House of Commons

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Thursday 10 November 2011

The House met at half-past Ten o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

1. What the outcome was of the meeting of the European Aviation Safety Agency’s advisory group of national authorities on 25 and 26 October 2011; and if she will make a statement

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

The meeting of the advisory group of national authorities provided an opportunity for representatives of EASA and European Union member states to exchange views on a number of safety rules currently under development. The discussion will help inform EASA’s development of the rules in that area.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. A recent survey of pilots has shown that 43% said that they had at some point fallen asleep in the cockpit, and 31% said that when they had woken up the other pilot was also sleeping. Does she agree that the proposals to increase the time pilots work to up to 13 hours, with fewer rest periods, represent a threat to public safety?

[Justine Greening]

First, I should say that the Civil Aviation Authority has received no reports of pilots falling asleep under the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme, but obviously we will always be guided by its views on safety, for which it has an outstanding reputation around the world. The Government have expressed our concerns about the proposed changes and continue to make them known. We will work with other countries to ensure that the final rules reflect those concerns.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What plans she has for funding of local railway stations up to 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

In addition to planned improvements to local railway stations as part of franchise commitments, the Government are funding improvements through the national stations improvement programme, Access for All programme and the station commercial project facility. We intend to continue doing so.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know that our local railway network in Greater Manchester is incredibly well used, but I am often struck by the poor condition of our stations, particularly the limited accessibility, as lack of step-free access at stations such as Mosley Street, Broadbottom and Newton for Hyde often forces people to travel further down the line than they would like simply to change platforms and come back on the other side. Good quality public transport should of course be available to all, so I ask the Minister to make that a priority for his Department in future.

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to confirm, as I mentioned a moment ago, that we are continuing with the Access for All programme. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that Stalybridge station in his constituency is part of that programme and that construction work is expected to start on site in June 2013 as part of a £1.8 million project.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, last night I presented a petition signed by 1,200 residents of Bradford-on-Avon hoping to keep their station’s ticket office, where footfall was over 400,000 last year. In the light of the McNulty report, will the Minister review category E stations for possible upgrade to category D, so that they would at least retain their ticket offices for part-time hours?

[Norman Baker]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Minister of State is involved in a fares and ticketing review. We are determined to ensure that people are able to buy tickets and access the railway network in a fair way, which might include ticket offices, better arrangements for automatic sales and access through the internet. The point he has made is a valid one and I will pass it on to the Minister of State.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister recognise the importance of passenger experience in travelling and that that includes having staff at railway stations to provide safety and reassurance as well as a good service?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, we do. We are very interested in safety at stations for the reasons the hon. Lady rightly mentions. She will be aware of the secure stations programme. Around 90% of the railway network has been designated as having secure stations, which is well over 1,000 stations. We take that very seriously and want to ensure not only that stations are accessible physically, but that people have no fear of using the railway network so that we maximise the number of people who are able to travel by train.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many category E station ticket offices will be closed as a result of the Government’s plans for the future of the rail industry?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, we are looking at ticketing and fares generally as part of the review we are undertaking, but no decision has been made on the closure of any category E stations. That matter will be considered in the round to ensure that we retain proper access to the railway network. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps asking, “How many?” I have just indicated that no decisions have been taken, so the answer so far is none.

[Maria Eagle]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman the answer: 675 stations will lose their ticket offices as a result of his plans, while another 302 will see their opening hours cut. With passengers facing up to a 13% hike in the cost of their tickets in January, does he understand that his plans to replace staff with machines will make it even harder to get the best deal and are totally out of touch with the public?

[Norman Baker]

It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady asks her supplementary question without listening to my answer to her first. Indeed, she seems to be reinventing her party’s railways policies. The chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies accused the hon. Lady’s leader of suffering from “amnesia” and of displaying—these are his words—“rank hypocrisy” when it came to Labour’s railways policy, so she ought to examine her own policy and her own history before she starts attacking the Government.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A word cannot be made orderly simply by putting it into someone else’s mouth, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it—straight away.

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to do so, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most obliged to the Minister.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the safety implications of changing the frequency of MOT tests for road vehicles.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the safety implications of changing the frequency of MOT tests for road vehicles.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer this question together with number 7.

In April 2011 the Department published the results of independent research commissioned to examine how vehicle defects affect accident rates, and to consider the potential road safety impact of changing the frequency of the MOT. Copies of the publication have been placed in the Library.

[Mr Speaker]

May I just very gently say to the Secretary of State that I think the grouping is between 3 and 8, rather than 7? But I think we know what we are talking about.

[Ian Mearns]

May I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role? It is a fantastic opportunity for her to think again about this proposal. The MOT Trade Forum estimates that 2,200 vehicles a day fail their MOT with defects that are regarded as dangerous and would make vehicles unroadworthy—half a million vehicles a year that would be unroadworthy and dangerous to the public. Will she think again about this very strange set of proposals?

