 next week.
We know that the Prime Minister’s real focus has, unfortunately, not been on sorting out the eurozone crisis; it has been on sorting out the problems on his own side. He said on Monday that his priority is to repatriate powers from Europe: which powers, and when?
The Prime Minister
One serious question, then straight on to the politics; how absolutely typical!
Let me make this point to the right hon. Gentleman: the idea that we could go into the meeting this evening about the future of Europe arguing that Britain should add an extra £100 billion to its deficit is a complete and utter joke.
Let me answer the question about our relationship with Europe very directly. The coalition agreement talks about rebalancing power between Britain and Europe. This coalition has already achieved bringing back one power: the bail-out power that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government gave away.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister said in this House on Monday:
“I remain firmly committed to…bringing back more powers from Brussels”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 27.]
but yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about his plan and he said:
“It won’t work, it will be condemned to failure.”
So one day we have the Prime Minister saying yes to repatriation, and 24 hours later the Deputy Prime Minister says no. On this crucial question, who speaks for the Government?
The Prime Minister
Let me quote what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday. He said that there is a perfectly good case for
“rebalancing the responsibilities between the EU and its member states.”
What a contrast with what the leader of the Labour party said. Jon Sopel asked:
“Let me ask this single question. Yes or no answer. Has Brussels got too much power? ”
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
“I don’t think it has too much power.”
So the situation is very plain: there is a group of people on this side of the House who want some rebalancing, a group of people who want a lot of rebalancing, and a complete mug who wants no rebalancing at all.
Edward Miliband
Why does the Prime Minister not come clean about the split between himself and the Deputy Prime Minister? This is what the Deputy Prime Minister was asked:
“Is David Cameron wrong to promise at some point the idea of another treaty that might bring powers back?”
He said this:
“This Government, of which I’m a Deputy Prime Minister, is not going to launch some sort of dawn raid, some smash and grab raid on Brussels. It won’t work, it will be condemned to failure.”
So which is it: who speaks for the Government? It is no wonder the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers are saying there is no clarity in the Government’s position, and the secretary of the 1922 committee said the Government’s “position is politically unsustainable.” Is it the Prime Minister’s position to get out of the social chapter: yes or no?
The Prime Minister
It is this coalition that has worked together to get us out of the bail-out fund—to get us out of the Greek bail-out—and to deliver this year a freeze in the European budget. That is what this coalition has achieved. The split that we have is between the right hon. Gentleman and reality, and we have the greatest proof of that. I talked to the House about this on Monday, but it is so good that I have got to do so again. When he was asked if he wanted to join the euro, he said:
“It depends how long I’m prime minister for.”
That is the split: it is between the Labour party and reality.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister will be going to the Council in December to negotiate on behalf of Britain, and treaty change may be on the agenda. I ask him the question again. His Education Secretary said on the radio yesterday morning:
“I think we should take back powers over employment law”,
but his Deputy Prime Minister disagrees. What is the Prime Minister’s position?
The Prime Minister
I tell you what would be on the agenda if the right hon. Gentleman was going to the meeting in Brussels tonight. We would not be discussing Italy. We would not be discussing Greece. It would be Britain handing out the begging bowl asking for a bail-out. We know that he now wants to join the euro. The other thing that Labour Members want to do is leave the International Monetary Fund. They had the opportunity in this Parliament to vote for an increase in IMF funds, which was agreed at the London Council by their own Government—they rejected that. So we now have the extraordinary situation where they want to join the euro and leave the IMF. It is not France they want to be like—it is Monaco.
Edward Miliband
It is no wonder the Prime Minister had a problem on Monday, because the truth is that he led his Back Benchers on, making a promise that he knows he cannot keep and that is ruled out by the coalition agreement. We have a Prime Minister who cannot speak for his Government. On the day of the eurozone crisis, we have a Prime Minister who has spent the last week pleading with his Back Benchers, not leading for Britain in Europe.
The Prime Minister
I might have had a problem on Monday, but I think the right hon. Gentleman has got a problem on Wednesday. The truth is that if he went to that meeting tonight, his message to Berlusconi would be, “Ignore the markets, just carry on spending” and his message to the rest of Europe would be that Labour thinks that you should spend another £100 billion adding to our deficit—after they had finished laughing there would be no time for the rest of the meeting. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members should calm down and listen to Sir Peter Tapsell.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
“Pas trop de zèle” was Talleyrand’s advice to Leaders of the Opposition, which meant that he thought that they should not exist in a permanent state of hysteria.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Q2. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether any more projects have been awarded investment by the regional growth fund? Does the tally still stand at just two businesses helped by his flagship policy?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid to say that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. There are about 40 projects that have been green-lit for funding, and this is completely on schedule. Fifty bids were successful in round one, receiving a conditional allocation of £450 million to deliver 27,000 new or safeguarded jobs, with up to 100,000 jobs in supply chains. Instead of carping she should be welcoming that.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q3. My constituency was recently pleased to welcome Mary Portas as part of her review of Britain’s high streets. Does the Prime Minister agree that Rugby’s positive approach to new housing, which will create new customers for the high street, is an effective way of supporting town centres?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that Mary Portas has made it to Rugby, and I agree with what my hon. Friend said. We do need to build more houses in our country and we do need to reform the planning system, but we want to do it in a way that gives more control to local people, so that we can actually make sure that we have thriving high streets in the future.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The whole town of Cumnock, in my constituency, is in a state of shock following the very brutal murder last weekend of a very popular local man, Stuart Walker. Will the Prime Minister join me in sending condolences to Stuart’s family and, amid much unhelpful speculation about the motivation for this murder, will he join me in calling on local people who have any information to come forward to the police to help them with their inquiries?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join the hon. Lady in sending condolences to her constituent’s family, and what she says is absolutely right. It was once said that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police cannot solve crimes without the help of the public and I hope that everyone will co-operate in the best way they can.
Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)
Q4. My 14-year-old constituent Lillian Groves was killed outside her home by a driver who was under the influence of drugs. He was sentenced to just eight months in jail and was released after four months. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet Lillian’s family to hear their case for “Lillian’s law”, a package of measures to ensure that in future we take the menace of drug-driving as seriously as we currently take drink-driving?
The Prime Minister
I think that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House when he says that we really have to make sure that we start treating drug-driving as seriously as drink-driving. This issue has been raised repeatedly, but not enough has been done. One of the things that we are doing is making sure that the police are able to test for drug-driving and making that drug-testing equipment available. As we test that and make sure that it works properly, we can look at strengthening things still further, and I am very happy to do as he says.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It was reported over a week ago that the Bank of England had reprimanded one commercial bank, and there may be others, that tried to manipulate the gilts market to exploit quantitative easing. Could the Prime Minister ask for a report on this matter and, if it is true, will he explain to the bankers that we will use the full force of the law against them if they try to rip off the taxpayer?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is very important to send a message to all people in financial services that there is not something called white collar crime that is less serious than other crime. Crime is crime and it should be investigated and prosecuted with the full force of the law.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Q5. Proposals before the House next week will see cuts to legal aid funding for advice services, which in the case of Wiltshire citizens advice bureau amounts to £250,000 a year. I welcome the £20 million stop-gap the Government have found to replace this funding next year, but will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government put in place lasting funding arrangements to sustain these services on which so many people rely? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is no good people shouting this down; every party in the House has accepted the need to reform legal aid. [Interruption.] You say you have not but you have accepted it. The figures are very clear: we spend £39 per head in this country on legal aid compared with £18 per head in New Zealand, which has a similar legal system, and in Spain and France the spending is as low as £5 per head. As my hon. Friend has said, we are putting in the £20 million additional funding for not-for-profit organisations and we have also rightly praised the local councils that have gone on funding citizens advice bureaux. I shall certainly look at what he says because that very important organisation does vital work for all our constituents.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am sure the Prime Minister will join me in congratulating Sheffield university’s advanced manufacturing research centre, which celebrated its 10th anniversary yesterday and today with a series of events at Westminster, organised in partnership with Boeing and Rolls-Royce. Will he also join me and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills in endorsing the aim of growing our manufacturing gross domestic product from its current 12.5% to nearer the 20% enjoyed by most of our competitors, and will he commit the Government to work with—
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman says and I am pleased to note that the Deputy Prime Minister hosted Sheffield university at No. 10 Downing street to celebrate its success. I think we are seeing some positive signs of rebalancing in our economy. Recently I was at the big investment that BP is making in the North sea, as well as at the opening of the new Airbus factory in Broughton in Wales. If one looks across our auto industry, whether it is Nissan, Toyota or Jaguar Land Rover, one sees that all those companies are expanding and bringing more of their production and supply chains onshore. There is a huge amount more to do, but we have to accept that we start from a low base as, sadly, manufacturing production has declined so much in the past decade.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Q6. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the nearly £1 million that has been received in Redditch for the pupil premium? Will he persuade the Secretary of State for Education to push for a national funding formula as soon as possible?
The Prime Minister
Discussions about a national funding formula are ongoing. It is a difficult issue to resolve because of the historical patterns of differences of funding around the country. I think the pupil premium is a major step forward; it will be up to £2.6 billion by the end of this Parliament. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report says that we have made spending on education much more progressive by the action we have taken. We have taken difficult decisions but at the heart of that was a decision to protect the schools budget and per-pupil funding and, on top of that, to add the pupil premium to make sure that we are looking after the less well-off in our country.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Q7. Last month, a leaked Downing street report said, “We know from a range of polls that women are significantly more negative about the Government than men.”Why does the Prime Minister think that is?
The Prime Minister
When you are making difficult spending decisions and have a difficult economic situation, and household budgets are under huge pressure from things like petrol prices, food prices and inflation, clearly, that impacts women. The Government want to do everything they can to help women and that is why we have lifted 1 million people out of tax, the majority of whom are women, and that is why we are putting much more money and time into free nursery education for two, three and four-year-olds. That is also why, for the first time, we have agreed that women working fewer than 16 hours a week will get child care. And we do not just care about this issue at home: because of what we are doing through international aid, we will be saving more than 50,000 women in childbirth around the world.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Infrastructure Planning Commission has made one decision—to grant planning permission for the giant American waste company Covanta to build a 600,000 tonne incinerator in Mid Bedfordshire. Thousands of people in Bedfordshire responded to the consultation, saying that they do not want this. The small print of the decision says that the decision is subject to special parliamentary procedure. Will the Prime Minister please let the people of Bedfordshire know that this Government are not like the previous Government, that we listen to local concerns and that we will ensure that that monstrous rubbish-guzzling atmosphere-polluting incinerator will not be imposed upon the people of Bedfordshire?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There are difficult planning decisions that have to be made, but what the Government have done is made sure that the planning system is more democratic and reports to Parliament, and that Ministers have to take decisions and be accountable. I cannot speak for how those Ministers have to make those decisions. They have to make them in their own way, but we have ended the idea of the vast quango with absolutely no accountability, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Q8. The Prime Minister has warned African countries that unless they improve gay rights, he will cut their aid, yet in many African countries where we pour in millions of pounds of aid, Christians face great persecution and destruction of churches, lives and property. Here in the UK, anyone who displays a Bible verse on the wall of a café faces prosecution. Was Ann Widdecombe right when she said that in the 21st century hedgehogs have more rights than Christians?
The Prime Minister
Ann Widdecombe is often right—not always right, but often right. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The way we judge our aid decisions is to look at human rights across the piece. That means how people are treating Christians and also the appalling behaviour of some African countries towards people who are gay.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Q14. In Eastbourne we recently recruited 181 apprentices in 100 days. My local training provider, Sussex Downs, tells me that 91% of its hospitality apprentices go into full-time jobs. Does the Prime Minister agree that apprenticeships work and in Eastbourne they work particularly well?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about that. We found funding for an extra 50,000 apprenticeships last year and achieved almost double that because of the enthusiasm that there is among the business community and among young people. We are now running at about 360,000 a year and hope to achieve about 250,000 more apprentices than were planned under the previous Government. It is an important development in our country. We want to make sure that apprenticeship schemes are aimed at young people who need work and also aimed at the higher level—people going on to get degree-equivalent qualifications, so it is not seen as a second best. For many people it is the right career path, and there are companies in Britain such as Rolls-Royce where many of the people on the board started with an apprenticeship.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Q9. On reflection, is now the right time for the Prime Minister to scrap Labour’s indeterminate sentences for public protection, as the Justice Secretary wants to do? They were introduced to save dangerous violent criminals from harming the British public. Will the Prime Minister accept from me that the decision should not be about prison places, but about the protection of the British public?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary will make an announcement about this shortly. What the right hon. Gentleman will find is that we will be replacing a failed system that does not work and which the public do not understand with tough determinate sentences. People have always wanted to know that when someone is sent to prison for a serious offence, they do not, as currently, get let out halfway through. We will be putting an end to that scandal and I expect it to have widespread support.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Q10. If women were to start businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 150,000 more businesses per year in this country. I have some exceptional female entrepreneurs in my constituency, such as Cath Kidston. What can my right hon. Friend do to encourage more female entrepreneurs to create growth and jobs for the country?
The Prime Minister
There are many things that Government can do. In the last Budget there were a series of steps such as the enterprise finance schemes that we have established and the changes to capital gains tax. The biggest change is a change in culture, encouraging people to take that first step and supporting them along the way as they go.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Last week the House, to its great credit, supported unanimously full transparency from Government in respect of all documents relating to the Hillsborough disaster. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on South Yorkshire police, following the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to commit to the same openness and ensure that the Hillsborough independent panel has unredacted access to all papers?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at the issue the hon. Lady raises. I am not fully aware of the situation regarding the police papers and do not want to give her a flip answer across the Dispatch Box. The Government have done what we should have done with regard to the Cabinet papers, but I am very happy to look at the point she raises and get back to her.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Q11. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising all the adopters and foster carers in Crewe and Nantwich and elsewhere for the fantastic work they do and encourage others to come forward to foster and adopt and to recognise during national care leavers week that we can do much more to provide care leavers with the sustained and enduring support that they often need and always deserve?
The Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He speaks from great experience, as his parents have helped to foster around 90 children over the past few decades, which I think is a magnificent example. As I said in my party conference speech, we really need to attack every aspect of this issue. It is a national scandal that there are 3,660 children under the age of one in the care system, but last year only 60 were adopted. We have got to do a lot better. Part of it is about bureaucracy and part of it is about culture, but a lot of it is about encouraging good foster parents and adoptive parents to come forward and giving them security in the knowledge that the process will not be as bad as it is now. Thorough-going reform is required. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for children is leading this work and I am confident that we can make some real breakthroughs in this area.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Q12. On 11 August the Prime Minister told the House that there would be a report to Parliament on cross-Government activity relating to gangs. Where is that report and when will we see it?
The Prime Minister
We are working intensively right across Whitehall on the gang issue, because I think that in the past, frankly, this was something that was dealt with in the Home Office and there was not the same input from other Departments, so we are doing exactly that, and when we are ready to make a report to Parliament we will do so.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Q13. When I worked in the private sector—[Interruption.] When I worked in the private sector I benefited from statutory maternity leave. Will the Prime Minister remind the House how this Government are making work more flexible and family-friendly?
The Prime Minister
How typical of the Opposition. If someone talks about the private sector or job creation, all they have is a lack of respect and sneering. It is absolutely typical. My hon. Friend speaks from great experience. We want to be a family-friendly Government, which is why we are putting the extra hours and help into nursery education, increasing child tax credit, by £290 for the least well-off families, and why we will also be introducing proper help for flexible parenting.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Q15. Westminster police command is now being required to lose 240 police community support officers, slashing by two thirds the number of PCSOs doing security and counter-terrorism work, and every single PCSO in the borough must now reapply for their own job. What message does the Prime Minister think this sends to the public, who want to see visible, patrol-based policing on their streets?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Lady is this: we are asking the Metropolitan Police Authority to find a cash reduction over the next four years of 6.2%. We face an enormous deficit in this country because of what we inherited from the Labour party. We have to make difficult decisions. Frankly, I do not think it is impossible to find a 6.2% cash reduction while keeping good front-line policing at the same time, and I am very confident that my good friend Boris Johnson will do exactly that.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is the Prime Minister as enthusiastic as I am about the Localism Bill and the prospect that it will deliver real growth and empower local communities? Does he agree that the best way to tackle political disengagement is through local accountability?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We all know that we are not building enough in this country to provide houses for our young people, to end the scandal of overcrowding and to reduce the number of people on housing waiting lists. The best way to get that to happen is to ensure that local people really feel they have a say in and control over development in their own area. That is the way to square the circle. The top-down targets under the previous Government did not work, but the localist approach will.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, pledged to fight bare-knuckled against hospital closures. Will he give the House a guarantee today that for as long as he is Prime Minister there will be no hospital closures on his watch?
The Prime Minister
The pledge I can make to the hon. Gentleman is the one I made when I visited his constituency, which is that we are funding the expansion of his hospital.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister and thank him for all the work that the Department for Education is doing on free schools. Can he please give encouragement to the two sets of parents’ groups that are looking to build two free schools—a junior and a secondary school—in South Derbyshire?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that encouragement. I think the free schools policy is a great success, as we see a number of really high-quality schools coming in across our country, and it is depressing to see the attitude of the Opposition towards this policy. What we had was a new shadow Education Secretary, who in the first flushes of the job, said that he would support free schools, but as soon as Unite picked up the phone to him he had to drop that altogether. Do you want to know what their policy is now, Mr Speaker? He said:
“What I said…is we oppose the policy…but…some of them are going to be really good”—
schools—
“run by really good people and we’re not going to put ourselves in a position as a Labour Party of opposing those schools”.
So, they oppose the policy but they support the schools. What a complete bunch of hypocrites.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister explain why his Secretary of State for Health was able to make concessions to the Liberal Democrats on the Health and Social Care Bill in the other place last night, but was unable to recognise the need for those changes when it was debated here? Is that not more about doing political deals rather that doing what is right for our NHS?
The Prime Minister
We are doing what is right for our NHS, and that is why average waiting times for in-patients are down, average waiting times for out-patients are down, hospital infections are at their lowest level ever, the number of mixed-sex wards is down by 91% under this Government, the number of managers is down and the number of doctors is up. If the hon. Lady wants to see further improvements to the Health and Social Care Bill, she will have plenty of opportunities.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Two thirds of young people involved in the riots had a special educational need. Does the Prime Minister agree that that underlines the need for complex solutions which tackle educational underachievement and rehabilitation as well as punishment?
The Prime Minister
Of course, as I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, we have to look behind the statistics and what happened and ask ourselves how we have allowed so much to go wrong in our society. Clearly, education and special educational needs play a role in that, but I do think it is important, and the public want, to see swift justice and punishment handed out when people break the law. We did see that at the time of the riots, and I think we should see it all the time.
Mr Speaker
I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly.
Social Care for Older People
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): I wish to present a petition from the Rotherham pensioners action group, led by the group’s chair, Mr Keith Billington of Foster road, Wickersley. I have a petition in similar terms with more than 500 signatures gathered by the group over the weekend of the Rotherham show last month. The petitioners want a better, fairer system of care for the future. They are worried about the crisis in care caused by big Government cuts in funding as pensioners see services cut, charges increase, and support restricted to those with the most critical care needs.
The petition states:
The Petition of Rotherham Pensioners' Action Group,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about social care for older people.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement a fair and equitable system of care for the elderly, without imposing a financial burden on those requiring care.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000969]
Send our Sister to School Campaign
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): In 2000, world leaders promised universal education by 2015. Progress has been made, but with fewer than four years to go 67 million children are still missing out on school, the vast majority of whom are girls. I am grateful to the pupils of Overfields primary school, Middlesbrough for bringing this to my attention in the most colourful way.
The petition states:
The Petition of pupils of Overfields Primary School, Middlesbrough,
Declares that the Petitioners support the Send our Sister to School Campaign which aims to give girls the same chance as boys to benefit from an education and that the Petitioners support the international agreement to get all children into education by 2015.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to raise the commitment to get all children into education by 2015 at the G20 summit in November.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000972]
Liverpool Coastguard Station
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The staff of and residents around Liverpool coastguard station—otherwise known as Crosby coastguard station—are trying to keep it open. In support of the petition are 51,000 names on a similar petition, which I have with me in a box. The petitioners would like the maritime operation centre to be hosted at Crosby as a means of keeping the station open, which would save the Government a significant amount of money.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Merseyside,
Declares that the closure of Liverpool Coastguard Station would result in the loss of vital local knowledge and a reduction in the efficiency of rescues of people in difficulty along our coastline and at sea.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that Liverpool Coastguard Station remains open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000973]
Points of Order
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In this morning’s Westminster Hall debate about the future of BBC local radio, the Minister used the word “priggish” in response to my intervention in which I asked him to address concerns, which many right hon. and hon. Members have raised, about a loss of jobs and an impact on vulnerable, elderly and disabled people who rely on BBC local radio. The debate was attended by more than 50 Members from all parts of the House, and it had been good natured and consensual. I wonder whether “priggish” is appropriate in a parliamentary debate. If not, should the Minister come to this place to apologise not only to Members but to those who face losing their jobs and those who rely on such services?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman comes in, I know he is bursting with enthusiasm, but he must contain himself.
What I would say to the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) is that control of that sitting was the responsibility of the Chair in Westminster Hall. It sounds like an intriguing debate, and it may well be that I should study it at some point, but I have nothing to add at this stage.
Mr Speaker
Obviously not on the same subject, because I have already given a ruling. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be dextrous enough to devise an alternative point of order on a wholly unrelated subject.
Kevin Brennan
Indeed, Mr Speaker. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister used the phrase “a bunch of hypocrites” and the word “mug”. Could you make it clear that they are in order? I would like to be able to use “mug” in the House to describe the Deputy Prime Minister, knowing that I would be in order, and also to be free with the use of “a bunch of hypocrites” as often as I please when describing the coalition Government.
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is, I hope, simple and clear: what is involved, in my judgment, is not a matter of order but of taste, and for the avoidance of doubt I would prefer not to hear either term used in the future by any Member.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Like many in the House, I warmly welcome the Government’s e-petition system, which triggered our important debate on Monday. However, I want to ask your advice, because there is no guidance on whether Members of Parliament should sign e-petitions. I believe that they should not do so, because such petitions call for debates. May we have some clarity on the process?
Mr Speaker
In a sense, it is flattering to me that the hon. Gentleman seeks my guidance, but it is not appropriate for me to provide it. My simple advice is that it is for the hon. Gentleman as an individual Member to decide whether to sign a petition, and I offer that advice to all hon. Members—make your own judgment on the merits of the case. There is no rule, no Standing Order and no matter of parliamentary proprietary involved one way or the other.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, while we are on the subject of Monday’s important debate, which was the result of a Backbench Business Committee decision, would it assist the House if you were to indicate that when the Committee chooses a resolution for debate, it should not normally be subject to amendment, certainly not to amendments tabled by Front Benchers, and probably not to amendments tabled by Back Benchers who did not attend the Backbench Business Committee to try to have their suggestions adopted?
Mr Speaker
I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that the Chair preserves, rightly, a certain discretion in these matters, and I always look at each case on its merits. Suffice it to say that I respect the Backbench Business Committee process. I am strongly in favour of clarity and straightforwardness in debates of this kind, and any proposed amendments tend to be considered by me in the light of that criterion.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) has been so patiently waiting. That has the advantage that the Chamber is rather quieter now.
National Curriculum (Emergency Life Support Skills)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to include the teaching of emergency life support skills in schools as a compulsory part of the National Curriculum; and for connected purposes.
Every year, 150,000 people die when first aid could have made a difference. Thirty thousand people have a cardiac arrest outside a hospital environment, but fewer than 10% survive to be discharged from hospital. Emergency life support skills are a set of actions needed to keep someone alive until professional help arrives. They include cardiopulmonary resuscitation—CPR—putting an unconscious person into the recovery position, dealing with choking and serious bleeding, and helping someone who may be having a heart attack.
Those skills are crucial at the time of a cardiac arrest when every second counts. For every minute that passes, the chance of survival falls by 10%. If CPR is started immediately, the time that someone remains in a shockable and hence reversible condition will be prolonged. It also means that more brain function will remain, and more of them will be left if they are resuscitated. It is not often that any Government have the opportunity simply, cheaply and immediately to save lives, but my Bill would allow them to do just that. Teaching these crucial life-saving skills to every school pupil would make a tangible difference to civil life in this country.
We know how it is when someone collapses or has a road traffic accident. Everyone stands around in a circle waiting for someone to act, usually too frightened to intervene. Now let us imagine a situation in which every school leaver could step in and attempt to save lives: fear gone, skills in place. Currently only 7% of people in the UK know first aid. We should compare that with Seattle, where one is rarely more than 12 feet away from someone who can save one’s life. There, one cannot graduate from school or gain one’s driving licence without learning first aid skills.
The Government like to compare us internationally. In France, Denmark and Norway, emergency life support skills are already a compulsory part of the curriculum. Norway educated 200,000 people in just six weeks. A number of states in Australia include ELS, and in America it is part of the curriculum in 36 of the 50 states. Training is happening in the UK, but the only way to ensure that all children are taught these essential skills is by placing them in the national curriculum. The British Heart Foundation has worked with me on this Bill, alongside other charities such as the Red Cross and St John Ambulance. The British Heart Foundation has more than 1,400 Heartstart schools, three quarters of which are primary schools. It has trained more than 760,000 children, a significant number of whom have had to put their life-saving skills into practice; and 625,000 children have been taught valuable life-saving skills through the St John Ambulance first-aid materials.
Let us imagine the difference that would be made if my Bill became law and every child became a life saver. The Government say they want the national curriculum to reflect the essential knowledge and understanding that people should be expected to have to enable them to take their place as an educated member of society. Surely knowing how to save the life of a family member or a member of the public would enable children to have an impact on the health of society. Ensuring that life-saving skills are taught in schools provides the chance to instil in all children how valuable life is and how important it is to be a good citizen. My Bill would provide a real, lasting cultural heritage.
There are several places where ELS would fit into the national curriculum—in PE, in science, in personal, social and health education, or in citizenship—and it takes only two hours to teach. That is just 0.2% of a school year, or the equivalent of one cross-country run. In just two hours of their school life, children can learn the skills to save a life. The skills should be taught from year 7 and refreshed each year until the pupil leaves school. In fact, the skills can be taught to younger children; I have heard some amazing stories of how young children have saved lives. Moreover, these measures would be popular. Seventy per cent. of parents, 78% of pupils and 86% of teachers have said that ELS should be taught in schools.
One of my local schools, Smithills, runs the British Heart Foundation’s Heartstart scheme. ELS is taught in a variety of ways, and the school is now aiming to widen the scheme so that during the school holidays parents and siblings are able to learn these vital skills too. The teacher in charge, Adrian Hamilton, told me that learning how to save a life in an emergency really engages the children at Smithills. He believes that it goes a long way towards helping them to become better citizens and that it should be an expected part of what happens in schools.
Since I started to promote emergency life support skills, I have heard some tragic and some inspirational stories. I met Beth, the mother of Guy Evans who sadly died at the age of 17 in 2008. Guy was riding his motorcycle when he had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. He fell off his motorbike and lay there while his friends stood around not knowing what to do. If only they had been taught emergency life-saving skills, they would not have faced the trauma of watching their friend die without doing anything to help. They would not now be living their lives full of the suspicion that perhaps, if only they had known what to do, Guy would still be alive. Beth has been campaigning ever since to get ELS into the school curriculum and into driving tests.
I also met Tabitha. When she was 17, a week before the summer holidays, she ran to join friends and teachers on a fire drill. She does not remember anything else, but she collapsed with heart failure. She had been born with a congenital heart defect that nobody knew about. Fortunately, her school secretary had been taught CPR and so administered it until, first, an emergency responder, and then the paramedics arrived. Tabitha made it to hospital with all her faculties still intact, where she had emergency surgery and made a full recovery. Tabitha is now a voluntary emergency responder and, like Beth, is working hard to get ELS taught in schools.
I received correspondence from St Aidan’s primary school in St Helens telling me about a year 6 pupil who was with her parents and 15 other adults when her eight-year-old brother started to choke on his food. He went blue and virtually collapsed at the table. All the adults stood around not knowing what to do, but the year 6 child jumped into action, put her training into use and saved her brother’s life. If she had not been there, 15 adults might have watched a little boy die in front of them.
Sheringham Woodfields, a complex needs school, told me about the enormous sense of achievement its pupils feel when they realise that they can save a life. One of its pupils received a bravery award when he saved somebody on the Norfolk broads.
A few weeks ago, 15-year-old Patrick Horrock had a heart attack in Hindley leisure centre, just next door to my constituency. A member of staff performed CPR and another used a defibrillator to restart his heart. Patrick is alive and well because people knew what to do and had the tools to do it.
Peter Roberts, a 12-year-old, was enjoying teacakes with his mum when he realised that she could not breath, speak or shout. She was choking on a currant. Peter stepped in and delivered his training perfectly, doing back blows. After the third blow, the currant came out. What makes the story even more moving is that Peter’s mum is paraplegic, following a parachuting accident a few years ago. She had no feeling in her windpipe and did not realise that she was choking. Peter saved her life.
A young mum from the Cotelands pupil referral unit in Surrey was able to save her young son from having to have skin grafts because of the way she dealt with a serious accident. Christopher Boylan, a 17-year-old from Merseyside, saved his mum’s life by performing CPR when she suffered cardiac arrest. He had learned CPR at the Scouts.
Brittany Bull Targett, a 13-year-old, saved 11-year-old Charlie when he fell off his bike and knocked himself out. Brittany said:
“He was choking on his own blood so I cleared his airway, cleared the blood out, and put him in the recovery position. I have never done anything like this before and it was thanks to the training we had at school that I knew what to do”.
There are many such stories of people who are alive and well because someone knew what to do. I cannot imagine anything more awful than standing by and watching someone lose their life when it could have been saved if only I or someone else had known what to do. Some of my local firefighters who are Heartstart tutors said something to me that really made me think. One of the reasons that we do not act when somebody collapses is that we are scared of making things worse. They said that if a casualty has stopped breathing, they are dead. Somebody else cannot make them any deader, but they can give them the chance to live.
Cardiac arrest does not discriminate between young and old or between genders and races; it can happen to the fittest people. Tragically, 12 young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. Too many of us do not know what to do. My Bill would enable our children to have the essential skills to save a life and to never have to stand by and do nothing. I do so wish that it would become law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Julie Hilling, Craig Whittaker, Rosie Cooper, Simon Kirby, Tom Brake, Steve Rotheram, Andrew Percy, Nic Dakin, Valerie Vaz, Chris Ruane, Mr Kevin Barron and Justin Tomlinson present the Bill.
Julie Hilling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 240).
Opposition Day
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Health Service
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recalls that the Prime Minister made a series of personal pledges on the NHS in the run up to the General Election which were carried over to the Coalition Agreement; believes it is now clear he has failed to honour three of the headline commitments in the Coalition Agreement; notes firstly that Treasury figures from July 2011 confirm that NHS spending fell in real terms in 2010-11, contrary to the guarantee that health spending will increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament; notes secondly recent central approval of changes to hospital services, in breach of a moratorium on such changes; notes thirdly the Prime Minister’s continuation, despite widespread opposition, with the Health and Social Care Bill, contrary to the pledge in the Coalition Agreement to stop top-down reorganisations of the NHS; believes there is mounting evidence that the combination of an unprecedented financial challenge combined with the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS is damaging patient care and leading to longer waiting times; is concerned that huge cuts to adult social care in England will further limit hospitals’ ability to cope with coming winter pressures; and calls on the Government to listen to GPs and NHS staff, drop the Bill and accept the offer of cross-party talks on reforming NHS commissioning.
We read today that the Government were in open retreat last night on their Health and Social Care Bill in the House of Lords. Given that, we thought it only right to bring the Secretary of State here today to be held to account by this elected House. He tried to shuffle off his responsibilities and dug in when the Bill was in this place, only to give in down there. That came just hours after he had to confirm that he would still take oral questions in this House, despite a claim to the contrary by his preferred candidate to take over the running of the NHS. The Secretary of State may be on the run, but we will not let him hide. Our NHS is too precious to too many people in this country to be carved up in dodgy coalition deals in the unelected House. His Bill is unravelling before his eyes, and coalition health policy is in chaos. Today, we hold him to account for that.
To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, the responsibility is not all his. It goes right up to the door of No. 10 Downing street. People will remember only too well, in the run-up to the general election, the then Leader of the Opposition’s ostentatious shows of affection for the NHS, his airbrushed face on the posters and three very personal promises—real-terms increases in every year of this Parliament, no accident and emergency or maternity closures, and no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. He protested his love for the NHS, and at photo call after photo call on the wards he routinely wore his heart on his sleeve. As we now know, he was protesting a little too much, and today we expose the hollowness of his promises.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new post? He is back where he once was, but on the other side of the House.
Last year, in The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was
“irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
Does he still stand by that statement?
Andy Burnham
I am not sure whether I should thank the hon. Lady for reminding me that I am now a shadow of my former self, but I thank her for her words. I will come to the precise question that she asks. I did indeed say those words, and I will explain why in a moment.
I was talking about the three headline promises that the Prime Minister made on the wards. They were part of a calculated and self-serving political strategy to detoxify the Tory brand, not a genuine concern for the NHS. It was cynical because, as we will show today, those were cheques for the NHS that the Tories knew they could not cash, and promises that they had no real intention of keeping. Let us take the Prime Minister’s three personal promises in turn, starting with the one on NHS funding. It will be good to get to the bottom of that once and for all.
At the last election, Labour promised to guarantee to maintain NHS front-line funding in real terms. The now Prime Minister, by contrast, offered real-terms increases. How big those increases would be was undefined, but that did not matter. The important thing was that, according to the requirements of the detoxification strategy, it sounded as though the Tories were planning to spend more.
I remember well our resulting exchanges with the then shadow Health Secretary, now the Heath Secretary, on the hustings. Indeed, the Prime Minister has in recent weeks been quoting what I said then, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) did a moment ago. I did indeed say that it was cynical and irresponsible to make those promises, and I repeat that today.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider “protecting the front line” to be the closure of many hospitals throughout the UK, mergers and the loss of vital cardiac services in such places as Ipswich? That was exactly what happened when he was Secretary of State.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman goes right to the heart of my speech today. We made those difficult decisions to get the NHS ready for the future. We grasped the nettle and took services out of hospitals and moved them into the community, because that is what has to happen if we are to have an NHS that is sustainable for the future. He stood on an election manifesto that promised the opposite. It was a dishonest pledge, and I will come to it in a moment.
I said a moment ago that it was irresponsible to promise real-terms increases. I say that because I completed a spending review of the NHS in March 2010 and knew the figures inside out. I had also been in detailed discussions with the Treasury on the funding of adult social care, in preparation for a White Paper. The implication of what the Conservatives featured on an election poster—cutting the deficit on an accelerated timetable while giving the NHS real-terms increases—could mean only one thing: unpalatable cuts to other public services, particularly adult social care, on which the NHS relies.
Despite that, the election pledge was carried over into the coalition agreement, which could not be clearer. It states:
“We will guarantee that health spending increases in real terms in each year of the Parliament”.
A year ago, at the time of the comprehensive spending review, the official figures claimed that that had been delivered, with a 0.1% settlement—essentially the same as Labour promised at the election.
Mark Simmonds (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before the general election, when he was Secretary of State, he said in the now infamous King’s Fund speech that the state should always be the preferred provider, irrespective of the quality of care that it provided to patients? Does he stand by that statement today, or is he now trying to drive a patient-centric health service rather than putting political ideology above patient care?
Andy Burnham
I think I should refer the hon. Gentleman back to the King’s Fund speech, because I did not say the NHS should be the preferred provider regardless of the quality of care it provided. I believe that the public NHS should have the first chance to change, and that was the preferred provider policy. We did not want to pull the rug from under the public NHS with a policy of “any willing provider”. If the NHS needed to change, we wanted to tell it, “You have to rise to the challenge, and you have a chance to do so. If you cannot, other providers will get a chance to come in.” That was the preferred provider policy, and I would be grateful if he did not misrepresent it.
As I said, a year ago the Government provided a 0.1% increase—or that was the headline, but the fine print began to emerge and their case began to fall apart from day one. It soon became clear that for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, that figure included an annual £1 billion transfer to local government, ostensibly for social care but not ring-fenced, so councils would be free to spend it as they saw fit. The health funding settlement therefore already went below a real-terms increase. That transfer turned the apparently minuscule real-terms increase into a real-terms cut.
That still leaves 2010-11. When the coalition came into government, it immediately required primary care trusts to cut spending by increasing waiting times and restricting access to treatment, to generate an underspend in 2010-11.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
indicated dissent.
Andy Burnham
Ministers are shaking their heads, but I will read them the Treasury figures published in July this year, and let them tell me then that what I have just said is not true. The public expenditure statistical analyses from this year provide official confirmation of what I have just said. They show that in 2009-10 health spending was £102,751 million. That was in the last year of the Labour Government. In 2010-11, health spending was £101,985 million. There we have it in black and white—the first real-terms cut in health spending for 14 years. In fact, it is the first real-terms cut since the last year of the last Tory Government in 1996-97.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am interested to hear how the right hon. Gentleman is trying to manipulate those figures. How does he reconcile what he is saying with what his party’s Administration is doing in Wales, where the health service has been cut and hospital infections and waiting times have risen?
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman uses the word “manipulate”. May I say that I take great exception to that? I have read out the Treasury statistical analysis from this July. If he is telling me that I have misrepresented it, let him stand up again now and say so. If not, he should hold his peace. I remind him that his party’s Government delivered a much deeper cut to Wales than to Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Labour Administration are now dealing with the consequences of that.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman’s figures depended on the lack of what he called a ring fence in the social care transfer of £1 billion. I can assure him that as far as Suffolk is concerned, there is absolutely no problem in trying to deal with the ring fence. In fact, the county council spends more than the amount that was previously ring-fenced, because of the pressure on social care.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman was not listening. The social care transfer comes in for the years 2011-12 to 2014-15, but I was talking about the year 2010-11 and, in the year ended, there was a real-terms cut to the NHS, as confirmed by Treasury figures. This debate is about that fact. He and his hon. Friends stood at the election, with those airbrushed posters all around them, promising that they would not cut the NHS, but in their first year in office, they delivered a real-terms cut to the NHS.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Is it not the case that, whatever Government Members say, 82% of councils offer social care only in critical and substantial cases, that thousands of people up and down the country are suffering the loss of their services, and that that will have a real hit on the NHS in years to come?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That was precisely why I said it was irresponsible for the Conservatives to promise increases to the NHS in the way that they did, on a much-reduced public spending envelope. That has led to precisely the consequences that she describes. Indeed, that hidden cut to adult social care has been quantified at £2 billion.
I remember well Conservative party claims before the election about death taxes, but what about the dementia taxes that the Conservatives have loaded on to vulnerable older people up and down this country, who are now paying more out of their own pockets to pay for the care that they desperately need? That is the effect of cutting adult social care and cutting council budgets in that way.
We today the nail the position once and for all. The real position is worse than the one I described because of spiralling inflation, which in effect means even deeper real-terms cuts for the NHS this year and in all the years that follow.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions that the £2 billion transfer from the NHS social care budget is not ring-fenced, but I am sure he is aware that ring-fencing can have the perverse effect of ensuring that local authorities do not spend existing budgets. Will he clarify his position? Is ring-fencing a good idea or not?
Andy Burnham
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that it was irresponsible to pledge the money for the health service in the way that the then Opposition did in the run-up to the election precisely because I realised that more would be needed for adult social care. However, if the NHS is to transfer money to local government for adult social care, we must be certain that it will pay for that and not for weekly bin collections or for whatever else he thinks is more important than supporting older, vulnerable people with the costs of care. He makes my point that that money should have been ring-fenced, so that adult social care could have been protected.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman nods, but I am afraid that that was not the Secretary of State’s policy.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I compliment my right hon. Friend on how he is moving the motion. What are his views on the impact of the reduction of funding for the NHS on the front line, and on the number of hospital trusts that are breaching the 18-week target?
Andy Burnham
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words and I shall come to precisely that point, but let us be clear about this one: the Prime Minister promised a real-terms increase, but he has delivered a real-terms cut. He stands at the Dispatch Box week after week boasting about increasing health funding when he has not. All the while, NHS staff deal with the reality on the ground of his NHS cuts. Does he not realise how hopelessly out of touch he sounds? Hospitals everywhere are making severe cuts to services, closing wards, reducing A and E hours and closing overnight, making nurses redundant, and cutting training places. Last week, The Guardian revealed the random rationing that is taking place across the country. There are cuts to pay for management services, one third of neo-natal units are reducing the number of nurses, and midwife places are being cut despite the Prime Minister’s promise to recruit 3,000 more.
Dr Poulter
The right hon. Gentleman is making a great deal out of cuts. The Government have committed an extra £15 billion to the NHS over the lifetime of this Parliament, but the Opposition have consistently failed to agree to commit to any additional funding. Will he make that commitment now?
Andy Burnham
A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that I protected the NHS front line as Health Secretary. As Health Secretary, I would not have introduced a £2.5 billion reorganisation when the NHS is facing severe financial stress.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Is it fair to say that under his leadership of the NHS, Monitor suggested that it needed to make efficiency savings? Those are coming through now, but the right hon. Gentleman is trying to present them as cuts to front-line services.
Andy Burnham
No. Let me explain the position to the hon. Lady so that she understands it. It is correct that in the previous Parliament, not Monitor, but the chief executive of the NHS, suggested that the NHS would have to make around £20 billion of efficiency savings over the four years of this Parliament. That is called the Nicholson challenge, which I accepted. However, contrary to what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week, it was intended that every penny of that money would go back into the NHS to help it to deal with the pressures that it faces. I am afraid that the Government are again misrepresenting my position.
My position is different from the Secretary of State’s because that challenge, on its own, would have been all-consuming for the NHS, meaning that it would have had to focus every ounce of its energy on rising to that challenge. The last thing in the world that the NHS needs is a huge reorganisation, because it will take its eye off the ball, meaning that it cannot rise to that challenge.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the so-called “pause for thought”, nothing was done to stop the NHS reorganising ahead of legislation that was yet to go through Parliament? Was that not contemptuous of both Parliament and of the genuinely held concerns of Liberal Democrat coalition partners?
Andy Burnham
Frankly, it is disgraceful that primary care trusts were allowed to disintegrate before Parliament had given its consent to those changes, leaving the NHS in limbo in most communities represented in the House. I have said that the Government have put the NHS in the danger zone, and I mean it. There is no capacity on the ground to help the NHS through these difficult times. It has lost the grip it would have needed to take us through the financial challenge, and I lay that charge directly at the Secretary of State’s door.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Andy Burnham
I will give way in a moment.
I mentioned that the Prime Minister is out of touch, and that he promised to recruit 3,000 more midwives and then handed out redundancy notices to them. However, if the Prime Minister is out of touch, I worry that the Secretary of State is in outright denial. On 11 October, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) asked him about the practice of hospitals re-grading or down-banding nursing posts to cut their costs, he replied:
“I am not aware—my colleagues may be—of…trusts…seeking to manage their costs by the downgrading of existing staff. If you are aware of that, then, by all means, tell us, but I was not aware.”
The very next day, that version of events was directly contradicted by Janet Davies of the Royal College of Nursing, who said that
“the Royal College of Nursing has raised the issue of downbanding with the Secretary of State on a number of occasions, alongside other concerns such as recruitment freezes and redundancies in the NHS…Our members’ survey released earlier this month also revealed that 7% of nurses expect to be downbanded in the next 12 months”.
If the Secretary of State would like to correct the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee on Health and confirm that he was aware of the practice of down-banding, he can be my guest right now.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not change a word of what I told the Health Committee—it was entirely accurate. I have checked the records, and at no stage had the RCN raised that issue with me.
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State directly contradicts, on the record, a spokesperson from the Royal College of Nursing. If he stands by his evidence, will he publish the minutes of his meetings with the RCN in which it states that the issue of down-banding was specifically discussed?
Andy Burnham
When I am ready.
Will the Secretary of State promise today to publish those minutes?
Mr Lansley
Yes, I shall publish the minutes of those meetings, but I resent the implication from the right hon. Gentleman that I would stand at this Dispatch Box or sit before a Select Committee and say anything other than what I believed to be the complete truth.
Andy Burnham
If that is the case, I respectfully ask the Health Secretary why he has not responded to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire—
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is nodding. Why has the Secretary of State not responded to the letter that my hon. Friend sent to him several weeks ago pointing out the discrepancy between his evidence and the statements from the RCN? If he wants to adopt a pious tone in the House, he needs to reply to his letters on time and put his facts on the record.
Andy Burnham
Is the right hon. Gentleman telling or asking? [Interruption.] I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr Lansley
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to insult me, he ought at least to give way. I have seen no letter from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper). I have seen a letter from the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, to which I approved an answer.
Andy Burnham
Well, that is no good to me. We have not seen that answer. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reply to hon. Members’ correspondence in a timely fashion, especially when it relates to serious issues about discrepancies between his evidence and statements made by the RCN.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I would like to inform both my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State that I did, in fact, write to you but have received no reply. In my letter, which I shall ensure gets to you again, I asked you to publish the minutes of that meeting. It was very clear. One or other of you have made a severe error.
Mr Speaker
Order. We must preserve the proper parliamentary terms. Nobody has written to me and I have not made a severe error. We will leave it at that.
Andy Burnham
It is clear that we will get to the bottom of this, because the Secretary of State has committed to publishing the minutes, and if he is suggesting that the RCN has been inaccurate, he needs to produce the evidence.
That takes me to the Prime Minister’s second personal promise on the NHS, which deals with hospital reconfiguration and the mythical moratorium.
Andy Burnham
I shall give way in a moment.
If we thought that the Conservative party’s promises on funding were bad enough, the sheer audacity of its claims on hospital closures is breathtaking. Before the last election, the right hon. Gentleman toured the country promising the earth to every Conservative candidate he met. I recall seeing his commitments—I have them here—pile up in the Ashcroft-funded glossy leaflets that landed on my desk in the Department of Health. He said that he would reopen the accident and emergency department in Burnley; he said that he would save and A and E in Hartlepool, but, scandalously, only if the town elected a Conservative MP; and I well remember the day he visited his hon. Friend—although, after this week, I doubt that the Government Front Bench team still consider him a friend—the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and promised the people of Bury in the leaflets I have here:
“Vote Conservative and if there is a Conservative government the maternity department will be kept open.”
It could not be clearer. However, the maternity department at Fairfield hospital is scheduled to close next March. It is disgraceful. However, the Prime Minister’s most shameful politicking came in north London. I lost count of the number of times he promised to save the A and E department at Chase Farm hospital.
Chris Skidmore
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to name my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) without telling him?
Andy Burnham
I point out to the hon. Gentleman, with his clever point of order, that I did contact the office of the hon. Member for Bury North and, indeed, the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois).
Mr Speaker
Order. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification, but perhaps this is an opportunity for me to make the position clear. I am not cavilling at the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), but the position is basically this: if a Member is going to impugn the integrity or attack the record of an individual hon. Member, the Member who is the subject of the criticism should be notified in advance. The fact that someone simply intends to refer to another Member and something that may or may not have happened in his constituency during an election campaign, or at any other time, is not something of which prior notification is required.
Andy Burnham
After that rude interruption from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), I shall get back to my script.
Just days after the election, the Prime Minister went to Chase Farm hospital, with the Secretary of State, to announce the coalition’s new policy of the moratorium and the following commitment in the coalition agreement:
“We will stop the centrally dictated closure of A&E and maternity wards.”
I have with me the photograph from that very visit of the Secretary of State holding up a placard stating his opposition to any changes to the A and E at Chase Farm hospital. However, he has recently failed to prevent those changes to the A and E department and maternity unit at Chase Farm hospital, leaving the new hon. Member for Enfield North writing a desperate letter to the Prime Minister stating that his constituents had been utterly let down by them both. I do not know whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State have the decency to feel embarrassed today, hearing these cynical promises repeated in the House. The proposed moratorium and opposition to closures were purely political and designed to help the Conservatives win votes in marginal seats. That is a fact.
Tony Baldry
I apologise for not having intervened quickly enough earlier, but the right hon. Gentleman says that he accepts the Nicholson challenge. Given that efficiency savings will have to be made in the NHS, where does he envisage those savings being made? It seems to me that every hospital trust will have to make efficiency savings somewhere, as a result of the Nicholson challenge.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman asks a very fair question. It is precisely such issues—about how to produce the savings—that are the important issues. Care has to be taken out of the hospital setting and we have to prevent too many elderly people, in particular, from going into hospital in the first place if we are to create an NHS that is able to face the future and that is financially and structurally sound. That is why I take such exception to the naked opportunism that we saw before the election, when I, as Health Secretary, was taking on some of those difficult challenges and grasping the nettle, including in my own backyard in Greater Manchester, where there was a difficult review of maternity and children services, involving the closure of four maternity units and shrinking their number to eight. We did that, we took on that debate, and yet the now Health Secretary was touring those marginal constituencies in Greater Manchester, saying that he would overturn our decision in office, but he has not done it. That is precisely the point that I am making to the House. We need a Health Secretary prepared to take those difficult decisions, if the NHS is to be able to make the savings that will sustain it in the long term.
Joan Ruddock
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, because like the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), I missed the opportunity to intervene when efficiency savings were being discussed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to this problem is proper discussion with the experts within the health service—with the nurses, doctors and all the people who administer our fantastic service? They are the ones who can give us ideas for efficiency savings. The hallmark of the Government is their failure to listen to the professionals.
Andy Burnham
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When we were in government, we said that there had to be a clinical case for change, if changes to hospital services were to be made. I mentioned Greater Manchester a moment ago. There was a clinical case to support those reforms. The experts, to which she rightly pointed, said that about 50 babies’ lives would be saved every year by specialising care in fewer locations. In such circumstances, politicians have a moral obligation to listen to those experts and to make changes, no matter how politically difficult they are. That is why I say that it was sheer opportunism of the worst kind for the Government, when in opposition, to say that they would have a moratorium on any changes and to tour those marginal constituencies promising to overturn decisions, when in fact they had no intention of doing so. I put it to the House that the people of Bury, Burnley and Enfield have now clearly discovered what opportunism there is from those on the Conservative Front Bench.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore welcome one of the Government’s first actions, which was to change the NHS operating guidelines for reconfigurations to ensure categorically that clinicians and the communities they serve were in the driving seat for future reconfiguration of the NHS?
Andy Burnham
If that is the case and the people of Enfield are in control of the decision, would Chase Farm A and E be closing? What the hon. Lady describes is a complete and utter reinvention of the moratorium policy. She stood on an election manifesto that promised a moratorium. Where is it? It has not materialised. It is a mythical policy that was designed to win votes; it had nothing to do with the good stewardship of the national health service.
Andy Burnham
I give way to my hon. Friend, who has a nearby interest in Chase Farm.
Mr Love
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, and yes, I do have an interest because constituents of mine have been affected by the decision at Chase Farm. Not only did the Secretary of State come to Chase Farm immediately after the election, but he announced the change in policy on reconfigurations. He introduced the so-called four tests, none of which has ever saved any unit, in any part of the country. The reality is that he seriously misled the people of Enfield, who are now bearing down on their Member of Parliament, who also misled them on this policy. It is an outrage and they feel badly let down by this Government on health service reform.
Andy Burnham
For the avoidance of doubt, let me address directly what my hon. Friend has said. A moment ago I mentioned a photograph of the Secretary of State on a visit to Chase Farm hospital just days after the election, when he announced his so-called moratorium—although no one has yet seen any evidence of it. He is holding up a placard in that photograph that says, “HANDS OFF! Chase Farm A & E”, underneath which are the words: “I oppose any cutbacks to our A & E,” and on the bottom we can see his signature. How on earth he can square that with the letter that he recently exchanged with his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North, I do not know. I do not know how the Secretary of State can reconcile those two things in his mind or how he could look anyone in Enfield North in the eye, having promised them that he would save their accident and emergency department. It is quite scandalous. People across the country are discovering that the Prime Minister’s moratorium is utterly meaningless, as A and Es restrict opening hours and maternity wards close.
We now come to the third of the Prime Minister’s broken promises, on NHS reorganisation. Again, the coalition agreement could not have been clearer:
“We will stop the top-down reorganisations of the NHS”.
I have never understood how those in the coalition could possibly sign up to those words, when only weeks later they would bring forward a White Paper heralding the mother of all reorganisations, the biggest since 1948. I can see the cynical politics behind the Prime Minister’s first two pledges, but on this pledge at least he was right. A reorganisation is precisely the last thing that the NHS needs right now. I am clear: the abandonment of that pledge is the Prime Minister’s biggest mistake in office. If he ploughs on, he will ultimately pay a heavy price for it, because it is a catastrophic error of judgment to combine the biggest ever financial challenge in the NHS with the biggest ever reorganisation.
As Health Secretary, I was told by officials that rising to the financial challenge would require every ounce of our energy and focus. The NHS would need stability. Instead, this Government have picked up the pieces of the jigsaw and thrown them up in the air, distracting the service at the very moment it needed maximum focus. Grip has been lost; the NHS is drifting.
Henry Smith
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that our NHS needs greater efficiency and localism, and that this requires reorganisation?
Andy Burnham
I said just a moment ago that I was the one who put my name to the Nicholson challenge, because that money was going to help the NHS respond to the new demands placed on it at this difficult time, so the hon. Gentleman need not lecture me about efficiency. He needs to tell me how placing a moratorium on change in the NHS helps it to respond and deliver those efficiencies. That is the contradiction of his position, and he stood for election on that policy, as did others.
Andy Burnham
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then to my hon. Friend.
Andrew George
I accept that the Health and Social Care Bill is the longest and most incoherent suicide note in NHS history. Indeed, I am robust on this issue: I have voted against the Bill and will continue to take that view. However, considering that the right hon. Gentleman was involved when preferential arrangements were provided for private sector providers coming into the NHS, is this debate not an opportunity for him to acknowledge that at the Dispatch Box and apologise to the House for what was a rather ridiculous and one-sided policy?
Andy Burnham
Let me first acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s courage in standing up and voting against the Health and Social Care Bill. I just wish that more of his Liberal Democrat colleagues had similar conviction and principle, and could stand up to the Government on a Bill that he knows—and which, in their heart of hearts, many of them know—will seriously damage the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the introduction of private sector capacity. I will not apologise for that, because that additional capacity was brought in to bring down NHS waiting lists, something that benefited his constituents. By bringing in that extra capacity we brought down NHS waiting lists to an all-time low and delivered the 18-week target. I am not going to apologise for that. The reason the NHS commands such strong support in the country today is that people’s experience of it improved in those years. I mentioned the preferred provider policy a moment ago. I believe that the private sector has a role to play in delivering world-class care to patients, and I am happy to put that on record.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
At the heart of the current Bill are the 98 clauses that introduce competition law into the national health service—something that the last Government did not pass even one clause to do. Is not the ideology lying at the heart of the Bill what will wreck our national health service?
Andy Burnham
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Make no mistake: if the Bill passes, the NHS will never be the same again. The Bill will unpick the fabric of a public national health care system—a planned system—and turn it into a free-for-all, as he says. Indeed, it is unbelievable to see a letter in The Guardian today from senior Liberal Democrats—many of whom made the same argument a few weeks ago as my right hon. Friend—now saying that, because of a few tweaks to the Secretary of State’s powers, the time has come to abandon all their concerns about the provisions. That is a ridiculous statement to make. If they still have concerns about competition and privatisation, they should have the courage of their convictions and stand up against the Bill, instead of writing sanctimonious letters to The Guardian.
Grip has been lost; the NHS is drifting. However, the Government cannot say that they were not warned. Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS, told the Public Accounts Committee that the reorganisation had increased the scale of the financial challenge:
“I’ll not sit here and tell you that the risks have not gone up. They have. The risks of delivering the totality of…the efficiency savings that we need over the next four years have gone up because of the big changes that are going on in the NHS as a whole.”
This has been a lost year in the NHS—a crucial year, when it needed to face up to the financial challenge—but things are not getting better. We face months of further uncertainty, as the Secretary of State battles on with his complicated and unwanted Bill. Four-hundred and ninety pages, 70-page letters to peers, amendments made on the hoof: it is a total mess. The NHS deserves better than this. Even the man the Secretary of State brought in to run his new NHS Commissioning Board describes his Bill as “completely unintelligible,” and went on to say:
“It is going to be messy as we go through a very complex transitional programme.”
And this from the Secretary of State’s friends.
The harsh truth is that the Secretary of State has comprehensively failed to build the consensus he needs behind his Bill. GPs do not want it; nurses do not want it; midwives do not want it; patients do not want it. I say to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary today: stop digging in. Drop this Bill. If they do, my offer still stands, as our motion makes clear. We will work with the Secretary of State to reform NHS commissioning, giving GPs and other clinicians a bigger role. That can be achieved without legislation and a major structural upheaval of the entire NHS. It can be done through existing legal structures, giving immediate stability and saving millions.
We make our offer again today, as it is time for all politicians to put the NHS first. It is slipping backwards, and the warning signs are there for all to see. Waiting lists and waiting times are getting longer, with a 48% rise in the last year in the numbers of patients waiting more than 18 weeks. When patients are waiting longer, it is unforgivable that £2 billion to £3 billion has been set aside to pay for the costs of reorganisation. It is also unforgivable that £850 million is being spent on making people redundant who will end up being re-employed elsewhere in the system, in the new clinical commissioning groups.
We are witnessing a return to the bad old days of waiting longer or paying to go private. This is just a glimpse of the future. If the Bill passes, the NHS will never be the same again. We have all seen the adverts on television for the health lottery. Is this the right hon. Gentleman’s early marketing and his new brand name for our NHS?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that one of the severe problems that the national health service is facing came about on his watch, when primary care trusts were allowed to build up huge deficits without making the economies and efficiencies that should have been made at that time, rather than on this Government’s watch?
Andy Burnham
I have never said that the NHS was perfect, or that there were no challenges during our time in government. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman what happened when the NHS was facing those deficits in 2006 and 2007. We took a grip at the centre and we brought those trusts back into financial balance, through hard work. There was a turnaround team in the Department, and we made sure that those difficulties were tackled at root. I do not see the same grip in the national health service right now. I see drift and lack of focus, and I see huge distraction as a result of this unwanted Bill.
Sarah Newton
The image that the right hon. Gentleman has just painted is totally inaccurate. The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust is struggling with an enormous debt, which it incurred as a result of enormous reorganisations under Labour and a ridiculous accountancy measure that doubles the debt every year. I will not take comments like that from the right hon. Gentleman, because Cornwall has been left in a very difficult situation that this Government have been left to sort out.
Andy Burnham
I did not say that everything was perfect, but I said a moment ago that we took a grip on those problems and dealt with them from the centre. In the hon. Lady’s Government’s NHS, there will be—what are the words?—no bail-outs. Everyone will be left to fend for themselves. Does that mean that her hospital will be allowed to go bust? I do not know, but that is the implication of the Secretary of State’s White Paper and Bill, and she needs to direct her questions to him.
The fact is that we are now looking at a national postcode lottery, in which GPs are free to send letters to patients telling them that minor operations must now be paid for, and in which hospitals no longer have maximum waiting times for NHS patients and can devote the freed-up theatre time to private patients as there is no longer any cap on private work. The Government have placed the NHS in the danger zone. It has been placed there by a Prime Minister who said “Trust me” and has gone back on his word. He wrote cheques for the NHS in opposition that he knew he would not be able to cash when in government. He made promises that he knew he would be unable to keep, in order to win votes. This is the Prime Minister’s very own great NHS betrayal, and, far from detoxifying his party, he has proved once and for all that we really cannot trust the Tories with our NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I ask the House to reject the motion. I am sorry about the tone of much of what the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said. This was his first opportunity to make a speech about the NHS and I thought that he might take the trouble to thank NHS staff for what they have achieved over the past year, rather than disparage and denigrate everything they have been doing. I also thought that he might take the opportunity to approach the issues facing the NHS from the standpoint of patients, rather than simply playing politics with the service, but he did not. Insulting me was the least of the problems in his speech. It seemed like the Burnham memorial speech—clearly no hard feelings about losing the election, then. Having spent 13 years in the House in opposition, I shall—at the risk of patronising him—give him a few words of advice: do not keep fighting the election that you lost. It is not the way to win any future election, and it will carry absolutely no credibility in the NHS.
Equally, the right hon. Gentleman will carry no credibility by wandering around telling people that he was not planning to cut the NHS budget, given that he made it absolutely clear in The Guardian last year that that was exactly what he intended to do and that he told us, in the run-up to the spending review, that it would be irresponsible to increase the NHS budget in real terms. I searched the Labour manifesto for any commitment to funding the NHS in real terms, but there is none. In March 2010, he might have said that he knew all these things, but he did not tell the public about any of it—[Interruption.] Well, it is here in his manifesto. The only reference to any kind of investment in the NHS is a plan to
“refocus capital investment on primary and community services”.
Mr Lansley
In a moment.
We know what that meant, because when we opened the books on arriving in the Department we saw that Labour was planning to slash by more than half the capital budget of the NHS. Every Member of Parliament who has a major hospital building programme in their constituency would have been affected by that. That might include my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in his constituency, or Members from Liverpool, who have the rebuild of the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen hospitals and, all being well, the rebuilding of Alder Hey. That might also include the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). The last Labour Government, before the election, cut the capital budget, and his project—the West Cumberland hospital at Whitehaven—could have been at risk as a consequence of that. [Interruption.]
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
No, he saved it.
Mr Lansley
I went with my colleagues; in fact, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stood here at the Dispatch Box and reconfirmed support for that project, so I will not have any nonsense from the hon. Member for Copeland. [Interruption.] Withdraw that. I have not misled the House. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury came here and reconfirmed support for that project. I will not put up with being told from a sedentary position that I am misleading the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that accusation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am sure that it was not intentional, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) would not wish to leave it on the record. [Hon. Members: “Withdraw. The hon. Gentleman has been asked to withdraw.”] Order. I do not need any advice. I am sure that it was not intentional, and that the hon. Member for Copeland would not wish to leave it on the record.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that we have established that it was not intentional. I call the Secretary of State.
Mr Lansley
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will now give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown).
Mr Lansley
One of the reasons that the House should reject the motion is that it is deeply flawed. Let me just take up the hon. Lady’s argument. What an own goal it is for Labour to say that NHS funding fell in 2010-11. That was the last year of the Labour Government’s spending plans, not ours. The amount available to the NHS in 2010-11—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Lady’s question. The amount available to the NHS in 2010-11 was exactly the same amount as the last Labour Government determined under their spending plans. So if Labour is accusing the NHS of having a reduction in real terms in 2010-11, that is a complete own goal, because it happened as a consequence of its decisions, not ours.
Andy Burnham
May I just explain to the Secretary of State the difference between projected budgets and out-turn figures, as published by the Treasury? Will he confirm that the figures published in the Treasury’s public expenditure statistical analysis will be the figures that go into the historical record, and that they will record a real-terms cut because of underspends that he ordered?
Mr Lansley
That is absolutely not true, because we ordered absolutely no cuts in the NHS budget in 2010-11 compared with the spending plans that we inherited. So that is a complete own goal on the right hon. Gentleman’s part. And in regard to all that stuff that he talked about the support that the NHS is giving to social care, I can tell him that, with the exception of the underspend in the departmental central budgets, because we cut back on all of its bureaucracy and its IT programme, we spent over £150 million, or whatever it was—
Mr Lansley
Sit down for a minute. I am answering the shadow Secretary of State. As I was saying, more than £150 million was generated from underspends in the departmental central budget in the last three months of the last financial year, and it was spent with local authorities in supporting social care. The rest of the social care support is for 2011-12, so what the right hon. Gentleman said cannot be a reason for the underspend in 2010-11. The amount spent was all in PCT allocations; there was no mechanism by which the Department of Health could go out and ask PCTs to spend less—the money was allocated to them. The shadow Secretary of State shakes his head, but he knows it is true. The money was allocated to the PCTs and they were free to spend the money they had.
The first reason to reject the motion is that it is a spectacular own goal. The second reason to reject it—
Andy Burnham
The right hon. Gentleman says it is not true that PCTs were asked to set aside funds and generate underspends, so may I remind him of a letter sent by the chief executive of the NHS shortly after the White Paper was published, telling primary care trusts to set aside funding for the cost of transition? That is clear; it is in black and white. He did ask PCTs to generate those funds to spend on the costs of his reorganisation.
Mr Lansley
I am sorry, but that is another spectacular own goal. Both before and after the election, the chief executive of the NHS set aside, as the right hon. Gentleman had planned before the election, £1.7 billion for non-recurrent expenditure for the costs of NHS reorganisation. It was done before the election; we never changed the figure. It is not a consequence of any of our plans, but a precise consequence of the right hon. Gentleman’s. He said he accepted the Nicholson challenge, and the £1.7 billion non-recurrent set aside in 2010-11 was to fund that challenge. That was set out before the election, not after it. I thought that one of the benefits of the former Secretary of State coming here to debate matters would be that we would be treated to a bit of knowledge of the NHS and of how it works, but that does not seem to be the case at all.
Mr Lansley
No, I want to make a bit of progress. Strictly speaking, I have not yet said anything I intended to say.
Mr Lansley
The second reason the House should reject the motion is that it fails to pay tribute to the hard-working staff of the NHS. I participated in many debates such as this when I was shadow Secretary of State and I thought that they provided an incredibly good opportunity for Members to raise issues relating to their own constituencies. I hope that that happens in this debate, as it is important. Every one of us has in our constituencies thousands of committed and hard-working NHS staff who want to know that we recognise it. I do not see any of that in the motion.
Mr Lansley
In this motion, there is nothing to recognise the contribution from NHS staff; it just denigrates them. It says nothing about people who rely on the NHS to care for them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Three Members are trying to catch the Secretary of State’s eye. I am sure that he has noted that and that he will give way, but we cannot have three Members continuously on their feet.
Mr Lansley
It is surprising that I am being embarrassed by so many interventions from the Labour Benches, because there are so few Labour Members here. I remember that before the election it was my recurrent experience that when we held Opposition day debates on the NHS, the Labour or Government Benches were nearly empty while our Benches were pretty full of Members who, because of our commitment to the NHS, were seeking to make points about it. Funnily enough, it does not seem to have happened in reverse. The Government Benches are still full while the Opposition Benches are nearly empty. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There are too many side comments coming from the Front Benches. Let us carry on with the debate. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need any help.
Paul Farrelly
Staff of the High Street medical practice at Newcastle-under-Lyme are dedicated and hard working, yet that practice, which has 5,000 patients, is being forced to close. The Secretary of State has written me a letter, from which it is quite clear that closing directly run GP practices with salaried doctors is NHS policy. It is also clear that the closures are pre-empting proposed legislation to abolish PCTs, which is yet to go through Parliament. If the Secretary of State believed in a patient-focused NHS, surely he would be trying to save such practices, not encouraging their closure.
Mr Lansley
I will not delay the House at length with further explanation of what I wrote in my letter, as the hon. Gentleman quite properly raised the matter with me at topical questions. It is our intention to move to more consistent commissioning of primary care across the country through the NHS Commissioning Board, but the driver for that is still local decisions about what GP services should be available in an area and which practices are involved. The hon. Gentleman knows from my letter that this is the view of the local primary care trust. In future, it will be for the health and wellbeing boards, not least the clinical commissioning groups, to look at whether primary medical services can be provided with or without the sort of facilities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Barbara Keeley
The Secretary of State asked for some examples of the impact on constituencies; I can give him two. First, the savings being forced on Salford PCT have led to the shutting of the NHS walk-in centre in one of our most deprived wards, which was serving 2,000 patients a month. Secondly, there is the serious issue of the closedown of active case management for long-term conditions. Patient services in Salford are being downgraded as a result of the savings and cuts that have to be made.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will forgive me for not commenting in detail on that. If my memory serves, that has been the subject of a referral by the local authority to me, which I have sent to the independent reconfiguration panel for initial advice. It would be unhelpful and improper for me to prejudice that.
Mr Lansley
Yes, I will, as I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr Love
A year or 18 months into this Administration, does the right hon. Gentleman regret the announcement he made on the steps of Chase Farm hospital? Does he accept that the four tests have seriously misled local people about the future of the health service in their area? Does he recognise the demoralisation that that has caused in the local health service in Enfield, and what steps will he take to try to recover the situation and move forward?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman also intervened on the shadow Secretary of State. I am afraid that I do not recognise his description. I said before the election that we would have a moratorium on top-down and forced closure programmes affecting A and E and maternity services—and that is exactly what we did. A moratorium means what it says; it provides an opportunity to stop, to take stock and to subject something to the right tests. I set out for the first time the tests that needed to be met—that proposals needed to be consistent with prospective patient choice, consistent with the views of the local community, not least as expressed through the local authority, consistent with the views of the commissioners in the area, especially the developing clinical commissioning groups, and consistent with clinical evidence of safety.
In the context of Enfield and Chase Farm, the hon. Gentleman knows—because he was a participant in these discussions—that that moratorium was applied, that the opportunity was given to the local authority and the general practice community in Enfield to come forward with alternative solutions. We should also remember that among those four tests is the one about clinical evidence and safety. However, when those community groups came back and said, “We don’t have a specific alternative, but we just don’t want things to change”, I had to ask the independent reconfiguration panel to examine it. Its view was that that was not clinically sustainable.
Mr Lansley
No. I have given way many times. I am answering the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love). It was very clear that we could not proceed on that basis.
I have another point for the hon. Member for Edmonton about what I found in a number places. Although this was not true of the moratorium in Maidstone and Chase Farm, the moratorium has led to substantially improved outcomes for local services elsewhere, as with Burnley, Solihull, Sidcup, Ealing, the Whittington hospital and other places.
Mr Lansley
No. I am still answering a point raised in an earlier intervention. In all those places and others, the moratorium has led to better solutions.
Mr Lansley
No. I think that the moratorium has led to a better way forward even in Enfield. It is in the hands of the commissioners and the local authority in Enfield collectively, to make decisions for Enfield. Within two months I shall receive a report from NHS London advising whether it would be better organisationally for Chase Farm to be combined with North Middlesex rather than Barnet, and I should be interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s view on that. We continue to seek not top-down forced reconfigurations, but reconfigurations that consistently meet the four tests, and do so in the best interests of the NHS.
Tony Baldry
The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) implied that my right hon. Friend should have completely ignored the advice of the independent reconfiguration panel. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Health, there were any occasions on which he sought to ignore the panel’s advice?
Tony Baldry
What is the point of having such a panel if it is to be ignored?
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Member for Leigh says from a sedentary position that he did not ignore the panel’s advice. I do not believe that a Secretary of State has directly sought to contradict the panel since its establishment, or has sought not to comply with its recommendations. After all, it is there for a reason. The point is that, as I have made clear, the panel should be involved in the application of those four tests, and in the past that has tended not to happen.
Let me explain why I am asking the House to reject the motion. I believe—and this was always my approach in opposition—that when we table such a motion, we ought at least to be clear about what our alternative solution would be, but there is no such solution in the motion. Let me remind the new, or recycled, shadow Secretary of State what his old friend James Purnell wrote last February:
“The Tories appear to have the centre ground. Labour need to take it back—by coming out in favour of free schools and GP commissioning”.
The right hon. Gentleman did not come out in favour of free schools. He now says that he is coming out in favour of GP commissioning. If he believed in GP commissioning, why did he do nothing about it? Why did everyone in the general practice community, throughout the length and breadth of the country, believe that practice-based commissioning had come to a virtual halt? Why did David Colin-Thomé, the right hon. Gentleman’s own national clinical director for primary care, effectively say that it had completely stalled and was not going anywhere?
I know that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with this at one time. Back in 2006, he said of GP commissioning:
“That change will put power in the hands of local GPs to drive improvements in their area, so it should give more power to their elbow than they have at present. That is what I would like to see”.—[Official Report, 16 May 2006; Vol. 446, c. 861.]
If the right hon. Gentleman wants that to happen, he must support the Bill that will make it happen. The same applies to health improvement and public health leadership in local government, and to our finally arriving at a point when, as was the last Labour Government’s intention, all NHS trusts become foundation trusts. We are going to make those things happen, but in order to do so we must have a legislative structure that supports them. That is evolutionary, not revolutionary. However much the right hon. Gentleman rants about the changes being made in the Bill, the truth is that it will do—in what his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) described as a “consistent, coherent and comprehensive” way—much of what was intended by our predecessors as Secretaries of State under the last Government. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman turned his back on that at the end of his time in office—mainly at the behest of the trade unions, which seem to be the dominant force in Labour politics—does not absolve him of his responsibility to accept that we are now delivering the reforms that he talked about.
Grahame M. Morris
The Secretary of State told my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that there had been no cuts in the NHS budget. Does he recall cancelling the building project for a new hospital serving my constituents in south Easington as part of the comprehensive spending review?
Mr Lansley
On the occasion when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told the House that we were supporting a number of hospital projects, we made it clear that the hon. Gentleman’s local trust was a foundation trust. As his colleagues should tell him, the point of a foundation trust is that it should take more responsibility for securing the resources—
Mr Lansley
I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. The point of a foundation trust is that it should take more responsibility for securing the resources enabling it to undertake its own building projects. Foundation trusts cannot walk into the Department of Health imagining that they will receive a capital grant of more than £400 million. That is simply not the way it works. It is to the credit of the hon. Gentleman’s local trust that it accepted that, and is working, as a foundation trust, on a better solution for the hon. Gentleman’s area.
Mr Lansley
No, because I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman many times. Let me tell him this. If he was going to offer to try to work with others on GP commissioning, he ought at least to have demonstrated before the election that he was going to do something about it; and using a transparent political ploy to try and interfere with the passage of the legislation in another place carries no credibility with me or with anyone else. Labour’s tabling of a motion in the other place in an attempt to block the Bill completely showed no willingness to work together, and the fact that it was defeated by 134 votes ought to have given the right hon. Gentleman a reason—and sufficient humility—not to try to return to the subject by tabling today’s motion.
As I said earlier, I find it regrettable that neither the right hon. Gentleman’s motion nor his speech made any attempt to deal with what has happened in the NHS over the past year. Let me tell him, and the House—for I know my right hon. and hon. Friends will be interested as well—what has, in truth, happened during that time.
At the end of the last Labour Government, the average in-patient wait was 8.4 weeks. According to the latest available figures, that has fallen to 8.1 weeks. The average waiting time for out-patients was 4.3 weeks at the time of the last election; it is now 4.1 weeks. Over the last year, the number of MRSA bloodstream infections in hospitals has fallen by a third, and the number of clostridium difficile infections by 16%. Nearly three quarters of a million more people have access to NHS dentistry. Nearly 2 million people have access to the new 111 urgent care service, and the whole country will be covered within the next 18 months. When we came to office, I discovered that there had been talk about a 111 telephone system, but nothing had been done. It is now happening.
More than 75% of stroke patients now spend 90% or more of their hospital stay in a stroke unit. That is a 20% increase in two years. The Cancer Drugs Fund has given more than 5,000 patients access to the drugs that they desperately need, and which under the last Government’s regime would not have been available to them. We have embarked on an £800 million investment in translational research, increasing our financial support for it by 30%, to help to secure the United Kingdom as a world leader in health research.
The NHS is leading the way in the prevention of venous thromboembolism, with 86% of patients receiving an assessment for the condition. I believe that that constitutes an increase of some 30% in the last year. The bowel cancer screening programme is enabling many more patients and members of the public to be screened, there is more screening for diabetic retinopathy than ever before, and there were 188,000 more diagnostic tests in the three months to August than there were last year. Pathfinder clinical commissioning groups have been established virtually through England, and there are 138 health and wellbeing boards in local authorities, meeting and putting together their strategies to deliver population health gain across their areas.
In a single year, the year preceding the election, the right hon. Member for Leigh presided over a 32% increase in NHS management costs. That was the year after the banks had gone bust. It was the year when it was obvious that Government deficits were out of control. It was the year when the debt crisis was just about to crash over the whole public sector. What happened on the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? There was a 23% increase in management costs in a single year, to £350 million. In the year that followed, we reduced those costs to £329 million.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State tell us what the percentage of senior managers is, and how that compares with the percentage in the private sector?
Mr Lansley
Does the hon. Lady act as parliamentary private secretary to the shadow Secretary of State? Ah, she does. Well, she has the merit of consistency. I am reminded that in June 2006, when for a short period she was chair—I think—of Rochdale primary care trust, she resigned. She said that she resigned because the radical changes happening under the then Labour Government in 2006 would
“destroy the NHS as we know it.”
The hon. Lady has the merit of being consistent: she is against every Government and every change. She does not think that any steps will make the NHS into what it ought to be. I will not take any lectures from her, therefore.
I was explaining to the hon. Lady and the House what has been achieved. We have stripped out pointless bureaucracy. The number of managers more than doubled under Labour, but we have cut their number by more than 5,000, and we have increased the number of doctors in the NHS by more than 1,500. The Bill includes measures to abolish primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, but in the meantime we have clustered PCTs and SHAs together.
We are reducing the cost of bureaucracy in the NHS not only because it is necessary to do so. The transfer to clinically led commissioning in the NHS, for which there is a very good case of course, also involves reducing such costs. As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has frequently made clear, as part of the transfer process we will deliver £4.5 billion in savings in administration costs this year across the national health service. The transition itself involves costs of course, but they will be recovered by the end of 2012-13, and by the end of the Parliament we will have gone on to save more than £4.5 billion in total.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Lansley
No.
Productivity fell in every single year that Labour was in charge of the NHS. However, according to the Audit Commission, in the last year—2010-11—we saved £4.3 billion. As the deputy chief executive of the NHS has reported, PCTs are intending to save a further £5.9 billion in 2011-12. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Leigh repeatedly said, the NHS is not failing to deliver on the quality, innovation, productivity and prevention challenge; it is on target to meet that challenge. The modernisation that is at the heart of the Bill and the White Paper is not about frustrating the NHS in that endeavour; it is about enabling it to meet the QIPP challenge.
Last summer, I announced that we would be measuring mixed-sex accommodation and then driving down the extent to which patients were put in such accommodation when they should not have been. The right hon. Gentleman said at the time:
“This hollow announcement is an attempt by Mr Lansley to claim credit for something Labour has done”.
That is absolutely wrong. The evidence showed that almost 150,000 patients a year were being placed in mixed-sex accommodation in breach of the rules. We ensured that figures were published for the very first time. The first set of results was published in December, and it showed that in that month alone there were well over 11,000 such patients. Since then, there has been a 91% reduction in the number of patients put into mixed-sex accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to see issues of care, service and standards in the NHS covered up. We are determined to shine a light on where the NHS can, and should, improve its performance; we are determined to enable the NHS to do so and to challenge it wherever it is not doing so.
Mr Lansley
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly.
If the public want to know how the NHS in England would have fared under Labour since the last general election, they should look across the border at what has happened in Wales—I am not sure whether any Members representing Welsh constituencies are present. We are protecting the NHS and increasing its budget in real terms. However, I have brought along to the Chamber a report by the Auditor General for Wales that was published just a few days ago, on 14 October 2011. If I could, I would enter it in evidence, but I can at least hold it up in order to show Members a series of bar charts. They demonstrate that in England there is real-terms growth in the NHS, in Northern Ireland there is small real-terms growth that is unevenly distributed across the years, in Scotland there is tiny real-terms growth, and in Wales there is a large downward curve, which shows the reduction in real-terms spending on the NHS in Wales. Wales is the only part of the UK that is run by Labour, and there are real-terms cuts in the NHS budget there.
Chris Leslie
The right hon. Gentleman must know that “real terms” means taking account of inflation. For the record, can he tell the House what the retail prices index was for the last month for which figures are available? That will give us a sense of what “real terms” ought to mean in this context.
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is a shadow Treasury Minister, so he must know that the expression “real terms” has consistently been used in relation to the GDP deflator, which is independently estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That is the basis on which we do these calculations, so the Wales Audit Office will have calculated the real-terms changes in budgets in each of the countries of the United Kingdom on that basis. John Appleby from the King’s Fund has estimated an 8.3% real-terms cut in the NHS budget in Labour Wales.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
The Secretary of State is, justifiably, giving a robust performance. He said that his job is to shine a light into the NHS to make sure there is a better service for patients. Can he assure us that the recent findings about the care of the elderly in our hospitals and the recommendations of the Cavendish report on that issue will receive the Department’s full attention, as that is one of the areas where the NHS often fails to fulfil the expectations of patients and their families?
Mr Lansley
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I appreciated the opportunity to talk with Camilla Cavendish and to read much of what she has written.
In January, I asked the Care Quality Commission to undertake dignity and nutrition inspections. They were nurse-led, unannounced inspections across NHS hospitals. The reasons for doing so were clear. I do not say this to denigrate the NHS, but many of us were concerned about two issues. First, although patients admitted to hospitals might get very good clinical care, the standards of personal care were often not as good as they should be, and they were seriously deficient in some cases. Secondly, the last Labour Government had star ratings for hospitals, the net effect of which was as follows. On the Healthcare Commission website, there would be a green dot against a hospital, which was often taken to mean, “This hospital is fine.” However, we all knew that some hospitals had tremendous reputations and world-beating clinical care in some respects and some wards where care was fantastic, but that care in neighbouring wards could be seriously deficient. The dignity and nutrition inspections have addressed that.
The CQC will follow up wherever it has found concerns. In addition, it will undertake similar unannounced inspections of learning disability services and there will be 500 unannounced inspections of care homes, to seek out and expose poor performance or poor care in those areas—and, I hope, demonstrate where good care is provided. There will be an additional follow-up inspection of a further 50 NHS hospitals.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. May I raise a linked point? One of the issues most frequently raised with me both in my constituency and elsewhere is that families and patients often do not feel that they have consistent contact with just one person who is responsible for the management of the care in a hospital. Instead, there is a range of people whom they do not know, except for what is printed on their name badges. They know the consultant, but they do not know who is responsible on a day-to-day basis for the delivery of 24-hour care. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that is also on his agenda?
Mr Lansley
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is not only the case in hospitals, where people can sometimes ask, “Under whose care is my husband?” It is also especially true in community care. I hope that there will be more integrated services in the community, but although there may be a range of providers, there must be an integrated service with a clear line of accountability.
Mr Lansley
No, as I need to conclude my speech. [Interruption.] I am sure what the hon. Lady says is true.
The NHS in Wales is not cutting its budget because everything is going well. Labour Members are fond of citing waiting times, but the latest figures on waiting times show that in England 90.4% of admitted patients and 97.3% of non-admitted patients were referred to treatment within 18 weeks, whereas the figures for Wales are 67.6% and only 74% respectively.
Let me tell the House about infection rates. In 2007, the clostridium difficile mortality rates in England and Wales were similar—in fact, the rate was slightly higher in England. However, in the latest year for which figures are available there were 23.4 deaths per million for men and 23.5 deaths per million for women in England, whereas the figures for Wales were 54.9 deaths per million for men and 59.5 deaths per million for women, so the level in Wales is more than twice that in England. In four years, the gap has widened to the point where Wales has double the number of deaths from C. diff infections relative to England. Less money, less innovation and less good care is what has been happening in Wales under a Labour Government.
I must make it clear that we are going to put patients at the heart of the NHS. We are going to focus on the NHS delivering excellent care every time. Labour focused on the targets and the averages, and never got to the place of really caring about the specifics. A patient about to go into hospital for knee replacement surgery does not want to know about the national figure; they want to know about their hospital, their ward and what will happen to them. The same is true for mixed-sex accommodation. Labour turned a blind eye to variation in performance. We are going to open it up to clinical and public scrutiny, so that we can reward and celebrate achievement and excellence across the service, and shine a light on poor performance.
Joan Ruddock
Two weeks ago, I had an operation in Guy’s hospital. Because of possible complications, I had to ask my consultant directly, “Would you advise me to go ahead or not?” He advised me to do so, and I had complete trust in him. He was not thinking about whether he had to fulfil a quota, whether there was competitiveness in his hospital or his department, or whether a private patient would be preferred in the bed that I was to occupy. He was someone I could trust. In the health service that the Secretary of State proposes in his Bill, I could never have that confidence. I ask him please to abandon this Bill.
Mr Lansley
The right hon. Lady is simply wrong. There is nothing in the legislation that will do anything other than support clinicians to exercise their judgments in order to deliver the best care for their patients. It was under her Government, when people were told to pursue 18-week targets, that managers were literally walking in to speak to consultants who were about to do waiting lists and surgery lists and telling them that, because of the 18-week target, they had to treat a certain patient rather than another whose interests would mean that they would be seen first. So I will not take any lectures about that. We are going to put clinicians at the heart of delivering care and put patients at the heart of the service that is delivered.
The Labour motion does not reflect reality. It is based on a misleading set of interpretations and representations. Labour Members have a very short memory, but I am afraid that they have left us a shocking legacy. The motion contains no appreciation of the challenges the NHS faces, no appreciation of the care the NHS has provided to patients day in, day out over the past year, and no vision of how the NHS can be better in the future. Modernisation of the NHS will deliver an NHS that we can rely on for future generations, that is based on need, not ability to pay, and that is able to deliver the best outcomes for patients. I urge the House to reject the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just before I call the next speaker, I suggest that we have an eight-minute limit. I want to get all the speakers in, as I do not want anyone to be disappointed.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Although the words “shocking legacy” are ringing in my ears, I find it difficult to believe them, given Labour’s legacy on the NHS compared with what it inherited in 1997. Expenditure was increased from £30 billion in 1997 to £103 billion when we left office, and we had record patient satisfaction ratings. It beggars belief that that can be considered a shocking legacy.
Grahame M. Morris
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will continue my introduction and give way in a moment.
I wish to recognise the contribution of the NHS staff, who are the source of great pride. They have done such a great job, and continue to do so, even in difficult circumstances, in delivering the very high levels of patient satisfaction reported in the recent surveys.
In November 2010, the Backbench Business Committee selected my application for a debate on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department of Health, the NHS and public health. So many of the issues that have been raised are implanted in my mind, not least the loss of the funding for a new hospital that would have served many of my constituents in the south of Easington. I am concerned about the particular reference that has been made to that and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State or the Minister would deal with that in their closing remarks. A value-for-money assessment was made by both the Department of Health and the Treasury and it was found that the best way to take forward that proposal was with public funding, rather than through the private finance initiative route. The disingenuous position repeated by those on the Government Benches, including the charges laid against the Labour Opposition about our support for PFI, has been compounded. I remind right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches that in the case of the new hospital planned for my area we were directed to the PFI route, despite the criticism that has come from the Secretary of State and other Members on the Government Benches.
I am pleased that the motion focuses on the failed personal pledges of both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. A key promise was made to increase real-terms expenditure on the NHS, but it is another broken promise. It is probably the most fundamental one, as the NHS is such a beloved institution of the whole British public. Before the election, the Conservatives promised to protect the NHS and give it a real-terms budget increase year on year. The coalition document promised a 0.4% real-terms budget increase for the NHS over the spending review period.
I am sure that we all saw the expensive billboards before the election, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) referred. They showed the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, saying:
“I’ll cut the deficit, not the NHS.”
That was not really about rebranding the NHS; it was more an exercise in conning the British public. Whereas Labour gave a guarantee to protect the front line of the NHS, the Health Secretary, then the shadow Health Secretary, saw a cynical opportunity to give a guarantee on spending. We now know from the Treasury’s own figures that that guarantee was false: it is a promise that has been broken. It was a guarantee that went against all the Tory mantra. We are constantly told by the Conservative party that public service delivery is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it—in fact, we heard that today from the Prime Minister in relation to police numbers. However, the Tory promise was never about protecting the NHS; it was about protecting the Tory brand.
Even the Tories’ biggest backers realise that the promise to increase funding on the NHS was a con. The Secretary of State cited James Purnell a little earlier, so perhaps I might cite Fraser Nelson, who is not a well-known socialist—he writes for The Spectator and is a right-wing commentator. He says:
“It has become clear now that there was a cynical competition to dupe the British public into believing that if they voted Tory at the General Election, the NHS would be safe.”
After 13 years of unprecedented rises in the NHS budget under Labour, and efficiency measures such as those on procurement—
Henry Smith
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the 13 years under the previous Labour Government. I do not know what happened in his constituency, but my constituency lost accident and emergency provision, and we lost maternity provision. That was the direct consequence of Labour’s Department of Health.
Grahame M. Morris
I think we saw an unprecedented period of growth with the building of new hospitals and new facilities. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and what he is going through with the Chase Farm downgrading, because in my area the Hartlepool accident and emergency facility is also being downgraded to an urgent treatment centre. That is a cause of consternation among the public.
Grahame M. Morris
Well, it is being done under the Secretary of State’s Administration when an impression was given that there would be a moratorium and that we would not face such downgrading and closures. That was clearly a con that was sold to the public, so I do not accept the contention that the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) has put forward.
Let me press on, because time is limited. The NHS is hurting under this Government and these reckless reforms. On the promises for a real-terms increase, we know that health inflation has surged and that the spending power of the NHS is going down, so will the Minister now admit that the NHS is receiving a real-terms cut? This is not just about the NHS being held hostage to inflation. It is facing real financial pressures on the front line—which Labour promised to protect—for a number of reasons including the Government’s decision to push through this latest reorganisation, which is the biggest the NHS has ever faced, at the same time as pushing through £20 billion-worth of efficiency savings. The figure of £1 billion a year is being taken from the NHS’s existing budgets to meet the growing and ever-increasing costs of social care. The Select Committee on Health is now looking into that issue and I hope that we are able to come forward with some positive ideas that the Minister will consider.
Joan Ruddock
My hon. Friend heard the Secretary of State’s responses to my questions. I know that my hon. Friend served on the Committee considering the Health and Social Care Bill. Will he confirm that competitiveness is still at the heart of that Bill and that the cap on private patients in the NHS is being removed from hospitals?
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend and I should like to place on record, because the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to do so, that the cap on private patient work, which had been set at 5%, is to be raised by the Bill. That must have a detrimental impact on the NHS in general, and on non-private patients, as resources are directed to the private sector and private patients.
Grahame M. Morris
I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I do not think I will get any injury time if I do so and I have rather a lot to get through.
I have mentioned the transfer of resources from the NHS budget to meet the growing costs of social care. We have also discovered, from evidence that was given to the Select Committee, that there has been an underspend of almost £2 billion—much of it from the capital budget, with some of it, presumably, being saved by cancelling the new hospital that was to serve my area. Meanwhile many NHS trusts are sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds of debt, and figures produced by the Department of Health show that six large NHS trusts in London are predicting year-end deficits of £170 million. The pressures on the system are enormous and will inevitably show through in reductions in services, having an impact on the front line.
The reductions in tariffs for operations and the further pressures in that area will also mean that foundation and NHS acute trusts will bear the brunt of financial pressures within the system. Again, that means that the buck and the spotlight of transparency are being passed away from the Secretary of State to the NHS Commissioning Board, although he might have to reconsider that after last night’s Lords amendments.
Another area of pressure in the NHS comes from the huge redundancy costs being incurred as a consequence of the premature closure of primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, which is estimated to cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion. The opening up of the NHS entirely to the private sector, and the prospect of the £103 billion NHS budget being taken out of the public sector and placed within the remit of shareholders in private health care companies, is anathema to the majority of the British public. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is cringing, but the majority of the British public are cringing at the thought of this proposal.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
It is remarkable that we are having this debate today. As the Secretary of State has said, the Opposition’s motion is a remarkable own goal, especially as it has been confirmed that the Government will be increasing funds in real terms by 0.4% over the course of this Parliament. The shadow Secretary of State is shaking his head, but that will mean an extra £12.5 billion, which he has opposed today. It also remarkable that we have had confirmation from him of his comments in The Guardian on 16 June 2010, when he stated:
“It is irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms within the overall financial envelope”.
He agreed with that and I am delighted that he has put that on the record now that he has a second bite of the cherry, as the shadow Secretary of State for Health. He had an opportunity to make amends, and I thought he would, but unfortunately he has not. He also stated in the New Statesman on 22 July 2010:
“They’re not ring-fencing it. They’re increasing it.”
He was talking about the NHS budget and the fact that the Government were increasing it.
We have heard from the Secretary of State today that if there is an underspend, it has come entirely from the central departmental budgets. What is wrong with that? Does the shadow Secretary of State disagree that we might have cut down on costs such as the £115,759 he spent on a personal chauffeur during his time as Secretary of State? Does he oppose an underspend, given that during his time at the Department it spent £3.65 million on almost 26,000 first-class rail tickets? We have slashed that cost by more than 70%. Does he deny that he and the Department spent £1.7 million on luxury hotels during his time there? What is wrong with cutting such spending? What is wrong with the fact that Ministers are no longer using hotels such as the Hotel President Wilson in Geneva as they did in 2008 when the bill was £548.87 a night? If we are making those cuts to the central budget, I quite welcome our doing so.
Barbara Keeley
I wonder that the hon. Gentleman is not more worried about issues such as those I raised earlier. The real cuts being experienced in my constituency are in NHS walk-in centres and in the active management of long-term conditions. That is a real downgrading of patient care. I am surprised that he is bringing up these expenses; I think he should focus on what is happening in the NHS.
Chris Skidmore
I entirely agree that we need to integrate better social care in the NHS, and part of the reason why we have £2 billion going into social care is to tackle that problem. It is interesting that the hon. Lady does not deny that those spends have happened and that she does not apologise for the fact that the previous Government made those spends. Personally, I think they are a disgrace. Obviously, Opposition Members do not have a problem with spending £600 on a hotel in Switzerland, but I do. I say to the shadow Secretary of State, “Don’t build a greenhouse and then throw stones out of it.” Let us remember that it was the Labour party that gave us an NHS IT system at a cost of £12.7 billion—450% more than the original cost. It was the Labour party that gave us private finance initiative deals that were so badly drafted that they were worth £11.4 billion but cost £65 billion to pay off. What did the shadow Secretary of State say when he was the Secretary of State?
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I hope that my intervention allows him to cool his jets a little. One cannot make a case about this by arguing about minutiae. Will he accept that for many of us the reality of the NHS is what we see at Central Middlesex hospital, where somebody turns up on a Monday to be told that the accident and emergency department closed on the previous Friday and has now been rebranded without there having been any democratic input? If one has any complaints about that, however, one should not even bother trying to find a person to speak to. That is the reality. The NHS is over-commercialised and is losing touch with its roots.
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman will regret his comments. We have to pay back £65 billion on PFI deals that were originally signed for £11 billion—that ain’t minutiae. Many constituents are concerned about the waste that took place under the previous Government.
In 1997, there were 23,400 managers. That has gone up to 42,500. We are making a genuine attempt to tackle the problem. I could go on, but I will put the party politics aside.
Grahame M. Morris
Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the National Audit Office report in relation to savings that could be made from NHS procurement? Does he think that fragmenting the NHS will assist that or hinder it?
Chris Skidmore
We are spending £1 billion more than we should on procurement because of the lack of consistency across the NHS, delivered principally by the previous Government. That is one area in which we could make vital savings. The NHS needs to change. Your boss, the Leader of the Opposition, said:
“To protect the NHS is to change it”
and we need to do so. The reforms that we are bringing in are essential if we are to deliver savings and also to ensure that the NHS survives when our ageing population means there will be twice as many 85-year-olds by 2030.
We need to reform the NHS and we do so in the spirit of what Tony Blair and new Labour put forward. Julian Le Grand, Tony Blair’s key adviser, said that the reforms were
“evolutionary, not revolutionary: a logical, sensible extension of those put in place by Tony Blair”.
When I asked him in the Health Committee whether this is what Blair would have done, he said: “Absolutely. Blair ‘would have tried’ to get these reforms through, but I imagine the left of his party may have prevented him from doing so.”
Joan Ruddock
How does the hon. Gentleman square his enthusiasm for all these reforms with the Prime Minister’s statement that there would be no top-down reforms of the NHS?
Chris Skidmore
We are introducing these reforms principally so that we put power back in the hands of GPs and, above all, patients. We are making these reforms because we have to. The status quo cannot remain—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady wants the NHS to continue as it is, fine. If the NHS is to be free at the point of delivery, it needs clinician-led commissioning. That is what we are going to achieve.
Sarah Newton
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. Does he agree that on such an important subject as the NHS, the people we represent and who sent us here would expect us to be thinking about how we can improve the NHS for patients and for the people who work in it, rather than engaging in this ridiculous tit-for-tat party political scrap that we are seeing this afternoon?
Chris Skidmore
I entirely agree. A constituent, a lady who sadly lost her foot through a rare cancer, came to my surgery recently. She is allowed only one type of plastic foot from the NHS and the PCT. She wants what is called an Echelon foot which will allow her to walk up a hill—she is a hill walker—but under the current model she cannot get that alternative foot. By bringing in any qualified provider, we will allow patients and clinicians the freedom to choose for the first time—a choice that was denied under the “any preferred provider” model that the shadow Secretary of State still clings to vainly. We need to ensure that our NHS operates for the 21st century and I hope the reforms will deliver that.
To sum up, I will oppose the motion. It is juvenile—the text could have been written by Adrian Mole. This is about getting away from the politics of debate in the Chamber and giving the NHS back to the professionals and the patients. It is not our NHS; it is their NHS, and we need to ensure that we achieve that aim.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Health, a brief to which he brings valuable experience. We are going to need every bit of that experience, given what the current Secretary of State is doing to bring the NHS to its knees.
I strongly disagree with my colleague on the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). This is not their NHS. This is not your or my NHS. It belongs to the people, all of us. We all have an incredible stake in the NHS. The Secretary of State and the Government play with it, with their reputation and with patients’ needs at their peril. I believe your policy will fundamentally damage the NHS—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. May I remind the House not to use the word “you”? Members speak through the Chair and should use the third person, please.
Rosie Cooper
Forgive me. I have a great propensity to do that. I believe passionately in the NHS and I take this all very personally. I apologise.
The Government’s policy will fundamentally damage the health service in terms of both the quality of care available to patients and the founding principles of the NHS. The more we debate Government health policy, the less the Secretary of State seems to be listening, whether to Opposition Members, medical professionals, patients, patient groups or constituents.
I might go further and say that I now believe the Secretary of State occupies a parallel universe—a universe where everyone wholeheartedly supports his policy and believes him when he says that there is real-terms growth in NHS spending, a universe where waiting times are not increasing, people are not being refused treatments, bed-blocking is not happening because of pressure on the social care system, a universe where he never discussed the issue of re-banding of nurses with the Royal College of Nursing.
Unfortunately, while the Secretary of State, ably supported by the Prime Minister, is off in that parallel universe, which we shall call delusional, the rest of us are left facing the terrifying reality of what the Government’s policy means to our constituents and to the national health service. We must disregard the rhetoric and the myth-making of the Conservative party as it seeks to demonstrate that it has changed when it comes to the NHS. Sadly for the health service, the Conservatives have not changed at all.
I have spoken repeatedly about the Prime Minister’s clear promises to the British people—one was that there would be no more pointless top-down reorganisation. He even said:
“When your family relies on the NHS all the time—day after day, night after night—you know how precious it is”.
How quickly those words were forgotten. Michael Portillo comments on the BBC’s “This Week” spoke volumes. He could not have made it clearer that the Government meant to misrepresent their position and mislead their voters. He said:
“They did not believe they could win if they told you what they were going to do.”
My fear is that their broken promises are leading us headlong into a broken NHS.
There is much I could say about how disgracefully the Government started to change NHS structures without the consent of the people or the House. Because of those broken promises, a failure to secure a clear mandate for the reforms from the British public, and an abject failure to secure support from the clinicians and the medical profession, we are left in the present mess. I hear time and again that the doctors, the nurses and the professionals are all behind the Government. Where are they? They are shouting loud and clear, “We’re not with you.”
Rosie Cooper
I fell for that last time and did not get to the end of what I had to say.
I will not go on about the rest of the problems that I see with the Bill—the financial challenge, the fact that we are open to European competition regulation, or the fact that the chair of the NHS Commissioning Board believes the Bill is unintelligible. I believe the Bill has been driven forward as an ideological exercise, rather than by an ideological desire to improve the quality of health care available.
Rosie Cooper
Forgive me; I need to get to the end of my speech.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh dealt with the finances and the myth of real-terms growth in the NHS budget. My local trust is being asked to go beyond the 4% savings compounded over the next four years and will be expected to achieve 6% or £8.5 million in this financial year. On top of that, Monitor expects trusts to make a 1% profit. People who have given evidence to the Select Committee have said it is clear that there will need to be hospital closures in order to release money back into the wider health service. We are told that this is all part of managing demand and redesigning pathways—two horrible phrases that appear to be back in vogue.
I want to deal quickly with the re-banding of nurses to reduce budgets, which the Health Secretary appears to have little understanding of. I am sorry he is no longer in his place. He clearly told the Health Committee that he was unaware that re-banding was taking place. His problem is that Janet Davies from the Royal College of Nursing told the Committee that, although the RCN does not release conversations, that issue was clearly discussed. I really worry about that. Does he have a twin he is sending into meetings on his behalf? Does he simply not listen? It would not be the first time. Or is the truth even worse, and should he be described in terms that Mr Speaker would call unparliamentary? The Secretary of State said earlier that he stood by his answers to the Committee. He has also claimed that he did not receive a letter from me, but I can confirm that he received it at 11.57 on 13 October, and I have confirmation from his office.
Rosie Cooper
I will not.
The point is that even if the Secretary of State was not aware of the re-banding, as he claims, that speaks volumes about how out of touch he is with the hard-working staff he is supposed to represent. Perhaps he would like to remove himself from his parallel universe—
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
May I take it as read that the NHS will struggle to find the £20 billion savings agreed in the Labour Budget? May I take it as read that that will impact on services and that people will notice and probably blame this Government’s legislation regardless of whether or not it compounds the problem? The debate we have been having on how NHS spending is or is not to be ring-fenced is almost a sideshow, compared with the huge challenge that is consistently emphasised by the Chairman of the Health Committee.
I draw Members’ attention to the fact that serious financial trouble is already breaking out in the acute sector. Seven of the 19 foundation trusts in the north-west have a red light, and that region is one of the more stable ones that we could consider. I cannot see any obvious happy endings, even without the Bill. Without the Bill we would still have competition by price, competition law would still be applicable, PCTs would still be capable of looking for the lowest common denominator and we would still have an unaccountable NHS.
To add to the general misery I am trying to perpetuate, on Saturday I had a severe abscess on my tooth, which was extraordinarily painful and unpleasant. After taking large doses of ibuprofen, which gave me a little relief for an hour, and my face being swollen and peculiar—a little more peculiar than it currently is—I sat up in bed in the middle of the night with my iPad looking up home remedies on the internet—cloves, bicarbonate of soda and so on. I found forums populated by desperate sufferers looking for a fix. What surprised me most were the American contributors, a considerable number of whom were obviously afraid to go to a dentist, despite the fact that the US is a rich country with no shortage of good dentists. They were settling for severe and continuous pain or for hit-and-miss experimentation, rather than risking debt and bankruptcy. Thankfully, I was in the UK and we have the NHS. On Sunday night, almost unbelievably, I was seen at 6.15 by an emergency dentist, a Polish dentist at the former Litherland town hall, which is now a busy Sefton NHS walk-in centre with a pharmacy attached—a service I did not know existed prior to these events.
Thankfully, the NHS is an institution built on solidarity. Through the state, we guarantee by our taxes each other treatment according to need and irrespective of means. It is a moral compact and Governments have been prepared to carry out that compact by ensuring that the services that are needed exist. Historically, they have done this in two ways: first, by buying services on our behalf; and secondly by providing services directly on our behalf. Governments and the people working in the NHS have done this relatively well and relatively efficiently, as the Wanless report and the Commonwealth Fund report have rigorously and exhaustively demonstrated. That is indisputable.
What is strange about recent developments is the Government shying away from their role as a provider of health care. The original debate was over the renouncing of the Secretary of State’s role as a provider, but we can also see the cutting loose of all hospitals as free-standing foundation trusts; the blurring of boundaries between NHS providers and other sorts of providers, with NHS providers doing more private work and the private sector doing more public work; the forcing—genuine forcing in some places—of non-hospital staff working for the NHS to become independent social enterprises; the neutrality of the Department of Health on whether individual NHS providers or provider networks survive, a neutrality that will be severely tested in the months to come; and the willingness to make NHS provision contestable as a matter of principle, rather than one of pragmatism. Not many people have noticed the ending of the Secretary of State’s powers to create a new foundation trust or hospital post-2015. We might have seen the last new NHS hospital opened by a Secretary of State in this country.
I found the Secretary of State’s unwillingness to stick to the wording of the Health Act 2006 slightly bizarre, if only because that would easily have brought peace, and may have brought peace now, depending on what exactly has happened in the House of Lords. In a sense, we all know that the Secretary of State does not, has not and cannot provide all the services himself and should not try to micro-manage. I did not seriously expect him to turn up at Litherland town hall on Sunday—visions of Marathon Man come before me. What concerns me is the ideological presumption that the Secretary of State should only be a purchaser or commissioner. There is a good reason for that concern; it is only possible to purchase in a market what that market offers. Markets are splendid things, offering choice and variety, but they do not have a guarantee that people will get what they are entitled to, and they do not ensure that health inequalities, or any sort of inequality, can be eroded, and they do not guarantee that public resources are spent and used in the most efficient way. They may lead to that, but not necessarily. Direct state provision is often a better option.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I respect my hon. Friend’s point of view, but surely what matters is quality of care for patients, which can be provided as well in the private sector as it can in the public sector, and it is not necessarily guaranteed in the public sector, as events at the Mid Staffordshire hospital have shown.
John Pugh
I did not say that it was guaranteed by the public sector. That is not the point I was making at all. Guaranteeing entitlement, addressing inequalities and ensuring public value are, to be blunt, largely the point of the NHS. I can quite understand—I partly regret it—that a degree of cynicism might exist about the public service ethos, and a sort of nostalgic support for that can sometimes be in place when the reality is that it is not there. There is doubt about its true impact and people inside and outside the NHS sometimes show that degree of cynicism, which is regrettable. I can understand the worry that NHS providers can become lax or inefficient or unambitious if they are not challenged, but the answer to that is not necessarily or obviously to get out of the provision business full stop, embrace the market, set up strange control markets with huge transactional costs, strange tariffs and the multiplicity of bean counters that go along with that. Of course there is also greater legal complexity. The end result of that is something that has few of the virtues of a real market and most of the vices. The Labour Government were to some extent part and parcel of producing such a market. I see no reason to make the state just a purchaser and never a provider, and it is not obvious to me that the answer is to hand over the money to one set of providers, the GPs, particularly if the pretext for doing so is to harden the commissioner-provider split, because GPs are providers.
In conclusion, publicly funded provision—public service infused with the right ethos—is often the most efficient and effective option, provided that it is coupled with genuine, local and rigorous accountability. That is what happens in many successful systems, such as Sweden’s, and it is a liberal solution. So far, there is not enough of it, although the Bill makes laudable moves in that direction, with health and wellbeing boards and so on, but this strange, unargued and ideological withdrawal from provision or interest in provision taints everything and leaks poison into the system—like an abscess.
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I support the motion on the Order Paper this afternoon, and I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) has left his seat, because he was coming out with a load of reasons why the NHS is in the mess it is in now, saying that it was to do with the previous Labour Government. He mentioned Adrian Mole, but I would have advised him not to use such arguments when, in the same breath, he was talking about the money that was spent on the NHS IT programme. It was nowhere near the £12 billion that he mentioned. People would be wise to look at the IT system, because it was ambitious in terms of creating a national database, and given my experience on the Health Committee that looked at the issue in the previous Parliament, I must say that if we want to make the national health service efficient, we will do so with IT. Currently, there are few programmes that manage people with long-term conditions, yet they consume between 75% and 80% of the moneys spent on the NHS, so batting arguments around on that basis, as the current Government did in opposition in relation to IT will not make health care better or the national health service more efficient for people in this country.
Members have mentioned three issues with the coalition agreement. I am going to leave the one on finance as it stands, because there is an argument about the Treasury figures. We will see in the next year or two, if the next election is in 2015, exactly where the issue goes, and then we will be able to comment a little more than we are able to at the moment.
On moratoriums, I saw a very embarrassed Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, and I am going to be consistent, because when I was Chair of the Health Committee and sitting on the Government Benches, I criticised on two occasions then Government Front Benchers for such stunts. I did not criticise Health Ministers, but I did make one criticism in a closed place, after a Secretary of State—not for Health, but a Scottish Member who no longer sits in the House—stood on the picket line against the closure of a hospital in Scotland near his constituency.
Another criticism I made was of a Member—who is still in the House but, again, not a Health Minister—who was against changes to health care in Greater Manchester. I was asked by the media—I think it was the BBC—and I said that, if the issue is being looked at locally and it is recommended that such reconfiguration will improve patient services, it should go ahead and politicians should not speak out against it. I then received the quickest response I have ever had on any issue from No 10 Downing street, but I stick to what I said then: the matter had been looked at locally.
I listened to the Secretary of State—I am sorry he is not in his place now—when he talked about stopping top-down decision making and letting local commissioners have a look at the clinical evidence and safety aspects, but the independent review panel has been looking at those matters for years. The interference of people at the top has been the real issue.
Politicians have to get away from the idea that they must defend the national health service in its current configuration at all costs. That will not improve it—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) laughs, but I am talking to him, and to the Secretary of State who stood holding up placards saying things would not happen which have happened. We should not do that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has the image of that in his hand, but this is a lesson for all people in politics.
When the Health Committee in the previous Parliament looked at NHS deficits, it found that many years ago the major problem with deficits was in the east of England, because many small parts of the NHS were spread around marginal seats that had been fought for one way or another over the previous 20 or 30 years. That level of political interference does nothing for patient care. I am being even-handed in saying that, and I genuinely believe it.
I am going to move on from moratoriums. Ministers put well their arguments on those issues when they were in opposition, but now, given the decisions they are having to take in government, they are having to eat humble pie. It serves them right, as it served the last lot right.
I want to go on to the coalition agreement’s statement that there will be no top-down reorganisation in the national health service, because this current reorganisation is the worst, the biggest and the most savage. It has been defended again today on the basis, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) said, that GPs are going to be in charge, but they are going to get about £80 billion, and they are small, private, independent contractors, so the idea that there will not be any conflict of interest in some of the work that is going to take place is nonsense. It will be a matter for the courts.
I was also amazed when the hon. Gentleman said that we have competition now inside the national health service, because we do not in clinical services, and he will have to explain why there are 97 clauses in the Health and Social Care Bill which put competition law in clinical services on to the statue book of this land. Can somebody find me one country in the European Union which has competition law in clinical services? I have found none.
I sat on the Public Bill Committee for six months, and, on Third Reading, I asked the Minister who will make the winding-up speech today—I will ask him again, because I have to sit down in a couple of minutes—what the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading had got to do with the merger of national health service trusts. That provision is written into the Bill, and it was not changed when the future forum looked at it; indeed, of the 97 clauses, only seven were changed. The Minister has not answered that question, and I asked Professor Steve Field when he went back to the Public Bill Committee what that had to do with the merger of NHS trusts.
I ask the Minister to answer this question when he winds up the debate. What have the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission got to do with the merger of national health service trusts? I await the answer. I am fed up of asking the question.
The Secretary of State says, “We’re abolishing PCTs,” and indeed we are, but what PCTs do will be taken over by not one body but five different ones: clinical commissioning groups, health and wellbeing boards, clinical senates, the NHS Commissioning Board and local authorities—and that is how we get rid of bureaucracy! That is what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box just a while ago, but five different organisations—some of them new—are going to be involved.
This is the biggest mistake that any Government have made with the NHS since it was brought in 60 years ago, and this Government would be well advised to take the Bill away and get on with serving the nation’s health care needs, not bringing in this competition law, which will be the end of the NHS as we know it.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). He would be surprised if I agreed with everything he said, but he made some good points in the first half of his speech.
Today’s debate has been a wasted opportunity for the Opposition, because nothing positive has come out of it—nothing about how we will better look after patients or how we will address very real needs in all our constituencies. There has been a lot of mud-slinging but very little talk about what will benefit patients and how we will deliver a patient-centred NHS.
That is to the detriment of the Opposition and to the way in which they have addressed the motion. It is disingenuous of Opposition Members to attack the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health, and to try to give the impression that my right hon. Friends do not care about the NHS. All politicians and, I believe, everyone in the country care about the NHS, but we have slightly different views about how the service should be run.
I have a great deal of time for the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and I like her very much on a personal level, but some of her points were wrong. In particular, it was wrong to bring the Prime Minister’s personal experience into the debate. He had a difficult family circumstance, and of course someone with that background will understand the NHS very well.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady did not make her point very well, and she did not allow me to intervene on her. I am sure that the Minister will address the points that she made about the letter.
Mr Simon Burns
It might be useful at this stage to clear up the point about the letter. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had not replied to her letter, as though it had been sent months ago. It was dated 12 October, so I presume that it arrived in the Department of Health on 13 or 14 October, about 12 or 13 days ago. Hon. Members know that the guidelines, which the Department rigorously keeps to, state that it may take up to 20 days to receive a response. My right hon. Friend has not been discourteous, and the hon. Lady will receive a reply within the time scale.
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying an earlier point.
I will not engage in mud-slinging, but will talk about what hon. Members on both sides of the House want to emerge from the NHS. The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was absolutely right that some service reconfiguration is necessary to deliver services in communities, improve community care and build an integrated health service with integrated health care. The right hon. Gentleman spoke specifically about an integrated system and better integrating adult social care, especially for the elderly, with current NHS providers, breaking down some of the silos between primary care, the hospital sector, and adult social services.
Barbara Keeley
Was the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I was at the Select Committee on Health on Tuesday when I asked Richard Humphries of the King’s Fund how the Health and Social Care Bill will impact on integrated commissioning? Richard Humphries said that there is a danger to integration because people are leaving PCTs, working relationships are being disrupted and broken up, and partnerships are being disrupted. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, we face years of disruption. That is the danger. Progress on the integration agenda was slow, but it is chaotic now.
Dr Poulter
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Any period of transition will be difficult, and must be managed. Will the mechanisms and bodies that the Health and Social Care Bill will put in place be better able to deliver community-focused, integrated care than the existing system? I want to consider two matters that we will come to later: health and wellbeing boards, and basing commissioning fundamentally in the community. Both are good mechanisms for delivering better integrated care, and I will return to that.
We have too many silos in the NHS. The primary care sector often does not integrate with the secondary care sector as well as we would like. For example, hospitals are paid by results, but they have no financial incentive to ensure that they prevent inappropriate hospital admissions. We talk about better looking after the frail elderly and about ensuring that we prevent people with mental health problems from reaching crisis point and having to be admitted, but there are no financial incentives and drivers in the system to ensure that that is achieved to the extent we would like. A and E admissions in many hospitals are rising year on year—in rural areas that is partly because we do not have an adequate out-of-hours GP service—and far too often the frail elderly are not properly supported in the community.
If we put the majority of commissioning into the community with local commissioning boards, that will provide a more integrated and joined-up approach to local commissioning, which will undoubtedly help to prevent inappropriate admissions. We no longer want an NHS in which people with mental health problems or the elderly present in crisis because they have not been supported in the community. That must be the focus of care, and the focus of delivery of services.
Sarah Newton
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of integrating social care and the NHS. I want to share with him the good, concrete steps that are being taken in Cornwall, where we have a pilot health and wellbeing board, and the beginning of integration. That has not happened before in Cornwall, and we are about to have the first joint commissioning of services. That is the way forward to improve patient experience in the NHS.
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for a helpful intervention, which makes the point very well that we need integration through community-based commissioning.
The other key factor is how better to integrate adult social care—the right hon. Member for Leigh made the point, as did the Secretary of State—into the current NHS system. At the moment, integration of services is sometimes variable. There is a good example in Torbay of a more integrated system, but what are the Government proposing that will at least facilitate the integration of services? Local health and wellbeing boards are definitely a step in the right direction because for the first time they will bring together adult social care from local authorities with housing providers, the NHS, and primary and secondary care. That must be a step in the right direction for delivering the integrated care that we all want. It will help to provide more community-focused care.
I referred to the concern about inappropriate admissions, and the fact that elderly people are not supported in their own homes. The savings in adult social care from doing things well are NHS savings, but at the moment there are different cultures in two different organisations, which do not always talk to each other in different parts of the country, and that will not benefit patients. Bringing people together on a health and wellbeing board must be good for patients and integrated care.
For all those reasons, I hope that we will have more positive Opposition day debates on the NHS, and I hope that the Opposition will at least concede that some good things are happening as a result of health care reform.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). I do not want to impugn his integrity, or to suggest that what he wants for the NHS is not exactly what I want. The issue is how we do that. Unfortunately, some unhelpful remarks were made in the run-up to the general election. At the least, they were disingenuous; at worst they were duplicitous. This debate is about trust, and there are serious questions about whether we can trust the Government with our NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has argued that pre-election pledges have been broken, and I want to speak specifically about how that relates to NHS funding. The first broken promise came within months of the general election. We have heard about the posters that we all saw as we went round our constituencies, showing a congenial right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), now the Prime Minister, promising to
“cut the deficit, not the NHS”.
Last October’s spending review seemed to support that position, with a 1.3% increase in NHS resource spending and real-terms growth of what seemed to be 0.4%. The Secretary of State, who is just returning to his place, was unable to answer my question on that. I want to talk abut management costs, because the Department is focusing on that spending. It is important to be clear about management costs in the NHS budget. In 1999, they were less than 3%; in 2010, they were just over 3%. Independent research has shown that, if anything, the NHS is under-managed rather than over-managed. [Interruption.] I can certainly provide evidence for hon. Members.
Debbie Abrahams
No, I am sorry; I am not going to give way.
We should compare our health care management costs with those in the United States, where they run at over 20%. We need to be very careful about what we are talking about.
Debbie Abrahams
I am not going to give way—I am sorry.
In this year’s Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s higher inflation forecast meant that NHS spending is now falling in real terms. House of Commons Library calculations show that it will fall by about 1% in real terms over the next four years—a loss in spending power of more than £1 billion by 2015. In the light of the recent inflation figures—[Interruption.] To help hon. Members out, last year’s figure was 5.6% based on the retail prices index. As inflation is at a three-year high, the loss in spending power is likely to be even greater. To keep his election promise, the Prime Minister would have to spend at least £1 billion more than he is doing.
This month’s King’s Fund report on NHS performance shows the effects of these financial pressures on the NHS, with the majority of finance directors saying that they are very or fairly pessimistic about the financial future of their local health economy. The Health and Social Care Bill, which is being debated in the other place, very conveniently sets out ways to help struggling foundation trusts. First, they can borrow money from the City to invest. Secondly, because foundation trusts will have to repay the money they have borrowed by treating more NHS patients and more private patients, they have been helped by the abolition of the cap on private patients’ income. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, by raising income in this way they become economic enterprises and open themselves up to part B of EU competition law, so that they have to compete for every tender with private sector companies such as Capita, United Health, and so on. Incidentally, seven trusts, including in the Secretary of State’s constituency, have already said that they will be increasing the private bed cap. There is a private hospital in the Cambridgeshire University hospitals foundation trust area. Finally, when—not if—a foundation trust still ends up in financial meltdown, the Bill’s new failure regime means that they will be able to sell off NHS publicly owned assets to private equity companies. There are direct parallels with Southern Cross.
The impact of that is already being felt in patient care. In addition to what is said by constituents attending my and many of my hon. Friends’ surgeries, the King’s Fund report showed that the proportion of patients waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment has increased nationally. Over a quarter of NHS trusts admitted fewer than 90% of their patients within 18 weeks. In my constituency, Pennine acute hospitals trust is able to treat only 70% of patients within its 18-week targets. That is more than double the number of trusts failing to meet the 18-week target in 2010.
I am afraid, however, that an increase in waiting lists is what the Government want; it is one of the intended consequences of the Bill. This increase in demand is feeding the growing private health care and insurance market. We know from the US that as people on low incomes will be less likely to be able to afford these products, there will be a direct impact on the inequalities that the Secretary of State says that he wants to reduce.
Barbara Keeley
My hon. Friend is concerned about health inequalities. Is she as worried as I am about changing the weighting of health inequalities in allocations of funding? In Salford, our experience is that that can push GP practices in deprived areas into the red in their indicative budgets, so they will be cutting down referrals and reconsidering treatments—another way of denigrating and cutting the benefits of services to patients.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that in a minute.
In fact, that is broken promise No. 2. Last week in Health questions, I asked the Secretary of State why, in December last year, he made a political decision, against the advice of the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to maintain the health inequalities component of PCTs’ funding allocation at 15%, and instead reduced it to 10%. He replied that he had made no decision against the advice of that Committee. However, it is quite clear from last September’s letter to him from the chair of the Committee that that is exactly what he did:
“I would like to draw your attention to ACRA’s position in relation to the health inequalities adjustment. We recommend that the current form of the adjustment is retained”.
The
“current form of the adjustment”
was 15%, and the Secretary of State made a political decision to reduce that. He should be apologising to the House for misleading us in his response to my question. The effect of that reduction is to shift funding from poor health areas to good health areas. The Secretary of State owes an apology to the people in those areas, as well.
I turn to broken promise No. 3. Although the move of public health to local authorities is welcome in principle, the timing could not be worse. Already, we are seeing plans that jeopardise the public health function as they move into local authorities besieged with cuts. As Labour has consistently argued, our health and social care system needs to balance the treatment and care of people who are poorly with creating supportive environments that enable all our citizens to live as healthily as possible for as long as possible—focusing upstream on stopping people falling in rather than on pulling them out further downstream, to use a familiar metaphor. That is absolutely key, but unfortunately the current approach means that it is not going to happen. For example, public health budgets, said to be ring-fenced, are not being ring-fenced. The shadow budgets that were being provided to public health departments for 2012 were supposed to increase from 3.7% to just over 4%, but further analysis showed that that increase was due to merging the public health and drug action team budgets, and not to any new moneys. There was, in effect, no real increase in public health funding.
I anticipate a future broken promise in relation to what the Secretary of State has said about privatisation: I think it will be a case of “Watch this space.”
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I apologise for missing the opening few minutes of the debate. I was attending the awarding of the gold Duke of Edinburgh’s award to 800 young people in London. It would be marvellous if the press would give as much time to reporting the fantastic achievements of our young people as to the occasional incidents of antisocial behaviour in our communities.
I wish to speak about what I have learned from the experiences that we have had in my constituency regarding our own hospital over the past few years, which have been very troubling for many of us. I will consider these under three headings. First, there is the quality of care and patient safety. As we have learned only recently in the report by the Care Quality Commission, there are problems with quality of care, particularly for elderly people, around the country. That is not the case everywhere; there are some fantastic instances all over the country of very high-quality care. However, it is clearly something that we have to address. I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking the initiative in instigating the CQC report, and I would be very interested to hear from him, as would my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), about what action he proposes to take in the coming years. I know that the Secretary of State takes this matter extremely seriously.
Patient safety is absolutely essential to the NHS. “First, do no harm”—we all know that from the Hippocratic oath. It is given the highest priority, but it does not always seem to happen. Of course, it is a matter of several different things coming together, such as training, levels of staffing and process—but, above all, attitude. What is the Secretary of State doing more to promote the culture of patient safety throughout the NHS? Again, he takes that particularly seriously, and it was mentioned in last year’s White Paper.
Sometimes, the NHS seems almost to rely too much on the complaints system. A complaint happens when it is too late and when the experience has passed: when something unfortunate or tragic has happened, or when care has not been all that it could have been. I would suggest a system that has been taken up by some trusts and particularly in Brighton, whereby people can raise an issue via an urgent phone line while they, their loved one or their relative is in hospital, perhaps to an independent person who can take up the concern, whether it be about malnutrition in hospital, a lack of care or the inaccurate dispensing of drugs. It can then be addressed on the spot rather than after the event, when a complaint goes through the procedure and lots of letters are written and time consumed. I ask the Secretary of State to take that into account.
The second issue is changes in hospital services, which are a huge challenge for many acute hospitals, especially smaller ones. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that care has to be taken out of the hospital setting. That is being done across the country and it is essential to the future of the NHS. However, it has to be done in a careful and measured way, so that the reconfiguration and integration of community services complement each other. It is no good having reconfiguration without integrated community services. I heard the case of a constituent who was waiting in an NHS hospital for several weeks at a cost of about £600 a night when she could have been discharged, because the care services were not available in the community. I am glad to say that Staffordshire county council is working closely with the NHS to produce an integrated care trust. That must be the way forward for most, if not all, of the country.
There is concern in all our communities about emergency services. We have to bear it in mind that the population of this country is likely to rise to 70 million by 2028 according to the Office for National Statistics. We need to ensure that the local development plans that are being toiled over at the moment take into account the increasing population and where it will be in 10 to 20 years’ time, and that we do not just base our services on the current population figures. We must also consider communications and whether it will be possible for somebody to get to an A and E department in a reasonable time if their closest one is downgraded. Those matters need to be taken into account because they are of huge concern to all our constituents. I ask the Minister to respond on that point.
On communication, let us be honest about the pressures on the NHS and say that we will not be able to have everything that we want. We need to talk with our constituents and hear what their priorities are in each area.
Finally, I want to refer to shortages in trained staff. There has been a shortage of A and E consultants at my local hospital. I am grateful to the Department of Health, the primary care trust and the Secretary of State for taking a personal interest in the matter and giving us assistance. However, that is a short-term solution and we need a long-term one. The previous Government did well to start up some new medical schools, including one at Keele university in Staffordshire, but we need to train more people. I understand that up to 30% of NHS doctors come from overseas. We are relying on the medical training of other countries, many of which need those doctors more than we do. I ask the Secretary of State what plans he has to ensure that we begin to see a flow-through of trained doctors and nurses into the NHS. Of course, we have to start that now to fulfil the needs that we will have many years down the line.
Stafford has been through difficult times and continues to experience them, even though many incredibly dedicated people are tackling our problems. I welcome the help that the Government, the Secretary of State and the primary care trust have given. The next few years will be very trying for all of us as we meet those challenges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich said, we must remember that the patient is at the heart of everything—not processes, not bodies, not organisations, but the patient.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
There are few areas of our work in this House that may be described, honestly and without hysteria, as matters of life and death. The national health service is so utterly central to our existence, our future and the hopes of our country that it is no surprise that the emotions it engenders are as strong as those that have been witnessed on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
I have to tell the Secretary of State that he has a problem. He is a man of great charm, he is widely liked and he is popular, yet he has not sealed the deal on his disintegration, disaggregation and atomisation of the national health service. He has not been able to persuade the Royal College of General Practitioners, which tells us that three quarters of its members oppose it. He has not been able to persuade Professor Malcolm Grant, his own choice to run the commissioning board, who describes the plan as “completely unintelligible”. The Secretary of State wishes to persuade the nation that it is appropriate, at this time of all times, to spend about £3 billion on reorganisation—money that could be far better spent dealing with the dental abscess of the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and all the other problems that face us.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) spoke for many in the House when she prayed for a depoliticisation of this issue. The reality is that the national health service was born amid the gun smoke of political opposition; it was born opposed entirely by one political party in this House and supported by another. Of the supporters—
Stephen Pound
Hold on a moment, I am just having a rant.
Of the supporters, let us give credit—because there once was a time when we could give credit to a decent, humane, sensible, consistent bunch of men and women—to the Liberals of those days and to Beveridge for the work that he did. Above all, let us never forget the transcendent genius of a south Wales miner’s son who left school at the age of 14, Aneurin Bevan, who gave us our national—I emphasise “national”—health service.
Stephen Pound
May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I do not know how anyone persuaded him to bowl me that patsy ball that I can immediately crack to the boundary. He is absolutely right. Dr Hill, the radio doctor, opposed the national health service. Aneurin Bevan said that he had had to
“stuff their mouths with gold”.
Of course the producer interest opposed the beginning of the national health service because it was about the consumers—that was its major difference. Of course the vested interests opposed the creation of the national health service—that is no surprise. But that was then.
The national health service was born in compromise. I was born in July 1948, as was the NHS. For many years I was suspected to have been the first child ever born on the NHS, in Queen Charlotte’s hospital, but somebody in Salford beat me to it.
Stephen Pound
Trafford. I beg your pardon. However, the year before I was born, my parents had a son who died at the age of seven months. The year before that, they had another son who died at the age of eight months. I was born on 5 July 1948, two days after the health service, and I have my five brothers and sisters alive to this day. It is that important.
When I worked as a porter for 10 years at the Middlesex hospital, where my sister and wife were nurses and one of my brothers was an ambulance driver—half the family seemed to be employed there—we realised the consequences of the pragmatic approach to the health service. We had a private patients wing where people like myself, paid by the national health service, did work for people who paid money to a difference source, and where doctors trained under the NHS got personal recompense. One of the single most important aspects of our lives has been political from day one.
Each of the Health Ministers will remember, as I do, that we have sat in the same House as an hon. Member who lost his seat over a hospital closure. Let us never forget Wyre Forest and Kidderminster hospital. It is almost impossible to be objective about this issue. When the Turnberg report was published, it proposed an entirely sensible reconfiguration of London’s acute general hospitals, but it was opposed by almost everyone because of parochial and local issues. When polyclinics were proposed under the previous Government—one of the most logical, sensible, rational and helpful ways of providing primary health care—they were violently opposed by the Conservative party.
The situation now is that there is no consensus. However, I have not often seen anything quite so consensual, positive and forward-looking as the reference in today’s motion to an offer made by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Health Secretary of
“cross-party talks on reforming NHS commissioning.”
What could be better for the country, and for the reputation of this House, than our recognising that the NHS is not a political football or an issue on which we can strike postures? Yes, there are ideological differences between us, and Opposition Members may wish to see a greater infusion of finance-led choice, more and more commercialisation and an end to the Whitley system, which has survived for so many years. They may wish to see local pay bargaining setting hospital against hospital, clinic against clinic and clinician against clinician, with a constant stream of industrial disputes as localised pay bargaining bursts out all over the place in some industrial conflagration that attracts even more attention. At the moment we have one of the lowest numbers of hospital managers anywhere in Europe, and we will inevitably have to spend more and more on a greater and greater number of managers to deal with all that localised bargaining.
Stephen Pound
I will give way to my hon. Friend, who knows far more about the subject than I do.
Debbie Abrahams
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am greatly enjoying his speech. Does he agree that the opening up of competition under the Health and Social Care Bill as it stands will be a real threat to the NHS as we know it?
Stephen Pound
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and may I place it on record that, as I am sure virtually everybody in the House would agree, she has brought enormous expertise in this area to the House, for which we are extremely grateful?
The NHS cannot be disaggregated. It has to be a national health service, not a notional health service, a postcode health service, a better-in-some-parts-than-others health service or a good-for-Kensington-bad-for-Kidderminster health service. It has to be for the nation, and why? Because Beveridge did not just produce a one-point proposal for the NHS. There were actually five evils that he wished to slay. It was an integrated proposal that addressed want, hunger, ambition and other issues.
The NHS is not just an agency to patch people up; it is part of providing a healthy, productive nation and increasing the good and the good life within this country. At so many levels, we have to look beyond the bottom line and beyond, as the hon. Member for Southport said, the bean-counting philosophy. The NHS should not be about the click of the abacus in some cobwebbed recess, or about constantly seeking whether things can be bought cheaper here or commissioned for a lower price there. It should not be about container-loads of cheap goods being shipped in from Shanghai because some GP commissioning group somewhere has discovered it can get a discount on Tubigrip. It should be about the recognition that the health of a nation is utterly crucial, basic and intrinsic to that nation’s hope and future. Without health, we have no future.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I am sorry to break my hon. Friend’s flow, but is it not the underlying principle of this country that we take care of one another? That is the principle behind the NHS and what the NHS stands for.
Stephen Pound
It has been said—not by me, but by some—that the NHS has almost become the national religion. They say that as Christianity has faded, as it has in some places—not in my constituency, and certainly not in my home—the NHS has become more important. The NHS is the perfect example of what Galbraith called the “gift relationship”, when we look out for one another. We should not constantly look for the bottom line, but instead look to be our brothers’ keepers. That is the principle—
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a privilege to close the debate on the Government’s record on the NHS and to follow such excellent contributions from many hon. Members.
My hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) rightly spoke of the waste of the Government’s NHS reorganisation. The Government have spent £850 million on redundancy payments for primary care trust staff who will be re-employed in commissioning organisations elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) rightly asked the Secretary of State, who is moving from his usual place on the Front Bench, why he was not aware that trusts are re-banding nurses in order to save costs. Labour Members, who talk and listen to front-line staff, know that only too well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), whom I was privileged to sit alongside in the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, rightly raised the risks of the Bill widening health inequalities and worsening patient care. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that the Bill will be one of the Government’s biggest mistakes.
The hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) rightly raised the important issue of the need to integrate health and social care and develop more community-based services, although Opposition Members believe that the Government’s NHS reorganisation, and their huge cuts to local council budgets and social care, will make that far harder, not easier, to achieve.
Before the general election, the Prime Minister made three key promises on the NHS. He promised no more top-down reorganisations; he promised patients up and down the country a bare-knuckle fight to save their local hospitals; and in both the Conservative manifesto and the coalition agreement, he promised that he would increase health spending in real terms in each year of the Parliament. Barely 18 months later, he is forcing through the biggest reorganisation in the history of the NHS—the NHS chief executive says that it is so large, it can be seen from outer space. Local NHS services in Bury, Burnley, Hartlepool and Chase Farm are not being saved or reopened as the Prime Minister and Secretary of State pledged, and, according to Treasury figures, spending on the NHS was cut by more than £750 million in real terms in the first year of this Government. That is three promises made and three promises broken by a Prime Minister who claimed that his personal priority was spelt out in three letters: NHS.
Gareth Johnson
Is the hon. Lady aware that in the past 40 years, real-terms spending on the NHS has been reduced on only five occasions, the majority of which were under a Labour Government?
Liz Kendall
I wish the hon. Gentleman had been here at the start of the debate, when it was made clear that the last real-terms cut in NHS spending was in the last year of the previous Conservative Government.
Doctors, nurses, patients and the public know the truth about this Government’s plans. When the NHS should be focused on meeting the biggest financial challenge of its life and on improving patient care, it has instead been plunged into chaos. At precisely the time that the NHS needs maximum leadership and financial grip, the Government’s reorganisation is creating havoc. First, they said that they would scrap primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, and replace them with GP consortia. Then they changed their mind, merging PCTs and SHAs in supposedly temporary clusters and replacing consortia with clinical commissioning groups and new clinical senates, and now they have changed their mind again: PCT and SHA clusters have apparently been saved as part of the Government’s huge new national quango, the NHS Commissioning Board, which will employ more than 3,000 people.
Professor Malcolm Grant, the Government’s own choice to run the NHS Commissioning Board, last week called the Government’s plans “completely unintelligible”. The very people who are supposed to be running the NHS are confused and wasting time trying to figure out ill-thought-through Government plans. That time and energy should be spent on patients. Far from cutting bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money, the Government are creating hundreds of new organisations and wasting more than £2.5 billion in the process, when this money should be spent on front-line patient care.
What has been the result of 18 months of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government running our NHS? Thousands of front-line clinical staff are losing their jobs and posts are being frozen, piling pressure on those who remain. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head, but this month the Royal College of Nursing has surveyed 6,000 of its staff and made it clear that 20% of the nurses and health care assistants surveyed said that their job is going to be cut, that 40% are seeing recruitment freezes in their trust and that 13% are seeing bed and ward closures in their trust. Who is more likely to be accurate? The nurses and health care assistants working in our NHS, or the Government, who are denying that any of these changes are taking place?
The result is that patient care is going backwards. Far from what Ministers claim about waiting lists being fine, the number of patients waiting longer than four hours in A and E is now double that of last year. Twice as many patients are waiting more than six weeks for their diagnostic test, and six times as many are waiting longer than 13 weeks. Anybody who has waited, or has had a family member who has waited, more than three months even to get their test knows how worrying and frightening it is, yet the Government deny that there is a problem. Furthermore, 48% more patients are now waiting more than 18 weeks for their hospital treatment.
Despite all the evidence, the Government are in denial. They deny that the number of front-line NHS staff and the number of staff training places are being cut, yet a recent survey by the Royal College of Midwives has shown that six out of 10 SHAs have been freezing staff training places because of the cuts. Given that the Government promised 3,000 more midwives, that is a problem, particularly in constituencies such as mine that have increasing birth rates.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What is the hon. Lady’s opinion of the £12 billion wasted by the previous Labour Government on the failed NHS IT project?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman, who is a constituency neighbour of mine, would do better focusing his attention on the RCN and RCM in our area, which are asking us why the Government are not fulfilling their commitment on extra midwives. If he goes to the hospitals in Leicester, as his constituents do, he will know that there are concerns about that.
The Government deny that the number of front-line NHS staff is being cut, that waiting lists are rising and, worst of all, that there is still widespread and growing opposition to their NHS plans.
Liz Kendall
We have been clear on this side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) took some difficult decisions when he was Secretary of State for Health, unlike the current Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend looked at what was happening in local hospitals and took the difficult decisions, based on clinical advice, to improve patient care. That is what this Government should be doing.
The Prime Minister says that
“the whole health profession is on board for what is now being done,”
but that is simply not the case. The RCN says that the Bill
“will have a seriously detrimental effect upon the NHS and the delivery of patient care”.
Four hundred of the country’s leading public health experts warn that the Government’s plans will cause “irreparable harm” and fail to deliver
“efficiency, quality, fairness or choice”.
The British Medical Association says that the Bill
“poses an unacceptably high risk to the NHS”.
Government Members now like to criticise the BMA, but before the general election they applauded everything the BMA said. They always want to have it both ways. Three quarters of GPs—the very people this Government claim they want to empower—have said through the Royal College of General Practitioners that the Bill should be withdrawn. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), says from a sedentary position that those groups—the RCN, public health experts, the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners—are self-selecting. That is the kind of dismissal of front-line staff that has caused such problems for the Government.
It is not just NHS staff whom the Government refuse to listen to. Organisations such as Age UK and Carers UK say that social care is in financial crisis too. The Government repeatedly claim that they have increased funding for social care, but eight out of 10 local councils are now restricting services to cover only those with substantial or critical needs. Two thirds say that they are closing care homes or day care centres too. The Government’s huge cuts to local council budgets mean that vital services and support for older people, their carers and their families are being eroded. That is not protecting the most vulnerable in our society, nor is it protecting taxpayers’ interests, because if we do not help older people to stay healthy and independent in their own homes, they end up in hospital.
In conclusion, when people think back to what the Prime Minister said before the election and the personal promises he made on the NHS, they now see the truth: a Government who are out of touch with what is really happening; a Government who refuse to listen to front-line staff; a Government in total denial about the true impact of their reckless NHS plans. This Government’s record on the NHS is one of promises cynically made and shamelessly being broken. I commend the motion to the House.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
It has been an interesting experience listening to the range of contributions that have been made over the past few hours. Having studied the shadow Secretary of State’s tweets yesterday afternoon heralding today’s debate, one would have expected this to be an action-packed afternoon. One remembers the grand old Duke of York marching his troops up to the top of the hill and then down to the bottom, but the grand old Duke of York had 10,000 men. For most of this debate, apart from the wind-ups, the shadow Secretary of State has barely managed to get more than six Opposition Back Benchers here, which is fewer than the Government have had, so on that point I fear that he has failed.
Let me turn to some of the speeches that I had to listen to. It was a delight to hear the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) again, after a break from the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill. Broken record his speech may have been—it was the same story—but it was worth listening to, even though the accuracy gained nothing in the telling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made an excellent speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who spoke fluently and knowledgably, on the basis of his intense and intimate experience of working in the NHS and his insights into the challenges we face in social care and improving the integration of care.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) made an interesting contribution, although at times I began to think that she might be the only person who believed what she was saying. None the less, it was interesting.
The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—as always, a jokester in our midst—put forward a serious message in a jocular way. From my experience of the NHS, both personal and professional, however, I felt that a lot of what he said bore little relation to reality. I can assure him that Government Members share the core principles of the NHS. I was also interested to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). Anyone who represents that part of the country will have a deep understanding of the problems, as well as the successes, of the local health service. He was right in what he said about the future of accident and emergency services and about the critical issue of training.
I am saddened by the fact that the Opposition have once again shown themselves to be more interested in trying to revive their own political fortunes than in improving the outcomes of patients. Once again, they prefer to scaremonger and blindly attack, rather than put forward any policies of their own. They have been a policy-free zone in this debate. Once again, they reveal themselves to be on the back foot when it comes to securing the future of the NHS, as well as wrong-headed.
The Opposition claim that the Government are cutting NHS spending, which is not only nonsense but outrageous. Surprisingly, only last summer, the right hon. Member for Leigh said—this has been quoted before, but I will repeat it—that it would be
“irresponsible to increase NHS spending in real terms”.
Ironically, that is not a view that I share. I fundamental disagree with it, because I believe that we should increase the funding of the NHS in real terms. [Interruption.] I do not care how much the right hon. Gentleman says it; if he looks at the—
Mr Burns
I will in one minute, just to disprove what the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) says.
If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to believe what I say, he can look at the chart produced by the Wales Audit Office, an independent body, which shows, if one cares to read it, real-terms spending increases in each year in the English NHS. Ironically, it also shows such increases in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but if we look at the red parts of the chart, we can see that there are certainly no increases in Labour-controlled Wales.
Andy Burnham
The Minister says that the Government are providing real-terms increases, but he does not take into account inflation or the £1 billion transfer to social care. Will he accept the figures that I have here? They are the total departmental expenditure limits published by the Treasury in July 2011. They show that, in 2009-10, £102 billion was spent on the NHS. The figure for 2010-11 was £101 billion. I invite him to tell me that those figures are not correct.
Mr Burns
One minute. The right hon. Gentleman wants a reply, so he must hold his horses.
It is the gross domestic product deflator that determines how one increases in real terms the funding of the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has once again scored an own goal in reading out those figures, because they are based on the Labour Government’s spending for the year in which they were leaving power.
Mr Burns
No, I said that I would give way once. I must now make progress.
We are increasing funding for the NHS in real terms over this Parliament, and stripping out unnecessary bureaucracy to focus precious resources on the front line and not the back office. So in place of management-led primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, we are introducing clinically led clinical commissioning groups, to put money and power in the hands of front-line doctors and nurses. That is why we are driving through the plans to make the NHS more efficient by focusing on prevention, on innovation, on productivity and on driving up the quality of care. A fact that Labour Members appear rapidly to have forgotten is that better care is very often less expensive care, and less expensive care means there is more money to spend on the health service.
Mr Burns
In Yorkshire and the Humber, the ambulance service gives PCTs a monthly list of their top 10 most frequent callers. These people are then given intensive personalised help, including the use of modern telemedicine to monitor their vital signs. The result is better care for patients as well as—
Mr Barron
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, I took part in this debate and I asked the Minister a question and requested him to answer it in his winding-up speech. Yet he will not even acknowledge that I spoke in the debate. Is there anything you can do, Mr Deputy Speaker, to help Back Benchers keep the Executive in check?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Absolutely nothing. I am sure, however, that the Minister will have heard the point.
Mr Burns
Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point, Mr Deputy Speaker? I heard it about three times in Committee and I heard it on Report; I replied each time, as well as writing to the right hon. Gentleman. He does not like the answer, so there is no point in taking the intervention again.
As I was saying, in Yorkshire and the Humber the ambulance service gives PCTs—[Interruption.] I know I have already said it, but there was so much disruption and noise that Labour Members did not hear it. In Yorkshire and the Humber, the ambulance service gives PCTs a monthly list of their top 10 most frequent callers so that they can talk to them and help them in future, saving money and staff time that can be concentrated elsewhere.
Mr Burns
Just as Labour Members are wrong about NHS funding, they are also wrong about the Bill. [Interruption.] The Bill focuses on the most important thing for patients—the outcome of the treatment they need either to cure them or to stabilise their long-term conditions. Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am finding it difficult to hear the Minister. [Interruption.] Order. He has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.
Mr Burns
Doctors, nurses and other health care professionals are being empowered to take decisions and to design the innovative, integrated services that will best serve the interests of their patients, with a resolute focus on outcomes. The NHS outcomes framework, and the growing number of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality standards will mean that patients and clinicians will be able to see clearly just how good individual providers—even individual consultant teams—are performing and then demand the treatment that they deserve.
In the short time since this Government have been elected, care for patients has improved significantly in many areas. For example, MRSA down; C. difficile, down; mixed-sex accommodation, massively down; more doctors, fewer managers; more patients with an NHS dentist; more cancer screening; the cancer drugs fund; the new 111 urgent care service; more money; less bureaucracy; and a far brighter future for the national health service. The motion before us is devoid of reality and it was backed up by a number of speeches that were divorced from the real world. Its claims are false, its premises unsound. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject it.
Question put.
Mr Speaker
We come to the next matter to be debated on this Opposition day, namely the Government’s record on environmental protection and green growth.
Mr Speaker
Who could neglect the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)? We will deal with his point of order first.
Steve Rotheram
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like some clarification from you because I do not know the answer to this question. When two of my constituents went through the Cromwell Green security check area, they were searched and photographed, obviously, but then a piece of paper they had with them—a pensions petition signed by the staff of Four Oaks primary school—was taken from them. When they asked why, they were told it was a security risk. Can you clarify what might have been meant by a piece of paper being a security risk? Were staff frightened that somebody might get a paper cut?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having given advance notice of his intention to raise it. I have a fertile imagination but it is stretched to the limits by an attempt to discover what on earth could be the problem here. The hon. Gentleman and others will know that some items are considered out of order for bringing into the House, but I cannot imagine why this would fall into that category. I think it only right to say that I will have a conversation and look into the matter. I know that the staff of the House always do their best, but my instant reaction is that I cannot imagine why it should have caused offence. Moreover, I cannot, off the top of my head, credit the idea that constituents of the hon. Gentleman’s coming to the House would cause offence.
Environmental Protection and Green Growth
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 0 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the UK risks being left behind in its attempts to attract global investment in environmental technologies; agrees with the British Retail Consortium that the recent Waste Review is a disappointment; further agrees with the Nature Check report by 29 environmental charities that the Government has failed to deliver its environmental goals; condemns the Government’s 27 per cent. cut in flood defence investment from £354 million to £259 million a year; calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s five point plan for jobs and growth and bring forward spending on rural infrastructure projects for flood defences and rural broadband; further calls on the Government to raise the UK recycling target to 70 per cent. by 2025 to create an additional 50,000 jobs; and believes the Government should ensure mandatory carbon emissions reporting for all large UK companies to kick-start green jobs and growth.
May I begin by expressing Opposition Members’ regret that the Environment Secretary is unable to join us for the debate? I understand she is giving evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it is a very short walk from the Grimond room in Portcullis House to the Chamber and I hope that we have the opportunity to debate these issues with her at a future date. I would certainly look forward to that.
Mary Creagh
It is at the Minister’s discretion whether she appears in the Chamber. She could have been informed this morning about an urgent question and would have had to appear before the House. The motion was tabled last night at about 5 o’clock, so she has had almost 24 hours to prepare her speech. I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), has been beavering away on his remarks.
Let me start by taking the House back to 2006 and a fresh-faced Leader of the then Opposition visiting the Arctic circle. We all remember the Prime Minister hugging a husky, as well as “Vote blue, go green”. The Tory manifesto told us,
“That is why we have put green issues back at the heart of our politics and that is why they will be at the heart of our government.”
Several megatonnes of carbon dioxide and hot air were emitted by a variety of Conservative MPs confessing their green damascene conversion. In opposition, going green was an essential part of detoxifying the Tory brand, but in the 18 short months that the Government have been in power we have seen progress stall on the environment. As their disastrous economic policies take hold, with confidence failing, unemployment and inflation rising and growth flatlining, the green talk has not been matched by green action.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has had a disastrous settlement in the comprehensive spending review—the second-biggest spending cut of any Department—taking £2 billion in cash out of the environment over the next four years. The Secretary of State was bounced into a disastrous plan to raise £100 million by selling England’s forests, and we await the review of the Bishop of Liverpool, Bishop James Jones. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the parliamentary private secretary is distributing lines to take from the Government. It is always good to see the briefing machine in action. We hope the brief has been printed on Forest Stewardship Council paper.
The Government have abolished the Sustainable Development Commission, the Government’s watchdog on sustainable development.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Would not the Government do better to try to close the tax gap and stop people hiding their money in foreign accounts, rather than cutting valuable budgets?
Mary Creagh
Yes, I agree, and I know that the Government are working to close tax loopholes, as we did in government.
DEFRA published its “Mainstreaming sustainable development” strategy in February—just seven pages to cut across the whole of Government. Its sustainable development programme board has not met since December last year and the sustainable development policy working group has not met since November. We got those answers in June 2011, so we can see that sustainable development is clearly no longer at the heart of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
What does this add up to? The Government have a plan for cuts but no plan for the environment, yet at the Tory conference the Environment Secretary told her colleagues:
“I passionately believe going green is both a moral and economic imperative.”
The very next day the Chancellor told the conference:
“We’re going to cut our carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.”
It was the day the husky died. The greenest Government ever were not even the greenest Government in 2010.
Our Labour Government were the greenest Government, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who makes a welcome return to our team, for the progress that he made on the environment when he was a Minister.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I note the comment, “Our Labour Government were the greenest Government”. We were 25th out of the 27 countries in the EU for renewables production in 2009-10. Is that what the hon. Lady means by “the greenest Government”?
Mary Creagh
We on the Labour Benches have always protected the environment, whether by setting up the national parks or introducing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Climate Change Act 2008. These show our green leadership. Will the Chancellor’s comments and the spat with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change enhance or reduce our leadership on these issues in Europe?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Lady think a little humility might be in order, given that when we take into account the UK’s share of international aviation and shipping emissions, under Labour’s three terms of office, greenhouse gas emissions rose, rather than fell?
Mary Creagh
A little humility might be in order for the hon. Lady, who ignores the fact that we were the first Government in the world to legislate for binding emissions targets.
Mary Creagh
I shall make a little progress and I will give way again.
Today we see open warfare breaking out between Government Departments over mixed messages to UK plc, with the headline in The Independent, “Osborne’s anti-green agenda splits Coalition” and today the speech from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and snub to the Chancellor to cheers from a business audience. The only people who benefit from such Cabinet warfare are the climate sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, who want us to do less.
Our motion today expresses our concern at this internecine warfare and proposes three steps that the Department can take now to restore business confidence in the green agenda: bringing forward infrastructure spending on flood defence and broadband, as suggested in Labour’s five-point plan for growth; committing to mandatory carbon reporting to stimulate green innovation; and higher waste targets to drive private sector job creation. I shall address each of those in turn.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I represent a flood-hit constituency in the Severn valley. We had serious floods in 1998, 2000 and 2007. Since May 2010, Pershore, Powick, Uckinghall, Kempsey and two schemes in Upton-upon-Severn have been started or completed, compared with the record under the hon. Lady’s Government, where we got one scheme in 13 years.
Mary Creagh
That is an honourable intervention from the hon. Lady. I think it was The Guardian that reported that around 500 flood defence schemes are currently in abeyance. I am keen to hear from the Minister about the future of those schemes.
In the last two years of the Labour Government, spending on flood defences rose by 33%. We know that flooding and other extreme weather events are likely to increase with global warming. We saw only yesterday the devastation that floods can cause, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the families of the angler who was swept into the sea at Redcar and the two people who died in Ireland. We saw the heartache and the huge cost of flooding in Cornwall and Cumbria in 2009 and in Yorkshire and Gloucestershire in 2007. In this country 5 million homes are at risk from flooding.
In opposition, the Prime Minister called for extra funding for the flood defences budget—hear, hear. Under Labour the budget rose, but the Under-Secretary has cut spending on this essential part of our infrastructure from £354 million in 2010 to just £259 million this year and every year until 2015, which is a 27% cut. Nearly £500 million has been taken out of flood defences.
Communities at risk from flooding need a strong advocate arguing their case at the heart of Government. The Environment Agency tells us that the cost-benefit ratio of all flood defence schemes means that for every £1 we put in we get £8 back. That is money saved on public safety by the Home Office, on lost hours in the NHS, on disruption to transport and on the cost to the Department for Communities and Local Government of clean-up and re-housing people.
The Environment Agency has told us that many of the flood schemes have been deferred indefinitely, but the Minister says that they have merely been postponed, so we hope that he will clarify that today. We call on him to bring forward the planned flood defence investment to create the private sector construction and engineering employment that the country needs and to ensure that towns and cities that need flood protection get it as soon as possible.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend say something about the effect of the cuts in flood defences? Constituents in areas that have been flooded are having difficulty in obtaining insurance. With the statement of principles running out in 2013, what will be the effects of that?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. She has spoken eloquently and at length about the flood insurance deserts that have resulted from the chilling effect of the cuts. One of the key recommendations of the Pitt review, which followed the 2007 floods and affected my constituency of Wakefield, was that flood defence spending should rise by more than inflation every year. With inflation at 5%, that would mean an increase of more than 5% this year.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
This is not a party political question. The Scots argue strongly that one of the best ways to deal with flooding is not to allow construction on flood plains. Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that one of the real errors of the past 15 years has been our construction policy, rather than the amount of money put into flood defences?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but I did not hear him thank us for the flood defences that were put in place in Cumbria following the terrible floods there.
Mary Creagh
It was our pleasure. I know that Carlisle also suffered terribly. We cannot stop all development. The Thames Gateway development is happening on areas that are also potentially flood plains, but we must ensure that there is a joined-up strategy across Government and that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and the Home Office look at the real costs of flooding. At the moment insurers pay out, but it is not in their interests to stop flood events, because ultimately it is the reinsurers who pay the costs. We need to drill down and get a true account from across Government of the costs of flood events.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Apart from the fact that we have £2.1 billion prepared for flood defences, does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite right that in my constituency, which was affected by the floods to which she referred, proper consultation is going on with the Environment Agency to deal with the Severn estuary and that a timely imposition of action is much better than something that is rushed? Furthermore, does that not show the importance of localism in such considerations?
Mary Creagh
It is clear that localism is absolutely vital and local communities should be able to have a say on developments in their area, but I am not clear how that links in with the Government’s national planning policy framework, which has undefined “sustainable development” at its heart. No one can say what “sustainable development” is.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am not sure whether I should thank the hon. Lady personally for any flood defences that have been built in my constituency over the past 13 years, but I will certainly do so if it allows me to continue my intervention, which expands on the point that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made. Do Labour Members agree that we need to tighten planning policy, particularly in relation to empowering the Environment Agency and giving it a veto in areas of flood risk and on flood plains?
Mary Creagh
We cannot allow all development to be killed off, but I agree that there is no point building and selling homes that are not sustainable, and that will be uninsurable, un-mortgageable and unfit for human habitation if they are hit by successive flood events.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
With a reduction in the flood defence budget to pre-Pitt levels, does my hon. Friend agree that, in getting the deficit down, there is confusion between revenue spending and capital investment? Surely, capital investment means building up assets to protect people’s homes and businesses, but all the Government are doing is playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and futures.
Mary Creagh
That is a very good point, and there is also a direct impact on construction and engineering jobs, which are flatlining. For the record, by the way, may I make it clear that I was not requesting any personal thanks? All thanks should be directed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who is sitting next to me.
Labour is the party of jobs and growth not just in cities, but in towns and villages throughout this great country of ours. We are standing up for fairness in the countryside, as yesterday’s debate about the Agricultural Wages Board showed.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned Carlisle. The terrible floods that occurred in my constituency in 2009 created havoc and devastation, and led to the loss of life of a very brave police officer. Carlisle, on whose flood defences £30 million had been spent, was not flooded, but the estimate of the damage that would have occurred without those defences is between £70-odd million and £80 million. Surely, these cuts are only short-term savings.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I read in Hansard the debates he had last year on the issue. The floods were devastating, and he played a huge leadership role in his community, bringing it together in the very difficult months that followed, when without a bridge it was split by the river.
We want strong rural communities where rural businesses can sell their goods and services direct and file their accounts over the internet, and where families have the same opportunities as people in towns and cities. In government, Labour promised universal rural broadband by 2012 and universal high-speed broadband by 2015, yet this Government have said that universal broadband will come only in 2015, and only as long as cash-strapped councils, which have also seen their budgets cut by one third, stump up half the money.
Broadband is essential if we are to tackle the social and financial exclusion that many in the countryside face. Speeding up rural broadband should not be part of a plan B; it should have been in the Government’s plan A. So, we call on them to speed up spending on this 21st century infrastructure in order to stimulate growth and private sector jobs in rural economies.
Let me turn to carbon reporting. In January 2010, several Tory and Lib Dem Members wrote to Labour’s then Business Secretary, calling for mandatory carbon reporting. They included the current Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey)—all now Ministers. In that letter, they said:
“There will be further economic benefits, accelerating the development of the low carbon economy and giving the City the backing it needs to become the world leader in carbon accounting and reporting.”
What a difference two years make.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I know that the Labour party has an obsession with carbon emissions, and indeed the Climate Change Act 2008 was evidence of that, but the motion is about job creation. Carbon reduction has led to an increase in consumer and business electricity prices, and to energy-intensive industries relocating outside the United Kingdom, with the British Air Transport Association saying only last week, “If we continue down this road it will affect the aviation industry’s competitiveness,” so will the hon. Lady explain how that fits with job creation?
Mary Creagh
It is not a matter of either/or. Unlike the Government, far-sighted companies have realised that reporting environmental impact helps them to reduce their costs, to improve their production processes, and drives innovation in products and services. That is where we were a leader in the green economy.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern and frustration that, on carbon reporting, proposals to display energy certificates were made in the Energy Bill Committee? That was called for by many large companies that want reporting of carbon emissions. We were frustrated because, despite saying before they came to government that they supported such a measure, Government Members did not do so in Committee, even though the proposal came from a Conservative Member, who had then to vote against it when we pressed it to a Division.
Mary Creagh
What a sorry tale. Again, the power of the Whips is demonstrated, even in Committee. That shows the collective amnesia on green issues that both parties in government are demonstrating.
David Mowat
Does the hon. Lady believe that if we had had more carbon reporting in the past 13 years we would now be higher than 25th of the 27 EU countries in terms of renewables? For the avoidance of doubt, and so that the House is aware, the two countries that we were ahead of in renewables in 2010 were Malta and Luxembourg.
Mary Creagh
We have leadership in offshore wind, and that was restated by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change today. I was at a business breakfast meeting with representatives of several large manufacturers of regeneration technology, and they said that the most important thing they want from the Government is certainty. I am not sure that climate change was at the top of our agenda 13 years ago, but we have realised over time that it is already factored in and that we will have changing climate over the next 50 years, so we must do something now if we are to preserve and conserve the earth’s resources. We have only one planet.
David Mowat
I agree with everything that the shadow Secretary of State has said, but I am concerned that after 13 years of the previous Government we were 25th of 27 countries, beating only Malta and Luxembourg.
Mary Creagh
When we were in government, we invested £60 million to allow wind turbine manufacturers to invest in our ports.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend should ignore the campaign against having an environmental agenda, because it is not against business. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills visited David Brown Gear Systems in Huddersfield—I am the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, although many people from Colne Valley also work there. We are now specialising in offshore wind power, which is providing jobs and high technology. There is real money in the environment, but the Government are retreating from their green agenda.
Mary Creagh
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
I must tell the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that a green company in my constituency, Logicor, manufactures a product called a green plug, and has business angel backing to roll it out nationally and internationally. The plug fits to an iron or other appliance, and automatically turns it off after 15 or 20 minutes if someone leaves the room and forgets to do so. It has been shown that that can reduce carbon emissions in the home by about 50%. The company’s research demonstrated that what we all fail to switch off most often is our computer printer. I share that with the House and the nation for those who wish do their bit on climate change.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
There is an opportunity to promote jobs and growth in the green sector by cutting the rate of VAT to 5%. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are several anomalies in this area. For example, installing heating controls attract a reduced rate of 5%, but replacing an old boiler with a modern, energy-efficient one does not. This is surely an opportunity to boost the economy and small business.
Mary Creagh
Indeed. Our proposal to reduce VAT to 5% on people’s improvements to their homes in making them more heat and energy-efficient is absolutely part of this agenda.
Luciana Berger
I am not sure where the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) got his figures from. Every year, Pew Environment Group brings out a report that measures countries’ investment in clean tech and renewables. It shows that in 2009, under a Labour Government, we were fifth in the world, and in one year alone, we have dropped to 13th—the largest drop of any G20 country, by 70%—as a result of the policy uncertainty under this Government and the lack of investment forthcoming. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about that drop and how it might impact?
Mary Creagh
I certainly do; once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Uncertainty is the thing that business likes least, but unfortunately uncertainty is what they are getting, in bucketfuls.
David Mowat
The shadow Minister is very generous and I thank her for giving way for absolutely the last time. I got my figures from an EU website, so they are in the public domain. We are 25th out of 27, the two countries that we beat are Malta and Luxembourg, and that is a matter of public record.
Mary Creagh
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the useful publications from the European Union. I do not know which way he voted on Monday, but I am sure that that will be noted by the Whips. [Interruption.] Well, he is using the European Union to back up his argument, and that is very good news.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, the amount of opposition from Tories and Lib Dems to all applications for wind farms in their areas? Our Government would have made much greater progress—I can say that as a Minister who was there at the time—had it not been for such opposition to developing renewables.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s role in government. Obviously, the decisions that we made in government paved the way for Mitsubishi and Siemens to think about relocating here. We do not want to drive energy-intensive industries or jobs overseas, because in many cases such industries are contributing directly to green development—for example, the steel that is pressed for offshore wind turbines that are manufactured in the UK. Companies in these industries want transparency so that there is a level playing field, showcasing the best and exchanging knowledge so that they can reduce their costs and their environmental impact. We pay tribute to the companies that have already done that work.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
I represent the seat that holds the birthplace of industry, and, some would therefore argue, the birthplace of global warming. These things are probably best done locally. Some local authorities have incredibly good partnerships with businesses. My hon. Friend will be aware that Ricoh, the technology company, has its European headquarters in my constituency. It is a fairly energy-intensive company, but it puts over 90% of its waste product back into the industrial process, internally or with partners. That is an example of where an energy-intensive business can do a lot for the environment as well.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that contribution. I agree that it is very important that these companies now look through the whole of their manufacturing processes. I will deal with the role of waste in a moment.
In July this year, the Aldersgate Group, a collection of charities with large companies such as BT, PepsiCo and Microsoft, commissioned a report that provided an independent analysis of the impact assessment produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on mandatory carbon reporting. Taking just one of the options—option 3—Aldersgate found that DEFRA had overestimated the total costs by up to £4.6 billion and underestimated the benefits by £980 million. It said that DEFRA’s impact assessment had ignored wider behavioural change, product and service innovation and other strategic advantages from carbon reporting. It also states that DEFRA underestimates the benefits to companies over time, because the DEFRA model assumes that once companies have reduced their emissions in year one, they will not reduce them again over the following nine years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) said, large companies such as Ricoh and Tata get very good consultants in every year to see how they can drive down their costs and environmental impact.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I know that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that these are complicated issues. I want to turn her attention to the food industry. Under her Government, the amount of food that this country imported rose exponentially. The carbon footprint of importing food, for example beef from Brazil or asparagus from water-stressed Mexico, is enormous.
Mary Creagh
That is a very good point. I wonder whether the Minister will say something about Labour’s “Food 2030” strategy, which looked at food security both nationally and internationally, on which the Department has been eloquently silent since the Government came to power.
To return to carbon reporting, I cannot help but wonder whether the Department is deliberately inflating costs and reducing benefits as part of a go-slow on these areas. We know that that go-slow is driven by the climate change sceptics at the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. When can we expect the results of the Department’s consultations? What are the Minister’s plans to help companies whose biggest environmental impact is not carbon-related, but water consumption, as in the case of the food industry, the amount of waste they send to landfill or the natural resources that they consume?
The Government can drive green innovation in the food industry, our largest manufacturing sector, by using public procurement as they are the UK’s largest buyer. DEFRA is charged with overseeing the Government’s buying standards on sustainable food. Recent figures show that just 11% of Department for Work and Pensions food is sourced to UK animal welfare standards. In today’s Farmers Weekly, there is the extraordinary spectacle of a DEFRA Minister slamming his own Department for not meeting higher food standards, instead of standing up and taking responsibility for the poor performance. It was not like that when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore was in government. I suppose that he wanted to get his criticism in before mine today. That is no way to treat the nation’s civil servants.
Waste is big business. The sector employs 142,000 people and has a turnover of £11 billion. There are companies that collect waste, treat it and turn it into new resources and energy for the nation, as in the case of Ricoh that was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I commend to my hon. Friend the partnership between the Labour-led Greater Manchester waste disposal authority and Viridor Laing, which has invested £630 million into new high-tech mechanical separation facilities, including one near the edge of my constituency in Bredbury in the seat of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell). The partnership’s aim is to compost 50% of waste and to reduce by 75% the waste that goes from Greater Manchester households to landfill.
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to that scheme, because it has created certainty not just for the council, but for employment in the area and it will drive down the council’s waste emissions. Biodegradable material decomposing in landfill generates 40% of the UK’s methane emissions and 3% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. In government, Labour trebled household recycling from 11% to 40% with schemes such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The Government’s recent waste review was a missed opportunity to boost recycling and create new green jobs. It was overshadowed by the in-fighting over weekly bin collections between the Secretary of State for chicken tikka masala and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Andrew George
Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that a weakness in the motion and in her waste policy is that they are based purely on measuring recycling levels? Surely it would be better to measure the success of policies such as those in the waste review using increases in waste, rather than in recycling, because it is theoretically possible for recycling and landfill to increase at the same time.
Mary Creagh
I am sure that would be a great idea in a perfect world, but we are living in the real world and need to comply with the EU waste framework directive so as not to incur huge EU infraction fines. I will come on to what that means.
The three devolved Governments have all adopted an ambitious target of 60% of waste being recycled by 2020, and Scotland and Wales are aiming for 70% by 2025. That leaves England with the weakest recycling target in the UK, which is the target for the UK as a whole to meet the bare legal European minimum of 50% by 2020. There is a bitter irony in that, because the more the devolved nations achieve, the less England will have to deliver to reach the UK target. House of Commons Library research conducted for my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) shows that if the devolved nations meet their targets, England will need to recycle only 47.6% of waste by 2020 to meet its target.
Last week I visited the Rexam can manufacturing plant in Wakefield. Rexam works continually to develop its environmental performance, focusing on objectives including reducing the consumption of resources—I think that was the point that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) was making. Over the past year, the plant has reduced its gas consumption by a quarter and its electricity consumption by 30%. The cans, which are ones that we all drink out of, such as Coca-Cola cans, are manufactured to a width of 97 microns, the width of two human hairs. That is another little fact that I can share with the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that supermarkets have a role to play in reducing waste, by reducing food packaging, by not encouraging people to throw away food on unrealistic sell-by dates, and by supporting projects such as FoodCycle, of which I have recently become a patron? That project takes unused food from supermarkets to community cafés and helps to feed people who would be unable to feed themselves. Does she agree that that is an absolutely brilliant project, and that supermarkets ought to be doing more to support it?
Mary Creagh
I do indeed, and I know that many of them are doing that. I have had a debate with the Co-operative about its naked cucumbers. [Interruption.] I pay tribute to charities that are working to recycle unwanted food.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is so much chuntering going on that I cannot hear about these naked cucumbers through all the noise.
Mary Creagh
I give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith).
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way on the subject of inappropriate vegetables. I believe that up to 40% of fruit and veg is thrown away before it even reaches the shop. Does that not imply that the supermarkets should be doing a lot more to counter the perverse incentive on producers to provide superficially perfect but no more valuable produce? Should we not address that?
Mary Creagh
Supermarkets do encourage shoppers with deals that may not be as cheap as they first appear, such as buy one, get one free. However, people are now shopping much more carefully. We are hearing from supermarkets about the re-emergence of the cash shopper. People are coming in with a certain amount in their purse or wallet to spend, and not going over their budget at all. They are being much more careful about what they buy and what they consume or throw away.
Of course, all food that is not consumed is a waste. It is a waste of water and of the carbon used in the logistics and transportation. However, there is some necessary food waste, such as apple peelings and banana skins, and we have to ensure that such waste is dealt with. Packaging businesses are taking action on the environment, so I feel the Government are really out of touch on the issue.
Last week, 29 environmental charities published their “Nature Check” report, which showed that the Government were meeting just two of the 16 coalition environmental targets. Across the country, people who voted blue have started to question the Government’s environmental record. How can they abolish Labour’s regional housing targets and then change the planning system so that councils are left in chaos and confusion and local communities are left out of the mix? How can a Government who have cut £2 billion from the environment budget deliver a better environment, and how can a Government who believe in a small state and are anti-regulation deliver environmental progress for people and our planet?
Next year we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Rio Earth summit, whose agreements were signed by the last Tory Government, and the 31st anniversary of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I hope that the louring figures of the Chancellor and the Minister for the Cabinet Office will not prevent the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from celebrating those landmark successes.
In Labour’s vision for a green economy, value and growth will be maximised, and natural assets will be managed sustainably. It will be supported by a thriving low-carbon and environmental goods and services sector; environmental damage will be reduced; and a skilled work force will ensure that we innovate and keep our global competitive edge.
In the coming autumn statement, we need a comprehensive green growth strategy from the Chancellor. Governments around the world are attracting investment in environmental technologies and the UK economy risks being left behind, but I am afraid that he has sapped green business confidence in the UK as a leader in climate change technology. Once again, he has shown that he is out of touch with business and driven by dogma. I urge the House to support the Opposition motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
May I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) for tabling this motion? I could not have wanted a better form of words in order to extol the virtues of this Government and to point out the manifest failings of the previous one. If I had a better handle on the usual channels, as I think they are called, I might have got a member of the Backbench Business Committee to produce just such a motion, because it allows me to discuss some of the excellent things that we are doing to make this the greenest Government ever.
I start by apologising on behalf of the Secretary of State for the fact that she is not here. I know that many members of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would have liked to be here too. However, there is a courtesy, which the Secretary of State feels very strongly, which says that Select Committees are very important for holding Ministers to account. We took that view in opposition, and now we are in government we intend to ensure that we make ourselves available when Select Committees wish to question us at length.
With her customary generosity of spirit and her sunny nature, the hon. Member for Wakefield made a number of points about the Government, but perhaps failed to mention some of the good things. I hope she and the House will forgive me if I comment on the wording of the motion and on where we are moving forward. On environmental technologies, the hon. Lady did not feel the urge to mention the £3 billion that has been invested through the green investment bank, and she felt unable to talk about the vast amounts that that will generate in the private sector, or about the 26 million homes that will benefit from the green deal, which is the largest retrofit of infrastructure in our homes to benefit those on low incomes and make us a greener country.
The hon. Lady did not talk about the fourth carbon budget, which so many groups recognised and praised us for achieving, or about Ian Cheshire of the Kingfisher Group, who will be leading business opportunities for green growth. In this financial year alone, £1.7 billion has been invested in environmental technologies, creating 9,000 jobs all over the country.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister is acutely aware of how devastated east Yorkshire was by flooding in 2007. One of the most worrying aspects of the Labour party manifesto was a promise to cut capital spending by 50%. Will he assure us that flood protection will get the required investment, and that this Government are committed to flood protection in a way that the Labour party were not before the last election?
Richard Benyon
Before the election, the previous Chancellor announced that there would be a 50% cut in DEFRA’s capital spend. If Labour had won that election, it might have said that it would not cut flood protection, but in that case, what would it have cut? The hon. Member for Wakefield used the tired old argument that if we are to compare apples with apples, we must compare this Government with the last two years of the previous one. However, in this four years, there is an 8% cut compared with the previous four years. Bearing in mind the cuts across the Government and the appalling legacy that we were left, we have made flooding an absolute priority.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I thank the Minister for giving way so early on. Will he correct the supposition of the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) that the previous Government said anything about cutting flood defence spending? We did not say that. I shall put that on the record again. The Minister is right that we would have to find the cuts somewhere, but we never indicated that they would come from flood defence, because of the impact that would have on people’s businesses, homes and, potentially, lives.
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman forgets that a 50% cut in capital spending has to come from somewhere. I entirely accept that he might have said there would have been no cut to flood defence spending if Labour had won the election, but nobody believes that it would have survived in its entirety.
Richard Benyon
I shall make some progress, and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady talked about waste and recycling. It is reasonable for an Opposition to push a Government in certain directions, but they cannot just pluck a recycling target of 70% from the air, even though I would certainly aspire to such a target. However, recycling targets on their own are not a measure of how well a Government are doing. Instead, it is vital that we consider the matter in the round and that we push waste issues up the hierarchy. We cannot simply imagine a day when we could move to 70% recycling without getting the industry working properly with us to ensure that there are markets for recyclates and that we have an absolute plan, which is what we have done through our waste initiative.
Joan Ruddock
I remind the Minister that, in 2003, a private Member’s Bill that I introduced and which became an Act, imposed on local authorities a mandatory duty to recycle at least two waste streams, with a deadline of December 2010. What action did he take on the small minority of local authorities that did not comply last year?
Richard Benyon
We absolutely want to meet the EU’s waste reduction targets and the recycling targets, and we will certainly move towards 50%, but there are local factors to be considered.
Richard Benyon
I am trying to answer the right hon. Lady.
Local factors apply. These matters can, and should, be dealt with locally, and local councils should be held accountable when they fail. I shall come on to that in a minute.
Joan Ruddock
I wonder whether the Minister heard me correctly. The duty is mandatory. What has he done with the local authorities that did not meet that mandatory target?
Richard Benyon
I shall get back to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I am sure she understands that this is not an area of my brief, but the responsibility of my noble Friend Lord Taylor. However, I shall certainly get an answer to the right hon. Lady’s question.
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. The five or six matters that he outlined at the beginning of his speech were not DEFRA issues; they come under the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I am glad that he has been joined by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). Does he support his hon. Friend’s proposal to introduce mandatory carbon reporting as soon as possible?
Richard Benyon
We are moving towards it, but I shall come on to that in a minute.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) for his intervention on flood defences. We are talking about an 8% reduction in spending. That is the fair comparison. I know that the hon. Member for Wakefield was being flippant, but it identifies a problem in her party—that people do not have to thank her or her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for money spent on flood defences. This is taxpayers’ money, and it is vital that that taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible way. We want to ensure that, over the next few years, we spend taxpayers’ money in the most effective way, because, as the hon. Lady correctly pointed out, we get a good return on taxpayers’ money if it is spent in the right way.
Our new partnership funding scheme will see the taxpayers’ pound going further. We are seeing efficiencies in the Environment Agency that mean that more houses and properties will be protected; and when we take our indicative list forward next year, I hope that many hon. Members’ constituencies will benefit from new schemes with new partnership funding that will bring benefits to those communities.
Tony Cunningham
I am not going to make a party political point; I want to look forward rather than backwards. Will the hon. Gentleman visit my constituency? Next month is the second anniversary of the devastating floods. If he agrees to come, he will get some criticism about the maintenance of rivers and streams, and so on, but he will also see for himself some of the superb work that local people have done.
Richard Benyon
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have huge respect for the leadership that he showed at the time of the floods and for the work that he has done since to push me and my Department in various ways to improve the resilience of that community against flooding. I would be delighted to visit. I would also like to consult him on the development work that we are doing to create new internal drainage boards in the area to deal with precisely the issues that he has raised. I hope that we can ensure better flood resilience in future.
Richard Benyon
I will give way for the last time and then make some progress.
Mary Creagh
What I said was certainly not meant to sound arrogant; it was a debating point, made in jest to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), about the fact that his community had benefited from flood defences, yet he is now part of a Government who are cutting off those defences. Let me challenge the Minister again on the figures. He talks about an 8% cut to DEFRA spending, but can he name another area of Government accounting where spending has been calculated over the previous four years, instead of taking a baseline year which was the last year that Labour was in government? His figure of 8% is based on four years of previous spending compared with four years of future spending. No other Department is doing that; it is an example of funny DEFRA maths.
Richard Benyon
It is certainly not that; it is a sensible comparison. One cannot compare how the hon. Lady’s party behaved in government in the months and years preceding a general election with how it would behave now, when the Opposition have announced to the House how much they would have reduced spending. It is a tired old canard to keep up this talk about spending. She would be much better off looking forward and recognising that the new regime and policies that we are introducing will have a good effect.
The important point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made about insurance is something that exercises us greatly. We hope to make an announcement in the near future about how we will take forward the statement of principles after it concludes in 2013.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the Environment Agency earlier. I wonder whether he shares my concern about its failure to take action in my constituency against the discharge of raw sewage into a local brook and on to farmland. It has instead suggested a policy of co-operation and education with the group responsible for that behaviour. Will he agree to take an interest in this matter and resolve it quickly so that proper environmental protection is ensured?
Richard Benyon
I shall certainly look at that situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is vital that we take action to clean up rivers. We have put £92 million more into the budget to try to improve the quality of the water in our rivers. Anybody who is polluting should be penalised, and that is what the Environment Agency is for.
Rory Stewart
In fact, we have not experienced capital cuts in Cumbria; rather, the Environment Agency is being considerably more flexible than it was six or nine months ago, responding to communities and clearing out gravel. The progress is good under the current Government; I would like to put that on the record.
Richard Benyon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The new partnership scheme will end the problem of communities failing, year after year, to get just above the line needed for their schemes to go ahead. There will now be clarity in the system, so that people can see exactly where they are on the scale and what needs to be geared up, by whatever means, for their scheme to get above the line.
May I express my admiration, in a perverse way, for the nerve of the hon. Member for Wakefield for mentioning the word “broadband” in the motion and in her speech? That is masterful chutzpah. I could ridicule her for it, but part of me secretly admires it from somebody in a party that did so little in government. This country was at the bottom of every conceivable league table, and the previous Government had a scheme that involved raising huge amounts of money from some kind of telephone tax that nobody thought would work. This Government have made the issue an absolute priority.
The hon. Lady is right to make broadband an issue in a green debate. Broadband allows people to work and learn from home, which reduces congestion. The Government also believe that this is a social inclusion issue, however. Broadband will assist people who are old, ill, mentally ill, out of work or on a low income, particularly those who live in remote communities, out of all proportion to any other factor in their lives. It is therefore absolutely right to include it in this debate, and I am very happy to talk about the investment that we are making, including the £530 million that is being spent through Broadband Delivery UK and the £20 million that has been geared up from DEFRA’s funds for the hard-to-reach in our most rural communities, as well as the £150 million recently announced by the Chancellor to assist the roll-out of mobile 4G access, which can provide coverage for broadband on mobile phone networks. That is also very good news.
The hon. Lady also made some interesting points about the five-point plan for growth and jobs, but it would simply add to the scale of debt. How can we deal with the debt problem by adding to it? Nothing should add to our debt. The shadow Chancellor’s five-point plan would not be a way of gearing up jobs and growth in the green economy or in any other. As in so many areas, Labour Members have absolutely no credibility when they talk about the economy.
Kelvin Hopkins
Spending more, particularly in labour-intensive areas such as those we are debating today, would generate far more, through the multiplier effect, than the original investment, which we would get back through taxation.
Richard Benyon
I do not want to get into a long economic debate, but the hon. Gentleman is right in one sense. Green growth, if we do it right, could create jobs. I am afraid that I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) that this is an entirely binary issue involving either growth or the environment. The Government firmly believe that the two go together, and our policies reflect that.
The Government have an ambitious programme to protect and enhance our natural environment. Given the unprecedented financial difficulties, we cannot simply pull the financial levers to deliver change. Instead, we are committed to leading by example, being the greenest Government ever, mainstreaming sustainable development and enabling the value of the natural environment and biodiversity to be reflected when decisions are made. In the past 17 months, we have made good progress. We have a strong track record of environmental leadership, at home and internationally. We have published the national eco-system assessment, the first analysis of the benefits that the UK’s natural environment provides to society and to our continuing economic prosperity. This is ground-breaking research from over 500 UK scientists and economists, and the UK is the world leader in this regard.
Mr Graham Stuart
Does the Minister foresee a time when natural capital will form part of the national accounts in the same way that other capital assets now do?
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend is prescient; I am about to come to that point.
We have published the cross-government natural environment White Paper, the first in 20 years. It seeks to put the value of nature at the heart of our decision making in Government, local communities and businesses, properly valuing the economic and social benefits of a healthy natural environment while continuing to recognise nature’s intrinsic value. It set out 92 commitments, and we published an update on progress earlier this month. This has made us a world leader in this field.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister has just mentioned the natural environment White Paper. What does he think of the criticism of the White Paper, and of the “England Biodiversity Strategy: Biodiversity 2020”, by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which stated recently that
“both are singularly lacking in implementation plans”,
and that
“we need more than fine words, we need a clear delivery plan and we need it soon”?
Are the Government not simply giving us more greenwash, to give the impression that they are the greenest Government ever?
Richard Benyon
I think the hon. Lady shows a churlishness that is not in her character. She is usually among the most generous of Members. May I suggest that she looks at the natural environment White Paper and its 92 commitments and understands how we are valuing nature as part of how government works. I am happy to quote the recent remarks of the Chancellor who said:
“we need to know what the problem is before we can set about finding a solution. Better and fuller information is a crucial…step towards promoting environmental sustainability.”
He was talking about accounting for sustainability, and getting natural capital hardwired into Government at every level has been a crucial part of taking forward this work through the natural environment White Paper, which I commend to hon. Members.
Andrew George
May I interpret the last intervention as a constructive contribution, indicating that the Labour party wishes to engage with the issue of biodiversity? Biodiversity standards fell during the 13 years of the last Government. All the parties need to work on the biodiversity strategy and, indeed, on the natural environment White Paper and attempt to improve those standards. That is what I believe all the parties should be doing in the forthcoming year.
Richard Benyon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Let me say with absolute clarity that we want to reverse the decline of biodiversity in this country, not just because we value nature in its esoteric sense, but because we value it in its economic sense as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are working with organisations like the RSPB and many others to try to ensure that the strategies we have brought forward are effective and workable. The indicators suggest that, with the right commitment, we can achieve this.
Richard Benyon
I have promised my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), but if he will forgive me, I will give way first to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
Mr Sheerman
The Minister will know that Members of all parties care very much about the environment. I know we sometimes play games of point scoring, but one thing that the Minister should be very cautious about today is mentioning the name of the Chancellor. Members of all parties are worried about his recent remarks, as he seems to be undermining the green agenda that many of us thought was refreshing. The Minister, not us, brought up the point about the Chancellor.
Richard Benyon
I urge the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect on this subject, to look at exactly what the Chancellor is doing. He should look at the £3 billion that the Treasury has invested in the green investment bank and at the commitment we have made on a whole range of other issues. I can assure him that if he did, his concerns would be allayed.
Zac Goldsmith
Learning how to value ecosystems is a prerequisite for tackling the loss of biodiversity and the environmental crisis generally. I am not often accused by colleagues of sycophancy, but I do want to say that the work in the natural environment White Paper puts us ahead of almost any other country in the world. It is work that should be absolutely commended and celebrated across the board.
Richard Benyon
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that Labour Members were listening to what he said.
Gavin Shuker
The Minister is extremely generous in allowing interventions. I was initially trying to be well behaved and not to intervene on him, but I would like to echo the comment that the natural environment White Paper is fine in and of itself. There will be consensus about biodiversity—an issue about which I believe the Minister feels strongly—across the House. The key issue, however, is resource. There are many environmental and local groups applying to get funding to do the things that are set out in the White Paper, but only £7.5 million has been put behind it.
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman is talking about our nature improvement areas, and I would be happy to talk further to him about them and about the level of our ambition, which exceeds that of the previous Government. There is no money left, as someone once said when he left a note in a desk. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman of that, but we have made biodiversity and reversing its decline an absolute priority—both for this Department and the Government.
Richard Benyon
I am sorry, but I really must make some progress.
We will shortly publish our White Paper on water, which will set out how we want to reform the water industry and address the need for resilience to drought and climate change. A few weeks ago I stood on the bed of the River Kennet, which was as dry as the carpet in the Chamber. It is one of the “rivers on the edge” identified by the World Wildlife fund and is one of the most precious ecosystems in the south of England, although there are many more. Many Members represent constituencies where there are serious concerns about the decline of river quality. We will explain in the water White Paper how we seek to address the problem. We will consider not just the narrow issues involved in that particular stretch of water, but the entire catchment. We will take account of the calls on water, the loss of water from those precious ecosystems, and how we can manage the situation in future.