[Justine Greening]

I appreciate both the correction from you Mr Speaker—I do not usually get my numbers wrong—and the very genuine and balanced way in which the hon. Gentleman puts his question. It is important that we have a balanced and informed debate about any changes to the MOT, and, as he will be aware, we in this country go further with our MOT than is required under EU legislation, so the proposal was looked at as part of the red tape challenge. I am considering all the issues, however, and we expect to make an announcement soon about the timing and scope of the review.

[Mrs Glindon]

I, too, welcome the Minister to her new post. In 2008, the Tories in opposition criticised Labour plans to reduce the frequency of MOTs, and, when the then Government dropped the policy because of the increased risk of death and many more serious accidents, a then shadow Minister said that he was glad that the policy had been

“consigned to the dustbin of history.”

So why try to recycle it now?

[Justine Greening]

We in this Government are looking across the board to see what we can do to get rid of unnecessary red tape and regulation, and the MOT review came up as a result of that, but, as I just said to her hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), it is important that we have an informed and balanced debate. I am considering all those points; I met the Motorists Forum yesterday; and I expect to make an announcement soon about the timing and scope of the review.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I join in the welcome given by the House to the Secretary of State. Before she throws in the towel on this excellent proposal, will she reflect on the fact that most of those bleating about it outside the House have a vested interest and want the law kept as it is so that it generates more income for them? Will she also remind herself and the House that 97% of road accidents are caused by human error, not by vehicle defect?

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Approximately 3% of accidents are a result of vehicle defects, and he is also right that many of the representations against the review have come from those whose businesses would be affected by it. I have been very clear, however, and as a new Secretary of State it is right that I consider all the points that have been made. I will make an announcement shortly.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Before the election, an Opposition MP wrote:

“I share your concern about the potential implications of moving to the European standard of roadworthiness testing. It seems to me that the road safety and environmental costs of moving from annual to biannual testing, and extending the initial period from three to four years, may far outweigh the predicted costs savings.”

Given that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will the Secretary of State hold discussions with him in order to avoid the Government making a fundamental mistake on changes to MOT testing?

[Justine Greening]

I do not think I can add anything further about my approach to looking at this area, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer across the portfolio of transport that I now look after, and I will continue to do so.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I add my welcome to the Secretary of State? Although she is new to the job, does she recognise that motorists and many thousands of people employed by the motoring industry have already waited more than a year while Ministers have dithered over the proposal, and that they will still be in the dark after this exchange? Let us be clear: this out-of-touch plan would allow 800,000 more dangerous-to-drive vehicles to stay on the roads for up to a year longer. Will she listen to motoring organisations, such as the AA and the RAC, and ditch the plan, which could lead to more accidents and higher costs and burdens for the responsible majority of motorists?

[Justine Greening]

If we are ever going to get policies right, we need to go through the right process for developing them. As has been said in the House, the hon. Gentleman’s Government looked at this area—

[John Woodcock]

And rejected it.

[Justine Greening]

He says they rejected it but, ultimately, they considered this area, too. I met the AA and, indeed, the RAC Foundation yesterday, because they are part of the motorists’ forum we have established. There was a helpful exchange and, as I have said to him, I will make an announcement once I am satisfied I know what the scope of the review should be.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

4. If she will make it her policy not to increase Dartford crossing charges and to introduce automatic number plate recognition technology to reduce congestion at the crossing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

At the time of the 2010 spending review, the Department for Transport set out its policy for increasing charges at the Dartford crossing, as part of a package of improvements for short, medium and long-term improvements. That included the introduction of free-flow tolling. My answer is that the Government do not intend to change their policy.

[Mr Baron]

May I, therefore, suggest that the Department has got it wrong? Given that the existing crossing makes around £30 million to £40 million profit a year, surely it would be better to introduce automatic number plate recognition technology at the existing crossing first to see whether that solves the congestion problem before raising tariffs to fund a second crossing? With the new Secretary of State in place, could we please have some fresh thinking on this?

[Mike Penning]

I know my hon. Friend’s views on the matter very well and that he lobbies very hard on that particular point. However, even with free-flow tolling at Dartford, the northern approach to the tunnels will still be congested, even according to the predictions we have now. The small bore tunnel has a huge restriction. We need to look at having another Thames crossing for this piece of national—I repeat, national—infrastructure.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a persistently serious problem of peak-hour congestion, both northbound and southbound, which is costing everybody an awful lot of time and money? Why cannot we have earlier and clearer signage and much better traffic management at the point of the toll booths themselves?