Richard Benyon
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make a bit of progress. Many other Members wish to speak in the debate.
We are implementing the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, which was mentioned earlier, and creating new marine conservation zones around our coast. Let me tell those who talk of the checklist that may have found its way into the motion that that item is flagged as a red, and is very much ongoing. We are adhering to the timetable that was set by the hon. Member for Ogmore when he was a Minister. We are determined to complete the task, and to create an ecologically coherent network of conservation zones around our coast.
Paul Flynn
It is a question that involves all the devolved Assemblies, especially the Welsh Assembly, where all parties are enthusiastic about marine development, but are hamstrung by restrictions that prevent them from organising even pilot projects in Pembrokeshire without the say-so of the national Government. Is it not time that the Government put their devotion to localism into action, and allowed the Assemblies to implement robust environmental policies?
Richard Benyon
I am afraid that I simply do not recognise that situation. We met Ministers from the devolved Assemblies this week, and discussed the way in which we are approaching the management of our seas and other policies, in the context of Europe but also nationally. I have worked closely with those Ministers, but I have heard none of them suggest that our parliamentary activities are limiting their ability to control their own environments.
We have also successfully defended the moratorium on commercial whaling. Many may not consider that to be a massive issue, but our constituents certainly do, and I think that the House should recognise the excellent work done by DEFRA officials. I bear the scars on my back from attending two meetings of the International Whaling Commission, and the fact that the British Government have led in making that organisation fit for the 21st century is to our credit. We have contributed £100 million to protect international forests, and the Secretary of State is working closely with Brazil to secure the best use of those funds. As we build on the wonderful achievements made in Nagoya we see real benefits, and Britain’s standing in regard to those and other issues in the international forum has been enhanced in recent months.
The Government’s economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries. The Treasury is committed to that, and has made important progress on a range of green initiatives. It has fulfilled the Government’s commitment to introducing a carbon price floor—a world first—as the basis of an innovative and economically ambitious green policy. This year’s Budget outlined the Government’s commitment to green investment, making £3 billion available for the green investment bank over the next four years. That will provide a lever for £15 billion of private investment in green technologies, a fact that was tragically missing from the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has only just arrived, but it is up to the Minister to give way if he wishes to do so.
Nicholas Soames
I apologise to the House and to the Minister for asking to intervene when I have only just arrived. I hope that the House will forgive me. I have been at a meeting of the 1922 Committee.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has been doing. May I ask him to cast a particular eye over the very serious environmental problem of the gross over-extraction of water from rivers in general and in particular from chalk streams, which are waters of international renown and importance in this country? Will he tell us what level of extraction he considers acceptable?
Richard Benyon
I have already said that we will address that in the near future in the water White Paper. We are determined to comply with directives, because that is what we all have to do, but we are also more ambitious, in that we want our aquatic environment to be restored. That legacy will be difficult to achieve, but we can achieve it. We can secure huge improvements in biodiversity and ecosystems by just making some changes. It is not easy to change abstraction when large numbers of people rely on the water in question for their daily lives, but this can be done, and it will be done under this Government.
David Wright
What discussions has the Minister had with Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers about the use of grey water produced in urban environments? That is of key importance. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) made a good point about the level of water abstraction in the UK, but what we are not very good at—whereas other countries in the European Union and around the world are good at this—is using grey water in the built environment and recycling it.
Richard Benyon
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are determined to address this issue from both ends of the pipe, as it were. We must look not only at abstraction and how we can incentivise water companies to share water with neighbouring companies, but at how we can incentivise and encourage individuals and households. A recent “Panorama” programme showed what can be achieved by households; by doing just a few things, they can reduce the amount of water they use and protect the environment.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Does the Minister intend to look at building regulations, on which the UK is decades behind some other European countries, particularly in respect of the reuse of water?
Richard Benyon
We are consulting DCLG colleagues on that and a variety of different issues. I recently visited the Building Research Establishment at Watford. Amazing work is being done there on grey-water systems and how households can use much less water. We want to take those ideas forward, and we will keep the House informed as we do so.
Mr Graham Stuart
On the green investment bank, may I point out that the largest manufacturing area outside London is Yorkshire? A quarter of the nation’s energy is produced in Yorkshire. Yorkshire stands ready—manufacturers, councillors, universities—to work with the green investment bank. Will the Minister give us more details of what exactly it will be doing, and what role Yorkshire can play in making sure we take forward the green revolution?
Richard Benyon
My experience in this House is that Yorkshire MPs believe that life starts and finishes in Yorkshire, and I am sure the green investment bank will find a way of investing in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and elsewhere. We will come to the House with more details in the near future.
We were talking earlier about whether the concepts of green and growth were complementary or at odds with each other. We firmly believe they are complementary. The environment is an economic issue. Better management of natural resources is a financial and environmental opportunity. That is recognised by the Government and leading businesses. The waste review and the natural environment White Paper underline that by putting resource efficiency and the natural environment at the heart of economic growth.
Broader initiatives either already delivered or in the pipeline include electricity market reform, the renewable heat incentive and the green deal, which is the largest retrofit project. The Government also have an initiative, “Enabling the transition to a green economy”, which is being led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It brings together under one heading all of our ambitions and plans for moving towards a green economy.
To help in that, we have set up the Green Economy Council, chaired by the Secretaries of State for BIS, DEFRA and DECC, which brings together more than 20 business leaders from leading businesses and business groups ranging from Ford to Waitrose. It provides an open forum for business to work with Government to address the challenges of creating the green economy and to facilitate growth opportunities.
I wish to highlight two ways in which we are hard-wiring natural capital across government, and I referred to that in passing earlier. We are working with the Office for National Statistics to include natural capital in the UK environmental accounts. We are also setting up a natural capital committee—an independent advisory committee reporting to the Economic Affairs Committee—to provide expert advice on the state of England’s natural capital. We will be advertising for a chair and members this year.
That develops one of the key objectives put forward by GLOBE International—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) are such able vice-chairmen for that organisation. We are also establishing a business-led ecosystems market taskforce to review the opportunities for UK business from expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets, which value and protect nature’s services.
I shall now move on to more specific issues. Earlier this year, we published our waste review, which is a comprehensive look at prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal, aiming for a zero-waste economy. It provides a broader picture than recycling targets and sets us on a path towards a greener, more innovative economy that values waste as a resource and an opportunity for jobs.
Joan Ruddock
May I make a suggestion to the Minister? He will know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is going to make millions of pounds available to local authorities to return to weekly collections, which they departed from in order to boost recycling. As the Minister will know, food is one of the main issues to deal with, so why does he not make representations to the Communities Secretary to say that money should be provided to those local authorities, such as my local Lewisham council, that have weekly collections but could expand, if they had the money, into food collections? That would have enormous benefits, including job creation.
Richard Benyon
The right hon. Lady is right to say that there are huge benefits if we get this right. We are working not only to deal with food waste—to encourage people to buy less and to waste less food—but to make sure that what waste food there is can be used in a constructive way. That is why our policies on anaerobic digestion have huge potential, not just for a municipal approach to this issue, but, for example, for the farming industry as a way of diversifying its business. So I assure her that we are talking, and will continue to talk, to people right across government to ensure a joined-up approach. I respect her knowledge on this matter.
I spoke earlier about broadband, but I wish to emphasise that it is an absolute priority for this Government, as it will make the difference to our rural community. Our economy will be enhanced in a sustainable way for the future when we are able to have creative industries operating in remote parts of the country.
We expect to be able to deliver better flood and coastal erosion protection to 145,000 households by March 2015. Despite spending reductions, no schemes have been cancelled. That is an important point for the hon. Member for Wakefield to understand. We expect to spend at least £2.1 billion on tackling flooding and coastal erosion over the next four years. We expect to spend this money better than it has been in the past and to do so in an open way, where local communities can really see how it is operating.
On mandatory carbon reporting for companies, we have consulted widely over the summer on whether we should introduce regulations in this area. We need to be clear that these regulations are the best way forward, and the Secretary of State will announce the outcome to the House this autumn.
To conclude, the Government are proud of what we have achieved thus far. We have been in government for only 17 months and there is a huge amount to achieve, but I am certain that we can achieve it. I ask the House not to support the motion, because I believe that what I have told the House this afternoon has shown that we are ambitious for more and that we can achieve enormous benefits for our economy by thinking in terms of the environment and the economy together. We hope to do that as we move forward.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that we are very short on time and I am going to introduce a five-minute limit?
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
We have heard a lot of words in the past 35 minutes, but, frankly, not a lot of substance. Being green is very fashionable these days and has been for some time. The Conservative party even changed the colour of its logo to green from blue, but if the verdict of many voluntary groups is correct, perhaps the party will have to change it back to blue again before long. At one point in my election campaign I stood at hustings that had been called by a group of charities and pressure groups on environmental issues and I was struck by how dull it was because there was apparently very little divergence of opinion.
Of course, what matters is not what one says but what one does in practice, and I put it to the Minister that he could be more ambitious. For example, even on the simple issue of recycling targets, Scotland and Wales both have more ambitious targets than his Department. In Scotland, the target is to reach 60% by 2020 and 70% by 2025. I believe that if we do not have targets, we will not be inspired to make the effort. A lot has been said about targets by the Conservative party and it has become almost a mantra, or a statement as though it is a fact, that targets are somehow a bad thing. We hear far too much about how bad top-down targets are supposed to be, but targets have proven to be extremely effective in pushing people into reaching the ends they say they want. Without targets those ends might not be reached. It is disappointing that the examples set by Scotland and Wales are not being followed in the rest of the country. There is a knock-on effect for jobs and economic growth, because the kind of relatively small-scale industry that we all say we want can be built up on the back of better recycling.
Another thing we have heard an awful lot about from the Government is the notion of nudge theory and how important it is to nudge people in a particular direction. However, I cannot understand how nudging people to revert to weekly bin collections, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has mentioned, can be a nudge in the right direction. It must surely be a nudge in the wrong direction. There should be financial support for better reuse and recycling. I do not want to say that recycling is the only thing because it is important to reuse and I would love it if industries here were encouraged to reuse bottles, for example, as happens in many European countries, rather than our simply smashing them into the recycling bin, fun though that is for children in particular. If we do not put investment in, rather than doing the opposite, we will be heading in the wrong direction.
I did not really hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do about mandatory carbon reporting. We have had consultation, despite the fact that the parties in the coalition Government seemed very keen on carbon reporting when they were in opposition, and we have heard that there is going to be some sort of statement in the autumn. In my part of the world, although perhaps not in the warmer south-east, autumn is rapidly running out and it would be helpful to know what the Government’s real thinking is on this.
Another thing that worries many Opposition Members and people out in the country is the Government’s dedication to things such as the red tape challenge. People worry that the concentration on that approach means that many very important regulations, which are needed, will be done away with. Government Front Benchers are shaking their heads but why take that approach and why make such a big thing of it? It is interesting that whenever anything goes wrong people call for more regulation, not less; we should not be throwing away very valuable environmental regulations.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I am a little troubled by the idea that the Opposition are presenting their policies to be quite so idyllic. My experience as a Cumbrian MP is that when one looks at a village such as Bampton in my constituency, what one sees is neglect. The past 10 years have seen, if I look to the left, that we suddenly have inedible grass on our hillside because the stocking levels have become too low. We have cows dying unnecessarily of bovine TB. We have an absence of affordable housing in our villages because of rigid planning regulations, and we have worse mobile coverage in Cumbria than in Kabul and extremely ineffective broadband coverage.
In every single respect, the problem—this goes to the heart of the motion—has not been a lack of cash. The problem with the policies pursued has been that they have been too centralised in London, too inflexible and too black and white, and they have failed correctly to engage with communities and businesses.
Mary Creagh
I saw an interesting article a couple of weeks ago in Farmers Guardian or Farmers Weekly, which I read assiduously, about bovine TB. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that bovine TB in his area is not endemic in the badger population, and that it has come from the movement and transmission of cattle?
Rory Stewart
I shall take up that point, as it illustrates the four aspects that I identified. What we need and what the Government are providing is more courage, which goes to bovine TB, more work with communities, more ability to confront vested interests and more creativity.
On courage with respect to bovine TB, what is the fundamental problem with bovine TB in Cumbria? It is not badgers, as the hon. Lady says. It is that for 13 years the previous Government were not prepared to talk honestly to farmers about the fact that the TB getting into our herds is coming from cattle movement. The answer should come from a better attitude towards movement and linked holdings, and a better attitude towards post-movement testing. Scotland has shown the example. We should have had the courage in areas such as Cumbria, which are still safe and where TB is not endemic, to have effectively moved that border south.
That leads to the second element—working with communities. Again, the solution to the lack of affordable housing in our area, the solution to planning in our area, and the solution to renewable energy, particularly hydro-generation, lies in working much more flexibly with communities. We have just built 22 affordable homes in a rural area by allowing the community of Crosby Ravensworth to do its own planning. We are doing barn conversions up and down the east side of Cumbria by listening to communities who want houses for farmers’ children and have been unable to provide them because of rigid centralised planning regulations.
There has been a failure to confront vested interests—a failure to confront supermarkets over contracts, a failure to confront supermarkets over planning, and sometimes a failure to confront certain elements and lobbies within the farming interests, which connects to the issue of bovine TB. The solution is not only to engage with communities and not only to be more courageous, but to be more creative, which brings us to broadband and mobile telephone coverage.
Mr Graham Stuart
There is another problem—the direct and, I suggest, deliberate skewing of Government funding to urban areas in the name of deprivation, and away from rural areas. The average grant per head in rural areas is 50% less than in urban areas at the end of 10 years of Labour, average incomes are lower and the average council tax is 100% higher. People are poorer, they pay more and get less, and that needs to be put right.
Rory Stewart
I agree, but to continue to develop the point, it is not simply a matter of cash. The point is creativity. On broadband, the problem with the Cornish project implemented by the previous Government with enormous generosity was its inflexibility—£100 million spent on a region with half the surface area of Cumbria. Were we to try to pursue broadband on that basis, we would spend £42 billion in this country, instead of which, by using communities that are prepared to dig their own trenches and to waive wayleaves, and by pushing commercial providers to innovate in their technical delivery, whether it is cellular delivery, a point-to-point microwave link or a fibre optic cable, means that in Cumbria, with any luck, and touching wood, we should be able to achieve results at least as good as those in Cornwall for about a quarter of the price.
The same is true of mobile coverage. The Ofcom target of 95%, which was set under the previous Government, was not ambitious enough and the costs to rural communities were extreme. By pushing up the coverage obligation, providing £150 million—not a very large amount—for building more masts and, most importantly, confronting the producer interest, meaning the mobile phone companies, which used to be their stock in trade, and compelling them to provide the coverage that they are reluctant to provide outside urban areas, we should now be able to achieve coverage of 98% to 99%.
The economic benefit of all that to rural areas would be immense. There would be a GDP benefit to small businesses and health and education benefits for remote rural areas. All the health, prosperity and vigour that that would bring those communities would allow the delivery of exactly the environmental projects that the Opposition hold so dear. Prosperous and vibrant rural communities will allow farmers, who are often the people in whom we vest responsibility for the environmental projects, to deliver them.
In conclusion, the fundamental mistake in the Opposition’s motion is not their objectives or what they feel ought to be done, but the methods they propose. I am afraid that those methods are dependent on a large deployment of cash, which is what I call the Cornwall approach. Instead, I believe that this Government have brought, as I am proud to see in rural Cumbria, the right focus on communities, the right creativity and the right ability to confront and to show courage, which hopefully means that the next time I look out of my window in my constituency, when I return there tomorrow, I will see affordable housing being built, broadband going into the ground, mobile coverage emerging, healthier cows and a more prosperous farming community that can support all the environmental targets we hold dear.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) has drawn attention to the supermarkets, because I am disturbed by the fact that the Government have failed to listen to the concerns of farmers and consumer groups, who want the groceries code adjudicator to have sufficient powers to tackle any abuses by major retailers. The Government have already delayed Labour’s plans for a supermarket ombudsman, and it now looks like a groceries code adjudicator will not be in place until 2013 at the earliest, about which some of my constituents are very concerned. If we addressed the problem of packaging and waste in supermarkets, and if supermarkets were as efficient as industries such as the steel industry in avoiding waste and recycling materials such as grey water, our situation would be much more sustainable.
Kelvin Hopkins
I very much support the idea of a supermarket ombudsman. Would the ombudsman also look at how supermarkets use their purchasing power to force down producer prices, particularly in British agriculture, and use the savings to inflate their profits rather than passing them on to consumers?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Those are the concerns that a Government who are attempting to be the greenest Government ever should be addressing. Sadly, this Tory Government are out of touch on the environment. The rows over planning, the forest sell-off, a 27% cut in flood defence investment, delays to the water White Paper and a complete lack of ambition on recycling, which the Minister seemed almost proud of, show that the Government are behind the curve on environmental protection and green growth. Their claim to be the greenest Government ever has unravelled in just 18 months. The Tories have a plan for cuts, but no plan for the environment. DEFRA cannot even ban wild animals from circuses, which is not a great deal to ask.
Mr Graham Stuart
I know that beneath the new Whip’s bluster there is a decent, honourable and reasonable person. One of the most pleasant aspects of the Minister’s speech today was that he did not once seek to describe or excoriate the performance of the previous Labour Government, which he barely talked about. He focused almost entirely on this Government’s policies. I ask the hon. Gentleman to throw away the Labour Whip’s handbook, despite his new job, and to be positive by talking about what can be done, rather than focusing endlessly on this negative stuff.
Nic Dakin
I thank the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great regard. He has added “excoriate” to “prescient” and “canard” in the lexicon that we are being treated to this afternoon, but I fear that he was listening to a different speech from that which I heard.
Twenty-nine leading conservation charities, in their “Nature Check” analysis published this month, have criticised the Government for failing to show leadership on the natural environment. In their fair and balanced conclusion, they say:
“Whilst the Coalition has done well as a champion for the natural environment on the international stage”—
so, ticking the box there—
“at home its commitment to being the ‘greenest Government ever’ is in danger of being undermined. This assessment raises profound questions over the Government’s ability and willingness to deliver its green commitments, let alone to set out a long-term, coherent strategy to reverse biodiversity decline by 2020 and meet the needs of the natural environment alongside economy recovery.”
So, when it comes to delivery, there are serious questions.
Let us look at some key figures, which the RSPB has drawn from recent reports, on the level of the challenge. It states that
“43% of priority habitat and 31% of priority habitats in England are declining; 304 species in England were red-listed in 2007, because of severe decline (more than 50% loss over 25 years) more would be added by an audit today; and less than 37% of SSSIs in England…are in a favourable condition.”
That illustrates the challenge and need with which we are confronted.
Business wants certainty to invest in green jobs and new technology, yet this Tory Government are failing to provide the certainty that industry needs—[Hon. Members: “Coalition.”] I tend to think of the coalition as a Conservative Government. That is what we see all the time when Members go through the Lobbies.
There was much progress under the Labour Government, but there is still much more to make, and that is the challenge for a new Government—to pick the baton up and take the race forward. I am afraid that the Conservatives, however, threaten much of the progress that Labour made on green growth, sustainable development and the environment. They have left a trail of broken green promises. Since the time of the huskies, we have had almost a “For Sale” sign up over many of our natural assets, and support for public access and enjoyment of the countryside has weakened. Things to which people should have a right are challenged and are in danger because of this Government’s position.
Labour created two new national parks, which is great witness of Labour’s commitment. The Tories, on the other hand, have cut funding by 28.5%, meaning that visitor centres will close, parking charges will rise and nature trails will be left unkempt. This is a serious time for the environment, so it is time for the Government to step up to the plate and deliver for it, both in this country and internationally.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and vigorously to oppose this motion. I am delighted to see so many Opposition Back Benchers in the Chamber—three times more at its start than there were for the entire NHS debate. This is a welcome conversion, given that when elections to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee were held, not a single Labour Back Bencher put themselves forward for it until later rounds.
I want to focus on recycling. I pop up every now and again when Opposition Front Benchers talk about it, and it frustrates me, because we can have as much aspiration as we like. I would love to lose 7 stone, and I did once before, but it does not mean anything if I do not actually deliver. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) referred to recycling rates, which rose from 11% at the start of her Government to 40%. Let us have some Top Trumps in our recycling rates. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who is no longer in her place, introduced a private Member’s Bill. The recycling rate for her council is 16.8%. In Wakefield it is 39.1%. In Ogmore, which is split between two councils, it is 33.5% in Bridgend and 36.9% in Rhondda. They are all Labour councils. In Luton it is 35.8% and in East Lothian is it 35.4%. The figures get better when we move to the shadow Department of Energy and Climate Change team. In the shadow Secretary of State’s constituency the recycling rate is 27.5%, In the shadow Minister’s constituency in Liverpool, it is 25.4%. In South Lanarkshire it is 40.1%—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) asks whether there is a point to those figures. Yes, there is, because I am about to read out the recycling rates for Conservative-controlled councils, which actually deliver. The figures that I gave had in common the fact that they are mainly Labour-controlled, apart from one, which is a Scottish National party coalition.
The rate in my council in 2010 was 51.8%, which leapt to 60.7% in the following six months. In Waveney, which the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) will visit on Friday—I am sure he will have a nice time there—it is 53.2%, so perhaps he will learn about the three-bin scheme that has been introduced to ensure that there are weekly food collections. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford should be aware that she can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government fund to ensure that those collections continue.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Lady claims that Waveney is a Tory area. At the moment it has a Conservative MP, but it had a splendid Labour MP for the previous 14 years, and it currently has a hung council, which is effectively Labour-controlled.
Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)
Ipswich, which until May was run by a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, achieved more in the five years of coalition control in raising recycling rates than during nearly 30 years before that when it was Labour-controlled.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. I will continue with the Top Trumps challenge, and turn to those on the Conservative Front Bench. In Solihull the recycling rate is 40.7%; in South Cambridgeshire it is 53.6%. West Berkshire has the lowest rate of the areas represented by the Department’s Ministers, but it is still 40.2%. In the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) it is 43.1%. I forgot to mention Edinburgh, East where the rate is 31.5%.
There is no point in a lot of hot air about aspirational targets if local councils do not deliver. We encourage our councils to get on with the programmes, to be innovative locally, and to ensure that they happen. Conservative Members are proud to go back to our councils and to talk about recycling rates of 60%, but on the other side of the Thames, where MPs are championing recycling, their councils are delivering very little.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe that the Labour party’s bin taxes would have encouraged recycling?
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a good point, and the answer is absolutely not. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) referred to nudge activity, but incentivising people to do the right thing has worked. The punitive measures proposed by the previous Government did not have that effect.
Sheila Gilmore
I would like the hon. Lady to put on record the fact that Edinburgh council has been run by a Liberal Democrat-Scottish National party coalition for the past four and a half years.
Dr Coffey
I said that there were SNP-Liberal Democrat coalitions, as is the case with East Lothian council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) spoke eloquently about rural broadband and ambitions. We all recall the 3G auction, when £22 billion was raised. If half of that had been used, we would have had fibre optics to every house in the country 10 years ago. That is the kind of ambition that we need, and will have, with this Government, who put their money where their mouth is with the £530 million to be spent within the next four years. The Minister may not have recalled that DEFRA also set aside a smaller, £20 million fund to enable communities, especially rural communities, to access broadband now and not necessarily wait until the 2015 target date.
Other Members have talked about the green investment bank and the capital cuts. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Ogmore said, the Labour Government did not commit specifically to a reduction in flood defence spending. However, Labour Members who were Members in the previous Parliament voted in the 2010 Budget for a 50% cut in capital spending. It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman said, that they had not specified where that cut would take place, but nor had they set out a comprehensive spending review. That lack of transparency is one of the reasons the previous Government were thrown out of office fairly decisively.
I have not yet mentioned my favourite topic—coastal erosion. I am delighted to say that since the Minister came to my constituency and pulled people together, local environment agencies, Natural England and communities have been working together to ensure that, with community contributions, we have funded coastal defences in Thorpeness and the scheme in Felixstowe, and we are now enjoying the benefits of that. I am very proud to be on the Government side of the House, and I will vote most strongly against the motion.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
I want to focus on three aspects of the motion: the sell-off of forests, which, despite the Government’s U-turn and nice warm words, is still going ahead, including in my constituency; the Government’s nonsensical approach to waste; and the broken promises to communities up and down the country on flood defences.
My constituency, like that of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), is a large rural constituency with many lowland and upland farms. It has two areas of outstanding natural beauty, and many acres of moorland and forest. What DEFRA does matters to people in my constituency, and so does what DEFRA does not do. In the countryside, we have had, in effect, 18 wasted months and a trail of broken promises. First, we had the proposal to sell off forests. Despite the Government’s U-turns and all the nice warm words that were said in this House, the Government are still planning to sell off 40,000 hectares of land over the next four years, some of it in my constituency. Ministers got away with it last time, but they will not do so this time. On Monday night, I listened to many impassioned speeches by Conservative Members saying, “I have to vote for this EU referendum because my constituents have been in touch with me and told me that I need to.” Their constituents got in touch with them in droves in response to the sell-off forests, and yet it is still happening.
I accept that the mess that now exists around waste is not really of DEFRA’s making, but lies at the door of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—a man who seems to be obsessed with little other than bin collections. The Government have failed to set ambitious targets for recycling in England, and—this is a capital offence—they have stopped Labour’s ban on wood going to landfill, saying that they will think about it again in 2012. Frankly, that is not good enough. I live in the former Derwentside district council area, which is now part of Durham county unitary authority, and we left weekly bin collections behind years ago. There was a lot of upset at the time—people do not like change—but if Durham county council tried to reintroduce weekly bin collections now, people would be incredibly unhappy.
I have three bins—one for waste; one for recycling, which gets emptied fortnightly; and one for garden waste, which is collected monthly—and guess what, I do not have rats and vermin skulking around my bins. My neighbours and I recycle everything we can, and we are proud of our recycling. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) gave us a long list of councils and their actual recycling levels as opposed to the targets. None of us in this House is responsible for that, but I am responsible for my own recycling and the waste that is produced in my house.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I understand that the hon. Lady and I cannot control the recycling rates of our councils, but it seems odd that people always complain to the Government when it is councils that deliver that service. My challenge is that we must encourage our councils to recycle as much as they can.
Pat Glass
I absolutely agree with that, but it ultimately comes down to us. I do not want weekly bin collections to be restored and nor do any of my neighbours. They are a waste of time and of our natural resources. There is virtually nothing in my waste bin; almost everything goes into the recycling bin. If I can do it, so can everybody else.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Lady agree that although recycling is important, it is third on the so-called waste hierarchy? Reusing resources and reducing the number of resources that we use in the first place are also critical. On those matters, we need Government action as well as local authority action.
Pat Glass
I absolutely agree. We need a proper strategy on recycling and waste, and we need to stop obsessing about bin collections.
On flood defences, I know that DEFRA has taken a massive 30% cut and that some of that has been passed on to flood defence schemes. The Government have rejected the Pitt report on improving flood defences and have cancelled major schemes that were scheduled to take place in towns and cities such as York, Leeds and Morpeth in Northumberland. That will cause massive concern not only for people who have suffered from flooding in the past, but for anyone who lives in a city or town that had hoped to be included in the flood defence scheme. We all acknowledge—even the Government acknowledge—that the flood risk is growing and that flooding will affect more communities across the country in the future.
In the summer, I was visited in my constituency surgery by constituents who live halfway down Blackhill bank in Consett. They came to see me about flooding. Anyone who knows Consett will know that it is 885 feet above sea level. According to Wikipedia, it is the second highest town in the country. We have never had flooding in places such as Consett before. Those people told me that it is not only water that comes through their house, but black water—sewage. It can take up to two years for home owners and businesses to get back into their properties.
Despite that, flood defence schemes have been cut. That means that many home owners and businesses will no longer be able to get insurance when Labour’s agreement with the insurance industry runs out in 2013, because that agreement was based on continued Government investment in flood defences, not on cuts.
The Government’s strategy on the environment is simply not working. It is not supporting the countryside, it is not delivering for the majority of people in this country, and it will leave communities that are vulnerable to flooding to fend for themselves.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) on her contribution. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on securing this debate, but this subject does not lend itself to the kind of partisan debate that she was hoping for. Frankly, what we should be doing in this Chamber is forming a cross-party alliance of those who agree with this agenda. There are philistines on both sides of the House who do not agree with it—the climate change deniers and those who believe that environmental policies get in the way of economic development. There are also people on both sides of the Chamber who want to engage in a more consensual debate.
This subject does not lend itself to partisan debate because the political cycle does not match the cycles of the natural environment or the investment timetables that are necessary for the delivery of policies such as renewables programmes and broadband development. To prejudge the success or otherwise of the Government after 18 months, when it is far too early to decide whether the natural environment of the UK is better than it was under the previous Government, is frankly a poor partisan point that does not advance the debate.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about having a cross-party approach to the environment. In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) took two pieces of legislation through the House, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, that had cross-party consensus and that led to real improvements in the environment.
Andrew George
Absolutely, and I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It takes me on to another point that I wish to make, in response to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place. He was bemoaning the lack of progress on the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which has cross-party support.
I have to declare an interest, as for the past five years I have chaired the grocery market action group. I have been urging and seeking cross-party support for that Bill. When I started out I was entirely on my own, but I am pleased to say that both the previous Labour Government, latterly, and the Conservatives just before the general election came on board and recognised the importance of ensuring that we get fair dealing in the grocery supply chain. Although that is not directly relevant to our debate on the environment today, it is directly relevant to other matters that Members have raised, including recycling. On that issue and others, we should form cross-party support.
In spite of the very limited time that we have, I cannot allow this moment to go by without responding to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), since he mentioned the great nation of Cornwall and the investment strategy for broadband. It has to be said that there are more than 500,000 people in Cornwall, and its population may not be as dispersed as that of Cumbria. He may well be right that we will be paying Rolls-Royce prices for something that we could be getting a little cheaper, but if the policy is advanced in one rural area, lessons can be learned that will benefit other areas later.
Rory Stewart
That is a very fair point, and it is absolutely right that Cornwall got a good deal at the time when it got it. However, the real lesson of that is that we need flexibility and pilots, with one county at a time learning the lessons so that we can drive down the costs and force suppliers to do more and more as they move from Cumbria to Northumbria and around the country. What I said was not intended as a criticism of Cornwall.
Andrew George
No, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with me on the matter. Certainly it is not possible to have fibre-optic cable to a cabinet within yards of every home in dispersed rural areas, so we need to ensure that we have an investment profile that allows the use of satellite broadband in certain circumstances. We are learning lessons from the Cornish example, and we have had the benefit of European convergence funding to take the matter forward.
I wish to touch briefly on three more matters—waste, green growth and sustainable development. The Government have rightly put in place a waste review. It is an iterative process that is progressing—perhaps too slowly, but it is certainly progressing. It provides a framework for those who want to engage in the process, as I encourage Members of all parties to do, to make constructive proposals to enhance the Government’s intention to achieve a zero-waste economy. That means sending zero to landfill.
Andrew George
I do not think I will get any injury time, but I will give way.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman and apologise for that. Everyone is committed to recycling, but recycling itself obviously costs money. How does he see the balance between the necessity of recycling and the cost factor?
Andrew George
I see recycling as being part of the green economy, in which jobs are created and there is a massive benefit to the economy in general. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Wakefield, I was simply saying that an obsession with one narrow silo of the waste strategy—the measuring of recycling by the proportion or volume that is achieved—is entirely wrong in an economy such as the UK’s. The amount of waste recycled is a helpful indicator, but it is possible to have increased recycling and increased landfill at the same time. I do not think it is necessarily the measure by which we should judge ourselves, and I encourage Members to consider that carefully.
On green growth, it will take a long time to get the investment profile required to achieve the improvements that we are discussing. We should have a green economy that drives development in this country. The previous Government started that process, and the present Government need to continue it. RenewableUK is identifying itself with a survey out today that says that 80% of its members plan to hire extra staff within the next 18 months, so people are growing in confidence in that regard.
Finally, it is important that we mainstream sustainable development issues. The Public Bodies Bill is well intentioned, but if the intention of planning policy is to promote sustainable development, we need to re-establish the Sustainable Development Commission.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate as a former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales—for the five years before coming into Parliament, I was charged with adapting Wales’s flood defences to climate change.
The big picture we face is of global climate change giving rise to a reduction in the land mass of the globe, with the population increasing from 6.8 billion to 9.5 billion by 2050, which will mean food and water shortages, migration and conflict. The Kyoto protocol will come to an end in 2012. The Americans seem to want to let it die on the vine, and the Chinese and Indians want to keep it going, but it is incumbent on us to have a strategy that focuses economic growth along a green trajectory.
On that point, some of the Government’s moves are disappointing. They did not support Sheffield Forgemasters, which could have been a global player in nuclear provision, and they did not support Bombardier to get a foothold in exports, which would have given us a green footprint elsewhere while supporting our economy. The big debate in the Chamber is between cuts and growth, and there is a lot of talk about how Labour left the cupboard bare, but we know from the numbers that a third of the deficit was for investment beyond earnings, and that the rest was for the banks. There should be no apology for that, because that is what stimulated growth.
We have now got rid of growth. The Chancellor announced that half a million jobs would be lost, so people in the public services started saving instead of consuming, and people in the private sector stopped recruiting and investing. The deficit is now £46 billion higher than it would originally have been. That is why the Labour party has proposed a five-point plan on VAT, national insurance and so on. The important part of that plan in this debate is investment in capital assets in flood defences.
The devastating floods in 2007 and Lord Pitt were the engine for the new trajectory of investment in flood defences, which would have provided jobs and capital assets—it would not have been money down the drain. That would have encouraged inward investment and protected neighbourhoods, businesses and homes, so I am saddened that it has been reduced by 27%. We are spending £354 million this year, but that will go down to £259 million. Having worked with the Environment Agency, I know that it would have put that money to good use.
Land is an asset not just for carbon capture and generating oxygen but for tourism, but the Government will sell off 15% of our woodland. Sustainable development is the centrepiece, constitutionally, of the Welsh Assembly Government, but it is seen simply as a healthy option in England. If we are to grow our way out of deficit with a green trajectory, we need to look at emerging consumer markets in the developing countries, such as China or India or those in south America, and reconfigure our export offer around green technology. That does not seem to be happening and the Government do not appear to be proactive.
Big companies are developing products. Tata Steel, near my constituency, is developing a new seven-sheet steel that generates its own electricity and heat; and Boeing in north Wales is introducing new carbon planes, which will be 30% more fuel-efficient. The Government must provide an infrastructure and regulatory system that encourages such innovation, not just to take our economy on a green trajectory but to project us into a global leadership role. I do not see that happening.
It is fairly self-evident that global energy costs will continue to escalate, because the rate of economic growth in China, India and south America means that those countries and areas will consume more of it. Those increases in energy prices, although painful, create new and profitable green technologies. The Government should not take such a laissez-faire approach to that. I fear that when, for instance, the Chancellor scoffs at the Deputy Prime Minister’s ambition for an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, it sends a signal that he does not take green investment seriously. The risk for Britain is that the Tories will blindly stumble over the green shoots that could be the future of jobs and growth in Britain.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to address the House in this fascinating debate, which has drawn two interesting distinctions between the Government and the Opposition: between statism and localism and between non-joined-up and joined-up government. Several policy areas prove those points.
First, I want to talk about the green economy and what is really happening out there. The shadow Secretary of State painted a picture that did not describe the situation in my constituency or, I believe, beyond it. First, we have, or will have soon, the green investment bank, which is a signal change and a very good idea. It will have £3 billion to invest and will be able to capitalise in 2014, which is a fantastic step forward. Ironically, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) referred to the Dreamliner aeroplane, a fantastic achievement, which is just about to start flying right now and which has created huge numbers of jobs in this country, because we supply 30% of the products.
Those products are, by definition, along the lines of green investment, because they are all about composite materials, lighter materials and so on, which is great news. Many businesses in my constituency are working hard and successfully at developing new innovation and technologies to tackle issues relevant to the green economy, and I am really proud of that. I encourage them, instead of distracting them with assertions that things are not going well and so forth. Of course, we could improve banks’ performance in investment, but we should still salute what is actually happening. There are countless firms in my constituency that I would happily take the shadow Secretary of State to see, if she so wished.
Another important but neglected issue is the green deal, which will make a huge difference to 22 million homes and which is provided for in upcoming legislation. It is extraordinarily important and will help many people to reduce their energy bills and improve their quality of life because their homes will be better places to live in. That, in itself, will stimulate growth and promote more investment across the piece, which is something that we should all welcome. Certainly, businesses in my constituency are pleased that the green deal is about to be launched.
I talked about localism versus statism. Let us explore that with reference to broadband. I do not know what world the shadow Secretary of State was describing, but the one that I found when I was first elected in Stroud was not one where broadband was particularly accessible to anybody in rural areas in my constituency. Things are improving now, first because of the bold decision of the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, who came to my constituency and helped to launch a fantastic campaign to promote further investment in broadband. His wisdom was evident in a pilot scheme in Gloucestershire aimed at getting a grip of the technology and investment—£8 million—needed to start promoting broadband. The key point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) referred, is that we have to be local and flexible. That is the essence of how we will get more and better broadband in Gloucestershire.
I talked about joined-up government versus non-joined-up government. The Minister, who has responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries, came along to the Environmental Audit Committee and proved that we were joined up by sitting next to the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for development and cities. They were both talking about the national planning policy framework.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks about joined-up government, but the Government’s obsession with the red tape challenge means that the Department for Transport has failed to regulate ship-to-ship transfers of oil, which is leaving wildlife and delicate marine environments such as those in my constituency at risk. How is that joined-up government?
Neil Carmichael
Doubtless the Department for Transport will deal with that. We have a new Secretary of State, and I look forward to seeing what she does. However, the fact is that joined-up government is important.
The story that I was telling hon. Members about is still relevant, because the Minister was talking about the national environment White Paper—which has been endorsed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the wildlife trusts and so on—in parallel with the national planning policy framework. That is absolutely excellent and is a true demonstration of effective joined-up government helping to deliver polices that make a difference across rural areas. I welcome that. In the past, we saw a Labour Government who were “siloed”; in the future, we see a coalition Government thinking in terms of Departments working together to produce policies that make a difference.
In an intervention, I talked briefly about flooding, but I want to emphasise the importance of localism with reference—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Unfortunately the clock was not going down as the hon. Gentleman was speaking, so he has had more than his time. I would therefore like him to conclude his remarks.
Neil Carmichael
I want to draw the House’s attention to the fantastic work that Water21 is doing to promote flood attenuation in the Slad valley. That is a classic example of good localism, good foresight and how flooding can be dealt with in a different, more imaginative way. It is a tribute to the people of Stroud and every—
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am gratified by the extent to which successive Governments have sought to brand themselves as green—after all, imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery. However, I also see it as part of my role to scrutinise the authenticity of any promises made and, most importantly, to inquire whether fine and noble rhetoric is backed by fast and ambitious action.
It is important to say at the outset, as the Green party always has, that environmental policies cannot be just bolted on to business as usual. We have always said that to judge the greenness of a Government, we should look not so much at their environmental policies, but at their economic programme. If a Government’s economic policies are simply about promoting more and more conventional economic growth based on the production and consumption of yet more finite resources, it does not really matter how many green trimmings they add to their manifesto. The direction of travel will still be fundamentally unsustainable. Judged by that measure, sadly not one of the main parties has come close to understanding the true nature of green politics.
Therefore, although I welcome the fact that Labour has chosen the Government’s green record as the subject for today’s debate, and although I am heartened by the commitment that I have heard in the Chamber today, it is interesting to contemplate why those aspirations, commitments and statements are not made when we discuss the Budget or growth, for example. In those debates, all the “business as usual” economic arguments are trotted out, as ever. We do not marry up all the nice words about the environment that we have heard today with the arguments that we hear in those economic debates, which is when it really matters. To say that this shows remarkable inconsistency would be a kind way of putting it.
Over a year ago the Prime Minister pledged that this would be the greenest Government ever. The first thing to say about that aspiration is that it is sadly not particularly ambitious, given Labour’s poor record on the environment in the preceding 13 years in office. At the end of that Labour term, the UK was getting more of its energy from fossil fuels than in 1997, when Labour came to power. Everyone rejoices in a sinner who repents, but one cannot help but think that, at best, Labour’s criticism of the Government’s record today shows an almost heroic degree of collective amnesia.
It is significant that one of the first acts of this Government, who aspire to be the greenest ever, was to abolish the very body that could have had a role in judging whether they could achieve that. I refer, of course, to the Sustainable Development Commission—I support the comments that the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made about that. As a critical friend, the commission was a vital in providing well-informed scrutiny of Government policy. The commission also saved the Treasury around £300 million over 10 years, against running costs of just £4 million a year. The scrapping of that commission undermines the Government’s assertion that they are committed to green issues. It is also the first of many examples of ideology trumping common sense, economic sense and environmental sense.
Much has been said today about the green investment bank, and of course it is a good idea to have such a bank. It is very badly named, however, in that it is not very green and, so far, it is not even a bank. The Government are actively considering using it to subsidise nuclear power, and its wings are being clipped from the outset through insufficient capitalisation and no initial borrowing capacity for several years at least.
I could refer to many other issues, but I would like briefly to mention the complete chaos that the solar industry is now in, thanks to the way in which the Government keep moving the goalposts in relation to the level at which the feed-in tariffs are going to be secured. That is a tragedy not only for the environment but for some of the fantastic solar industries in this country that could be at the forefront of solar power internationally. Because the Government keep changing their level of support, however, the industry has been left in great confusion.
In conclusion, I shall return to my first point. Slavish adherence to the same economic model that has created the economic crisis and the climate crisis will not empower us to build a sustainable future and make the transition to a zero-carbon economy, yet that is what the Government and the Opposition are relying on. Yes, efficiency gains can help, and yes, technology will have a vital role to play, but there is a real risk—which has not been addressed today—that, with a rising population and understandably rising expectations from a growing middle class around the world, those efficiency and technological gains will be undermined by the overall level of net growth. That means that behaviour change will have to be a far greater part of the solution when it comes to adopting sustainable development, yet the dogma that we can carry on with business as usual provided that there is more and more economic growth to get us out of this economic crisis—never mind the long-term environmental, social and economic consequences—is barely questioned by politicians. Professor Tim Jackson states:
“Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must.”
We must—
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I should like to associate myself with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) that this should not really be a political subject, but it does tend to become one. I also want to associate myself with the Minister’s comment that the Opposition had shown chutzpah by holding a debate on green leadership and growth. Given that they have decided to do so, however, it is reasonable to examine what has happened over the past decade and a half, and what kind of legacy Ministers have taken over in relation to green issues.
I want to be fair to the Opposition. They have used the word “leadership” a number of times in the debate, and I have been looking for examples of Labour showing leadership in the past 15 years. It has shown it in one area: that of legislation. No one could have passed more legislation on this subject than Labour. The Climate Change Act 2008 places on us a requirement to reduce the total of our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. That could be broken up in a number of ways, involving, for example, 25 new nuclear power stations—I do not think that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would agree with that—or 40,000 wind turbines. It is a hugely ambitious target. Equally ambitious was the way in which the Labour Government signed up to the EU 20-20-20 directive in 2009.
That was where Labour showed leadership, but, having done that, what did they achieve? Where had they got to by 2010? Labour Members need to understand that we are 25th out of 27 in the EU in terms of renewables, as I pointed out earlier. It is possible that that statistic could be subject to challenge, however, because it was based on provisional figures. It puts us slightly ahead of Luxembourg, but it is possible that we are not. Perhaps we are in fact 26th out of 27. That is the legacy from the last Government that we have had to pick up and run with. That is the starting point.
Even less impressive were the numbers that came out, right at the end of 2010, on the total amount of energy produced in this country from non-fossil fuel sources, by which I mean renewables, hydro and nuclear. It fell by 10%. That was the legacy we were left with. Chutzpah is not even half of it. We now have to pick up from that position.
I do not agree with all aspects of the energy policy of my Front-Bench team. I would like us to go more quickly down the nuclear road, but I agree that at least we have a green policy that can be looked at and criticised and that we can try to improve. I do not think that we had that previously. The green deal is massively important. The Climate Change Act 2008 implies a reduction of our total emissions by 2050—either with or without the economic growth that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion does not want us to have—of around 40% to 50%. The green deal provides the only reasonable way of achieving that. The green investment bank and the energy market changes that we are going to make are hugely important.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The green investment bank, to the tune of nearly £3 billion, is a great step forward. I also think that the green deal will enable those who have not got their homes insulated with solid wall insulation to get that done under the new scheme. That will help many more people to insulate their homes, which will be good not only for the environment but for the families concerned.
David Mowat
I agree.
I did not mention the carbon floor price. Having sat through the debate, it remains unclear to me whether Labour Members support it or not.
All these matters are important, and I am proud that the Government whom I support are trying to get us higher up the league table from 25th or 26th out of 27 within the EU. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us where we hope to get to by the end of this Parliament? If we start at 25th, are we heading for 20th, 15th, 10th, fifth or what? It would be interesting to hear, as we have an awfully long way to go.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I want to start by taking issue with a couple of Members who said that we should not get political about this issue. First, I would say, “Try telling that to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate change and the Chancellor of the Exchequer”, who seem to be in open warfare in today’s newspapers. Furthermore, this is one of the most crucial political topics we face, and if we wrap it all up in warm words and a coat of greenwash without questioning or challenging some of the progress, we will be in danger of letting the whole agenda slide.
In the limited time available, I would like to focus on a couple of issues. A number of Members have commented on the “Nature Check” survey, which gave the red light to the Government on a range of issues, three of which deal with planning. There is real concern that the Treasury is dominating and overriding the environmental agenda in respect of planning issues. The Budget of 2011 said that
“The Government will introduce a powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is ‘yes’.”
We also know that the Chancellor said at the Conservative party conference in Manchester:
“We’re not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business.”
He believed that, rather than leading the way in pushing a green agenda in Europe, we should only rise to the standards of other European countries, which I think is entirely wrong.
Simon Jenkins, the head of the National Trust, gave evidence to a Commons Committee the other day, saying that the “fingerprints” of rich builders were all over the planning reforms, while The Daily Telegraph, which one would expect to be on the side of the Conservative party, talked about an elite forum of property developers who were charging key players in the industry £2,500 a year to set up breakfast, dinner and drinks with senior Tories. This club raises £150,000 a year for the Conservatives. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to that in his summing up, and explained what influence is being exercised. We have seen the influence of people behind the scenes in health and defence policy and other aspects of the Government’s agenda.
One subject that has not been mentioned much in the context of planning is the new biodiversity offsetting regime. In Bristol, there has been real concern about the local authority’s failure to spend section 106 money. It is estimated that between £10 million and £12 million that should have been allocated to community projects, infrastructure and schools is sitting in the council coffers. As a result, not only will environments that have evolved over centuries and could be described as part of our natural heritage be replaced by artificial new landscapes, but there will be no means of ensuring that the offsetting actually happens and is maintained for many years to come. We need to know whether the regime will be effective, or whether it is just an excuse for developers to be able to destroy natural habitats and the environment. As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds pointed out, we need a system that filters out habitats that are irreplaceable, as opposed to those that can easily be created elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) expressed concern about the lack of certainty in relation to feed-in tariffs. Support has already been scrapped for large-scale projects, and it is rumoured that the Government will announce a halving of tariff rates tomorrow. Let me give an example. The Royal Bath and West of England Society was due to develop a solar photovoltaic park, for which it had already received planning permission and which it wanted to use to kick-start a rural regeneration project that it expected to create about 1,500 jobs. It had structured the project on the basis of the expected revenue from profit on the feed-in tariffs. Critically, it was interested in a loophole provided by the Department for Energy and Climate Change that would have allowed the project to proceed if it plugged in 10% of its electricity generation by 1 August 2012. Thankfully, it had not made a decision before the deadline was moved to 18 October 2010. The chief executive, Dr Jane Guise, told us today that “shifting goalposts” were making it impossible to invest in and plan for the future. She also wondered why the Treasury was involved at all.
I am afraid I have no time to give the House any more information about that, but I urge Members to talk to people who had spent months planning a project that would have brought huge benefit to the local community, but is now being—
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
This has been a very good debate in which Members in all parts of the House have made powerful and passionate points. One powerful point made by the Minister, with which I strongly agreed, concerned the welcome news of the publication of the national ecosystems services. I know that he will want to commend that worthy project, and to recognise that it was inspired and developed by Labour. I congratulate him on having brought it to fruition.
The Minister mentioned the fourth carbon budget, which Labour developed under the Climate Change Act 2009. It, too, is welcome, but there are two little opt-outs, to which the Chancellor referred in his review. We shall see how that proceeds.
I commend the Minister for his work with the International Whaling Commission. It is good to know that that work is continuing, and I know that he is committed to it. We have always had a cross-party view on that, and it I am pleased to note that he is still standing firm.
I think that every Member present will welcome the £100 million to protect the rainforest. Curiously and coincidentally, the Minister planned to raise the same amount from selling our forests.
Having heaped praise on our motion, the Minister then said that he would oppose it. I assumed from his praise that he would support it; perhaps he will change his mind.
The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) made a very good speech. He spoke well about the need for a focus on biosecurity and cattle movements as a solution to the problem of bovine tuberculosis, and criticised the “Cornwall approach”—much, I think, to the consternation of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).
The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) welcomed the number of Labour Members attending the debate, as do I. The Chamber has been full of Labour Members today. In contrast, at one point during yesterday’s debate on the important issue of the Agricultural Wages Board no Conservative Members were present, and then just one was present.
I must correct the hon. Lady on one point. Her long litany of Labour councils included my local council, Bridgend. Bridgend’s recycling rate is not 33%. It was 33% at the end of the rainbow coalition of Plaid Cymru, Tories and Liberal Democrats, but when Labour took control it rose to 51%, the highest in any local authority in Wales. I suggest that the hon. Lady check her figures and ensure that they are up to date. As for the average rate in Wales, it is 45%. She might wish to correct the record at some point.
The hon. Member for St Ives said it was too early to judge this Government, as they have been in office for only 18 months. I refer him to the report by 29 wildlife and countryside charities condemning this Government’s record so far.
I welcome the concept of cross-party engagement. When I was in the Government, we held two cross-party flood summits to work through the issues. That has not happened under the current Government, and I ask the Minister to invite my colleagues to attend such meetings. [Interruption.] He says that has happened, and I accept his assurance, but it is not my understanding.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) painted a very rosy picture of the Government’s green record, but we beg to differ. He talked about the green deal; we hope for the best, but we fear the worst.
I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) for acknowledging my party’s leadership on groundbreaking national and international legislation and obligations, and I extrapolate from his remarks on the slow progress made in the previous decade on renewables, and especially wind, that he supports the building of more onshore wind farms to meet the renewables obligations. I must say, however, that not many of his colleagues share that view.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) questioned the Government’s commitment to the green agenda, and she also questioned Labour’s commitment; I agree with the former remark, but dispute and refute the latter. She accused us and the Government of collective amnesia, but if that is the case it must be catching, as in respect of world leadership on these issues, the Climate Change Act 2008, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and much else besides were introduced under a Labour Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) observed that what matters is not what we say, but what we do, and I agree. She drew attention to the low ambition shown by the Government and the high ambition on recycling shown in Wales, and said that the Government had missed an opportunity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned farmers’ concerns about the delays in dealing with, and diminishing responsibilities of, the groceries code adjudicator, and we agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) told Members on the Government Benches to stop obsessing about weekly bin collections and to focus instead on recycling, and she rightly expressed the concerns of her constituents about insurance for flood victims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has great commitment and expertise in this area, including through his work with the Environment Agency. He expressed regret about the Government’s lack of ambition, which was, indeed, a general theme in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) picked up on the comments made from the Government Benches that this issue should not be political. However, it is political, of course, by its very nature and because it is very important.
There is a delicious irony in the phrase, “the greenest Government ever”, which was uttered so easily during the coalition’s fleeting embrace of the green movement. It is so easy to say, “I love you”, in the midst of tender fervour. Yet the morning after come the bitter recriminations, the shame and the feeling of being used.
I know that the Minister’s heart is in the right place, so let me direct the following comments to the Secretary of State, who must take personal responsibility for the actions of the Government. If they were a business, they would have been referred to trading standards by now; they would have featured on “Rogue Traders” for ripping off the British public and stealing their votes with their false and overblown promises to be the greenest Government ever.
On forests, the public saw earlier this year how the Government tried to rip them off: coalition failure; on the cuts to flood defences, wasting an opportunity for green growth and jobs, and putting at risk homes, businesses and people: failure; on finding a ban on wild animals in circuses just too difficult: failure; on relegating England to the lowest recycling targets in the UK, missing chances for jobs and new green industries: failure; on their slippy-slidey back-tracking on plans for mandatory reporting of carbon emissions: failure; on the delay to Labour’s plan for universal broadband by 2012: failure; on the delays and the castration of the groceries code adjudicator, letting down farmers and the consumer: failure; on ignoring Labour’s food strategy for 2030, to the consternation of the National Farmers Union and others: failure; on abolishing the Sustainable Development Commission, curtailing independent scrutiny of the Government’s appalling record: failure; on achieving a green light in only two out of 16 traffic lights in the “Nature Check” report by the Wildlife and Countryside Link: failure; and on the Chancellor of the Exchequer commandeering the Government’s green agenda in place of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and then killing it: failure—abject, pitiful, supine, green growth and environmental failure. Fail, fail and fail again; there is a bit of a pattern here.
However, the Government have had success in one area. They have succeeded in splitting the Cabinet from top to toe on their green agenda, with the Chancellor boldly championing the climate-sceptics and deniers, and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change pitching his shaky, leaky leadership tent in opposition. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seems to be wholly absent from the battlefield, and after a lovely photo-shoot with a husky the Prime Minister has shot and eaten the poor creature. Since then, there has, understandably, not even been a whimper from the husky, but, more surprisingly, the incredible silence of the Prime Minister on all issues green since the election has been deafening. After a brief pre-election love-in, he never phones. Why does the Prime Minister not just admit it: the love affair is over, he was never serious anyway and it was just a fling? “Get over it” he might as well say.
This Tory-led coalition Government risk being an environmental and economic catastrophe for this country. Over the past 18 months, when we should have been using green growth to stimulate our flagging economy and to lead on the environmental agenda, as Labour did when we were in government, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has instead allowed her Department to be steamrollered by the Chancellor and ignored by an indifferent Prime Minister. This is not a green agenda. This is a not a growth agenda. It is an agenda of despair. It is not a vision of hope for jobs and nature, but one of hopelessness. We do not have a Department driving forward on Labour’s legacy, but one that is actually in reverse. In place of ambition, we see abject surrender.
Even if they have given up on green growth and the environment, at least the Conservatives can repeat their claim to be the natural party of the countryside and still get away with it, can they not? They cannot after yesterday, when they voted to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, thus weakening protections for farm workers. There was one—just one—principled Lib Dem Member who participated fully in that debate, changed his mind, to his credit, and voted with our amendment. But the combined weight of fellow Lib Dems and Tories, with one notable exception, defeated us and they defeated farm workers. So who speaks for the countryside, for green growth and for the environment? Labour does, as it always has and always will.
I say to those on the not-so-green Benches opposite that owning large parts of the countryside is not the same as speaking for the countryside. Saying that they are green does not make them green. Talking up green growth is no substitute for making it happen with green jobs and skills, training, innovation and investment. This Government are failing. DEFRA Ministers are failing. Green growth and the natural environment will fail with them. I say to Ministers and the Government that they should change course now and up their game, because the country now and in future generations will not forgive a Government who, at a crucial moment, walked away from the environment and from the opportunities for green growth, upon which the health and wealth of this nation depend. If they are not up to the job, they should walk away from government—we will do it for them.
Richard Benyon
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will address the House again at the conclusion of this superb debate. The last comments made by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) amused me greatly. They sounded desperate. They sounded as if he was in complete denial of the 13 years of failure, of which he was part. I, like my DEFRA colleagues, feel that we are in a Department that deals with emergencies. One of the emergencies we are dealing with is the great sense of failure that the previous Government imposed on the countryside and on the environment. We are having to work our socks off to repair the situation, but it is a challenge that we take and take seriously. We look forward to achieving on it in the coming months.
The Government can show leadership in protecting our environment, which is exactly what this Government are doing. However, the Government alone cannot protect our environment. We believe that having communities, business, civil society and Governments working together is likely to have the greatest impact on protecting and improving our environment. We are providing new opportunities for local people to play a bigger role in protecting and improving the environment in their areas. We have some of the world’s best civil society environmental organisations to help us to protect and improve our natural environment, and we have provided the tools for them to work with us.
Richard Benyon
No, I will not give way.
We welcome the “Nature Check” report. It is very important that the organisations that took part in it have an edgy relationship with government. They frequently come to the Department and we work closely with them, and we will get green lights on the items as we progress. When that report was produced we had been in government for 15 months, dealing with abject failures created by the hon. Member for Ogmore and the Labour party in government, for which he has to take responsibility.
Let me deal with some of the excellent points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was missing the point. Just dealing with recycling does not deal with the whole waste problem; we need to look at this the whole way up the waste hierarchy. Unlike her Government, we will introduce proposals to ban wood from landfill next year.
I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) on a customary visionary speech. The leadership he is giving in his community on broadband, on local housing initiatives and on improving mobile coverage for his constituents is matched by this Government’s commitment to do the same for rural areas right across this country.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) again showed that Labour Members just do not get the whole waste issue. I urge him to look at our waste review and see what we are achieving.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) made an excellent speech in which she pointed out the failure of Labour councils. It is councils that deliver and it is coalition party councils that are achieving.
Richard Benyon
I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman has had his time. [Interruption.]
When we consider flooding, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is in my head because it has proved that there are other ways—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is far too much noise in the Chamber, including a large number of private conversations. The Minister must be heard without his having to bellow at the top of his voice.
Richard Benyon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There have been some excellent initiatives all around the country, not least in my hon. Friend’s constituency, that have shown how we can unlock more money for flood relief and coastal erosion resilience. I commend the points she made. The total environment concept that we are rolling out around the country is showing that we can work with local government, other organisations and the wider DEFRA family to achieve a better result for the rural communities she represents.
I remind the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) that when her party was in power it was selling off forests at quite a dramatic rate with very little protection for public access. She said that we have rejected the Pitt report, but nothing could be further from the truth: we have implemented all but one of its recommendations and I had a meeting on that recommendation today.
I appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). There is much that is consensual about this debate although it might not feel like it at this precise moment. My right hon. Friends and I had a meeting with Sir John Beddington when we took office and he told us that we had to do something that is hard for politicians to do—look beyond the horizon of four or five years that we are accustomed to looking at in the electoral cycle. What is required is a horizon shift to deal with the possible storm that could be approaching from a shortage of energy, water and food. That requires initiative, vision and a proper approach to these issues; that is what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) made a fascinating speech. It is good to see that deficit denial is alive and well and living in Swansea. What he and others fail to understand is that sustainable development is now mainstream in government; it is not parked in some organisation that is peripheral—it is central to what we do.
I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). He is right that what we are looking for is joined-up policies across government. The benefits of localism come from an understanding not just in silos, as it was considered in the past, but with support from across government to the benefit of constituents.
I hope that the scepticism of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the green investment bank will wither as we introduce it and she sees its benefits for new green technologies. She talked about business as usual, but this Government are not about business as usual on green technologies. This is about a horizon shift and taking a new approach.
Richard Benyon
I do not have time—I apologise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made an excellent point about the failures of the past that have put us 25th out of 27 in the EU on recycling. We have to improve on that. People ask what our ambition is: it is for a zero-waste economy, which is a high ambition indeed.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about dark conspiracies, but I assure her that they do not exist. She should move on from that idea and stop watching those programmes.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 302.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. BBC television news this evening reported that at 12 o’clock tomorrow the Secretary of State for Health will announce the closure of accident and emergency and maternity services at King George hospital in my constituency. We have campaigned against that for years, and the Secretary of State should at least have had the courtesy to inform the local Members of Parliament, including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and should come before the House to make such a profound statement. Have you had any advice from the Department that the Secretary of State intends to come before the House to make such an announcement?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
The Chair has received no notification of any such statement. Strictly speaking, the matter is not one for the Chair, or for today’s business, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and I am sure he will pursue it vigorously. Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments.
Petitions
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The staff of and residents around Liverpool coastguard station—otherwise known as Crosby coastguard station—are trying to keep it open. In support of the petition are 51,000 names on a similar petition, which I have with me in a box. The petitioners would like the maritime operation centre to be hosted at Crosby as a means of keeping the station open, which would save the Government a significant amount of money.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Merseyside,
Declares that the closure of Liverpool Coastguard Station would result in the loss of vital local knowledge and a reduction in the efficiency of rescues of people in difficulty along our coastline and at sea.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to ensure that Liverpool Coastguard Station remains open.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000973]
Trade Union Officials (Public Funding)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
The general public could be forgiven for thinking that the funding of trade unions in this country was a relatively simple affair whereby employees who wish to join a union pay their subs and receive the benefits of their membership, and then out of those subs, the unions fund their activities, their offices and their costs, including the cost of the salaries of those full-time officials who spend all day on union activity rather than working on their normal job. Not so, however.
Over the 13 years of the last Labour Government—a Labour Government funded to the tune of £10 million a year by the unions—an insipid, backhanded and frankly dodgy system emerged which ensures that millions of pounds a year of taxpayers’ money is now being used to fund political union activity. In simple terms, the taxpayer is directly funding those organising strikes and chaos, and also indirectly funding the Labour party; and I think that is wrong.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Could the hon. Gentleman describe to the House his interpretation of a trade union official, because that is fundamentally different from what he is stating? There is a difference between a trade union official and a trade union representative.
Mr Burley
If the hon. Gentleman had given me more than a minute to get going, I would have come to that point. To answer his question directly, my contention is very simple: any activities that people undertake on behalf of trade unions should be funded by the trade unions and not by the taxpayer.
Some excellent research by the widely respected TaxPayers Alliance in September last year revealed some absolutely startling results. The TPA submitted freedom of information requests to 1,253 public sector organisations, including councils, Government Departments, primary care trusts, foundation trusts, ambulance services, fire services, and all quangos with more than 50 staff. It found the following to be the case. In 2010, trade unions received £85.8 million in total from public sector organisations. That £85 million is made up of £18.3 million in direct payments from public sector organisations—mainly the union modernisation and union learning funds—and an estimated £67.5 million in paid staff time: the subject of this debate. That total is up by 14% from 2008-09, when trade unions received just £76.1 million from public sector organisations. In 2009-10, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills alone gave unions £15 million in direct subs. In 2009-10, total public funding for the trade unions was 20% more than the combined contributions to the Labour party and the Conservative party. Finally, in 2009-10, 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at taxpayers’ expense.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
It may interest Members to know that in Leeds city council a white paper was brought forward by Councillor Alan Lamb, a local small business entrepreneur, who said that it was outrageous that the council was spending £400,000 a year of taxpayers’ money on union officials. Does my hon. Friend believe it was right that that was voted down by Labour councillors who received money to get elected to Leeds city council in the first place? Is that not a personal and prejudicial interest?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I should declare an interest: I am a proud trade unionist. I am a member of Prospect. Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit were also proud trade unionists. Although I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiment, does he not agree that despite the abuse, there are many moderate trade unions around the country that do a great job in representing people’s interests? A third of trade union members vote Conservative and Conservatives should do all that they can to build bridges with moderate trade unions.
Mr Burley
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Few would take issue with unions working on behalf of their members in Departments or other public bodies in their own time and with union funding. My question to him and to the House is: why are taxpayers funding that work?
I want to focus on the fact that 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at the taxpayers’ expense in 2009-10. The TaxPayers Alliance has even broken down those employees by sector: 813 worked in local authorities, 630 in quangos, 611 in Departments, 130 in foundation and acute trusts, 96 in primary care trusts, 43 in NHS mental health trusts and 41 in fire services. My problem with those astonishing figures is simple: why should we spend hard-earned taxpayers’ money on a huge subsidy to the unions? Full-time trade union officials should be paid for by union members, not by the taxpayer.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets the opportunity to make this speech in front of the steel workers whom I have the privilege to represent, because the regulations also apply to the private sector. The Government, who are trying to provoke public sector strikes, should be more fearful of small and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector that are not unionised, where the incidents of wild-cat strikes are increasing. The Government need unions on side to deal with the vast amounts of people and to keep the costs of human resources down. Adjournment debates such as this provoke poor industrial relations.
Mr Burley
I think that the hon. Gentleman will come to regret that question—I am not even sure what his question was. I simply point out that what goes on in the private sector does not bother me because it involves private money. It is public money that I am talking about.
Trade unions are an important part of society and of Britain’s big society. However, the support that they get from the taxpayer has got way out of hand. Few would take issue with unions working on behalf of their members, but they must do it in their own time and with union funding. Why are the public paying for it?
Mr Burley
I will make a little progress.
In the six months to March, the unions had enough money to give almost £5 million of donations to the Labour party, while paying their leaders up to £145,000 a year, which is what the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers boss, Bob Crow, receives. In fact, 38 trade union general secretaries and chief executives receive remuneration of more than £100,000. To name but one, the former joint general secretary of Unite, Derek Simpson, received more than £500,000, including severance pay of £310,000. That is in addition to the fact that the trade unions get £18.3 million—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Although Members on both sides of the House clearly have strong views on this subject, I remind them that this Adjournment debate is being televised. The behaviour of Members does not always reflect well on them. The hon. Member who has secured this Adjournment debate is entitled to be heard.
Mr Burley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that all Members will agree that I am trying to be quite generous in taking interventions, but I have only 15 minutes in which to speak.
In addition to what I said earlier, the trade unions currently get £18.3 million in direct payments from the taxpayer every year through the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund, so they have nearly £20 million in their bank accounts before we factor in any time off at the taxpayer’s expense. Surely they can cover their costs with a £20 million annual grant plus all their subs.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I, too, wish to stress that I support the unions, and I met my union representative today for an hour in relation to certain matters. However, what does my hon. Friend feel the money—the £85 million—could be spent on?
Mr Burley
The very simple answer to that is front-line services, not full-time union officials.
The legal background to the matter is that under section 168 in part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a union representative is permitted paid time off for union duties. According to ACAS, those duties relate to anything including the terms and conditions of employment, the physical conditions of workers and matters of trade union membership or non-membership. However, under the same Act, any employee who is a union representative or a member of a recognised trade union is also entitled to unpaid time off to undertake what are called “union activities”, as distinct from duties. As defined by ACAS, union activities can include voting in a union election or attending a meeting regarding union business, but there is no statutory requirement to pay union representatives or members for time spent on union activities. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear what he is saying.
Union duties and union activities both fall under the remit of a union representative. Some union representatives are therefore currently being paid for undertaking both activities and duties, and I think that is wrong.
Mr Burley
I will give way in a minute.
In addition, union learning representatives are entitled to paid time off for duties including analysing learning or training needs, providing information about learning and training matters, arranging learning or training or promoting the values of learning and training. I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who is chuntering, is not all that the job of the human resources department?
In 2004—[Interruption.] Just be quiet. In 2004, the Labour Government made a commitment to boost the number of union learning representatives in the work force to 20,000, a threefold increase. The upshot is that a significant number of union representatives—nearly 2,500 full-time equivalents—are fully paid for by public funds. That means that the trade unions themselves do not bear their own representation costs.
Phil Wilson
Speaking as somebody who in the early 1980s was a member of the Civil and Public Services Association and received facility time to work as a trade union representative, may I say that where I worked was 90%-plus union organised, and we did not have any strikes? We had a great working relationship in the building, because we could sit down and talk through problems with the management, who enjoyed it. If we started where the hon. Gentleman wants, we would end up where part of my union ended up. In 1984, the CPSA was banned from GCHQ—
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should Opposition Members declare their interest if they have received union funding in their capacity as Members of this House, or for political campaigns, before making interventions? I would be grateful if you could clarify the rules on that matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Mr Wharton, I am sure that everybody is aware of what interests they should be declaring when they participate in any debate. That applies to an Adjournment debate, which is normally the property of the Member who has secured it.
Mr Burley
I have forgotten part of the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made, but I simply say that the unions are entitled to do what they like, and I am sure a lot of what he did was very good work. My point is that they should do it on their own time and it should be paid for by themselves, not by the taxpayer.
Mr Burley
I will in just one minute.
The upshot of all the extra money provided to the unions is that a huge amount of money is freed up, whether from the direct grants or the union fees, that the unions can use on political campaigns. If their other costs are paid at the taxpayer’s expense, the unions can use the rest of their income for political activities.
Mr Burley
I will not give way.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address the distinction between paid time off for union duties and unpaid time off for union activities. What are the Government doing about union officials who play the system and use their paid time off for political activities?
Further, are the Government planning to mandate public bodies to record more accurately what time is taken off for political activities, which should not be funded by the taxpayer? We know from a written answer from the Department for Communities and Local Government that public bodies do not even bother recording union time accurately.
Mr Burley
I will just read this out and then give way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
“if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the use of (a) facilities, (b) resources and (c) staffing time for trade union duties and activities.”
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), replied:
“The TUC have estimated that there are 200,000 union representatives in workplaces across the United Kingdom. Information on the amounts spent on paid time”
on
“the provision of facilities for trade union officials in the public sector is not widely recorded or transparent…Estimates have suggested that…‘facility time’ is more prevalent in the civil service than the rest of the public sector and the private sector, with civil service departments spending, on average, 0.2% of annual pay…on facility time, compared to 0.14% in the”
whole public sector and just
“0.04% in the private sector...We would actively encourage local authorities to reduce the amount of facility time to the norm of private sector levels.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 126W-27W.]
Anna Soubry
I hope that as a shop steward I represented my members with integrity, vigour and some success. I never took a single penny piece from the public purse. Does my hon. Friend, who has so commendably introduced this Adjournment debate, agree that unions would advance their cause if they stopped taking public money? If they did that, more people might join them because they would not be seen as extensions of the Labour party.
Mr Burley
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the point that I was trying to make. My direct question to the Government is this: are they willing to go further and change the 1992 Act, so that trade unions should fund all their activities from their subs? There should be no taxpayer subsidy for those who take time off to spend on union activity.
Mr Burley
I will not give way.
That would be many people’s preference. By way of an example, the excellent, independent and non-taxpayer funded campaigning website order-order, or the Guido Fawkes blog, has been highlighting the practice of paying union officials out of the taxpayer purse. Following its campaign, full-time taxpayer-funded trade union officials have become known as “Pilgrims” in the media, after Paul Staines exposed one such full-time union rep named Jane Pilgrim as a full-time trade union organiser working in the NHS for Unison. She came to public attention in 2011 after criticising the Government’s health policies. Despite being billed as a nurse, she was found to be a full-time trade union official, being paid £40,000 by the hospital. She is now under investigation by both St George’s hospital and Unison for running a private health consultancy—called The Pilgrim Way—on the side, creating a conflict of interests.
As the website states:
“There is no justification for the taxpayer paying a lobbying organisation to fight for an unsustainable mess in the interests of a vocal minority group. We don’t pay the arms dealers and the tobacco lobbyists’ staffing bills”.
Let us consider this classic example, which was flagged up by none other than the black country’s Express and Star:
“Judy Foster…is employed as an administration officer by the fire service…But for the past seven years the Labour councillor has been devoting all her working time to Unison, representing 280 fire workers…The fire service has now insisted that Councillor Foster…spends half her…time…on fire service duties and half with the union…But Unison has appealed against the offer and says her union work should be full time and funded entirely by the taxpayer.”
My question is why and on what grounds?
Jim Sheridan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a proud member of Unite the Union and the chair of the Unite parliamentary group, I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to come along to our group and tell us where we are going wrong. One of the main factors in a trade union official’s job is identifying and preventing health and safety problems in the workplace—not the office, the workplace. Has he factored in any of the figures from the TaxPayers Alliance?
Mr Burley
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) just asked what has gone wrong, and I will tell him. The Express and Star continued:
“Councillor Foster, who was elected in 1998, already picks up £9,300 in allowances from Dudley Council along with £14,475 as vice chairman of the West Midlands Police Authority. With her £28,000 job, it brings her combined taxpayer-funded salary and allowances to more than £51,000.”
It is no wonder that a YouGov poll in conjunction with the TaxPayers Alliance shows more than half the country would like to see an end to the controversial practice of public sector-funded trade union officials.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, declare an interest as I am the former father of the National Union of Journalists chapel at ITV Yorkshire in Leeds. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) attended the TUC last month in London. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) find it surprising that while representing the union members at ITV Yorkshire in Leeds, the fat cat boss at ITV, who was slashing jobs while taking millions in pay, shares and perks, has now been tasked by the Leader of the Opposition with reforming the Labour party?
Mr Burley
I would love to say that I was surprised, but after revising for this debate, I am not surprised by anything anymore.
It is my simple contention that trade unions should pay for representation within public sector organisations through subscriptions. It is unfair that taxpayers should have to shoulder that burden. Unions raise substantial sums through membership subscriptions. For example, subs in the Home Office alone came to more than £2 million in 2009-10. Programmes that give taxpayers’ money to trade unions under the guise of work force improvement should also be scrapped. This includes the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund.
Will the Minister explain what plans the Government have to end full-time trade union work in the public sector? Will he pledge to end full-time representatives who spend 100% of their time on trade union work while being paid their salary by the taxpayer? Will he mandate all public bodies to record accurately time spent on both union duties and activities? Will the Government go one step further? Employment legislation currently requires employers to make available a reasonable amount of time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties. Will he change that so that all time taken off for trade union activities is billed back to the union so that the taxpayer is no longer funding their work?
Finally, given that the unions start the financial year with a £20 million grant from the taxpayer, are the Government looking at reviewing, paring down or abolishing the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund? The taxpayers of this country are currently bankrolling the unions. The equivalent of 2,500 full-time officials are being paid for by the taxpayer, not to do the job of representation but to undertake full-time campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions. This is at a cost of £86 million a year to the taxpayer, with 170,000 days off for union activities and £23 million of perks such as photocopying and phone calls. In an age of austerity, that £86 million is the equivalent of the expenditure of the Office of Fair Trading. Taxpayers expect their money to be spent on public services, not union services. We can no longer afford this Spanish practice, and I call on the Minister to end it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
There was I thinking that this was going to be a quiet conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) in the traditional calm of the Adjournment debate slot, but I was wrong. I congratulate him on securing the debate and the robust way in which he presented his argument.
In the short time I have, I shall try to clarify the Government’s position. First, we need to recognise that employment legislation requires employers to make available a reasonable amount of time off for trade union representatives to carry out their trade union-related duties. There are nine areas of statute where union representatives have rights to paid time off to perform their duties. These cover areas such as representation, informing and consulting, collective redundancy, learning and health and safety. There is a reason for this. There is a clearly defined framework for consultation and negotiation between managers and employees to support good employee relations.
There is a cost to that, however. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has estimated that paid time off for union duties costs employers £400 million annually—0.07% of the total annual pay bill—over half of which, £225 million, fell to public sector employers, with £175 million falling to private sector employers. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I agree that it is important that the right balance is found between effective representation of trade union members and value for money for the taxpayer.
Robert Halfon
Of course we understand that there is abuse, but does my hon. Friend accept that there are neutral unions that use facility time constructively? For example, the First Division Association uses facility time to resolve workplace disputes and to help families of Foreign Office staff relocate overseas. That is valuable work and we should be grateful that the FDA does it. I say that only to make the point that not all unions are made up of the Bob Crows described today.
Mr Hurd
I accept my hon. Friend’s valuable point, but there is clearly a case for reviewing whether we have the right balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase asked a number of questions that I would like to try to address in the time available, so I am afraid that I will have no time for interventions. He asked about the distinction between paid time off for union duties and unpaid time off for union activities, and asked what the Government were doing about union officials who, in his words, “play the system” and use their paid time off for political activities. The ACAS code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities provides a detailed framework for those matters. It sets out examples of trade union duties that should attract reasonable paid time off and examples of trade union activities that can attract reasonable unpaid time off. A review of current practice is under way in the civil service, but, anecdotally, we believe that many Departments, if not most, currently give paid time off for such trade union activities where reasonable unpaid time off may be more appropriate.
My hon. Friend then asked whether the Government were planning to mandate public bodies to record more accurately which time is taken off for political activities that should not funded by the taxpayer. He will be aware that the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced at the Conservative party conference that the Government intend to consult on ensuring transparency about union facility time for which Departments—and ultimately the taxpayers—are paying. We will publish information on civil service trade union representatives and the amount of paid time that is spent on union work, as well as the overall percentage of the pay bill for which this accounts.
Mr Hurd
I said that I would take no more interventions because of the time.
The central point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made, about the 1992 Act, is a matter for Ministers from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to answer. However, I assure him that I will make them aware of the points that he made and ask them to write to him directly.
In answer to the list of questions that my hon. Friend asked at the end of his speech—about Government plans to end taxpayer-funded full-time trade union work in the public sector, end full-time representatives and require transparency about the costs of trade union representatives—the Minister for the Cabinet Office also announced at the Conservative party conference that the Government intend to consult the civil service trade unions on the following propositions. We will consult on introducing a cap on the amount of facilities time that Departments can offer, to bring it into line with the statutory requirements. We will consult trade unions on the practice of allowing trade union representatives to spend 100% of their time on trade union work paid for by the civil service.
Mr Hurd
I will not, out of courtesy to my hon. Friend who secured the debate, as I want to try to answer his questions.
We do not think it reasonable for the civil service to pay people purely to do union work. It is arguably impossible for them to represent the views of the staff in their Department adequately if they are not embedded in its work. In some circumstances, Departments go beyond the requirements of the law by giving paid time off for trade union representatives to take part in internal trade union activities, such as executive group meetings, annual conferences and recruitment meetings. To address that we will consult trade unions about any practice of paying for such trade union activities, with a view instead to enabling employees to take reasonable unpaid leave, as required in statute. In order to ensure transparency about the union facility time for which Departments are paying, we will publish information relating to civil service trade union representatives and the amount of paid time spent on union work, as well as the overall percentage of the pay bill for which this accounts.
As for whether we would go further with employment legislation, I have said that BIS Ministers would respond more fully to that point. However, there are no plans for the law on trade union facility time to be changed specifically for the public sector or otherwise. A reasonable amount of paid time off can offer value for money for the taxpayer. For example, it can minimise working time lost owing to disputes and accidents at work. However, it is important that the Government ensure that public sector employers manage the paid time off that they grant their union representatives effectively to deliver those potential benefits, which are the justification for spending taxpayers’ money.
In answer to the last point that my hon. Friend made, about the grant for the union modernisation fund, there are currently no plans to review the Government’s existing commitment to the union learning fund, as set in “Skills for Sustainable Growth”.
In conclusion, as I have said previously, it is important that employees are represented fairly by union officials. However, in the current financial climate, it is right that the vital balance is found between effective representation of trade union members and value for money for the taxpayer. The measures proposed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office will address the current burden on the taxpayer, while wider transparency measures will ensure that other public sector organisations offer value to the taxpayer. It is essential that we achieve a fair balance on behalf of the taxpayer, and I am happy to keep my hon. Friend updated—
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BBC Local Radio
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, and an honour to have been chosen to open this very well subscribed and well supported debate. I know that many other hon. Members across the House were as eager as me to secure the debate, and my name was one of more than 20 that went forward to the Backbench Business Committee to call for it. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for it, and I apologise for the fact that the ballot selected me over many other Members who are equally or more qualified to address the subject.
I am delighted that the debate will be answered by a Minister who is a self-declared fan of local radio. Given that in our last debate he managed to congratulate me and two other Members on our impending nuptials, I am intrigued to discover what surprises he has in store for us today. I declare an interest because my sister is employed by the BBC, albeit in television rather than in local radio.
This is not the first time this year that Members have gathered to debate this important subject. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who so ably opened the previous debate, and I am pleased that many of the Members who spoke then are here again today. I suspect that my speech may be interrupted now and again, because so many hon. Members are eager to speak on a subject that matters so much to our constituents. I will wrap up my comments soon after 10 o’clock to allow time for other Members to speak.
Like all Members here, I care passionately about BBC local radio in my constituency. I want to set out three main points: why we need this debate now, why I believe that local radio must be treated as a special case in the BBC and why I am particularly concerned about the situation of BBC Hereford and Worcester and the BBC in the west midlands. The reason why we need another debate on local radio is clear. Since our first debate in April, the BBC Trust has published its “Delivering Quality First” consultation and the service review of BBC local radio, which have driven speculation and concern about the extent of cuts to BBC local radio stations. I am sure that many hon. Members have, like me, received calls from constituents and workers at their local radio stations who share those concerns. I am grateful to all who have taken the time to speak to their local MP about the issue, and to all who work so hard in local radio. The BBC says:
“Local Radio is being tasked with finding savings of 12% (10% after reinvestment). As we are asking the BBC as a whole to make savings of between 16-20%—up to 25% in non-content areas—Local Radio has been relatively protected.”
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He mentions a figure of between 10% and 12%, but the figure for BBC Radio Merseyside is 20%, which is a disproportionate and massive cut compared with the overall position. It will result in a saving of £420,000 and the loss of up to 15 jobs. BBC Radio Merseyside serves a predominantly older and poorer audience, who do not listen to national radio, and those people will lose out. Is that a common experience for him?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my next point beautifully, and I know that BBC Radio Merseyside is well represented in this Chamber today. The BBC goes on to point out that
“the savings feel higher because the cost of buildings and technology needed to broadcast in 40 locations means that we cannot avoid cuts being made to the number of programme makers. That’s why in some stations we will be reducing teams by over 20%.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. The number of MPs present is an indication of the importance of the subject across the United Kingdom. I make a plea for Northern Ireland and BBC Radio Ulster, as I am sure people would expect me to do. BBC Radio Ulster plays a crucial role for many people in my constituency. It keeps those who have only a radio to listen to in touch with the news, and many of my elderly constituents in particular see the Sunday morning programmes as an important part of their life. Although we accept the need for cuts, does he agree that consideration must be given to elderly people in our constituencies?
Mr Walker
I thoroughly agree with that point. The same is true for BBC Hereford and Worcester, where I am told that the proposed cuts mean that eight out of 35 jobs are at risk. There is serious concern about the future of the office in Hereford, which is the BBC’s only visible presence in the county.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we have been here before with the BBC? Many years ago, local radio was taken out and at its expense we had regional radio. Does he agree that there is one role for national radio and another for local?
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I am sure that every Member cherishes their local radio station, but while we are discussing local radio in the west midlands, may I make a plea in respect of BBC Radio Stoke, which serves Staffordshire and south Cheshire? The cuts are much greater than the BBC is suggesting, because the breakfast and drivetime programming will be severely reduced if they go ahead. I urge the hon. Gentleman, through the debate, to ensure that everyone responds to the consultation process. We must make our voices heard through local radio and have regard to what is happening to broadcasting rights.
Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)
Order. In view of the number of Members who wish to speak, may I ask for short interventions?
Mr Walker
I take the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) made, and I agree that all our constituents should respond to the consultation and make such sensible points about their local radio. There is much to welcome in the BBC’s consultations, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that it has done a lot to protect its local offering. I welcome the fact that in the local radio service review the BBC set out to protect local peak-time programmes—although I note the hon. Lady’s point—such as breakfast, mid-morning and drivetime, as well as sport and faith on Sunday mornings. I am sure that many hon. Members will be pleased with the suggestion to reinvest savings in dedicated local political correspondents. The proposals for programming include sharing afternoon programmes on weekday afternoons, sharing evening programming on a national level on weekday evenings, and regional programming for off-peak periods. In its main consultation, however, the BBC has also set out plans substantially to reduce spending on sports rights, and I, like many other Members, would like reassurances that that will not result in substantial cuts to the coverage of local sport.
I am sure that Members have many other concerns about the consultations, but I would like to move on to my second point: why does local radio matter so much and why does it deserve special treatment? Local radio reaches a very different demographic from national stations or television. In my constituency, many of its listeners are elderly, work outdoors or cannot afford a television. Statistically, listeners to local radio are more likely to be in the demographic group known as C1 and are unlikely to benefit from other parts of the BBC’s offering. Outside the south-east, local radio listeners are more prevalent than Radio 4 listeners. In the area of the west midlands that I represent, which is covered by BBC Hereford and Worcester, more people listen to local radio than to Radio 4. According to the RAJAR survey for the second quarter of 2011, although Radio 4 has 10.9 million listeners in the UK and BBC local radio has only 7.3 million, in Hereford and Worcester, Radio 4 has 123,000 listeners and BBC Hereford and Worcester has 129,000.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not simply a case of pitting local radio against national radio such as Radio 4, but that local radio is so successful because stations such as BBC Tees deliver sub-regional content? We have to protect such content, because it tells people what is going on in the communities they identify with, rather than in larger regional or national areas.
Mr Walker
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, who pre-empts some of the points that I am about to make. Of the 7 million people who listen to local radio across the UK, more than 2 million listen to no other BBC radio station. Many do not watch television on a regular basis or access the BBC’s online offering, so local radio is their only return for paying the licence fee.
Most importantly, as my hon. Friend has just said, local radio is the part of the BBC that is most genuinely local and based in the communities that it serves. More than television and more than online services, the 40 local radio stations and their offices around the country are often the only representation of the BBC’s service in our constituencies.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is talking about the reach of the BBC, which is a vital point. The BBC reaches an audience that a commercial radio station would not reach out to or want to reach out to. The BBC was set up to connect with precisely such people, so it is vital that the service remains.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the BBC should look to its massive budget for presenters’ salaries, and its provision of fancy hotels for overnight accommodation and first-class travel?
Mr Walker
There are many areas of the BBC other than local radio where the savings it needs to make can be found. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.
People who work in local radio are already multi-tasking, with the same person producing a breakfast show, reading the news later in the day and then doing outside broadcasts at another moment, doubling up the roles of producer and presenter. As the hon. Gentleman just pointed out, those are not the obvious people to cut in an organisation that has a large head office and many highly-paid presenters.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I welcome the debate that my hon. Friend has introduced and the apolitical way that we are all standing up for local radio. I particularly welcome the fact that there are an awful lot of people here from the north-east who are standing up for BBC Newcastle and BBC Tees, which I listen to all the time. Is not the crucial message that we are all sending out—I hope he endorses it—the question of which is more important: local radio or much more expensive television content?
Mr Walker
I totally accept my hon. Friend’s point, albeit, as I declared earlier, my sister works in BBC television, so I have to be rather careful about what I say on that front.
Local radio has an unparalleled information-gathering network, which is why it is such a vital resource in times of trouble or crisis, when local knowledge matters.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but may I give a specific example of local radio acting in a time of crisis? During the terrible floods of 2007, when people lost their lives and others lost water and electricity supplies, BBC Radio Gloucestershire was invaluable in providing vital, life-saving information. We lose that service at our peril.
Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
What I find surprising is that Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC, said categorically in a speech that he made recently that the reputation of the BBC was created during the second world war at a time of crisis. Radio Cumbria covered the foot and mouth crisis, the terrible shootings, the floods and everything else—not just programmes, but an absolute lifeline for the people of Cumbria.
Mr Walker
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remember times in my life when the BBC locally has provided a lifeline when we have been cut off or in crisis situations. Many constituents have told me how much they value the real local knowledge and support provided by local radio at such times.
Andrew George
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Radio reflects the distinctiveness of a local area. Radio Cornwall, which faces a 22% cut in output, is one that will suffer. It is not simply a question of its being audio wallpaper; people listen to it with great intensity. He is making a strong point that it is the uniqueness of local radio that is important. In Cornwall, Radio Cornwall is seen as Cornwall’s national radio.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a passionate point. For all those reasons, I believe local radio is something special. It is not just another part of the BBC and I hope that the Minister will reflect on its unique offering—reaching people the licence fee might not otherwise reach and providing a service that no other part of the BBC can provide—when he makes his response to the BBC Trust.
I want to raise some specific local concerns and then give time to other hon. Members to say their piece. In Worcestershire, people are particularly worried that any shift towards regional programming and any moves to share programming will inevitably mean a focus on the urban west midlands, specifically Birmingham, at the expense of its rural neighbours.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that Cheshire, which does not have its own BBC radio station, has to rely on the good will and great friendship of BBC Radio Stoke? If these measures go through, Cheshire will be relying on output from as far away as Birmingham and possibly Herefordshire.
Mr Walker
I am aware of those concerns and I take them seriously. We need to feed back to the consultation the fact that regions do not necessarily work for the people in our constituencies who listen to radio.
The BBC’s consultation talks about regions such as the west midlands and implies that regionalisation will take place for some programmes. Listeners in Worcester, however, would far rather see programmes shared with similar neighbours such as Warwickshire, Shropshire, Gloucestershire or Staffordshire than with large cities. I represent a city, but a city of 90,000 people, not millions. My constituents appreciate a county-based service for a county town and feel unrepresented by bodies that speak for the whole west midlands. This is not a partisan debate, but my party has campaigned against regionalisation in many other areas and we must question whether regions make sense in the context of BBC radio.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way and he is making a good case. Like him, I represent a big city. BBC Radio Leicester was the first regional radio station. Under these 20% cuts, we will have to share regional programming with Nottingham and Derby. Does he agree that it is a great shame for the people of Nottingham and Derby that they will be overshadowed by the great city of Leicester?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman speaks well on behalf of his city.
The consultation implies that decisions will be reached centrally by the BBC as to which programmes should be shared, but surely it would be better for local radio stations to lead on the process of deciding how sharing should work, so that they may set out how the communities they serve would be best represented by shared programming and where that might not be appropriate.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
As a fellow west midlands MP, I fully support the comments that my hon. Friend has made. While we in the west midlands have love and affection for the great city of Birmingham, is it not extremely important that, within the changes to BBC local radio, coverage of such great sporting teams as Nuneaton Town football club and Coventry City football club is not lost to the big conurbation of Birmingham and the west midlands, but is instead kept local within BBC local radio at BBC Coventry and Warwickshire?
Mr Walker
Once again, I find one of the points that I was about to make beautifully pre-empted by one of my hon. Friends.
Before I move on to that point, there is one more issue that I want to raise on behalf of the west midlands. West midlands constituents fear that the region is being disadvantaged beyond local radio by some of the proposals in “Delivering Quality First”. They have heard of production jobs being moved from Birmingham to Bristol and Salford, production facilities closing, skills being lost to the region and creative talent moving away. At a time when many programmes are being moved out of London into the regions to emphasise the national nature of the BBC, surely it is reasonable to question shifts that appear to be damaging the position of a region as central and as important as the west midlands.
Esther McVey
One of the key points, which the BBC has seen for a long time, is audience fragmentation across BBC radio and television. Surely, when value for money is being looked at, the BBC should look at where its audience is. The audiences are with radio. The BBC should look for savings on BBC 3 and BBC 4 and save stations such as Radio Merseyside.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
There are a staggering 380 jobs going from English regions. Of those 380, 280 are from local radio. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a staggering proportion of those job losses, which will have a disproportionate impact on local radio services, such as BBC Radio Merseyside, which has high fixed costs, such as buildings? Such services have to pay those costs, leading to a further disproportionate impact in job losses.
Mr Walker
I absolutely agree. I made the point in my speech in the previous debate on this topic that those fixed costs make this much more of a burden for local radio than it is for other areas of the BBC.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has said, there are concerns about the unique ability of local radio to cover genuinely local sport. Fans of the Worcester Warriors rugby team, whose tie I proudly wear today, appreciate enormously the intense coverage provided by BBC Hereford and Worcester. We want assurances that the changes to local radio affect neither Saturday nor Friday evening programmes.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned local sport, but I look at the BBC and see multi-teams serving radio, television and all those other outlets for the BBC, travelling all over the world. Hundreds of people are out there. Does he agree that programmes such as those put out by BBC Tees and regional programmes such as “Inside Out” should be protected, while some of those international trips should be reviewed?
Mr Walker
What the BBC can offer as a distinctive value is genuinely local coverage and support for local teams who otherwise might not be able to secure coverage. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the BBC should be looking at its budget for covering some international sporting events to protect more local ones.
I am concerned for fans of Worcestershire county cricket club, of which I am one. They have enjoyed ball-by-ball coverage and the dulcet tones of Dave Bradley, and they will be concerned that sharing weekday afternoon programming may put that at risk. What hope have fans of Worcester City FC and the Worcester Wolves basketball team of receiving local radio coverage in future? More regional programming must mean less local sport, and as any Member could tell us, the local loyalties of sports fans are not easily mapped or divided into regions.
Mr Walker
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once before, so I am afraid I will not give way again. I want to allow time for other hon. Members to raise their concerns, so I do not intend to speak for too much longer.
Some would argue that local news can be provided just as well by the private sector, and indeed in Worcester we have a very good private sector offering. I often enjoy listening to Wyvern FM and reading both the Worcester News and the Worcester Standard, but they do not offer the same service as the BBC. They can be excellent media organisations—
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being extremely generous in giving way. I agree with everything he has said, but what part might community radio stations have in the mix?
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, and I congratulate him on being so eloquent in outlining the benefits of local radio, such as BBC Radio Norfolk, in terms of community democracy and economy.
Did my hon. Friend see the recent comments of the head of news at the BBC, who was reported as saying that it is time that we all grew up? Does he agree that this proposal—which seeks to cut at the grass roots while paying huge salaries to the director-general of the BBC and to other, what I would call fat cats in the organisation—is symptomatic of the current situation? My constituents in Mid Norfolk would be bemused to hear that a public sector organisation continues to indulge in such things at a time when local grass roots are being cut so badly.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes a strong point; the fact is that we are having a grown-up debate today and discussing something that matters to our constituents.
More broadly, all such media organisations are under strain. They are all suffering cuts at the moment, so we are not operating in a space where the BBC is encroaching on the territory of private media organisations; rather, it is the opposite. It is important that we should be supporting local radio at this time.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the most recent listening figures show that the overall weekly reach for BBC local radio is 7.4 million, which is actually 700,000 more than last year. That shows that local communities value local radio and that they like local news. If we are discussing public service broadcasting, that is the type of broadcasting that people want. Does he agree that the BBC should listen to that, make cuts in the back office in White City and at the expense of highly paid presenters, and preserve front-line services?
Mr Walker
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the BBC Trust is listening carefully to today’s debate.
I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, although I appreciate that he will have to point out that the BBC is still in the process of consultation and that many of these matters are as yet undecided.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
This has been a really good debate so far. Radio Plymouth is a small, local station—Gordon Sparks does the morning show and the sports coverage—and BBC Radio Devon offers an award-winning, fantastic service locally. With the Government’s general emphasis on local decision making and localism, is it not important that local radio stations are there to enable communities to discuss such issues?
Mr Walker
In a word, yes.
As I have said before, local radio remains a vital public service. I ask the Minister to communicate to the BBC Trust the strong feelings of the many hon. Members from all parties gathered here today about the value of local radio, the special case that it represents within the BBC, the risks of focusing on regions that mean nothing to the people who live in them, and the many local concerns that have been raised by these proposals. There are so many of us here today because this matters in our constituencies. I am proud to have been able to open the debate and to speak up on behalf of local radio.
Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)
Order. Thirteen Members want to speak, and I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.40 am, so Members can do their own calculations.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will be extremely brief. If nothing else, this debate has been a welcome opportunity for everyone to get a plug in for their local station, which I am sure will ensure them coverage in the future. On that basis, can I speak up for BBC Radio London, which seems to be bearing the brunt of some of the cuts?
As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has said, local radio is at the heart of our local communities. It holds us all to account—both MPs and local authorities. To undermine that at this stage, particularly given the Government’s emphasis on localism, seems to run counter to everything that the House stands for and the Government’s proposals.
There has to be some element of contention in this debate. The whole issue of the cuts stems from the licence fee settlement, and I feel that the Government need to look at reopening that debate. I believe that there were undue influences from the Murdoch empire on the settlement, which therefore resulted in wholesale cuts. It is not just local radio; it is the BBC as a whole, which now envisages cutting 2,000 jobs. As we have heard, some of the brunt of that will fall on local radio. Last night, the National Union of Journalists announced that it will ballot on industrial action. That comes at a time when, frankly, the BBC is needed more than ever, given the issues that are being addressed both nationally and internationally.
I urge the Government to think again about the licence fee settlement. The licence fee is frozen until 2017. Since 2004—we have criticised the previous Government for this—there have been 1,000 job cuts a year, with now another 2,000 on top. The BBC also faces the possibility of being burdened with the funding of regional television, which will mean another round of job cuts and service cuts in future years.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is appropriate that hard-working families in my constituency should have to enable the BBC to employ Kylie Minogue to front a show at a cost of more than £1 million, as we hear in the news today?
John McDonnell
Of course not. The issue of high salaries within the BBC has already been raised and, along with some of the profligate spending at higher levels, that needs to be addressed and resolved. At the end of the day, however, that will not deliver the necessary savings to overcome the threat of cuts across the BBC and into local radio. Therefore, at some stage, the licence fee issue needs to be addressed again.
Mr Marcus Jones
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned BBC cuts. Is it fair and right that the BBC should first look to cut its cloth according to its coat, before it looks to the general public for more money from the licence fee each year?
John McDonnell
I repeat the point that, of course, we all want the BBC to address that agenda, but the savings that we—and Select Committees—have all tried to identify will not meet the overall requirements. Therefore, the licence fee debate needs to be reopened.
I will end on this note. We can all protect our local radio stations and that is what we are here to do. As the BBC enters into further consultation, I hope that it is listening to this debate. In particular, I hope that the BBC Trust board is listening, because it has the responsibility to rein in the BBC management on this issue. We have to re-address the issue of the long-term funding of the BBC, which means that we must look at how the licence fee settlement was arrived at. I believe that there were undue influences. I do not believe that adequate cognisance was taken of the views expressed in the consultation process.
George Freeman
Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence to back up that assertion?
John McDonnell
That is one issue that we have been raising with Ministers, because it would be helpful if they published the information about the number of times that they met with the Murdoch empire to discuss the licence fee settlement. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that, because, up until now, we have not received any detailed information about the times that they met with Murdoch and the times that they discussed the licence fee settlement.
During the licence fee debate, James Murdoch made various statements, including one at a lecture in a Scotland, that particularly focused on reducing the licence fee so that the Murdoch empire could exploit and develop at the expense of the BBC. There is an issue that must be addressed, and we will have to return to it time and again not only in the context of local radio, but of BBC funding itself.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I can put on the record that I have never discussed the licence fee with Rupert Murdoch or the Murdoch empire. Funnily enough, the most influential discussion that I have had was with the Guardian Media Group, which complained about the size of the BBC website.
John McDonnell
To be frank, those discussions around the BBC licence fee that took place with News International were above the Minister’s pay grade. However, as he will know, I have always looked forward to his promotion at some future date.
I want to end on this point, because so many hon. Members want to speak. Of course we all support our local radio; of course this devastation cannot take place; and of course we look to BBC management to look for savings in the high salaries and profligate expenditure identified by hon. Members. At the end of the day, however, we will have to return to the licence fee debate. We need more transparency and openness from the Government on how the licence fee decision was taken and on the undue influence of the Murdoch empire, which has presented the problems we face today.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on the gentlemanly and fantastic way in which he opened today’s debate and on his generosity to colleagues.
We all agree that local radio is a key component of our community. Local radio helps to bind the community together and creates distinctiveness across our nation. Local radio is a centre for people to get news and views. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said, as we move into a localist agenda, local radio will help to hold local politicians to account, sometimes whether we like it or not.
Local radio is also fantastically good value for money. Of the £145 a year that is collected per TV licence, only some 4p in every £1 goes to BBC local radio. BBC Radio Cornwall, for example, has an annual cost of some £1.6 million, but it reaches 142,000 people a year. That is fantastic value compared with other outlets such as BBC Radio Cymru, which costs £16.1 million a year but only reaches an additional 4,000 people.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Anyone who thinks that BBC local radio is expensive should visit the studios in the backstreets of Swindon, where the furniture is made of chipboard and I swear the offices have not been decorated in more than 30 years. My local radio service is exceptionally good. I am sure the station will not mind my saying that, as well as being exceptional and cheerful, the service is certainly cheap.
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. I like to think of BBC local radio as cheap and cheerful, often serving the community and holding it together on a shoestring.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
For many BBC listeners and users who pay the licence fee, local radio is their only contact with the BBC. Some 2 million BBC radio listeners have no other contact. Reducing the service, therefore, is a disservice to those people.
Stephen Gilbert
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The floods in my constituency in November last year showed and brought home to me how much of a lifesaver the news and advice provided by local radio is to a community at times of crisis. The absolute importance of that should not be underestimated by the House.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Like all of us, I champion my BBC local radio station, in Kent, for its excellent work. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not forget the excellent work of independent local radio, particularly community radio stations, which provide an excellent voice for local people at no cost to the taxpayer?
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend makes an eloquent point, and I agree with him entirely.
Sarah Newton
I endorse totally my hon. Friend’s remarks on BBC Radio Cornwall. Does he agree that, as we live in a remote and peripheral part of the country with a great deal of deprivation, commercial radio would be unable to step into the gap left by cuts to BBC Radio Cornwall? We have great local independent radio stations that do a very good job, but they do not have the newsgathering capability that we need.
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend is right: Radio Cornwall is necessary in a rural, peripheral and remote area of the United Kingdom.
I do not want to detain the House for much longer, but I want to make one final point. It is unfortunate that BBC Radio 4 is not coming under closer scrutiny. I confess that I often go to sleep with BBC Radio 4 on in the background. My mother suggests that that is why I speak as I do, rather than with a Cornish accent. BBC Radio 4 is London-centric. Some 78% of its listeners come from the ABC1 demographic, and 44% of its listeners are based in London and the home counties.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is from Cornwall, which, like Merseyside, is an area of our country with an extremely strong identity. We are proud scousers all, and Radio Merseyside helps to define who we are, as I am sure Radio Cornwall helps to define people in Cornwall. Does he agree that this is a question not just of what funding goes where, but of identity, heritage and culture?
Stephen Gilbert
The hon. Lady is entirely right. We risk undermining such regional distinctiveness if we continue to privilege one radio station, BBC Radio 4, above all else. BBC Radio 4 needs closer scrutiny.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I want specifically to address the role of local radio in dealing with civil emergencies. As a Member who represents Hull, which suffered greatly in the 2007 floods, I know that the information given out by the local radio station, Radio Humberside, was important for local people. It was important for local people to know what was happening and what the police and fire service were advising, and to get information on the state of the roads in the city and on school closures. Radio Humberside actually became the fourth emergency service for its listeners.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
When we had flooding in Goole this summer—the hon. Lady is a near neighbour and I am sure she was listening—within seconds of my tweeting on the heavy rain that caused the flooding of hundreds of properties, Radio Humberside was on the telephone wanting to know what was happening. Radio Humberside gave out that advice immediately.
Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Our part of the world has problems with flooding, and Radio Humberside is excellent at picking up on it and is on the scene straight away to get out information. Radio Humberside is excellent, and I pay tribute to its work on that particular issue, as well as all of its other work.
In December 2007, Radio Humberside was recognised by the Prime Minister of the day as one of the flood heroes. Peter Levy came to London and was awarded a certificate for Radio Humberside’s work.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It seems that many Members have experienced floods. It is coming up to a year since we had a terrible gas explosion, which was covered by BBC Radio Manchester. Some 200 families were evacuated—so it was a similar situation—and I praise BBC Radio Manchester’s unrivalled coverage of that terrible crisis for the affected families across the area.
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In the days, weeks and months following the floods, Radio Humberside gave people information from the National Flood Forum on what they should do and where they could seek advice, which was important. Many hon. Members across the House know of the importance of local radio.
I will finish shortly because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I am told that, if there is a civil emergency, local radio broadcasting on, say, a pan-Yorkshire basis could switch back to very local transmission. Given the reduction in staff numbers and available resources, I do not know how feasible that would be, how quickly it could happen and whether we would get the service we need.
My final comment is on the demographics of the people in my constituency who listen to Radio Humberside. Overall, 79% of listeners come from the C, D and E demographics, and, as other Members have said, they do not access BBC services in any other way. Those groups are the hardest to reach with public service information, so it is vital that local radio output gets to those people whom we cannot reach in any other way.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing this timely debate. The attendance is fantastic.
I will talk about football in a moment, not least because of Huddersfield Town’s thrilling 2-2 draw at Scunthorpe United last night, which takes Huddersfield’s unbeaten league run to 40 matches. Coverage, of course, is on BBC Radio Leeds, more of which in a moment.
Let me clearly state that I accept and support the freezing of the BBC licence fee. It is right that the fee should not go up during these tough economic times. I want to comment on how the BBC chooses to spend what money it has, rather than campaign for an increase in its budget. The issue is all about choices for the BBC top brass and about protecting the front line, and nothing is more front-line than BBC local radio.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
On making choices, we might consider savings on middle management across the BBC. Its careers website lists an asset acquisitions co-ordinator, a database architect and a thematic adviser, and I have no doubt that the people of Swindon would prioritise our shoestring, award-winning breakfast show over those examples.
Jason McCartney
Those are fine examples, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on them. I should have written them into my speech.
In a previous Westminster Hall debate, I spoke about the value and vital community role of speech-based BBC local radio, which is a much listened to front-line service that is not provided by any other broadcaster. I particularly love BBC local radio, not just as a listener and—as a Member of Parliament—a contributor, but as a former BBC local radio employee. I used to report for BBC Tees, or BBC Radio Cleveland as it then was, when Juninho, Emerson and Ravanelli were playing for the Boro. Those were very exciting times.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. BBC Radio Cornwall will lose 36% of its local output, which means cuts in our language broadcasting. The spoken word is so important, and the only opportunity for Cornish speakers to have news and content for them will be lost if the cuts go ahead.
Jason McCartney
I agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent point. Speech-based services are not usually offered by commercial radio, and the cuts come at a time when even those commercial radio stations that have news and speech-based services are cutting them back and concentrating on more music output.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about speech-based radio. In relation to music, commercial radio tends to focus on chart hits, but stations such as BBC Radio Nottingham provide opportunities for local musicians and artists to be heard, who would never have those opportunities on commercial radio. Does he agree that local radio also acts as a champion for local artists and popular culture?
Jason McCartney
The hon. Lady makes a superb point about the variety of musical choices. BBC Radio Leeds has a session for unsigned bands on Thursday evenings and has Yorkshire brass on a Sunday afternoon.
I want to concentrate on local sports. The coverage of local rugby league will be cut back at BBC Radio Leeds. Where will rugby league fans be able to keep up to date with the likes of the Dewsbury Rams, the Hunslet Hawks and Halifax? There will be the odd score flash about the Bradford Bulls and the Huddersfield Giants on Radio 5 Live, because they play super league games, but full match coverage of such games is rare on Radio 5 Live, which is very focused on football.
Jason McCartney
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is a big advocate for rugby league.
Greg Mulholland
Last night, my hon. Friend and other members of the all-party group on rugby league heard about the amazing community work that is being done by rugby league. The cuts to many of the stations that have been mentioned will do real damage not only to the coverage of the sport, but to its ability to assist in the community. Does he agree that there should be a full impact assessment of the effect on rugby league before any decisions are made?
Jason McCartney
My hon. Friend is right, and we will take the matter forward with the all-party group on rugby league.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I praise the hon. Gentleman for his speech, because he is making an important point about sport. I was brought up in a family that listened to BBC Radio Merseyside all the time. It is an excellent radio station, which has not only local but regional coverage. One reason why we listened to it was for the sports coverage.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, rugby league is a very important sport in my area. There is not only the issue about dealing with community views and getting messages across, but about ensuring that the coverage remains at the same level. The worry is that other sports will be covered and that rugby league will be left behind. Does he agree that we should talk to the BBC and strongly make the point that rugby league must retain the same focus?
Jason McCartney
I absolutely agree, particularly as we head towards the Olympics. Olympic sports will receive a lot of coverage, but we must not forget the heritage sports. Coming from Huddersfield, the birthplace of rugby league, I will work very hard on that with the all-party group on rugby league.
Jason McCartney
After my next paragraph, I will take a couple more interventions and then sit down.
As for football, BBC Radio Leeds provides super coverage of Leeds United, Bradford City and—my team—Huddersfield Town. I was among 16,000 fans who saw Town beat Preston 3-1 at home on Saturday. This weekend, Town are way down at Yeovil and most of those fans, including me, will be tuning in to BBC Radio Leeds’ top team of Paul “Oggy” Ogden and former Town midfielder Kieran O’Regan for their biased, passionate and knowledgeable match coverage. Their superb commentary includes the use of tweets, Facebook and lots of fan interaction, but BBC Radio Leeds now says that it is to ditch coverage of away matches and, instead of Oggy and Kieran, the home side’s local radio team will provide the commentary. It just will not be the same—gone will be the passion and the in-depth knowledge that are synonymous with footy fans.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
That will happen not only to sports coverage. BBC Radio Lancashire is concerned that all outside broadcasting will be affected, and we should put pressure on the BBC to sort that out.
Jason McCartney
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Outside broadcasts are important, as we have heard, at times of emergency—floods, major job losses and, in my part of Yorkshire, heavy snow. The reading out by BBC Radio Leeds in the morning of the list of school closures was very valuable and useful to parents.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a passionate case for the continuance of rugby league coverage on BBC Radio Leeds. I am sure he agrees that, in my part of the world, in Gloucester, it is important to continue to have coverage of rugby union, especially so that the roar from the Shed when we score tries against the team in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker)—the Worcester Warriors—can be heard across the county.
Jason McCartney
I hope the players are not out nightclubbing the night before.
Whether the local coverage is of football, rugby league or basketball, the BBC must revisit its decision. It should think again about priorities—instead of big exec salaries, having hundreds at Glastonbury and copy-cat programming that is produced by other broadcasters—and focus on local output and on local sport.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing this important debate. I ask every Member who is attending today to go back to their office at 11 am and to put in a request to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for a debate in the main Chamber as soon as possible, because the subject is sufficiently important to be worthy of such a debate. There is consensus, and we need to make the trust totally aware of the importance of local radio.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I encourage the hon. Lady to ask hon. Members to write to their noble Friends in the other place, so that Lord Patten can listen directly to their parliamentary views.
Angela Smith
I completely agree.
My local station is BBC Radio Sheffield. It was the country’s second local radio station, and it started broadcasting almost 44 years ago in 1967. Last November, it was voted the station of the year at the prestigious Gillard awards. We feel that our local radio station is the best in the country, although not all Members in the Chamber would agree with me.
One thing is for sure—BBC Radio Sheffield plays an important part in ensuring that local people keep in touch with the world around them. As one local journalist said to me last week, “BBC radio serves a lot of people, many of whom may be poor, old and working class, and not very well served elsewhere on the radio network.”
Angela Smith
No, because the hon. Lady has intervened three times already.
In the previous Adjournment debate on this topic, I talked about the popularity of some of our presenters. However, I want to focus today on how the proposals published by the trust will impact on my radio station. That impact threatens to be drastic. During the week, output will go regional at 1 pm and drive-time broadcasting will be local, but the output will then go national after 6 pm. On Sundays, local broadcasting will end at 1 pm. The total reduction in local broadcasting is way beyond the 20% cited by the trust—it is nearly 50%.
The station’s popular afternoon show, hosted by Paulette Edwards, faces the chop. As Yorkshire Members will know, there was a pilot recently in Yorkshire where that afternoon slot was shared regionally. It is fair to say that the pilot was not successful, with the vast majority of respondents to the consultation commenting that they wanted to see the return of the dedicated south Yorkshire show hosted by Paulette Edwards. I agree with them. I do not want to hear about a lost dog in York or a cat stuck up a tree in Leeds, and I am sure that the people of Leeds and York do not want to hear about the ups and downs of south Yorkshire sport, particularly its football clubs.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the shift towards more regional programming is about not only the hours broadcast, but the threat to the local knowledge of that station? Such knowledge really matters when it comes to events such as the Gloucestershire floods or even to reporting the current fantastic run of victories by Cheltenham Town football club, which is currently near the top of league two.
Angela Smith
I agree. As the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) has pointed out, under the proposal, coverage of local football teams playing away from home would be abolished. At present, BBC Radio Sheffield listeners enjoy commentary from Seth Bennett, Paul Walker and Andy Giddings. When Sheffield Wednesday play Huddersfield Town soon, I do not want other people’s commentators telling me about my team’s performance at that match. Similarly, the hon. Gentleman will not want to hear Seth Bennett commenting on Huddersfield when his team comes to Hillsborough to be beaten very soon. If implemented, the proposals will mean that almost 20% of locally employed BBC Radio Sheffield staff might face redundancy, with a full-time equivalent reduction of nine posts out of 40, which would seriously impinge on the station’s ability to provide a rounded and informed local service.
Turning to the comments made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley, we are where we are with the freezing of the licence fee. Unfortunately, the BBC must find savings, whether we agree with them or not. It is right to defend local radio and to point out that the BBC has decided to protect Radio 4, BBC 1, much of children’s TV and the BBC Proms series, which will receive investment at the expense of local radio. Although local radio is the most expensive BBC radio service, with running costs of £118 million, it delivers 40 stations and has an audience of more than 7 million listeners. In comparison, Radio 4 costs approximately £96 million and Radio 5 Live costs approximately £60 million, with both delivering a significantly smaller audience than local radio. Almost 250,000 people listen to BBC Radio Sheffield every week, which equates to 19% of the market. Unsurprisingly, sports coverage is very popular. On Saturday afternoons, 25% of the local audience turns the dial to BBC Radio Sheffield, which says much about the quality of our sports coverage.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
On sports coverage, does my hon. Friend agree that many people who listen on a Saturday afternoon are very vulnerable? They do not have sufficient finances, they are less well off and many of them are disabled people who cannot get to sports events. To stop feeling totally isolated from society, they rely heavily on local radio to give a quality service at least once a week.
Angela Smith
I agree, and I shall make that point more fully shortly.
The average age of a BBC Radio Sheffield listener is 54, and although sports coverage and the breakfast show enjoy a lower age profile, from 10 am onwards the audience is made up of older people, many of whom regard the station as their key and sometimes only contact with the world around them. Two thirds of the station’s audience are classed socially as C2, D and E, and many people listen to no station other than BBC Radio Sheffield. It is true that Radio 2 and our commercial radio, Radio Hallam, have a bigger audience than BBC Radio Sheffield, but BBC Radio Sheffield’s share is significantly higher than that of Radio 4, which gets 12% a week, or 157,000 listeners, and Radio 5 Live, which gets 9.9%, or 126,000 listeners a week.
Those figures suggest that audiences value a local offer, yet in the proposals, Radio 4 would be protected and local radio would be cut. Again, in an organisation with a historical culture of top-down management, we are seeing centralised decision making at the expense of the localism that I thought we were all in favour of nowadays. BBC local radio is unique, because no one else in the BBC or in the commercial sector offers a similar service. As a BBC journalist who used to work in local radio said to me only last week, the amount of time given to producers and researchers at Radio 4 for making features is so much longer than in local radio. I know they have had some of the fat cut over the past few years, but they still have an amazing luxury of time over their colleagues in local radio. I would not want to see Radio 4 cut drastically, but it could take its fair share of cuts.
BBC local radio represents public service broadcasting at its best. Its audience will suffer a significantly reduced service if the cuts go ahead on the scale proposed. However, because, by its nature, its audience is disparate, the chances are that their views will not be expressed in the consultation. That is why this debate is important and why it should be heard in the main Chamber. I urge colleagues to request that today, so that our constituents’ views can be aired properly.
Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
The BBC has had to recognise that savings must be made, as has every family in the land. The problem is that, instead of doing what needed to be done, the BBC management chose to salami-slice its operation. Instead of seeing vanity projects going, cuts in waste on real estate and cuts in stars’ and management salaries, we are seeing a series of identical slices across the board. For a television programme or channel, those slices are relatively modest and do not make a huge impact. When applied to local radio, however, those same slices make a significant difference.
As an aside, which may be a cheap shot, I could not help noticing from the figures that an Opposition Member gave that the director-general of the BBC earns, as an annual salary, almost twice the cuts that are being demanded of BBC Radio Merseyside.
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend’s reference to salami slices and cuts that are not thought through reflects the situation of BBC Radio Merseyside, which will lose one third of its staff. The BBC has not thought it through.
Mr Gale
The point is made. The BBC has created a plethora of channels and the management should be considering the arguments. I hope that the trustees will take the debate on board, because you can bet your sweet life that the BBC management will not listen. We therefore must go to the trustees and say, “Please listen. This matters.” It matters to the people whom everyone in this Chamber and all our other colleagues represent.
Local radio is important for all the reasons that have been stated. It is important for health and security, and it is a lifeline at times of crisis. We must reinforce the point that it is also a vital training ground for young journalists. Many people have cut their teeth in BBC local radio: Kate Adie used to work for BBC Plymouth; Libby Purves used to work for BBC Oxford; and someone called Roger Gale trained at BBC Radio London—[Hon. Members: “Where is he now?”]—and then disappeared without trace. If we allow the cuts to go ahead, broadcasting in general—not only in BBC local radio, but in national radio, in local and national television, and in all the other stations that have fed off that training process for years—will be all the poorer. Once that infrastructure has gone, it will be impossible to get it back again.
One point has not been made well enough. People listening to the debate will say, “They’ve all missed the point. We are promising them another political reporter and we will maintain the breakfast and drive programmes. We will preserve all the things that matter.” No, what really matters is the whole structure of BBC local radio. The BBC has always argued that it does not want ghetto broadcasting, saying that it will not cream off the important bits and that it has to provide a rounded programme. The people who listen to BBC local radio listen to it all, not just a bit of it. That means that the music in the afternoon, the community programmes, and people such as Jo Burn on BBC Radio Kent, who does wonderful work in the community, matter a great deal.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point in what is an excellent speech. The reason why BBC local radio is so successful and has that holistic view is that it is based in the core of local communities. As he has said, it is not simply about ensuring that the drive-time show is on; it is about reporters who go out to communities and pick up local stories. It is about the community projects that BBC local radio supports, such as the Treehouse appeal for a local children’s hospital that BBC Radio Suffolk supports. That is why local radio is so valuable, and the trustees of the BBC must listen to this debate.
Mr Gale
That is a precise summary of the entire argument. This issue matters to real people living real lives, who are not the people in the higher reaches of Broadcasting house, television centre or Salford quays—wherever that is—but the people we represent. We must all impress upon the trustees that they have to take this proposal back, listen and make cuts not in local radio but where they can and should be made.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I am heartened by what is the best turnout I can remember for a Westminster Hall debate. I declare an interest: I began my broadcasting career with BBC Radio Devon.
The focus of this debate has rightly been on local radio, but at least one Member has mentioned that regional TV current affairs programmes face even bigger cuts, particularly the “Inside Out” programme, which has more viewers than “Panorama,” and some of the biggest national documentaries. As MPs, we are acutely aware of the importance of local radio and regional TV to the health of our democracy, and at a time when ITV, independent local radio and local newspapers are doing less local news and current affairs it is vital that the BBC maintain its commitment to quality, and to local and regional output.
I understand that the BBC has to make savings because of the severe and, in my view, unjustified cuts imposed on it by the Government, but the corporation should take a much more long-term strategic approach to its reduced circumstances. Instead of trying to continue to do everything it currently does but with less money, salami-slicing—as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) said—programmes that are already cut to the bone, it should be bold and stop doing things that few people watch or listen to, or that the commercial sector already does perfectly adequately. The BBC management seems to have been so traumatised by the backlash to its earlier proposals to close 6 Music and the Asian Network that it will not now contemplate closing down anything. That is not leadership and, as a number of Members have said, the current proposals reflect a strong London and south-east bias.
Barbara Keeley
BBC local radio costs only a few pence per user, but the coverage of sports such as rugby league, which are important in the north of England and for which BBC Manchester has won a prestigious award, would be lost. A crucial factor is that the coverage costs only a few pence an hour.
Mr Bradshaw
I absolutely agree.
I will finish on this point because other Members want to speak. At the end of the current consultation, the BBC Trust will make the final decision on the proposals; I hope that it does the job that Parliament gave it and tells the BBC that when it comes to local radio and regional television current affairs, it must think again.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. This is one of the best attended Westminster Hall debates that I have been in as an MP.
I am conscious of the time and will not take many minutes. After speaking in a previous debate on this subject, I last week presented a petition with more than 2,000 signatures, from my constituents and people across the whole of Liverpool who are absolutely aghast at the cuts that the BBC proposes for BBC Radio Merseyside. BBC Radio Merseyside is the most listened to of the BBC’s 39 local radio stations outside London, with more than 300,000 listeners. One of the most pertinent facts is that the station has average listening hours of 16.2, compared with 11.7 for Radio 4. My constituents and the people of Merseyside depend on the service.
Bill Esterson
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very strong case she has made on behalf of BBC Radio Merseyside over a number of months. A statistic that has really struck me is that the station gets 16.7% of all radio listening in the area, compared with just 8% for Radio 4. That makes a strong case for the importance of local radio over national radio in Merseyside.
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Another statistic is that a disproportionate number of constituents over the age of 65 listen to BBC Radio Merseyside. Some 42% of the audience is in that age group, and 27% is in demographic groups D and E. I add my voice to the representations made by a number of Members this morning, about this being yet another assault by the BBC on people who are consistently left out and do not have services—they depend on their BBC local radio.
We received a representation from the BBC in advance of this debate, from Julia Ockenden in its public affairs unit. She makes the point that with local radio the savings are only 12%, but she goes on to state:
“However the savings feel higher because the cost of buildings and technology needed to broadcast in 40 locations means that we cannot avoid cuts being made to the number of programme makers. That’s why in some stations we will be reducing teams by over 20%.”
That is happening at BBC Radio Merseyside. We have the fixed costs of the building, so the cuts will have to fall disproportionately on staff numbers, which will impact on our news service and sports programming, and on some very specialist music programmes that my constituents enjoy.
BBC Radio 4’s £119 million budget has been protected. That is three times the budget of the largest commercial radio station, and only a couple of million less than the amount that all 39 local BBC radio stations will have as a result of the proposed cuts. The “You and Yours” programme on Radio 4, which broadcasts for just one hour a day, five days a week, has more staff than the entire complement of BBC Radio Merseyside. The impact of the proposed cuts on all the programming is a travesty.
Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.40 am.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
This is an extremely well-attended debate. Given the time available, and as there is an amazing amount of consensus in the room, I will not repeat what other Members have said.
We have heard about the 20% cuts, and Radio Tees, on whose behalf I speak, faces that sort of budget reduction, but the BBC needs to explain why other radio stations are getting much smaller cuts; for example in Berkshire it is 7% and in Somerset, 2%. As a public organisation, it is really important that the BBC explains to the public how it has made its decisions. We all pay our licence fee and deserve a level of service that does not depend on geography, so the BBC needs to explain how the proposals relate to the important parts of its charter that require it to deliver such services.
Radio Tees is a fantastic organisation, and it is amazing that we have an ex-employee in the room. Nearly every MP from the Tees area has been in the debate today. The station provides a fantastic service to a very large population in not just the Tees valley but a large part of north Yorkshire and south Durham. The service is led by the peerless Ali Brownlee, who does not only the football commentary but the morning show.
How can the BBC make other savings? We have heard about ludicrous salaries; most Members in this room could probably earn more somewhere out there but we are here because we want to provide a public service. If a BBC manager requires £500,000 to do a management job, we have the wrong person in the job. It is important that we start to put the public service element back into our public services. Why are there more pundits on “Match of the Day” than on any other football show? Why were there more BBC people than UK competitors in Beijing? That is ludicrous. The BBC needs to take a long hard look at itself before slashing radio services. Why is it slashing them? If we wanted to be cynical, we could say that the best way to get people to campaign about the licence fee is to cut the very services they depend on every day. I hope that is not true, but I am suspicious.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has talked about presenters on his local radio station. Does he agree that the very local nature of radio stations means that there is a bond between the presenters and the listeners? They live in the same area, shop in the same shops and get stuck in the same traffic jams. That bond is a shared experience that does not exist anywhere in the national media.
Ian Swales
I absolutely agree. Only last Friday night I was at a charity brass band concert for Help for Heroes in Marske in my constituency, and it was introduced for nothing by the BBC Tees presenter John Foster.
Esther McVey
I want the BBC to think about the cuts, which will be self-defeating. Radio Merseyside could lose a third of its staff. What will be the results for accuracy of cutting so many staff?
Ian Swales
I agree. The BBC has an important duty to be accurate.
Another point that has not been made is that the BBC must listen to the listeners. What do they want? I think that the BBC will find that listeners value radio far more highly than some of the other services that it offers. It should reconsider the cuts. In the words of the great Joni Mitchell song, you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on initiating this first-class debate. There is clearly concern across the House; more than 50 Members have been here this morning. There is a lot more to say, and the BBC needs to hear that there is cross-party agreement on our serious concern about its proposed cuts to local radio.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) pointed out that the BBC must take a strategic approach to shaping services. At the moment, it is not clear that it has done so. Local radio accounts for only 4% of its costs, yet the cuts will have a disproportionate impact on local radio, not because the amount of money being sought—12%--is above average but because it obviously costs more to broadcast in lots of different places.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good point. Does she agree that in the case of Radio Humberside, which is in its 40th anniversary year, losing 10 staff from a team of 42 will have the impact that she describes on quantity and quality of output?
Helen Goodman
Yes. My hon. Friend is quite right. One interesting thing that has emerged in this debate is the regional bias in the cuts. Many more Members from the north and west of the country are here, because those areas will be harder hit. Merseyside and Tees will be cut by 20%, while Somerset will be cut by 2%. It is not clear why. That also means that people will continue to feel that the BBC has a metropolitan bias.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend. In my area, it is more than apparent to local people and BBC Tees that funds are being redirected to the south from the north-east, unfairly disadvantaging our local area.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is right. There is a regional bias, a bias against radio rather than television and a bias in terms of which audiences will be hit. Many hon. Members have pointed out that BBC local radio is listened to more by older people and those on lower incomes. It is important that those people should have their fair share of public service broadcasting.
Hon. Members have raised four important issues involved in local radio broadcasting. The first is democratic accountability. If local councils and other regional bodies are to be democratically accountable, proper coverage of what they are doing is needed. Only local radio can give that. If people are to feel that their region is special and if local culture is to be maintained, people must be able to hear it on the radio. If people are to enjoy and maintain interest in local sport—we have heard about local sport from many hon. Members, sometimes at too great a length—local radio clearly has an important part to play. Many hon. Members also spoke about the important role of local radio at times of crisis. That is essential. The BBC management document says, “If there’s a crisis, we’ll slot ourselves in,” but if the infrastructure has been lost, that cannot happen. The BBC needs the infrastructure to provide coverage at the right times.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. May I add another objective of local radio, which is to champion an area? BBC Tees has championed new and exciting renewable technologies as well as the closure of the Corus plant in Redcar and the opening of SSI. Radio can use its local distinctiveness to do things that other broadcasting media cannot.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I do not know why he omitted to mention the great campaign to keep the Zurbaran paintings in the north.
Local radio has key roles to play. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) made a good point about recruiting journalists. Local radio gives people across the country a route into journalism. If this country is to have more social mobility, we need more openings for people to enter important professions. Furthermore, this country needs more regional news gathering. The cuts to local radio, combined with the cuts to television in both the public and independent sectors and to BBC Radio 5 Live, will result in far less national reporting on regional and local issues. That is another instance of bias. We frequently hear human interest stories from the United States while equally important and more interesting things are going on in our own country. Local broadcasting is the way to ensure that we hear about them.
When the Minister responds, I hope that he will not entirely wash his hands of the Government’s responsibility for what is happening. Everybody agrees that some people employed by the BBC, either permanently or on short-term contracts, are paid ludicrously high salaries. Equally, everybody agrees that efficiencies can be achieved in London and in the services bought in by the BBC. None the less, does he still think that a six-year freeze in the licence fee is justified? We do not know what Mephistophelean deal was done; maybe he will enlighten us. That would be interesting, although I am sceptical that he will do so. When the six-year freeze was announced, it looked as though it would mean 20% cuts, 4% through efficiency and 16% through reductions in services. However, since then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not kept inflation under control, meaning that the cut will be much deeper.
Does the Minister have a new assessment of what the BBC cut will be in real terms? Given that it is coming at the beginning, we can all work out that the cuts will be larger. Does he not see that as a case for re-addressing the size of the licence fee? He must take into account that when British people are asked whether 40p a day is too much to pay for the BBC, they say, “No, 40p a day is good value.” It is clear that the 7 million people who listen to local radio particularly value it. For 2 million people, local radio is their sole contact with the BBC. I cannot express too strongly how much we support local radio and want the cuts to be re-addressed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on securing this important debate, and I welcome the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) to her position as shadow media spokesman for the Labour party. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have participated in this debate. I did a quick head count while the Chamber was full and came to about 46 Members, but it might be like the euro-rebels—a refined count might yield a higher number, given how many came in during the debate.
We have heard interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman), for Wirral West (Esther McVey) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the hon. Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and the hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I am sure that I have missed some.
We have also heard extended and learned speeches from the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) and the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), as well as from the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), before the contribution of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister has not mentioned the constituency of Worsley and Eccles South, which champions BBC Radio Manchester.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
In the Minister’s own interests, as well as mine, will he also mention Radio Oxford, where there is also a lot of concern?
Mr Vaizey
The right hon. Gentleman invites me to kick at an open goal.
I praise the BBC. It has put a lot of thought and hard work into delivering quality first. I will come to the licence fee payment in a moment, but no channels are closing. It has made some important strategic decisions and is looking to save about 11% of its budget in productivity and about 6% in terms of scope. It has also decided to go further on reductions in spending in order to have room to reinvest in programming and front-line services. I also welcome the extra investment in children’s channels. I personally welcome the support for the Proms, and we can all have a view about Radio 4.
Ian Swales
May I recommend that the Minister gets one of his staff to plot the constituency names that he has listed? I think that he will find that very few of them are in the south-east and the London area. The intensity of the number of constituencies increases the further we get from London. That is a serious message.
Mr Vaizey
I think that my favourite pirate disc jockey, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet, would have something to say about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester anticipated, the consultation has started and it closes on 21 December, so Members have a chance to respond. Even better, the director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, and its chairman, Lord Patten, will come to Portcullis House on 2 November at 4.15 pm. I think there are still tickets available, although the meeting may have to be moved to Methodist Central Hall at this rate. For the benefit of my hon. Friend, it is a double whammy, because Lord Patten used to be a European Commissioner, so we can raise issues with him about the pernicious influence of the European Union, as well as talk about the BBC.
BBC local radio has 7 million listeners. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) has invited me to talk about BBC Radio Oxford, and this debate gives us the chance to praise our local radio stations. The last time I praised BBC Radio Oxford, it turned it into a jingle, so let me say: “BBC Radio Oxford—your listening pleasure is assured, with Malcolm Boyden, Joel Hammer, Bill Heine, Lou Hannan and Paul Miller.”
I would also like to mention Jack FM and Heart FM in Oxford. It is important to remember the role of commercial radio. The BBC has two thirds of radio listeners, so it starts from a high base, but commercial radio stations are also popular in our local areas. Let us not forget, either, community radio. I give credit where it is due—that is a great achievement, one of the few of the previous Labour Government. There are now 220 community radio stations around the country.
Mr Bradshaw
The Minister spoke a moment ago about the document having a strategic approach, but what is strategic about salami-slicing? Why has the BBC not been bolder and decided to close down certain services? Is it because the BBC wants to spare the Minister’s blushes in terms of the public impact and outrage that might cause?
Mr Vaizey
If I may be so bold, I think that sparing my blushes is the last thing on the BBC’s mind. I also think that the fact that almost 50 Members have turned up to this debate shows that it has hardly spared my blushes. There are controversial cuts elsewhere, but, as I have said, I think that some deep thought has gone into this. We will all have individual views about services that could be reduced or, indeed, cut completely.
Taking into account the reinvestment in programming, the cuts to local radio will be about 10%. [Interruption.] I said after reinvestment had been taken into account. The strategic decision is to invest in breakfast, mid-morning and drive, which is when 86% of listening to BBC local radio takes place. There are plans to recruit specialist and chief reporters for every channel.
I commend the blog of Helen Boaden, the head of BBC news, on today’s debate. She says that the BBC has no intention of letting its audiences down. That is an important assurance from the head of news for BBC radio. Members may treat that comment with scepticism, but she has put it on the record.
The BBC has assured us that it remains committed to local sports coverage. Interestingly, local sports clubs charge the BBC to supply commentary. There may be some leeway on the fees charged by local sports clubs, but I would not want to see the amount of money going into them significantly reduced.
Damian Collins
I am one of the three Kent MPs who have spoken in this debate. We feel the cuts in Kent and are concerned about Radio Kent. This debate has been about cuts, but should the BBC not also be looking to maximise its commercial revenues through BBC Worldwide and the potential commercial exploitation of older programmes through iPlayer?
Mr Vaizey
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I asked him earlier whether he was sitting behind me because he was acting as my de facto Parliamentary Private Secretary, but he replied that it was because it was the only seat left in the Chamber. He is right that the BBC’s commercial income needs to be reinvested in programming. BBC Worldwide is a great success. It ran into trouble in this place because of some of its decisions, but it is run by a supremely effective executive, John Smith. I gather that an additional £40 million from BBC Worldwide will be going into programming.
Esther McVey
I want to make a clear and specific point: let us save the local radio stations and make savings on BBC 3 and BBC 4.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Gentleman has just ensured that he will get a smooth ride the next time he appears on “Newsnight”. There is a consultation and all Members have the chance to put their views to the BBC. As I have said, the director general and chairman will come to Portcullis House.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has asked what I think, which is that we got a good deal for the BBC. It is important to remember—I made this point to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—that the most effective lobby in relation to concern about BBC scope when I was in opposition was made by the Guardian Media Group, which was concerned that it could not monetise its website because of the scope and breadth of the BBC website. Interestingly, The Guardian employs roughly the same amount of people as BBC local radio. It is having to make significant job cuts, which it announced in June. Even The Guardian, apart from Polly Toynbee, has to live in the real world and make savings. Not a single other media group in the country has certainty of funding until 2017—that certainty is an enormous luxury—apart from S4C. I commend the deal struck only yesterday between the BBC Trust and S4C, under which an enormous amount of money will go into Welsh programming.
Bill Esterson
The Minister has, on occasion, taken a light-hearted approach during his response. A number of Members, including me, have pointed out that a significant number of jobs are at risk. I do not think that people who face losing their jobs regard the issue as light-hearted. Moreover, a number of vulnerable elderly and disabled people rely on BBC local radio. The Minister has not touched on those points yet, so will he address them in the time remaining?
Mr Vaizey
I have made the point that the reductions in BBC local radio are less than in other BBC services. The hon. Gentleman’s tone is priggish, which is inappropriate to this debate, but other Opposition Members have suggested closing down services. They have suggested cuts to Radio 4 and to BBC 3, which would result in job losses. There will be job losses in the BBC, as is the case in other media companies.
We have given the BBC certainty of funding until 2017. The Labour party’s policy is unclear. Is it to reopen the licence fee settlement? If so, it should state the level to which it wants the licence fee to be raised. If that is its policy, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland is welcome to state it.
Mr Bradshaw
With due respect to the Minister, his speech could have been written by the management of the BBC. It is not his job to be a cheerleader for the BBC, and that is not the trust’s job either. His job is to represent the views of Members in this Westminster Hall debate. We are deeply concerned that the BBC has got it wrong on local radio. If he will not say that publicly today, I hope that he will take that message back and make it very clear, in private, to the BBC management.
Mr Vaizey
I think that my job is to be a candid friend of the BBC. I do not apologise for supporting the BBC and for praising its work. I do not apologise for an organisation that is extremely popular with listeners and viewers. Neither do I apologise for defending the BBC in taking a strategic approach to the licence fee freeze. All Members have views on what the BBC should and should not be doing, and there is extensive consultation. It is certainly not my job to tell the BBC what to do. It would be wrong for a Minister to order the BBC to close down a particular service or to save another one. That is a job for BBC management.
Public Health (Bexley)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of public health and the situation in my borough of Bexley, which is of great concern to many of my constituents and, of course, to me.
Regrettably, there are vast health inequalities in Bexley and south-east London. The difference in life expectancy for two men living in different parts of Bexley could be as much as or more than seven years. The reasons for that situation, both locally and nationally, are complex and are affected not only by access to the NHS or social care services, but by diet, activity, education and employment. Public health is therefore a matter of fairness and social justice.
As well as causing serious long-term health issues, health inequalities have a wider impact. We all know that obesity can lead to problems with diabetes and heart failure, that smoking kills tens of thousands of people every year and that alcoholism can cause liver failure and increase a person’s susceptibility to other diseases. Those associated illnesses can cause productivity losses for business, reduce school attendance for children and lead to high treatment costs for the NHS. If those problems are not addressed, we could face greater problems in the future, as my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate.
I am very worried about the increasing number of people who are being classed as obese. The long-term consequences for those individuals and their families can be catastrophic if they do not take action, because they may subsequently experience problems such as heart disease and diabetes. I am particularly concerned about the number of children who are alleged to be experiencing weight problems. According to the national child measurement programme, one in four reception age children in my borough of Bexley is considered to be obese or overweight. That is an incredible figure and, by the age of 11, it rises to one in three. I am sure that the Minister shares my concern about that problem.
There is also an issue among adults. Nationally, the number of obese people in England has doubled since 1993, and the number of obese women has risen by half. Locally, in Bexley, one in four adults is to be considered obese. With trends suggesting that most children who are considered to be obese will remain so well into their adult lives—particularly if their parents are obese, too—the consequences are of real concern to individuals, as well as to society.
I am pleased that my colleague the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) are here today. The issue does not stay within borough boundaries, because it goes across our area.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He cares passionately about health care in the borough of Bexley. He has mentioned that some of my constituents rely on services provided in Bexley and that, vice versa, some of his constituents rely on services in the Kent area. Does he therefore agree that it is essential to ensure that the relevant local authorities are aware of their obligations to each other, so that there can be some certainty about funding and budget setting for the councillors in the respective areas that we represent?
Mr Evennett
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. There is much cross-border health care traffic both from Bexley into Kent and from Kent into Bexley. That is the choice that people have and should have. Such a situation also reflects people’s needs, which should be met, so I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has said.
Obesity is responsible for nearly half of all cases of diabetes, a quarter of heart problems and, in some circumstances, more than a third of cases of some cancers. The National Heart Forum estimates that those problems could get much worse and suggests that the number of people getting diabetes as a result of their weight could double by 2050. Financial considerations and costs must also be taken into account. It has been estimated that obesity directly costs the NHS around £4 billion a year. Of course, that does not take into account the cost of treatments and the care required for associated problems, which could and will be even more. In Bexley alone, diabetes costs the NHS £353 per person per year.
Last week, I attended a reception in the House of Commons for Silver Star, a charity campaigning for greater awareness of diabetes. I was pleased to meet Silver Star and learn about its work. I took one of its simple diabetes tests, and I am pleased to report that my glucose level result was 4.9, so I was deemed to be okay.
All the statistics highlight the challenge that we face and the number of people whom we need to assist. First, we must assess the problem’s cause, of which there are many—for example, poor choices, portion sizes, insufficient exercise, inappropriate advertising or a lack of culinary skills can all contribute to an individual’s problems. According to the Association of Public Health Observatories, just 30% of Bexley adults eat healthily, and the statistics on physically active adults in Bexley are significantly worse than the national average. Of course, every individual’s circumstances are different.
In some respects, we are fortunate in Bexley, as we were one of the first boroughs to achieve national healthy schools status for all our schools. However, I am concerned that a minority of adults who eat badly may be setting a bad example for their children. The figures on physically active children in Bexley are also significantly worse than the national average. That is not helped by the fact that the number of children being driven to school has doubled over the past 20 years, which is a national issue that is not confined to Bexley.
Of course, physical activity alone is not enough to address the problem. We need to think more carefully about what we eat and what we feed our children. England’s chief medical officer, Professor Sally Davies, recently said:
“Most of us are eating or drinking more than we need to and are not active enough. Being overweight or obese is a direct consequence of eating more calories than we need. Increasing physical activity is a part of the equation, but reducing the amount of calories we consume is key.”
This is why the Change4Life campaign is important. It provides helpful tips on all the changes that we could make to improve our lifestyles, and it is already directing help to nearly 500,000 people. The campaign’s core ideas—encouraging physical activity, cutting portion sizes, swapping particular foods, discouraging snacking, drinking less alcohol and reducing fat intake—are all sensible and manageable. I hope that more people will take advantage of those resources and take action themselves. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to prioritise that approach.
Another issue of health concern is the problems caused by smoking. Smoking rates have remained broadly the same during the past few years. Tobacco consumption remains the greatest single cause of preventable illness and early death, and it is also a big contributor to health inequalities. I am encouraged that, nationally, more people are using NHS stop smoking services. The number of people who registered a quit date has increased in the past year, with an increase in success rates, too. That shows that people are willing to take action to help themselves, which should be encouraged.
I put on the record my support for the award-winning Bexley stop smoking service, which has been doing some excellent work to help my constituents quit smoking and lead healthier lives. The Bexley stop smoking service is led by Jo Woodvine and helps hundreds of people quit smoking every year by using a variety of different methods. I commend the work that it is doing, because its efforts are having an impact. One in five Bexley residents smoke, which is slightly below the national average. However, I am concerned that 17% of women in Bexley smoke through pregnancy, which, worryingly, is above the average. Smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of complications such as stillbirth, miscarriage, premature birth and low birth weight.
There are also age-related problems with smoking. Tobacco consumption is still most prevalent among the under-50s. Every year, more than 300,000 under-16s try smoking for the first time. By the age of 15, some 15% of children in England are reported as being regular smokers, which is incredibly worrying. I accept that action has been taken on this issue. The minimum age at which one can purchase cigarettes has been increased to 18 and the sale of cigarettes from vending machines has been banned. The Government have introduced a tobacco control plan to help reduce smoking, which takes account of the problems that I have highlighted relating to the prevalence of smoking among adults, children and pregnant women. I agree that steps must be taken to reduce the promotion of tobacco and to improve regulation to ensure that children are not drawn into starting smoking. If more is done to highlight the diseases that can result from smoking, then adults may be persuaded to quit.
The substantial cost to society from smoking is estimated to be more than £13 billion a year, which includes NHS treatment, productivity losses and clear-up costs. However, only £11 billion is raised in taxes from tobacco. The Government are therefore right to consider ways of making smoking less affordable, as a disincentive. Most importantly, the Government need to ensure that NHS stop smoking services continue to be properly supported. The all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health has highlighted how cost-effective those services are, estimating that the Government benefit by as much as £1.7 billion a year through the prevention of serious and costly diseases.
Alcohol dependence is another area of great concern, and it is a major public health issue. Dependent drinkers are the drinkers at greatest risk of admission to hospital for a range of illnesses. There are an estimated 4,000 dependent drinkers in my borough of Bexley, and as many as one in seven people are putting their health at risk by binge drinking. While those figures are not as high as in some other areas of the country, they are symptomatic of the wider problems facing our nation. The latest alcohol statistics for England show that one in four men and one in five women are drinking more than the recommended number of units in an average week. On average, children—yes, children—consume 11.6 units a week.
Excessive drinking also has a significant impact on our health service. For example, since the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003, which allowed 24-hour drinking, the number of hospital admissions due to acute alcohol intoxication has doubled and the number of admissions wholly attributable to alcohol has increased by 70% locally, which is broadly in line with national trends. Between midnight and 5 am, the majority of hospital admissions are alcohol related. I was, and remain, opposed to the liberalisation of the drinking hours in the 2003 Act, which was a grave mistake.
Many long-term problems—alcoholic liver disease, hepatitis and cirrhosis—can be caused by excessive consumption over a long period of time, and they can lead to organ failure. Deaths from alcohol-related liver diseases have doubled in the past 20 years, with the overall cost of alcohol-related harm now standing at £2.7 billion a year. It is therefore vital to address the situation. There are simple steps that individuals can take, such as tracking alcohol intake, ordering smaller quantities or reduced-strength drinks, or swapping their drinks for alcohol-free versions. While retailers and drinks manufacturers promote the Drinkaware campaign, the industry needs to do more.
I am concerned about tuberculosis in London and about the current guidelines on prevention. A report published by London Health Programmes in June stated that, between 1999 and 2009, the number of TB cases in London rose by 50%. London now has the highest TB rate of any capital city in western Europe and accounts for 40% of all cases in the UK. Those trends are worrying. In Bexley, there are currently less than 20 cases of TB per 100,000 of population each year. However, during the same 10-year period, the Department of Health issued new guidelines to primary care trusts that recommended the withdrawal of the universal BCG vaccine. TB is an infectious disease that can affect any part of the body. It is curable, but detection is crucial. Early detection can mean relatively simple and cheap treatment. If left undetected or untreated, as in 12% of cases, the disease can become drug resistant, meaning more complex treatment at a hugely increased cost. The approach to prevention and treatment of TB therefore needs to change.
I am concerned that family travel is not given enough consideration. Many Bexley children are taken on holiday to the Indian subcontinent or to sub-Saharan Africa during school breaks, particularly in summer, and might be exposed to the disease. Consequently, there is a potential risk that, when the family returns to the UK, others might come into contact with the disease. I appreciate that prolonged exposure is required in order to transmit the disease, but this might happen and I am concerned.
As London Health Programmes has identified, targeting has been inconsistent. High risk groups, such as the homeless and those with lower immune responses caused by other problems such as drug taking or alcoholism, have not been given enough attention. The recommendations made in the draft London TB plan, which aims to improve the early detection of TB and the effectiveness of treatment as well as to reduce the risk of transmission, must be carefully considered. In particular, the Government should seek to implement the proposal that all newborn children should be vaccinated within six weeks of birth to protect them from TB. This welcome suggestion could be an effective measure to prevent cases of the disease. However, it would not address the problem for children in my borough, who have still not received the BCG vaccine because the Department of Health felt that we did not have enough cases per 100,000 of population. I would like to see a limited programme in the next few years for children in London boroughs who have not received the vaccination.
Bexley is a very good place to live and work. I do not want to say that it is all negative, because it is not. There is a huge amount going on in Bexley that is to be commended, and I put that on the record. The vast majority of people in our borough are really good people—moderate, reasonable people—and educating, helping and advising them is the way forward. However, Bexley is not immune to increasing health issues. I hope that the Minister and the Department will support— I know this is not her brief, but I cannot resist the temptation to include this in my remarks—plans for a health and well-being campus to be established at Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup. If approved, this could begin in 2014 and provide vital services, such as primary and community care, GP services and hospital services, all on one site. As part of the plans, Bird college, a dance, music and theatre performance centre, hopes to be on the site as well, which could provide real benefits for public health. The strategic outline case has been submitted, and I hope that that important project can progress.
I also urge the Minister to consider the role that community pharmacies can play in helping to reduce health inequalities and public health problems. At the heart of the local communities that they serve, they are uniquely placed to offer advice to significant numbers of people. They can sometimes be more accessible than GP services, and they can be found in retail settings.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on all the tremendous work that she is doing on public health. The Government are right to prioritise public health and to ring-fence finance. I support strongly the transfer of increased responsibilities to local councils on public health issues. Fundamentally, I believe that education and awareness are vital. If public health problems are to be properly addressed, we need to ensure that everyone plays their part—schools, parents, businesses, charities, and local and national government—otherwise we could be storing up huge problems in our country, including Bexley. I am grateful for the opportunity to make these few points today, because it is very important to address public health issues for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms Osborne. I do not believe that we have met in Westminster Hall before.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) on securing the debate. He does not miss an opportunity to raise issues of public health in his constituency. As my hon. Friend and all of us do, I want to see a public health system worthy of its name, set up with the sole purpose of protecting and improving the health of everyone in this country. The public health White Paper outlines how we intend to achieve that, with ring-fenced funding, health and well-being boards and joint strategic needs assessment all playing a big role. Every element is designed with local needs in mind, so communities and local organisations in his constituency will be able to play a bigger role than ever in improving the public’s health. On the whole, the residents of Bexley are healthier than the national average, but that does not mean for one second that a great deal of work is not still to be done. People living in the most deprived areas of Bexley can expect to live up to seven years less than those living in the wealthiest areas, which is a staggering figure.
It was a pleasure to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce). My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of cross-authority working. In particular, as we move into the new systems, I stress the need for public health leadership. People in Bexley will need a strong and visionary public health system with expert leadership. I am sure that the council and the local primary care trust are considering carefully how to provide such leadership after April 2013, when the breadth and importance of the local council’s responsibilities will increase enormously. Those are big challenges, but they also represent a fantastic opportunity, and Bexley is well placed to capitalise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford discussed his grave concern about obesity and gave us some figures, such as that 20% of year 6 children are obese, which is 2% higher than the national average. That is a shame, and the problem is not unique to some areas of the country, because England has among the highest rates of obesity in the developed world. Recent figures show that levels of childhood obesity are stabilising and that adult obesity rates may be levelling out, but the overall rates remain extraordinarily high.
We published a document, which my hon. Friend referred to, “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A call to action on obesity in England”, on 13 October to set out our approach. Through projects such as the healthy child programme, the national child measurement programme and the responsibility deal, we want to give clear and consistent messages on what the healthiest choices are and how people can make them. People need information and to recognise the harm that they do to their health by ignoring such choices. As I have said, local authorities will be at the forefront, and they will have that ring-fenced public health budget to use in ways that suit local people, doing far more good than a uniform approach that descends from on high in Whitehall.
The local NHS is taking steps to fight obesity and to encourage physical activity, in particular in children. The Bexley healthy schools project is working with every single one of Bexley’s schools and children’s centres, teaching children about the importance of healthy eating and physical activity. The parents’ education and children’s health project educates parents and carers about healthy and economical cooking. School food policies are also being reviewed with parents, pupils and staff, to ensure that children receive nutritionally balanced packed lunches that they will actually eat—there is no point in putting healthy food in front of children, if they then fail to eat it.
My hon. Friend mentioned Silver Star, and I am pleased that he got a tick for his own health, but he is absolutely right that type 2 diabetes is of considerable concern. I understand that the Bexley community diabetes project has had contact with nearly all diabetic patients in the borough. That project is centred on empowering patients and putting them at the heart of managing their condition while calling on health care professionals, when necessary. It is about personal responsibility, ownership and understanding that if people feel they have some control over their lives they do very much better. He also mentioned physical activity, and I thank him for specific mention of “Change for Life”—one of its successes is that it does not look like a Government-run programme—which has had a big impact. He might be interested to know that the brand will be used for action on alcohol in the new year.
We will be publishing an alcohol strategy in which communities and local government will again play a big part, because they will be able to take action based on what they think will work. Local councils are already involved with some of the social harms of alcohol—certainly anti-social behaviour and crime is of considerable concern—and with licensing. Local schemes and projects have contributed to Bexley having a lower than average rate of alcohol-related harm. For instance, the Bexley business support unit offers counselling, group work and medical help to people with alcohol problems. However, a great deal remains to be done. In April, an outreach service was commissioned to help people in the borough who had not used the services before or who find it difficult to access treatment. Data from the first six months of that service show that it has been successful.
On London as a whole, the Secretary of State for Health has backed a statutory London health improvement board, chaired by the Mayor of London. It is already drawing up plans for priority areas such as alcohol and childhood obesity and looking into promoting the use of existing licensing powers, helping accident and emergency departments share data on violence resulting from alcohol misuse and getting early interventions in place so people who misuse alcohol can get quick and effective advice, which is so important.
Smoking kills 80,000 people a year, and yet a persistent minority, which includes a significant number of people, continues to smoke. Each year, an estimated 320,000 children try smoking for the first time. The tobacco control plan to which my hon. Friend referred outlines our ambition to cut smoking rates in adults down to 18.5%, in 15-year-olds down to 12% and in pregnant women down to 11%. Many of us still feel that those figures are too high. Again, we need to give people information, but people also need support to quit. The plan demonstrates how we aim to achieve that. At the beginning of the month, tobacco sales from vending machines became illegal, which is a big start because such machines were a source of tobacco for children, and large, brightly coloured tobacco displays will soon be joining them in the ashtray of history. Displays will end on 6 April 2012 in large shops and three years later in small shops and other businesses in England.
My hon. Friend referred to Bexley’s stop smoking team, which helped 1,611 people give up last year, exceeding its target for the third year running. It has won awards, and he goes to great efforts on its behalf—this is not the first occasion on which he has mentioned it. Many people criticise local services, but it is right to acknowledge the tremendous job that they are doing. I hope that the Bexley team can spread that good practice around the areas in the vicinity. Anyone living or working in Bexley can access the service for free via a GP or participating pharmacy and, if that is not convenient, the team regularly provides services in more convenient locations such as libraries, children’s centres or a special bus outside a local supermarket.
My hon. Friend mentioned TB, and he rightly stated the specific problems for London. We always keep the evidence under review, and we are guided at all times by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. He is right that the issue is complex, but there is no doubt that London has more than its fair share of the problem. As I have said, strong public health leadership in such fields will be extremely important. I assure my hon. Friend and the other two hon. Members present in the Chamber today that the Department of Health and the London strategic health authority support the Mayor of London’s health inequalities strategy. Inequalities simply have no place in modern society, and everything that we can do to lessen them is worth pursuing. I want to see local councils arguing across the council chamber about how it is no longer fair for their residents to live less long that those of another council in the same area.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to raise yet again the need for the public to improve their health. It matters to stop illness, disability and premature death, but it also matters as we live longer, because staying well as we live longer is becoming increasingly important to us all.
Internet (Governance)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to debate under your stern but friendly eye, Mr Benton.
I intend to explain why the debate is important, provide my own report back on the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, look at the wider questions of how Parliament deals with internet and communications technology issues and suggest how Parliament and Government can push those issues up our national agenda. I am pleased that other officers of the Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum will be taking part in the debate, as we asked jointly across parties to have this debate today.
The debate is important as a milestone in the development of parliamentary interests in the internet and in the development of proper accountability for British MPs’ engagement with the issue over a number of years. It is an attempt to bring the issue of communications technology into the parliamentary mainstream. The internet now pervades so much of our national and personal life—there is an enormous impact, even on those who do not use it—that it is essential for Parliament and Government to take a strategic interest in its development, which has been exponential in nature. The internet affects everything from national security to personal and family communications. As we saw during the summer, it has been grasped as an opportunity by those who want to nurture community action as well as by bad people and by organised criminals and terrorists.
Business challenges and opportunities range from the protection of intellectual property to savings and opportunities for the public service, and we need to ensure that our infrastructure and businesses are at the cutting edge of the fast-moving international communications market in hardware, software and services. Both the internet itself and wider issues of communications technology—ICT—are absolutely crucial to our economic success, our place in the world and our social development as a nation.
There have been valiant efforts to give a parliamentary focus to these issues, but it has mostly been done at the margins of Parliament, not at its heart and not through mainstream debate. I hope that today’s debate will establish a tradition for an annual debate on internet and ICT issues, with Ministers and Members across the parties taking stock of the developments of the past year and looking forward to future challenges.
The engagement of MPs has not been characterised by Members pursuing their own interests in isolation but through cross-party activity, co-operation between both Houses and the active engagement of Ministers. Above all, it has been done through a unique level of multi-stakeholder engagement. That is an ugly term, but no one has yet come up with a better one. The reality of partnership working and co-operation is far more beautiful than the terminology.
Today we can report formally on the annual United Nations event, the Internet Governance Forum, held this year in Nairobi. I am delighted that the Minister who will respond to the debate attended both the main forum itself and the high-level event held on the Monday before its formal opening. He was extremely effective in his interventions. I believe I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who was also at the IGF, when I say that, with the Minister, we were able to deliver a robust “Team UK” approach in Nairobi.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Although I was not at the Nairobi event, I was at the event in Lithuania. It struck me that very few parliamentarians were present, but there were people from the Pirate party. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is crucial that MPs from other countries attend such events to stop the spread of lawlessness through the likes of the Pirate party?
Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He brought considerable interest, particularly in intellectual property, and creativeness to the discussions in Lithuania. There were more mainstream parliamentarians in Nairobi this year, but he is right: if we are not engaged, we leave a vacuum, which would be a great pity.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I apologise to you, Mr Benton, and to the House for having to leave for another speaking engagement on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee. I was very impressed—unusually—that the Minister took the trouble to attend the forum this year. That is a fantastic step in the right direction. If we can create the necessary collegiate approach in this difficult area, we can address the problems that have just been raised. I want to say well done to my right hon. Friend for his perseverance both in government and in opposition in driving the agenda forward.
Alun Michael
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right about the importance of the Minister’s attendance this year. It made a significant impact on many people from other countries and showed an excellent example.
Engagement with the IGF has been nurtured by Nominet, the dot-UK domain name registry, which has enabled IGF attendance by parliamentarians; young people from the UK, who have also made a considerable impact; and other representatives of civil society. I pay tribute to the chief executive, Lesley Cowley, and Martin Boyle, a former Department of Trade and Industry official when I was a Minister, and their team at Nominet. Their financial commitment and organisational support is a superb example of corporate social responsibility and of partnership between industry, Parliament and Government. It has enabled us to put the UK in the forefront of internet governance worldwide. I have put the appropriate declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of their support and my attendance at the IGF.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I hope that my right hon. Friend will mention an internet issue that my constituents are concerned about: the use of abusive language on the one hand and child pornography on the other. One of my constituents, Mrs Jane Osmond of 7 Newcombe Road, has written to me about that. She is part of a major campaign, which relates to the subject of the debate.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend makes a good point; it is an important issue. Today in Westminster we are celebrating the 15th anniversary of the founding of the Internet Watch Foundation. I hope to attend that event after this debate; I hope others will attend, too. The IWF is proof of the capacity of Government, with the support of parliamentarians and the engagement of industry and police, to tackle online child abuse more effectively than having additional legislation that might not work. We have achieved more in tackling online child abuse in this country than could have been done through additional legislation.
Mr Cunningham
My right hon. Friend’s aims are laudable and I have no quarrel with them. However, my constituents feel that they have been given the run-around. I have written to the Minister about these issues and we have been pointed in a number of directions, but there does not seem to be a major clampdown or any real effort in the area.
Alun Michael
In terms of child abuse images online, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has been successful in pursuing people who are involved in child abuse. In educational terms and in pursuing the bad people, CEOP has been effective. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee and we are concerned about CEOP being merged with the national police agency. Assurances have been given, but we need to keep our eye on CEOP to ensure that it continues to be effective. We also need to keep up with the technology that the bad people are using.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate. In relation to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), my concern is that when constituents write to me on the same issue, I write to the Minister but the letters are then transferred to the Home Office. Would it not be more sensible for questions such as those from my constituent from Troon, to be answered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport? If the issues are not to be addressed by that Department, is it better for them to be looked at by the Home Office?
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend illustrates one of the big problems in dealing with the internet. As I said, the internet is so pervasive that it affects every area of life, including technology and intellectual property, and sometimes leads to the abuse by bad people of the opportunities that it provides. Such issues should be dealt with by the Home Office because law-breaking is involved.
My hon. Friend also illustrates the crucial need for a joined-up approach across Departments and agencies. A couple of years ago I worked on internet-related crime, but I gave up once I had identified nine Departments that had a bit of the action—without even taking account of the different agencies, police bodies and so on that were involved. I believe, however, that co-ordination has improved; we have the central unit based with the Met, and the National Fraud Authority that looks at online fraud. People need greater clarity. Get Safe Online is an enormously important resource that I advise people to consult first when looking for advice on what to do. It requires, however, increased support across industry and by the Government, and it must explain clearly who should look where and for what. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
I return to the Internet Governance Forum. As the Minister responsible for industry in 2005, I led the UK delegation to the world summit on the information society in Tunis. Journalists predicted that the talks would collapse because the Chinese, and others, were demanding a new international agency to, “run the internet”, and the US was saying, “Don’t change anything.” Two great public servants, Nick Thorne, then the UK permanent representative to the UN in Geneva, and David Hendon, a senior official at the Department of Trade and Industry, promoted “dynamic coalitions” and “enhanced co-operation” as a better option to bureaucracy. The IGF was born as part of that process and as an annual event for building consensus.
Today, the IGF process no longer depends on one annual event, and countries worldwide have seized the opportunity for co-operation, both between stakeholders and at regional level. This year’s IGF saw governmental proposals from India, Brazil and South Africa to bring the forum under centralised UN control, and Russia, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan called for the General Assembly to establish a UN code of conduct for information security. If such a code were to go through as proposed, it would focus primarily on affirming the sovereignty of national Governments to regulate internet traffic and content. That would exclude the voices of industry and civil society from regulation of the internet, which in turn would stifle the freedom, innovation and creativity that underpins the social, cultural and economic benefits that we all currently enjoy from the online world. There is also a Trojan horse agenda that would empower certain repressive Governments to censor and restrict any online content, discourse or behaviours that they did not like.
Will the Minister affirm his steadfast commitment to the current multi-stakeholder approach exemplified by the current IGF process, and will he join me in rejecting the idea that governance of the internet should be the sole preserve of monolithic and rigid Government negotiations? Will he ensure that the UK continues to provide leadership through the donors group? It is small change, but we must be at the table. Although this year’s IGF saw a welcome spike in levels of industry involvement, does the Minister agree that there is always room for more?
For years the IGF process was nurtured by two superb international diplomats, Nitin Desai as chairman, and Marcus Kummer as secretary. In Nairobi, however, I had to condemn the failure of the UN to appoint successors in either of those posts. That the event was such a success is a tribute to the vitality of its participants, but the UN is not doing its job properly; when I said as much during a high-level ministerial meeting, my comment received the loudest applause of the day.
British parliamentarians have been at the forefront of the IGF since its start, and our engagement is highly valued and respected across the world. Over the years we have worked with parliamentarians from other countries, notably the Kenyans and members of the European Parliament such as Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour. It is interesting to note, however, that we have not yet managed to properly link the IGF debate across Europe. We have the European dialogue on internet governance— EuroDIG—but that is serviced by the Council of Europe and has a focus on human rights and criminal law, which although an enormously important part of the international debate, is not all of it.
That work of the IGF goes wider than the European Union, which is its strength, but it also leaves a gap. In Nairobi we talked to colleagues from the European Parliament about the need for MPs and members of national Parliaments to be connected within the European Union. We do not have a European IGF that uses the same model as that developed in east Africa and other places.
The European Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, set out her approach, but without joined-up action by parliamentarians, industry and Governments in Europe, we will not get our point across. I suspect that hon. Members across the Chamber would agree on the need to avoid the domination of bureaucracy and rules in the European approach to the internet and internet-related issues. We need joined-up working by Team UK.
This year at the IGF, Monday was set aside for a high-level, ministerial event. Such occasions can become stodgy, with long speeches from Ministers, but this one was different. After Ministers—including our Minister—had spoken, formalities segued smoothly into a discussion, with authoritative figures such as Vint Cerf responding on some of the extremely important points under discussion. It was an excellent launch for the four days of the IGF, but I made a proposal that I believe should be incorporated in next year’s event. My suggestion is for Tuesday morning to be given over to statements of concern or other relevant issues, so that Members of Parliament can set out problems that have arisen in their Parliament or constituency. That would enable parliamentarians to be the voice of the people, rather than a second rank of techies, and would provide an opportunity for multi-stakeholder partners to respond to those concerns during the following few days, in parallel with other issues raised in advance. That suggestion received a positive response from industry representatives, who described it as an opportunity to complete the circle of policy development and accountability to the public.
The basic principle of the IGF is to bring together the four partners—Governments, parliamentarians, industry and civil society, including academics and others—to identify issues that need resolving, and seek solutions without requiring or mandating them, or limiting the debates in any significant way. It does not, therefore, lead to resolutions or treaties. The principle has been taken up by individual countries and on a regional level, particularly in east Africa, so it was appropriate that this year’s IGF was hosted there. As a result, the IGF is now a process rather than just an event, although the event remains important.
Great progress is being made in the Commonwealth IGF with its emphasis on child protection—the issue raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe)—and access.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The issue is not only about child protection; abusive language or threats of rape are also matters of concern.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend is right; I agree that the agenda is broader. The Commonwealth IGF started by looking at child protection, but behaviour is the big issue.
The development of a co-operative model for internet governance has developed quickly and positively. However, compared with the exponential growth and the mind-boggling levels of innovation that the internet has unleashed, that development looks, and feels, slow. That is why we in Parliament must be more ambitious, more impatient and better connected in every sense of the word.
To improve the quality of debate in Parliament, those involved informally in the work of relevant all-party groups have tried to bring everyone together to serve Parliament better. It is fair to say that for several years the cross-party architecture that focuses on internet and communications issues has been in a state of flux, with a proliferation of groups. Companies found it increasingly difficult to determine which meetings to attend and which groups to engage with. Equally, many MPs found the complexity and diversity of cross-party structures very challenging to digest. In fact, in the last two Parliaments, most MPs chose as the simple solution non-engagement, rather than struggling to get their heads round an ever-expanding ecosystem of interwoven groups and associations. I pay tribute to the 2010 intake of new Members, who have provided refreshing input from both sides of the House. That encourages me to believe that we can make a difference nationally and internationally in the future.
The online world and the associated technologies and patterns of use are constantly evolving at breathtaking speed. Without a cohesive and continuous commitment from parliamentarians to be connected with and informed about current developments in this sphere, Parliament will quickly fall hopelessly behind.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and I share his hope that Parliament will debate the internet at least once a year. On the point about the internet’s fantastic speed of innovation and the changes that it has made to our everyday lives, does my right hon. Friend agree that it was unfortunate that following the unrest—the riots—during the summer, a number of parliamentarians on both sides of the House were seen to react by condemning aspects of social media that enable people to communicate with one another, while not equally recognising the tremendous support that the internet and social media give civil society? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that we need to ensure that parliamentarians are champions of the internet and the innovation that it brings, while obviously recognising the dangers?
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend, who is one of the exciting group of 2010 new Members to which I referred, makes an excellent point. In the Internet Governance Forum, it was rather worrying to find that a large number of participants from across the world “knew” that the UK had tried to close down social networks. We had quite a battle to make it clear that the UK had not done that. Fortunately, the European Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, took the opportunity to dive in and endorse what we were saying. Given the pressure from the media to do something about something as cataclysmic as the riots this year, it was understandable that all Members of Parliament representing relevant constituencies felt under pressure to say something and, indeed, that the Prime Minister felt under pressure to say something when he arrived back in the country. Fortunately, common sense prevailed.
Immediately after the Home Secretary said that she intended to call together representatives of the social networks and give them a good talking-to—I paraphrase slightly—I wrote to her on behalf of the group, having spoken to some of the officers, and offered our help. I said, “There are Members of Parliament who take an interest in these issues. Can we help and can we engage our industry members in order to make a constructive contribution?” That was welcomed by the Home Secretary—we had a very good response—so it is another example of how the creation of a coherent, single group in Parliament has the capacity to help Government and properly inform public debate.
That is an example of exactly the point that I was making—the need for parliamentarians to be coherent and to work together on these issues. I said that without a commitment from parliamentarians to be connected with and informed about current developments in this sphere, Parliament would quickly fall hopelessly behind. That would be a great disappointment to those of us who know that knee-jerk legislation is not the answer to most or indeed any of our emerging technological challenges. As Gibbon said in “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, laws rarely prevent that which they forbid. That is even more true about the internet than it was some 150 years ago, when those words were written. Legislation is a blunt, unwieldy and ultimately retrospective tool, incapable of the speed and flexibility required to regulate such a rapidly evolving system. That is why we, as parliamentarians, need to be quicker on our feet, more joined-up and more immediate in our response to events.
However, reluctance to legislate does not mean that we should not seek to regulate online activity. The point is simply that we will not achieve the results we want by enacting laws that would be out of date by the time they hit the statute book. The time scale for a new technology coming in or a development that moves people on from Facebook, or whatever the current means of communication is, means that legislation will be well out of date by the time it is enacted, so flexibility is required.
Mike Weatherley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. Would he like to clarify his position? We all accept that things such as the IGF are a good talking-shop and that these issues should be discussed at length by the various countries and parties involved, but is he saying that no legislation is worth having, not even legislation to set out the principles relating to intellectual property rights and so on, which would not be out of date once it was enacted?
Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I want legislation that is based on values, sets out broad principles and is technology-neutral. It is the behaviour that is bad, and it is intellectual property that we need to protect, rather than getting too deeply into detail. We need to go back to the legislation that set down broad principles and to go back on the excessively prescriptive and detailed legislation that removes flexibility. Essentially, I am arguing for us to concentrate on fostering a climate in which Parliament, Government, industry and civil society share perspectives, best practice and expertise to deliver a more adaptable and responsive regulatory approach, based on partnership and co-ordination, rather than top-down legislation. In other words, we need underpinning legislation for a coherent, co-operative style of governance.
Chi Onwurah
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to me a second time. May I respond to the very good point made by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley)? Is it not also the case that there is a lot of existing legislation that applies as much to the internet as to any other form of communication and behaviour, whether it takes place in the real world or the virtual world—for example, libel laws—and that new legislation is often not necessary if the existing legislation is properly applied?
Alun Michael
Indeed. This is about good legislation, rather than the internet. I take great pride in certain legislation with which I was associated, such as the Ragwort Control Act 2003, the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, because properly framed legislation will stand the test of time. In the examples that I have given, it was a case of using capacity that already existed and simply providing underpinning legislation that would allow the real mischief to be tackled. The real mischief is the behaviour, rather than the technology.
On the issue of parliamentary representation and how we bring people together, Mr Speaker kindly hosted an event last year for representatives of different parliamentary groups engaged with internet-related issues, along with those concerned with international issues, particularly the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and those who serve the House through PICT—Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology—and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. That gave us the impetus to link the informal work undertaken by parliamentarians in partnership with industry to the mainstream and formal work of the House, so we have merged the long-standing Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, or PITCOM, and a relative youngster, the all-party group on the digital economy, to form the Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum, which is an associate parliamentary group.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk for the work that he has done to ensure that Parliament has a well-informed and vibrant all-party group that benefits from the solid and senior engagement of both MPs and representatives of business and industry. We are delighted that Mr Speaker has agreed to be the president of the new group to signal the importance of that development. We are adopting a new and innovative model, with parliamentarians in the lead. Individual officers of the new group, across parties, some of whom are present, are taking responsibility for different parts of the work, which will include ordinary meetings, as held in the past by PITCOM. Lively discussions have been brought into the new group by members of the former group. We have continued the successful primary schools competition, “Make IT Happy”, with which many parliamentarians have become increasingly engaged and which was endorsed by the Minister in the House only last week.
We have a CEO forum, at which a strong representation of chief executives—no representatives or delegations are allowed—and of parliamentarians debate big issues with experts. For instance, on Monday, we were joined by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and by Professor Ian Hargreaves, whose work will be familiar to the Minister and whose recent report deals with intellectual property, which is important to our economy. Past discussions focused on a range of important issues, from cloud computing and cyber-security to the growth agenda and the boosting of UK technology skills; I know that the Minister has taken part in one of the discussions.
Mr Donohoe
While this question is not necessarily for my right hon. Friend to answer, has he secured, as a right, attendance by a Minister at least twice a year to that body? Would that not make all the difference?
Alun Michael
We have not needed to. We have had three Ministers this year by mutual agreement, and I am pleased by that response. Ministers have been prepared to come to meet us and industry representatives. The fact that Ministers and parliamentarians are at the table brings chief executives there, and the fact that chief executives come complements the other meetings that we have, in which people with more technical or detailed knowledge are able to take part. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire prompts me to note that I had missed out a reference to the British-American Parliamentary Group, another of the distinguished band of organisations that are important in the work.
I have already referred to the fact that the arrangements are already working in relation to our communications with the Home Secretary. In response to the request for comment, we have received responses from a number of parliamentarians, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and others who were more frequently involved in the all-party group’s work. Key points were made that the riots were not a breakdown of society as a whole, but isolated incidents of unrest followed relentlessly by the 24-hour media, and that the internet and online social networks were a channel for a widespread outpouring of positivity and reconstructive effort after the riots. That must be considered in balance with the use of the internet by some people to organise some of the activity. In the case of the police in Manchester, when people tweeted to say where the next activity was going to take place, the police tweeted back to say, “Thanks for telling us. We will be there too.” Therefore, it is not all one way.
Part of PICTFOR’s role is to raise our game at the international level, persuading more parliamentarians to engage with the IGF, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the IPU, and directly with members of overseas Parliaments, particularly the Americans, whom we are engaging through an annual internet event in Congress. The most important aspects are to use the partnership between MPs and industry representatives to inform Parliament in the mainstream rather than at the periphery, to ensure that we continue to punch above our weight in protecting the concept of an open, co-operative and multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance, and to fight off attempts to impose a centralised and bureaucratic approach to managing the internet, whether in terms of critical infrastructure, online behaviour or the exploitation—in a positive sense—of the internet’s potential.
We are bringing together opinions from industry and Parliament. I wish I had some time to enumerate the comments that have come in. We had hoped for a longer debate, but we are grateful for the opportunity today to raise these issues. We intend to summarise all the issues and provide them to both the Minister and MPs to inform future debates.
Just to pick up one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, there will be one debate a year to look at the overarching issues with the internet. The internet touches on so many issues that there are bound to be debates on Bills and on the Adjournment regarding specific issues, including those that have been raised by some hon. Members in their interventions on me.
My message to parliamentarians and to business is that, although good governance may sound boring, it is essential. Banking governance was boring, until the failure of governance in the world’s banks brought the international financial structures to collapse. Let us avoid such a debacle online by fighting for good co-operative governance of the internet now.
At a time of massive constraints on the public purse—I will not go into the discussion about whether they need to come so fast or cut so deep—it is not just tempting to use the efficiency of the net to deliver public services, but right and essential. However, that would involve a massive improvement in the quality of public procurement, of which I had some experience as a Minister. It is vital to recognise that some 40% of those who are not online at the moment were shown in recent research to be so resistant to going online that they would not do so even if they were provided with free broadband and a free computer. Some may be resistant or even perversely reluctant; others may simply be unable to cope. That latter group includes some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It follows that the exploitation of online delivery options by the Government needs to be costed in a way that ensures the availability of services to those who do not go online, which might involve paying for facilitation, perhaps at local libraries or in post offices. However, if it is not built into the Government’s model, it will bring online delivery into disrepute and widen the digital divide into a chasm, ultimately creating a problem that will involve even more expense to solve than building in the solution at the design stage.
Cloud computing is often highlighted as a challenge to public services, but in many ways, it is already with us. The challenge, in my view, is good management, including good data management, rather than major issues of principle. Security of infrastructure and our national security are enormously important, and they are given considerable emphasis by the Government. However, it is also important to deal with the low-level crime and nuisance activity that face people every day. I am pleading for a broken windows approach to the internet. Having succeeded in local crime reduction, that approach would be able to help us in the online world.
I am also a little concerned about the language that is creeping into the discussion. I challenged some police officers who talked about “cyber” as if it were a term of art to describe a discrete chunk of reality. They responded by saying that the police were merely reflecting the language of Ministers. If that is the case—I am not sure that it is—we need to change the language. Internet-related crime is not entirely about technology; indeed it is mainly about human behaviour and criminal activity. The use of the internet is relevant only in the same way that a burglar uses a motorway or footpath to reach someone’s house to break in.
Chi Onwurah
Regarding the police’s attitude to cyber-crime, does my right hon. Friend agree that all serving police officers should be knowledgeable of the way in which the internet can be used for crime? Does he also agree that to criticise those serving in the back offices of the police and to imply that we can tackle crime by being only on the physical front line does the police no service and may reduce the possibility of tackling virtual crime?
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is part of the discussion that we have been having in the Select Committee on Home Affairs on what constitutes the front line and the back office. Protection against the use of the internet for organised crime, as well as some of the issues that have already been raised, is extremely important.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
A friend of mine has recently become a special constable. When people are recruited to become special constables, it is very much about being on the front line, patrolling the streets. However, in the cyber-age, we should perhaps also invite people to become special constables to work on issues such as cyber-crime and on using the internet as a tool for policing.
Alun Michael
The Minister’s comments reflect something I said a while ago in the presence of some people from the Metropolitan police. They included Charlie McMurdie, who said afterwards, “Yes, it’s a good idea—we’re already doing it.” The Minister is absolutely on the ball, and some police forces are very much up to date, but others are not enabling staff on the front desk to tell people what they need to do when they wander into the police station and say, “This has happened. What should I do?” We therefore need to improve communication and to make better, more focused use of Get Safe Online, as I said.
The more we use language that emphasises the human damage, rather than the technology, the more likely we are properly to inform public policy and to reassure the public. That is why I am a bit dubious of using the word “cyber” as if it identified something different and discrete from human behaviour.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that most cyber-crime, so to speak, is conducted by sophisticated organised criminals, who, in effect, have their own cyber-crime divisions? The only way we will tackle cyber-crime is by getting the message out there that we have to tackle these massive organised gangs.
Alun Michael
The hon. Gentleman is right. Actually, the police are getting on top of tackling criminal activity by organised gangs, and it is perhaps right that they do not talk too much about how they do that, because it is not far distant from the work they do in combating terrorist activity. What does affect public confidence are the low-level things, and we probably need more engagement with Get Safe Online and more public information in that respect.
I was about to apologise for taking rather longer than I had intended, but I have taken quite a large number of interventions. Given the need to focus on internet governance and the report from Nairobi, I have had time to touch only briefly on some enormously important issues. However, I hope this is only the first such debate, and I look forward to hearing from other Back Benchers and the Minister.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should tell Members that I propose to commence the winding-up speeches no later than 3.40 pm. I hope that contributors to the debate will keep that in mind.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on securing the debate, on the great work he continues to do on this issue and on his role in helping to establish the Internet Governance Forum. I fully appreciate that he kindly took a large number of interventions, so I shall skip through my remarks at speed to let other Members participate in the debate.
The forum tries to answer the impossible question of how we regulate the internet, which is a global information resource used by more than 1 billion people. The Minister showed great leadership in attending the sixth conference in Nairobi, because he has allowed Members to become collegiate and to work almost on a cross-party basis in trying to tackle the issues before us.
The forum has done great work in establishing transparency and an acceptance that the internet is too important, and evolves too quickly, to be left to the traditional models of regulation and to international treaties. It focuses on developing an understanding of emerging challenges, pulling together a vast array of stakeholders to tackle them.
Underpinning the work of every group and every one of the 125 nations involved in the forum’s sixth meeting in Kenya was the desire to build safety into internet access, whether to protect vulnerable children from exploitation or nation states from cyber-attack. The challenges we face on the internet are so wide-ranging that they encompass everything from cyber-bullying—the UK Council for Child Internet Safety does excellent work on that—right the way up to the possibility of cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure by terrorists or rogue nation states.
Today, I want to focus on the mobile internet, which has probably been the fastest growing technology in history and has changed how we as a society interact with the internet. First, however, I want briefly to say something about the riots, because there was some talk about them earlier. Everybody has talked about social platforms and social networks, but they are not what causes the fear. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, Manchester police were probably grateful for the tweets telling them where the next riotous behaviour would take place. What people are concerned about, however, is BlackBerry Messenger and the fact that the information on it is encrypted. That is the type of area where we need to think about regulation. How do we regulate an organisation whose information is encrypted on servers that are not based in this country? That is the issue we need to tackle, and I would be interested to hear any comments the Minister has.
To return to the mobile internet, the UK now has 1.3 mobile devices for every man, woman and child. A real explosion in data traffic is under way. Ofcom’s analysis shows that data usage increased by 3,700% between 2007 and 2010, and independent analysts estimate that network traffic over mobile networks will increase sixfold by 2014. Internet-based traffic globally will grow by more than 2 billion usages, 85% of which will involve a mobile device.
The new smart phones have led the way in enabling customers to access new digital applications and services. More than 50% of all teenagers now have smart phones and use them to surf the internet, send e-mails and use social networking sites. I am slightly older than a teenager—in fact, I am almost twice as old—but I pop my laptop on only once a week, and I use my smart phone to do my internet banking, to deal with my e-mails and to do everything else. A huge number of teenagers no longer have laptops; instead, they have smart phones, iPads, tablets and other such devices. We are therefore moving away from needing to regulate what we might think of as the wired internet and towards needing to regulate the mobile internet, and there was some discussion at the IGF about whether we needed different regulations for the wired internet and the mobile internet.
High-performance mobile capability has the potential to allow services and speeds significantly to increase, compared with what we know today. For example, there has been huge debate about providing access to broadband coverage in rural areas, and mobile internet gives us the opportunity to do that.
Other benefits of the increasing use of mobile broadband applications include increasing access to, and lowering the cost of, health care by using solutions that remotely monitor patients and provide real-time data to clinicians. Online health e-systems, which all the mobile phone operators are developing, touch on an issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman: which Department is responsible for regulating such things? Is it the Department of Health or the Home Office? Furthermore, how do we regulate something that pervades and touches every aspect of our lives?
Mobile-enabled machine-to-machine technologies are supporting the roll-out of smart energy grids via smart meters in premises. Analysts suggest that this segment of the UK economy will grow by 30% per annum over the next five years. Is it the responsibility of the Department of Energy and Climate Change or another Department to regulate such things?
Another benefit of the increasing use of mobile broadband is the ability to mobilise and empower citizens through e-government, e-learning and e-volunteering. Getting involved in that way encapsulates what is meant by the big society.
Mobile broadband is crucial in supporting universal access to broadband across the UK and to delivering digital inclusion. It will be the technology of choice for many because of its convenience and the wide geographical access it allows. It will deliver broadband access to many rural areas that have never had mobile or fixed broadband.
However, Ofcom must structure next year’s auction of 4G mobile broadband spectrum so that it rebalances competition in holdings of spectrum ownership and supports competition in coverage. Spectrum policy is vital to maintaining competition in the delivery of mobile broadband coverage. At issue is the allocation of wireless spectrum, the lifeblood of mobile and wireless networks.
The potential for a severe spectrum crunch looms over the next decade, and even international regulators have started to point out that substantial amounts of new spectrum will be needed to drive the continued growth of the mobile wireless industry. Will the Minister consider reviewing the process for allocating spectrum so that we can give it to those who can use it to generate economic growth?
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on obtaining the debate, and on his leadership of the new group, the Parliamentary Internet Communications and Technology Forum, of which the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) is also a member. PICTFOR is making good strides towards getting people from different places around the table for a series of debates, to which the internet is central.
I shall be as swift as I can, Mr Benton, so that another hon. Member can speak. I want to reflect quickly on the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, which the Minister attended. Several other colleagues were there too, and I should make the same declaration as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth with respect to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and Nominet sponsorship. It seemed to me that there were interesting thematic divides at the forum that reflected discussions and debates that we have—or often do not have—here. It is clear, as has already been alluded to, that some Governments see the internet primarily as a threat, whereas others see it as a benefit, but with substantial caveats. The rest of us—although we are not perfect in any respect—tend to see the internet as best advanced through collaboration, common sense and a multi-stakeholder approach. Although the divide is not unbridgeable, in some respects it creates very different perspectives. A society that is not open at the best of times will have some difficulty with the way it manages the internet. That is not to be critical of emerging countries, which have their own challenges, but we hope we can help them to come to a benign or constructive impression of how the power of the internet can be harnessed to everyone’s benefit.
In this place we tend to discuss technicalities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentioned the Digital Economy Act 2010 and relatively few hon. Members engaged with that, although more would do so now, since last year’s intake. The reason relatively few engaged with the issue was largely that not a great deal of party politics was involved. It is a bit annoying that the Government insist on being commonsensical on most of the issues; we would rather it were different, as it would make our job as party politicians a lot easier, but it behoves us all to look at the intelligent arguments for pursuing one or another course of action. Of course, there are conflicting ideas about how to approach matters such as copyright, which was mentioned earlier, and freedom of use. I shall not bang on at length, but the Hargreaves report on intellectual property rights seems to me to be an intelligent step forward. It is super that the Government have accepted all 10 of Professor Ian Hargreaves’s recommendations. We must be aware that in the coming years it will be a constant—battle is probably too strong a term—contest, perhaps, to ensure that the multi-stakeholder approach that we are calling for endures, and we do not end up with an over-regulated internet. As with anything else, over-regulation would damage it and it would fall apart. That was one of the significant themes I identified.
A couple of my colleagues made interventions earlier in the debate, which were perfectly understandable and intelligent, and the kind of things that our constituents raise with us all the time, about bad things that might happen on the internet. An academic called Dr Vicki Nash, who was also at the IGF, said on the UK IGF Network:
“We spend a great deal of time balancing risks, identifying potential harms or assessing trade-offs in key values which does little to convince those who are ambivalent about getting online. Isn’t it time we redressed the balance?”
Through no fault of ours—well, who knows; perhaps it is our fault to some degree—there is an awareness in society about potential risks, but less of an awareness of the enormous benefits of the internet. We often think about internet issues through the prism of fear. It seems to me that it would be good if, over time, partly through the leadership of this place and the kind of language we use, we were to try to move beyond that. I suspect that to some degree it boils down to theories of human nature, if that is not too grand. On the whole people will use new things to do good things. We must do what we can to prevent the bad stuff, but inevitably bad stuff will happen, and we must minimise that. However, if we continue to think about the internet and its governance through the prism of fear, we will end up over-regulating it.
It is worth referring to a couple of other observations that were made by some of us at the IGF, which were helpfully referred to on the ukigf.org.uk website. One was that some emerging economies or developing countries are concerned about EU blocking practices. I do not mean to say that the practices they have in mind are wrong, with respect to the examples I heard in Kenya, but they see it as a restrictive practice. Lots of stuff coming out of Nigeria gets blocked automatically, because of the country’s reputation—deserved or otherwise—for economic crime on the internet. I have never replied to an email by giving my bank account details in the hope of getting the $10 million lodged in my account, so I am not sure how much of what is said is fear-mongering and how much is real, but nevertheless it has led to some emerging countries having their country domain names blocked. That is a pity and I hope that over time the Government, in conjunction with other Governments around the world, can do something about the relevant perceptions and practices.
I had not come across the Internet Society before I went to Nairobi. It is a very good organisation, with a good website, showing a series of models of how the internet could evolve. One model is called the common pool: that is, generally, a bit of tussle and roughness along the way, with, in the end, people stressing the collaboration, competition and sound evolution of the internet. There are other models, showing the risks of over-regulation. Governments might over-regulate because they fear the consequences in their own countries—if they fear freedom of speech, for example. Over-regulation might come about because large commercial interests demand that walls are put up for their commercial reasons. We must guard carefully against that and I recommend looking at those models on the isoc.org website.
I have been reading a book called “The Revolution Will Be Digitised” by Heather Brooke. Many hon. Members will know who she is. I do not see her around here much; perhaps that is for her own protection. She has written a pretty good book, actually. It is a romp through things that have happened—particularly, from the past year or two, WikiLeaks. She mentions the Icelandic modern media initiative, and that pooling of different legislation together for good use is quite interesting. I do not say that it is necessarily the exact model for the future, but it will be interesting to watch it as it evolves in the Icelandic Parliament.
Ms Brooke raises an issue that is a core aspect of another of the divides in our discussions of the internet, and the WikiLeaks phenomenon is central to it. There is a trend among some people to laud the release of information for its own sake, and to see that as reflecting a sound, open internet. I am currently a member of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, and it is my opinion that a balance must be struck between such openness and privacy. I am not as negative as some hon. Members about the Pirate parties, because I see them as putting a polemical argument that can be deconstructed and can be seen to have some valid points. The clash of ideas is important. It is necessary to listen to those parties’ lines of argument, make sense of them and break down some of their assumptions. I have found that they will often accept an argument, and they are a useful addition to the mix—not that I am encouraging any kind of piracy, obviously. The important thing is that we will have to find a balance between privacy—and everyone, including the pirates, stresses the importance of that—and the free flow of information. I do not propose to present the full solution in the next 30 seconds, but it is an important theme, which came out at the IGF.
When the IGF was held in Nairobi the Kenyan Government did a super job and flew the flag very well for emerging economies. I took the opportunity, while I was there, to have a long meeting with the Rwandan Foreign Minister. As the Minister knows, this Government have followed the path laid by the previous Administration and formed close contacts with the Rwandan Government. They have also provided strong budgetary support. Rwanda is not a perfect regime, but it is a progressive and positive force. One of things that it has done of which it is proud is to install fibre optic cables across Rwanda. Clearly, it wants to be at the forefront of the internet age, which is a big challenge for such a poor country. I have a particular interest in Rwanda and have found that people refer to Rwanda in all sorts of ways; sometimes they say good things and other times not such good things. When it comes to the internet though, Rwanda is making a genuine effort to bring the benefits of the internet to an impoverished, developing country—albeit one that will hopefully reach middle-income status in the next nine years, which would be a remarkable feat.
I encourage the Minister not to see the internet through a prism of fear, cyborgs and men in shiny suits. We are not talking about the silent footfall of the mad cyborg axeman. He should look at the whole area in a constructive way and accept that the divides that exist can often be overcome by intelligent discussion and debate, as I have found in recent discussions with corporate stakeholders and ISPs. The Minister should perhaps reflect on that fact. It behoves all of us to remember the enormous potential benefits that mobile networks and mobile access will bring to Africa.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on securing the debate. As members of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee, now the Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum, we have attended some fascinating discussions over the past year on many of the areas under discussion today. The IGF in Nairobi covered a wide area and was entitled, “The Internet as a Catalyst for Change: Access, Development, Freedoms and Innovation.” In my short speech today, I should like to focus on just one area—access, which has already been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). This one topic includes many elements, covering traditional wired access, the mobile internet, accessibility to the internet and the right of access of many people to the internet.
The most readily understood element of access is the wired access provided by phone lines and fibre-optic cabling. This country has a relatively strong position in that area. My home city of Edinburgh is among the best. According to a recent Ofcom study, it has an average maximum broadband speed of 10.1 megabits per second. Only 4.5% of people receive less than 2 megabits a second. I think that we can guess who represents all of them. Many rural and urban areas still lag behind. Kirkliston, a village barely 10 miles from the centre of Edinburgh, has speeds on its copper infrastructure of generally less than 1 megabit a second. Such speeds make real functional access for both individuals and businesses nigh on impossible.
I welcome the £68.8 million pledged by the Government as a contribution towards upgrading Scotland’s infrastructure. However, that money now sits in a bank account waiting for a strategy from the Scottish Government to emerge some time next year, which is not a great help to my constituents.
To be honest, the problem, or indeed the opportunity, is not really wired access but the mobile internet, a technology whose growth has outstripped all others and which, worldwide, will transform how the internet is accessed and, therefore, governed. Today, about half of all internet users, and a seventh of the world’s population, have already moved to mobile internet. A recent industry survey estimated that mobile broadband subscriptions would reach 3.8 billion or about half the world’s population by 2015. Another report predicted that by 2015, traffic from wireless devices would exceed traffic from wired devices. To date, the mobile internet has possibly been the fastest growing technology in history, but even that takes us only partially towards the access envisaged by the title of the IGF debate this year.
Everything I have talked about so far deals merely with the pipes and not with what comes out at the end. By that I mean the obvious difference between access and accessibility, which in itself covers many areas. There is an urgent need to consider how information is presented on the internet. There was much talk at the IGF of a move to a more multilingual internet and one that looks to put all users of the internet on an equal footing. Taking that down to local level, I am having a new parliamentary website designed with the help of the plain English campaign. In doing that, I have to take into account accessibility for users with varied needs. That is something that many companies and Departments need to spend a great deal more time on.
Equality of access across the world raises even more basic questions. The UN rapporteur on human rights has called for access to the internet to be a human right, giving individuals, as it sometimes does, their only access to an unfettered flow of information and a right to freedom of expression. That poses an interesting question for me, sitting as I do on the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on PITCOM; I am straddling both those strands.
In the past, many countries, Kenya included, have faced challenges to shut down or limit access to the internet. The internet in general and the social networks in particular have heightened our awareness of many such issues. For example, they were used to co-ordinate many of the uprisings in the Arab spring and the riots in this country.
We must stand by free, unlimited internet access in this country and abroad. The internet is fast becoming one of the key engines of economic and social transformation and growth across the globe. The internet governance framework will be an important way of ensuring that we focus not only on physical access but on access to freedoms of expression and association. I hope the Minister will rapidly do all he can to push forward both sides of that access agenda.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Benton. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on securing this extremely important debate. Ironically, when the Minister and I were debating one of the world’s oldest technologies this morning, this place was packed out. Now, we are at the cutting edge of technology and there are far fewer people, which is perhaps not the best reflection on parliamentarians.
What has emerged this afternoon is the complexity of the issues and how difficult it is to get the balance right. I was struck yesterday by the impact that the net is having on business development in this country. Despite the recession, net-based firms are expanding at a phenomenal rate and are completely bucking all trends. We are also aware of the positive role that the net and mobile devices have in developing countries. They enable people to know which markets to take their produce to and to save time on travel when travel links are not very good. It is clear that there are many positive benefits to be had.
Children and young people’s capability on the net and their capacity to use it for positive purposes are way ahead of the rest of us. Politically speaking, we have seen in north Africa and the middle east the huge impact of the net on enabling people to communicate. That had two benefits: access to ideas, which was not previously available to people there, and the facility for communicating swiftly, which was undoubtedly significant.
At the same time, however, there are risks and we need to consider the public policy aspects of the internet. One public policy aspect that I shall be interested to hear about from the Minister is whether the internet service providers or the owners of the technology are themselves competing in a proper market. Because the technology has emerged very quickly and because some firms have grown very speedily, I wonder whether there is both monopolistic and monopsonistic control of some parts of the market. We need to think about that issue, because obviously a firm such as Google, which has grown very quickly, is technology-based. In a way, one could almost say that it is a happy accident that Google has been so successful. One can imagine that similar market power held by other companies might not be quite so beneficial. We need to address that issue.
Labour endorses the report by Ian Hargreaves on intellectual property. We look forward to the implementation of many of his recommendations.
My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) spoke about crime on the internet. There are many dimensions, but I want to say something about child safety online and online harassment. A major piece of work is being done at the moment by some colleagues about online stalking, which is emerging as a significant problem. I wonder whether people take online stalking seriously enough and realise how terrifying and harassing it can be. We hope for some developments on that issue.
One of the things that I have noticed in the short time that I have been in the job of shadow justice Minister is that for many of the proposed protections people are supposed to engage in self-protection. For example, I went to a meeting last week where I was told by BT that it was quite simple for people to organise online protection for their children on their home computer; it was supposed to be perfectly straightforward. I went home, tried to do it and could not make the computer work for the next 24 hours.
Earlier this week, I visited another company and we discussed the use of cookies. I do not know how much you know about cookies, Mr Benton, but it was extremely interesting to learn how much information can be gathered through their use by the ISPs or whoever it is—I am not sure who it is, which reveals the shallows of my knowledge. Anyway, I was told once again that it is quite simple for people to go on to the internet and edit their own entry, to control the information held about them. Again, I tried to do that and again I completely failed. If we are to have a safe internet, it must be safe for people who are not technologically sophisticated. Going down the line that everyone must have a DPhil in physics to be able to protect themselves is not the place to go.
I reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth: it is important that we discuss different aspects of the issue in different parts of the House and think about the different elements of behaviour that impact on people. It is also important that we take understanding of the internet, its implications and its governance beyond people interested in the technology involved, because as my right hon. Friend said we cannot simply have technological solutions.
It is clear that there is a group of people who think that the internet should be like the forest in the 14th century—a place where outlaws can run free and unrestrained. That is not realistic and it is not what any of us who are here for this debate want. I respect my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), but we have learned that piracy is not a very good idea. From the 16th century to today, we have had increasing developments in the international law of the sea.
Eric Joyce
I was not suggesting that piracy is a good idea and I was not referring to Somalia. I was simply saying that it is good to listen to polemical arguments sometimes, because sometimes they are made with considerable force. I would also caution against situations where some interests—I am not being negative about corporate interests—will sometimes use the internet to extend their control, such as was the case when someone wanted a book loan in the past but were not able to pay to file-share.
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend makes a good point—I was only teasing him. However, the fact is that we have been told on a number of occasions that we cannot control things that are problematic on the internet because it is international; that was the first set of responses when people were raising concerns about the internet. Well, what that tells us is that we must have international governance arrangements. I am very pleased that so many of my colleagues, from all parties in the House, were in Nairobi to look at the international governance arrangements.
Alun Michael
My hon. Friend is making a very good point indeed, but there is more connection between what she is saying and what my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) said than might immediately appear. One of the problems is getting two groups of people who take a diametrically different view from each other into the same room to have a debate. We have seen that in relation to intellectual property and exploitation of the internet. In that sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk is right to say that we must not close anyone out of the argument, even if we ultimately reject the case that they are making. We must have a joined-up approach so that as far as possible everybody is in the room having the debates and understanding each other’s point of view.
Helen Goodman
Of course. My right hon. Friend speaks with experience and good sense about the need to take account of different perspectives. I also thought what he said about the nature of rules is important. He said that they need to be values-based, outcomes-based and technologically neutral. That is absolutely the right approach. Privacy offers an important example. It is no more acceptable to invade a person’s privacy using one technology than it is using another. Everybody must understand that, but sometimes we behave as if it is not the case.
That point raises another issue, which is whether different technologies tend to encourage different sorts of behaviour. If I were to tell you something quietly in the corridor, Mr Benton, and said, “Please don’t repeat this to anybody”, I am absolutely certain that you would not repeat it. Equally, if I was to go to my doctor and tell him something, and he wrote some notes down in handwriting and put them in a safe place, I would not be worried about them being leaked. However, in my mental health trust recently somebody took a memory stick out of the office, dropped it in the local car park and all the mental health records of everybody in County Durham became widely available. That kind of casualness or casual behaviour is more prevalent in the zone of computers. Although the values we use should be neutral in relation to the technology, I do not think that people’s behaviour is quite so neutral.
In conclusion, I hope that we can have further debates about this important issue in this Chamber.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I welcome the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) to her position as Labour spokesman on communications and creative industries.
I pay a heartfelt tribute to the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), not just for securing this debate but for his leadership on this important issue, both as a Minister and since leaving post. In the spirit of co-operation that I think has characterised the debate, let me put on record how helpful he has been to me as a new Minister, in establishing myself in the post and finding my way around it. His co-operation and knowledge sharing has helped me to get up to speed and to continue, I hope, to represent the UK effectively in these important debates. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who was with us at the Internet Governance Forum in Nairobi, is now following these matters very closely, and will be an important contributor to debates on this issue.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for his contribution on broadband, and I shall briefly touch on that issue now before turning, in the main part of my response, to internet governance. On the issue of the spectrum, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), we obviously know that the internet is very important. At lunchtime, I was at a retail store with people we were encouraging to get online—there is a campaign called “Give an hour”, run by Martha Lane Fox. Pat Harran, Mohammed Mir, Errol Hall and someone called Pitchit were there to get online, and I promised I would mention them so that they could look up Hansard online. Showing them how to find a Hansard debate on the Parliament website on an iPad was instructive because it was almost impossible; there is a message there for the parliamentary authorities.
I learnt an interesting statistic today that marries my two responsibilities in culture and communications. During the Frieze art fair, which lasted just four days and had 60,000 visitors, 1 terabit—a trillion bits of information—was downloaded. Incidentally, 85% of visitors were using an iPhone or an iPad, which shows the dominance of Apple, at least in trendy circles such as contemporary art. In 1993, 100 terabits was the entire amount of information transferred across the internet—I was virtually middle-aged then—so we can see how things have changed in a short time. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West are entirely correct to focus on the spectrum, and it is vital that Ofcom gets the auction rules right and that we are able to auction the 4G spectrum as soon as possible, because otherwise it will become more and more difficult to use the smart phone gadgets on which we all depend.
Turning to the substance of the debate, which is the Internet Governance Forum and the multi-stakeholder approach, I shall recount a short anecdote for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. The Foreign Secretary does not like the term “multi-stakeholder”; indeed, he has said that it is an ugly term, and at the London conference, which begins next week, I think he plans to use “co-operative governance”, which is a bit of a mouthful for a Conservative—he might even stretch to “mutual governance”. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary’s power will shift us away from “multi-stakeholder engagement,” but that is the term that people across the world understand.
The conference in Nairobi was very useful. I went because of the persuasion of the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, and I am grateful that people said it was good to see a Minister there. It was certainly worth my while, and I will continue to go as long as I hold this job, because it is important to have a presence there and engage with not just stakeholders but Government representatives who might have a different approach. The multi-stakeholder model is not universally accepted, and different models have been put forward. The right hon. Gentleman knows that moves are afoot to transfer responsibility for internet governance to the International Telecommunication Union—the ITU. The UK Government does not support that, and so in answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we will continue, I hope, to lead on this issue and support the multi-stakeholder approach.
There is a proposal from India, Brazil and South Africa, known as the IBSA model, to set up a new global body within the UN system, but I think that that would be an unravelling of the world summit on the information society—WSIS—principles that were established, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman, in Tunis in 2005. In addition, China and Russia have submitted to the UN General Assembly a proposal for the international management of the internet.
I subscribe to the multi-stakeholder model. The internet was built from the ground up. It is an innovative medium, and not just Governments but other stakeholders, civil society groups and business all must have their say if it is to remain so. One reason for the debate in this area is the continued role of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Recently, there have been concerns about ICANN’s approach regarding the .xxx domain name, but I am glad that as a result we have had significant reforms of the corporation and a more coherent role for its Government Advisory Committee—GAC—and are now well placed for the corporation to move forward, particularly as it releases more generic top-level domain names from next year.
We also have the re-letting of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority—IANA—contract, which is currently operated by ICANN under the auspices of the US Government. It is absolutely clear that the US Government take their responsibility in that regard very seriously, as a steward for the global internet. People who suggest that they would somehow seek to turn off the internet are completely wrong —there is even an untrue anecdote that they cut off Syria four or five years ago. It is important, however, that the US recognises such concerns, and I think that it does. For example, when the IANA contract is let, it might go to ICANN or it could go to another body, and that will be seen as a global body, although it will be registered in the US. Local law will apply to the country that owns the domain name, so .uk will continue to be subject to UK law. In any dispute, the relevant domestic law of the domain name will prevail.
In consideration of new generic top-level domains, there will be a requirement for community support for IANA to amend the root and thus add a new domain—.scot for example—to protect us against controversial root domain names coming forward. The operator of IANA will also have to introduce enhanced transparency so that a request for root zone changes can be tracked through the system. I hope that people who feel that somehow a UN or an ITU route would be better—in that it would reduce the influence of the Americans— understand that the Americans do not seek to influence the governance of the internet and that they regard themselves very much as stewards.
I have very little time left, but I am glad that I have covered the main points: support for the multi-stakeholder approach; concern about the two proposals that I have mentioned; contentment that the issue between GAC and ICANN has, I think, been resolved and moved forward; and the United States Government’s recognition and addressing of the concerns about the re-letting of the IANA contract. We have the important London conference on cyberspace next week, and I hope that some of the Members present will be able to attend. If not, I ask them to please let me know. I am sure that they will be able to attend if the problem is at our end.
Let me make a couple of other points. There is the importance of internet protocol version 6. We have run out, as it were, of domain names and need to move to IPv6, and I want to use this opportunity to call on industry, particularly the internet service providers and the mobile operators, to support 6UK, which is the business body charged with raising awareness of IPv6. So far, support has not been forthcoming, and it now needs to come from the people who will reap the main benefit—the ISPs and the mobile operators. On the philosophical approach—if I may put it that way—that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland took, there is potentially common ground between us. I am interested in her monopolistic and mons—
Mr Vaizey
I will not even try to say it. I will not give any views on that approach because I do not want to set any hares running.
There is also the self-regulatory approach to try to protect people from inappropriate content on the internet, and I welcome the ISPs’ code of conduct on active choice, which is designed to do precisely what the hon. Lady says, to give parents easy tools with which to protect their children. My approach with these businesses is to say, “This is the policy problem. You have the technical knowledge, so help us to solve it. Don’t simply say, ‘It can’t be done’.”
Fuel Poverty
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alan. This is the second time that I have secured a debate in Westminster Hall on fuel poverty. The first time was last January, when we had just had the coldest December on record and, as we spoke, many of us continued to feel the effects of the cold. I called for that debate because I was troubled and concerned about the number of constituents who had contacted me to tell me that they were feeling the effects of the terrible cold weather. I said then, as I say now, that fuel poverty is a black mark on society. It is up to us to do something about poverty anywhere, whenever anyone is impoverished. I say that not from the point of view of the Government or as a politician, but as a human being.
I was heartened and encouraged by last January’s debate. After listening to the response of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), I really felt that we got it. However, I find myself talking about the subject again today. Ten months later, the average annual bill for a dual fuel customer is £1,293, or 6% of median household income, compared with 3.3% in 2004. That means that an average family on an average income are edging ever closer to the disastrous figure of 10% of their income going on fuel bills.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. My constituency in Devon, which is a rural community, has low income and great rurality. There is a higher percentage of pensioners in Devon than in any other part of the country. Many members of my rural community use fuel oil, as opposed to gas, and it is twice the price, so I share his concern about this problem.
Chris Evans
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that concern. Rural communities are harder hit because, as she has said, they use oil, the market price for which is out of control. Something needs to be done. I will not mention that too much during the debate, but I hope that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), will touch on it when he responds.
If an average family is being put into fuel poverty, we have serious problems. We talked about fuel prices in the main Chamber last Wednesday and it was evident that the Government need to review their energy policy. I am not going to talk today about how bad the energy companies have been—I mentioned that enough during my contribution to last Wednesday’s debate—but there needs to be root-and-branch reform. If I started going on about that today, I do not think that it would add to the debate in any respect, because, at the end of the day, fuel poverty is a matter of life and death for so many people and so many of our constituents. It means making the heart-breaking decision between eating a meal and heating their house.
I could cite a number of examples of older people who only put on one bar of their fire, or who heat only one room, to reduce their fuel costs. As I said in the Chamber last week, constituents have said to me, “I sit in the living room with my coat on, because I can’t afford the heating,” and, “I go bed at 8 pm, because when I’m in bed I don’t use heating.” It is absolutely terrible.
It is in vogue at the moment to blame the Labour party for everything. When buses are late or trains do not turn up, I am sure that, somewhere along the line, somebody will blame the Labour party. Despite such brickbats, I am proud that the previous Labour Government did all they could to address fuel poverty and improve the energy efficiency of homes.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend find it deeply worrying that this Government’s only answer to rising fuel bills is to tell people that they are to blame for not shopping around?
Chris Evans
As I said during last week’s debate, it is all very well to tell people to shop around but, if all the energy companies are putting up their prices across the board, how can people shop around? I also said that energy is not a luxury item—people have to have it. It is not possible to have superfast energy in the same way as it is to have superfast broadband. How can people shop around? It is a failure of the market. If we are going to ask people to shop around, the Government need to encourage more entrants into the market.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. On the failure of the market, energy prices in Scandinavia—in Sweden and Denmark—are higher than those in the UK, possibly because the UK has a more free market. In Scandinavia, however, they make a more comprehensive effort to make sure that they are energy-efficient, which makes a real difference in terms of fuel poverty, because their prices are actually higher.
Chris Evans
I still believe that the only way to drive down prices is to have more competitors. We have only six companies as competitors, they all seem to be pushing up their prices together—I am not saying that that is what they are doing, because a number of inquiries have said that they are not—and the regulator does not seem to be doing anything about it. I do not agree with that situation. We need to look at ways to bring in more entrants into the market. As I have said, however, that is not a debate for now.
The introduction of winter fuel payments, central heating programmes and the energy efficiency commitment have all played their part in easing the pain that people have felt in meeting their energy costs. However, I cannot talk about fuel poverty or pensioners in my constituency without mentioning the cut to the winter fuel payment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the Floor of Westminster Hall. Today, I met a group of about 20 people from Age Sector Platform in Northern Ireland. They indicated that approximately 770 people died from the cold in Northern Ireland last year. Does he share my concern that the changes to the winter fuel payment will contribute greatly to more people dying because they are not able to get the correct money?
Chris Evans
I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely. In Wales, 1,700 people are dying from the cold every year. As I have said, in this day and age, what does it say about us as a society when people are dying from the cold? It is absolutely terrible. I cannot put into words the shame that we all should feel if somebody dies from the cold.
On the reduction in the winter fuel payment, the Chancellor and Government Members have said, “It was only ever a temporary increase and we stopped the increase because Labour put it up.” It is all very well saying, “Oh, it was a temporary increase,” but once someone has got used to that money coming in, they tend to feel the pinch when it has gone. The Government need to reconsider that terrible decision.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the number of pensioners dying from the cold in Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Islwyn, there were 41 winter deaths. If we get nothing else from the Minister today, I hope that he will make a commitment to do all he can to ensure that nobody else is added to that tragic statistic.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
My hon. Friend represents a Welsh constituency. Some 26% of Welsh households are said to be in fuel poverty. In Scotland, that figure is 32.7%. We are expecting a cold winter. Does he agree that there is a crisis and that the Government need to consider introducing measures to ensure that we do more to help people with their heating costs?
Chris Evans
Absolutely. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Scotland and Wales have a lot in common. We are Celtic cousins, as is the hon. Member for Strangford. We share the same problem of fuel poverty and something needs to be done as a matter of urgency. I hope that we will hear something from the Minister about that.
Today, I want to talk about a group of people who are hardly ever mentioned. I want to pay tribute to Macmillan Cancer Support, to which I have spoken about cancer patients. This is a very important issue. Anyone who has had the heartbreaking news that they have cancer or who knows someone who has cancer does not need to be told how hard life can be. They are faced with months of treatment, heartache and worry, and the last thing that any family of a cancer patient should worry about is whether they can pay their energy bills.
Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to plummeting temperatures and rocketing fuel bills. Many will be faced with fuel poverty because they have increased energy needs at a time when their income has dropped dramatically. Since getting involved in this campaign, I have heard many harrowing stories that underline just how hard people living with cancer feel the effects of high energy bills. The following story stood out. One woman said:
“My immune system is so weakened that I am very prone to colds and infections but I can’t afford to keep warm all the time. I cover myself in blankets and hot water bottles to help keep my joints warm. I am always in debt and behind with payment to the energy companies, even during the summer. It makes me panic. I try and give them £10 whenever I can, but to be honest I’d rather be in debt than get even more ill. I wish the government would realise that it’s not just the old who get cancer and suffer the cold.”
During treatment, 70% of cancer patients under the age of 55 lose, on average, 50% of their household income. That is why fuel poverty disproportionately affects those with cancer, and why one in four cancer sufferers also suffer from fuel poverty. Despite evidence that living in fuel poverty has a negative impact on the health and well-being of people with cancer, one in five cancer patients turn off their heating during winter because they are so worried about their bills. The problem is made worse by the fact that people living with cancer spend longer at home when they recuperate and as a result may be less active. They also have a higher use of appliances, such as washing machines and tumble dryers. The effects of chemotherapy may also make cancer patients more susceptible to the cold. As I have said in the past, one way of combating fuel poverty is by increasing the income of those who find themselves struggling with bills.
Jim Shannon
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as I am, that stress over financial issues adds to the health problems of people with cancer? It is important for those people to have money to get through such hard times.
Chris Evans
As I said, when someone has cancer, the last thing they need to worry about is money, paying the bills or meeting any other financial obligations. The top priority of someone with cancer and of their family should be to get better and beat that evil disease.
Cancer patients do not receive the support they need. For instance, the winter fuel payment is only paid to those who are over 60. Only 7% of cancer patients in fuel poverty are on a social tariff, and only those on certain benefits linked to low income are included in the carbon emissions reduction target super-priority group. People affected by cancer who are under 60 are not entitled to that support, even though roughly one in four cancer patients have not yet reached their 60th birthday. If this debate achieves anything, it is my sincere hope that the Government will give serious consideration to extending the winter fuel payment to particularly vulnerable groups, such as those with a terminal illness, the disabled or those undergoing treatment.
Cancer patients are poorly served by the Government’s schemes to reduce fuel poverty. Many rely on additional sources of financial help to pay high gas bills and, as a result, risk falling into debt. The warm home discount scheme is run by energy companies and provides certain groups of fuel poor energy customers with an annual rebate of £130 off their energy bills. That rebate can be provided either automatically or to other vulnerable groups as defined by the energy companies. Cancer patients will only be able to apply for support if they fall within the categories set by the energy companies. It is my fear that, unless the Government provide tighter guidance to energy companies regarding the eligibility for the WHD, vulnerable cancer patients will miss out. For instance, under the social tariffs set by energy companies, only 7% of cancer patients in fuel poverty receive support. I therefore hope that the Minster will say he will look again at the eligibility criteria of the warm home discount if it becomes apparent that it is not reaching the most vulnerable people.
One of the major problems with fuel poverty is that the people who are suffering from it are not always aware of the issue. I shall give an example. Many years ago, when I was working for my predecessor Lord Touhig, we secured a fuel poverty debate in Westminster Hall. At the time, he was president of the National Old Age Pensioners Association for Wales. He asked me to speak to the secretary. I phoned him up and said, “Ralph, Don is doing a debate on fuel poverty tomorrow and he is wondering whether you have any examples of it.” He said to me, “Well, the problem is that most people do not realise that they are suffering. Energy bills are a way of life. If we get cold, we put on an extra pullover or we put an extra bar on.” People do not seem to know that they are suffering from fuel poverty, which is a major problem when it comes to discovering other groups in fuel poverty, such as cancer patients.
The English housing survey currently used by the Government to calculate fuel poverty figures in England does not include questions related to a person’s cancer diagnosis, despite including questions about other disabilities. The Government must start collecting that data if they are to successfully target resources at those most in need. We need to consider targeting the winter fuel payment at the terminally ill. The Government should consider changing the English housing survey to include a question about cancer, alongside questions about other disabilities. Only by doing that will Government data give an accurate depiction of the number of cancer patients suffering from fuel poverty.
It is clear that more must be done by the Government to proactively prioritise people with long-term health conditions in fuel poverty who require support. The Government have acknowledged that the green deal will not work for fuel poor households as they are likely to be under-heating their homes and will be unable to take on debts or make significant savings. The Government have made provision to address that with the energy company obligation, which will subsidise energy efficiency measures for fuel poor households. However, I am concerned that the money available under the ECO will not be large enough to help all fuel poor and vulnerable households. Many cancer patients will not be able to access the support if eligibility is restricted to certain groups on very low incomes or qualifying benefits. That is why I am looking for assurances from the Minister that those diagnosed with cancer will be able to access support when the ECO comes into effect.
Energy companies are seemingly increasing their prices at will, and we are faced with the difficulty that people will fall into fuel poverty as soon as energy prices rise. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Islwyn, Lord Touhig, was fond of quoting James Maxton, whose words have a special meaning now. He said that poverty is man-made and therefore open to change. If anything, fuel poverty is man-made, and with the political will we have the tools to do something about it.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate, and his continued and tenacious advocacy of action on fuel poverty. We all admire the way in which he is pursuing this agenda on behalf of his constituents, and I assure him that the coalition shares his concerns about those living in fuel poverty. It is a disgrace in the 21st century that so many people are cold in winter. For example, we know that it is very likely that each winter more people will die of fuel poverty than will be killed on the roads, which is a shocking statistic.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my officials and I regularly meet with a wide range of consumer groups and other stakeholders, including not just Citizens Advice but Macmillan Cancer Support, which is taking this issue to heart, and Carers UK, which is doing a great job of speaking up for the most vulnerable in our society. I particularly recognise the issues that those living with cancer may face because they spend more time at home and need to keep warm. Through our policies, those people living with cancer on a low income should be able to access assistance to keep their homes warm more affordably.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to protecting those who need help most, and committed to making change where change is needed. That is why we have asked Professor Harrington, the independent reviewer of the work capability assessment, and Macmillan to look at how the WCA assesses people who are receiving treatment for cancer and whether it can be improved. Professor Harrington and Macmillan have now submitted their report to the Government. We are considering the report and will come forward with proposals soon.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fuel poverty statistics make depressing reading. While I do not seek to blame the previous Labour Government for slow-running buses, between 2005 and 2009, during the third term of the previous Labour Government, the number of fuel-poor households across the UK more than doubled. It did not do so from a small base; it went from 2.5 million to 5.5 million people. Of those, 4.5 million were in vulnerable households. The elderly, families with young children, the long-term sick and the disabled were all caught up in this rising epidemic of fuel poverty. The latest figures from the Welsh Assembly Government estimate that of the 1.34 million households in Wales, 332,000 households were in fuel poverty in 2008. If we are going to reverse this iniquitous trend something big has to change. We need to completely rethink, redesign and re-engineer our policies.
In order to find the right solutions, we need to make sure we ask the right questions. That is why we invited Professor John Hills, of the London School of Economics, to undertake an independent review of both the fuel poverty target and the definition. He has been asked to look at fuel poverty from first principles—what causes it, its effects and how best to measure it.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
Will that review include off-grid customers, those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) spoke about in relation to domestic heating oil? They have seen prices go up by 90% in the past year and are looking to the Government to help them to avoid falling into the problems that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about so eloquently.
Gregory Barker
Absolutely. The rural fuel poor are the hardest hit of all. In the last years of the previous Labour Government, they saw, in real terms, the cost of heating their homes increase by 130%—absolutely iniquitous.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that fuel poverty has been rising in the past 18 months as well. We had one of the coldest winters, and external factors contributed to that. With regard to off-grid, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) conceded that he would meet with myself and other hon. Members. Is the Minister saying that he will look at the possibility of Ofgem, the regulator, giving the same protection to people who are off-grid as it does to those who are on the gas mains? They need that protection against fuel suppliers, not competition and regulation.
Gregory Barker
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Protection in this area is overseen by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has that portfolio responsibility. I am sure that he will be pleased to meet with the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to discuss this matter, because we are concerned about fairness and practices that have been going on among the heating oil distributors. I know that my hon. Friend takes this issue very seriously.
The independent report being prepared by Professor Hills focuses on whether fuel poverty is distinct from poverty and why measurement is important. It provides an assessment of the current definition of fuel poverty, and identifies and analyses possible modifications and alternatives to the existing definition. I do not wish to be frivolous, but it has been pointed out that under the current definition of fuel poverty Her Majesty the Queen would be in danger of being tipped into those defined as fuel poor, because it takes more than 8.9% of the royal grant to heat the historic royal palaces. We have to ensure that the definition captures those who are in genuine poverty, rather than the more well-off who are making lifestyle choices in spending their income on such things. We have to ensure that we focus our precious resources on those who are genuinely the most vulnerable.
Tackling fuel poverty will be a huge challenge and a key part of the solution is undoubtedly to address the thermal efficiency of the UK housing stock. Britain has some of the oldest, leakiest and most expensive homes to heat in Europe. We urgently need to address this issue. We do not have the highest energy costs; we have among the highest energy bills, because we have to waste so much heating to actually keep warm. Both the carbon emissions reduction target and Warm Front, measures started under the previous Government are continuing, with work being done in the homes of some of those most at risk. However, we recognise that if we were to just continue with these measures, specifically with Warm Front, it would never get us close to meeting our statutory target of eliminating fuel poverty. In fact, Warm Front would take approximately 80 years to get close to dealing with fuel poverty.
We need a game changer and that game changer is the green deal. The coalition flagship Energy Bill, which contains the green deal, has now received Royal Assent. That is a significant milestone on the journey to launching the most ambitious home-improvement programme since the second world war. We expect to commence a public consultation shortly on secondary legislation to develop the precise design and scope of the scheme. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the green deal can be rolled out at scale, really ambitiously, right across Great Britain.
The green deal is necessary to deliver our objectives, but on a dramatically more ambitious scale than anything that has gone before. We aim to retrofit 14 million households by the early 2020s. Assistance for the fuel poor and targeting the most vulnerable will be at the forefront of this action. The domestic green deal is an opportunity for all householders, whether in the private sector, social rented sector or private rented sector, to improve the energy efficiency of their homes at no up-front cost. It will help protect people against price rises in the future through greater energy saving now.
However, there are drawbacks and we appreciate the particular needs and constraints of the most fuel poor. Green deal installations are paid for through future savings, and we realise that they may not be the full answer for all households. As the hon. Member for Islwyn pointed out, it is no good projecting savings on heating a whole house if the widow living there is only able to heat one room. We recognise fully the need for a substantial element of subsidy for the most vulnerable and fuel poor. That is why we will also introduce a new energy company obligation. Integrating the green deal and the ECO will provide further support for those homes that need it most.
We want to ensure that everyone who wants to can access high quality energy efficiency measures, so that they can cut their emissions and heat their homes more affordably, as well as creating a warmer, more comfortable and liveable home environment. The ECO will assist the poorest and most vulnerable households to an affordable warmth target, providing up-front support for thermal performance measures to help households to heat their homes more affordably. In developing the green deal and the ECO, we are removing the barriers to take-up, raising awareness and showcasing benefits to make energy efficiency a no-brainer for everyone.
We are aware that the long-term solution to the iniquity of fuel poverty is to renovate the UK’s building stock. However, we also need solutions to keep people warm this winter, and the coalition is requiring suppliers to provide a rebate of £120 to some of the poorest pensioners through the new warm home discount. We are also providing winter fuel payments and, if we get the anticipated cold snaps, cold weather payments. We recognise that energy prices are hitting many households hard at a difficult time, and understand consumers’ concerns about rising energy bills. That is why we have obtained a voluntary agreement with the suppliers, who will be writing to 8 million customers to advise on how to save money by changing to a cheaper tariff and will place a cheaper tariff signpost on the front page of most bills. Bills are far too complicated, and they need to be simplified and send much clearer messages to vulnerable and general consumers about how to save money.
Albert Owen
I support energy efficiency measures and Ofgem’s recommendations for simplifying bills, but does the Minister agree that it is perverse how many energy companies currently charge low users more money? Low users are often the vulnerable people mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn. Was that issue raised at the Downing street summit so that the companies got a clear message that they should not be punishing those low users?
Gregory Barker
The Secretary of State was at the summit, but unfortunately I was overseas. I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman to summarise the key issues discussed, but I can assure him that such issues are at the forefront of our minds when we are making policy.
This is the first year of the warm home discount, and we will assist around 2 million vulnerable households. Many will be low-income pensioner households—exactly the sort of constituent discussed by the hon. Member for Islwyn—who are in receipt only of pension credit guarantee credit. We expect to find more than 600,000 of them and to provide them with a £120 rebate off their bill. Most will receive a rebate without even having to claim, a major benefit to such vulnerable people who might struggle with forms or not realise that they can make a claim. The data-matching process to identify automatically the recipient low-income pensioners for this winter is currently under way, and the call centre is now open to take general enquiries regarding the scheme. Over the four years of the scheme, it will be worth up to £1.1 billion which, at a time of widespread budgetary pressures, is a significant increase in funding on the previous voluntary agreement that also assisted many households under the previous Government.
Fuel bills in the winter months can account for around 60% of the year’s total fuel bill. By working with other Departments, we can ensure that we are reaching the most vulnerable with the assistance that they need. The Department for Work and Pensions provides winter fuel payments of £300 to those over the age of 80 and £200 to those over 60. Those payments provide assurance to older people that they can keep warm during the colder winter months, knowing that they will receive significant help with their fuel bills. In addition, the Government have permanently increased the cold weather payment from £8.50 a week to £25 a week, providing real help to those most vulnerable to the cold. Last winter, we made 17 million cold weather payments, worth an estimated £430 million of direct help to low-income vulnerable households when they need it most—
Seagulls (Coastal Towns)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I am pleased to have secured the debate, which gives me the opportunity to raise an issue that in recent years has affected the lives of many residents in my Waveney constituency, in particular in Lowestoft, as well as around the country, in coastal towns and further inland. In Waveney, there has been a problem in Beccles, some 10 miles from the coast, while problems have also arisen in such places as Bath and Birmingham.
Seagulls are part of the fabric of seaside Britain. Historically, other than following the plough, they have kept themselves to the coast. However, in recent years they have moved inland, nesting, feeding and breeding in buildings and on roofs, and in doing so causing considerable nuisance, stress and anxiety to nearby residents. In Lowestoft, much of the current problem centres around Waveney drive and the adjoining streets, and residents have been disrupted in a variety of ways.
Gulls are powerful birds, with a wing span of almost 5 feet, and they have messy habits. They have been known to tear apart refuse sacks and scatter the contents of litter bins in their search for food, making a mess and distributing litter, which has the potential to attract other, more conventional vermin.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend also aware that gull faeces cause a risk to the quality of bathing water in towns such as Teignmouth in my constituency? The Environment Agency is having to look at ways of preventing the birds from nesting on roofs and by the pier.
Peter Aldous
I welcome my hon. Friend’s drawing that fact to my attention, as it illustrates the number of environmental issues that arise. Seagulls are indiscriminate defecators, with the ability to expel significant quantities of runny faeces on the wing. The consequences are most unpleasant for residents in their gardens and for anyone else out and about in the open. Householders cannot hang out their washing, and windows, cars and garden furniture are continually fouled and have to be cleaned. One household I know has stopped holding their annual family barbecue. Relaxing in the garden is no longer possible, while soiled clothes, sheets and towels have to be thrown away. There is an additional burden on local authorities’ cleaning duties. Noise nuisance is also a factor. Gulls have a distinctive, prolonged, piercing and very loud laughing call. For many people, a good night’s sleep is a thing of the past.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the issue. He has mentioned some places in England, but even Cardiff in Wales has a massive problem. Because of the noise factor mentioned by my hon. Friend, my constituent, Mr Paul Harvey, has started a campaign in Wales on the issue, but the council tells us that national legislation is needed and that there is none that can be used at the moment.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I will be coming to that subject. He is correct; at the moment, nuisance as such is not something that enables one to take appropriate measures. It might be appropriate to change the law, and I will come to that point.
As I said, gulls make a distinctive, piercing sound, and in certain areas, people find that they can no longer keep their windows open on warm summer nights. During the breeding season, nesting birds have a tendency to dive-bomb people they perceive as a threat to their nests or offspring. That can be extremely alarming for the elderly and the young. In one incident, riggers putting up a TV aerial were attacked and had to return on another date to complete their work.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on raising an issue that has stretched many miles from the sea all the way up the Gloucester and Sharpness canal to the historic city of Gloucester, where seagulls are as much a pest as they are in his constituency. Does he agree that the only way to solve the problem of those birds almost of mass destruction is, on the one hand, for those of us who have tips to close them as fast as possible so that the gulls do not have access to a great food source and, on the other hand—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)—that the Government need to consider whether they should authorise more action by councils to co-ordinate the clearing of gull nests?
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point; I am aware that the problem is acute in Gloucester. We need to look at a variety of measures and I will certainly raise the two points he mentioned.
People are no longer able to enjoy their homes; there is an added health risk and a negative knock-on effect on the saleability and value of houses. Why and how has the problem arisen? It appears that the situation has become significantly worse in the last five to six years. Residents who have lived in their homes for 32 and 52 years respectively have told me that until recent years there was not a significant problem.
There is a need for research to accurately establish the causes, although anecdotally and based on feedback I have received from around the country, I suggest there could be a variety of reasons. First, the decline of the fishing industry that has taken place in Lowestoft and around the British coast may have removed more traditional food sources, thereby forcing gulls to move inland in search of other forms of sustenance. Secondly, the availability of discarded fast food and overflowing waste may encourage birds to move into new areas. On the seafront in Lowestoft, feeding the seagulls may seem like a good idea, but one household now has them breeding on its roof and dive-bombing householders as they leave home. Thirdly, it is possible that the encroachment of traditional natural breeding habitats may have forced seagulls to look for alternative nesting-places. Indeed, off Waveney Drive, the presence of a now empty timber processing factory, with many thousands of square feet of roof, has provided an ideal breeding-ground.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes powerful points about fisheries and so forth. In Brighton and Hove, we quite like seagulls. Indeed, their image adorns our wonderful new stadium. In relation to points made earlier about bins and destruction, we have changed some of the collection methods so that there is less destruction and less mess. In large numbers gulls can cause distress, but does my hon. Friend agree that a change in our behaviour can often alleviate the problem, and that is better than simply removing the seagulls?
Peter Aldous
I agree with that point, too. We have to look at ourselves as people as well as considering other forms of control.
In looking for solutions, there is no easy answer and no silver bullet. There is a need for more research so that we can obtain a better understanding of the ecology, biology and migrating habits of herring and black-headed gulls. We need a range of preventive measures. Where the problem is acute, there may be a need to consider additional means of controlling the gull population. I would be interested to know if any research has been carried out to find out what happens in other countries. Gull colonies can be very mobile. They move over a wide area stretching from the Atlantic coast in Portugal to Scandinavia and across to Siberia. By all accounts, the problem is not as acute in Norway and Sweden. We need to know why this is the case.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The menace also afflicts the people of Barrow and Furness up in Cumbria. On preventive measures, has the hon. Gentleman given serious consideration to whether gull contraceptives could be an effective way of limiting the burgeoning population in urban areas?
Peter Aldous
If the hon. Gentleman means by gull contraception something that deals with the eggs, I have considered that. If he has other proposals, it would be interesting to hear further details.
A variety of preventive measures is necessary, including regular litter-picking and road cleaning, the provision of gull-proof bins that are emptied regularly and discouraging the feeding of gulls—in some towns fines are being imposed. There is also a need, as we heard earlier, to reduce the amount of food waste and organic matter that goes to landfill sites. Commercial buildings that may be suitable for nesting and roosting should be proofed. When sites are redeveloped, preventive measures should be incorporated in redevelopment plans.
The wholesale culling of gulls is not an option and I do not advocate it. Quite apart from the logistics and questionable ethics, the European population of herring gulls is very mobile, and minor gains achieved by removing a local population will invariably be cancelled out by natural migration.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
My hon. Friend has done well to secure this debate and he is making an excellent speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) is right to point out that it is not about wide-scale culling of gulls, but about individual responsibility when people discard their rubbish. In spite of that, particularly in seaside towns such as Lowestoft, Brighton and Hove, which have active night-time economies, people will still discard their rubbish in antisocial ways. No matter how much we like or dislike it, there is an onus on councils to address that problem and ensure that rubbish and litter are collected in a timely manner to avoid the problems we are talking about.
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for those observations. I agree that that is one of the ways forward that we should consider.
To address the very worst problems, where people’s lives are being made a misery, consideration should be given to changing the existing licensing controls in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to allow owners of large sites where significant numbers of birds are causing, or are likely to cause, a legal nuisance, to apply for a licence to take measures to prevent or deter the colonisation of land in their occupational control. At present, someone cannot apply for a licence to deal with a nuisance. They can apply for a licence to prevent serious damage to agriculture, to preserve public health or air safety and to conserve other birds. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether adding nuisance to that list is something that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has considered or will consider.
Consideration also needs to be given to legislation allowing local authorities to require land owners to take preventive or remedial action to deal with actual or likely noise, smell or other nuisance caused by gulls colonising land or structures in urban areas. The problem is not easy to solve. Indeed, there might be a temptation to put it to one side in the “too difficult” category, but that would be wrong. As we have heard, many thousands of people from all around the country are being affected, and we owe it to them to come up with a range of measures to make their lives more tolerable.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the natural environment and fisheries. He would normally reply to this debate, but he is otherwise engaged. I am happy to stand in for him, especially as I was born and brought up in a seaside town lower down the Suffolk coast than Lowestoft, so I am familiar with the raucous cries of gulls.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) because gulls are a major feature of seaside towns. As always, it is an issue of balance and getting the populations right. I recognise that high densities in urban or coastal areas can cause serious problems for the people who live and work there. Sensible and proportionate measures need to be taken to mitigate those problems.. A range of measures are already available, including, where necessary, lethal control and the destruction of nests and eggs. Those measures are regularly employed across the country to manage our urban gulls.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned the problems in Beccles. I understand that those problems were managed at least in part by the removal of nests and by deterring the gulls, and that Natural England has worked with local residents to find ways of managing the gulls that have caused problems.
Before we consider management, we must look at the conservation status of gulls. They are wild birds to which we offer protection, and our obligation under the EU birds directive to conserve the wild bird population is fulfilled in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
UK breeding populations of herring gulls have declined by 72% since 1969, and winter populations by about 50% over the past 25 years. As a result, the herring gull is now a biodiversity action plan priority species, and has been red-listed as a bird of conservation concern—the answer to my hon. Friend’s point about nuisance can probably be found in those statistics. Other gull species, including the great black-backed gull and—perhaps more importantly—the lesser black-backed gull, have also seen a decline in population, and although we sometimes see large numbers of gulls in certain areas, we may be forgiven for not realising that their conservation status may be under threat nationally. Although the population of some gull species has risen in urban areas, there has been a dramatic decline in the number of gulls found in their natural habitat.
I recognise the genuine concerns of my hon. Friend and other colleagues about gulls in their constituencies. Although the Wildlife and Countryside Act provides protection for all birds, it allows people to apply to Natural England for a licence to control problem bird species if there are no other satisfactory solutions—he saved me from having to read out the list of reasons that people can use to apply for such a licence. That licence would be granted on an individual basis, but some issues are covered under a general licence provided by Natural England that is available to anybody in the country and for which one does not need to apply—in theory, people are supposed to download information from the internet, but in reality culling is allowed under certain circumstances on the basis of the problems described by my hon. Friend. If someone believes that that general licence has been used for a different reason, the onus is on them to prosecute the case. That has happened in the past because these matters are not always easy; for example, if someone acts simply because they do not like gulls, they will clearly be breaching the terms of the general licence and be open to prosecution.
The general licence allows for the lethal control of the lesser black-backed gull where there is need to preserve public health and safety, or to prevent serious damage or the spread of disease. Many of the issues raised by my hon. Friend fall under those headings. Herring gulls have a more threatened status, but under the same general licences it is possible for an authorised person to remove and destroy their nests and eggs— I understand that that was one measure taken in Beccles. Licensed controls will therefore be necessary in some circumstances and, particularly in the breeding season, the removal of eggs and their replacement with dummy eggs—obviously under licence—can reduce the urban gull population if done for a long period. In the short term, such actions also reduce the likelihood of attacks from gulls.
Although licensed controls exist, they should not automatically be the first port of call and we should look at other measures to manage problems such as those to which my hon. Friend referred. There is no doubt that food supply is a major factor because gulls tend to increase in number and cause problems when there is a readily available source of food, especially if that combines with suitable habitats such as timber sheds.
The licensed control of gulls can prove effective in the short term, but we must look at the issue more widely. Access to food is the single most important factor controlling the gull population, and if food is denied they will go elsewhere and the problem may be resolved without recourse to other measures. It is a matter for individuals and local authorities, and I urge all local authorities to address the problem by using gull-proof methods of waste disposal such as rubbish sacks or—probably better—bins, and by reducing access to local landfill sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) suggested closing tips, but that would simply shuffle the problem elsewhere. Although the Government eventually intend to phase out landfill sites altogether, proven methods of deterring gulls without having to close a site and inconvenience constituents include the use of fireworks, visual deterrents, netting in some circumstances, and birds of prey. There is no single solution, but some methods have been proven to work.
Local authorities—indeed, all of us—should try to avoid spilling foodstuffs or leaving material around, keep food storage areas secure and bird-proof and ensure that disposal and waste facilities are kept clean and tidy. They should also try to stop people feeding the birds. The use of deterrents on our buildings is familiar to all of us in the Chamber because we live surrounded by them. In London the problem is pigeons, but proofing buildings with netting, metal spikes and so on could also be a way to address the problems caused by gulls. The fundamental answer to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, and many others, is that eliminating those things that attract gulls will reduce the problem. In other words, we should get rid of their feed and prevent them from using the facilities and buildings that they see as a habitat or nesting area.
In September, the Minister with responsibility for the natural environment met my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who has taken a great interest in this subject, and they discussed the merits of further research into the behaviour and ecology of urban gulls. Research, both completed and ongoing, has been carried out into managing urban gulls, and the Food and Environment Research Agency has investigated the movements of urban gulls, focusing on their movements between urban centres and landfill sites. It has also undertaken work funded by the Landfill Communities Fund to develop practical guidelines about deterring gulls from landfill sites. Those guidelines are in use by the Environment Agency. Studies funded by airport interests and water utility companies have examined methods to deter gulls from roosting in those areas, and such methods have been properly applied.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney referred to reservoirs. That is a crucial issue, but one to which all measures that I have referred to can be applied. In addition, I am advised that hand-held laser torches— I think it says laser, although it could be taser; I am reading my notes out because I have difficulty believing this—have been used at reservoirs with some success. I will leave my hon. Friend to work out exactly how.
A PhD study is examining the use of egg control to limit local breeding production in gulls. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who referred to contraception, is not in his place, but hon. Members will be aware of the idea of using contraception to constrain populations of all sorts of wild species. In some places, that is used; in others, it is being researched. I do not know of any research relating to gulls, but clearly it is an interesting point and perhaps we should consider it. That said, I assume that the only way to administer the contraception would be in feed and we do not really want to feed the birds—that would be a double-edged sword.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney understands that there is a range of existing tools that can be used to manage gulls. Where there are issues of public health and safety, methods such as the removal of nests or eggs or of the gulls themselves—the lethal control of gulls—may be relevant.
At the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath, the Minister undertook to consider whether there was merit in taking forward more research on urban gulls, and we are examining that now. We can consider further research to help us to develop a greater understanding of urban gull behaviour, but we want to ensure that any such work delivers practical solutions.
In the meantime, I repeat that it is, as several hon. Members have said, for us as individuals and particularly for local authorities to use the quite considerable range of tools available at the moment to tackle the conflicts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney so eloquently referred. He has used the opportunity afforded by Westminster Hall to raise genuine local concerns. Clearly, the problem cannot be dealt with in a few days. It requires concerted action by the community and by local authorities, working together over a sustained period, to take away all the things that attracted the birds in the first place. That is the bottom line, and we need to make concerted efforts to do it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue and, quite properly, raising constituency concerns, and for allowing me to give the Government’s opinion. We have heard from other hon. Members, so clearly the issue is not unique to Lowestoft. I think that all of us have in some way witnessed the problems. I hope very much that what I have said is helpful to him and to his constituents and that sooner or later they will be able to sleep at night.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Congratulations to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), to the Minister and to all the other hon. Members who have participated in what has been a most informative debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment Council
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 10 October. Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Minister for Environment and Climate Change, also joined the delegation.
Following lengthy debate, the Council adopted conclusions on preparations for the 17th session of the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the seventh session of the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol in Durban. The text signals the EU’s continued openness to a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol as part of a transition to a wider legally binding framework, and sets out the EU’s negotiating position on the range of other issues in the negotiations.
Ministers also adopted conclusions setting out the EU’s high-level position ahead of the Rio plus 20 conference next year. These send a clear political signal that the EU wants the conference to be a success. I emphasised the need for Ministers to focus on the EU’s strategic objectives for Rio plus 20 and the need for the conference to produce concrete outcomes in order to move us towards a genuine “green economy”.
Recently I attended the Delhi ministerial meeting on Rio plus 20. There was broad consensus that delegations have little appetite for simply agreeing a long-winded communiqué at Rio—they want action and implementation. The main outcomes of the Delhi meeting were: widespread agreement on the need for specific measures to make the transition to a greener global economy; recognition of the strong links between climate change, biodiversity and poverty reduction, and their importance for growth; agreement on the need to strengthen international environmental governance; and considerable interest in the Colombian proposal for sustainable development goals. Food security and sustainable agriculture, energy security and energy access, and resource efficiency were all identified as key themes for the Rio plus 20 summit.
The Environment Council also adopted conclusions on the review of the sixth environment action programme (EAP) and looking forward to the seventh. In this context, the Commission presented its road map towards a resource-efficient Europe, making it clear that they saw this as a comprehensive issue, covering much of the Commission’s work on environment, climate and energy. Both issues were discussed by Ministers over lunch, with several Ministers emphasising the need to focus on implementation of existing legislation rather than new initiatives in developing a future framework.
The Council adopted conclusions and a Council decision setting out the position of the EU and its member states ahead of the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties to the Basel convention on the control of trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal which will, among other things, discuss the mechanism for entry into force of the “ban amendment”.
The Aviation Emissions Trading Scheme was discussed under other business: the Commission encouraged member states to defend vigorously the legislation and counter some of the misunderstanding evident among others. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change agreed with their approach and reiterated the UK’s full support for the directive.
General Affairs Council
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I attended an extraordinary meeting of the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 22 October in Brussels.
The GAC was chaired by the Polish EU presidency (Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, State Secretary for European Affairs). A draft record of the meeting can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/125491.pdf
Ministers reviewed preparations for the October European Council, the outcome of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to Parliament on 24 October.
Additionally, Ministers agreed new general arrangements for the delivery of EU statements in multilateral organisations. The document setting out these arrangements can be found at:
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st15/st15901.en11.pdf
I have written to the chairs of the Scrutiny and Select Committees to provide further detail on this agreement. I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the general arrangements and the text of a UK statement for the minute.
I will also continue to update Parliament on General Affairs Councils.
Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
On 7 November, the UK takes over from Ukraine the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The chairmanship is a rare opportunity for the UK to play a leading role in the vital work of the Council of Europe in promoting rights, democracy and rule of law across the continent.
The Council of Europe is dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, the rule of law and democracy across 47 countries and 800 million citizens. The UK was a founder member in 1949, and the first country to ratify the European convention on human rights (ECHR), the Council of Europe’s best-known instrument, two years later. The ECHR was developed in post-war Europe to try to offer people basic protections from tyranny—such as the right to life, freedom from torture and freedom of speech. These rights are still fundamentally important today.
Yesterday I met Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, to discuss the UK’s chairmanship priorities. I am pleased to say that he supports fully our proposals. Each incoming chairmanship issues a priorities document shortly before their tenure begins. I have now done so and have placed a copy in the Library of the House.
The overarching theme of our chairmanship will be the protection and promotion of human rights. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that human rights are central to their foreign policy. We aim to be an example of a society that upholds human rights and democracy, and we are committed to strengthening the rules-based international system.
First and foremost, we will drive forwards the ongoing programme of reform of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court is an essential part of the system for protecting human rights across Europe. But it is struggling with its huge, growing backlog of applications—now over 155,000. At times it has been too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national courts and Parliaments. This situation undermines the Court’s authority and effectiveness.
Concrete measures to improve the Court’s efficiency are urgently required. Moreover, it should be focusing on areas where the convention is not being properly applied or there is a need at European level for authoritative guidance on the correct interpretation of the convention. Where member states are applying the convention effectively, the Court should intervene less.
With the joint leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, under our chairmanship we will seek agreement to a package of reforms which would: help deal with the Court’s backlog; support better implementation of the convention at national level; introduce new rules or procedures to help ensure that the Court plays a subsidiary role where member states are fulfilling their obligations under the convention; and help to ensure the best possible procedures for selecting judges to the Court and promote consistency of judgments.
Reform requires the agreement of all 47 member states. We will accord the highest political priority to securing consensus to the necessary reforms by means of a political declaration at the end of our chairmanship. This declaration will set out the agreements we have reached on the reforms to be implemented, including—where necessary—by amendments to the procedural sections of the convention.
In addition, I have assured the Secretary-General that the UK will actively support his programme of reforms of the Council of Europe. We will work towards implementation of measures which will help to deliver more focused, streamlined and effective organisation and a more efficient budget.
The UK chairmanship will also give priority to a range of initiatives where we believe the Council of Europe can help to advance the UK’s foreign policy objectives:
we will promote an open internet, not only in terms of access and content but also freedom of expression. This is an important policy priority for the UK and one of the issues being addressed at the cyber conference being hosted in London by the Foreign Secretary on 1 November. We will support the adoption of the draft Council of Europe strategy on internet governance, and the implementation of the principles it has adopted to uphold freedom of expression on the internet, to ensure that all member states live up to their international obligations in this area;
we will work to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity across Europe. The Government are committed to using their relationship with other countries to push for unequivocal support for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including advocating for changes to discriminatory practices and laws that criminalise homosexuality in other countries. The Council of Europe has adopted recommendations on this issue and conducted a study on the situation in member states. We will work with the secretariat and our partners in the Committee of Ministers to improve all member states’ performance in this area;
we will work towards a more effective and efficient role for the Council of Europe in supporting local and regional democracy. The Council of Europe has a significant programme of activities in this area, including monitoring and sharing of expertise, which the UK supports but wants to see streamlined and more carefully targeted;
we will support the strengthening of the rule of law in the member states. We will work towards practical recommendations in this area, in co-operation with our partners in the Committee of Ministers, the secretariat and the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission).
UNSCR 1325: Women, Peace and Security
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing an annual review of the UK Government National Action Plan on UNSCR 1325: Women, Peace and Security.
This Government published a revised national action plan (NAP) on UNSCR 1325: Women, Peace and Security on 25 November 2010 and the annual review focuses on the commitments that the Government have taken forward since that time.
We are grateful to the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security (APG WPS) and the civil society umbrella organisation Gender Action on Peace and Security (GAPS) for the regular and ongoing consultations that take place about the NAP. Officials will attend a meeting with the associate parliamentary group and GAPS on 31 October to discuss this review.
This Government intend to produce a revised NAP at the start of 2012 taking into account the recommendations we receive from APG WPS and GAPS. A full evaluation of the NAP is scheduled to take place in 2013.
I have deposited a copy of the annual review in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk.
Justice and Home Affairs Council
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
The Justice and Home Affairs Council is due to be held on the 27 and 28 October in Luxembourg. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, the Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and I will attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. As the provisional agenda stands, the following items will be discussed.
The Council will begin in Mixed Committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states). There will be an update on the Commission-led project to implement the central element of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II); the UK will continue to reiterate its support for the continuation of the current SIS II project.
Next the Commission will give an update on the roll-out of the central Visa Information System (VIS). The UK is not bound by the VIS regulation because it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.
The Commission will present and invite an exchange of views on whether member states can support the legislative instrument amending Regulation (EC) No. 1931/2006 as regards the inclusion of the Kaliningrad area and certain Polish administrative districts in the eligible border area. The UK is not bound by this regulation since it relates to that part of the Schengen agreement in which the UK does not participate.
There will be a presentation by the Commission on their communication on smart borders. The communication addresses options, implications and possible ways forward in developing both a European entry/exit system and a registered traveller programme (brought together under the heading of smart borders). The initiatives will rely on developing technologies to expedite border crossings for regular travellers while maintaining the security and the integrity of border controls. They aim to include technical infrastructure issues, data protection aspects and the costs incurred in developing and operating both systems, which are aimed at third-country nationals crossing the Schengen external borders. The UK is excluded from both the measures since it does not participate in the common visa element of the Schengen acquis.
There will also be the signature of the mobility partnership between the EU and Armenia by those member states who will participate in this partnership. The UK has no plans to participate and will not take part in the signing of the partnership.
The main Council will start with a state-of-play discussion on the progress of the dossiers forming the second phase of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This has been a regular item at recent JHA Councils as the deadline for agreeing the dossiers in 2012 approaches. The UK does not support a common asylum system involving further legislative harmonisation, but we do support practical action to secure effective asylum systems, including returns. While we do not believe that further legislation setting common standards is the way to achieve this, we will work with member states to make sure any new legislation is as practical as possible and can be implemented on the ground.
There will be state-of-play discussions on two directives presented by the presidency. The first concerns a single application procedure for a single permit for non-EU member nationals to reside and work in a member state and on a common set of rights for non-EU member workers legally residing in a member state. The second deals with minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection and the content of the protection granted. Both of these directives have reached agreement in principle within the Council; however, there is an outstanding issue of correlation tables that needs to be resolved with the European Parliament. The UK has not opted in to either of these instruments.
There will be a progress report on Greece’s national action plan on asylum reform and migration management. The UK will take the opportunity to acknowledge the improvements that have taken place while putting pressure on Greece to step up the pace of reform and to tackle its unacceptable detention facilities for asylum seekers.
There will then be a presentation by the Commission and a first exchange of views on the Commission communication on the integration of third-country nationals, which was published on 20 July. There are no immediate legal or legislative implications; integration strategies are a matter of national competence and the communication acknowledges this. The communication is broadly in line with the UK’s views on integration: we welcome the emphasis on a flexible approach including action at local and national level, acquisition of language skills and recognition that integration is a two-way process (migrant and host country).
Over lunch we expect Ministers will discuss an Austrian-Hungarian joint paper on illegal migration and visa liberalisation, with a particular focus on the western Balkans. Discussion will also include illegal immigration via the southern Mediterranean, and in particular current developments in Libya and Tunisia, requested by Italy. The UK will raise the need to tackle abuse of free movement, including sham marriages.
The Commission will also present its communication “Towards a stronger European response to drugs” and there will be a discussion on the draft European pact against synthetic drugs. The presidency will look to agree the draft text of the pact. The UK welcomes the priority that the presidency has given to this important issue and approves of the draft text in the pact. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) will also present its 2011 annual report on the state of the drug problems in Europe.
There will be an orientation debate on options for a European Terrorist Finance Tracking System (TFTS) on the basis of a Commission communication which was published in July. This meets a commitment to the European Parliament to consider the feasibility of an EU system following the adoption last year of the EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP). The Government’s view is that the necessity of an EU system has not yet been demonstrated. There are also important questions around legal base, operational requirements and costs that are yet to be adequately answered. As such the Government do not believe they can choose between any of the available options at this stage. The UK will make clear that no decision can be taken on a way forward without first seeing a full impact assessment of each of the options (including the option of maintaining the status quo). This assessment must address the questions about necessity of an EU system; about the technical, legal and operational issues involved; and about the likely high costs.
The Commission will be presenting its communication on co-operation in the area of the JHA within the eastern partnership (EaP). The communication sets out proposals on how to strengthen JHA co-operation with the EaP countries, and the UK endorses the pragmatic focus on the consolidation and streamlining of existing frameworks. Promoting EU engagement with the EaP remains a priority for the Polish presidency, and the UK recognises the importance of offering continued support to the EU’s neighbours. There has been broad support for the communication so far and a general consensus that new structures are not required. The presidency is expected to prepare draft Council conclusions after an exchange of views at the Council.
Finally, the presidency will make a presentation on the state of play of the negotiations for an EU-US data protection agreement. The Council agreed a negotiating mandate at the 2010 December Council.
The justice day will begin with the Commission presenting its newly published regulation on a EU common sales law. This issue was discussed in general terms at the informal JHA Council on 19 July and this will be an opportunity for the Commission to explain its proposed action. Over lunch there will be a further discussion of some aspects of sales law.
There will then be a discussion regarding the draft directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. This is the third proposal on the EU’s criminal procedural rights road map which sets minimum standards for the rights of the defence. This measure was presented at the September JHA Council when the UK informed the Council that it had not opted in to this directive.
Next, there will be an orientation debate on the draft directive on establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. The UK has opted in to this draft directive.
The presidency will also provide a state-of-play update on the draft directive on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. A general approach was reached on this proposal at the JHA Council in December 2010.
Finally, under non-legislative activities, there is an item regarding judicial training. A Commission communication was published in September and the Commission made a presentation at the last Council meeting. It is expected that the Council will be asked to agree the draft Council conclusions on the Commission’s communication.
Grand Committee
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Welfare Reform Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is in session. If there is a Division in the Chamber, as Members will surely understand by now, we have to adjourn immediately and resume after 10 minutes. There is an additional arrangement. I remind noble Lords that those Members who have registered with the Clerk of the Parliaments may vote in their places in the Grand Committee, provided that they are present in the Grand Committee three minutes after the Question is put in the Chamber. Members who have not registered to do so or who are not here at the three-minute mark must then vote in the usual way. I also remind Members that although they must speak up, please do not touch the microphones.
That deals with the household notices. Let us turn to the Bill.
Clause 15: Work-focused interview requirement
Amendment 51CDZA
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a probing amendment designed to focus on issues of in-work conditionality. We attach it to Clause 15, which is just on the “Work-focused interview requirement”, but it is intended to cover work preparation requirements as well as work search and work availability requirements.
The Minister will be aware that some of us were able to attend a briefing session with officials yesterday—I thank them for that. It is clear from that session that much of the thinking about in-work conditionality is at best embryonic, notwithstanding that we are being asked to give considerable powers to the Secretary of State in this primary legislation.
The proposition that conditionality should not stop when someone accesses work is not of itself unreasonable. The progression from a mini-job to a full-time job is to be encouraged for those whose health, family and caring commitments permit. How it will work in practice is what matters. We have only a few parameters at the moment. It is the express policy intent that conditionality will cease to apply for claimants without caring responsibilities or health conditions at a level of gross earnings equivalent to 35 hours per week at the national minimum wage, currently £212 per week, or £11,000 a year. Obviously, other things being equal, that would put someone within the tax and national insurance net and therefore into the higher tapers. Someone being paid twice the national minimum wage would have to work only 17 and a half hours per week; someone on lower pay twice that long. The threshold for an equivalent couple is double that for an individual, so the family income would need to be £22,000 before they escape conditionality.
It is not clear how well those parameters have yet filtered into the public consciousness. Perhaps the Minister can point us in the direction of the equality impact assessment which covered that issue. We welcome the fact that the Government have given some assurances about easements—for example, for lone parents with young children and for those with health challenges and caring responsibilities. There is also the flexibility promulgated for ways in which claimants can increase their earnings by supposedly increasing hours or pay, changing jobs or taking on a second job. That is nice in theory but likely to give rise to all sorts of practical problems.
The vagueness around the provisions, the extent to which providers or Jobcentre Plus staff will be making the determination, and the sources of capacity and training are a real worry. Affirmative regulations are all very well, but we know that they provide limited parliamentary oversight of what is a significant change.
A number of points arise: we know from the briefing that the ultimate requirement in terms of hours or overall remuneration will be included in the claimant commitment ab initio. How will this help those who wish to have a staged return to the job market? How will employers who are able to offer part-time work react to someone whose claimant commitment accepts that they are to achieve full-time work? It seems to me that this could damage their job prospects.
The test is apparently to be on gross earnings, so where does this leave, for example, employer pension contributions? These will be a significant feature, given auto-enrolment, which we know the Government are committed to introducing next year. What capacity will there be in the system to do the appropriate kinds of comparison? These will be complicated matters.
How will this work for the self-employed? What happens if the profits of the business are slower to materialise than hoped for, margins are squeezed beyond expectations, or the business operates in a fluctuating market? If it is a seasonal business, one can see the prospect of fill-in work, but on what analysis will Jobcentre Plus or providers seek to divert individuals from the sometimes painful process—particularly in the current economic climate—of building a profitable and sustainable business? What expertise will they be able to bring to bear?
Our discussions yesterday raised a number of issues about how the work programme fits with this, as well. There seems to be a potential conflict between work programme providers, which are remunerated by sustaining individuals in work for at least 16 hours per week, and in-work conditionality, which seeks to move people to 35 hours a week, if remunerated at the national minimum wage.
It is understood that there is scope to renegotiate outcomes with existing providers, but this could be a significant change of focus. What evaluation has been undertaken of the potential to renegotiate? Can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place with the business community and, indeed, the TUC, on how this novel interaction with the labour market should proceed?
We acknowledge what the Government are seeking to achieve, but there appear to be so many unknowns—unless the Minister can give us comfort this afternoon—that it is difficult to accept that we should give the powers that the Government are seeking in this Bill. At the least, this looks to be a case for a sunset clause. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, first of all, I should apologise to the Committee for not being here when it last discussed this Bill on Monday, and accord my grateful thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for speaking to some of my amendments in a large group which was somewhat precursored—I think that is the word—by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The noble Lord, in his speech to this probing amendment, asked a whole string of questions which I am not in any sense qualified to respond to. I am able to respond to the amendment, which leaves out,
“or more paid work or better-paid work”.
The object of the exercise, we all agree, is to get as many people as possible into work, through this system. The trouble is, if the words I have just quoted from lines 10 and 11 on page 7 of the Bill are left out, then once the claimant has got paid work that is the end of the Secretary of State’s responsibility.
What happens if the claimant decides that the hours he is doing are not sufficient for his needs, even with the universal credit? I accept there are the pension commitments and various other commitments that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, spoke about. Is the claimant going to go back to the provider or to Jobcentre Plus and ask how he is to increase his earnings? If so, there is very good reason to have these words remain in the Bill. The question—
Lord Skelmersdale
Can I just finish? The key question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is to what extent there will be bullying, by either the provider or the Jobcentre Plus officials. I hope to goodness that there will be none.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The amendment, as I explained, was a probing amendment and was not of itself meant to be taken literally. It was the peg on which to hang the argument and this very important debate, which we should have. The noble Lord was musing about what would happen with claimants who wish voluntarily to increase their hours. There is nothing to stop them doing it, and we would all applaud that if they were able to, and to do so without further pressures on Jobcentre Plus or the providers. There is nothing wrong with that.
Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords. The reason I added my last sentence and prevented the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, from rising to interrupt me was for the simple reason that the claimant may well need guidance and help in order to get the extra hours or money that he requires. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to what extent this is going to be driven by the claimant, or by the job provider, education or Jobcentre Plus. I said that I hoped it would be claimant-driven, and nothing else.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I wonder whether I could add to the burden of questions that the Minister will be facing. This will appear somewhat on the tangent but, in my view, it is not, as it feeds into a lot of our other discussions and is related to work conditionality. At the moment, as I understand it, a lone parent is regarded as being in full-time work for the purposes of conditionality or eligibility for tax credits if she is working 16 hours a week, and is then topped up. With a child under, I think, 12—although coming down to 10, seven et cetera—that 16 hours kicks in at an earlier stage. As far as I am aware—and I stand to be corrected on this—there is no point at which the lone parent is expected to increase her hours beyond that as the child gets older. With a couple, the main claimant, as we know, may claim on behalf of both. I have no objections at all in principle with expecting either claimant in a couple relationship to be available for work; and, in certain circumstances, both.
What concerns me, and what I would like to ask the Minister about, is the impression that the support papers that I have read so far seem to give: that when a child is 12, whether you are a lone parent or in a relationship as a couple, all such people must work a full-time job, which is now defined as 35 hours a week. If I understand it correctly, it could mean that a lone parent with a 13 year-old could be expected to move from working for 16 hours to 35 instead, as part of work conditionality; and a couple—a husband and wife, or two partners—with children of 13 and 15 might each be expected to work 35 hours a week. If I have understood the proposals correctly, then I would like to come back on that because I find it antithetical to everything we know about the need for children to have support. I have no problem at all with couples and the second partner, or a lone parent, being asked to find work within school hours. However, if the Minister is saying that at the age of 12, both partners in a couple, as well as a lone parent, are expected to be in what we would traditionally regard as full-time work of 35 hours-plus, then this is certainly something that we would like to revisit. I would be grateful if the Minister could help us to be sure that we have the facts right, as this is part of a wider debate on conditionality.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, like others, I was absent from the last sitting of the Committee, unavoidably. I was having my gardening wound attended to in a magnetic resonance machine; I think I am still radioactive but I hope it is not affecting other people.
I am in favour of these amendments. Conditionality is an important part of this and I am not sure that we have got it right, although the principle of conditionality was hammered out almost to infinity over the last two welfare reform Bills and it is now a more or less agreed policy. That is not to say that we have not got to get some of these important questions right. The expertise of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is acknowledged in this field. It was demonstrated beyond any doubt in the last two welfare reform Bills and the Committee is the better for having his experience. Having buttered him up, I should say that this debate is at risk of being incoherent. I would much rather have had a conditionality debate over a solid period without a whole list of disaggregated amendments.
I am about to lose my well established credit with the Committee because I am going to repeat myself. I was looking at this last night when I came in. The Marshalled List was substantially different and I was looking forward to an all embracing principled debate, because we all know that if you have to resort to conditionality this policy is not working. I know this because I am a director of the Wise Group, and colleagues know that. If you have to inflict penalties in big numbers in circumstances that are not clearly defined, there is something wrong that needs to be fixed further up the food chain.
I want to continue with my whinge for another moment if Members will indulge me. I am very worried that there are four or five big issues here, one of them being disability, that we are not going to give proper time to if we disaggregate the amendments to the extent they were overnight. It is not for me to tell people how they do their business and I am speaking for no one but myself but I notice how far we are down the sitting stage. I have been here before—as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said famously in the Chamber the other day, I didn’t come up the Clyde on a bike—so I see that we will end up doing three days on the trot, something disabled colleagues might find quite difficult to deal with, never mind the rest of us, to cover everything between Clause 15, which is where we are, and Clause 136.
I cannot do anything about any of this and I am willing to take part in debates. I do not want anyone to say that I am saying anything like conditionality is not important, because it is. As a matter of process, however, I appeal to all colleagues to try to make sure that we get to the important things. To be brutally honest and tell you the unvarnished truth, I want to put pressure on the coalition Government on four or five issues here. I may run out of time because we are doing things in a way that is disaggregated to the extent that it is. So I am appealing to my colleagues on all sides of the Committee—even from Rutherglen—to think carefully about that. We are having very good debates and we are getting very good responses from the Government and I make no complaint about that but we have to be realistic about making sure that we get to the really important political things in this Bill, otherwise the Committee will not do as effective a job for the House as it would otherwise.
Lord McAvoy
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for drawing attention to that sort of matter because, with the exception of the first two Committee meetings, at every sitting half the time has been taken up by the Labour Opposition and the rest by others. There is no question of anything deliberate on this side; that was a clear inference. This side has taken up half the time and half the time has come from others. I do not complain because on at least seven occasions the Minister, who is extremely able and competent—I can also butter up—has had to say “I will write to you” because of the complicated nature of the questions from my noble friends on this side of the House. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, should make but I do not think he should make it to this side.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I think that I have attended every sitting of this Committee. I find it immensely frustrating that, when one sitting ends, one finds that by the beginning of the next a wodge of new amendments has come on board. It does not mean that the points raised are not important or that there has been time-wasting. However, it is immensely difficult for people, particularly those with responsibilities to organisations outside the Chamber, to organise themselves to put the points that they need to put in debates. It is not just for this Committee but for the House to consider how to get a more orderly way of doing business.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I support the amendment and come back to its detail; my noble friend indicated that it was a probing amendment. This is an opportunity to raise significant issues about in-work conditionality. Where a welfare system has to balance rights and responsibilities, under universal credit those in work will be embraced by an in-work conditionality of some complexity which neither they nor their employers will previously have experienced. From the emerging details of in-work conditionality it is clear that it will give the Government significant discretion over a sizeable section of the workforce, and powers to follow through with sanctions that will affect people's lives very significantly.
This is a novel discretion for three reasons. It will impact on a much greater volume of people; it will impact on existing in-work relationships; and it will require Jobcentre Plus people or any outside providers to engage with large numbers of companies with which they have previously had no engagement.
Setting and enforcing what is a reasonable condition, particularly in terms of increasing hours or requiring people to seek and change their jobs, must be sensitive to a range of factors: for example, local and regional labour markets, and different sectors and their employment practices. If an employer puts their employees on short-term working rather than making them redundant, is that a good thing or will it attract conditionality requirements? How will it be handled? What will happen when people have atypical or variable hours work contracts? Over what period and in what manner will earnings be averaged to assess compliance with income thresholds on conditionality?
In requiring people to work more hours or seek a higher-paid job, it is important to ensure that childcare and conditionality interact fairly. Parental need for confidence in the care of their children needs to be respected. My noble friend Lady Hollis moved in on some detailed concerns in this area. Any casual observation of female labour market statistics will show two peaks of part-time working by women. They coincide with key caring periods. Part-time working in the UK is part of the systemic solution to childcare, particularly for single parents. One cannot look at conditionality on the one hand without looking at the nature and characteristics of childcare in the nation as a whole. How will the sanctions regime be applied? How will it impact on the children of those who are subject to sanctions? How long will people and families be given to adjust to any new requirements and conditions, particularly if they come on top of a period of compulsory redundancy?
What we see from the details coming forward is the micromanagement of the work patterns of potentially millions of people, and the application of wide discretion that will need a considerable set of guidance notes and competences to apply the conditionality. The staff making these in-work conditionality assessments will have no previous experience of doing this. It is a novel area in its scale and complexity. No doubt in answer to my questions the Minister will say what is intended or that the matter is work in progress. It is pretty clear that an awful lot of work is still in progress. I say that not to appear negative but to say that the Bill has the effect of giving the Government considerable discretionary power over people in work.
Parliament needs to be satisfied on three issues: that the capacity and capability to implement the proposed in-work conditionality is there; that there is confidence that the discretion will be applied consistently, fairly and proportionately; and that there is a high level of confidence that there will be no inequalities of treatment or impact in the outcomes of applying that discretion. Because conditionality is now going to be applied to people who believe that they are already making a contribution, they will have to experience a different perception of the contribution they should make in terms of being in work.
I want to pose two questions for the Minister. First, do the Government intend to pilot in-work conditionality before they introduce it nationally? Secondly, would any introduction consequent on those pilots be both gradual and incremental so that experience, knowledge and skill can be built up by those assessing claimants? Thirdly, what will be the reporting to Parliament about the level of confidence that this complex system of in-work conditionality can be applied fairly and proportionately?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I would like briefly to follow up on that because this takes us into largely uncharted waters, so we have to be sure of what it is that we are doing. I was struck by the research report, Perceptions of Welfare Reform and Universal Credit, which states that:
“Many part-time workers were surprised that the Universal Credit proposition addresses them as they tended to perceive that they were already doing their bit and felt a strong sense of entitlement to tax credits”.
I think that they found the idea that conditionality was going to apply to them quite disturbing. There is a real danger here. The Government talk a lot about not wanting an overly oppressive state, but I fear that many workers will experience this as just that.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, my noble friend Lord McKenzie mentioned the equality impact assessment. I understand why the Government are using earnings rather than hours as the threshold—because they want to get away from the in-work/out-of-work distinction—but in doing that, as my noble friend said, someone who can earn more will find it much easier to meet the threshold. We know from all the evidence that men are more likely to be able to do this than women, non-disabled people are more likely to do it than disabled people, and white people are more likely to do it than minority-ethnic people.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Yes. Is there not an issue here in terms of the equality implications? How does the department see those implications?
Secondly, I know that the Minister likes evidence-based policy-making and of course will be very aware of the research report UK Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration, which has found that gains are made by providing support for people to advance in work through this programme. It states that,
“the evaluation found that for specific populations, gains can be achieved, even for some of the most disadvantaged job seekers, and that those gains can be sustained over a five-year period. These results suggest that the core elements of ERA offer something to build on in future post-employment interventions”.
In what way is the department building on this? To me, it seems that it is going down the in-work conditionality route instead of developing the support provided in this programme.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, I would like to raise a philosophical point about the Government wandering into the world of employment relationships. I am not sure whether philosophy is allowed but I will have a go. Employment relationships are complex, and I am not just talking about the legal implications. A bargain is reached between the employer and the employee about how each will conduct themselves. Any external factor can easily upset the applecart. I give a hypothetical example to illustrate that. I know from being a former chair of ACAS that its helpline receives a million calls a year from both employees and employers. ACAS staff outline what avenues the caller can pursue but stop short of giving actual advice. Human nature being what it is, this is often interpreted as strong advice. If the information is used in the wrong circumstances, it can cause trouble rather than solve a potential problem.
We all sift the information that we hear, so an employee who has had a work conditionality interview, as it were, with the local Jobcentre Plus could go straight to their employer and say, “The social says you’ve got to give me more money or increase my hours”. There may well be thousands of philanthropists out there just waiting for the opportunity to pour largesse over their employees’ heads, but this situation could also lead to real difficulties in the employment relationship. Some employees are clinging on to work by their fingertips right now. I cannot help thinking that this measure is a precedent in terms of government relations with the world of work.
I read what Chris Grayling said in the other place and it all sounded terribly reasonable. He said that “they”; that is, claimants,
“would come back into the jobcentre from time to time—periodically, every few months—to talk about their prospects, and that we would seek to put some additional conditionality on them, as and when it became possible to do so, to move to a job with longer hours”.
An example was given where a lone parent could move to a job with longer hours as the children grew up. That was called,
“a degree of push within the system”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 5/4/11; col. 412.]
How grown up would the children have to be? Would the extent of unemployment in the area be taken into account, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has asked? Is it really the Government’s intention to force people to give up one job to pursue another? How would this affect self-employed people? Would they be in danger if they showed that they had made no profit in a particular year? Would they be advised to give up their business in order to take up higher-paid work elsewhere? I know from my seven years in ACAS that the employment relationship is a very delicate one. I worry about how this issue is going to be handled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I wish to pick up the points raised by a number of noble Lords about how we manage ourselves in this Committee. One of the issues is that the briefings that we are supplying are arriving shortly before the sitting when we are debating the relevant matter, so that noble Lords get to see changes and new amendments too late. I will try to ensure that we run background briefings a week in advance, say, of the relevant Committee sitting rather than immediately before it. I think that might sort out some of the problems and maintain the depth of our discussions. I know that that is rather a two-edged sword, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, warned me that it would be, in that supplying more briefing leads to better questions being asked, or at least more questions being asked. However, I accept that that is part of the process.
I turn to the amendment, which I understand is a probing amendment. We believe it is critical that this Bill provides the framework to apply conditionality to in-work claimants. I take this opportunity to explain exactly why that is. One of the things that I know all noble Lords from all round the Committee welcome is that universal credit will remove the distinction between in- and out-of-work benefits. That is at the heart of what we are doing here. In particular, it will remove what have been described by many noble Lords as the arbitrary hours rules, particularly the 16-hour rule in jobseeker’s allowance. Under universal credit claimants will have entitlement regardless of the hours that they work. This is clearly a positive but it does mean that we may be paying benefit to claimants who are clearly capable of working or earning more. We think conditionality can play an important role in encouraging and supporting such claimants to do more to support themselves. In practice, we are looking for conditionality to take up some of the impacts that before we were relying on the separation between tax credits and benefits to provide.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the question of micromanagement. In our briefing on in-work conditionality, we said that we would be guided in the main by claimant choice, in particular whether claimants want to increase their work with their current employer, look for an additional job or look for an entirely new job. It is not about micromanagement of claimants’ careers but about supporting and encouraging them to progress. I would turn round the evidence presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about how, with the right encouragement, people can increase and sustain their earnings, and say that this is the kind of impact that we want. Indeed, when we look later at how this is interrelated with the work programme, there are clearly opportunities in the medium term to help people improve their lives.
You only have to think about this for a few seconds to realise what the issue is. Once we have got rid of the distinction between in-work and out-of-work benefits, if there was not some kind of conditionality regime, we could get into a position where a claimant who is doing literally one or two hours of work but who is capable of working full-time would receive their benefit condition-free. This is obviously way softer than the current regime. The current regime means that you can work up to 16 hours maintaining full conditionality and losing all the extra hours. It is not surprising that not many people actually do that. That is the issue.
The question then becomes when conditionality should cease. With no break between the different benefits, there is no obvious point for this to happen. As noble Lords know, we have published a briefing note explaining how we intend to set those conditionality thresholds, and we are defining those by the number of hours we expect each individual in a benefit unit to work, taking account of their particular capability and circumstances, and multiplying it by the relevant national minimum wage. Otherwise, we are left with the tyranny of an hours rule and all the complications of reporting, testing and checking, and the intrusiveness of that, which is why we as a department have gone towards doing it in this way as a clean earnings figure.
For a single claimant who we expect to work full-time, this would give a threshold of around £210 per week. For a lone parent, who we might expect to work only 20 hours a week because of caring responsibilities, the threshold would be around £120. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on lone parent conditionality, already with JSA lone parents must be available for work for as many hours as their caring responsibilities allow. If their child is in school we would expect this to be something like 20 or 25 hours. For lone parents with a child over 12 on the universal credit, full-time work will be the default as now, and we will allow limitations to this on a case-by-case basis, as required by the claimant’s circumstances.
I shall pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on self-employment. If a self-employed claimant falls below the threshold, then we will expect them to take steps to increase their earnings and reduce their dependency on benefits. How we do this will in large part depend on the claimant. If they want to focus on their self-employed business, we expect to give them an appropriate time to do this; alternatively, we may expect them to look for employment to supplement their earnings. As with all such issues, this is an area we continue to consider and develop.
Where the benefit unit earns more than the threshold amount, we will not impose work-related requirements on either member of that benefit unit. Where earnings are lower, we will have the ability to do so. This means that we will be able to impose work-related requirements on claimants working less than we could reasonably expect in benefit units falling under the threshold. We believe this is the right approach and the right way to define the cut-off point for conditionality.
In answer to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I say that we have chosen gross earnings because that is easily understood and simple to assess. If we were to take off elements such as pension contributions, that would only add to the complexity of the system. That said, we are only too aware what a difficult area this is. It is worth stressing that although we will be able to impose conditionality on those in work, we will not be obliged to do so. Clearly, that is important. Although we believe conditionality can play a key role in getting in-work claimants to progress, we do not yet have a final view as to how or when this is best done.
As noble Lords clearly appreciate, there are a range of complicated issues to work through. Critically, we will need to build our understanding of what can help claimants progress—when we should require claimants to look for more work and what role other interventions, such as skills assessments or career advice sessions, can play.
I turn now to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on the work programme and the conflicts there. I can assure him that it is not the case that, by setting a higher threshold, we make the current work programme structures invalid. The programme can continue as now, looking to move claimants from being out of work into some work. Once claimants have left the work programme, we could then look to continue working with them to help them progress. We are currently considering the interaction with a future work programme and the timing of migration. That will be an area of considerable opportunity when we have the system in place and we start rolling over to the second set of work programmes.
Clearly, we need to look at the skills and training our advisers will need. Indeed, we need to consider whether there is a role for third-party providers. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I say that we will need to consider what we can afford in that area. We recognise that the circumstances in which we could require a claimant engaged in some work to move to a new job are particularly sensitive. We are clear that any actions that we impose will be reasonable and proportionate. We have made a public commitment that advisers will take into account other benefits of the claimant’s current employment before imposing any requirement to take an alternative job. This is especially important where those benefits are particularly relevant to the claimant's circumstances: for example, where someone with caring responsibilities has an existing flexible working pattern or where someone has built up a significant pension entitlement. We are developing our proposals in this area and in due course we will provide more detailed guidance on how the system will operate in practice.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, perhaps I could say a word. I am sorry to intervene. However, having been to the briefing yesterday and having heard the Minister respond to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I cannot in all conscience let this go without pushing it further. I am particularly concerned by the position of parents with teenage children. I understand what the Minister has done. After removing the barrier and artificial threshold between “in work” and “out of work”, he has been forced to compensate by reintroducing a form of conditionality for people who previously did not have it. I understand why he chose to do that. However, the big problem is the way in which it has been set. I read the notes, listened to him and went to the briefing. My understanding from what he said—I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong—is that the default setting for a parent whose child has reached their 13th birthday is that they will work full-time. That means 35 hours a week in addition to travel time. If that is standard travel time, it is up to 90 minutes each way—another three hours a day, 15 hours a week, on top. That will be 50 hours a week. If they are in the kind of job that has a one-hour lunch break, that will be an 11-hour day. Therefore, the parent will be expected to leave home at 8 am and not return until 7 pm.
I invite noble Lords to imagine for a moment that they have a teenager who has just turned 13. I have asked people I know who have or have had 13 year-olds whether they would leave them alone in the house for that period. When they had picked themselves up laughing from the floor, they said: “No—have you met my teenager?”. The general conclusion was that they would not. I asked whether they would be able to get childcare. They said: “What kind of childcare would I get for a 13 year-old?”. They said, first, that it is very hard to find; secondly, that it is quite expensive; and thirdly, that it is very hard to persuade a 13 year-old to take it. My question is: do we think that that is a reasonable requirement as a default setting before we get into exceptional circumstances? I think that it is simply wrong and I would be very grateful if the Minister would either correct me or tell me that he thinks it is a good default setting.
My second question is: even assuming a lone parent or couple in this situation could find appropriate childcare, could they afford it? If they were working full-time on minimum hours, they would still have to pay a portion of that childcare, and that plus other costs could negate the gains from work. Will the Minister explain how that would be taken into account?
I have two final questions. When I worked with lone parents, I often found someone doing a 25-hour job who was underemployed for her qualifications but who had found an employer who would not sack her if she took a day off because her kids went sick. She was willing to stick it out when she could probably have earned a bit more but would have ended up being in and out of employment. Having found a job that was safe and reliable and which she had had for a few years, she was not willing to risk it by moving to slightly better paid but more insecure employment.
If she had a 25-hour job in that circumstance, and the assumption was that she had to find another 10 hours, she would then have the three choices the noble Lord set out. She could go and find another 10 hours on top of that, which would mean finding 10 hours to fit around the 25 she already has, and adding in another set of travel times to all those different bits of hours, assuming this would even work out. She would have to assume also that that job would remain stable.
When I asked the question in the briefing—and I am probably not meant to refer to this, so forgive me if I have the protocol wrong—my understanding from those who support the Minister was that in practice she would have a conversation with a friendly adviser, and they would say, “No, we totally understand, don’t worry”. But every time I asked, in a theoretical sense, the question, “What would happen in this circumstance?”, the answer was, “It depends”.
The assumption is that she will sit down with an adviser who will say, “Don’t worry, we understand all of that. We understand that you have a difficult teenager. We understand that they have GCSEs coming up and you’re worried they will drop out of school. We understand you’re worried that he is going to get into trouble. We understand that you’ve got a daughter who has an eating disorder and you want to make sure she eats”. That is a huge risk to take.
The final point is a more general one. Can the noble Lord tell me whether he has had discussions with other government departments about the public policy implications of encouraging the nation’s 13 year-olds to be latch-key children?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I apologise for coming so late into this Committee debate. Earlier in the discussions on the Bill, I referred to research in the United States which looked at the effect of parental employment on educational outcomes for children. It found that within the younger group, five to 12 or so, outcomes were better when parents were in employment, but that in the older age group—and I am not quite sure of the cut-off point—outcomes for children in school were poorer when their parents were in employment.
I do not have the details, and I am sure there is much more context to it than this. Does the Minister know what the research says about the impact of parental employment on children’s outcomes at school, and is there separate research into the impact of lone-parent employment on the outcomes for children in school, post-13?
Lord Freud
The first point I make to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is to assure her that full-time is not the default setting. The default setting is that we look at the circumstances of the claimant, particularly taking into account their caring responsibilities and available care, and reach a reasonable position. That is the position. On that basis, a lot of her concerns surrounding her point fall away. Of course we are not looking to have latch-key children.
On flexible working, I made the point earlier that we understand that when we look at the value of a job, the monetary implications are not the only measure; and that the gains of flexibility, in terms of how the employer behaves, and the relationship, are key and critical factors and have to be taken into account.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I do apologise, as I know the Minister has taken care to answer my noble friend. Does that mean that conditionality would not apply where a lone parent or a partner in a couple with primary caring responsibilities was able to work—or felt they could or should work—only during school hours, given the suggestion from my noble friend of the situations families find themselves in? Most of us have been through that. Therefore the default position for a lone parent of a teenager or, to gender-stereotype, the mother in a couple would be that one of those two need be available for work within school hours only?
Lord Freud
No, my Lords. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, knows how the legislation works. That legislation now goes up to that 12/13 point and the formal protection around school hours. However, as I explained, the default setting remains that it depends more generally on the caring requirements of that parent, whether lone or in a couple, and their particular circumstances.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
How then do you avoid the question posed by my noble friend of latch-key children if you cannot ensure that the homecoming of the parent with primary care for the children coincides pretty approximately with that of the teenaged children?
Lord Freud
As I say, that will depend on the particular circumstances of that family. That is the point I am endeavouring to make.
I would like to finish with the point about the cost to the claimant of being employed. That is an issue that we are going to pick up in later amendments so I will not go into it in great detail. However, we recognise the need to take account of those employment costs, and I will pick that up more generally later.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses to a lot of detailed questions. I will just touch upon the issue of the management of our affairs. As the noble Lord has said, the proximity of briefings to Committee sittings has not helped. The situation was not helped by accelerating our start in Committee. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that putting amendments down late in the day does not help our deliberations. I suggest—and this will send shivers down the spine of usual channels—that we ought to defer next Tuesday’s sitting so we could spend the time getting on an even keel and perhaps get back to business as usual. I offer that to the Minister without any great expectation that he may be tempted by it.
I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, posed the question of whether this would be claimant-driven or Jobcentre Plus- or provider-driven. I understand, and I think the Minister confirmed, that this goes into the claimant commitment right on day one. There might be a discussion around that but it is something that is very much going to be driven by Jobcentre Plus or the providers.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I was responding to the Minister’s reply and saying that I am sure we are all glad to hear that there is no intention to rush into these things. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—when he is in his place—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is always good to know that the noble Lord is behind me and I thank him for his kind words. I want just to say, on the nature of our debates, that we could have had a big debate around conditionality as a whole, but in Committee surely what we should be doing is going line by line through this legislation, challenging and probing it in order to try to understand its full intent. But even in itself, in-work conditionality is a new and big topic, as a number of noble Lords have said.
The key issue which has emerged is: what is the default position in respect of lone parents with children aged 13 or older? Certainly our understanding from the briefing is that the default position would be the 35 hours national minimum wage. If the noble Lord is now in a different position on that, or perhaps we have misunderstood it, it would be good if that is put clearly on the record. That would deal with the points made by my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Sherlock. However, in their different ways, my noble friends Lady Drake, Lady Lister and Lady Donaghy have pointed to the newness of and some of the risks and challenges posed by issues around capacity, how the discretion is going to be exercised and what it does to the employment relationship. We are in uncharted waters and these are issues of real concern.
In respect of using gross earnings, I did not object to this and I understand why that might be the basis on which it would be done. I said simply that where there are other features of someone’s employment terms, particularly employer pension contributions—someone might have lower pay but a good employer pension contribution—to try to force them away from those would not make any sense. I am sure that is not necessarily in the Minister’s mind, but those sorts of issues are associated with the capacity that is needed to make these evaluations. They would mark a departure for Jobcentre Plus and providers.
We remain concerned about providers. I understand that we may be close to negotiating the next round of contracts and that it can be addressed in those, but I think we would hang on to the point that, as it is currently structured, there is the potential for real conflict where providers are remunerated on getting people into work—at least 16 hours a week, I think—and keeping them in work. What in-work conditionality will do, if the noble Lord says it has to be done outside the work programme, is take people off that scheme, possibly before they have enabled the provider to earn their full remuneration for keeping them there long enough. It is those sorts of conflicts with which we have some difficulties.
I think that we have given this a good airing. I hope that we have put down a marker about our concerns, and certainly our concerns about taking up a framework for legislation. We know that this type of legislation inevitably has a framework basis to it, but with something so unformed and in many respects as vague as this, it is quite difficult for us to say that we will support it. That is why I return to my point that we may look for some sort of sunset provision here in order to see how it all works out in practice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I shall speak also to Amendments 51CEA and 51CDB. I start with the latter. This started out as a simple probing amendment, but the more we looked at it, the more we considered that it had wider implications. Clause 16 deals with work preparation requirements. A claimant can be subjected to work preparation requirements if they have limited capability for work. A limited capability for work is defined in Clause 38 and will be determined in accordance with regulations. For a start, can the Minister confirm that the regulations will reflect the work capability assessment as updated by the Harrington reviews? We will of course have an opportunity to discuss this in greater depth when we reach the clause, but for the present, our understanding is that universal credit will adopt existing and emerging criteria which, among other things, differentiate between those with limited capability for work and those with limited capability for work-related activity. The latter would currently fall into the support group for the purposes of ESA and not be subjected to work-related requirements of the universal credit by virtue of Clause 19. Those not falling into either category would currently fall within the scope of JSA and, for universal credit purposes, be subject to work search and work availability requirements. Claimants under the universal credit subject to work preparation requirements cannot be subject to any other work-related requirements—other than a work-focused interview, of course.
The issue we probe is the nature of work placements, of work experience and the extent to which that encompasses activity currently accepted as beyond work-related activity or work preparation and is equivalent to the world of work. In short, is the Bill extending what have hitherto been the boundaries of work-related activity? Clause 54 suggests that it does, as, for ESA purposes, it adds work placements and work experience to the definition of work-related activity in the Welfare Reform Act 2007. Why is that change proposed? The WCA process seeks to differentiate between those currently fit for work and those who are not but who can move closer to the labour market. Can the Minister give us more detail of what is encompassed within work placements and work experience and the essential difference between those and work itself? We are aware that mandatory full-time work experience was to be tested as a result of the provisions of the Welfare Reform Act 2009, but those provisions related to those required to meet the jobseeking conditions. Has any testing been done with those not subject to the JSA regime; and, if so, under which provisions? Is it envisaged that work placements and work experience will be time limited? If so, what time period is envisaged?
How will that operate within the work programme? Are providers currently precluded from imposing work placements and work experience on those not subject to the JSA regime? Does work placement for 16-plus hours a week which goes on to become a more permanent job count towards the outcome for which providers are remunerated? Can the Minister confirm that the same type of protection for, say, lone parents and those with caring responsibilities will be applied for work preparation requirements as for those who are subject to all work-related requirements?
What assurances can the Minister give that activity to meet work placement requirements will not squeeze out opportunities for claimants to attend skills assessments and to undertake training? What sort of quality assurances will be sought by Jobcentre Plus or providers in respect of those offering work placements and work experience, especially to avoid a constant churn of individuals in place of permanent paid jobs? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Having said that, I have not spoken to the other two amendments in this group—Amendments 51CDA and 51CEA. These are both probing amendments as well. As we have noted, Clause 16 is concerned with work preparation requirements and in individuals subject to such requirements if they have limited capability for work. The requirement is for them to undertake particular actions. Included in the actions that might be specified is “improving personal presentation”. It is presumed that this would encompass such activities as CV writing and presentation skills but we wonder if the Government have anything else in mind.
Clause 17 refers to “work search” and Clause 17(3)(c) lists as one of the actions which might be specified,
“creating and maintaining an online profile”.
The briefing pack indicates that this is to facilitate job matching and making applications. It says:
“We expect that the new IT systems underpinning Universal Credit will support effective monitoring of work search activity. We expect to establish an online portal where claimants can set up their own ‘profile’. The system will provide claimants with access to job vacancies (including jobs automatically matched to the claimant’s profile) and the ability to … search for work and we anticipate the system will provide advisers with information and updates as to what the claimant has done”.
What training will be available to support claimants who will be less adept at using this technology to ensure that they have equal access to job applications? I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
I shall speak briefly in relation to the third of the amendments that has been put forward to Clause 17—that about, on page 8,
“creating and maintaining an online profile”.
I can see the merits of having that available but it might become an imposition. Many people who may be looking for work would be scared stiff of that approach, particularly the older ones or those who have restricted abilities. To be imposing or suggesting that this is a requirement surely should not be written on to the face of a Bill. I would be glad to hear the Minister’s justification for it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, not all claimants will be required to carry out all or indeed any of the actions listed in these clauses. They are meant as illustrations of the type of actions that may be imposed. Taking “improving personal presentation” first, we already require this of jobseeker’s allowance claimants where their appearance is proving to be a significant barrier to work. Advisers handle such cases sensitively and directions are used sparingly and as a last resort. It is not about impinging on an individual’s basic right to express themselves with their appearance but, where a claimant is actively putting off potential employers, such as with poor personal hygiene or turning up to interviews with holes in their clothes, we need to be able to address it.
On work experience and work placements, I would like to emphasise how valuable these can be as an opportunity for claimants to experience all aspects of being in a work environment, to develop skills and confidence in preparation for future employment or further work preparation, and to improve their CV and marketability to employers. This is particularly important for jobseekers who have limited or no experience of the workplace. For many it represents the main barrier preventing them from getting a job.
For claimants who have limited capability for work, we believe that appropriate work experience and work placements can help them to understand more about their career options and skills, increase confidence and provide valuable experience that they may need to get started in a job in future. The amount, duration and timing of any work experience or placement will be tailored to the needs of the individual and will not necessarily be more demanding than other actions they might be expected to take to prepare for work.
These activities could take many forms and do not need to be full-time; for example, work shadowing could be suitable for some claimants with limited capability for work. We want to ensure that claimants in the work preparation group can access valuable support and experience that could help them move into work in the future. To do this, advisers need to have the flexibility to specify the actions that they think give a claimant the best prospects of moving towards employment and be clear that in some cases this may include work experience or a work placement.
Finally, as you know, we are developing our own online service that will enable the claimant to create and maintain a personal profile, complete job-search activity including automatic job-matching when new vacancies are registered, and apply for jobs. We intend that this information will be available for the department to monitor the claimant’s activity and assist in checking compliance with their claimant commitment. There will be robust data protection, security and privacy measures in place; for example, claimants applying for jobs would remain anonymous from employers and recruiters until they accept an invitation to interview or contact them directly themselves. Access to jobseeker records by DWP staff will continue to be audited and existing user restrictions and business needs will determine which members of staff can see customer data.
It would be a waste of investment in a quality service for claimants, and severely hamper our ability to monitor compliance, if we were not able to require claimants to use the system. However, taking out this requirement would apply not just to our system, but to other online job-search sites. Increasingly, as many employers only recruit online, it is critical that claimants engage with online services that increase their chances of finding and moving into work. Of course, if a claimant is in the minority who cannot use or be helped to use online services, or if there is another compelling reason, this requirement will not be imposed. I hope that gives the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, some small reassurance.
Lord Wigley
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press that a little further. I am interpreting what he says as implying that there might be circumstances where someone refuses to use the online system and could lose benefits as a result. Is that the case?
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly there are circumstances where the main barrier to an individual getting work is an inability or reluctance to interface with online systems. They may need some pressure, because people sometimes do need pressure. We find that mandatory processes get much higher outputs that voluntary ones in many cases. In those circumstances, I can imagine that outright refusal could earn a sanction. However, it will not be used in circumstances where clearly it is not appropriate or where there is a genuine inability to use those services. On that basis, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation but I would like to press him on a few points. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, concerning the online profile. The Minister said that this would not be imposed on somebody, but if it is going to be such a valuable tool to help people into the labour market there is still the residual question of what support is going to be given to people who do not have the innate ability.
Lord Freud
At the risk of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, saying that we have not developed the whole system, I should say that it has not sprung, like Athena out of Zeus’s head, fully formed.
Lord Freud
Aphrodite was in the seashell. I think Athena was the daughter of Metis, who was swallowed by Zeus, but there we are.
We are working really intensively now to get the customer interface with our IT system for the universal credit right. We are spending a lot of time on the support that we will be providing for that and the categories of people who cannot be expected to do it themselves but need other ways of being helped. In practice, we will wrap this up with the much bigger exercise.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that and I understand his explanation of personal presentation. However, I press him on issues of work experience and work placement, because I do not believe that he Minister dealt with the question I posed about Clause 54, where an amendment to the Welfare Reform Act 2007 states:
“The reference to activity in subsection (7) includes work experience or a work placement.”
That adds something to that description, which presumably is done for a purpose. We would all, I am sure, recognise the benefit of work experience and work placements; but the issue is the extent to which those people who have limited capability for work, but are capable of work-related activity, can be caused to undertake them. That would be a departure from the current position. Are those part of what ESA claimants can be encouraged to do? I am trying to understand what the distinction between those and work is. When we debated issues of work for benefits under, I think, the Welfare Reform Act 2009, we debated workfare and the benefits or otherwise of all of that—generally otherwise—and the extent to which that was close to or tied up with work placements and work experience. If those issues relate to those who are fit for work, that is one thing; but is there not a risk that, under this legislation, we are importing that into another group, after those people have gone through the WCA assessment? That is my concern.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly preparing for work shades across a number of aspects. Perhaps the most interesting area here is the way that some work providers in the work programme actually help people. One of provider actually sets up the whole experience of work in its own operation. The actual experience of work for people who are in the WRAG group, if it is properly controlled in terms of work experience and work placement—I know the noble Lord will have concerns on this—and does not become a work substitute, is part of the building-up for that person; just as developing some skills would be. That could be an immensely valuable stepping stone for people, and that is the stepping stone we are aiming to introduce in this legislation.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I understand that point, and I think we share an understanding of the benefits of those sorts of arrangements. However, we are here introducing a term that has hitherto largely been attached to those who are in work, without any protections around it. In so far as work placements can effectively be the same as work—at least at one end of the spectrum—what is to stop providers putting people in the WRAG group through that process, and thereby effectively causing them to work, when the designation under the WCA is that they should not be in that group?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I cannot write in protections today but I give the assurance that this measure is intended to be a building block for the individual, not a substitute for work. I will think about how we can make that absolutely clear to offer comfort in that regard. I might be able to do that through a formal statement. I want noble Lords to be absolutely clear that this measure is a supportive element. It is not designed to be anything but supportive in allowing the claimant to take key steps to get back into the workplace.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for those comments and look forward to a fuller response on the protections later, as I remain concerned that we are opening a gate as regards people not being required to undertake work. This is effectively a step in that direction, if not in some instances a step into it. There are issues about how those protections might be organised. If we are going down the route of work placements, what assurances do we have in respect of providers of those work placements that they are not simply using this measure to churn staff and not do what they should do, which is to employ them properly in the first place? However, perhaps those issues can be dealt with further down the track, given that the Minister has given an undertaking to see how he can provide us with assurances in that regard. Having said that—
Lord Wigley
Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, which I suspect he was about to do, I return again to the provisions in Clause 17. They really are draconian. We have not only the provision highlighted in paragraph (c) of subsection (3),
“creating and maintaining an online profile”,
but paragraph (f) states,
“any action prescribed for the purpose in subsection (1)”,
which could be anything at all. To give these powers without some strong safeguards on the way on how used fills me with absolute horror. With respect to the online profile, that states that there can be an order for the person seeking work requiring him or her to create their own online profile and to maintain it. If they are either incapable of creating it, or are not diligent in maintaining it, they could lose their benefits. This would not be a problem for my four year-old granddaughter’s generation, as they pick up this technology easily, but I know of teachers approaching retirement age or perhaps losing their jobs who would be incapable of doing this on a computer. To make that a requirement in the Bill strikes me as absolute nonsense. Surely, this measure should be looked at again.
Lord Freud
Yes, soothe fears but also put this matter into context. We are essentially importing the existing arrangements, subject to the work experience issue that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised. We have drawn up an illustrative list. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to a draconian power. That is the structure that we have imported into this Bill. That structure has been debated thoroughly by many noble Lords in this Room over a number of Bills, so we are not trying to do anything dramatically new here, albeit with a nudge towards work experience. I said to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that I would make absolutely clear what the protections are and how we intend to run the system. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is looking at the whole thing as if it was a dramatically new and draconian way of doing things, but it is not. We are importing the existing methodology into the context of the universal credit.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My noble friend says that it is all my fault; I am not sure I ever introduced anything like this, but perhaps she did.
The key issue here is that the requirements are not necessarily blanket impositions on individuals, and where they are particularly beneficial there is support for those who are not able, without that support, to benefit from them. Otherwise they could be excluded from some job opportunities.
We have given these amendments a good run through. I look forward to the follow-up from the Minister, but beg leave to withdraw.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) The actions and time specified under subsections (2) and (3) shall be determined following consultation with the claimant, and shall take account of any activity already undertaken which contributes to gaining experience, skills and aptitude for work.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will be brief. The amendment is intended to ensure that actions taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to work preparation requirements are determined after consultation with the claimant, and take account of activity the claimant is already undertaking which contributes to gaining experience, skills and aptitude for work.
Reflecting on our deliberations at the last Committee sitting, I should stress that this should involve consultation. It does not have to be a process of agreement, although hopefully it would be. This has special relevance in relation to volunteering. For example, we have had material, as I am sure other noble Lords have, from an organisation called Catch22, which refers to its intensive volunteering programmes with young people. They contribute to preparing young people for work.
We acknowledge that Jobcentre Plus should not be required to take account of every pastime or whim of individual claimants, but structured programmes, such as the volunteering opportunities identified, appear helpful. It must be better to work with the grain of such activity. That is all that the amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, work preparation requirements will be imposed only where it is appropriate in the circumstances of the claimant. This will always involve a discussion between an adviser and the claimant, to determine any barriers to work and the steps required to address them. Where a claimant has already taken steps to improve their experience, skills and aptitude for work, this will of course be reflected in the requirements placed on them.
We will ask claimants only to do things that we believe will make it more likely that they will move into work. Asking them to go on a course to gain skills that they already have, for example, would be a waste of the claimant’s time and, indeed, of our scarce resources. We therefore agree with the spirit of this amendment. We disagree on whether it is necessary to put it into primary legislation. We do not have provisions of this kind in legislation now, and, similarly, we do not think it appropriate for universal credit.
On the volunteering point, clearly we have expanded or enlarged the opportunity for work search claimants to volunteer, as long as it does not affect their ability to continue to search for work. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for his reply and will certainly withdraw the amendment. One point pressed on us was that if there is a recognition that volunteering programmes can be beneficial, perhaps that could be recognised by Jobcentre Plus in the other programmes that it is structuring for individuals. There have been suggestions that sometimes people slip out of volunteering programmes because they cannot keep the commitments, because they have work-focused interviews or other mandatory activity.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, perhaps I might interrupt here as I am interested in volunteering, having been a volunteer in various fields myself, as I suspect most of us in this room have at one time or another. Volunteering strikes me as a way of getting work experience—not necessarily but it could be—and therefore is to be most definitely applauded.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I agree with that and I am sure that we all would. I suppose it depends a little bit on the precise programme and activity, but the point is not to lose that opportunity for individuals who are already undertaking it because Jobcentre Plus is imposing other requirements with clashing commitments, meaning that people have to drop out of the programmes. That was a particular point that was pressed on us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 51CEC and 51CEE in this group, which probe Clauses 17 and 18. These clauses cover claimants who are subject to all work-related requirements. Clause 17 deals with work search requirements, Clause 18 with work availability requirements. Clause 17 sets down actions which the Secretary of State can require of a claimant, and also limitations that can be placed on those actions. Such limitations can include restrictions to work in particular locations. Our amendment requires the limitations to specifically include,
“consideration of the length and expense of the claimant’s travel”.
A similar issue arises in respect of the work availability requirement.
As we discussed, the conditionality applies to those out of work and also to those in work. Our briefing note suggests that regulations will make the default position that claimants should look for work that is within one and a half hours’ travel time of their home. This makes a handy headline in the national press to show how tough the Government are on the growing numbers of unemployed. I understand also that it reflects arrangements under the existing JSA regime, after a period.
For a start, we contend that the limitations should have regard to cost as well as journey times and that this should be reflected in the regulations and spelled out in claimant commitments. One and a half hours each way is about the time of my journey to Westminster—oh, for the ministerial car—at a cost of more than £100 a week. Individuals on low pay with no long-term job security would not necessarily be in a position to get the cheapest tickets even if the best deals were readily discernible. Of course, the cost of travel from home to work has to be met out of taxed earnings. Journey times will not always be regular, especially in rural areas. They are not inevitably aligned with the hours of a job: five minutes extra at work can mean an hour’s wait for the next bus. It is understood that the Government recognise the need for flexibility in these matters but see the non-application of sanctions as the route to providing it. Is this correct and, thinking about it, is it an appropriate way to proceed?
We get an insight into how the Government are dealing with this by looking at the illustrative claimant commitment that has been provided to us. Jack Smith’s job goal is to be secure in work as a plumber, earning at least £8 an hour, full-time, within one and a half hours of his home. It also says that if he does not find this kind of work within eight weeks, his job goal will be reviewed and he may be required to widen it, and presumably widen his travel times as well. There is no recognition that cost could be an issue, but the prospects of widening the job goal are included in this illustrative claimant commitment.
Perhaps we may ask what the Government intend on this. It brings us to a wider point. The Government have argued the case for universal credit in terms of simplicity and demonstrably ensuring that people are better off in work. We recognise that it is difficult to have a system that inevitably has some national parameters, so our amendment is an individual underpin that ensures that no one can be made worse off under these provisions by taking up any particular paid work. Clearly, regulations would have to flesh out some definitions of “worse off”, but the calculation would have to encompass costs as well as income, particularly costs around childcare and caring. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I support my noble friend in particular on Amendment 51CEC, which is about the cost of travel. Too often and too easily we assume a London model, with the Tube, regular bus services and so on; although even there, lone parents may find it difficult to access work in the way that they would like. However, in a county like Norfolk, where many villages have a bus service twice a day, you have a very different story. In Norfolk you have some of the lowest wage rates and some of the highest car ownership rates in the country; but those cars are battered, second-hand jalopies, which are taken by him to get to work, leaving her—usually—with the children and finding it very difficult to do anything except use a bicycle. The result is that it is very difficult for the second earner in a family, or—even more pertinently—a lone parent, to cope with travel to work if there is no job available for her in the local village.
We are expecting a lone parent to work 20 to 25 hours per week. She has two children, one of whom has to be delivered to a childminder and the other to the local school, but she has no transport apart from her feet. Finally, after that, she has somehow to get to a job of her own, and she has to do that again at 3 pm or 3.30 pm. It is almost impossible to find a job between those two hours in the locality, let alone further afield, given that she has to allow for her travel time. I remember one lone parent telling me that she calculated that the school bus picked up the children of the next-door village 40 minutes earlier than it picked up the children of her village; so she used to walk her child about two miles to the next-door village in order to put the child on the school bus, which would act as a form of childminder. That lone parent, with a great deal of ingenuity, managed to get to her job for its 9 am start. She was able to do so because the two villages were within walking distance of each other, but there is a real problem here. I think those of us who live in London or cities have no sense of just how isolated those villages can be.
However, the work requirement will apply to women, both lone parents and second earners, in a situation where there is no public transport, no private transport, a bicycle that you cannot actually take a small child on—let alone two children—except with some degree of difficulty and therefore there is only feet. I suggest to the Minister that it requires enormous juggling skill even to hold down a part-time job. Sometimes the jobcentre that the person has to travel to is not even in the whole of a rural district but may be 20, 30 or 40 miles away. I hope that jobcentre advisers will take all that into account when deciding what is reasonable for that lone parent or woman—and it is usually the woman who is the main child carer—in that situation. I ask the noble Lord to be sensitive to those issues, not because there is any lack of commitment but because of the sheer, simple, practical, logistical difficulties such women may face.
Lord Wigley
Perhaps I may add briefly that I identify totally with the rural dimension that the noble Baroness has just described. A bus twice a day would be a luxury in many villages in rural Powys and other parts of rural Wales. If a person has been lucky enough to have a job and a lift to work from a colleague, but the job comes to an end and they have no independent transport of their own and are required to go some distance to fulfil their obligations under the Act, that would be totally unreasonable. I would be glad to know what guidance the Minister will give to people who are trying to implement the Act on how to deal with circumstances such as those.
Baroness Sherlock
Perhaps I may ask one question. The noble Lord will be aware of this issue. We have heard about it from many claimants and I am sure that other noble Lords have had similar experiences to mine. At least one organisation that works with lone parents has complained to me about cases where lone parents have been sanctioned for failing to take jobs. They were confident of the veracity of the accounts they had been given, and it was clear that the claimant could not possibly have made it to the job and taken their children to childcare. There did not seem to be any malice involved, but the adviser did not understand what was involved in trying to get two or more children to different kinds of childcare in very tight timescales, in a context where being a few minutes late can mean either that you are fined by a nursery or that your child’s place is given to somebody else. How will the Minister protect claimants in that situation? Will he make sure that the guidance is sufficiently clear?
I am concerned because, as I understand it from our briefings, decisions like that can be challenged and referred to another adviser, but the only independent recourse a claimant has if the decision goes against them is to refuse to take the job, be sanctioned and then go to a tribunal to challenge it. This is not efficient. I quite see that it is not the Minister’s intention, but how can he reassure us and those claimants that they will not be in that position?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I start by expressing a degree of envy at the ability of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to commandeer a ministerial car in the past. In these straitened times I am reduced to a bicycle. However, in case noble Lords are anxious, I can confirm that the Ortleib pannier manages to contain a ministerial Box—and I have two panniers.
Turning to the amendments, as noble Lords know, we recently announced that jobseekers will be expected to look for suitable work within a 90-minute commute from their home. This is the default position in jobseeker’s allowance at the moment. The intention is to ensure that claimants search in a sufficiently wide geographic area while keeping the requirements reasonable. The old position was that JSA claimants could restrict travel time to 60 minutes, but only for the first 13 weeks and only if they had a reasonable prospect of work. Otherwise, the 90 minutes of travel time did apply. Therefore, this is not a huge change, although I understand the challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has given me when she said that the existing system could operate a little better. I accept that challenge. Our briefing note on the work search and availability requirements for universal credit explained that this would continue to be the normal position for claimants. However, we also explained that limitations will be applied to the work that a claimant has to look for to take into account any relevant circumstances, particularly childcare. For example, we are clear that a claimant who is the lead carer for a child under 13 need only look for work that will fit around school hours. This would include any necessary travel time.
A claimant with young children may be asked to take a job 90 minutes away, but only if the job had working hours that allowed the claimant to get the children to and from school and still get to work on time. Similarly, if a commute of any time up to 90 minutes is too far given caring responsibilities or health issues—for instance, the need to stay close to a child with ill health—we would be able to take that into account. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about the widening of the job goal, that is not intended to refer to a geographic or time widening, but refers to the type of work and remuneration. The travel time remains at 90 minutes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I have just a query for the Minister. What he is saying is wise. He understands that we fully support both the principle of UC and the continuum between not being in work and being in work. There is no dispute between us. However, I worry about the huge area of responsibility and effectively discretion that will fall on first level Jobcentre Plus staff. As my noble friend said, no one doubts their goodwill or that they will do the best they can. However, given the centralisation of Jobcentre Plus offices, the fact that staff are often young and that the office may be in a town or city with a substantial choice of jobs compared to rural areas, from my experience they will often have very little understanding of the difficulties experienced in a rural village where the only jobs may be part-time cleaning, childminding if you are lucky, picking mushrooms or cleaning caravans. Those are the options, and none of them would fulfil the work conditionality without serious travel that would impede people’s capacity to look after their children and meet school hours.
I say to the Minister, in capital letters, that so much of the effective delivery of what we all want will rest on the shoulders of junior staff: AOs, with luck supervised by an experienced EO, working in local offices and living some 40 or 60 miles away from the circumstances of an individual in a rural village of which they will have no knowledge. I do not know how far the Minister can go in giving assurances. Of course he will want the best possible training, but I am worried about this. Perhaps the answer will involve intensifying supervision and scrutiny by more experienced senior officers at the review level—the EO level—to make it more possible, so that this does not migrate upwards into the tribunal system that my noble friend identified. We have picked up this problem in the past, and it will become more acute as more people are brought into the conditionality realm. So much will hang on the experience of the staff handling their applications.
Baroness Sherlock
Perhaps I may clarify something. I may have misheard the noble Lord and I apologise for delaying the Committee. Did he say in his response that there might be circumstances in which somebody would not be better off, but that they should take a job anyway? I see that he did. I will quote from the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In his introduction to the Green Paper he referred to people of working age and stated:
“We will help them to find work and make sure work pays when they do. They in return will be expected to seek work and take work when it is available”.
Was that not the contract he laid before the British people? What the Minister said appears to contradict it.
Lord Freud
I will pick up on that last point from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. There may be special circumstances. There are no blanket absolutes about taking a job.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I was finishing my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. We are fixing a broken system in structural terms so that the benefit system which currently does not reward work will now do so. There will be a consistent taper and more generous disregards, so this is a big move. One can overcomplicate it but that is a sterile debate which we do not need to go into.
I shall turn to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the importance of how skilled Jobcentre Plus advisers are. This is an important point and one that the noble Baroness will have recognised from her time in the department. We are now positioning Jobcentre Plus advisory services as a profession with a clear career path, accredited learning and ongoing professional development while delivering to a set of standards recognised as best in class. The learning programme for Jobcentre Plus advisers is regularly updated to reflect changes in policy. This ensures that they have up to date skills to deal with any claimant interaction and supports them in making relevant and appropriate decisions in individual cases.
We are making sure that a range of supportive products, guidance, assessment tools and management frameworks are produced to assist understanding and aid delivery of a more personalised service. As I said the other day, the satisfaction of claimants is now running at 88 per cent, and clearly the objective is to get that figure as high as we possibly can.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I think he would have heard the issues about difficulties with travel and costs from my noble friend Lady Hollis, my noble friend Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We take the point that these things need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and that there will be elements of discretion and judgment in that, but my noble friend Lady Hollis pressed on the issue of training. I do not know how hot the news is that the Minister has just given us, but the professionalisation of Jobcentre Plus is to be welcomed. Is he going to tell me that he started this a couple of years ago?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is a good move, because it is important. However, I do not think I can let the noble Lord get away with the constant assertion that the current system that they are seeking to replace by universal credit does not reflect the fact that work can pay. Overwhelmingly, is it not the case that it does? It may be that a very complicated calculation has to be gone through in order to prove it. I accept entirely that simplification of how to deal with the in-work, out-work issue is to be welcomed and is something we support. However, I do not think it is right to say that, overwhelmingly, work under the current system does not pay.
I would hang on to the point that if there is to be discretion in the system, then why is there not protection at the individual level so that someone cannot be forced to undertake work that would make them worse off? Is there going to be some reassurance at the individual level? There can be regulations which have appropriate caveats around timing issues; it is not beyond the wit of the Government to do that. In all of this change and uncertainty which still has to be resolved in many areas, would it not be reassuring to individuals that if it was clear that they would be worse off, they could not be forced down a path? That seems entirely reasonable to me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I wonder if I could come in on this. I absolutely see the dilemma and I can quite understand why you may want someone to start in on something in the hope and expectation that a year down the line, that entry into low-paid work will have paid off. I put it to the noble Lord—I think he might be horrified by the possible complexity of it, but I have been looking at the additional material and trying to get my head around how disregards work—that the disregard is relatively modest for a single young person. I wonder, following the point made by my noble friend—I can see already that there may be too much downside to this and the arguments against it—whether the Minister could look at the issue of whether in such circumstances you could adjust the disregard to ensure that, even where it does not appear to pay, you could construct it so that at least someone is not worse off through working until the point at which the hoped-for job progression that we all want to see has taken them into the pathway. I would ask the Minister to take this away. It may be that this is too complicated, but making someone worse off is going to be hard to defend, is it not?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the best answer I can give on the whole area is to encourage us to wait until we get to the piloting powers before we have this debate. Let me explain it. We want to test every aspect of this system on a continuing basis. Rather than having a debate about whether we should make this little change, make that little change, do this or do that—we all like to design a system—I think the way to develop this system, which will not and cannot be perfect on day one because it is just too tough, is to have a process of constant improvement. That is my real answer. We should have the constructive debate on these issues when we get to the clause—I forget which one it is, but it is not very far away. I do not think that we will arrive there today—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord makes a fair point and we will be perfectly happy to pick up the discussion on these issues when we debate the clause. However, the noble Lord for his part might like to recognise a couple of suggestions that have come forward. He might like to add them to the list of things that will be included in the pilots. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(e) the claimant having guaranteed and predictable access to high quality flexible and affordable childcare acceptable to the parents and children”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, again my education continues apace. I know that the Minister is a good man, that spring comes after winter and before summer, and now I know that he got on his bicycle.
In moving this amendment tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. I welcome the comments made by the Minister in response to the first grouping that the reasonable position is the default, not full-time being the default position. Our amendments seek to protect those with substantial responsibilities for children from falling foul of the conditionality regime due to their caring responsibilities. In particular, we seek to maintain the protections put in place by the Labour Government for such people. Some noble Lords, although not me, will recall the substantial discussions that took place in the House at an earlier time.
Amendment 51CED would ensure that the limitations to the availability for work rules include in them reference to the availability of childcare which, as we have all accepted, is key to being able to work. Amendment 51FZZA similarly would write the existing safeguards into the relevant considerations when requirements are placed on a claimant. It is worth setting out the formal position, which was referred to by the Minister earlier. These established safeguards illustrate rather well the sort of issues that a lone parent or main carer faces when seeking to combine part-time paid work with caring for a child.
The first safeguard is that a lone parent of a child aged under 13 need look for work only during school hours, and the Minister has just confirmed that that will remain the position. Secondly, lone parents who can be treated as available for work under JSA during school holidays or when a child has been excluded from school and is not receiving education do not necessarily have to take up a job. Thirdly, lone parents may restrict their availability for work if they are the subject of a parenting order or have entered into a parenting contract. Fourthly, those with substantial caring responsibilities for a child aged under 16 have to be available to take up a job only at 28 days’ notice rather than immediately if such responsibilities make immediate availability unreasonable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I add a couple of lines to my noble friend’s eloquent introduction to this issue. What we know from all our research about getting lone parents into work is that those lone parents stay in work if they have childcare they trust. Trust is key. As one lone parent told me when I visted, “I would never leave my child with strangers”. Childcare they trust tends to be associated with schools and extended hours. That is highly trusted. If they live in an urban area, it may be the availability of a nursery which is acceptable to them and which is trusted because of scrutiny. They may have neighbours or friends, and so on, who are childminders.
The biggest resource in my experience has always been grandmothers, particularly the maternal grandmother. The reason the maternal grandmother could do the childcare and often would do so once or twice a week, particularly over holiday periods, allowing a lone parent to hold down a job, was because she was herself not caught by conditionality. Can the Minister assure us that he has taken into account that, as we see the retirement age rising to 66 from 60 and that she as well as he in the 60s bracket are expected themselves to be available for work if otherwise they would be claimants on UC, that that unpaid resource will be taken out of the caring economy which has made it possible for that grandmother to permit her daughter to work? In other words, there is interaction going on here with other fields of government policy.
I am sure that the Minister has taken this into account, but one thing that I was most pleased that the right honourable James Purnell was able to introduce was the substitution: where a lone mother did not need her HRP because she was in the labour market and getting her own NI, a grandparent did not lose her entitlement to a state pension by virtue of not being in the labour market for wages, but was in the unwaged labour market, allowing her daughter to remain in full-time paid work.
That resource will come out of the system, if I understand the double interaction, of the raising of the retirement state pension age for women and the conditionality that the Minister will expose her to while she waits in that twilight decade to draw her pension, while she is perhaps not an attractive option for many employers. Can he reassure us that this has been taken into account and that there is lateral thinking here because 40 per cent of lone parents have relied on grandparents to provide informal care? We have never recognised this, except in so far as we have been assured that she does not lose out in terms of a pension. Can the Minister advise us on how this will be handled in future?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, before I speak to my amendment in this group, Amendment 51FZA, I thank the Minister for asking his officials to provide me with information in this area. I also apologise for being absent from the discussion of the first grouping today which was relevant to this debate now. I apologise if I repeat information raised then. I also remind your Lordships of Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
I should be grateful if the Minister could make his best endeavours to demonstrate how the Bill is considering the best interests of the child in relation to this debate.
My Amendment 51CED states:
“It is not a failure sanctionable under this section if a claimant falling within section 22 does not have guaranteed and predictable access to high quality, flexible and affordable child care acceptable to the parent and child or children”.
The lack of widely available, affordable and acceptable childcare has been referred to. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that claimants with a dependent child will not face sanctions if they are unable to work or participate in work-related activity due to a lack of suitable high-quality, flexible and affordable childcare appropriate to the parents’ and children’s needs. As we have heard, most lone parents want to have the opportunity to combine paid work with the vital job of being a parent. However, so far the Bill seems to fail to recognise that the required childcare infrastructure is lacking in many parts of the UK, including Scotland. There also continues to be a serious lack of childcare settings that are properly equipped and which have staff who are properly trained to deal effectively and positively with children with disabilities, learning, communication or behavioural challenges or who have a wide range of additional support needs.
To make a slight aside, I know how important it is to the Minister and to all your Lordships that we encourage a culture of independence and attack a culture of dependency. The kinswoman of the noble Lord, Anna Freud, whom I believe was a child psychotherapist and an early-years teacher, established in her work dating from the 1940s the absolute importance of the relationship between the child and parent in making the move from infant dependency—absolute dependence—on the parent to adult independent emotional maturity. The danger is that if we do not do all we can in this Bill to strengthen the relationship between parents and children we might inadvertently build in the problem of dependency in the next generation. For adults to be independent they need to have had strong relationships in their early childhood. That is what gives them the strength to be independent in their adulthood. The nature of the relationship between parents and children also colours the relationships that those children will have as adults with other adults. Therefore, the strength of parental bonds between partners is coloured very much by their early experiences in childhood.
I wish to cite a couple of case histories of lone parents in Scotland. I should say that this amendment is supported by 20 charities working in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Judy says:
“All very well and good expecting lone parents to work once their children are in fulltime education, personally I don’t have an issue with it. For me personally, voluntary work & eventually paid work turned my life around albeit not financially. However, where is the childcare to go along with this? Where is the flexible working? Where is the long term thinking? It’s all very well providing ‘some’ funding for childcare, what use is it if there is none? We now face a new generation of children who are ‘forced’ by the Government to be latchkey kids … These same children are often (not always) the ones who require the most emotional support and stability, in particular during difficult times (separation/divorce) … who is going to be around to support them at the times where parents have to be working?”.
I took part in the proceedings on the Childcare Act 2006. What was noteworthy about that was the recognition of how far behind our continental neighbours we were in developing an effective childcare strategy. We were 30 years behind Sweden in having our first childcare strategy. We start from a very low base in terms of thinking and providing for early-years and other childcare.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I would like to speak in support of the noble Earl’s amendment. There are cuts in the tax credit system, and I know from experience that many couples use that as part of their overall family income, to get high-class childcare. There are a whole stack of couples who are now in the process of cancelling that because they cannot afford to keep it going. There is going to be chaos in the childcare system because many parents, either single or together, will be in trouble, trying to get the same conditions that they have been used to in childcare over the past few years.
Unless parents are given that assurance that their children are going to high-class, quality childcare that they can trust—the noble Earl mentioned some circumstances in which parents do not trust childcare—the whole field of childcare and its provision is going to be a real headache for society. This amendment would be a safeguard to ensure that parents are satisfied.
Having had some experience of Ministers, I can almost hear the Minister’s reply, along the lines of, “How can you guarantee the security of a system? People will fiddle, people will do all sorts of things, and we can’t trust them”. In some cases that is a reasonable judgment, but not in all cases, and certainly not in the majority of cases. People will feel that they have been done out of something here, and as usual it will be the women who give up the second job that assistance for childcare has helped them to go out and do.
I have spoken to scores of women in my former constituency for whom that support for childcare was absolutely essential. This amendment will go a long way towards making sure that parents are not subjected to failure if they do not receive the quality, flexible and affordable childcare that they have been used to up until now.
How would the Minister cater for those people who, with less money coming in, will perhaps have to downgrade their expectations if they want to continue with childcare, because they cannot afford as much? This has been a great liberation for parents, and it is something that the Government need to assure us of.
Lord Newton of Braintree
May I come in from my sedentary position? I ought to start by saying that, having been in another part of the United Kingdom for most of the day, I only strayed in here to demonstrate continuing interest and to check that the Minister was still being reasonable. I felt driven to contribute, as all too often both upstairs and downstairs, by the subject matter that was being discussed.
If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, need make no apology for the length of a speech from a noble Lord who has taken greater interest in these matters than almost anyone else in the House over all the time I have been here. His genuine knowledge and concern comes through, and we all benefit from it.
That said, I shall now incur the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, or both, or indeed of everyone. I had better admit immediately that if I were the Minister I would not touch this amendment, in its present terms, with a bargepole. It is all very well for noble Lords to talk about guarantees, but what does all that mean? Does it mean predictable? The number of hurdles here is unbelievable. The amendment speaks of “guaranteed”, “predictable”, “high quality”, “flexible” and “affordable” childcare. Who will be the judge of all those? It also talks about the care being,
“acceptable to the parents and the children”.
Frankly, that is not on, as a workable concept. I will just put that on the record in the interests of being helpful to the Minister.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Which one of those would the noble Lord suggest we junk?
Lord Newton of Braintree
There are too many hurdles in the amendment. In legal terms, although I am not a lawyer, it would be impossible to have guaranteed and predictable access to,
“high quality flexible and affordable childcare”,
because the parents could say that it was not acceptable. Indeed, the child could say that it was not acceptable. It is not a sensible construct, as I am sure any legal mind would advise. The noble Baroness may not agree, but that is certainly the view I would take if I was advising the Minister.
However, coming back to the noble Earl, the childcare issue is an important one, as we have recognised throughout the proceedings on this Bill. It could be crucial to whether it is sensible or reasonable to expect some people, be they single parents or others, to take up work. So we need a clear policy on this, even if in my view this amendment does not give it to us. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some encouragement on that front.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I would like to speak up for working parents because I am a working mother, and as noble Lords may have noticed I have brought my daughter to work with me. The amendment goes some way towards addressing some of the challenges that working parents face. It is absolutely my choice that I work 300 miles away from where I live, and it is the choice that my family and I have made. But trying to find flexible, affordable and appropriate childcare is really difficult. I am not sure whether that makes me a good or a bad mother, but I think that bringing my daughter along to a Lords Grand Committee is better than leaving her in childcare for a week. However, for people in more challenging financial positions, it is a real challenge.
I agree that it is better if parents are working, and I think that I am a better mother because I work. I think also that my daughter would probably say that it is not acceptable to be dragged along to a sitting of this Grand Committee and that she might prefer to be somewhere else. The wording of the amendment might not be quite correct, but it is important that we get these exceptions right. It is bad enough that as a mother you feel guilty for everything that you do anyway. You are accused of abandoning your child, not being a good mother and all those other things, when you are trying to do a good job. So it is important to get this right so that children can benefit from it—then parents and the family will benefit from it as well.
Baroness Drake
I was not going to come in on this amendment, but I feel moved to do so—
Baroness Drake
Absolutely, I can use the word “provoked” freely because that is what has led me to rise to speak.
There is a danger that this will become an emotional debate because people feel passionately about their children. I had three children aged seven and under and I know exactly the tensions that have been described. But this comes out of the construct of the application of in-work conditionality. The universal credit system imports a novel and extensive level of government discretion. What people are struggling with, because the Government cannot answer it, is how that discretion will be applied in real-life circumstances that they can empathise with. This instance arises against the background that most people who work part time are women, so they will be most subjected to the in-work conditionality on extending their hours. However, the childcare system in this country is inefficient, so there are those two background factors. Taken together with the discretionary system, which on the Minister’s own admission has a long way to go before it is fully defined and fit for purpose, three fundamental issues arise that people are struggling to get answers on. They do not think the answers lie in guidance, they want some security on the face of the Bill that constrains the exercise of the Government’s discretion.
Those three issues are: trust, care of the child and the compatibility of conditionality with the reality of the childcare system. I think back to when my children were younger. Anyone who has been a parent will agree that the thought that any bureaucrat in a complex system could have imposed a sanction on me unless I agreed to put my children into a care arrangement in which I did not have confidence is inconceivable. I could deal with that, because I had a job that gave me enough income. I had enough self-confidence; I had articulacy; I had education; I could cope with that challenge. What if I had been a low paid mum, with more limited educational skills? Could I have articulated or defended my fears about being asked to put my child into a provision that I did not trust? That is fundamental. As has rightly been said, that involves the care of the child. One cannot just say, “We think that parents are better and that attitudes to benefit or bearing responsibility are better if people work”. That has to be set against what is a fair system for the care of the child. We do not want lots of examples of people conceding under the pressure of conditionality to unsuitable care arrangements and horror stories resulting.
Baroness Sherlock
I rise hesitantly, as the Minister got rather cross last time I got up, but I am brave. I was taking advice from more experienced colleagues to find out whether it was in order for me to speak to an amendment whose mover had not moved it. I hope that it is. I refer to Amendment 51F, which would require of the Secretary of State, in making decisions about prescribing certain actions, that:
“The matters prescribed under subsection (2) shall include the well-being of any child whose life or care may be affected by the requirements of this section”.
I wanted to address that and to pick up some of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. One thing that has always worried me on policy dealing with families and children is how difficult it is in government, when different departments have responsibility for different set of policies, to ensure that they take account of each other's policy objectives. There has always been a danger—I understand it completely—that when one is considering childcare primarily from the point of view of how one enables parents to work, one misses some of the unintended consequences of that policy on, for example, the well-being of children, their development and the next generation.
If the Minister does not like how any of the amendments are worded, he can advise me. He is far more experienced and knows a great deal more about how the DWP operates than I will ever know. Could he advise the Committee on how we might be reassured about a decision that will be taken perhaps by a young adviser or Jobcentre Plus employee who will rightly focus on how to get a person into work? How could that person be required to take account of the impact on the child?
My final point is that ultimately this will play to the Minister's benefit. Some years ago I visited the United States to look at welfare to work programmes there. As the Minister will know, the regime there is somewhat harsher even than the regime envisaged by him. It was interesting to meet the people organising the programmes. The single biggest barrier to getting people into those programmes was the lack of confidence of parents in the quality of substitute care. There is a huge amount of research into the effect of that on children. Will the Minister consider that reassuring parents on this might be in his interests, as well as to the advantage of the children?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I will say a brief word to defend myself against this onslaught. I do not think that there is a lot between us. I do not disagree with a word spoken by either of the two noble Baronesses about what our objectives should be. I hope that I indicated that. I simply do not think—this is my attempt to curry favour with the Minister—that the amendment achieves the objective in a satisfactory way. Can we be friends again?
Lord Freud
On that note, I shall take this opportunity to respond. My first point is that we are all in general agreement that it is vital to balance the requirements placed on claimants with any childcare responsibilities they may have. The amendments raise the concern that we will not take these responsibilities into account. I hope that I will be able to reassure noble Lords that this is not the case.
As is the case now, legislation will provide clear safeguards. We are committed in particular to ensuring that the same safeguards exist for lone parents as are currently in place. Our legislation will ensure that no claimant who is responsible for a child under five can be made to look for or take a job. These claimants will be required only to attend work-focused interviews. If they fail to meet this basic requirement for no good reason, they will be subject to the lowest level of open-ended sanction. The sanctionable amount for this group will be capped at 40 per cent of the sanctionable amount for other claimants.
No claimant with a child under 13 will be required to look for a job that does not fit in with their child's school's hours, including a reasonable allowance for travel time. Such restrictions will mean that a claimant will not be required to apply for or accept a job that would mean that they could not care for their child outside school hours. Advisers will take into account the care needs of older children so that work search requirements can continue to be restricted where this is appropriate.
Lord McAvoy
How will those applications be checked? Will there be a system to verify that what the claimant says is accurate?
Lord Freud
I take it that the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, means checking that the claimant is working and using childcare.
Lord McAvoy
And the arrangements for going to school, with all the timings involved as well.
Lord Freud
That would be done through a conversation between the claimant and the adviser. Clearly, what is a reasonable amount of time is not that complicated an issue when you know where someone works and what their route should be. I am sure that they will be able to reach a reasonable agreement on that.
To the extent that childcare may be needed to help claimants meet work availability requirements, for example in school holidays, advisers will work with parents to help them identify childcare options. Currently, this would include referring claimants to the local family information service.
I take the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the role of relatives in caring for children. Clearly their role is important as it allows parents to work and supports them. My best response is that we will keep it very much in mind as we develop our thinking and put the system into a state of implementation. We agree with the principle that childcare must be acceptable to the parent and even the child, despite what my noble friend Lord Newton said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
If they have good reason, we should listen to them.
Lord Freud
I am laughing at the memory of my own children’s disapproval of their minders. Jobcentre Plus does not dictate to parents the type of childcare or which provider they should use, or make any presumption that a childcare provider is suitable for the parent and child in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked whether childcare costs would be taken as good reason. This goes back to my previous response: there is no blanket rule. We will consider each case and look at all the benefits of work. Clearly, we will elaborate the detail on that in due course.
Advisers will continue to have an important role in both challenging and supporting parents who may have preconceived ideas about childcare, who may have had previous experiences or who have not used the services before. The circumstances of all parents and the needs of their children vary, and advisers will continue to take this into account.
Several noble Lords raised the question of the availability of childcare. We should bear in mind that local authorities have a duty under the Childcare Act 2006 to secure, as far as is reasonably practicable, sufficient childcare for working parents of children aged from birth to 14, and from birth to 18 in the case of disabled children. They must formally assess sufficiency in their area every three years. Local authority decisions on what they regard as “reasonably practicable” should be documented and published to allow scrutiny and challenge. Parents who feel that their needs have not been met can complain to the local authority. In the event that they are not satisfied with the way that their complaint has been dealt with, they may make a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. I will borrow the claim of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about the perfection of all things under the previous Government. This is after all the system that they put in place, so I am sure that she is absolutely satisfied with the arrangements.
A parent who considers that childcare is not available will need to demonstrate to the adviser that they have taken reasonable steps to secure such care. If childcare is available but the parent considers that it is not appropriate, he or she will need to provide information indicating that they have discussed their concerns with the service provider and give reasons why they do not consider the provision to be appropriate. Parents will need to demonstrate that there are no alternative arrangements that it would be reasonable for them to make. Where the adviser considers that the parent has not taken reasonable steps to identify or access appropriate childcare they will refer the question to a decision-maker. The sanction will only be imposed if the claimant does not have a good reason. In considering whether there is good reason, we will consider all relevant matters raised by the claimant, which would include the individual circumstances of the parent and children, and the availability of suitable childcare. Of course, any sanction decision can be appealed to an independent appeals tribunal for review.
Ultimately, we believe that in the vast majority of cases it is best for children if their parents are in work. Research into child poverty and workless households highlighted that:
“Parental employment is the key route out of poverty and disadvantage. Growing up in a workless household and/or in poverty can have a significant negative effect on a child’s development.”
That is from the 2004 Treasury document, Choice for Parents, The Best Start for Children.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that one possibility he could explore again is that great source of unpaid childcare: grandparents. I tried to get payment, but the deadweight costs would have been too huge. I hope that he will take the issue of her—and it is usually a her—responsibility into account in assessing her conditionality. We have already moved down this path, as my noble friend mentioned, in terms of credits for her pension and so on. It would not be difficult to do and it would ease the pressure on two or even three generations if her contribution to childcare was set against the conditionality on her in her late 50s—certainly in her 60s—and thus make it possible to keep all three generations afloat.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I want to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, and the Minister for their very kind words. If praises are our wages in this House, I feel well paid today—I wish I were more worthy of what has been said. I am grateful to the Minister for his careful response. It is reassuring to be reminded how important it is to children and their success that their parents are in work. Shall I wind up?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)
Is the noble Earl going to be very long?
The Earl of Listowel
Anna Freud demonstrated in her life’s work how complex child development is and how professionals working with children had to recognise that complexity. I am to some degree reassured by what the Minister has said, but there is great complexity here. Particularly in childcare, we have a very mixed provision and shortages in many areas. There may be things that we can think about before the Report stage that would be helpful in terms of future thinking—for instance, the work of the family information services might complement the work of Jobcentre Plus advisers, helping them to understand what is available in their local area.
Lord Freud
My Lords, there are two questions here. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked whether our provision could be improved and integrated more closely. Clearly we do have links with the family service that I was describing. What we are doing in Jobcentre Plus is trying to co-locate services, so there may be something there to look at very closely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made a point about unpaid childcare by grandparents and others, which I was able to think about in the break. It is deceptively easy to say, “Oh, yes”, but actually it is very complicated. There is a whole load of things happening: increasing longevity; much later childbirth; and in some cases much earlier childbirth, especially in some of the groups we are discussing here. There is a lot of social change going on, including the pension provision, so this is pretty difficult to do much about. I could say consolingly that we will look at it—and I will look at it, I am quite interested in this area—but solutions here are very difficult and would be hard to find. I will look at it but I am not expecting huge things to come out of that look.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
It is very interesting that the noble Lord should say that, because it was exactly the advice I had from civil servants at the time. None the less, it did not stop us introducing NI credits for grandparents who did more than 20 hours’ care a week for their daughter, releasing her to work. If you can do it for national insurance and pensions, you can certainly do it for childcare, and it would be much easier to do it with conditionality.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, perhaps I could suggest to the Minister that Jobcentre Plus could encourage the grandparent to train as a childminder. The daughter could then claim help through universal credit to pay the grandparent for childcare. You could simply cycle the money round that way—it might be a better way to do it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her imaginative way of manipulating the system. I am sure that it is something we should look at very closely. No, come on; I will look at this. This is very difficult so I am not promising anything, but I will look at it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
It is already the case that grandparents can mind a grandchild if they are a registered childminder, with the childcare taking place in their own home, and look after at least one other child. That is already done.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am aware that irony plays rather poorly in Hansard. Just to clarify for the record, I am not actually recommending this scheme to the Government. I simply want to raise the fact that one has to be careful not to build perverse incentives into the system and overformalise relationships that might otherwise find a way of working out on their own.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and the speakers who contributed to the debate. I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who is not in his place at the moment. Perhaps other noble Lords could pass on to him that he would never incur my wrath—the Minister’s, yes, but never mine.
The one thing that we have to take account of when we use words like “trust” and “availability” is that the debate is taking place within a much broader overall government policy. We have already mentioned in Committee that unemployment is at a 17-year high. There are already cuts to childcare. It is estimated that 32,000 people have already given up work because of the reduction in childcare allowance—at a cost of £50 million to the Exchequer, I gather, so the Treasury will not be very happy about that. Of course, it demonstrates yet again that if affordable childcare is not available, people do not go to work—fairly obvious, but there you are.
Unfortunately the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not in her place. I was a little worried after what the noble Earl said about being an untrained play-scheme worker that maybe we were all untrained carers today for her daughter. At least with her mother here, I assume the child was in safe hands. As a grandparent, I very much appreciate the comments made about the contribution of grandparents. I am in the other position: with very new grandchildren, all the grandparents line up and vie to look after them. I am assured that this soon gets a bit too much and problems set in. Short-term care is much more easily set up than long-term grandparenting, unless the sort of help that my noble friend Lady Hollis mentioned is available.
I will make a couple of comments. First, I thank the Minister very much not only for saying that he will look very carefully at the suggestions made by my noble friend Lady Hollis but for the commitments he gave about including current protections. However, he did not answer one of my comments about whether they will apply to couples. He mentioned lone parents but not couples.
Lord Freud
Let me clarify that for the record. The protection includes couples as well.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
This is getting better. I have one more question and I wonder if I can risk it. The Minister was also helpful on the question of school hours. He did not mention the point about being available for work during school holidays and whether those protections will remain. But given that he is in such a generous mood, my estimation is that he will reassure me on this.
Lord Freud
It is my delight to be able to reassure the noble Baroness that those protections will remain.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am twitchy about one more thing, because I know that the Minister will say no. Although we are happy about the responsibility being put on local authorities with regard to childcare, I cannot let the moment go without saying that their funding has been cut. I know that that is not within his department, but some of these things cost money.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, I should have reminded your Lordships that the Childcare Act 2006 applies only to England and Wales, so local authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are not under these obligations. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I should have known that, but I did not, so I thank the noble Earl. Nevertheless, we have had some helpful reassurances in the Minister’s response to the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other two amendments in this group. They are straightforward probing amendments that refer to Clause 19, which is entitled:
“Claimants subject to no work-related requirements”.
We discussed previously that claimants would fall primarily in that section if they have limited capability for work or for work-related activity; if they have regular and substantial care responsibilities for a severely disabled person; or if they are responsible carers for children under the age of one. However, subsection (2)(d) provides for a situation where,
“the claimant is of a prescribed description”.
Subsection (3) goes on to say that:
“Regulations under subsection (2)(d) may in particular make provision”,
in respect of “hours worked”, “earnings or income”, and,
“the amount of universal credit payable”.
Subsection (4) states that regulations made under subsection (3) may,
“in the case of a claimant who is a member of the couple, make provision by reference to the claimant alone or by reference to the members of the couple together … make provision for estimating or calculating any matter for the purpose of the regulations”.
We have moved this amendment in light of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which said in respect of those powers:
“We do not regard the first time affirmative procedure as necessarily inappropriate but the House may wish to be satisfied by the Minister that the exercise of this power on the first occasion will sufficiently define the Government’s approach, and that subsequent uses of the power will make only minor adjustments”.
I shall focus particularly on the latter part of that statement. The Government’s response states that it is the intention of the Minister,
“that the key principles will be established on first use. In respect of 19(2)(d) we are providing draft regulations”—
I think we now have those—
“setting out the circumstances which would lead to a claimant being in the no-work related requirements group. In respect of 19(3) and (4), when the regulations are debated, we will be able to set out how the work-related threshold will be set”.
Therefore, we need to wait for that, although we touched on some of the issues earlier. Will the Minister take this opportunity to deal more fully with the request of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in particular the issue relating to subsequent uses of the power being focused only on minor adjustments? I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, having been wonderfully rude about the first probing amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I am going to do exactly the opposite now because I regret that he announced that this was a probing amendment. This is the widest power that I have seen for many years in any potential Act of Parliament. Paragraph (d) of Clause 19(2) states that,
“the claimant is of a prescribed description”.
Subsections (3) and (4), which relate to the subsequent amendments as the noble Lord has explained, include the word “may”. However, if “may” is included, “may not” would also be included. The phrase that sprang to mind was, “How wide is the ocean; how deep is the sea?”. I actually think that for once the Merits Committee has not gone far enough; nor, as I said, has the noble Lord.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, just to correct my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it was the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, not the Merits Committee.
Lord Freud
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that we intend to use the power in subsection (2)(d) to establish the conditionality threshold. In summary, the threshold will be defined by establishing the hours we expect each individual in a benefit unit to work, taking account of their particular capability and circumstances, and multiplying this by the relevant national minimum wage. We believe that setting their threshold in this way is the right thing to do. It will mean that we can impose work-related requirements only on those claimants working less than we could reasonably expect in benefit units falling under the threshold and it ensures that we take full account of a claimant’s circumstances and capability. As we have discussed, we believe that we must have the power to encourage and support such claimants to do more to support themselves. Without a threshold many more working claimants would fall into the all work-related requirements group. We do not want to bring into conditionality those claimants who are working as much as we can reasonably expect. Having a threshold is essential for this.
Finally, we intend to use this power to do more than set the conditionality threshold. We will also use this to add other categories of claimant to the no work-related requirements group, ensuring that particular groups of claimant are treated appropriately. This includes working claimants on jury service, claimants on adoption leave and claimants who are over state pension age. It is clearly important that such claimants remain out of conditionality. I should make clear to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale that paragraph (d) is a protective measure. If we did not have it, we would not be able to protect those people from conditionality.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, may I come back to my noble friend the Minister? I totally—surprise, surprise—trust this Government but one day there will be another Government, perhaps not even comprised of the party of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. That Government may use this power in ways that we cannot now foresee, which is why I do not like it.
Lord Freud
I thank my noble friend for that, although I think in practice paragraph (d) allows a Government not to impose conditionality. This measure protects the individual. Of course, I absolutely understand my noble friend’s suspicion that the measure might overrestrict what another Government might do, which would not favour getting people into work. I am sorry; that was meant to be a joke.
Let me come back to the matter in hand. Given that we expect the first use to set the principles and to remain broadly unchanged, I hope I can assure noble Lords that affirmative for the first use is appropriate. We have set out how we intend to use this power. We define a threshold, as we have set out in our note, and add in the additional groups, as in the draft regulations. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we do not expect significant changes to this. For this reason, I ask him to withdraw this particular amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the Minister for that reply. As we discussed earlier, we understand the need for the sort of thresholds that are envisaged here, and why they are there. We also understand the need for scope for a further category of claimants who will be subject to no work-related requirements at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right that this is a fairly broad power. I would not put it in quite the terms that the noble Lord does, and I am not sure why, if he envisages that there may be a different Government in the future, it might not be made up of people on this side of the Chamber, although perhaps that is a debate for another day.
This was raised because we wanted to focus on the issue that subsequent uses of the power will only make minor adjustments—since that was what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee were seeking in the noble Lord’s answer—particularly in relation to thresholds of hours-worked earnings, and the amount of universal credit payable. If the assurance is that it will only move in a minor way from the starting position, then it addresses precisely the issue that we were probing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Drake
“(e) the claimant is a family and friends carer who takes on the care of a child—(i) where the child comes to live with the carer as a result of—(a) plans made under a child protection inquiry in accordance with section 47 of the Children Act 1989;(b) inquiries in accordance with section 53 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; or(c) an investigation in accordance with section 37 of the Children Act 1989;and the local authority states that the child cannot remain with the parents in the current circumstances;(ii) where the carer has secured a residence order, including a residence order under section 11 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, or special guardianship order—(a) to avoid a child being looked after where there is professional evidence of the impairment of the parents’ ability to care for the child;(b) arising out of care proceedings;(c) following the accommodation of a child; or(d) following the death or serious illness of a parent;(iii) where the carer is an approved kinship carer in accordance with Part V of the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009; or(iv) where the child would suffer undue hardship if the exemption did not apply.(2A) Subsection (2)(e) applies for the first year of the claimant being the child’s carer.”
Baroness Drake
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to exempt family-and-friend carers, who are raising a child or children, from the conditionality requirement to seek work under universal credit for a period of one year.
I know that many noble Lords have expressed sympathy with the problems faced by family-and-friend carers, but were concerned to define the population that would be embraced by any amendment. The amendment does that. These are children who cannot live with their parents and would otherwise be likely to be in the care system, at significant cost to the state, and against their better, or best, interest.
These children include those who, for example, have to live with a carer as a result of a plan following a Children Act 1989 child protection inquiry, or because the carer has a residence order or a special guardianship order arising out of care proceedings, or following the death or serious illness of a parent. The list of legal circumstances is clearly set out in the amendment, and covers the relevant legal references for Scotland as well.
The amendment specifically lists situations so that it is clear which family-and-friend carers would be exempt from having to look for work for twelve months from the receipt of the child for whom they are assuming care. The amendment is designed to recognise that the circumstances of family-and-friend carers vary enormously. It seeks to offer protection from conditionality for one year to those in the most challenging circumstances. Carers are not covered by this amendment if they do not have a legal order.
There are compelling economic and social reasons for this amendment. First, there are an estimated 200,000 children in the UK who are being raised by grandparents, elder siblings, or other family members and friends. To refer to a previous comment from the Minister, this does not fall into a “little change” area; this is a matter of some scale. If just 5 per cent of children in such care were to enter the care system, it would cost the taxpayer £500 million each year. It costs £40,000 a year for a child to be placed in independent foster care.
In the second instance, undermining such carers will impact the child. The children in such care may have suffered abuse and neglect. They are often exceptionally vulnerable. In about half of all cases their parents are misusing drugs or alcohol. Kinship carers often need to devote a lot of attention to such children, especially when they first move in. The carers themselves often feel stressed and isolated. Forty-six per cent of family-and-friend carers are raising at least one child with a disability or special needs.
Research from Grandparents Plus highlights the fact that three in 10 kinship carers give up work, sometimes at the direction of social services, and often because it is the only way to meet the child's challenging needs. A further three in 10 reduce their working hours, and their role is akin to that of a foster carer. Many children they look after would otherwise be in local authority care. The children may move into a family or friend’s care at any age, not just when they are under five or seven but often when they are young teenagers with difficult problems. For some carers, a year's exemption from being available for work or additional work would give them enough time to manage the upheaval in their lives and support the child before having to juggle work and care under any conditionality requirements.
Reinforcing the similar findings of a survey carried out by the Family Rights Group, a survey of grandparents and other family-and-friend carers conducted by Grandparents Plus found that 28 per cent of carers gave up work when they took on the care of the child and a further 29 per cent reduced their hours. The same survey found that eight out of 10 were under 65 and four out of 10 were under 55. Clearly, they will fall in significant numbers within the conditionality framework. Family-and-friend carers often report that social workers insist that they give up work in order to prevent the child being taken into care. However, only a minority—around one-third—receive an allowance from the local authority.
One consequence of the Bill and of other policy changes being introduced is that in future many more family-and-friend carers will be affected by conditionality requirements. At the moment, single family-and-friend carers, such as single parents, do not have to be available for work until the youngest child is seven. However, Clause 57 reduces this age to five. Furthermore—this comes back to our debate on the last but one amendment—the increase in the state retirement age will mean that increasing numbers of older grandparent carers will be affected by conditionality. As that age goes up, by definition more of them will come into the conditionality framework. Therefore, an unintended consequence of the changes may be that fewer family-and-friend carers will step into difficult family circumstances. The result will be an increase in the number of children in care. Clearly this would not be in the child's best interests, and would certainly translate into an increased cost to the state.
A lot of case studies have been sent to me by organisations that care about this community. I have tried to condense one powerful case study. It is a good one because it challenges the stereotype of young people. Paul is a 24 year-old man. He is the sibling carer of his six younger brothers and sisters. They were taken into care when his mother disappeared. Paul successfully secured a special guardianship order for all six children to live with him. Social workers have stated that he cannot go back to work until the youngest, now seven, is at secondary school because of what the children had been through.
Lord Freud
My Lords, without wishing to go against normal procedure, it might be valuable if I came in straightaway to say where I stand on this, because it might enable us to move the debate on if noble Lords know what I am saying before rather than afterwards.
I recognise the valuable job that families and friends, kinship carers, do and I recognise the difficult circumstances that they face. I had a recent meeting with kinship care organisations to understand their priorities. I am absolutely convinced that this is a key area and am currently looking closely at ensuring that this group is treated appropriately under the universal credit. There is ongoing work, in which I am deeply involved, on how they should be treated for conditionality purposes; and, indeed, there are other areas where we can talk to other departments. What the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said resonates with me.
Formally, there are safeguards and flexibilities for this group, and, as a minimum, family-and-friends carers are covered by the same safeguards as any other parent under universal credit; with the normal limitations against imposing full-time search and availability requirements on the carers of younger children and so on. Where the work-related requirements apply, the work-related advisers have broad discretion. However, there are circumstances where it is not reasonable to expect a person to meet even a limited work search or availability requirement. Among other things, advisers will have the scope to temporarily lift the requirements for any period when a child’s needs are such that the claimant must be able to provide full-time care. The point where the older child first moves into a household can often be a very difficult period of adjustment. There is a problem, which is not directly in the hands of DWP, with holding on to a job. That is a matter of concern, especially where you have advice, often from social workers, that the job must go. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, gave one such example. The least that will happen is that we will look at easements on a case-by-case basis, given the difficulty of having blanket rules. However, we recognise that clarity of treatment and a clear legislative exemption could be of value. As I said, I am actively considering this area, and if further legislation is required, we already have scope to make regulations, as necessary.
Given the ongoing thought that we are giving to this area, I will ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I have jumped in early so that any other noble Lords who want to discuss this area know where I am coming from, rather than trying to convince me where I should be coming from. I suspect that I will just say, “Yes, yes, yes”, to a lot of what people are going to say, so other things would be useful.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I very much welcome the positive response of the Minister and the fact that he has clearly been talking with kinship carers and thinking about how to address the issues raised by the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Drake.
I just press him on his final point about doing this on a case-by-case basis. One of the recurrent themes of our discussions is the extension of discretion. I understand the value of discretion, but as the noble Lord himself has acknowledged, it does not provide the clarity of treatment that something in legislation would do. I get the sense that there may be something in future in regulations. I cannot speak on behalf of my noble friend but it would be valuable if there could be a firm commitment before the Bill leaves this House, even if it is not in the Bill, that it will be in regulation. I will not say all that I was going to say because the noble Lord clearly does not need convincing of the importance of this issue. It is one that I have become aware of only fairly recently, partly at the all-Peers meeting where a member of a kinship carers’ association spoke to us. I was very struck by their case in the way that the Minister has clearly been.
I also want to mention, if only to get it on the record, that I was at a conference at the Law Society at the weekend on economic and social human rights. A presentation was made there by the Poverty Truth Commission from Scotland. Some of its members are people with experience of poverty, some of whom are kinship carers. I was struck that it said one of the key issues was kinship care. I will not quote as much as I was going to, but the commission states:
“Kinship carers have been supporting each other and struggling for recognition and justice for many years”.
Recognition is very important for people living in poverty. This is something I have become aware of through my work on the Commission on Poverty, Participation and Power, which also involved people with experience of poverty. The kind of amendment that my noble friend proposes would have both symbolic and practical significance. It would provide that recognition that simply saying, “We will look at it on a case-by-case basis”, would not do. Having said that, for once I can hear the ministerial nuances and I know when to say thank you very much.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I have two brief points to make. I was delighted to hear the warmth of the Minister’s response. If he is thinking about this area, perhaps I could punt two thoughts at him. First, I can see that he will be concerned that there may be a range of other circumstances that may appear similar on the face of it, where there is a disruption to the circumstance of an older child, perhaps moving house, and therefore there might be some wish to have that taken into account; for example, a family break-up where the children are suddenly moving to a different house and although the children are of school age, the disruption to the household might make the parent feel that they should stay at home; or the formation of a step-family where there is some significant upheaval in the household which might put a parent who might normally want to go out to work in that situation. If the Minister is thinking, perhaps he can think about those issues as well.
The reason he might want to think that this is a different case is that the grandparents or the other kinship carers have a choice: they do not have to take these children on.
The danger must be that they have to do so unless they have absolute assurances. That is the distinction, which is why I think there is a particularly compelling case for a legislative requirement.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
You are not allowed to demonstrate things in the House, but I now have to tear up my speech. I have never been so pleased to do so, I have to say. We should thank the Minister both for what he said and for coming in so early to make those comments. I really am going to tear it up and only add two things. One is to reconfirm what has been said. What he is looking at is undoubtedly in the best interests of the children and of the state, because it is a good investment for the future. As the Minister recognised, we are often talking about older children—I think that children over 12 make up a higher proportion of those in kinship care than those in the wider population, so perhaps we are talking about a different group here.
The only other thing I will add is that he talked about discussing this with others. My noble friend Lady Drake spoke about talking to BIS—an elegant name—about the rights-at-work issue. However, the DWP policy on kinship care is a bit out of kilter with that of the Department for Education, with the latter promoting family-and-friends care as a first option for children needing alternative care. It would therefore be useful—I am sure that the Minister has it already in mind—to talk to the DfE about these proposals. Given the involvement of local authority social work staff, who are often the brokers in setting up an arrangement that can lead to a child being taken into care, tying them in as well would be useful. Therefore, it means including the DCLG as well as the other departments to get a joined-up approach to this.
I think that the Minister used the word “clarity”. Whether kinship carers know the situation before they take the momentous decision to take in a child will be key. That probably means statutory provision rather than just guidance, to give that security to someone taking on what is often a lifetime commitment. As all noble Lords who are parents know, children do not even grow up at 18. Even 30 year-olds have not grown up. It is a lifetime commitment. We very much welcome the comments that have been made.
Baroness Drake
First, I will respond to the comments made by the Minister. I fully recognise that he has shown a real interest in this community of family-and-friend carers; and that his interest was shown before any prompting by this amendment. It seeks to ensure that his resolve stays firm and to push him firmly into including something in the Bill to address this community. I welcome his positive response this evening.
Guidance does not do it; it will not be acceptable. It may be imposed, but that is not where I, or those who are interested in this issue, want to be. Nor do we want case-by-case consideration. It does not give the clarity of treatment, the confidence, or the protection that this community should have when they take on children. I agree with my noble friend Lady Lister that if something firm could come from the Government on this before the Bill leaves the House, it would be warmly welcomed. I wish to push the Minister, between now and the appropriate stage of the Bill, to reflect on something firm that could be placed on the record.
In response to my noble friend Lady Sherlock’s point, I must be honest and say that in drafting the amendment I was conscious of balancing the needs of a community with people’s concerns about more informal arrangements for the care of the child. This amendment specifically addresses a community of carers where there is a legal order.
My noble friend is right that, particularly if parents are, for instance, taken to prison, there could be an immediate effect of children needing to be looked after, even if subsequently there is a legal process to follow. Perhaps the Minister could reflect on the weakness of my amendment, which I will address at a later stage.
Lord Freud
If I can wrap up, in anticipation of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, wrapping up: I take on board the points. In fact I make a point which should cheer up noble Lords, in that the DWP process is more flexible than these legal orders. We can do things to support kinship carers without this huge paraphernalia, and that is one of the areas I am looking at. We can do it just by understanding that that is where the child is, and we do not need all these processes.
In that way, we are doing something way ahead of the concerns of this particular amendment. I know I am being pushed; I am not sure about timing, because of negotiations, but I can do something narrow. To the extent that we want to go broader for this community, these things take time but I am on the case. That is all I can say.
Baroness Drake
At the request of the Minister that I wrap up, I duly wrap up, and agree to withdraw my amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Regulations shall prescribe how these regulations would operate, and impact on members of a couple.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
This is another set of amendments that are probing amendments only, and should be straightforward for the Minister. It may be easier for him to commit to write. The probe is about getting clarity on conditionality and couples. It relates to the whole hierarchy of the circumstances where there is no work-related requirement, there are work-focused interview requirements, work preparation, work search and work availability.
We understand that the principle is that each member of a couple will have an independent conditionality determined according to their circumstances, although there will be situations—for example, for couples with young children between the ages of five and 12—where couples can nominate a principal carer to be treated as a lone parent for conditionality purposes. That seems to be the situation as I understand it, even in circumstances where the one with the more onerous conditionality requirements can opt for that position. As we discussed earlier, this is notwithstanding that the joint income of the couple is taken into account; for example, in determining whether the conditionality threshold is reached. Sanctions will apply on an individual basis but obviously will be withheld from the couple claim.
There are doubtless all sorts of other nuances in this. I am just keen to get clarity on all of those things. If it is easier for the Minister to write, so be it but if he has got something there, that would be good. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, given the time, rather than try to rush the next amendment, instead of writing I will go through the answers on this probing amendment.
As we increase support to make work pay, it is right that, where they are able, individual claimants do everything they reasonably can to find or prepare for work. In the current system, the support people can access and the requirements they have to meet depend to too great an extent on the benefit they or their partner claim. In the out-of-work benefits it is often the case that one member of a couple makes the claim and will be subject to conditionality. But their partner is not really considered and is not subject to any meaningful conditionality; for example, the partner of an ESA claimant may be fully capable of work but we do not ask them to take steps to find employment. Clearly this cannot be right.
Under universal credit we want to change this. We want to encourage and support all claimants who can work to take all reasonable steps to do so. Consequently, under universal credit conditionality will be applied to claimants on an individual basis. We will be able to ask each member of a couple, in a benefit unit that falls under the conditionality threshold, to meet work-related requirements. These will be tailored in line with their personal capability and circumstances. This includes taking account of any physical or mental conditions or caring responsibilities an individual may have.
Where a couple have children, they will be able to choose a nominated carer who will have access to the same limitations to requirements as a lone parent; for example, where the child is under five the nominated carer will fall into the group subject to a work-focused interview requirement only. Where they are work-ready, the other member of the couple will fall into the group subject to all work-related requirements and be expected to look and be available for work. As indicated in the policy briefing note published on work search and availability requirements, a couple may choose not to nominate, allowing scope for couples to share childcare and work responsibilities.
We are carefully considering the detail of how the nomination process will be implemented and, where necessary, we have scope to draft regulations. However, we do not believe any additional regulations are necessary to operate a conditionality regime where requirements are applied to claimants as individuals. To try and spell out in legislation all the permutations of different couples’ requirements would be complicated and inflexible. I hope I have explained the context of this adequately. If there are other issues, we can go to writing but I thought it was worth getting the core of this on the record. On this basis, I beg the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I know that noble Lords will want to go on but I have to disappoint them. I suggest that this would be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee until 3.30 pm on Tuesday.
House of Lords
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Elections: Registration
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government’s approach reflects the fact that it is not an offence not to be registered under the current system. This will not change under the new system. The offence of not providing information to an electoral registration officer—for example, when making a household enquiry—will be retained. It will not be extended to require an individual to apply to be registered.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, as far as it goes. He will know that at least 3 million of our fellow citizens, and probably more, already are not registered to vote at all. The independent Electoral Commission is of the view that if registering to vote becomes a voluntary activity, as the White Paper proposes, the result could be that up to 10 million people will fall off the electoral register, and that rates could fall in some areas from 90 per cent down to 65 per cent. Up to 35 per cent of the adult population could be disenfranchised. Is such a consequence acceptable in a mature democracy? Does the Minister agree that if such an event were to happen, no longer could we claim to the world, as we can today, that in Britain we live in a democratic country?
Lord McNally
My Lords, of course it is not acceptable; but neither is it acceptable for a mature political party to go round shroud-waving on a conclusion which involved joint deliberation by the parties that the old system had become increasingly distrusted and that voluntary registration—which would eliminate, or do a lot to eliminate, fraud, and create greater public confidence in the system—should be the way forward. The way forward proposed in the White Paper gives enough guarantees and assurances to show that the kind of language that the noble Lord has just used is, quite frankly, scare tactics which are not worthy of him or his party.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, coming from a country where voting is compulsory, I can understand why it should be compulsory to be on the register. However, as voting is voluntary in this country, what is the difference between not wishing to vote and not wishing to register? Can the Minister please clarify?
Lord McNally
Unlike in Australia, not wishing to vote remains an inalienable right of the British people. Registering is a civic duty and we hope that it will increasingly be seen as such. I certainly hope that over the next few years all the political parties will embrace the idea of an individual register and use their influence to ensure that people exercise their right. Of course, once people are on the register they will retain their right not to vote.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, on the question of shroud-waving, will the noble Lord explain to us why, when this stupid system was introduced in Northern Ireland, the registration of voters totally collapsed? Why did that happen?
Lord McNally
Perhaps someone from Northern Ireland will intervene, but, again, the language is not borne out by the facts. It did not totally collapse. In this gradual process that we are bringing forward, we are learning from the examples and lessons of the Northern Ireland experience, as well as looking at some of the practices that are going on there now. Northern Ireland votes are a standard joke but we are now learning lessons about voluntary registration and its success in Northern Ireland.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, the existing system, whereby householders can in theory be prosecuted for failing to return their registration forms, has not worked, largely for the simple reason that no one can tell who the responsible householder is in households with more than person. Therefore, does not individual registration offer a good opportunity at least to consider a meaningful compulsory system, and is that not important, given that the electoral register determines not just the right to vote but also the call-up for jury service?
Lord McNally
Those are very valid points. To put the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, into perspective, I again emphasise that the annual canvass will continue to support the maintenance of the electoral register. Significant work, including public awareness campaigns by the Electoral Commission, will be funded in 2014-15 to manage the transition to individual electoral registration. In both those years, door-to-door canvassing will be used by electoral registration officers as part of a wide suite of powers to encourage people to register to vote. This is a step forward against electoral fraud. Instead of making emotional interventions, it would be good if the Labour Party would endorse it and get on with encouraging people to register.
Lord Wills
My Lords, all the evidence that I saw when I was the Minister responsible for these matters in the previous Government suggests that the introduction of individual registration, no matter how desirable for other reasons, is going to carry with it severe risks that millions of otherwise eligible voters will fall off the register. That is why, when the previous Government introduced this measure, they locked it into the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register. It is also why the Conservative shadow Minister at the time said on the Floor of the other place that,
“we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register … is paramount ... I do not intend to vote against these Government amendments because … I believe that it is right to take this matter forward carefully and step by step”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/07/09; col. 108.]
The Liberal Democrats also supported this approach. Can the Minister please tell your Lordships what new evidence he has seen that has persuaded him that the careful approach adopted by the previous Government and supported by both main parties in opposition is now wrong?
Lord McNally
We are going forward by learning from the lessons and experience of Northern Ireland.
Lord McNally
I am answering the question. From some of the questions, you would not believe that we will be having a two-year period in which we will be taking a belt-and-braces approach with the present system running in parallel and with every opportunity for democratic organisations and others to persuade people voluntarily to go on the electoral register and exercise their civic duty. The answer is that we have decided on a belt-and-braces approach, which will allow a smooth transition to a new scheme. It is a perfectly sensible approach, which draws on some of the experiences of the previous Government. I think that the Labour Party is being disgraceful on this. It should get on with recruiting members and persuading people to register to vote instead of using these scare tactics, which, quite frankly, are not worthy of it.
Saudi Arabia: Driving Licences
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the recognition of Saudi Arabian driving licences in the United Kingdom.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, no consideration has been given to the exchange of Saudi Arabian driving licences in the UK. Consideration would be given only after an approach has come from the Government of Saudi Arabia to recognise their driving licences. To date, no such approach has been made.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am slightly confused by the Minister’s Answer. My understanding is that Saudi Arabian driving licences are valid in this country for up to a year for Saudi Arabian citizens. As he will be aware, Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world to make it a criminal offence for women to drive. Recently, a sentence of 10 lashes was handed out to a woman driver, although that was later commuted. Will the Minister consider the current position? Will he look at whether the UK recognition of Saudi Arabian driving licences for a year should be withheld until driving licences are available to all citizens and not just to male citizens? Can he discuss with his Foreign Office colleagues what action can be taken by the British Government to raise concerns about the Saudi Arabian Government’s position on this appalling discrimination?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, on the substantive question about recognition or non-recognition of Saudi driving licences, the noble Baroness will recognise that we are under a treaty obligation in terms of the international circulation order. However, we welcome King Abdullah’s overturning of the recent sentence of lashing for a woman convicted of driving. It is well known that this Government, like their predecessor, have particular concern about some aspects of human rights protection in Saudi Arabia, most notably women’s rights. The UK has consistently called for women in Saudi Arabia to be able to participate fully in society. That means removing legal and cultural barriers, like the guardianship system and the ban on women driving.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, of course, has nothing to do with theology or Islam and has everything to do with the desire of men in Saudi Arabia to remain guardians of women—in other words, discrimination? Will he tell the House how the United Kingdom voted when Saudi Arabia was elected on to the executive board of UN Women, the agency for gender equality and empowerment for women? If he does not have the answer with him, perhaps he might write to me saying how the UK voted?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me quite a detailed question, and I am afraid that I shall have to write to her.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, as the Arab spring is showing some buds even in Saudi Arabia, with regard to the participation of women on the Consultative Council, could the Government at least indicate to the Saudi Government that, from our experience, women are safer drivers than men?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that when we talk to the Saudi Arabian Government, we make that point.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, surely the noble Lord could say straight to the Saudi Arabian Government, “We are not going to enter into these negotiations until you allow all women of the right age and with the right experience to be able to drive in Saudi Arabia and we will not accept those licences in this country until that is achieved”.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I think the best way of achieving our objective—I think we are clear about our objective—is to apply steady, consistent pressure to states like Saudi Arabia. We will not get them to roll over overnight. No doubt the Saudis give us friendly advice about, for instance, underage drinking and other cultural matters.
Public Disorder: Restorative Justice
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are considering the use of restorative justice in dealing with the riots in August.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, we are committed to delivering more restorative justice. We want to ensure that victims of the riots have a chance to explain the impact on them and that offenders face up to the consequences.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I thank the Minister for that response. Would he agree that restorative justice schemes have resulted in victim satisfaction and cost-benefit analysis, and that reoffending has been reduced by such schemes? Would he say how many such schemes there are and whether they will be rolled out more extensively?
Lord McNally
Initially there were three such schemes. There have been about 60 enquiries about restorative justice, and we are very keen to roll out the schemes as quickly as possible. In response to the recent riots, there have been elements of restorative justice in both London and Manchester. I assure the noble Baroness that it is an element of the criminal justice system that we are very eager to learn lessons from and to expand.
Baroness Sharples
Would the Minister tell us why the courts in Westminster have closed?
Lord McNally
I am taking a wild guess here. I think it is probably because we have opened a new Westminster court at the other end of town. I am trying to remember the name of the road, but just along from Baker Street—
Lord McNally
Marylebone Road. Thank you. I am about to give the right answer now. I appreciate how convenient it was for Members of both Houses to be in Horseferry Road, but in fact they now have to go to a splendid new court in Marylebone Road.
Baroness Trumpington
Is the Minister aware that the Horseferry Road courts, which I presume are the ones he is talking about—in which I sat as a magistrate for several years, although never, I regret to say, when the noble Lord was present—were new buildings and new courts?
Lord McNally
I think I would prefer Judge Jeffreys rather than the thought of being up before the noble Baroness. Again, I will write with full details, but I suspect that under the previous Administration—
Lord McNally
No. The Marylebone Road building is a very fine building and will be a great credit to the system, but I presume that we will be redeveloping the Horseferry Road site to the benefit of the taxpayer.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, will the Minister inform the House about the extent to which restorative justice has been used in sentencing young people under the age of 18 as a result of the riots in August?
Lord McNally
I will have to write to the noble Baroness with the specific details but I know that it has been used much more in recent times, and with good reason. It is interesting that Resolution, the magazine of the restorative justice system, reported an ICM poll after the riots that said 88 per cent of victims thought that restorative justice should be used and 94 per cent said that offenders should be held responsible for the repair and harm caused to victims. Restorative justice, when it is effectively used both as a punishment and as a rehabilitation measure has been shown to be much more effective in securing non-reoffending than sending to secure accommodation. I will write to the noble Baroness with the facts that bear out that assertion.
The Lord Bishop of London
In the light of the events in August and of the substantial reductions in the youth service in most London boroughs and other places, do the Government have any plans to assist those voluntary organisations with a proven track record in engaging with hard-to-reach young people, many of whom were involved in the events of August? I am thinking of organisations such as XLP.
Lord McNally
Within the budget constraints that affect both central and local government, we are looking to the voluntary sector to continue to play a part in this area. Where and when we can make resources available, we will do so. There is no doubt that where the voluntary sector, including churches, plays a positive role in a community, the impact on such issues as vandalism and small-scale crime is very favourable, so we will certainly be keeping that in mind.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, does he see any tension or contradiction between his declared support for restorative justice and the attitude taken by the courts to many of those who were caught up in the riots?
Lord McNally
Possibly. In the end, it must be the courts, the judges and the magistrates who determine sentencing. It was right that the courts took into account in some of those sentences the fact that the offences occurred in the process of a riot. The riot was a legitimate factor for the courts to take into account in determining sentencing. In the broad sweep of things, I believe, as I indicated to the noble Baroness, that the evidence is that proper restorative justice that has a real impact on the offender is more effective in avoiding repeat offences than sending the offender to a young offender institution. I hope that we can develop a sentencing policy that is based on the facts and what works rather than on knee-jerk reactions.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, given the successes of restorative justice, how widely are the principles being used and taught in pupil referral units and, more widely, in schools to enable young people to know that they have to take responsibility for their own actions?
Lord McNally
Increasingly so. This is one of the things that most attract me and others to the idea of restorative justice bringing the offender face to face with the victim. We are being very careful in consulting victims and victims’ organisations about how restorative justice fits into this. There is no doubt that sometimes a face-to-face meeting between the offender and the victim has a beneficial effect on both. On the other hand, you do not want a system that revisits on the victim a trauma from which they have recovered. In that respect, we are, I hope, being sensitive. People genuinely want to see restorative justice that has an element of real punishment and real work in it to win public confidence in the exercise.
Lord Imbert
My Lords, does the Minister agree that victim satisfaction, which is one of the cornerstones of restorative justice, is the most important factor in justice at any level?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I agree entirely. One of the things that we are consulting on, working on and hoping to bring forward a paper on shortly is the greater involvement of victims in the justice process. Since it was the noble Lord, Lord Imbert, who asked the question, I also find that the buy-in by police to restorative justice is another factor that gives me encouragement that it is the right way forward.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I understand that HMIC is looking at the riots to learn lessons for the police about the handling of riots in the future. When will that report be coming out and will it be freely available for people to see?
Lord McNally
I would sincerely hope so. There are, as the noble Lord will know, a number of cross-Government studies as well. I would hope, again, that those are published, because I think it is important that we have a proper, healthy debate, based on the facts, to show us the way forward after the summer disturbances.
St Paul’s Cathedral
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to offer St Paul’s Cathedral any assistance in maintaining the right of access and passage to the cathedral.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, of which St Paul’s is a member.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, everybody has a right to peaceful protest, but that right comes with responsibilities, including respecting the rights of others. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has asked protestors to leave and so enable the cathedral to reopen. The Government believe that the protestors should comply with this request. The police are working closely with the cathedral as they monitor the situation, and the Government are being kept informed of developments.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but there is a clear difference between a normal protest and a permanent encampment. For some years we have had the national embarrassment, which still continues, of the permanent encampment in Parliament Square. Now we have a situation where one of our major cathedrals, an icon, is closed and the surrounding traders are suffering severely. Is it not time that the Government actually came out on this and took new powers to deal with these permanent encampments? If they are not dealt with at this stage, I fear that they will spread.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the two issues are slightly different because the ownership of the land involved in Parliament Square and at St Paul’s is different: at Parliament Square the land belongs to the local authority whereas at St Paul’s it belongs to the church and the City of London. We have taken measures to deal with the Parliament Square problem, which were covered in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and I hope that we will be able to deal with that problem shortly. As regards dealing with demonstrations of this sort on private land, I note what my noble friend says about the need to look at changes in the law. Certainly, if problems like this persist, and if we have problems like this that are likely to disrupt the Olympics or whatever, it is certainly something the Government will have to look at in due course.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, should not the protestors be told clearly that they have made their point and that the longer they stay the more they will possibly alienate public opinion, losing potential supporters in the process? They would be far better to leave in a dignified manner, having made their point clearly.
Lord Henley
I agree totally with the noble Lord. The right reverend Prelate has made that point; the Government have made that point; others will make that point. I think it is time for them to pack up their tents and go, but we have no power to get them to go while they are on private land.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that what is needed is not action “in due course” but action now?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I note what my noble friend has to say, but this is on private land and therefore it is a matter for the owners of that land to deal with it. We do not have the powers to deal with it at the moment, but as I said in response to the original Question from my noble friend, obviously if we continue to have problems of this sort, this is something we will have to consider.
Lord Richard
My Lords, the noble Lord in an earlier answer referred to Parliament Square, on which he said that action would be taken shortly. We all know what “shortly” means: it can mean either “some time in the future, perhaps, when we get round to it”, or “we are on the verge of taking action now, and it will happen fairly soon”. Is it the first or the second?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, when a Minister, has used the word “shortly” before now. We all do use it from time to time. The noble Lord will also be aware that we have given ourselves powers in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Those powers need to be brought into effect. I cannot confirm precisely when, and that is why I used the word “shortly”, which the noble Lord will be familiar with.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have an office in Paternoster Square. Is my noble friend aware that the police thermal imaging cameras in the helicopters flying over this camp have revealed that during the night there are very few people in these tents and that they go off home or go off to live in hotels? Is this not making the stage laugh at the audience? Do we not need to recognise this for what it is, which is a disruption and not a legitimate protest, and to take the powers necessary rather than getting involved in arguments about who owns the property? This is a clear disruption of the life of the city and the life of the cathedral, and the Government must act.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I am very grateful to him for pointing out that the protesters seem to be very much what might be described as part-time protesters. The sad thing is that this is on private land. Therefore, it is not a matter for the Government to intervene. It is a matter for the owners of that land, which, in this case, is the dean and chapter, to take the appropriate action. As I have said, obviously we have to look at the future and I was very grateful for the comments made by my noble friend in his supplementary question in terms of whether we need to change the law to deal with further problems later.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the right to peaceful protest. Is there not also a right to worship in a church when one wants to do so?
Lord Henley
My Lords, of course there is a right to worship but it is a matter for the church authorities to decide whether they can open that church or not. I do not answer at this Dispatch Box for the church. It was the dean and chapter who decided on grounds of health and safety—whether that was right or not is a matter for them to argue—that they could not continue to open the church. That is not a matter for the Government.
Lord Elton
My Lords, is not an empty tent litter, whether it is on public property or private property, that can be removed without further legislation?
Lord Henley
My noble friend makes an interesting point. Whether an empty tent is litter is a matter that I am not going to argue now. I go back to the principle that this is something on private property and, therefore, is not something on which the Government currently have powers to intervene.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, we have had a very good Question Time and the clock is now at 30 minutes. Perhaps we should go on to the next business.
Privileges and Conduct
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That Baroness Scotland of Asthal be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Graham of Edmonton, resigned.
Dog Control Bill [HL]
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, before we pass the noble Lord’s Bill to the other place, I am reminded that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Report in June stated that he might have some more to say at Third Reading. Seeing the new Minister in his place, perhaps I may ask him if he would like to say a few words more.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, I think the House knows that it is not customary for the House to debate the resolution that the Bill do now pass. Given my noble friend Lord Henley’s commitment to say something at Third Reading, I will briefly update the House.
I hope that I can reassure all noble Lords that I understand their concerns about dog control. However, the Government cannot support this Bill. My noble friend Lord Henley had been working on a comprehensive package of measures to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership. I continue to carry on his good work, including meetings with key stakeholders, and I hope to announce this package shortly.
Lord Redesdale
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. This is not the first time that I have brought this Bill before Parliament. Obviously, I brought it while the Opposition were the Government and I did not get a great deal of satisfaction at that point. I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps I may also thank the very large number of people who are incredibly committed to making sure that we have a safer environment, including those people working with the dog-owning community, police officers and, especially, organisations such as the Battersea Dogs & Cats Home which have to deal with this growing problem. I very much hope that, in going to the House of Commons, this Bill will get a fair wind. I beg to move.
Education Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:42 - Division on Amendment 70A - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 235 - Amendment 70A disagreed.
17:52 - Division on Amendment 76 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 204 - Amendment 76 disagreed.
19:03 - Division on Amendment 78 - Ayes: 141 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 78 disagreed.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“( ) In section 88I (other functions of adjudicator relating to admission arrangements), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) (and the “or” preceding it).”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, after our discussions about admissions on Monday, I move to a number of government amendments which achieve two important things. The first introduces an important new clause that makes it possible for anyone to object to a school’s admission arrangements by referring an objection to the office of the schools adjudicator. His duty to consider all concerns that are raised to him in this way remains. This new clause builds on Clause 62, which extends the adjudicator’s remit to include all academies and free schools so that admissions to all state-funded schools will be covered by the same organisation. Our other amendments relate to the issue we discussed on Monday about national oversight of and accountability for the admissions system. Our Clause 34 would have removed a duty on local authorities to send their annual report on admissions in their area to the adjudicator. This is because in the statutory code we are placing that duty on local authorities to report locally to local people.
However, during Committee I listened with care to noble Lords’ concerns about the adjudicator not getting these reports to help flesh out his and the Secretary of State’s national picture on admissions. Noble Lords were worried that, without these reports, the adjudicator would see admissions only where things have gone wrong or might have gone wrong whereas these reports also set out the areas where things are going right, which is the vast majority. Noble Lords were concerned that this would remove a thread of accountability running from schools through local authorities through the adjudicator to the Secretary of State, which was not our intention. So we are addressing that concern with Amendments 64 to 67. They place a duty on local authorities to send their reports to the adjudicator in addition to being published locally. This will ensure his national oversight and he will continue to be able to take these reports into account when deciding whether to investigate a school’s admission arrangements. I hope that noble Lords will agree that our moves on admissions are aimed at achieving and promoting fair access and that these amendments will help achieve that end. I beg to move.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to my letter about these amendments and for the Keeling schedule which helps us to understand the impact of these further amendments. I welcome the moves that he has made and those new measures that he has just described. However, I would welcome clarification on two points before we get to Third Reading. In his letter to me in relation to my query about possibly seeing the draft regulations relating to these measures, the Minister says he believes that the admissions code should be the prime document and that regulations merely reflect the code rather than being a separate source of guidance. But the measures, even as amended in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, provide for regulations which may make provision,
“as to any conditions which must be satisfied before … an objection can be referred to the adjudicator under subsection (2) or … the adjudicator is required to determine an objection referred to him”.
I understand that to mean that, in addition to the admissions code, which will not go into such matters, any regulations coming forward can stipulate conditions that parents or, as the Minister said, any person or body—including the local authority— must meet before making an objection to a school’s admissions procedure. As we have not seen the draft regulations, we have no idea of the conditions that the Government may be thinking of imposing. They could create additional hurdles for people to overcome before they can avail themselves of the opportunities to object to admission authorities’ policy and practices that the government amendments have created for them. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that my understanding is correct and, if so, what conditions the Government may be thinking of including in regulations. It is important that we have an idea of those before this matter is decided.
Lord Touhig
Subsection (2)(a) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 69 broadens the range of persons who can object to a school’s admission arrangements. That seems to leave the door open to people who have no direct interest in a school’s admissions policy to be able to object. What will the Government do to prevent these vexatious objections?
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, has made. I know that great concern has been expressed outside your Lordships' House that the provision could give rise to vexatious complaints being made by groups who have no interest whatever in the school concerned. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that will not be the case.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it remains our intention to bring the new codes into force from February 2012. While there is no legal requirement for us to publish a further draft of the code, we intend to do so as quickly as possible, with a planned date of 31 October. Alongside those draft codes, we expect to publish draft regulations and to consult on them for four weeks ahead of laying the codes formally before Parliament on 1 December. I would be very happy to share a set of the draft regulations with the noble Baroness so that she can see them in good time.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Is it possible to see those draft regulations before Third Reading so that that issue is clarified before the Bill is finally disposed of?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I understand the point. Let me check where we have got to on the draft regulations and come back to the noble Baroness, if I may.
To clarify the point about binding the judgment of the adjudicator and what happens if the admissions authority does not do what the adjudicator says, the judgment of the adjudicator is final and legally binding. It cannot be ignored. The school or local authority must implement that decision without undue delay or find itself in breach of the statutory duty to have admissions arrangements compliant with the code. If they fail to do that, they risk judicial review or direction by the Secretary of State.
So the adjudicator’s ruling is binding. The difference is that instead of the current situation whereby the adjudicator specifies how the admissions authority must change its arrangements to comply with his ruling, his ruling will still be binding and it will be the duty of the admissions authority to comply with his ruling and change their admissions arrangements to make sure that they are compliant.
I take the point raised by the two noble Lords about vexatious complaints. We are proposing to put in place a couple of safeguards. First, the adjudicator would not have to reconsider his decision if someone were putting in repeated allegations and accusations on which he had already decided. Secondly, we are making it clear that there cannot be anonymous allegations of that sort to try to ensure that the system works properly.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Objections to admission arrangements
(1) Section 88H of SSFA 1998 (reference of objections to adjudicator) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “an appropriate person” substitute “a body or person”;(b) after “that” insert “body or”.(3) Omit subsection (3).
(4) In subsection (4) omit “or (3)”.
(5) In subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a)(i) omit “or (3)”;(b) in paragraph (a)(ii) for “(3)” substitute “(2)”;(c) in paragraph (c) omit “or (3)”; (d) in paragraph (d) omit “or (3)”.(6) Omit subsection (6).
(7) In section 88K of SSFA 1998 (sections 88H to 88J: supplementary), for subsection (2)(b) substitute—
“(b) any other person or body.””
“(1) Where a new school is to be established there should be local determination as to the appropriate category of new school, based on a local assessment of need and local consultation, including with parents and the local authority.
(2) The category of the new school shall not be presumed prior to the assessment of need and consultation with parents in subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State shall not provide a funding incentive which supports one category of school over another.”
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, Clause 36 introduces a new presumption that every new school in the future will be an academy. The clause further restricts the power of local authorities to determine what is the most appropriate type of school when a new school is needed. Under the clause, before publishing proposals for a competition for the establishment of a new school, the local authority must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State or the local authority with the consent of the Secretary of State to halt such a competition at an early first stage before the closing date for proposals to be submitted. The clause means that academy proposals in that process will no longer need to be submitted to local authorities for approval but will instead be referred directly to the Secretary of State for him to decide if he wishes to enter into academy arrangements with the proposer. The clause places a duty on local authorities to seek proposals for the establishment of an academy if a new school is needed, not any other type of school. It specifically denies the local authority the ability to publish any of its own proposals for a new foundation or community school in a Section 7 competition.
The Government's proposals essentially do three things. First, if a new school is needed in an area, they skew the whole process massively so that academies have an immediate head start over other types of school through this presumption, which will be enshrined in law. Secondly, they mean that a local community school is possible only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. Thirdly, they limit the role of the local authority and parents to have a say in the type of school, according to local need and the best fit with the local school system. At the very least, this appears to fly in the face of the localism agenda that the Government appear to be promoting elsewhere, but also it seems wrong in principle. Clause 36, with the presumption in favour of academies for every new school, gets to the very heart of the Government’s intentions and presents the most profound change and challenge to our education system.
As we have noted before, the Government’s vision is that eventually every school should be an academy. This clause will apply to primary schools, secondary schools, special schools, every kind of school—all schools as academies with power to determine their own admissions, and no formal links with local authorities or other schools. It is Death by default of local community schools leading potentially to thousands of atomised schools all linked, in theory, to the Secretary of State though in practice the Secretary of State and his officials could not possibly manage effectively so many relationships. Therefore schools will, to all intents and purposes, be free floating. The significance of Clause 36 cannot be overstated.
Amendments 70A and 73A seek simply to create a level playing field. Amendment 70A would mean that where a new school needs to be established, there should be local determination as to the category of school based on an assessment of local need and consultation, including with parents; that the category or type of new school would not be presumed prior to that consultation and assessment; and that the Secretary of State shall not provide any funding incentive which supports one category of school over another. Amendment 73A would consequently remove Schedule 12 to the Bill.
When this was discussed in Grand Committee, the Minister told us that the provisions do not mean that every new school would be an academy, but as the Bill stands any proposal for a new school would go forward only if a satisfactory academy solution could not be found. In that situation, the local authority would then be required by the Secretary of State to run a competition that includes the possibility of different kinds of schools. It is only if the second stage of the process fails that the local authority could bring forward proposals for a community school. The dice are loaded heavily in favour of academies and against local community schools, which can go forward only as a last resort. Our amendments would remove that presumption, restore neutrality between the appropriateness of different kinds of schools for different situations, and allow the decision to be made locally on the basis of what is best for the children and families in that area.
The presumption also seems to restrict parental choice, both in the decision about the type of school needed and in moving, in time, to one type of school only—the academy. The Government profess to be in favour of parental choice. Nick Gibb in the other place said that the intention behind Schedule 12 is,
“to increase parental choice by diversifying provisions and ensuring that parents have a genuine choice of school to which they send their children”.—[Official Report, Commons, Education Bill Committee 29/3/11; col. 790.]
It is difficult to see how these proposals succeed in that objective. By contrast, our amendments would put parents at the centre of decision-making and thereby ensure a wider range of types of school—more diversity in the system—by not presuming there is a one-size-fits-all solution, the academy. This seems to us to be a more mature approach and a fairer approach, opening up all options equally for local people to consider.
I hope that these amendments will be given the support of the House, particularly from those noble Lords across all Benches who, while open to the potential of academies to improve standards—as indeed I am and my colleagues are—do not believe that academies are necessarily the best and the only solution in every situation, and who want to see local involvement in decisions about new schools. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, somewhat incongruously, my proposed new clause, which follows the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, refers to the closure of schools, whereas her speech and the clause that she is addressing refer to the opening of new schools. The proposed new clause removes the presumption in the existing guidance on the closing of schools that there should be no reduction in the proportion of denominational places in the area when consideration is being given to a school closure.
The Department for Education says that the current guidance, which is not on its website because it reflects the current legal position, may not reflect current government policy because it is to be replaced shortly by revised interim guidance. But the department does not intend to revise the section of the present guidance which provides in paragraph 4.32 that:
“The Decision Maker should not normally approve the closure of a school with a religious character where the proposal would result in a reduction in the proportion of denominational places in the area”.
The department says in an e-mail about the guidance that there is no special protection for denominational provision in the guidance inasmuch as it,
“simply requires that due consideration should be made when deciding closure proposals for denominational provision”.
The e-mail continues:
“It does not say that no such school should close, especially if the faith body supports the proposals, and particularly if the school concerned is severely under-subscribed, standards have been consistently low, or where an amalgamation of existing provision is proposed”.
In other words, where normal conditions do not apply, the guidance allows the closure of a school with a religious character, a proposition with which we do not seek to argue. What we are talking about in this proposed new clause is the closure of a school where there are no exceptional conditions. The Department for Education goes on to say that,
“if you are preserving the balance of denominational provision, you are likewise preserving the percentage of non-denominational provision i.e. if you remove a non-denominational school from the system, there is also an option to remove denominational provision and vice-versa if adding provision, as otherwise the balance has increased in favour of denominational provision”.
What this appears to be saying, if I have deciphered it correctly—I must appeal to the Minister to confirm my interpretation—is that within a given area the guidance does not have the effect of monotonically increasing the proportion of religious places in the schools. The closure of a secular school by itself is permissible, but the closure of a religious school is allowed only under the specified unusual conditions.
Let us see how the guidance works out in a particular area, the Freshwater and Totland area of the Isle of Wight. The council decided to reduce the provision of primary school places in the area because the number of pupils in reception had fallen significantly below the available reception places in the area over a whole decade. The closure of one of the three schools in the area was the solution, and in the council’s discussion of which it was to be, the headline argument in the case of the two religious schools was the guidance already quoted. The council said in each case that the guidance was clear, as indeed it was in this case, that the decision-maker would not approve the closure of either the Catholic or the Church of England school because to do so would reduce the proportion of denominational places in the area. The fact that closing the only community school in a 12-mile radius in the west of the Isle of Wight meant that the proportion of non-denominational places in the area was reduced to zero was neither here nor there in terms of the guidance.
It must be acknowledged that in the absence of paragraph 4.32 already quoted there were other reasons why the non-religious school might have drawn the short straw in this area, but if the three schools had been equally popular and of equal standards that paragraph would have been instrumental in reaching the decision. It certainly amounts to special protection for schools with a religious character where there is a need to close one school out of several in an area, other things being equal. This amendment seeks to create a level playing field for all schools when closures are being considered.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 70C in this group, which would remove subsections (3) and (4) of new Section 6A as inserted by Schedule 11. Subsection (3) introduces a requirement for a local authority to seek the Secretary of State’s approval before proceeding with an alternative model of school to an academy. Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to terminate the process.
It is very important that we do not reduce the ability of local parents, education providers and councils to respond quickly and effectively to new demand, and that local choice and diversity of provision are maintained. We all know that there is likely to be a big increase in demand for primary schools over the next three to four years. That will create a sudden boom in demand for pupil places and it is very important that we do not cause any delay in allowing councils to provide those places. My noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this in Grand Committee and she has given me permission to mention her name today although she is not able to be in her place.
Councils’ primary concern when encouraging new provision in their areas should, of course, be the needs of parents. If local parents do not want new schools to be established as academies, councils should be able to retain the option to reflect parental demand without having to approach the Secretary of State for permission. My concern, and that of my noble friend Lady Ritchie, is that the requirement within this schedule risks the creation of a potentially burdensome process, which could restrict the ability of local communities to respond quickly to demand. I was very interested to receive a copy of a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, dated 20 October, in which the Minister points out:
“Schedule 11 removes this consent requirement from certain kinds of proposals. These comprise proposals for new primary schools where they are replacing infant and junior schools, proposals for new voluntary aided schools, proposals for new faith schools resulting from the reorganisation of faith provision in an area, and proposals for a new school resulting from a faith school changing or losing its religious character.”
At the bottom of page one, the Minister says:
“We are removing the requirement on the basis that it is additional and unnecessary bureaucracy.”
If it is an additional and unnecessary bureaucracy for those kinds of schools, why not for all?
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 71, 72 and 73. First, I thank the Minister for his conscientious response to the last stage of this Bill. He has sent out a number of letters explaining the policy, which I found very useful. Indeed, the letter he sent to me referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave some reassurances on the amendments I am going to speak to.
My main concern is that some measures proposed by the Bill may further fragment education on the basis of religion or belief. I have serious concerns about how the Bill makes voluntary-aided faith schools the easiest type of school to set up. I am also concerned about voluntary-controlled schools converting to academies, then being able to choose to increase their religious discrimination in admissions.
Currently, when a proposer wishes, for whatever reason, to establish a new foundation, voluntary-controlled or aided, or foundation special school outside of a competition, they need the consent of the Secretary of State. Following consent, the local authority runs a consultation on the proposals. The Bill, if passed in its current form, will change this, as I understand it, so that consent from the Secretary of State would no longer be needed for voluntary-aided schools, but it would still be needed for foundation, voluntary-controlled and foundation special schools.
I see some problems here. Almost all voluntary-aided schools—99 per cent of them—are faith schools. Admissions are determined by the school, which can discriminate against all pupils on religious grounds. In voluntary-controlled schools, local authorities set admissions and only about a quarter of local authorities have chosen to allow some or all of their voluntary-controlled schools to discriminate religiously, either in whole or in part.
Mr Gove has made it clear that he wishes to make it easier to set up voluntary-aided schools, which can discriminate. Such a school can use a religious test in appointing, remunerating or promoting all teachers, and even some non-teaching staff. In voluntary-controlled and foundation schools, this is only one-fifth of the teachers. The religious organisation sets the religious education curriculum in accordance with the tenets of the faith of such a school. In voluntary-controlled and foundation schools, the locally agreed syllabus is usually taught, which is not confessional to a particular faith. The religious organisation appoints more than half the governors there. In voluntary-controlled and many foundation schools, it is a quarter. While I thank the Minister again for his letter, my concerns are still not diminished and I shall watch developments on this issue very carefully.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, will think carefully before agreeing with the premises which have been laid before your Lordships' House this afternoon. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I always feel some trepidation in opposing anything that he says, because he has been a noble friend in many respects for a long time. He knows that at 17 years of age I said—and I would never resile on it—that if ever I found myself elected to the other place, I hoped that I would be a Member of Parliament like him. I have always admired the positions that the noble Lord takes on many issues, and continue to do so.
Yet the noble Lord knows that a debate has also been under way in his party for a long time about faith schools per se. Indeed, it was the then Education spokesman in another place, Mr Don Foster MP, who said—I believe these were his exact words—that in an ideal world there would be no schools of a religious character. I know that the noble Lord agrees with that proposition, but it is one I fundamentally disagree with. I suppose I should declare an interest as someone who has been educated in faith schools and whose own children have gone through faith schools. I am also the governor of a faith school and I passionately believe that those who wish to opt for that kind of education for themselves or for their children should be free to do so.
There is not the problem, as the noble Lord suggested, of such schools being undersubscribed; they are of course oversubscribed. That is the problem in many parts of the country. I would say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on the possibility of creating new faith schools. In parts of London there are large faith communities—for instance, of Polish people or people from the African and Asian communities—and in the Borough of Richmond, for instance, a petition has been laid before the council urging the creation of a new faith school. To restrict the opportunity to do that would be to deprive us of something special.
This is an issue that was addressed in 1944, when perhaps the greatest of all social legislation in the last century went through Parliament. I think it would probably have united most of us. The then Catholic Archbishop of Westminster was in the Strangers’ Gallery for the Third Reading proceedings on that Bill, when RA Butler brought before the House the provisions that allowed for the state to contribute towards the creation of Catholic schools. The Catholic community of that time, as Members of your Lordships' House will be well aware, was mainly an immigrant community —many were from the west of Ireland, as my late mother was. Those were schools for impoverished communities. Indeed, Archbishop Griffin sent RA Butler a copy of Butler’s Lives of the Saints, so pleased was he with the resolution of the House in regard to that legislation.
Around 2,500 schools have been created in the years that have passed, mainly though the efforts of those local communities, and they have enriched our education system. I urge your Lordships not to tamper with the settlements that have been there ever since 1944: that these schools are normally over rather than undersubscribed and that there are already sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that denomination provision is not increased or decreased where it is inappropriate. It is also worth saying, before I conclude, that figures issued recently show that, certainly in the Catholic sector, around one-third of the children in those schools do not come from Catholic backgrounds and there are waiting lists for many of these schools up and down the country. This demonstrates that the ethos of those schools is something that many parents are opting for. That is something that we should celebrate, not in any way try to undermine.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks about his aspiration when he came into the other place, but does he realise that my amendment was not concerned with the creation of new faith schools, but was entirely a matter of the closure of existing schools? I am not attempting to prejudice the decisions that are made by the adjudicator, but simply to create a level playing field when it is a choice between closing a faith school or a non-faith school. Such a decision should not be determined by a requirement that the number of places of a denominational character should be preserved.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I was responding to the two speeches that went before and, of course, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, try to limit the creation of new voluntary-aided schools. I accept what the noble Lord says about his own amendment and I simply say that there are no widespread complaints about the present arrangements. These things are usually best worked out on the ground. In the city of Liverpool, which I know well, one thing I have been very impressed by, and others in your Lordships’ House will be able to confirm this, is that in areas where once there was a sectarian and very hostile relationship between different Christian denominations, they have, through local collaboration, come forward with proposals and set up joint schools across the denominations. These things are best left to local determination, a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. This is something that is best left well alone because there is no widespread complaint about the present arrangements.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I want to follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the advantage of leaving such arrangements to the local authority and the faith bodies in the localities. I could quote a recent example in north Yorkshire of the closure of a faith school and the way in which the children from there went to local community schools. It was the right thing to do in that example. The whole arrangement of voluntary-controlled schools is within the maintained system, whereby the faith authorities and the local authorities can work together for the benefit of the children of the area. So I, too, hope, along with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we can leave well alone in this area.
We need to stress that VA and VC schools are part of the maintained system. They are opportunities—and Schedule 11 seems to continue to encourage this—for there to be alternatives to moving towards an academy system. These schools remain part of the maintained system and are, therefore, places where the local authority and the faith authorities, usually the churches, can work together. I hope that both the parts which refer to the VA system and those which refer to VC schools can be maintained.
I am particularly concerned about Amendment 73, the third amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on voluntary-controlled schools. It seems to me that this is a very effective way, especially in remote rural areas, for authorities to work together to preserve a balance within the system which maintains, but does not increase, the percentage of church school places within a particular area. There are many examples of the ways in which collaboration can take place.
That is not to say that I am in any way in favour of the closure of small rural schools. Where it is possible, small rural schools, whether faith or community schools, can provide immense social and community cohesion within the comparatively small area that they serve, or for a small number of pupils over a sometimes fairly large geographical area. Small rural schools have much to contribute. We need to be able to continue the work between local authorities and faith bodies—particularly, in this instance, the Church of England—to preserve the balance within the system that we have at the moment.
One additional point that I should make about VC schools is that they enable voluntary sites to continue to be put to good use in school provision. If we abandon those sites, one of the problems is that they will either have to be bought from the trustees or, if they are closed altogether, they may revert to the original donor from some years—or, on occasions, a century or so—ago. That would represent a considerable capital loss to the school system. Voluntary-controlled schools are an important part of the way in which we work together for the benefit of the children of our communities and the cohesion of the villages and areas that they serve. I hope that we shall be able to maintain that effective provision through the voluntary control system.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As I have often said in this House, I am a secularist, but this does not mean that I am opposed to people who have religious beliefs or that I want to prevent their demonstrating those beliefs. However, the amendment that has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to maintain a balance. Surely it is reasonable that that should happen. I should not like to see a reduction in the number of places for denominational pupils. On the other hand, the guidance proposed in the amendment would,
“not contain any presumption that the proportion of denominational places in the area shall be reduced or increased”.
In other words, it would maintain a balance. Surely a balance in this area is what everyone wants. I would expect the Government to regard it as very sensible and to accept the amendment.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I was going to say a few words about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has covered the points that I would have made. In an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the other day I said that those of us of faith and those who are secularists—such as him—have to coexist. We have to try to find ways through the problem about the Isle of Wight, which he has properly highlighted. However, that is perhaps better decided by local people than by putting something in the Bill.
I shall say a few words in response to the three amendments of my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen. The Bill provides that where a new school is required, the local authority must consider the establishment of an academy or a free school before consideration is given to any other type of school. From the point of view of the Catholic education authorities, that would be a disadvantage. In any entirely new academy or free school, priority can be given to children of faith in relation to only 50 per cent of the places in cases of oversubscription, and that would clearly be a disadvantage. The Bill therefore sought to compensate for and counter that disadvantage by making provision to allow voluntary-aided schools to be established more easily.
The amendment moved by my noble friend would effectively limit the opportunity to establish new voluntary-aided schools. That would be a handicap, especially where there is a demand for them—and there is certainly demand in parts of London where there has been a rapid growth in the Catholic population in recent years. The other disadvantage of my noble friend’s amendment is that, as I understand it, if it were part of the Bill, academies and free schools would be the only schools that could be established, and I do not think that that is the policy of our party.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I rise to speak primarily to Amendment 70A, which was moved by my noble friend Lady Hughes of Stretford. I must admit that it is a curious irony that a Government who often proclaim their belief in localism and plurality should seek to impose a prescriptive solution on new schools. I was recently looking at the range of schools that, for instance, the Church of England provides in London. There is a wide variety of about 150 schools; some are academies and some are community schools. Although academies are very much the flavour of the day, they are not—and surely should not be—the only solution. It would be dangerous to assume that there is only one solution.
I should perhaps declare an interest as a governor of my local community primary school, and as someone who participates in the Lords outreach programmes and visits a wide range of schools. One can see successful academies and one can see successful community schools. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that Amendment 70A is not anti-academy by any means. It sends the message that the issue should be left to local determination. I should be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, at the heart of the Government’s proposals and this debate is the question of how we obtain greater school autonomy, strike the balance between wanting to pursue that objective and raising educational standards, and resolve the tension that can clearly exist between that and localism. Perhaps I may pick up on the point about the Government thinking that there is only one model of provision, involving only free schools and academies. The whole purpose of the policy on free schools is to have as varied a range of types of schools as we can. That is also the case with academies. Studio schools, UTCs and bilingual schools are thereby emerging, many with a lot of local involvement. I recognise that that is slightly different from the point being made about local authority involvement. However, it is not the case that the Government are seeking a one-size-fits-all kind of school provision. We want variety but we are also keen to encourage schools that demonstrate greater autonomy, and that is what lies behind this clause.
We know that results from the academies programme begun by the previous Government provide evidence for this. Research from the National Audit Office last year reported that academies have increased the rate of improvement in GCSE results compared with trends in their predecessor schools. The latest provisional GCSE results data show that sponsored academies are still improving at a faster rate than other maintained schools. In the latest year, they are improving at more than double the rate of other maintained schools.
This evidence began to emerge some time ago and it is fair to say that we are not the first Government to seek to respond to it. We discussed in this House the previous Government’s education White Paper in 2005. That White Paper, and the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that followed it, set up the current system for establishing new schools. Again, I think it is fair to say that the system introduced under that legislation was designed to promote more autonomous schools and to reduce the number of new community schools. Therefore, that approach was established by the previous Government, although I accept that we are taking it further with our proposals.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In response, I shall touch on some of the points made.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lady Massey and the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate relate to the number of places in denominational schools for children who are predominantly—although, as was said, not exclusively—from families of faith. I understand and respect the fact that that is a very important issue for people of faith, as, indeed, it is for those of none. I do not want to go down the route of debating that issue except to acknowledge that I have heard both sides of that debate. The main thrust of the amendment is potentially relevant to all new schools in the future, and therefore to a much wider group of children. I therefore want to focus on the presumption.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I have discerned that the principles of local determination on these matters and of retaining a wide diversity of schools in a locality—a balance, as my noble friend Lady Turner said—are shared and supported on both sides of the debate. I therefore hope that both sides will support my amendment as my noble friend Lord Touhig has correctly identified it.
As for the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, although I very much welcome her support for local involvement in decision-making on local schools, I do not feel that her amendments go far enough. She is not seeking to delete paragraph 6(1) from Schedule 11, which enshrines the presumption that where a new school is needed the local authority,
“must seek proposals for the establishment of an Academy”.
That is the core of Clause 36, to which we object. Given the resolution on academies at her party's most recent conference, it is somewhat surprising that the Front Bench here is apparently prepared to support a presumption in favour of academies. I do not support her amendment because it still does not challenge that presumption.
In response to the Minister I would say, as I am sure he would expect, that there is no divide at all between us on the desire to raise standards in schools, to increase opportunities for children—particularly those whose start in life has been more disadvantaged—and to achieve diversity of school provision. I take issue somewhat with his claim that the Government are merely extending the Labour Government’s policies on academies. The language used by the current Government may be similar but the scale of their intentions make this policy, and its outcome for the system of education in this country as a whole, qualitatively very different indeed.
I agree as well that, in the beginning of our embarking on the road of academies in disadvantaged areas, some local authorities were resistant to the idea. But things have moved on. The Labour Government in particular demonstrated that, by selective targeting of academies in the most disadvantaged areas, standards in those places and for those children could rise substantially. It is a very different matter for the current Government to propose to enshrine in law a presumption that every new school in the future should be an academy, with community schools only as a last resort.
It is also a very different proposition to say there should be a presumption that every school is able to become an academy regardless of whether it is equipped to handle the greater autonomy that such status brings. Although we on this side support academies in principle, the principles of local determination and a diversity of provision from which parents can choose are more important. We are not convinced by the Government’s argument. It is, by anybody’s standards, a step too far to enshrine this presumption in law. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, in Committee, while I think that there was a general acceptance of the idea of focusing inspection more intelligently, a number of concerns were raised about some of the specific provisions in Clause 39. I said that I would reflect on these and report back. In my letter of 14 October to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, I set out our policy intention and the changes that Ofsted will make to strengthen the arrangements in response to particular concerns that were raised.
The principle of proportionality is already a feature of the current inspection system with more frequent inspections for satisfactory and inadequate schools, and intervals of up to five years for good and outstanding schools. The intention behind Clause 39 is to take this to the next logical step by replacing the requirement for all schools to receive a routine inspection with an approach based on rigorous risk assessment that triggers inspection of outstanding primary and secondary schools where necessary. Clause 41 seeks to apply a similar approach for the inspection of outstanding FE providers.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raised a particular concern that regulations made under the new powers introduced at Clause 39 could extend the categories of schools not requiring routine inspection to cover, for example, all academies or all faith schools without appropriate scrutiny. While we have been very clear about our intentions to use the new power to exempt only outstanding schools, I accept the general point made by the noble Lord, which is why I have tabled Amendments 74 and 75. They provide that any subsequent changes to the first set of regulations made under the new power—a draft of which was shared with the House as indicative regulations in March, exempting outstanding mainstream primary and secondary schools—will require parliamentary approval through the affirmative procedure. Amendments 81 and 82 offer the same commitment in relation to FE providers. I hope that these amendments remove any doubt about the Government’s intentions and any concern about a hidden agenda, and provide sensible and effective safeguards.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was also worried about the performance of some outstanding schools dropping and I understand that concern too. Our response to that point has not been to move away from the principle of greater proportionality but to look again at the question of risk assessment and the triggers that would cause an inspection to take place. Risk assessment already takes account of a range of information, including pupil attainment and progress, attendance, evidence of poor performance gathered through survey visits, warning notices issued by local authorities, views from parents, including through Ofsted’s recently launched parent view online questionnaire, and any complaints.
An inspection may occur where, for example, achievement was judged to be less than outstanding and has not improved; where particular groups of pupils are not making good progress; where attendance is significantly below average and not improving; or where Ofsted undertakes a survey visit and identifies concerns. A decision to inspect will also take account of the views of parents, local authorities, funding agencies and others in the local area.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Ofsted and in that context shall talk briefly about how Ofsted is addressing the concerns that have been raised about the proposals to reform school inspection arrangements for maintained schools and academies. In doing so, I shall reflect on the attitudes that we have to risk and the reassurance that inspection can offer.
I have been pleased, but obviously not surprised, by the interest in these proposals that noble Lords have taken and the import given to regular and robust inspections of schools. I understand the concerns that were raised in Committee and are still being raised, but I hope that I can put some of our work in context.
I recognise that the approach being proposed is not without risks, and it is important that we develop a mature, shared understanding through a dialogue with the public and the professions about the right frequency and intensity of inspection and regulation. We know that there is irritation about what is perceived to be too frequent inspection of high-performing institutions; we know on the other hand that parents would like schools to be inspected all the time, and we have to get that balance right.
After the detailed discussions that took place following Committee, I think that the proposed new inspection arrangements strike this balance by being more proportionate and focusing inspection on those who need it most. They would mean the end of routine inspection for schools that have been judged outstanding but more risk assessment of all outstanding schools and inspection for those where the greatest risks are identified. They would also allow more frequent inspection of schools judged satisfactory, focusing resources where they can contribute to real improvement.
It is important that we keep the risks associated with these proposals in context. Ofsted’s evidence shows that a large majority of outstanding schools has continued to be good or outstanding over time. In the last year that it routinely inspected schools, 2009-10, more than 90 per cent of outstanding schools were judged to be outstanding or good when re-inspected.
We have also found that our risk assessment proposals and processes are already working well and seem to be identifying those schools that are slipping back. In 2010-11, Ofsted visited only those outstanding primary and secondary schools that were identified through its current risk assessment procedures. This amounted to 72 inspections, around 2 per cent of all outstanding schools. In two-thirds of those the schools had declined, with 11 being found to be satisfactory and three inadequate, but the rest were good. As noble Lords have heard, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has agreed to adjust the risk assessment threshold so that in future at least 5 per cent of schools are indentified for inspection through the process. This will mean that about a quarter of outstanding schools will be inspected over the five-year period.
Risk assessments normally commence within three years of the previous inspection. When this was discussed in Committee, there was understandable concern that school performance can suddenly decline, particularly, as we know, when there is a change in leadership, but there are other factors, too.
Of course, any delay in identifying such schools where performance is slipping has a dramatic effect on its pupils. In response, we have agreed to bring forward the risk assessment of schools where there has been a change of head teacher before the three-year point has been reached. We have also agreed to trial a new approach where Her Majesty’s inspectors make direct contact with new head teachers as part of the risk assessment to explore the school’s performance at that stage and the head teacher’s plans for it. As noble Lords have heard already, Ofsted has also introduced a new feedback mechanism, Parent View, which will identify spikes that we would then further investigate. For example, if a sudden spike showed a decline in behaviour or if a concern about leadership was suddenly expressed by parents at that school, that would form part of the jigsaw that informs our risk assessment and our appropriate action.
I appreciate that concern has been expressed in this House about increased risks in relation to safeguarding should there be no routine inspection of schools. There can be no greater issue of concern both here and to parents, carers and schools than the safety of children. However, we should place this risk in context. Improvements in safeguarding in schools have been rapid and widespread in recent years, and nearly all schools now give an appropriately high priority to getting their safeguarding procedures right.
In her commentary on the findings set out in Ofsted’s 2009-10 annual report, the previous chief inspector wrote:
“Safeguarding … is an issue addressed not only with increasing sureness by those responsible for keeping children and learners safe, but one felt keenly by those most vulnerable to harm and neglect”.
Parents, carers and children can be reassured that almost all schools now take a careful and responsible approach to their safeguarding arrangements. In outstanding schools, Ofsted has generally found that good practice in safeguarding forms part of the fabric of the school, involving every member of the school community in some way, with a sharp eye on the needs of all pupils, especially the most vulnerable. Indeed, it is worth emphasising how rare it is for any school to be found inadequate solely on the basis of weaknesses in its safeguarding arrangements. In 2009-10, of over 6,000 schools inspected only 26 were judged to be inadequate for issues related solely to safeguarding.
We are not starting from a position of concern, but it is worth keeping in mind that inspection and the threat of it has played an important part in getting us to this position. Ofsted’s focus on safeguarding over the past few years has certainly helped to focus minds on the need to take all appropriate steps to guarantee and promote children's safety. That is why Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector has agreed to inspect a random sample of outstanding primary and secondary schools as part of a review to ensure that their safeguarding arrangements remain strong, and to share the good practice found by inspectors. Ofsted will use this to determine what further action may be necessary in future.
It should also be kept in mind that safeguarding information is shared with Ofsted by local authorities, whistleblowers in schools and parents where they have concerns. Ofsted will continue to take such information into account as part of its risk assessment procedures.
I know the level of seriousness with which this issue is viewed in the House and I want to be clear that there is no greater issue of concern to Ofsted. I believe that the procedures now outlined should give assurance on this issue to the House, but we will keep them under review. Regulators and inspectorates such as Ofsted are rightly expected to manage risk in a proportionate way. They are expected to protect the public, especially the most vulnerable, from risks that individuals cannot easily manage for themselves. We know that the public expect Ofsted to help protect them, their children and, importantly, other children from poor-quality education and care and from harm. However, it can do that effectively with the resources that it has available only if it is able to focus inspection on the right issues and on the schools most in need of improvement. That context is particularly important to this debate.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I was delighted to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was saying about the importance of inspecting safeguarding. When he winds up, will my noble friend confirm what was put to me in a letter from the Secretary of State on 14 October? I raised the issue of safeguarding inspection, and he said that he was intending,
“to ask Ofsted to conduct a thematic review of safeguarding involving a sample of outstanding schools, and to use the outcome of this to inform any further decisions”.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and her organisation will be happy to respond to that request from the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I welcome the affirmative resolution procedure introduced by Amendment 74, which will mean that Parliament will have to consider any further proposals by the Government to change and particularly to extend the exemption from inspections for any other categories of school. That is a bottom-line issue and I am pleased to see that the Government have brought forward those amendments. However, and we will go on to debate this in the next group, the principle of exempting any public service from the possibility of inspection in the future is a principle that we cannot support. Risk assessment and proportionality is one thing—for a long time it has been the approach adopted by Ofsted and supported, as it has developed, by successive Ministers including myself and my predecessors in the previous Government —but exemption, potentially for ever, even for a school judged to be outstanding is quite another.
Do the Government intend to exempt, for example, excellent hospitals from further inspections? What about excellent nursing homes or care homes for the elderly? I suspect not, because the Health Secretary announced today increases in the inspection of hospitals, including no-notice inspections, of which I entirely approve and think there should be more of in relation to schools as well.
I note in the Minister’s response to the Committee and in his letter to me, which my noble friend Lady Morgan has outlined, the actions that he has agreed Ofsted will take in relation to outstanding schools if this measure is approved. They will try to minimise the dangers—there are dangers, not just to safeguarding but to educational standards—that could arise from the government decision wholly to exempt such schools from inspection.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, let me respond briefly to the specific point about safeguarding raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, alluded to. I can confirm that the thematic survey of safeguarding will take place and will be used to inform the judgments that we make going forward about that important issue.
I turn to the core point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the thinking behind the Government’s approach. I recognise the points of view that she put across: wanting a more proportionate approach based on having far more data about how schools are doing generally and publishing those so that parents can see the whole time how the school is doing, but having the position that if schools are performing well—delivering what parents want, delivering strong results—we need not make them be inspected in the same way as all other schools.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Just while the Minister is on that point, would he concede my main point, which is that it is not necessary to exempt outstanding schools from inspection in law in order to have the different, proportionate approach that he talks about?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The reason why we are making this change and doing it now is because we are putting on a statutory basis the approach that we want. That is why we are doing it. In practice, the vast majority of secondary schools will be inspected through a thematic survey visit over a five-year period. The risk assessment arrangements will trigger inspections. The starting point is that we think it builds on the principle of proportionality that already exists in inspections. With these increased safeguards in place, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have encouraged us to strengthen those and look at this again, we think that it will deliver a proportionate and effective system.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“(9) In section 121 of EA 2005 (parliamentary control of subordinate legislation)—
(a) in subsection (2)(a), after “subsection” insert “(2A) or”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) This subsection applies to regulations under section 5(4A) (power to prescribe schools exempt from inspection), apart from the first regulations to be made under that subsection.
(2B) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations to which subsection (2A) applies may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 76, which was tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, at his request. The amendment would delete Clause 39, which we have just been debating in respect of the government amendments. As we have heard, the clause amends the current requirement under Section 5 of the Education Act 2005 for the chief inspector to inspect and report on every school. The clause provides for certain schools to be exempt from such inspections in future, as we have heard, subject to necessary regulations being approved by Parliament. I recognise that exempt schools may still be subject to inspections as part of the chief inspector’s surveys of general subjects and thematic reviews, but I remain concerned, as does my noble friend Lord Hunt, that this still leaves a potential gap in the inspection regime.
According to the Government, the aim is to introduce greater proportionality to the inspection system for schools and, in particular, to reduce the inspections for outstanding schools. The concerns about this are for two principal reasons. First, the open-ended nature of the clause would allow the Secretary of State to exempt other categories of schools, such as academies or free schools. We all know that Ministers have either been in a state of denial or embarrassed when academies have not done well in their Ofsted inspections. No doubt we will see the same phenomenon with free schools. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have no intention of seeking to exempt academies and free schools en bloc from regular inspections in future?
My second objection is to the principle of exempting outstanding schools per se. This flies in the face of the Government's approach to regulation in other sectors and the evidence is that not all outstanding schools will remain so. Indeed, of the 1,155 schools that have been judged outstanding by Ofsted, on subsequent inspection over 30 per cent had a reduced grading, including 58 that went from the top grade of outstanding to the third grade of satisfactory. Given that, I find it difficult to understand why outstanding schools should be exempted. Perhaps it is because the Government do not want to fund Ofsted to do these extra inspections properly and this is simply a way in which to reduce the cost. If that is the case, I would be delighted if the Minister was frank enough with your Lordships to say so.
The Government apparently believe that risks can be reduced, because Ofsted will develop a risk assessment approach, including a basket of indicators that flag up concerns. We have heard described very well by my noble friend Lady Morgan the risk-based approach being undertaken by Ofsted but, because the data that will inform that approach are likely to be gathered a number of years after a school inspection, there is a real risk of a school deteriorating and students suffering for some time before any intervention on that basis is triggered. For example, I would be concerned about the impact of a free school being established in an area where an outstanding school has a catchment area, attracting children who would otherwise enrol into that school, however outstanding it may be, and causing a sudden deterioration just because of a loss of funds.
There are all sorts of scenarios that are not just around a change of leadership. I remind the Minister of the debate that we had on Monday around admissions, when I put it to him that the fundamentals to which the Government have to have regard in a free market-based system of school improvement such as that which they are adopting are fair funding, fair admissions and inspection as a form of accountability. He replied:
“These are the three principles that we need to uphold”.—[Official Report, 24/10/11; col. 642.]
So he agrees—and yet, as with admissions, he is watering down inspections in the context of moving to a more market-based schools system.
I am grateful to the Government for reflecting on the debate in Committee. As we have heard from the Minister, the Government are now proposing that any move to exempt a category of school will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That is welcome, but, of course, this House only very rarely rejects such legislation. This really is our only chance to decide whether or not we are happy with some schools being exempted from inspection, potentially for ever.
I have also noted the intention to trial the new approach in schools where a new head teacher has been appointed, and the Minister has made it clear that Ofsted will adjust the risk-assessment process so that at least 5 per cent of outstanding schools will be inspected each year. As far as it goes, this is welcome too, but it does not go far enough.
I would contrast, as has my noble friend Lady Hughes of Stretford, what the Minister is currently proposing in education with what is happening in other sectors. Let me refer him to the NHS, as she has done. This summer, the health regulator CQC announced it was replacing its light-touch style with an annual inspection of each NHS and independent sector provider. As the CQC says:
“When people’s lives and well-being are at stake, the public don’t want to hear about light-touch regulation.”
That philosophy should surely apply as much to education and the teaching of our children—to the life chances of children—as it does, perhaps, to our death chances in the NHS. What is so different about children that we do not want to regulate and inspect their education? Indeed, let us look at this in a commercial context. Would a big retailer such as Marks & Spencer not quality-assure its best stores as much as its underperforming stores? I put it to your Lordships that Marks & Spencer would quality-assure every retail outlet that it has.
I find it extraordinary that Mr Gove, the Secretary of State, is seeking to exempt outstanding schools when he was recently so critical of the methodology used by Ofsted to rate outstanding schools. Only five weeks ago, at the National College for School Leadership, he voiced this concern. Yet now his Minister in your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Hill, is seeking to exempt the very same schools from regular inspections. The public and parents surely have a right to know whether standards are being maintained or not. If the inspection system is to retain its credibility, regular inspections are essential for all schools.
Finally, I would simply say to the Minister, who I am afraid was floundering around about why he needs to proceed with this exemption—he has had to compromise and come up with all the whys and wherefores in making this all right—would it not just be easier to drop this and give way to common sense and have all schools inspected? I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I support this amendment. I shall start with what I think is going to be my only line of agreement with the Government on this. To take the attitude that intervention in schools should reflect the risk of schools doing badly, and to say that we should intervene less when schools are successful, is absolutely right. As my noble friend has just said, that is a principle that was followed by the previous Labour Government, so I am with the Minister on that. We should not be constantly going in to excellent schools and getting in the way of them doing an excellent job; that is an absolute principle.
The second absolute principle is that inspection should be universal for all our schools. Does the Minister really think that one visit every five years is going to be a big burden on outstanding schools? One visit by Ofsted inspectors every five years; that is what happens at the moment, that is what the data say.
The reason for drafting this clause perplexes me. I am trying to think what motivates it because, to be honest, I never thought that the Tories would go soft on inspection, and that is what they have done with this clause. They fought hard to put Ofsted in the legislation, they fought hard to put it into schools, they have argued the case with head teachers and teachers, almost all of whom were opposed to inspection when it first started, and the Labour Government did the same. The political parties have been on the same side on this; we have thought that inspection was a necessary part of raising standards. So I am absolutely perplexed why the Tories, of all parties, should go back on this now. This is a principle, and you would have to come forward with some absolutely outstanding reasons why this principle should be broken. That principle is that in a devolved system, more than ever, every school should be inspected. Every parent has the right to know that the school which their child attends should be inspected. Every child should have a right to be reassured that the school which they attend should be inspected. That is an inalienable right and should be a fundamental structure of our school system.
The second question is: is doing that once every five years a terrible burden on schools? I do not think it is. To some extent, that is where the argument finishes. If you believe that those rights should not be given to parents and teachers, vote against this amendment. If you really believe that one inspection every five years is a terrible burden—do not forget that some children will have gone almost right the way through a secondary school in that time while there has never been an inspection, as they will have started in year 7 and might leave in year 11—then vote against this amendment.
I am going to be really helpful to the Minister here. I am going to warn him not to get into a position that I know I got into when I was a Minister. It is a great ministerial habit when you come up with an idea. Listening to the debate, I have to say that when the Minister responded to my friend Lady Hughes on the previous amendment it was the most troubled that I have heard him in the whole consideration of this Bill. I did not believe that he had convinced himself, let alone the House. What is happening now is that the Government have a policy but they are, in honesty, persuaded by the arguments against it. Rather than withdrawing that policy, they are seeking to put plaster in the holes and rearranging the bricks: “Well, let’s have greater risk assessment. Let's talk to the heads when they are new. Let’s do this, that or the other”. I can tell your Lordships that that is how the camel was invented, rather than the horse.
I remember when we ourselves got into exactly that position. You do not want to backtrack, because this is politics, so you start trying to plaster up the cracks. But what you end up with is so disastrous that in two years’ time you are asking, “Why weren’t we just brave enough to say that we got that wrong”?. I say to the Minister that he is at that point now. He should take a deep breath and protect himself from having to come to your Lordships’ House in two years’ time to answer many questions and queries about an inspection system that clearly will not work.
I have two more points to make. I really worry that the Minister may have constructed a terrible bureaucratic tangle in order to get out of the political difficulty that he is in. He will now have an army of Ofsted inspectors doing more risk assessments. They will have to weigh and measure the schools and collect the data. Now they will have to go and talk to every new head when he or she is appointed to a school—perhaps the Minister could tell us how many interviews that is going to be in a year—just to check their plans for that school. The Government would not have to do that if they backed this amendment. From the schools’ point of view, we are meant to be freeing them from this terrible burden of one inspection every five years, but what is the Minister putting in its place? He is making them provide more data. He has the local authority checking on them, so that it can refer back to Ofsted. He has the new heads having to talk to Ofsted and he has a third of them having to be inspected every five years. They will not know where they stand. I can assure the Minister that it would be easier for them and less of a burden if he would just say, “Once every five years, and that’s it”.
My last point is this, and to some extent it is the most important point for me. From the point of view of the Ofsted inspectors, it is crucial that they measure the standards of every single school in this country by the performance of the best. That is absolutely central to effective Ofsted inspection. If you say to your average Ofsted inspector—not the ones doing the one-off thematic reviews—who spends their time going into schools, “Thou shalt not be seeing any outstanding schools”, how do they know what outstanding looks like? When they go to the satisfactory school, it might be the best that they have seen for six months and they might think that that is outstanding. To help the Ofsted inspectors, it is crucial that, as part of their job, they see outstanding schools as part of their regular inspections.
To be helpful to the Minister, I think I know why he, or his colleagues—I am sure that it was his colleagues and not him—came up with this terrible idea: it is this idea of having a long list of freedoms which you can grant to schools to prove that the policy of granting freedoms to schools works. We saw it in the debate on admissions on Monday and we have seen it today. These are wrong freedoms, because they are freedoms that answer the political drive of the Government and they stand in the way of raising standards. This is the moment when the decision is made: go on and the camel will have several extra humps in two years’ time, I promise the Minister that. I passionately support this amendment, more than anything else in the Bill, and hope that noble Lords, having listened to this debate will vote to preserve universal inspection. I praise the Tories for bringing it in in 1988; I think it would be terrible if they voted to get rid of it now.
Lord Quirk
While the Minister is taking the deep breath that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has urged upon him, may I give him an extra couple of minutes of breathing time by saying what a difficult job he is going to have in offsetting the arguments presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight? Surely it is the outstanding schools that need to be inspected in order to have reports coming out showing what can be done in state sector, mainstream schools. Once every five years is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, nothing compared to the extra bureaucracy which we are threatened with in some kind of compensation for this. I hope that the Minister will bow to the wisdom that has been cast before him this afternoon.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I add my voice to those who have already spoken. I am greatly saddened by this Government’s attitude to inspection, which seems to me to be coloured by too many years in opposition listening to schools complaining about inspection. Indeed, inspection under the previous Government was not generally taking a constructive turn, but then, we had not constructed it in a constructive way ourselves previously. I had hoped that this Government would go back to first principles and ask what inspection is for. If you start by saying that it is to make sure that our children are receiving the best possible education, then you need a system which is much faster to react than the current one. It can take Ofsted three years to pick up that a school is going wrong, because their data are always backward-looking and they always want two years of that before they believe that there is any trend in place. So in the schools that I have seen and known to have gone wrong, it has been the third year or the beginning of the fourth when Ofsted have come to call and by then, a lot of children’s educations have been harmed. I would have been looking to produce something which was much faster to react, rather than something which is going to be slower to react.
To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, it is essential that inspectors, the people who are seeing a lot of schools, see the very best. The point about the best schools is that they are utterly surprising and jaw-dropping when you see them: you could not believe that what they are doing could be done. When you have seen it, you start to understand how other schools could do it too, but if you have not seen it, you just do not know; you just accept that the ordinary way of doing things is sufficient, that the platitudes that, “We are doing well by our children here” are right, because it is okay by the current average, rather than being anywhere near the potential of the children. When you see the difference that a really good school can make, you understand that there is a long way to go; not that schools are bad at the moment, but that the good schools can be a great deal better than they are. That understanding comes from going round outstanding schools and being able, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, to set your yardstick on the basis of what you know can be achieved with children like these in a school that really understands how to deal with them.
We do not have that; we have something that goes backwards. We have a decision to remove outstanding schools from the purview of Ofsted. However, things change. I came across a school by chance the other day—Glenthorne in Sutton. It is sprouting all sorts of new initiatives. You can study three A-levels and golf, as well as tennis and football, to a professional standard. It is great to see these initiatives but no one will take a look at them. No one will know whether they are going right or being balanced correctly. It will be three years before anything shows in the figures. However, a good, experienced head, going around six months into the project, would know whether it was going right. To think that you can do this by remote control—that we are looking after the future of our children by stepping back in this way—is a profound misconception. I am afraid I despair of changing the Government’s mind at the moment, but give it a year or two, let an outstanding school or two crash, and then we will think about it again.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I cannot improve on the contributions that we have heard from my noble friends and the noble Lords, Lord Quirk and Lord Lucas. I just want to add a few more points to the debate.
The first is one of principle. I believe strongly that not just the Government but we in this House and the other place are guardians of the public when they use public services. We have to take very seriously the arrangements we make to ensure the safety as well as the standards of those services. Secondly, as we have seen, the possibility of an inspection in any public service is not a guarantee of high standards. However, the certainty of no inspection surely means a huge risk of declining standards and, in this case, a risk to children. Thirdly, our experience in other sectors, particularly in health and social care recently, shows that pulling back too far on inspection has led to serious risk to patients and older people. Fourthly, there is the point that I made in my previous contribution, which, with respect, I do not think the Minister answered fully. Exempting outstanding schools completely is not necessary in order for them to have a qualitatively different inspection regime. We should keep them in the framework of inspection.
My noble friend Lady Morris asked the Minister to take a deep breath and think again about his position and responsibilities. I ask noble Lords also to think from the point of view of a parent of a child at a school, with which they may well be very happy as an outstanding school. However, they would not be happy to know that it would never be inspected again. A further point is that when parents are looking for a school for their children, they look not only at a school’s results but on the internet for Ofsted reports. In this instance, a few years down the line there will be no up-to-date Ofsted reports for those parents who are looking for a school to examine. They will not know the difference between the school as it was when it was outstanding and the school as it is further down the line. On this issue we all have a responsibility to consider all the points made, particularly the dangers inherent in this approach, and whether we are happy to support them.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I have listened to the whole debate, particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. She completely impressed us all and has certainly convinced me. Until now I wavered a little on this point. It does not make sense for Ofsted not to be involved in the ideal against which other schools and schools in the future should be measured. I hope that the Minister, after the few extra minutes he has been given to breathe by virtue of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, will be able to rethink a little and, above all, get the other place to read what the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for her career advice, which I take in good part. I am sure that it was meant in good part. If she sees the humps developing on my back as I respond, she will understand that, camel-like, I must bear the course—I misquote Shakespeare.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, set out the main points, and I will not speak at length because the substantive response in terms of what the Government are trying to do relates to the principle of proportionality upon which this issue is based. In response to the concerns raised in Committee, we went back, thought again and strengthened the safeguards that have been put in place. However, I recognise that they are not to the satisfaction of all noble Lords.
The noble Lord began with two points. His first concern was to ensure that there was no intention to exempt free schools or academies en bloc. There are two answers to that. The first, which he acknowledged, is that we have made changes so that that could not happen other than through an affirmative order. However, that is not the intention of the Government. I have no desire to exempt all free schools and academies from inspection. That comes back to the point made by the noble Lord on Monday, which he half remembered. He talked about there being three principles—fair funding, fair access and fair inspection. I reiterate my agreement with that because the approach to inspection should be the same for any type of school. However, we would argue that an outstanding academy or mainstream school obviously should be treated in the same way. I would not want there to be exemptions for any types of school.
The noble Lord said that in the past—perhaps speaking from his own experience—Ministers may have looked too favourably on academies because they did not want those schools to be seen to fail because they were seeking to take forward a policy direction. That is not my wish at all. One of the things that we are doing is seeking to increase the pressure on underperforming academies to make sure that we apply that approach to them just as we would to any other school.
The noble Lord asked in passing whether our proposal is driven by money. The matter was raised previously so I shall respond to it. It is a perfectly fair question and the answer is that it is driven by the desire to have a more proportionate approach to inspection and regulation. Money is not the driver.
A point raised a number of times concerned how one picks up best practice. I accept that that is a good and fair question and it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. Clearly, a flow of new outstanding schools will be coming through routine inspection every year, but the thematic reviews and surveys will also pick up best practice. However—this relates to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas—it is also the case that we are keen to encourage more and more the professional sharing of good practice, and it is spreading. I do not think one needs to argue that an inspection which currently takes place once every five years is the only way to deliver the professional sharing of good practice.
I take the point raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas about the process being faster acting. The current regime leaves five years between inspections, but the combination of the triggers which will kick in earlier will mean that, if there are problems, they will be picked up faster under our new system than under the current one.
In response to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, I do not think that a school would have the certainty of there being no inspection. The much tougher triggers will mean that there will never be that certainty because there are all sorts of way in which an inspection can be brought forward.
I understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes of Stretford and Lady Morris of Yardley, who argued their case forcefully and clearly. The difference between us is not about the importance of inspection, the fact that we think parents should have information or that we want to go soft on inspection; at heart, it is that we think it is time to develop the existing approach to proportionate inspection and take it one stage further.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I am delighted that, having had a busy day, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is now in his place to hear the end of it, given that he instigated it. In many ways, I do not need to add to the debate. As the Minister has just said, there is a difference of opinion. The case was brilliantly put by my noble friend Lady Morris and supported by others on all sides of the House. I think that the argument has been won and I hope that the vote will now be won. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Northbourne
“( ) in the case of any school taking in children at compulsory school age, the extent to which such pupils are emotionally, socially and cognitively “school ready” when they join the school;”
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, this relatively modest amendment contains an important principle. It is on that basis that I shall take the time of the House to introduce it. This Bill makes major structural changes to our school system which I support. We need to recognise, however, that for many schools the burden of responsibility for delivering satisfactory educational outcomes will change. Many primary and secondary schools will themselves have to justify their success or failure much more clearly. They will have less opportunity to have the comfort of being able to pass the buck to the local authority. Education and well-being in the early years foundation stage will still remain wholly the responsibility of the local authority. So there will be an educational interface between the local authority and schools when the child reaches the age of five. My amendment is designed to draw attention to the possibility of friction—or, indeed, of unfairness—at that interface.
The amendment would ensure that there will be an objective assessment of school readiness of children as they enter their primary school—whatever kind of school that may be. This assessment could be used to estimate the extent to which any poor outcomes in any particular school arise from the school being overloaded with children who, when they joined the school, were not school-ready and thereby deflecting resources to remedial work when those resources should have been available for teaching.
The criterion for a successful school is to add value to the child’s education. We need to be able to identify which institutions are failing to deliver the appropriate amount of added value: is it the schools or is it the early year settings? If we want to achieve this Government’s objectives—and I think we probably all believe in them—to improve school outcomes and reduce inequality in our society, it is important that children arrive in school with their foot on the first rung of the educational ladder to be socially, emotionally and cognitively ready to settle in and to learn. Today, alas, we still have far too many children who are not school-ready at the age of five.
I thank the Minister and his department for the help that they have given to me and for the information about the current situation as regards inspection at age five. I have to say that much more is being done than I was aware of when I set down this amendment. Most children are being assessed for progress towards completing the early years foundation stage of the curriculum and those assessments are available to the public.
I do, however, have two serious concerns. The assessments are being made by the providers of the early years foundation services that the child is receiving. They are, therefore, far from impartial. If we are to have a fair assessment of the added value that a school or an early years setting is delivering, the starting point as well as the outcome must be assessed impartially. My second concern is that a small but significant minority of young children today are still not participating in the early years foundation stage programme. This is often because their parents do not want to make contact with the authorities because they are afraid of having their children taken away. Yet these are often the most disadvantaged children of all—often from families designated as hard to reach. They therefore tend to be the children who need most remedial help when they get to school. They are therefore heavy users of school resources. They are the most likely to fail in school, yet they are not taken into consideration in the assessment of the intake of the school.
Is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that the arrangements for checking each child’s school readiness when they join a primary school at five years old will be improved so as to be impartial and include all children joining the school, not just those who have been following the early years foundation stage programme? It would also be comforting if the Minister could confirm that, just as schools may be criticised if they do not give their pupils the educational added value they need, some way will be found to chase up recalcitrant local authorities which are failing to help those children most in need. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I understand that there has been agreement that Amendment 76A shall be grouped with Amendments 77, 78 and 79.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I have Amendment 77 in this group. Before speaking to it, perhaps I may say how right the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is to emphasise the importance of the concept of “school ready”, which was referred to a number of times by Graham Allen in his important report about early intervention. The noble Lord is also right to point out that some parents will take advantage for their children of the early years provision that the Government make available to them, but others will not. That is why it is very important that their stage of development is properly and professionally assessed as early as possible so that schools can help to bring them on if necessary.
My amendment is very simple. It merely adds the words “and well-being” in the Ofsted framework as laid down in Clause 40. I would prefer to see them in the Bill, but my right honourable friend Michael Gove has assured me, and assured other noble Lords in the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, dated 14 October, that he expects Ofsted to inspect children's well-being and accepts the link between children’s well-being and their achievement in their school subjects and learning. He has also assured us that Ofsted will use its programme of subject and thematic surveys to look in detail at specific aspects of pupils’ personal development. That will certainly pick up issues where children’s well-being is not as it should be, perhaps where equalities issues are not as they should be because, of course, children cannot have well-being if they feel discriminated against. I have tabled my amendment in the hope that it will give the Minister the opportunity to confirm those things.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the letter dated 14 October that he sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, in which he gave assurances that Ofsted’s inspections will consider how well schools provide the well-being of those to whom equalities issues apply and that equalities issues will underpin the whole approach to inspection and will include all protected groups under the Equality Act 2010. It is also good to learn that Ofsted will consider how well gaps are narrowing between the performance of different groups of pupils both in the school and nationally because, as we all know, the gap in social mobility is growing wider among certain groups. It is important that schools are judged on the quality of their teaching, which should cater for the range of needs to help all pupils to progress and to inspire them to have high aspirations in a fair and equal way and, as the Minister said in his letter, free from bullying and harassment because of their culture or background, from which so many children in our schools suffer. I am delighted that these issues are being addressed and that the well-being of all children is being taken into consideration.
How can we make sure that equality issues are delivered in schools day in, day out? What measures will be put in place if schools do not comply with these ideals? I ask these questions because just today I received an e-mail from a supply teacher with a complaint from children who feel that their equality issues have been violated in a school during a lesson. They have asked me for help and guidance, so I would like the Minister to help me with my guidance. I will be interested to hear his answer to this question.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 78, which is in this group. It is a very simple amendment to put community cohesion back on the list of items Ofsted will inspect. When I learnt that it had been taken out, I was very perturbed because if schools have responsibility for community cohesion, as I have been told, I believe that it is necessary for Ofsted to look at what they are doing for it. I think that this is more than ever an extremely important area for schools to concentrate on. It is about not racism or equality; it is about the community in which they live and being part of that.
Lord Quirk
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 79. Clause 40 requires the chief inspector to consider a familiar quartet: the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils. Amendment 79 would insert the word “linguistic”. In other words, we would wish the chief inspector to focus upon the child’s unique and very precious language faculty, and properly so, because language proficiency is not only essential for the other desiderata in Clause 40, for example social and cultural development, but, more widely, it is a precondition for the whole of education itself.
Many thousands of our children start school linguistically impoverished and hence cognitively impaired. The numbers extend far beyond the unfortunates with pathological problems that require serious intervention by speech and language therapy. These are a tiny unfortunate minority compared with the far greater unfortunates who by reason of family dysfunction or social circumstance have little experience of parental or sibling chatter let alone bedtime stories. They have been denied the rich linguistic exposure that more fortunate children can happily take for granted.
The language faculty depends crucially upon early intervention. Language development is something that has to happen as early as possible, pre-school preferably, as we have just heard in relation to Amendment 76A, moved by my noble friend Lord Northbourne, and as we did on his very first amendment, last week, when the elegant intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was especially memorable. If serious linguistic deficiency cannot be spotted before school, and if it cannot be spotted at least in the first few terms of primary school, then the consequences are disastrous.
None of this is controversial, and it is indeed in line with Her Majesty's Government’s policy. What we are talking about is language development that merely leads to the confident, competent command of English. Surely that is not a lot to ask of an English education, but at present we fall very far short of it. Employers are on record as preferring teenage recruits who learnt their English in Poland, Russia or China, because it is easier for everyone to understand their less sloppy diction and to read their better-formed sentences and clearer handwriting. We could go further. Without giving pupils a sound basis in English, how can we attract far more to go on and learn Spanish, German, even Mandarin? As noble Lords will know, one of the proposers of this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, chairs the all-party group on foreign languages.
Among possible objections to our amendment, let me just mention two. First, adding the word “linguistic” may invite further additions—“mathematical”, for example. But language is different, and is genuinely unique. It is the precondition of all else, from the rules of maths to the rules of football. Secondly, it may be objected that the addition of “linguistic” creates a tautology, since it is implicit in “social” and “cultural”. We would disagree. Doubtless some degree of social and cultural development need not depend upon language—even, perhaps, enough for inspectorial hurried box-ticking. But inspectors must in our view be required to pause and address language development as an area requiring their separate and specific consideration. Indeed, so far from being superfluous, we would argue that the omission of the word “linguistic” from the clause should be seen as a glaring oversight, so much do its neighbours “social” and “cultural” depend on it as the faculty by which all other development is both inculcated and expressed.
This brings me to a further and final point in urging this amendment. Clause 40, to repeat, requires that the chief inspector “must consider” how pupils are developing in four different respects:
“spiritual, moral, social and cultural”.
This is a quartet, of course, that is quite familiar in Ofsted-speak. It has been on Ofsted’s agenda for some time. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication of the success that inspectors have had in grading children according to their development in these four respects. What does the Minister expect the inspector actually to do before ticking, say, the “spiritual” box, thus declaring his satisfaction at the pupil’s spiritual development? Then, when he moves on to the box labelled “moral”, what does he actually do before ticking that all is well with their moral development?
Now, if the next box were labelled “linguistic”, I know—and, more importantly, I know the inspector would know—how a professional assessment in this crucial area would be made. I would have confidence in what a tick meant and know that actual, speedy attention would be given if a tick were withheld.
My point is obvious. Not only is successful development of the language faculty essential for progress in all else that education has to offer, but linguistic development is observable, quantifiable and objectively assessable to a degree that makes the inspectorate’s judgment of critical value.
Baroness Warnock
My Lords, I very strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, as well as the amendment just spoken to by my noble friend Lord Quirk.
Linguistic deprivation is just as serious as any other form of deprivation that a child can suffer. An enormous amount of linguistic knowledge, practice and efficiency is learnt before the age of two or two and a half years. There are a vast number of children whose parents—or whose single parent, very often—are quite unable to supply the kind of stimulus that children essentially need, and from the deprivation of which they really cannot catch up. How can children start learning to read when they hardly have any vocabulary in the language they are supposed to be reading? It seems to me that before school is the crucial time, but as we have heard the most difficult and most needy children are very likely those who do not take advantage of pre-school provision.
Here I must repeat something that I have said a million times before, which is that I believe that the BBC has a huge responsibility for those children who are at home before school, and are not getting out of their home. The BBC should be providing radio programmes with songs and stories which supply what children’s parents very often cannot supply, namely constant exposure to language. I was also delighted when a noble Lord—I am afraid I cannot remember which—said at an earlier stage that one of the worst things that has ever been invented is the pushchair which faces away from the parent, so that the parent who is pushing the child cannot speak continuously to the child even before the child has any language to respond in.
I think that this is of enormous importance, and should be in the Bill, more so than all the stuff about spirituality and morality. I entirely agree that that can all go, because we cannot measure it anyway. What cannot go is what can be measured, which is the vocabulary of a child and his ability to communicate and respond to other people talking and singing to him.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I strongly endorse these thoughts. We should not set the inspectorate the task of doing the grand and unachievable rather than the humble and achievable. Language delay is a catastrophe for a child. It is all too common. I am not talking about specific language impairments: they are very serious matters, but that is quite a separate issue. Profound language delay is disabling not just at the early pre-school or reception stage, when it can be picked up, but right through a child’s education. Although it is important for children to have moral, spiritual, cultural and social development, without what my noble friend Lord Hennessy has called the chit-chat amendment it is going to be difficult to achieve development in those other areas.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I intend to support my noble friend Lady Flather, but before so doing I would like to support the remarks made my noble friends Lord Quirk and Lord Northbourne. My wife is a speech and language therapist who works with autistic children. Although they fall into the special category that my noble friend Lady O’Neill has just referred to, my wife would emphasise—and I would too, from my own background working in education—that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, is right: it is a catastrophe if a child does not have language in place. Earlier today, there was a Question during Question Time about restorative justice. Anyone who goes into any prison and meets some of those who are now in prison because of their participation in the riots earlier this year will know that there is a link with language deficiency and with literacy as well. If we are ever going to get these things right, we will have to spend a lot more time and energy on language, literacy and the early years development that my noble friend Lord Northbourne has made a personal crusade for so long.
I particularly want to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. My reason for doing so is that I drafted the original amendment on community cohesion which was incorporated in the previous education Bill. My noble friend Lord Sutherland and my noble friend the late Lord Dearing were other signatories. We took the amendment to the Government. I personally went to see the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and I was very pleased when he accepted the amendment, which included that this matter should be inspected by Ofsted. That was put forward 24 hours later, in place of the amendment which we had drafted, as a government amendment, and was accepted in the legislation. I think that the House took the right decision, because it was not singling out one category of schools and saying that they may be a problem with community cohesion; it was saying that all schools have to promote community cohesion. However, that has to be measured, and it is right that it should be measured by Ofsted.
I find it extraordinary that this is being removed at this stage from the legislation. I therefore hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that it will be reviewed. This is too important a question just to leave to one side. That amendment was passed because of concerns that people raised about specific schools where there might be ideological or narrow agendas, and it was to ensure that such things did not happen that this was included in the legislation.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, first, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in preferring to have well-being specifically in the Bill in addition to achievement. That would be a much more balanced and appropriate way to look at the whole task of Ofsted and what we are looking for in the Bill. Indeed, it might help some of the other contributions made to this debate in terms of the well-being of a child, which would include their linguistic ability and development. But if the noble Baroness is convinced by the Minister’s letter, who am I to dispute that?
My main reason for contributing is to say that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, will push Amendment 78 on community cohesion. For many of the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this seems to be a key to the whole life and work of our schools, which should be in any Ofsted inspection. One of my tasks which I find most fulfilling and of most value is to be the vice-chair of Leeds City Council’s safer and stronger communities board, which seeks to provide community cohesion over the whole life of the city. A key to that work is the contribution made by schools to community cohesion across Leeds. If we are to continue to affirm and assert the need for social cohesion within our country, it is crucial for schools to be included. People from different backgrounds with different abilities and perspectives need to work together in order to have a cohesive society.
I recognise the point that we must not give Ofsted too many individual tasks to pursue. But this is the only one of those tasks which looks beyond the school gates. It is vital that schools do that. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, will press her amendment. I perhaps even hope that the Government might accept it as a crucial part of how schools should operate within our culture and society.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, all the proposed amendments are more than worthy of acceptance, whether that is in the Bill, by us all or in guidance to schools and communities. They clearly set the sort of society that we are trying to achieve; that is, the big society, community involvement, or whatever one likes to call it. I agree entirely with the points made by my noble friend Lady Flather in speaking to her amendment. Of them all, it perhaps sums up the whole feeling that the school, and the arrangements of the school in what it sets out to achieve for the children, also involves the community, which is a sort of two-way process.
I should like to make one further point at this stage. When we look at all these additional changes and responsibilities that schools will have to cope with as a result of this Bill when it becomes law, one area that perhaps gets less attention is the role of the school governors. They are being asked to play an increasingly important role—I declare my interest as president of the NGA—on well-being and other issues. Whatever the issues are, these are added responsibilities. If I were to add anything, I would include something about the importance of not just management of the school but the whole way in which it operates under its governors. With that, I hope that we will get a favourable response from the Minister and perhaps even an acceptance of something of what has been said to go in the Bill itself. We shall have to wait and see.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I very much hope that my noble friend will pay attention to the speeches he has heard on Amendment 78. I well remember the debates that led up to and followed the inspired amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, which got us out of some emotional difficulties. It expressed all our intentions well. This Government realise that measuring schools and setting them objectives has an effect on schools, which is why they introduced the EBacc, which is having an effect. Ofsted looks at community cohesion not because we expect Ofsted to go galumphing all over this territory but so that schools know that attention is being paid to whether they do it or not, and that, therefore, it will come within the list of things that they have to do. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, made some pretty good fun of the provisions in the Bill about social, moral and cultural development, as if there was a way of measuring these things or a tape measure that could be run over them. But having that in the Bill means schools know that this is something they have to do and that, therefore, they have to give time to it and spend money on it. If schools are not given any mind in these sorts of areas, they will start not doing it in the way that they have been not doing foreign languages. Hence, the need to row back on that with some vigour, which I am delighted my right honourable friend is doing. These things matter and these particular words matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has my total support. I very much hope that in the Minister’s consideration of what might be done to improve this Bill, she will focus on those two words.
On the other amendments in the group, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is aiming at. It seems to me that we are moving children between two regimes—that of the social services and that of the school, or the family and the school, whichever may apply. In terms of understanding what is going right and what is going wrong, it is important to make a measurement at the point when a child moves from one to the other so that we know whether the problems of literacy are being generated in the community or though a lack of attention in the school. I am not saying that this is the right place to put it but if we are doing value-added in a school, we should take an initial measure at the beginning and not two years in. A lot of value-added goes on in those two years in a good school. We should be doing that. I very much support the spirit of the amendment.
I also support my noble friend Lady Walmsley in her wish to see well-being included. The Prime Minister has been right to support that as a concept of wide application and it really should find its way into something as central as education. I look forward to the speech of my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I had hoped to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, but I cannot do so because the debate has taken place in my absence. So I rise only to say in a very plaintive way that I left with a list of groupings which made it clear that I had time to attend to other business but having attended to the other business, I find that the business I wished to be here for had already been dispatched. I hope that is not going to become a regular feature of our proceedings because it is exceedingly inconvenient.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate. We have a great deal of sympathy with those noble Lords who fear that Ofsted’s role is diminishing to concentrate on academic achievement and behaviour at the expense of some of the wider social and personal development issues. As has been pointed out, these have an equal status in the classroom and they are sometimes a necessary precursor to the learning process itself. There is also quite rightly some concern that if these issues are not a key part of the Ofsted inspection regime, they will be given diminished status by teachers. I am sure the Minister will say that this is not the intention but we should be realistic about human nature and the pressures that teachers are under to deliver on so many different fronts. The Ofsted report is an essential guide for parents and schools are desperate to score highly on what they perceive to be the core measures of inspection. It is important that these measures are kept in the legislation.
We support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which puts children’s well-being at the heart of the school mission. We supported a similar amendment in Grand Committee and we reiterate today that schools should not be simply about academic achievement. Schools should have a responsibility to provide a safe and happy environment where all children can thrive. That should include covering issues such as nutrition, exercise, relationships, respect for each other and tackling low self-esteem. In Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said:
“Ofsted recently commented that well-being will be at the heart of the new framework, because it will require inspectors to consider the full range of experiences for pupils”.—[Official Report, 20/7/11; col. GC 491]
These themes were repeated in the Minister’s letter to my noble friend Lady Hughes. If this is the case and we are all in agreement, I see no reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, so that the requirement can appear in the Bill.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a powerful case for improved early years provision. He has echoed those themes today. He is rightly challenging us to identify the mechanisms that will ensure investment in early years so that every child, when entering school, has a capacity to learn and succeed. Again, these themes were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and other noble Lords. This is particularly significant when we read in the past few days that the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculates a 20 per cent cut in funding of early years provision. We have every sympathy with the position that he is pursuing, although it might be unfair to ask Ofsted to report on how school-ready pupils are on first arrival when the receiving school will not have had much opportunity to influence this. He is in effect making a case for more rigorous independent inspections of early years provision and this we would wholeheartedly support.
Finally, I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, about the removal of social cohesion from the core list of issues to be inspected. She is right to identify that this goes much further than measuring the cultural development of pupils. We are blessed with living in a diverse, multicultural society, but it has its tensions, suspicions and hostilities, and we are not short of volunteers who stoke up conflict at any slight or perceived unfairness. Young people need to understand the roots that have brought us together and the advantages of strong communities living in tolerance. The school’s role in the community and its influence as a community leader cannot be underestimated so I hope to hear more details from the Minister about how this is going to be achieved in the curriculum and measured by Ofsted. In the absence of a convincing explanation, we will support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather.
I understand Ofsted’s concern that it is being asked to measure too many aspects of education. I also understand that at times of limited resources, choices have to be made. But this is about getting the balance right. It is about what parents can expect from their children’s education and how we want to shape and nurture the next generation of citizens. I do not think we have the balance right just yet.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, the current reporting areas for school inspections of maintained schools and academies have evolved over the years in a piecemeal way with new requirements being bolted on for the best of reasons but without there being any overall consolidation. Over time the arrangements have become crowded, with inspectors having to make numerous judgments and schools feeling that they have to jump through multiple and sometimes overlapping hoops. Clause 40 consolidates and refocuses the arrangements around core issues related to education in its widest sense, covering pupils’ academic and personal development. It specifies four high-level areas that must be reported on; namely, pupils’ achievement, the quality of teaching, leadership and management, and pupils’ behaviour and safety. It requires inspectors, in reporting on these, to consider pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and how the school is meeting the needs of the range of pupils. The new approach will mean inspectors spending more time in classrooms, observing teaching, listening to pupils read, and talking to pupils and staff. The space provided in the new framework will mean that inspectors can drill down more effectively into difficult areas. Ofsted has developed, piloted and now published a new draft framework built around these provisions and the proposals have been welcomed by both schools and inspectors. Ofsted is currently training inspectors in the new approach which, subject to the passage of this Bill, will be introduced in January.
The specific terms “well-being” and “community cohesion” in Amendments 77 and 78 are not included in the consolidated provisions set out in Clause 40. But as my noble friend Lady Walmsley pointed out, that does not mean that they are to be absent from the new arrangements. There will be good coverage of these matters but they will be approached in an integrated way, linked to the core areas and underpinning considerations. This comes across clearly in the draft framework documents that Ofsted published at the end of September which were circulated to Peers in the open letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, on 14 October. For example, the new arrangements will give prominence to aspects such as behaviour, attendance and pupil safety—all of which are fundamental to well-being. Inspectors will spend more time looking at absence and reasons for this and at how the needs of any pupils who are educated partly off site are addressed. The wider safeguarding of pupils remains a key part of the assessment of leadership and management and noble Lords have rightly emphasised the importance of safeguarding. That also looks at how the school is working in partnership with other schools, external agencies and the community to increase the range and quality of learning opportunities for pupils. Inspectors will be considering pupils’ participation in activities to develop their social skills. Inspectors will look at how schools manage safeguarding arrangements, including effective identification of children at risk of harm. They will also conduct case studies looking at the experience of vulnerable pupils, including those with special educational needs, looked-after children or those with mental health needs.
There will also be good coverage of issues related to community cohesion. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and others who spoke in support of this that inspectors will focus on how well performance gaps are narrowing between different groups of pupils when assessing achievement. They will also look at how teachers ensure that all pupils have equal access and a fair chance to learn in an atmosphere of respect and dignity when assessing behaviour, at how the school helps pupils prepare for life in modern democratic Britain and a global society when addressing leadership, and at the extent to which pupils understand and appreciate the range of different cultures within the school and further afield, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, as an essential element of preparation for life when considering pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. This is in the draft evaluation schedule published by Ofsted which is available to all schools and the public, so I can also reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that all schools will indeed know about it.
My noble friend Lady Benjamin asked how we would ensure that equalities issues were addressed. I reassure her that equalities are at the heart of the inspection system. Under the teaching limb, inspectors will assess the extent to which the needs of all pupils are being met. Under behaviour and safety, inspectors will look at whether all pupils have an equal and fair chance to thrive and learn. On leadership, they will assess whether there is a broad and balanced curriculum that meets the needs of all pupils. Where schools are not meeting the needs of all groups of pupils, this will be reflected in inspectors’ judgments about the school. In addition, schools of course have duties under the Equality Act.
Amendment 79 would amend the underpinning requirement for inspectors to consider pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development to add linguistic development. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that I agree that linguistic development is highly important. That is reflected both in Ofsted’s new approach and in the early years foundation stage. The starting point for assessment of communication, language and literacy development is the early years foundation stage profile assessment, which sets the standards for learning and development from birth to age five. My noble friend the Minister met the noble Lord recently and shared with him the full detail of the assessment that is made on communication and language. I say for the benefit of the House that the assessment includes checking the extent to which children speak clearly and audibly with confidence and control, and show awareness of the listener. It assesses how they use language to imagine and recreate roles and experiences, and how they use talk to organise, sequence and clarify thinking, ideas, feelings and events. It checks that children hear and say sounds and words in the order in which they occur; that they link sounds to letters, naming and sounding the letters of the alphabet; that they use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words; and that they explore and experiment with sounds, words and text, and retell narratives in the correct sequence, drawing on language patterns of stories.
We have recently consulted on revisions to the early years foundation stage. One proposal that we are looking to take forward is a new assessment for all children at age two. This would include personal, social, and communication and language development. The aim is to identify where children are doing well and where additional support may be necessary. The intention is to introduce this from September next year.
I turn to the new inspection system. In evaluating teaching and pupil achievement, inspectors will draw on the EYFS profile assessment in considering how well pupils develop skills in reading, writing and communication, and the extent to which pupils develop the skills to learn for themselves. Inspectors will listen to children reading, with a particular emphasis on weaker readers, and consider opportunities in the curriculum and through interactions with teachers and other adults for pupils to engage in a range of activities—for example, developing an appreciation of theatre and literature.
As the noble Lord has noted previously, social and cultural development presupposes linguistic development. We do not think that it is necessary to identify linguistic development separately from social and cultural development and, more generally, we do not believe that there is a pressing case to add to the legislation in this respect. The phrase “spiritual, moral, social and cultural development” has been with us since the start of Ofsted inspections in the early 1990s and continues to be just as useful and relevant today. To provide some additional assurance, we have agreed with Ofsted that linguistic development will feature explicitly in the training being provided for all inspectors in the coming weeks. We have asked that this important area be considered within the new framework for initial teaching training, on which Ofsted will shortly consult.
Amendment 76A from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, would introduce a fifth core area on which Ofsted would be required to report, covering the extent to which pupils of compulsory school age are “school ready” when they join the school. We have already had a useful debate during the first session about the importance of good parenting and support through the first five years of a child’s development, so I will not repeat the points that were made on this. However, I fully acknowledge that parents and early years providers have an important role to play in preparing children for school.
School inspection is concerned with holding schools to account for performance in educating their pupils. Inspection reports are therefore focused on the extent to which pupils progress and develop and not on reporting information about aspects of pupil intake, but I assure the noble Lord that inspectors will be interested in pupils’ starting points. The evaluation schedule that inspectors will use makes reference to the important assessment that is required to be made by schools under the early years foundation stage profile, the scores that inspectors will check as part of assessing what progress pupils have made at the end of each key stage relative to their starting points. Put simply, inspectors will look at the value that schools add while not lowering their expectations.
I know that the noble Lord is concerned also with what happens in other early years settings, the extent to which they are required to follow the early years foundation stage and how they are held to account. EYFS is mandatory for all early years settings, including reception classes in schools. The EYFS profile is an observational assessment of all children in the summer term of their reception year at school, the academic year in which they turn five. The reception class, of course, is attended by nearly all children. In addition, all children at ages three and four are entitled to 15 hours’ free early years education for 38 weeks a year, as are the most disadvantaged children at age two. For the most vulnerable children in need, we have debated previously the duty on local authorities to consider providing services which meet their needs.
The assessments are undertaken by teachers, supported by evidence gathered during the child’s time in reception year. It is based on practitioners’ ongoing observation and assessments of children’s progress in all six areas of learning and development. Parents are given a written report on their children which reflects the judgments of their child’s teacher based on the evidence that they and others have gathered. The information is used by the parent and the school to understand the child's development needs and to help plan for their future learning.
Data from EYFSP assessments are collected by local authorities, and they provide aggregate data to the department. The department publishes data annually at local authority and national level—these have been sent to the noble Lord. Last week we wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, detailing the various ways in which we collect information on the early years. We would of course agree with what she said in today’s debate about the importance of school governors in the whole pattern of these developments.
On holding local authorities to account, we are making data available about how children are developing at the end of the early years in each local authority area. We would expect schools and parents to use this to challenge the authority on its performance.
Ofsted inspects all early years providers against the EYFS. Where settings fail to meet the EYFS requirements, inspectors take action, instructing improvements as needed. Where improvements are needed, settings are inspected again, more quickly than they would otherwise be.
Finally, local authorities have a duty to provide information, advice and training to childcare providers in order to raise quality. To support this, the Government provide a substantial funding stream through the early intervention grant to enable local authorities to act more strategically and target investment where it will have the greatest impact, with greater flexibility to respond to local needs and to drive reform.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree that the EYFS profile is the right mechanism to provide the information about school readiness that he is seeking, and that the focus in school inspection should continue to be on the progress that pupils are making and the value added by the school.
The provisions in Clause 40 offer a coherent set of high-level reporting areas that have enabled Ofsted to put together a new approach to inspection that will be clearer for schools and inspectors and drive improvement.
I apologise if I have spoken at some length, but many important points have been raised in this debate. I hope that I have offered reassurance about coverage of well-being, community cohesion and linguistic development within the framework documents, and wider assurances about EYFS and how school readiness is monitored. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas
Before my noble friend sits down, will she agree to write to me saying exactly where community cohesion is dealt with in the draft framework document or the evaluation schedule? I must be reading the words wrong, missing them or misunderstanding how they work.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, if you were setting up a business to manufacture and sell bicycles and you were going to subcontract the construction of the wheels and maybe the bell to another provider, would you not inspect the wheels and the bell when they came in? Would you rely entirely on the provider to give you the inspection that you need to ensure the quality of the pieces that you were bringing in and putting together and on which your life’s work would depend?
The Minister has kindly given us a great deal of detail about what the EYFS does and all the inspections that take place, and it is very exciting that that is happening, but I am looking at it from the point of view of the school in this particular case. I think that the school needs to have an independent assessment to ensure that the input into the school is up to standard; and if it is not, then extra funding perhaps needs to be provided to enable the school to give special support, rather than having to take money away from its educational work in order to have to pay for restorative work to bring children up to speed.
I will read the reply carefully, but I am sorry to say that I do not honestly think that the Minister has covered the point that I tried to address. That may be my fault for not addressing it sufficiently clearly. Under the circumstances, I certainly do not intend to take the matter any further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Flather
“( ) the contribution made by the school to community cohesion.”
Baroness Flather
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for her comprehensive statement, but I regret very much that I did not get from it the flavour of community cohesion as I perceive it. I perceive it to be cohesion within the community, not just within the school. The school must promote that by teaching children about the community that they are in.
We now have free schools which will be very different from state schools. They will be free schools, so they will need that particular provision even more. We also have faith schools that will definitely be single faith schools, not schools where half the pupils or two-thirds of the pupils are from other faiths. It is extraordinarily important not only that those schools have responsibility for community cohesion but that Ofsted has the responsibility to check them for it. I am not satisfied that that point has been sufficiently accepted, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“(5C) In reporting under subsection (5), the Chief Inspector’s report must consider the wellbeing of the children in the school and, in particular, must report on—
(a) school policies on bullying and healthy eating;(b) the delivery of citizenship education;(c) the delivery of personal, social and health education, including sex and relationships education; and(d) child protection measures.(5D) In reporting on the matters listed in subsection (5C), the Chief Inspector must take into account the age and stage of development of the pupils.
(5E) The Chief Inspector’s report must also consider—
(a) how the delivery of the matters listed in subsection (5C) is coordinated across the school curriculum and in pastoral care; and(b) how many parents, pupils and members of the wider community are involved in the delivery of the matters listed in subsection (5C).”
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, Amendment 80 refers again to inspections in schools. It follows seamlessly from the previous discussion. As a former teacher of foreign languages and English, I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, about linguistics. Of course, community cohesion and safeguarding appear in my amendment. It is focused on the well-being of children; that is surely something that every parent and grandparent wants for their own children, and I speak as both.
The advantage of inspections of any school practice, however frequent, is that they can do two things: they can report on good practice, which can be shared between schools, and they can address poor practice, including teaching weaknesses and the appropriateness of materials. I will come to this shortly.
Let me first summarise the amendment. It is about the chief inspector reporting on school policies on bullying and healthy eating; the delivery of citizenship education; delivery of personal, social and health education including sex and relationship education; and the child protection measures. This should take into account the age of development of pupils, and should involve parents, pupils and members of the wider community. The amendment follows debates that were held last week on exclusion and searching.
Many noble Lords were concerned about a positive ethos being fostered at school. They were concerned about an emphasis on enriching learning experiences in an atmosphere where children can flourish. I believe that schools can help teach children to be good learners, good friends, good parents, and good citizens, and I believe Ofsted could comment on this. I am aware of school inspection guidance. I am aware of self-evaluation schemes. I am aware that every school is not inspected every year, but having well-being included in the inspection guidance would signal that it is important.
As my noble friend Lady Morgan said earlier, the threat of inspection can improve things even if it is several years ahead. Inspections are now on websites so others can see what good examples there are. I talked to an inspector the other day who was full of praise for a school where there was volunteering with senior citizens, and older pupils were helping with sports clubs for younger children. All this was contributing to pupils’ sense of responsibility for others, improving their communication skills and well-being.
I am aware that well-being is a nebulous term, which is why I have tried to divide it into some of the areas that can be inspected. Ofsted is already charged with reporting on schools’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. There are many other areas that could be included as part of well-being. I could have included physical education, which encourages collaboration, sharing and team spirit, or music, where singing or playing together enhances harmony and understanding of how separate parts blend into a whole. I could have included literature which, whatever the age of the child, encourages exploration of morals, ethics and behaviour, as well as a love of language. All this is about well-being.
Well-being helps children to learn and improves the outcomes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Children learn best when they feel secure and valued and have clear boundaries for behaviour. Schools are places where children can learn to respect themselves and others. UNICEF’s Rights Respecting Schools programme—and I declare an interest as a trustee of UNICEF—has been well evaluated and found to have a positive influence on behaviour and learning outcomes.
I turn briefly to the separate parts of the amendment. I know that the Government are very concerned about bullying. Schools should have a clear policy on this and should ensure that it is implemented. Bullying is a destructive act, for whatever reason—appearance, disability, ethnicity or whatever. It is destructive mainly for the bullied but also for the bully themselves.
On school meals, another policy area, we know about the rising tide of obesity. Schools can help by providing and encouraging healthy, nutritious food. I ask the Minister if the National Healthy School Standard will be preserved.
Let me now touch on citizenship as a part of well-being. Children from a very early age can learn about how democracy works. It is partly about how pupils behave in a classroom. Do they listen to each other? Do they help each other and share? Such skills can be learnt and practised at school. Many schools have elected school councils that comment on discipline and school policies. I have seen them working very well in primary schools.
Personal, social and health education—PSHE—is important. It is sometimes called life skills. Parents of pupils want young people to learn about relationships and about health and keeping safe. This should be appropriate to age and stage of development. PSHE will include topics such as diet, smoking, drugs, exercise and saying no to unwanted pressure from adults or other children. It will include teaching resistance to internet dangers, such as pornography or illegal sales. The Government’s concern about sexual consent is an element of this for older pupils.
I met an Ofsted inspector recently who said that PSHE was not taught as a separate lesson anywhere in the curriculum. It was covered across the curriculum and in pastoral care, in assemblies, visits to the school and out-of-school activities. The school ethos was one of respect and co-operation, led by a senior staff group. The staff were aware of the importance of PSHE and a senior teacher co-ordinated it. The inspector said that it was brilliant.
I am aware that there has been a campaign to discredit myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which has made dangerous assumptions about our intentions. I have a letter here from the Christian Institute, circulated to many noble Lords, which states:
“At Report stage there will be votes on amendments to require schools to teach sex education”.
This is untrue. A further letter states:
“Amendment 80 would ratchet up the pressure on schools to teach children about matters which they are simply too young to deal with”.
Again, that is untrue. As I said earlier, a duty of inspection is to ensure that teaching and materials are suitable for the age and stage of the child. My amendment protects children.
I am aware also that some colleagues will have been the subject of a public letter-writing campaign fuelled by the letter that I have just quoted. One lady wrote to someone saying:
“An Education Bill is being forced through Parliament which would result in compulsory sex education for school children from the age of five years”.
Where is this Bill that is being forced through Parliament? Where is the intention? My amendment is about well-being and protecting children. The public have been fed dangerously misleading information, which implies criticism of myself and, to some degree, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We were not informed that such information was to be sent and it is only by the kindness and concern of other Members of this House that we have sight of it. Incidents such as this letter-writing campaign happen when misinformation is unleashed, and people make what they will of it. It is particularly worrying when a charity is involved.
Never in the time that it has been my honour to serve in your Lordships' House have I known such a sinister and vicious campaign, which has sought to misinform others. Noble Lords will receive hundreds, maybe thousands of letters, taking up their time and energy, and I find this most regrettable. I also deeply regret the fact that it is ironic that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and myself have been two of the people in this House most concerned for the welfare of children. My own work has included child internet safety and child trafficking. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has been consistently involved in work on the rights of the child. I am deeply shocked and offended by this attack on my and the noble Baroness’s integrity, and I am very saddened that a colleague on the Benches opposite has also been involved in circulating misinformation to other colleagues. A letter from her states:
“Amendment 80 … would be to encourage the use of the kind of primary school sex education materials which have caused such concern”.
This is simply not true. This amendment safeguards children.
I briefly move to child protection, which includes safeguarding. This concerns us all. We have had horrendous examples of children falling through all the nets that can protect them. Problems can sometimes be picked up in school, whether it is physical or other forms of abuse. But there must be mechanisms in place so that a child in difficulty can be spotted and referred for help. Children can be taught how to protect themselves; they also have a right to protection.
The whole school community—here we have community cohesion again—of parents, school governors, agencies in the community, voluntary sector organisations, welfare agencies and outreach work such as sport or volunteering groups all contribute to well-being. Children can be encouraged to get involved in activities outside school, such as clubs and award schemes. Some sports clubs are actually linked to schools. This also is well-being.
Inspection reports can highlight how well-being is encouraged in schools. Such reports can be shared and others can learn of good practice, and they can pick up shortcomings, as I have said. Well-being is a vital aspect of what goes on in homes, schools and communities, and we know it when we see it. Children are entitled to school policies, to education and protection, which enhance and safeguard their well-being. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, and the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for graciously allowing me to speak next, for obvious reasons. Before I get on to the substance of this amendment, I would like to say a few words about the events that have led up to our debate today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, the Christian Institute recently sent out a letter in which it claimed that I would be laying an amendment to make PSHE compulsory. As your Lordships see from the Marshalled List, this is not true. It also claimed, in a subsequent letter, that my fictional amendment, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, which we are now debating, would force schools to teach five year-olds about sex. That is also not true. There have been wicked insinuations that we would want to do something that would harm children and their innocence. The noble Baroness and I have spent our whole parliamentary lives, much of what went before and a lot of what goes on outside, working to promote the well-being of children, and to suggest that we would harm them is outrageous and very un-Christian.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, my name is on the amendment if your Lordships would do me the courtesy of letting me speak. The value of this amendment is that it brings together the different elements of well-being, the interventions schools can make and the inspectorate regime. As the two previous speakers said, it is a great tragedy that such an important amendment has been usurped in this way, and actually been depicted in a completely false light.
I would like to start by quoting from a head teacher in a school in my home town of Brighton and Hove about the advantage of well-being being taught in schools. She says that,
“well-being is central to effective learning: through our in-depth and evidence-based focus on these areas, our practice has really developed and is clearly having a positive impact on the children”.
That is what this amendment is about, and that view is actually reinforced by the Government’s Healthy Schools toolkit, which says that,
“schools play an important role in supporting the health and well-being of children and young people—and we will make sure that schools have access to evidence of best practice”.
Again, that is what this amendment is calling for. This amendment would be a significant factor in providing the necessary framework to improve outcomes for our young people. Crucially, it ensures that the chief inspector’s report provides the evidence that determines that the outcomes have been achieved; that the school creates an environment of health and well-being; that the teaching is age-appropriate; that the school community has been involved; and that the programme can be sustained by the school.
The well-being of a child underpins the ability of that child to learn, fulfilling their potential, increasing their educational attainment, and improving their life chances. Young people need to be safeguarded against the consequences of risk and the consequences of some of their actions, so they can gain the knowledge and skills they need to be aware, healthy and safe.
The Government in the PSHE review makes all the arguments for the value of PSHE: that there needs to be room in the life of the school for an exploration of wider social issues that contribute to the well-being and engagement of all pupils. It goes on to say that Ofsted stated in 2010 that the weaker areas of provision were sex and relationships, drugs and mental health, and that there was ineffective assessment and tracking of pupils’ progress.
Again this amendment will help to overcome those weaknesses, and it should be seen as a package. For instance, citizenship is not only about the structure of our society and where we all fit in, but also about how we behave in our own communities. It is about tolerance and understanding diversity, and very often it is that lack of understanding that can be the cause of bullying in schools and sexual harassment—the latter a subject that many schools fail to recognise. Unwanted sexual contact is often a specific form of abuse that girls suffer routinely, and it really needs to be monitored.
This brings me to PSHE and SRE. The commitment by the Government to teaching sexual consent has to be welcomed, but it cannot be dissociated from the questions of how to avoid risk and the dangers of alcohol and drug-taking, which require specific education that gives young people self-esteem and the confidence to be in control. Yet self-esteem so often relates to image. We have to empower young people to be media-literate and to be able to cope with and challenge the bombardment of inappropriate images which often create bad eating habits.
To be effective, the interrelationship requires a level of co-ordination across the school to have a real impact on the well-being of the child. Health and well-being should be supported by the whole school community, with a well-being school group whose membership should include every aspect of the school: teachers, governors, students, the school nurse, the school cook, parents and carers. We can then ensure high-quality Ofsted-inspected lessons that range from personal finance to awareness of and sensitivity to diverse faiths and cultural beliefs, understanding discrimination, the wrongness of prejudice and bullying, the consequences of risky sex, drugs and alcohol misuse, and the importance of staying healthy. I genuinely believe that not to do so is failing this generation of children and young people. The Government, quite rightly, want young people to be responsible members of society. That can be achieved if they are prepared to provide the necessary framework to make it happen. This amendment is that framework.
Lord Layard
My Lords, this is a most important amendment because when surveys are done asking parents what they want most from a school, the majority say it is that their children should be happy. If this is so, it should surely be a major objective for our schools—it is as simple as that. Yet the existing pressures on our schools are in a very different direction and we are in danger of turning our schools into nothing much more than exam factories. We must surely do something drastic to reassert the importance of the development of character and of the personal well-being of children within the school. This is a matter not of either/or but of both/and: exams and academic achievement are extremely important, but so too is well-being.
On top of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out earlier, there is very strong evidence that happier children do better in terms of academic achievement. How can we get the rebalancing? I would be surprised if there were anybody in this House who did not believe that some rebalancing was needed in the objectives of our schools. I assume that we all feel that. The only way we can do that is by incentives, and the reality is that schools do what they think Ofsted wants them to do—it is as simple as that. Surely, Ofsted should be reporting on the ways in which schools are promoting the well-being of the pupils as well as the other objectives on which they already report. Should they not be reporting on what parents want for their children? If this is one of the things that parents most want for their children, if should surely be a major feature of Ofsted’s reports. Parents want their children to develop as rounded people who are learning not just how to earn a living but how to live.
In this year of youth riots, I find it extraordinary that the Government cannot add pupil well-being to the priorities for Ofsted in Clause 40. We have been told of a reassuring letter from the Secretary of State, but he is just one Secretary of State. We are debating legislation, and it is not enough to have that reassuring letter; it has to be in the Bill. If it cannot be within Clause 40, which apparently it cannot, I urge the Government to find some way of having this ancillary sanction that strengthens the rebalancing in the direction in which I think all your Lordships would like to see movement.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, after four speeches in favour of Amendment 80, the amendment still appears both overprescriptive and unnecessary. I say “unnecessary” in the light of the proposed new subsection (5B)(a) to the 2005 Act, which appears at the top of page 37 of the Bill. It lists,
“spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils”.
As if that were not enough, proposed new subsection (5B)(b) talks about,
“the needs of the range of pupils”,
in the school. In addition, the chief inspector and all the other Ofsted inspectors will have to take account of the guidance already issued by the Secretary of State in July 2000. Finally, if this amendment were to be accepted, it would seem to fly completely in the face of the policy of localism quite rightly adopted by this Government.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I speak with a certain degree of trepidation, not least because in one of the briefings that I received about tonight’s debate there was the suggestion that Bishops might like to keep their heads down on this amendment. I have no intention of doing that and while I have no responsibility for the Christian Institute, I want to apologise for any errors or false accusations made in the name of Christianity. I also want to affirm, as clearly as I possibly can, the enormous contributions made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Walmsley, to the interests of children in successive debates within this House. I am grateful for all that they have done in the cause of children here.
Perhaps I might ask the Government Front Bench whether they would affirm, in summarising, that nothing in Clause 40 or in the noble Baroness’s amendment could possibly alter the law so as to make sex education compulsory for anyone, whether that child is five or at any other age—and that if somebody were to desire that, it would involve new statutory provision and a quite separate procedure to that which we are involved with today.
That said, I welcome and have considerable sympathy for the propositions which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has put before us. I am particularly concerned with bullying. It seems to me that although it is inevitably very difficult to get any sort of figures in this area, bullying is not obviously decreasing within our schools. That is one reason why I was so enthusiastic a few moments ago to affirm the importance of social cohesion, and why I am grateful to the Government for the way in which they have continued to stress social cohesion—even if they are not prepared to have it in the Bill. Bullying can be extraordinarily insidious in the life of a school. I have been involved in enough instances and discussions, previously as a governor and with some responsibility for schools within my own patch, to know how dangerous bullying can be and what a need there is within schools, which on the whole do an excellent job in seeking to ensure that bullying does not happen. A number of times this afternoon, however, we have spoken of the way in which things can develop in a school, without anyone intending them to and sometimes without people noticing. I hope that the framework that has been referred to on a number of occasions makes it very clear that Ofsted inspectors need to be alert to the possibility that bullying is developing within a school.
I welcome the stress here on personal, social and health education. This is crucial to the development of young people, whether it is done formally, through PSHE classes, or through the whole ethos and being of the school, in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, described earlier. I, too, bring examples of PSHE being integral to the whole life of the school, so that through assembly, through behaviour in the playground and through the whole way in which staff, governors and students operate and relate to each other in the school, PSHE is continually invoked and spread among the members of the school.
I am pleased that the reference to PSHE in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, stresses the need for it to be appropriate to the age and stage of development of pupils. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also made that point strongly. If we were to pass this amendment, that would be one way of indicating that we believe that it is part of the task of schools, therefore of Ofsted, to deal with inappropriate sex education literature in the case of young children. I sympathise with the view that we are getting an overprescriptive, long list for Ofsted through the amendments we are exploring. That may be so, but these four areas are crucial to the life of schools and I trust that, whether or not we go with this amendment, they will all be part of the work of Ofsted and, more importantly, of the work of all the schools in our country.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, the speech by the noble Baroness in moving the amendment gave much reassurance to many in this place who may have been overwhelmed by some of the correspondence that we have been receiving. I am extremely sorry that both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, have been subject to abuse on the grounds that they have been apparently promoting activities in schools, in the teaching of the classroom, which have no place there, or should not be there. The fact that we have been receiving so many letters is an indication of the widespread distress that has come about as a result of what has been said. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, in replying to the debate, will make certain matters very clear indeed. What needs to be made very straightforwardly clear is that there is no intention at all of forcing the teaching of sex education in primary schools for children of the age of five upwards. That would be very wrong indeed. Having seen some of the material that has been put about that is apparently available in schools, I can say that it is totally inappropriate for young children.
The trouble with teachers, or well wishers, trying to embrace a subject of such sensitivity is that they become too explicit and nothing is left to any imagination at all. Worse still, in some of the documentation that I have seen, children are actually encouraged to experiment and to find out what they might enjoy. That is insane. We really cannot tolerate that sort of thing and I hope that my noble friend will make it abundantly clear that this is something that he and his colleagues in Government equally will not tolerate. I have had many years of being able to observe children in school, having been the owner, a long time ago, of a private preparatory school, and I know that in some cases—very rarely—a child is very susceptible and vulnerable and open to all matters of persuasion and influence. However, the majority—I can say this with some certainty—are not.
Children, small children in particular, are extraordinarily resilient and they have a facility to bypass the sorts of issues and experiences that trouble older people. They can absorb them. They are, after all, at an early age, on a journey on a voyage of discovery. They are learning something new every day, they see things every day that are either exciting or alarming and they can overcome issues of distress and anxiety very quickly, on the whole. I generalise, I know; of course, there are exceptions. I very much hope, therefore, that we will not try to force feed sex education to children in our schools, because that would be totally wrong and I know from what has been said that neither the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, have any intention of doing that. In fact, I find their amendment wholly unexceptional, albeit I do not think it is right to have it in the Bill. The inspectors, as has been said, should not have all this detailed material put in front of them; there are issues that need to be taken into account, but I do not think that it should be in legislation. However, I find their objective in stating these various points to be totally praiseworthy and I thank them very much for having brought these issues to the attention of this House.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to be clear—since I know that many noble Lords want to speak, since I do not want any hares, or anything else, to get running, and since we should debate this amendment on its merits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said at the beginning—that the Government do not have any proposals to bring forward or change any legislation in the context of sex education. I hope that that will help to speed up our debate.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I want to engage in a discussion about the actual amendment and the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, more broadly raises, rather than getting into a debate that we said we were not going to have about sex education for the under-fives. I support the thrust of this amendment, in that it is about the kind of ethos that we want our children to be brought up in. I know that some noble Lords think that it is overprescriptive and that there are other ways of getting this into the regulations, the legislation or the way that Ofsted inspects, but it is crucial that this ethos is through schools.
Noble Lords will know that I spent many years setting up and establishing Childline. I spent the years I was not doing that working with children who are severely deprived or have been seriously sexually abused. I will come to that in a moment. These children are not a small minority; there is quite a sizable group of children who do not have the benefit of good, middle-class families—indeed, some families that are middle class have extraordinary difficulties, as any parent who has faced having children who are into drug or alcohol abuse will know. The one important issue for all these children is that the school can make a difference.
I am involved with a group of children at the moment who have all had extraordinarily difficult backgrounds. They have been before the court either because their parents are splitting up or because they have come into care. The one thing that has made a difference to those children is their school. They are all doing well. They have the sort of starred grades at GCSE that I could only have dreamt of. They are doing well because their schools have focused on their well-being.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, I wish to speak against the amendment for two reasons. First, I am concerned that, as has already been mentioned, it will add to the range of issues that already exist for assessment by school inspectors. In Clause 40, proposed new subsection (5A) indicates that Ofsted must focus on,
“the achievement of pupils at the school”,
and so on. I will not read it because we do not have the time but I refer to new paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, drew our attention to the fact that Ofsted must also consider the overarching framework, encompassing,
“the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school”.
The same proposed new subsection also expects schools to provide for a,
“range of pupils at the school, and in particular … pupils who have a disability … and … pupils who have special educational needs”.
That is all in the Bill. It is all good and I am sure nobody would disagree with any of it.
My second reason for opposing the amendment is that, according to the amendment, it would require Ofsted to assess sex and relationships education in every state primary school. This is strange because, until now, primary schools have not been required to teach sex and relationships education. It is not a statutory national curriculum subject for primary schools. However, the amendment refers to all state schools, which encompasses primary schools.
I have a seriously worrying concern. Even now local councils and other public bodies are promoting wholly unsuitable resources for primary schoolchildren. At least, I take it that they are primary schoolchildren because the materials say that they are suitable from the age of five and a half. To my mind, that means primary schoolchildren. These materials are often recommended by the Sex Education Forum. Many noble Lords have already said that they have seen excerpts from this material. I have received e-mails reporting that where such material has been used, the children have been traumatised. Amendment 80 does not directly make sex and relationships education a national curriculum subject; it takes a different approach. Instead, it requires Ofsted inspectors to report on the delivery of PSHE, including sex and relationships education.
The amendment will apply unfair pressure to primary schools. Conscientious teachers and governors may feel under pressure to teach sex education when they would otherwise judge that it was not in the interests of their pupils. Primary schools will obviously fear being marked down in their Ofsted report if they are not using materials recommended by influential bodies such as the Sex Education Forum. How can they know—
Baroness O'Cathain
Please let me finish my argument. How can they know what view a particular inspector will take? The amendment refers to assessing,
“the age and stage of development of the pupils”,
but is that practical for Ofsted in this contentious area? With everything else that is involved in an inspection, how can inspectors closely examine the sex education resources of any individual school? At present, local school governors and head teachers are responsible for making such decisions; they should be allowed to continue to do so.
I note that Amendment 80 would require Ofsted to report on how many parents are involved in the delivery of sex and relationships education but this is not the same as consulting parents as a whole. We genuinely need to empower parents. The government guidance issued in 2000 strongly advocates consultation with parents, yet all too often this does not occur. Yesterday there was a debate in the other place, in Westminster Hall; I recommend reading Commons Hansard, cols. 40 to 41WH, in which a lot of disquiet is expressed about this. Parents are busy people and trust schools to get on with teaching. However, many of them are unfamiliar with the sort of sex education resources being used. They need to be given a legal right to be consulted and to view resources in advance. This should not just be in guidance—it should be a legal right. In the mean time, this amendment is definitely a step in the wrong direction.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Could I make two comments? First, would the noble Baroness agree that school governors have a significant role in overseeing teaching materials? Secondly, would she also agree that school inspections would protect children and prevent the materials that she describes getting into and being used in schools? That is the purpose of my amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain
I am very glad that the noble Baroness has said that. On the first point, I know quite a few school governors who will not have the time to look at these things in depth, so I am not sure that we could guarantee that some of these materials will not pass them by. On the second point, we know how infrequently Ofsted carries out the inspections in some of these areas so I would not want to leave it to that. There should be a legal requirement for parents to be able to see those materials.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead
My Lords, I hope that, at this late hour, the Government will firmly reject this amendment. I have no reason to quarrel with the integrity of the people who have proposed it, some of whom I have known for many years. I believe that they are blessed with the intelligence to put forward what they think is the right thing. Like wider roads, stronger beer, motherhood and apple pie, you could say snap to most of the amendment. What has been said about bullying and civic learning is absolutely clear. However, I have been here long enough to know that when someone says that something should be included in a Bill you have to be careful.
The amendment is actually saying that a school inspector “must”, not “could” look at the type of school and what its policies are. That is where we have a problem. There will be some schools that do not have a policy on the subject that has exercised us for most of this debate. Most schools make up their minds through the governors and parents, or through whatever consultation they have, and they make their decisions. If the amendment is carried, the chief inspector must ask those schools the questions and will have to report on them. In most areas the report would be clear.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds referred to the Government’s intention. However, it was only two days ago that the Minister was able to tell the House, at col. 543 of the Official Report, that the Government had no intention of changing the policy on sex education. I thought to myself, “That is good. There is no need for the proposed new paragraph because we have heard a clear statement from the Government”. I welcomed that at the time.
I am not influenced by hundreds of letters. I was not influenced by them on fox hunting and all the other issues that attract a deluge of correspondence. I admit that I did not receive much teaching because I left school at the age of 14, but I was taught to think for myself. It is wrong to put words in the Bill that could force people in certain circumstances to do things that they do not want to do. Therefore, in the event of a Division, I shall vote against the amendment—although reluctantly, because I recognise the integrity of those who are proposing it.
Lord Lingfield
My Lords, all of us sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, regarding the appalling letters she and others of us have received from time to time and which completely miss the point of this debate. I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House would think that a school ought not to have clear policies on bullying, the aspects of life dealt with in citizenship education, personal social, health and sex education, and even healthy eating. However, where I part company with the noble Baroness is that if these issues are a matter for close inspection by Ofsted, then the global views of that organisation—it has global views, although that may alter—become written in stone. Once these policies are apparent, schools often are scared to deviate in any way from what they come to believe is the letter of the law. The grades given by Ofsted to schools are very talismanic. The school is outstanding, satisfactory or merely good. Heads and governors become hugely anxious that an Ofsted report will say something detrimental and, if the buzz from other local schools already inspected is that it is important to tick the right boxes by adopting certain policies on sex education, certain aspects of discipline, citizenship education or even on the consumption of hamburgers and chips, sadly they will have those policies. We have seen far too much evidence of that.
We should leave these decisions entirely to individual schools. We should not want to take from the hands of heads, teachers and governors the right to make professional decisions in these areas of school life. Of course, every one of the items mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, in her amendment is absolutely important, but we should trust the staff on the spot to deal with them and not impose upon the staff, as inevitably this amendment would, an Ofsted view—and that, sadly, means a government view—about these matters.
Professional teachers and their governors are best equipped to know of the appropriateness of, say, certain aspects of sex education, certain specifics for bullying, and dietary needs in their own schools, and it is the whole thrust of the coalition's schools policy that schools should be free to take the decisions that the situation demands. I ought to add that Ofsted entirely lost its way by trying to inspect—and, therefore, inevitably setting into concrete—so many areas of school life, with something like two dozen criteria. I welcome the Government’s new view that schools should concentrate broadly on teaching, learning, discipline and leadership. If you get those right, everything else falls into place.
I should like to leave noble Lords with one thought. A paragraph or two that is passed by your Lordships can quite literally lead to 1,000 pages of bumph for an individual school. That is true. It is not necessary for Ofsted to inspect all these matters. I therefore oppose the amendment.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are now on Report. We should not be exploring in enormous detail issues that were looked at in Committee. We should have just the distillation of where we have got to on this matter. I also remind noble Lords that we have some very important business to consider following this debate. I therefore hope that we can expedite things and reach a conclusion.
Perhaps I may distil a parent’s view on the particular aspect of the amendment on which your Lordships have chosen to concentrate. I think that the parent has the best idea of when a child is ready for the various stages of his or her understanding of sex, and the best way is to answer truthfully every question when it is asked and at the age at which it is asked—sometimes wrapped up a little. I do think—and your Lordships have generally expressed a view—that to teach advanced sex, if one may call it that, in primary school is entirely inappropriate. I add my name to the list of those who admire greatly what the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, has done in Parliament for young people over many years, and I have been rather feeble in supporting her. However, what she was not asked to do was a demonstration of the material that is not only available but recommended to be used in classrooms; and recommended not only by non-government bodies but by local authorities, sometimes at an age less even than that recommended by the publisher. It was hair-raising. I hope your Lordships will understand that for that reason anything that tends to open the door to that is to be resisted.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, put it succinctly—he distilled it. He said that the inference in paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (5C) is that this subject should be taught in all schools. It is for that reason and with great reluctance that I oppose the amendment. Its intention is good and if it could be tweaked at Third Reading to exclude that inference, I would be friendly to it.
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friends in their amendment and acknowledge their tenacity in pursuing these important and sensitive matters. It is a welcome opportunity for me to leave the substitutes’ bench, even for a brief period, in the passage of the Bill and to take part in this significant debate. A colleague said that timely substitution can often win matches. However, looking at our recent voting form, I am not going to hold out too much hope.
In Amendment 80, my noble friends Lady Massey of Darwen, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lord Layard have called on the chief inspector to report on school policies on bullying, healthy eating, the delivery of citizenship education and the delivery of personal, social and health education, including sex and relationships education. In proposed new subsection (5D) in their amendment, they say:
“In reporting on the matters listed … the Chief Inspector must take into account the age and stage of development of the pupils”.
That is very important for us to remember in the context of our debate tonight. There is no question in the amendment of any compulsion for inappropriately aged children.
Education for Life, with a capital “L”, is crucial in our modern, complex, choice-led, resource-scarce society, but I know that the force of my noble friends’ arguments will not be lost on the Minister, who carries his brief with enthusiasm and compassion. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in Committee:
“Children may not go on to get first-class degrees but they will all have families, relationships, friends, personal finances, responsibility for their own health and safety … and jobs”.—[Official Report, 13/7/11; col. GC 344.]
Also in Committee, my noble friend Lord Layard quoted, at cols. GC 349 and 350, some revealing international evidence that personal, social and health education assisted children in their academic achievements. He said that it was not a case of either life skills or academic attainment but of both. Many noble Lords around the House are convinced by evidence such as this, by what parents themselves have said about PSHE and by the experience of PSHE in schools over recent years. I know that there has been a patchy nature to some of that teaching. One reason why my noble friends have tabled this amendment is to ensure that there is monitoring by Ofsted of the quality of that teaching and of the kind of training that must be given to those who deliver PSHE, whether it be generically through the school or as a separate subject.
Although we on these Benches welcome the end-of-consultation date for the department’s internal review of PSHE—which I believe is 30 November, as elicited through an Oral Question from my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton—we still have a slight suspicion that this review set out to be one that featured a certain acreage of long grass. In that context, I ask the Minister why PSHE was removed entirely from the original independent review.
We do not have a lot of time tonight. I want to say simply that we have a generation of children who face enormous and complex problems when it comes to sexual and personal health pressures. These are young people who come up against enormous problems, such as HIV infection, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, alcohol abuse, obesity and smoking—the list goes on. It cannot be the role of a responsible Government overseeing education to allow chance, discretion or benign neglect to be the official response to the bewildering array of problems that face young people. I was as shocked as I am sure many noble Lords were at the recent evidence of sexual cyberbullying and the increasing amount of cyberbullying that goes on, particularly of young girls. It is imperative that we give young girls all possible confidence to resist such pressure. How do we do that? We do it by arming them with clear and rational argument. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said, schools can make a difference. We also need to give young boys—here, I look towards the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the work that he does—the confidence to act in a responsible way and to resist their own peer pressure. This is where PSHE comes in. The correct teaching of PSHE, with proper training, can only be a good thing for the next generation.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, from the substitutes’ bench. As I am sure that she knows far better than I do, that is not all it is cracked up to be. There have been many times this afternoon when I would very happily have been sitting on the substitutes’ bench. However, it is very nice to hear from her in such an important debate.
We have discussed these broad issues many times in this House, even in my short time here, but I think that we have covered the ground well again today with a great deal of thought and passion. It has been a good discussion, in which I hope we have managed to clear the air on some issues.
On the amendment, as we heard in the debate on the previous group, Clause 40 consolidates and refocuses the arrangements around core issues related to education in its widest sense, covering academic and personal development. The point has been well made that education is not solely about academic achievement but is about everything that makes children develop and, indeed, be happy. On the specific issue of children being happy—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Layard—inspectors seek the views of parents and children about the school, and in both cases views are sought on whether children are happy in school. It is right that that should be so, and this will continue to feature as a question to parents and children. I believe it is also the first question that is put to parents in Ofsted’s new online questionnaire, which gathers parents’ views outside inspections. I agree that it is important that those points are picked up.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, seeks to add well-being to the main reporting areas for school inspections, including some specific aspects of well-being, which she set out for us. As I hope my noble friend made clear in her response to Amendment 77, although well-being is not included in the consolidated provisions set out in Clause 40, that does not mean that it is absent from the new arrangements. Indeed, we argue that having behaviour and safety as one of the four core areas—areas that we are trying to slim down so that there is more attention on a smaller number—shows how important well-being will be within the new arrangements. Child protection measures, which we have also talked about, will be a key element of the assessment of the effectiveness of leadership and management of a school. Safeguarding will be picked up there as well as through thematic surveys, as we discussed on the earlier group.
The reason that the Government are keen to change the focus of inspection is illustrated by Ofsted’s inspection findings for 2009-10. In that year, teaching was judged outstanding in only 5 per cent of primary schools and 4 per cent of secondary schools. That is one reason why we are keen to make sure that inspection focuses on teaching quality. Schools that perform strongly in terms of pupil achievement also do well on wider aspects of well-being. However, the reverse is not always the case. For example, last year all primary schools that were judged outstanding for achievement were either good or outstanding in terms of healthy lifestyles, but for primary schools that were inadequate in terms of achievement, over half were good or outstanding on healthy lifestyles.
I stress that inspection will focus on those key aspects of well-being. For example, inspectors will be checking to ensure that all pupils have an equal and fair chance to thrive and learn in an atmosphere of respect and dignity. Inspectors will consider pupils’ behaviour towards and respect for other young people and adults, including freedom from bullying, and will also consider pupils’ ability to assess and manage risk appropriately and keep themselves safe, including from some of the risks that we have discussed—those associated with new technology, substance misuse, knives and gangs, and those associated with relationships, including sexual relationships. This is set out specifically in the new evaluation schedule that inspectors will follow.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words. As ever, he is sensible, courteous, wise and thorough. I know that he is well aware of the importance of these issues. Perhaps, yet again, he could meet a small group of us informally to talk about how well-being is to be delivered in a guaranteed way. I am happy to organise a group to do that.
We have had a very interesting, wise and dedicated debate on this issue, most of which I agree with and some of which I do not, but that is fine. I want to raise one or two issues. There is the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, not in this debate but in the one before: if something is to be inspected, schools will be aware of it and will look at it. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield. I was the person who welcomed him to this House, in very difficult circumstances—he knows what I mean. He made some very astute comments. Schools have to teach some things and I think that this should be one of them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for whom I have enormous respect, that parents sometimes feel somewhat uneasy about dealing with issues of sexual relations. He is nodding, so he must know, and I think schools can back that up. I am all for parental consultation and involvement, but I dealt with this myself when I was teaching and I agree that sometimes parents have difficulties dealing with the issue and children have difficulty talking to their parents about it. Let us leave it at that.
The quality of teaching materials and the fact that they are age-appropriate is important, as my noble friend Lady Crawley said. I have no intention of calling a Division at this time of night, when there is other important business to come. However, while I am sorry to end on a sour note, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made a very impassioned and indignant speech and I, like her, still feel indignant and distressed by letter-writing campaigns that impute things to us that we never intended. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned for the day. The usual channels have agreed that Report stage should continue on Tuesday 1 November and not later tonight.
Community Legal Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Community Legal Service (Funding) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2011 (SI 2011/2066), laid before the House on 24 August, be annulled, on the grounds that the reduction in civil standard and graduated fees for Legal Help and Help at Court will seriously undermine access to justice because it threatens the financial viability of already hard-pressed community legal practitioners who carry out an essential service to those least able to afford it, including the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Bach
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I make it crystal clear that we on this side believe that there must be cuts to the legal aid budget. Over the past 30 years or so, perhaps until a few years ago, the amount spent on legal aid went up a great deal, year on year, and that was particularly true in the criminal legal aid field until the amount spent on criminal legal aid, compared with civil legal aid, was totally out of kilter.
As part of the necessary cuts, we, when in Government, took action to reduce legal aid spending and I do not apologise for that. Almost the last act we took in government, before the general election of 2010 was called, was to cut criminal legal aid advocates’ fees in the higher courts over a three-year period. It was not popular but it was necessary. Incidentally, that gives the lie to the present Government’s claim that we, the previous Government, were not prepared to tackle the deficit. If we had won that election, we would have cut further. My personal view is that there are large savings indeed to be made in our whole criminal justice system. In any event, we had published a White Paper, Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services, which, if followed through, would have made considerable savings.
However, there are two considerable differences that exist between our proposals and those of the Government. First, Her Majesty’s Government are intent on cutting legal aid much too far and much too fast. They have not given any—certainly not enough—thought to the consequences of their policies, either in human or in financial terms. That leads me on to my second point. One of the areas in which they have chosen to axe legal aid, take it out of scope altogether and make savings in fees, is precisely the wrong area of law. They intend to remove welfare benefits advice and representation at all levels, including up to the Supreme Court; employment advice; much housing advice and even more debt advice; and some community care advice and education advice—in other words, advice to the poor and the vulnerable. They intend to save the sum of about £50 million per year through those cuts. Today, of course, we are not strictly debating the rights and wrongs of such an approach, but we shall be able to do that in short order when the Bill, currently in another place, comes to this House.
Tonight we are debating an order that in one fell swoop cuts 10 per cent from all—I repeat, all—civil fees, including family fees. To describe it as a rough and ready figure would be a gross understatement. It is a crude and ill thought-out measure with no evidential justification whatever. Although I am particularly concerned with the 10 per cent cuts to social welfare and community lawyers, the lowest paid of all the lawyers who do civil and family work, I acknowledge the powerful case put forward by other civil and family lawyers to me as a result of my Motion being tabled. I thank all those who have made their case. There may well be champions for them tonight, although I know that because of the lateness of the hour, various noble Lords whose contributions would have been very welcome on all sides have not been able to stay.
Interestingly, there are no comparable cuts on the criminal side—for example, in the sister order that accompanies this particular statutory instrument. This shows that the Government are quite ruthless when it comes to civil and family legal aid and as soft as butter when it comes to criminal legal aid. It is as though they have no sense at all of the fantastic value social welfare law has in our society, allowing, at comparatively cheap costs, early legal advice for many of those who could not possibly afford to get it, with the result that issues are solved and the courts are not full of hopeless cases and litigants in person. Noble Lords will perhaps have seen the concern of some Justices of the Supreme Court in the newspapers this morning. For some reason, the Government are determined to decimate social welfare law and drive out those hard-working, dedicated and, I would argue, poorly paid lawyers who practise in this field.
Who are these lawyers? They are often the not-for-profit sector; they work in law centres, citizens advice bureaux and other advice centres. Some are solicitors and barristers in private practice. Many, wherever they come from, sacrifice more lucrative legal careers in order to practise this type of law. If they do not practise it, who will?
Their fees are fixed fees brought in in October 2007 and raised by 2 per cent in 2008 but untouched since then. They are not overgenerous. We as a Government brought in the fixed fee and it undoubtedly caused problems in itself. We set up a study with many experts from this area of law to look into those problems, and we produced a document entitled a Study of Legal Advice at Local Level in order to attempt to tackle them. We as a Government refused at any time, and particularly during the recession, to cut legal aid spending on social welfare law. We increased it significantly from £151 million in 2007-08 to £208.4 million in our last year, 2009-10. We increased eligibility by 5 per cent, bringing in 750,000 more people, and increased the number of new matter starts. I am proud of what we did.
The proposed fees are set out in Table 1 of the order, to be found on page 4. These cases often take many hours’ work. They involve face-to-face contact. Often the lawyer, having seen the client, has to speak to third parties in order to resolve the problem. They are by no stretch of the imagination well paid. There is an exceptional threshold, but a case has to be very long indeed and very complicated to come into that category.
There are currently 52 law centres in England and Wales. They are not profit-making. They have had to make efficiency savings with the introduction of the fixed-fee system. Many rely heavily for the excellent work that they do on legal aid. Eight generate over 70 per cent of their income through legal aid contracts. None of these law centres has a 10 per cent surplus and at present they monitor cash flow on a weekly basis. There is no fat to them at all. All eight are at risk of closure. Four centres are particularly vulnerable, two in London and two outside the capital. Eight hundred thousand pounds is immediately to be taken from law centres’ funding overall by the 10 per cent cut. In the medium term, the combined effect of the 10 per cent cut plus the proposed scope cuts is that £8 million out of the £9 million in legal aid contracts that law centres enjoy will disappear. Eighteen law centres out of 52 will just not be viable—it may be more. Where, I ask, will people go to in order to get their legal issues sorted out?
I could make the same points about CABs, the citizens advice bureaux, which have a very high reputation, as do law centres, in Parliament and outside. Obviously CABs do not rely so heavily on legal aid, but many still rely on it, and at a time when local authority funding is, frankly, declining, CABs will also close as a consequence of this order. Noble Lords will remember that a few months ago there was news from Birmingham about the state of CABs in Britain’s second largest city.
Private sector firms that do this work also work on the same legal aid rates. All day long I have been receiving e-mails from solicitors who do this work. Sometimes, of course, other parts of these firms subsidise the social welfare law part of a firm, but I have been told that the amount of money that legal aid lawyers of many years’ standing get per year would make an extremely interesting database. It is much less, of course, than that of a solicitor who does not do that work and compares extremely badly with other professionals—very badly indeed. Those who practise in this field and who do this absolutely invaluable work do not expect enormous rewards, but nor do they expect to be penalised even further.
I end with the story of Law For All. Law for All was in west London, and many noble Lords may have heard of it. It was quite a large organisation. It provided legal help in the fields of debt, employment, family law, housing and welfare benefits. It also provided representation for many people over many years. However, it has now been forced to close down in anticipation of the reduction in the fixed fee and, of course, the fact that 90 per cent of their work is being taken out of scope in the Bill that is currently going through Parliament. This is a tragedy for local people, who received legal help in 1,500 cases last year. The local authority in that part of west London is generous, but the Government’s proposals have meant that Law For All has closed its doors. I have spoken this afternoon to the chief executive —or should I say ex-chief executive?—who confirmed that the 10 per cent cut that we are debating tonight and the taking out of scope have driven it to close.
It is important to point out that even where the area of social welfare law is not to be taken out of scope altogether, such as in some housing cases and some debt cases connected with housing cases, the order that we are debating tonight means that the continuing work in housing, for example, will be reduced by 10 per cent. All housing work that stays in scope will be affected.
Noble Lords may want to know how much this will save. It is estimated that the saving from the whole order, including the 10 per cent cut in civil and family legal aid across the board, is worth £45 million. The cuts as they affect social welfare law fees are all of £5 million. That is a figure that the Legal Action Group has confirmed. Of course it is a rough figure but it shows just how much or, rather, how little will be saved by this order. Saving £5 million in fees when Her Majesty's Government intend to spend £250 million on ensuring that there are weekly rather than fortnightly collections of rubbish is absolute nonsense. Have we not got our priorities entirely wrong?
In the Hansard published today, the Minister has answered a Question that I asked him. The information is that:
“In cash terms, spending on legal aid in 2010-11 was … some £66 million (3 per cent) below provision”.—[Official Report, 25/10/11; col. WA 137.]
Yet the aim is to save £5 million by cutting these fees by 10 per cent.
I am not allowed to seek to amend this order and I therefore have to pray against it as a whole. Whether I vote against it tonight will depend on what other noble Lords say in the course of the debate that I hope will follow and, of course, particularly on what the Minister says. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Bar Standards Board. The Bar Standards Board is the regulatory arm of the Bar Council, not the representative one, and I have no direct concern with the pay that barristers earn. My job is to further the objectives laid down for the Bar in the Legal Service Act 2007. There are eight in Section 1, including protecting and promoting the public interest, improving access to justice and encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession. What I have to say tonight when I encourage your Lordships to annul this order is based entirely on the application of those objectives in the regulation of the education and working lives of barristers.
Last Sunday, an advertisement appeared in the Sunday Times headed,
“Helping the most vulnerable in Society”.
It was for a new chief executive of the Legal Services Commission, which hands out legal aid. I quote from the ad:
“Our role is to ensure through our providers that independent, high-quality legal advice and representation is available to vulnerable people who cannot afford it themselves. We enable people to protect their rights and defend their interests”.
This order flies in the face of the aspiration in that advertisement and of the achievements of the objectives in the Legal Services Act and the profession.
Let me turn first to the effect it will have on women and black and ethnic minority barristers. This is a central plank of the work that we do at the Bar Standards Board in encouraging and retaining those very barristers. The effect of this order is to cut the rates payable in family advocacy by 10 per cent. It will be felt hardest by women and black and ethnic minority barristers, who are disproportionately represented in dependence on legal aid, while white men are the least dependent sector. There has been considerable government pressure to open up the legal profession still more to entrants from all backgrounds, albeit that it is already a very diverse profession.
Alan Milburn’s report of 2009 singled out the legal profession in his survey of social mobility, even though the Bar and solicitors go to enormous lengths to explain and reach out to young people all over the country. The Bar has a record to be proud of, with over 15 per cent of pupillages going to black and ethnic minority students in a very competitive market. The cuts in fees in this order undo all that work, and make the Government appear two-faced.
Sixty per cent of the family Bar are women, and they do 66 per cent of legally aided children work. Half the family Bar relies on public funds for more than 60 per cent of its turnover. From their gross earnings, modest though they are, barristers have to pay overheads to chambers and clerks—typically 20 per cent—and in addition meet their own pensions, illness and professional insurance cover and expenses. The King’s College London survey of barristers in 2008-09 indicated that 80 per cent of them intended to abandon legally aided public work. This generation of young people have university tuition debts and huge fees at Bar school, and the modest but reliable income that was once their support in the early years at the Bar is now to diminish to such an extent that they cannot earn a living. There is no point in the great efforts put into outreach in this situation.
It continues on into the judiciary. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, reported on judicial diversity in 2010. A less diverse profession means a less diverse judiciary, and fewer women judges. The diminution of the profession also means more litigants in person taking up more court time, not less, with problems being stored for several years down the line because they cannot be settled in court in a proper and timely way.
As with other demanding professions, women are being lost to the Bar after five to 10 years in practice, because of the costs of childcare. It is unaffordable and will be even more so. Twice as many women leave the Bar as do men for that reason. The cut in fees in this order will weaken retention. It will also damage the children who are the subject of court orders, because now the experts who give evidence in child cases are placed within this table of reduced fees, and the fees are set at below the level needed to maintain their practices.
The Government have given no evidenced reason for cutting by 10 per cent, and they have not waited for the outcome of the Family Justice Review, chaired by David Norgrove. In March of this year, its interim report commented on the adverse impact that cuts would have, the lack of data about case-handling and flow through the court, and the contribution made by the lawyers in the cases. In the 2009 study Family Law Advocacy by the very experienced researchers John Eekelaar and Mavis Maclean of Oxford University, it was shown that where lawyers were involved in family law cases concerning money and children, the majority of cases were resolved without court process or contested hearing. Even where the cases went to court, in the highly charged emotional atmosphere that one would expect, the presence of specialist family lawyers enhanced the prospects of resolution and shortened the court process, for they are minded to act collaboratively and in the interests of the children. Additional damage has already occurred to women and children through the closure, because of already instituted cuts, of the advice agencies Refugee and Migrant Justice, the Immigration Advisory Service and Law for All, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has just mentioned.
There are more constructive ways to save money. First of all there is too much judicial review, now used as the citizen’s right of appeal. I was surprised to find when I was the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, running an alternative dispute resolution service for students, that those students obtained legal aid to challenge our decisions. There should be a push back against the notion that human rights mean that any and every decision can be judicially reviewed at great cost to the public. As for human rights, the real denial of those is to the middle classes, who are neither poor enough to be eligible for legal aid, nor can afford to go to law at their own expense. They are therefore the real victims, who cannot access justice.
The other substantive reform needed is to bring certainty into the law of maintenance on divorce. An obvious model for this is the continental European system of community of property, to which the Scottish system is similar, which entails a fixed fifty-fifty split of post-marital property and little ongoing maintenance. Broad-brush justice it may be, but it is cheap and efficient to arrange. As long as we have our Rolls-Royce discretionary system of settling property issues on divorce, couples will continue to waste sums they can ill afford—sometimes amounting to as much as the property in dispute—on deciding who gets what.
This order should be annulled. The Government should await the Family Justice Review report and change substantive law to get a more efficient system without damaging the profession and its diversity.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I, too, support this Motion and agree with nearly all the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Deech. The statutory instrument is an extremely worrying document, proposing as it does to reduce by 10 per cent the remuneration payable to lawyers for legal services in cases covered by a legal aid certificate. What is the reason for this? The purported reason is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.2 explains that,
“the Government considers that it needs to ensure that it only pays those fees that are absolutely necessary to secure the level of services that are required”.
That is an entirely acceptable proposition but I suggest that it is weasel words.
The reason is not that legal aid should not have been granted in a number of cases or that the remuneration assessed under the present regulations exceeds a reasonable charge for the work done or that the work done was unnecessary. The reason is that assistance is needed from the Ministry of Justice to help reduce the budget deficit. Why that could not have been explained as the reason in the Explanatory Memorandum, I know not. But the reason plainly is simply to assist in reducing the budget deficit.
Are others who do work for the Government as independent contractors, such as barristers or solicitors, to have their remuneration reduced to assist in reducing the budget deficit? I have not heard of such a suggestion. Why are legal aid lawyers being singled out for this attention? The effect of the 10 per cent reduction needs to be thought about. A number of lawyers may decline to accept legally aided work, bearing in mind that they will receive 10 per cent less than the sum which would have been reasonable remuneration under present standards. Why reduce what has been assessed as reasonable remuneration?
A second possible result has already been referred to by my noble friend Lady Deech. The number of litigants in person may increase and their presence in court almost invariably means that the case takes much longer. It often means that there will have to be adjournments. The judge with litigants in person before him, particularly if there is one litigant in person on one side and counsel for a paying party on the other side, is placed in the position of having to appear sometimes like counsel for the litigant in person. The judge thinks of points that the litigant in person has not thought of that might assist their case. The judge puts those points forward and then it appears that he is taking the side of the litigant in person. It is an unedifying spectacle but all judges will have experienced it. I have myself. Those are the possible adverse consequences.
What are the beneficial consequences? There would be a reduction in the legal aid bill, but that would depend on the additional costs occasioned by the number of adjournments that litigants in persons may bring about. The Law Society has circulated some documents suggesting that the notion that costs will be saved by these so-called reformed are misconceived. It may be only pie in the sky but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and the disadvantages, I suggest, are apparent.
More important than the disadvantages to which I have referred is the effect on the civil justice system, for which I have a great affection. I have worked in it all my working life. It is not an optional extra but a system that behoves every government to supply for the benefit of all its citizens. Without a civil justice system self-help would become the order of the day in the settlement of issues between citizens. The civil justice system is there to settle issues between citizens and the Government. A feature of an acceptable civil justice system is that it must be accessible to all who need to use it. The legal aid scheme enables that to be achieved. Some types of litigation are removed from the benefit of the ability of litigants to conduct their cases under legal aid, but, broadly speaking, the legal aid scheme seeks to ensure that access to the civil justice system is available to all, which is right and proper. As I have said before, it is not an optional extra to be paid for only by those who can afford it.
The need for lawyers in that system is apparent also and those lawyers need to be paid for. The notion that that can be avoided by Government is no more realistic than saying that any other necessary service which it behoves Government to provide should be paid for by those who work in it. Are doctors and nurses supposed to contribute to the cost of the National Health Service? Certainly not. How is it different where legal aid lawyers work in cases where legal aid has been granted? A functioning and healthy civil legal aid system is essential. The implications of this statutory instrument are that the Government do not regard it in quite that light but think that these impositions can be made on the lawyers who work in that system in order to reduce the cost that would otherwise fall on government.
The 10 per cent reduction does not perhaps matter very much for senior barristers who have established a practice. They will have some privately funded work. They will have established good will among solicitors and clients that they can rely on in legally aided work as well. They will survive the 10 per cent reduction. The ones who will be struck by it and who may not survive it are the new entrants to the profession. Those men and women enter the profession with trepidation. It is a profession which provides no security. There is no firm that will pay you a salary that you can fall back on. You stand or fall on your own efforts and rely on the fees that you earn. Almost every entrant to the profession will wonder how long he or she can manage to continue before the financial difficulties become too great. The statutory instrument separates counsel providing advocacy services under the legal aid scheme into senior barristers who have been in practice 10 years or more and juniors who have been in practice less than 10 years. Those who have been in practice for 10 years or more can be expected to have built up some degree of practice and good will. They probably have some privately funded clients. They probably have some good will with solicitors who do legal aid work. They can probably avoid suffering too much from this 10 per cent reduction in their legal aid income. But what about those new entrants with five years’ call or less? They have no security at all. They will have a meagre income. They will be hoping that it builds to something respectable. For many of them it does but for some of them it does not. Practically every barrister who enters the profession does so in the knowledge that he or she may be unable to afford to continue for long enough to establish a practice on which they can reasonably live. They may have to take a bolthole, so to speak, into employment in a solicitors’ firm or in the legal department in some commercial company. The ones who have to take that course, who cannot wait the length of time necessary to build up a practice they can survive on, will be those who have no advantages of family support to help them in their difficult years. This statutory instrument is going to make those first five years much more difficult. Let us imagine somebody on an employment salary, not a very large one, being told that he or she must suffer a 10 per cent reduction for the future. There will be a drift away from the barrister’s profession and into firms and commercial companies, to which I have already referred. It will do a disservice to the civil justice system, which depends on a stream of lawyers coming up through the system and becoming available eventually as potential judges.
I respectfully suggest that this is a bad statutory instrument. If my noble friend Lord Bach puts his Motion to a vote, I shall vote for it.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I regret that I, too, must support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, because of my concerns about the impact on child welfare. I regret doing so, because I know that the Government take the welfare of children very much to heart, and I thank the Minister for ensuring that domestic violence issues have been kept out of the scope of the order and that tandem representation of children in private law cases will be untouched.
I remind the Minister and other Members of the House of Article 3.1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states:
“In all actions concerning children”—
whether undertaken by legislative bodies or other institutions—
“the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
I should be very interested to hear from the Minister how the best interests of children have been considered in this move by the Government to cut legal aid.
Children need the best experts and lawyers in the immensely complex cases that they are often drawn into. My concern is that those experts will be driven out by the further cut in their finances. Expert witnesses to the family courts—including paediatricians, child and adolescent psychiatrists, educational psychologists, adolescent psychotherapists and independent social workers—are all subject to the 10 per cent cut, having already had their fees seriously cut. For clinicians working in London, the situation is worse, because London-based practitioners are allowed to charge only two thirds of the amount charged by those based outside London. As everyone knows, it is more costly to practise in London.
I am concerned that because of the impact on expert witnesses there will further delays for children in the courts and that poor decisions will be made. If a child is taken into local authority care and the wrong decision is come to, it will stay with that child for the rest of his life and possibly for the rest of his children’s lives. We need to get those decisions right and we need the right expertise.
A further concern of the expert witnesses is that they cannot deal directly with the Legal Services Commission but have to work indirectly through solicitors. Perhaps the Minister could look at that, because it would certainly be an improvement if they could deal directly with the commission.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he can give some comfort to your Lordships.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart to speak against this annulment Motion. It is with a heavy heart because, for all my professional life, I have been a devoted supporter of legal aid. I declare an interest as a barrister who over the years has done a great deal of publicly funded work. My first ever motion to a Liberal Democrat conference was on the promotion of legal aid. The Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association, which I chaired for a number of years, drank a toast every year at its annual dinner to the Legal Aid Fund, a toast proposed by a prominent lawyer. It is noteworthy in the context of today’s debate that the toast was changed some 10 years ago to “justice for all”, as an ironic response to cuts in civil legal aid made by the then Labour Government. I chaired a policy group entitled A Right to Justice, which helped to define Liberal Democrat policy on improving the legal aid scheme. My party has always taken as its starting point for discussion on this topic that access to justice is a crucial right and that legal aid funding provides a vital public service. There is no point in having rights enforceable at law if citizens cannot secure those rights in courts of law. I know from many years’ experience of him that that is the position my noble friend the Minister takes as well.
However, while there was much to agree with in all the speeches that have been made so far in favour of the Motion, we live in difficult times. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, fairly acknowledged, savings must be made. The provisions of the order are estimated to deliver £120 million of the £350 million of savings that the Ministry of Justice is required to make in legal aid over the spending review period from 2011-15. If we do not make those savings, matters can only get worse and later cuts will have to be deeper.
On a personal note, in Greece, my wife's home country, I have seen at first hand the effects of the extreme austerity measures cutting back public expenditure. The cuts could have been much less harsh had the Government there got a grip on the public purse earlier when all the signs of overspending were plain for all to see.
The need to make savings in the legal aid budget was recognised by the Labour Party in Government who made some 30 attempts to limit it, reducing fees in real terms across the piece as they did so, between 2006 and their leaving office. Furthermore, that was before the full extent of the deficit became apparent and the need for deficit reduction and cuts across the board became as clear as it is now. On 18 May 2009, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked whether the Labour Government would maintain the rates of legal aid payments in family law cases. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, replied:
“Family legal aid costs have risen unsustainably from £399 million per year to £582 million per year in the past six years. We need to control these costs in order to protect services for vulnerable clients”.—[Official Report, 18/5/09; col. 1201.]
In the consultation paper sent out by Ministry of Justice in July 2009, for which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, as legal aid Minister, was responsible, its proposals were described as follows:
“Our legal aid system is one of the best funded in the world. We spend around £38 per head on it annually in England and Wales, compared to £4 in Germany and £3 in France. Even countries with a legal system more like ours spend less; for example, both New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland spend around £8 per head”.
I regard the fact that we still spend considerably more than comparable countries on legal aid as a matter for pride. That is still the case but it highlights the degree to which the legal aid budget must bear its share of the economies that have to be made.
The Labour Government's consultation paper continued:
“While we devote considerable resources to legal aid—£2bn annually—”
the figure is now £2.2 billion—
“our resources are limited, and we need to review regularly how legal aid funds are being spent, and whether we are securing value for money for the taxpayer and providing the services that the public need”.
The Government's response to the consultation, published in January 2010 and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:
“The Government wants to ensure that we rebalance the legal aid budget as far as possible in favour of civil help for those who need it most. But we also need to ensure that the resources we currently devote to civil legal aid are being targeted appropriately, and that the rules for granting funding are as robust as they need to be to ensure that resources are expended on meritorious cases … The intended effects are to redirect resources onto higher priority areas, and to ensure that funding is only granted to eligible clients”.
The words “rebalance” and “redirect resources” would inevitably have involved real terms reductions in fees. Labour’s 2010 election manifesto said:
“To help protect frontline services, we will find greater savings in legal aid and the courts system”.
When this Government's consultation paper on legal aid was published, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, very fairly said, as he said tonight:
“It would have been hypocritical of Labour to say we would not cut anything. If we had, we would be rightly criticised”.
It is beyond doubt that the reductions in fees embodied in the order, which the noble Lord seeks to annul, do make it more difficult for the already hard-pressed community legal practitioners, mentioned in the Motion, to thrive and will make it more difficult for barristers, junior and senior, who work on publicly funded work. We agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that such practitioners carry out an essential service for those least able to afford it. This order does involve a 10 per cent cut in their fees and in the fees of barristers for publicly funded work across the field of civil and family law, not just social welfare law. It includes—I would suggest rightly—a limit on experts’ fees for the first time. It is going to be more necessary than ever for lawyers to practise as efficiently as they can and the harsh reality is that they will earn less from legal aid work. However, I am far less clear that their core viability is threatened.
We will be debating these issues—and the other issues about the scope of legal aid mentioned by the noble Lord, but not the subject of this order—in full when the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill comes to this House shortly. I hope we will also be able to explore during the course of this Parliament other ways in which savings might be made without damaging the quality of the justice system. Progress is being made in exploring the achievement of savings through alternative dispute resolution procedures. I believe there is also room for improvement in the efficiency of the court system to produce savings. In the family field, I look forward with great hope to the final report of the Family Justice Review chaired by David Norgrove.
I would make it clear from these Benches that we have been, and are, heavily involved in discussions with practitioners and others , including many civil and family law practitioners, both barristers and solicitors, who have quite rightly expressed their concerns to us. We will examine closely with Ministers whether, and how far, the Bill achieves fairness and the protection of the vulnerable in the use of extremely limited resources. We would hope and expect that in due course, in a reviving economy, any gaps in provision that emerge will be refilled. However, that there must now be some cuts in fees is inevitable in these straitened circumstances.
In advancing this annulment Motion I suggest that the noble Lord and the Labour Party need to tell us what choices they would have made, or would make now, in cutting the legal aid budget. What were the cuts that he was intending to implement? How would they not have threatened hard-pressed community practitioners? Until those questions are answered fully, I suggest that, however regrettable the need for fee cuts in civil and family proceedings, it would not be sensible to divide the House on this Motion.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for raising this issue tonight and for concentrating my thoughts—like those of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—on the welfare of children as they are treated by our legal system. We spent the whole of this afternoon talking about the treatment and rights of children. I look forward to the Government’s response and comment on the ways in which children can be particularly protected in our legal system by the way in which the distribution of fees is arranged throughout that system.
I am still puzzled by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and why it should be this area in which we look for savings. A number of noble Lords have spoken of areas, in criminal law, for example, where there could be significant savings. Why should it be this area? I think of the work, for example, of Henry Hyams, a firm of solicitors in Leeds which takes some 2,000 cases a year from the most deprived areas of Leeds. They tell me that almost all of those cases involve the welfare of children.
That takes us to the effect of these cuts on those clinicians who provide reports to assist the courts in making determinations about the safeguarding of children—professionals who provide evidence of injury and of abuse and who are often key to the welfare of children. We have improved immensely our understanding of childcare in our society, and much of that has been due to the diligence of such professionals. We are all made very aware when a mistake is made by one of those professionals; we forget the thousands of cases when accurate decisions are taken about children’s welfare and their future. The debate that we had all afternoon and this debate come together in looking at the well-being—again—of children, and of their place in our society.
Clergy in pastoral work are often aware of the time spent both by those clinicians and by lawyers with their clients, seeking the best way forward for children and family life, often in work that is undertaken quite outside the fee system. We claim to be a society that puts the family first; social welfare law is an important part of enabling us to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke of the way in which he hoped that, if there were gaps in our provision, they would be able to be filled again as the economic situation becomes better. But the most important part of our response to the difficulties in which we find ourselves is that those who are most deprived in our society should be those whom we seek to protect from the cuts being made. The Government and many local authorities seek to do that, yet in this particular instance those cuts are bearing at their hardest on those least able to bear the brunt of them.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have three categories of interest to declare. The first is professional but, unlike a number of noble Lords who have spoken, not as a member of the Bar and still less as a most distinguished judge but as a mere solicitor and now as an unpaid consultant in the firm of which I was senior partner for some 30 years. The second is a political interest. As my noble friend will recall, it was a resolution that I was responsible for that went to the Labour Party conference some three years ago, which was somewhat critical—and rightly so—of the then Government’s policies on legal aid. That led to the establishment of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Bach, on which he was gracious enough to invite me to participate. The third is a personal one, because the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I graduated at the same time all of 46 years ago from the school of jurisprudence at Oxford.
This order, coming as it does shortly before the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill reaches your Lordships' House, is something of a tawdry harbinger of what is very likely to be a prolonged and hard winter for access to justice. It is interesting that the young legal aid lawyers, in the briefing note that they have circulated, drew attention to the fact that the consultation that the Government entered into on their proposals to reduce these fees was very limited. They consulted only the Law Society and the Bar Council; there was no consultation with other stakeholders, such as law centres, community groups or citizens advice bureaux, or indeed any client interests. This does not seem to represent the “no decision about me without me” process, which was allegedly followed in terms of the health service.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, we live and learn. I apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench for my slowness in getting up and, possibly, for what I am going to say. We live and learn: I always knew that I was more liberal than the previous Labour Government; I now know that I am more liberal than the Liberal Democrats, at least as represented in the House tonight. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench have not reached the stage of trembling when I stand up, because I am really quite a nice pussycat—in comparison with some, at any rate—but I can assure them that, were this to be pressed to a vote, I would not vote for it. I do not think that it is right for us to be killing off statutory instruments in the way that this would do, certainly with the way that the House operates at the moment. However, it is important that somebody from these Benches should make it clear that, even if we would not want to see this voted down, we are not happy bunnies about the policies that seem to underlie it. There are those of us, as I have already warned my long-suffering Whip and others, who are likely to want to return to some of these issues when we get to the Bill that is coming down the track towards us.
The speeches in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, and others, including the noble Earl, Lord Listowel and the right reverend Prelate—in fact, everybody bar one, dare I say, who has spoken—have made a pretty devastating case. I will listen to the Minister’s answer. I am a notoriously pliable chap, and if I am convinced I will be prepared to change my view, but at the moment I think that they have made a pretty devastating case. I have only one question to add to those that have been asked, which is about mental health, where locking people up remains one of the areas where you can get legal aid for the mental health tribunal.
I think it is relevant that two years ago, when I was still chairing the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, the Ministry of Justice, under its former incumbents—or the officials, at any rate—asked the council, and me as its chair, to chair the user group for mental health tribunals. This is a little less comfortable for the Opposition Front Bench, but even at that stage, mental health lawyers were expressing the view that the cuts that had been made in legal aid remuneration were, at least in some parts of the country, making it virtually impossible to find people to represent those before the mental health tribunals. It was particularly true in the south-west; there were some concerns in the north-east, but there were certainly concerns, even with the policies that had previously been pursued. I therefore want to ask two questions of the Minister. Is mental health affected or potentially affected by this? What is the position on the availability of legal aid lawyers to help claimants who have been confronted by the prospect of being deprived of their liberty by mental health tribunals? This ties in with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just made very effectively. The net result of this may well be to reduce the amount of support available to vulnerable people, not only because legal aid is not available but because growing numbers of young lawyers who do pro bono work will not be able to afford to go on doing it. This is a worry for many law centres and the like. I should like some comment on that.
Lord Martin of Springburn
My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to the experts in law and legal aid. It is deeply unfair that a 10 per cent cut should be put on one section, and one section alone, of a service that is paid for by the taxpayer.
The Law Society was here today to talk about the future legislation that will come before this House. I asked how much lawyers earn in the field of legal aid. I was told that young lawyers earn £25,000, as has been mentioned. They rightly deserve it, but there are many manual workers, tradesmen and semi-skilled people who earn that kind of money and work hard for it. However, we are making a 10 per cent cut.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, many of those who work in the legal aid service are women. I know that there is not much sympathy for Members of Parliament at the moment but I met a former colleague, a lady Member, who said that a substantial part of her salary goes on childcare. There is no doubt that the cost of childcare has gone up. It has gone up for those young mothers who work as solicitors. Any of us who drive a car will know that prices are going up every time we go to a forecourt. Lawyers need to travel to get to court. They are not just based in London. Therefore, this cut is extremely unfair.
I am surprised by the Minister, who was at one time a member of a trade union. I do not know whether he still is; it would have been the T&G that he was in, would it not? I do not think that any organiser in the Transport and General Workers’ Union would want a cut of 10 per cent in the workforce, or take it lightly, so why should we do this?
In the constituency that I previously served and the place that I was raised in, a great many men and women who were asylum seekers came, as a result of a decision of the Home Office, to live in my community. More often than not, they came and received advice from legal aid practitioners. While those asylum seekers were coming to me, they were also going to the legal aid practitioners. I was able to form a good working relationship with those practitioners and found that they were doing things over and above their duties as solicitors—working outside office hours and going to people’s homes to try to help them. These practitioners are the people on whom we are going to impose cuts.
As the noble Lord said, cuts have to be made, but we have to look at how we implement them. It is the easiest thing in the world to say, “Right—10 per cent across the board”. However, it is not necessarily the right thing to do. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter. At a time when many young people in this profession cannot even get mortgages, because that is difficult, they have to go into the rented sector, and their overheads are far more than they used to be. I can recall times when people did not have access to legal aid solicitors, and the difficulties and hardship that that caused for their families lasted for years. I hope that the Minister reconsiders this matter.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this is the point in the evening when I thank everyone for contributing to a wide-ranging debate—so wide, in fact, that it would probably take me at least 40 minutes to reply. I will try to do justice to the debate in a shorter time because the House has more business to consider. I remind the House that this was supposed to be dinner hour business—a matter that the usual channels might look at in future when they do their planning.
The debate was indeed a trailer for the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill—now known to its friends as LASPO—that will come to this House. I do not object to colleagues using the opportunity to widen the debate to cover some of those areas. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said that it was a “tawdry harbinger” of a long hard winter for legal aid. I say to the House—to the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lord Newton, and others—that there would be a long hard winter if this Government did not face up to the spending cuts that are needed. It is all very well, as the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said, to say that this 10 per cent cut was the easy way. I put it to him that the easy way, which we have heard time and again tonight, would be to say, “Not this cut. Not that cut. We would do it in a different way”. We have had to face up to the fact that we have to make some hard decisions.
It is not just this part of legal aid that is taking the hit. The Ministry of Justice is a relatively small department with a budget, when we came into office, of £10 billion. We made a commitment for the spending review to cut that by £2 billion. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, knows, we have only four major areas of responsibility—prisons, the Probation Service, legal aid and court services. They have all taken their cut and it is simply not true to suggest that we have taken a particularly easy view in terms of legal aid. As my noble friend Lord Marks said—and, to be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, echoed it—the previous Labour Government were looking at legal aid. I went to the Commonwealth Law Conference. I have never used the comparison with continental legal aid because I know that there is a different system there, but I particularly sought out the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand law officers to talk about legal aid and they confirmed what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, knows full well—they all consider our legal aid system to be, in their terms, “absurdly generous”. It is also untrue that we have not made comparable cuts in criminal legal aid. In fact, the parallel order will, over the period, save some £80 million in criminal legal aid spending.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, particularly mentioned Law For All. That is interesting because it very much echoes what was said when the Immigration Advisory Service closed. Let us be fair: Law For All has closed before any of these legal aid cuts have come in, so the legal aid cuts have not caused its collapse. However, it is interesting that the Legal Services Commission was able to make provision from other providers, and I shall return to that in a few minutes. We have recognised the problem relating to CABs and law centres, and I shall try to cover that in my main remarks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made an interesting point. I am proud to be the Minister responsible for promoting diversity in the legal profession. I put it to the noble Baroness that it is not a matter of diversity to suggest that women and black and ethnic minority lawyers should be corralled in one part of the legal profession. Indeed, my drive in terms of diversity—the noble Baroness is quite right and I have talked to both the Bar Council and the Law Society about this—is that the profession as a whole has a responsibility to promote diversity, not in the narrow area of legal aid but across the profession. To be fair, I think that they are responding to pressure in that area. We are taking diversity extremely seriously.
The noble Baroness and a number of other noble Lords also mentioned the Family Justice Review, which is a separate and independent programme of work looking at the entire family justice system. Our proposals are not dependent on the outcome of that review and are focused on legal aid; they go in the same direction as, and in support of, the aims of the Family Justice Review, which I am assured will be published very shortly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and a number of others talked about the fee levels reducing access to good-quality experts. The benchmark rates for experts have been applied by the Legal Services Commission for some time. The truth is that there are only limited anecdotal reports of problems with access to experts.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, accused us of weasel words in the Explanatory Memorandum, and I hope that my opening remarks have removed those weasel words. Of course, much of this has been driven by the need for cuts in public expenditure, but we have tried to do so in a way that focuses legal aid on the most needy.
We go back to the issue of the level of spending. What is so sacrosanct about £2.2 billion? It certainly was not sacrosanct for the previous Labour Government because they were planning to cut it anyway. The system is not being dismantled. It does not help when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, makes that kind of comment. I could make a point about the earnings of barristers in family legal aid work, but let us not go down that route.
Lord Beecham
The lack of consultation to which I referred and on which I quoted the legal aid lawyers was in relation to this fees order, not the Green Paper.
Lord McNally
These were all foreshadowed in the Green Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, is not a happy bunny but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, if we were not willing to take tough decisions, there would be a lot more unhappy bunnies around because we would be paying interest rates of two, three or four times what we are paying now, which would result in far greater cuts in public expenditure and services. The fact that our Government are not making headlines in relation to the economic situation in which they find themselves is because we had the courage to take tough decisions early. I have no doubt that when we ask colleagues and the Opposition to face up to that fact, we will always have the problem that these are tough decisions; we have never resiled from that.
Lord Higgins
Yes, I realise that, but my noble friend has just made a rather extraordinary statement. He said that we would be paying interest rates three or four times greater than we are now and I just do not understand what he means.
Lord McNally
At what rates is Ireland borrowing at the moment? I am suggesting that we would have lost control of our economy in the way that some parts of Europe have lost control of their economies. The consequences for public expenditure would have been much more severe. I would have thought that I would have had the support of my noble friend in that.
Lord Higgins
No one is more enthusiastic than I am that we should cut the deficit as fast as possible. I have made that clear, time and again. I just did not understand the quantitative statement that he made, but I do not wish to delay the House further.
Lord McNally
On the other points that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, made, legal aid is currently available for legal advice on any mental health matter and representation for mental health matters heard in the county court, such as charging a detained person’s nearest relative for mental health legislation purposes, for damages claims and for representation before the first tier mental health tribunal and onward. We propose retaining these changes within the scope of legal aid.
In 2010, tenders for legal aid contracts for mental health demonstrated a strong demand for mental health work, with nearly three times as many new cases bids than there were cases available.
I hope that answers the points that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, raises; namely, that there is the supply that he was concerned about and that we will continue this in scope.
The House will be aware that the Government have had to make some tough decisions. As I mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, accepted that when he had responsibilities for this matter the legal aid fund had to play a part in the often difficult exercise. To govern is to choose. It is a key role of Government on behalf of the taxpayer to ensure that the amount they pay for any service represents maximum value for money. In this context it is essential that the Government ensure that they only pay the rates that are necessary to secure the level of services that are required. While this may not be welcomed by those who provide services funded by legal aid, it is a reality that suppliers of other services across the country face on a daily basis. The Government recognise that some providers may choose not to continue to provide legally aided services in this environment, but it is not the purpose of the legal aid system to sustain the current legal market. Rather, we want to continue to have a sufficient supply of providers of satisfactory quality to provide an appropriate level of services for legally aided clients.
The order that we are debating this evening introduces a number of changes to the fees that the provider can currently receive for carrying out legally aided work. The main features were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Justice is required to make savings in the year 2014-15 of about £50 million. My noble friend Lord Marks referred to the total savings of £120 million. With the exception of the family fee reforms which will take effect on 1 February 2012 when new contracts under the family re-tender exercise are expected to commence, the new fees took effect on 3 October 2011 and apply to all cases commenced after that date.
The reforms were subject to a full public consultation which ran from 15 November 2010 to 14 February 2011. I have already referred to that in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. With the exception of the Law Society, no respondents provided any form of detailed numerical analysis of the market. The Law Society did so through Mr Andrew Otterburn. His report indicated that while the fee reduction will inevitably reduce the income of solicitor firms, on the whole, they would still make a profit even before making any efficiencies in working practices.
Subsequent to his report, Mr Otterburn specifically confirmed to the MoJ that, in his view, an overall phased reduction in fees of around 10 per cent, with the reduced fees only applying to new cases commenced after the implementation date, would allow solicitor firms time to adjust to the new fee levels and would not, therefore, necessarily make supply unsustainable.
The Government accept that the proposed reforms may be particularly challenging to the not-for-profit sector. That was raised by a number of colleagues. However, it is also the case that the major issue for this sector, generally, is change to other sources of funding; for example, as was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, from local authority cuts, which may make supply in the areas they cover vulnerable in any event.
This is clearly a matter for concern for the Government as a whole, and the issue of the future of the voluntary advice sector will be considered as part of a cross-Government review on which an expected announcement will be made shortly. In the interim, the Government have already provided transition funding to assist the not-for-profit sector to adapt to the changing financial environment. I understand that overall 45 individual CABs and 17 law centres have taken advantage of this fund. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government will also be providing a further £20 million of funding for the not-for-profit sector. Specific details of this fund will be made available shortly.
In the context of legal aid services, the issue is whether services will be available for clients rather than whether that service is provided by any particular provider. We assessed the likely impact of the reforms when considering the responses to the consultation and overall are satisfied that the reforms are sustainable and that, although individual providers may leave the legal aid scheme, there will be a sufficient supply of providers of satisfactory quality to provide an appropriate level of service in all areas of law. The Government therefore consider that the fee reductions will be sustainable and will ensure that clients can continue to access legally aided services.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Justice Committee report on legal aid concluded that, given the extent of the savings that the Ministry of Justice is having to make, in principle it is correct that fees should be reduced. We are willing to look at areas of isolation—the so-called legal aid deserts—and there are a number of actions that the Legal Services Commission can take to mitigate shortfalls if they develop. As I said earlier, it is also true that some of the fears that people would not come forward have not been borne out in areas where individual firms have collapsed. Indeed, in all the areas where we put forward contracts, there has been an oversupply in terms of those seeking that work.
In addition, there is a genuine alternative. The Community Legal Advice telephone helpline is an alternative for those involved in legal aid. I see the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, shaking his head. The other night, I went to a Law Society function giving prizes to successful law firms, and I was amazed by how many of the prize winners were offering online and distance advice. The old idea of face-to-face may not survive. There is no doubt in my mind that the legal profession is a profession in transition in many respects.
I am being told to shut up, and I will. The fact is that wherever we have been looking at new contracts, we have found that they have been oversubscribed, so I do not think that this is the issue that is suggested. It is not a 10 per cent cut per individual. It is a challenge to those firms and to the legal profession to find different methods of service, different structures and different efficiencies. That is a pattern that many professions and many industries have found over the years. We are confident that there are sufficient numbers of providers willing to remain in the legal aid market. I am well aware that a lot of what we have discussed today is a dress rehearsal for when the LASPO Bill comes, but I do not believe that it would be right to pass this Prayer this evening, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will resist putting the Motion to a vote.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and especially the Minister for his winding up. I will give the House the good news, which is that I certainly do not intend to divide the House. I would very much like to, particularly given the degree of support for my Motion from around the House tonight—I am most grateful to noble Lords who have supported me—but it is too late to call a vote tonight, and in any event I am not certain that it would be the right thing to do, given that the Bill is due to come to this House next month. I will not be calling a vote, so anyone who wants to go now, please feel free.
I am afraid, though, that it was not the Minister’s arguments that persuaded me not to call the vote—indeed, if he had gone on much longer I might have been tempted to call it in any event. I shall make a few points and then the House can move on. Some very good speeches were made, if I may so. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, talked about the Bar with great experience and knowledge. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, made some very important points, one of which I will come back to at the end of what I have to say. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds were both right on the spot with their concern for children law, if I may call it that. My noble friend Lord Beecham, with his experience, made very telling points as always. Last, but certainly not least, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, made a very telling contribution, and one to which I think the Government side should listen with some concern.
As to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, of course I admired his loyalty, perhaps rather more his loyalty to the Government and to the Minister than to his party, which as I understand it has already made it clear at conferences twice this year that it does not like the way in which the Government are behaving towards legal aid. He asked me to state which cuts my party would have made in Government. I am not sure that he was listening with his usual care to what I said in my opening remarks, which was that the Labour Lord Chancellor and myself put out a White Paper called Restructuring the Delivery of Criminal Defence Services, which we would almost certainly have put into effect had we been elected—which we were not—and which would have saved a great deal of money. It would have been controversial and I have no doubt that there would have been debates in this House too in that event.
I did notice that in his interesting speech there was nothing at all about social welfare law and nothing about whether he felt it was right to attack social welfare law. What I had to say earlier was very much based around that part of the order. He said very little about criminal law, either, and about whether savings might be made in that field. He quoted figures and speeches that I had made, in which I, like legal aid Ministers down the years—as they no doubt will in the future—had said how generous our legal aid system was compared to the ghastly rest of the world. I did use those phrases, and there is some justification in them, but to be honest, not perhaps quite as much as I used to think when I spouted those words. For example, we compare ourselves with New Zealand, another common law country, and say, “My gosh, New Zealand gives a much smaller amount for legal aid than we do”. However, the situation in New Zealand is quite different. There, for example, there is no liability compensation, which costs a great deal in this country. There are other considerations as well.
Let me be frank: when we were in Government, I have no doubt that we made mistakes in this field. I am sure we did. There is no doubt in my mind that his Government are making mistakes now as well. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will remember next time he speaks to the House on these matters that we are dealing with what his Government are intending to do, not with what my Government did or did not do when they were in office.
The Law Society has suggested savings of up to £350 million as an alternative to the legal aid cuts that the Government are putting forward. As we did not hear it tonight, we look forward very much to hearing what is wrong with the Law Society’s—
Lord McNally
What is wrong with the Law Society’s figure is that it does not save public expenditure to shuffle costs around Whitehall to other departments or to propose extra taxation on alcohol. That is not saving public expenditure; it is shuffling the pack.
Lord Bach
If the noble Lord is right, perhaps he will explain this decimation of social welfare law, with its few savings for the Ministry of Justice, and how it will cost infinitely more to the state as a whole when problems are not solved, people are chucked out of their houses, debts grow bigger, families break down and children commit crime. Other departments will have to pick up the pieces for the paltry savings that the Ministry of Justice will make. Please do not give us that stuff about public spending. The truth is that these Ministry of Justice savings—we have said that we accept that the MoJ has to find a number of savings—will cost the state and the community much, much more.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, said, civil legal aid is not an optional extra. The concern is that this Government are treating it just as an optional extra and the cost will be much greater. We could see which way the Government were going on legal aid way back in June or July 2010 when out of the blue they removed the grants that were given by the Legal Services Commission for young legal aid lawyers to get legal contracts with legal aid firms. It cost a few million pounds a year, if that. But the Government abolished them at the start and we should have been wise as to what they were planning to do now. There was absolutely no reason for doing that and there cannot be any reason for doing what they are intending to do now to social welfare law.
Legal aid in the civil field is well worth protecting. I shall end with a quote from Supreme Court Justice Lewis F Powell who spoke about the American system but it could just as easily be applied to the British system. He said:
“Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building, it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists … it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status”.
He was right. I hope only that the Government change their mind. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Armed Forces Bill
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That the House do not insist on its Amendment 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, the debates on the subject of medals are further evidence of the strength of feeling in both Houses on this important matter. I acknowledge the conviction with which a number of noble Lords have pursued their concerns about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal and about aspects of the process for deciding what is to be done when other states wish to honour British subjects, particularly those who serve Her Majesty and their country.
In particular, I recognise the contributions made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, my noble friends Lord Palmer and Lord Lee, and many other noble Lords. There is widespread concern in this House and in the other place about whether it is time for a wide and independent review of the rules which guide the HD Committee in making its recommendations to Her Majesty. There is concern in particular about whether, in advising Her Majesty on the acceptance and wearing of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal in 2005 and 2007, the HD Committee made the right recommendations.
I must begin by making it clear what the Government will do in response to these concerns. First, I have consulted ministerial colleagues, including the Deputy Prime Minister, who have agreed that there should be a fresh review of the rules governing the award of military medals. This review will be conducted by an independent reviewer with full consultation with interested parties and will take account of the issues raised in this House during our previous debates. As part of this process, I will recommend that a solution needs to be found which addresses concerns about double-medalling and about rules setting fixed time limits for the award of decorations. The rules need to be reviewed from first principles to see whether they remain fit for purpose. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already written to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, stating that this is what we will do. If we are to allow this review to do its work thoroughly and effectively, we need the agreement of this House that the way forward is independent consideration of what improvements should be made to the current system of advising Her Majesty.
There is then the question of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. In anticipation that we will be able to deal with this issue under current HD Committee rules and procedures, I have already commissioned an urgent HD paper recommending that holders of that medal be able to wear it with the approval of Her Majesty. I am confident that we are going to resolve the issue of the wearing of the PJM medal. Within the present architecture of the royal prerogative, the HD Committee will be able to progress this matter swiftly so that the PJM can be worn on Remembrance Sunday this year and thereafter without restriction.
I shall now speak to the Motion and explain why we should not accept the noble and gallant Lord’s amendment. The issue now is not about the PJM medal. I have explained what we will do about that. And it is not about the rules applied by the HD Committee. There are strongly held concerns about those rules and I have said what we will do about them. The issue is not even about taking the opportunity to show respect and admiration for the Commonwealth. Even less does it provide support or recognition for Her Majesty as the head of the Commonwealth. What then are the issues relevant to the amendment? They are these. Is it right for Parliament now to overturn decisions taken by Her Majesty? Is it right for this House to establish a precedent for future interference in past and future decisions? Is it right for decisions on the award of medals to be decided and rules laid down and changed in the glare of parliamentary debate rather than dispassionately? And is it right, as the amendment would provide, to create a rule by which decisions on the acceptance and wearing of Commonwealth medals by members of the Armed Forces and the Civil Service are to be entirely a matter for the Commonwealth Government making the award?
My answer to these questions is this. First, by overturning past decisions that have been made on Commonwealth medals, it would establish a precedent that Parliament may overturn after any length of time any decision of the sovereign as the fount of honour. Secondly, it would establish a further precedent that Parliament is able to lay down and change rules which are to be applied to decisions on the acceptance of honours from foreign and Commonwealth countries. It would assert that Parliament can do so in a way which alters the fundamentals I have described of the existing arrangements, such as the need for a basically consistent approach to awards by all friendly and allied states. Thirdly, it would take away from the sovereign and, indeed, the United Kingdom any control over the acceptance of Commonwealth medals. Whenever a Commonwealth country awarded a medal or honour to members or former members of the Armed Forces or the Civil Service, that decision would be binding, even if it was against the wishes of our Armed Forces, of Parliament or of the sovereign.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 and thus speak to my Amendment 6B, which I proposed as an amendment in lieu. In the latter part of his remarks, the Minister reminded the House of the Government’s thinking on the issues that have been central to our debates on the medal amendments that the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, and I tabled at the earlier stages of the Bill. Our responses to the Government’s views are on the record of our earlier exchanges. I do not propose to dwell on them now other than to say that my colleagues and I repeatedly urged the Government to take action on two of the issues about which the Minister has just spoken.
I shall speak first about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal, the PJM medal, the subject of my Amendment 6B. This award was offered by the King and Government of Malaysia to members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and other Crown servants for their contributions to that country’s security in the difficult times of the Malayan emergency and, later, during confrontation with Indonesia. In 2007, acceptance of this award was recommended by the HD committee to Her Majesty for approval, but the committee did not recommend that the medal could be worn without restriction.
As I have explained in earlier debates on the Bill, many recipients have been unhappy about this, particularly as Australian and New Zealand recipients, alongside whom they saw service, were granted permission to wear the PJM medal at all times. The Minister has now assured the House that the HD committee will be making a further submission to Her Majesty and that, subject of course to her approval, these medals may be worn on Remembrance Sunday this year and thereafter. In the context of the Bill that is bringing the Armed Forces covenant into legislation, this is a most welcome approach of fair treatment of veterans who are the recipients of the PJM medal. On that understanding, I do not intend to press my Amendment 6B, which deals solely with the unrestricted wearing of the PJM medal, since the noble Lord’s proposal may achieve the result that it seeks to secure by the more traditional path: that is, within the present architecture of the royal prerogative.
The other topic raised by the noble Lord relates to the workings and responsibilities of the HD committee, which has the most difficult and sensitive task of dealing with a variety of issues concerning medals and other rewards, particularly those of foreign Governments. I greatly welcome the Minister’s reassurance that the time has come for an independent review of the HD committee. In moving our Amendment 6 in your Lordships’ House on 10 October, I contended that there are some HD committee rules that,
“are not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. 1348.]
On those grounds, I sought the view of the House and our amendment was carried. The arrangements that the Minister has just described will set in hand a thorough and independent look at the HD committee. In the light of the Government’s position as just stated by the Minister, I attach great importance to the independent leadership of this review. I am grateful that it will consider in particular the no-double-medalling and fixed-time limits that have been the source of much unhappiness and concern over the years. I hope that the HD committee, as well as the whole House, will welcome the review.
I should also like to place on record my appreciation for the extremely considerate and open way that I and my colleagues have been treated in dealing with these matters. The new Defence Secretary, in his most busy initial week, took time to discuss them with me and, as the Minister pointed out, has also written to me. The Minister has been most approachable and considerate; he is in full grasp of his brief and greatly admired in this House. It is a measure of his great contribution to the Bill that he was able to persuade his business managers and all the involved departments of Government that it was not realistic nor in the best interests of the Armed Forces and veterans to resist every amendment. Instead, he has contributed greatly to the Armed Forces Bill outcome, with which all should be content.
I am full of admiration for the extremely hard work and commitment of the team of officials and service personnel whose most strenuous efforts have enabled us all to reach this accord. I hope that it is in order to commend them and thank them. I should be grateful if the Minister would pass on my appreciation and that of my colleagues.
I should rather have avoided dealing with any of these issues as grounds for party political discord. It is alien to me as an independent Cross-Bencher, particularly when dealing with matters that affect our Armed Forces. Nevertheless, I am most grateful to the more than 200 Members of your Lordships’ House who supported our Amendment 6, which, along with other amendments, sent the Bill back to the other place. I am personally delighted that the end result has been agreed by negotiation and agreement, a smart win-win result for all sides.
This is a historic Bill since it introduces into the law of the land the Armed Forces convention, an arrangement that will prove to be most valuable and supportive to service personnel, veterans and their families. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing it into statute in this carefully considered manner. For the convenience of any debate, I formally move Motion A1, having made clear my intention about Amendment 6B.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I welcome the statement from the Minister this evening about the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal and the independent review of the operation of the HD committee. We have battled on this issue for years in the other place. Here in the House of Lords—I do not want to enter into the debate about a future appointed or elected House—we have achieved something that the elected House did not manage to achieve regarding the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal. It is a great credit to all concerned that we have been able to do that.
I also think that the Minister’s statement tonight sends out the positive message to a close and dear ally in Malaysia, a Commonwealth ally, that we respect the generosity of the king and the people of Malaysia in honouring those British servicemen who fought in that country. I certainly welcome the independent review of the HD committee. I can see that it has a difficult job but I am not entirely happy with the way that it has done it.
I do not think there is anyone in this House who does not have the highest regard and affection for Her Majesty the Queen, and no one would want to put her in a difficult position regarding the question of honours. I feel that it is the actions of the HD committee that have embarrassed Her Majesty in this respect by the way it advised her that the veterans should accept the medal but not wear it. Thankfully, that is being resolved this evening.
I am a great believer in fate, in the sense that I think that sometimes one faces an issue or a problem and someone comes along and solves it. I pay tribute to the Minister because I am not sure we would have achieved this without his personal efforts. He has been hard-working, honourable and decent throughout this whole thing and has strongly represented the views of this House, and of many others outside, with regard to the veterans.
I join the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in his praise of the Minister’s team because they have assisted the Minister in bringing about this decision. I cannot speak highly enough of the regard I have—and I am sure the whole House has—for the Minister. As for the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, he has led from the front. He has been persistent and pushed hard, and worked with the Minister and lobbied. I do not know how many meetings he has had with the Minister, and I have to weigh the e-mails I have had from him about the progress he has made on this issue. We owe him a great deal.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer at this late hour. I can honestly say that as a Parliament and as a country, as a result of the Minister’s statement tonight on the veterans of Malaysia, we have redeemed our honour.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I briefly add my thanks to those expressed by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley to the Minister for his personal commitment to the Armed Forces and the veterans, his personal commitment to ensure that this House had a Bill that is now moving forward to become an Act in a much better condition, and the tireless way with which he and the Bill team have made themselves available to us all. Of course I am glad that he managed to negotiate that the amendment over inquests for military personnel was incorporated. The joy over that must not be diminished by disappointment over the defeat last night over the issue of the chief coroner—that is for another day. For tonight, sincere thanks are due to a Minister who has shown enormous commitment and has worked with us in this House to improve the workings. This has been this House at its best, and we are all grateful to him.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, I briefly pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord for the way that he has led the campaign in your Lordships’ House to improve the Bill, particularly in regard to the PJM medal. The Ministry of Defence—in the nicest way—does not have the reputation of being the most flexible of ministries, as indeed I know as a former Minister. However, on this occasion we have seen that the ministry has demonstrated flexibility and compromise, primarily because of the personal efforts of the Minister, who has worked tirelessly to build bridges and bring about a compromise. I pay tribute to him and his Front Bench colleagues for the work that they have done. We have seen during the passage of this Bill this House working together at its best. We have improved the Bill and we should be proud of what collectively has been achieved.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, we on these Benches are content that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, is not going to press his amendment, and we are content with the outcomes on this issue. This is the last chapter in the Armed Forces Bill, and we are pleased with where it has got to. We are pleased on this issue and on the other issues where concessions have been achieved. It has been very pleasing that the Bill has engaged all sides of the House, and the contribution made by noble and gallant Lords in this specialist area has been particularly useful and has added to our debate, improving the outcome. That is also true of other people with significant service experience who have contributed.
I, too, thank the Minister for the way in which he has handled the Bill, and I thank his staff. We on the opposition Front Bench have been able to give the Bill proper scrutiny, much of it in private, which has saved time in the House, because of the co-operation that we have had. We are impressed and delighted, like everybody else, with the way in which the Minister has handled and crafted the concessions. However, it is a matter of raw political reality that this concession has come forward because of the fear of defeat in the Division Lobbies. Many of us have worked in government and we know the importance that the political reality of defeat brings to discussions. I am sure that the Minister has taken this pressure and used it very carefully. It is a matter of raw political reality that, without the fear of defeat, the PJM medal would not be worn this Remembrance Day, and it is highly probable that without the pressure of potential defeat in the Lobbies many other concessions would have not come forward.
This is a good Bill about just causes, and it is a good Bill because it has been a product of very good debates, but it is also a good Bill because of the political pressure that we have brought to bear from these Benches. The House can be properly and justly proud of this Bill, and we on these Benches are proud of our contributions.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
I would like to thank all noble Lords and particularly noble and gallant Lords for their work, and also my noble friend the Minister. The point that I would like to make is that acceptance of the Malaysian medal was approved; it was wearing it that was not. That was a rather strange situation. My only comment at the lateness of this hour is to hope that my noble friend the Minister enjoys wearing his medal at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House has presented a number of challenges, and I am delighted that we have been able to resolve them. I am very grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and all those other noble Lords for their very kind remarks this evening. As ever, I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their help, support and unfailing courtesy. I echo what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said about the excellent team of officials, and I will ensure that his full appreciation and thanks are passed on to them.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his consistent support to me all the way through the Bill. I very much appreciated that.
Finally, I must pay tribute once again to the Armed Forces. This Bill is for them, and I believe that we deliver it in good shape.
Lord Craig of Radley
My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, and I thank particularly the Minister for the help that he has given. The hour is too late to go any further than that, other than to express my appreciation, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text