[Mike Penning]

We are aware of the congestion at the toll, but most of that is caused by the barriers. An archaic method of collecting tolls is in place. We will introduce free-flow tolling as soon as we can. A lot of construction work needs to be done but, at the end of the day, the biggest problem is that the M25 is such a success we need to have another crossing over the Thames.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

5. What plans she has for future funding for railway stations.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The comprehensive spending review secured funding for a range of major station improvements to be delivered over the next few years, including Reading, Birmingham New Street, Blackfriars and London Bridge. Proposals for a number of new stations are under consideration for support from local transport funds. Further funding for station improvements over the 2014-2019 period will be considered as part of the high level output specification process. Additionally, one of the goals of our franchise reform is to encourage more train operator investment in railways including in stations.

[Paul Maynard]

Many hon. Members will have admired St Pancras station as an example of what a station can be and will have wished that their own nearest mainline stations lived up to that standard. I welcome the Government’s move to transfer responsibility for stations from Network Rail to franchise holders, yet the fact that many of the investments required in mainline stations cannot be recouped in the course of one single franchise period means that operators are disincentivised from making those investments. Will the Minister ensure that the final invitation to tender for the west coast main line issued in the new year addresses that anomaly?

[Mrs Villiers]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I assure him that there is always space for taxpayer funding for bigger-scale station upgrades. In terms of encouraging train operators to invest in station improvements, I also agree that we need to find ways to encourage them to invest in long-term projects that may have a pay-back period beyond the end of the franchise. One of the ways we are addressing that is with longer franchises, but we are also working carefully on how we improve the mechanisms for delivering a residual value at the end of the franchise for just the sort of investments he wants to see.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will have heard the report this morning about the tremendous gap between London and the south and the rest of the country. Many of us look at the wonderful Cannon Street glass palace and the work on King’s Cross, but we wonder when we are going to get that level of investment in the regions of this country, particularly in the north, and when we are going to get the smaller stations upgraded so that they are civilised places to catch a train.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. It is crucial that we do all we can to close the north-south economic divide. That is part of the reason for driving forward high-speed rail. It is also partly why we are carrying out major investment in electrification in the north of England to improve stations such as Manchester Victoria, using funds such as the national station improvement programme, together with Access for All, and reforming the franchise system, as I have said, to encourage private sector investment in improving stations and improving transport connections between our northern cities. The go-ahead for the Ordsall chord is also welcome on that score.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking in respect of winter resilience on the roads and railways.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

Significant efforts have been made this year across the transport sectors, including road and rail, in order to boost resilience and preparedness for winter weather. We are working closely with all key transport operators, the local government sector, salt suppliers and other key partners to ensure that our transport network keeps moving in the event of severe winter weather.

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. However, last winter rail services from and to my constituency were severely disrupted and many commuters were left stranded with little or no information. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that my constituents receive better information about delays, disruption and cancellation?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the rail industry can raise its game. In fact, it is significantly better prepared for this winter than previous ones. Actions are being taken, through investment in rail and in carriages, to make sure that snow and ice does not stop on the tracks. There is also better investment in clearing snow and in managing the situation in terms of passenger information, which is critical. I know that that is something that his franchise operator has focused on.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

9. What progress she has made on improving access to bus services in rural areas; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The provision of bus services in rural areas, as in urban areas, is predominantly a matter for commercial operators and for local authorities. However, I recently provided £10 million of extra funding to local councils to help to develop community transport in their areas.

[Angela Smith]

Does the Minister accept that the equivalent of Beeching is going on in rural bus services, made in Whitehall and about which the national Government are doing nothing other than passing the buck to local authorities?

[Norman Baker]

No, I do not accept that. Almost four out of five bus services are provided commercially as opposed to being subsidised by local councils. So far there have been no cuts at all to support from central Government for those services. The BSOG—bus service operators grant—cut will come in next April. The performance of local authorities up and down the country is very varied. If she looks at East Riding, which is not very far from her, she will find that the Beeching cuts to which she refers are certainly not occurring there or in many other councils. Many councils are protecting bus services; some are not.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The local sustainable transport fund has been a great success, but more improvements are needed in sustainable transport, including rural public transport. Will the Government consider further support in this area, which is critical for people and their ability to get around and for jobs and growth?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that the local sustainable transport fund has been a success, providing £560 million, which is more money in the four-year period than the previous Government provided. Every single qualifying council that could have bid for money has done so. Tranche 1 is out of the door—£155 million already—and tranche 2 bids are due in shortly, as are the larger bids. As part of the growth review, the Government are looking to see what we can do to boost transport further.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Last week, the UK Youth Parliament voted transport costs its No. 1 issue, while the Association of Colleges has warned that falling student numbers are being

“exacerbated by the number of local authorities who have cut back or axed their student travel subsidies.”

Will he now wake up to the devastating impact his 28% cut to local transport funding is having on young people, particularly in rural areas?

[Norman Baker]

I am conscious of the concerns of young people because I invited some to give a presentation at the most recent bus forum that I hosted, which was attended by the major operators and local authorities. I have subsequently written to the bus companies and involved the local authorities to try to get some action to help people of that age with their particular needs for public transport access. This issue is very much on the Government’s radar.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to monitor use of the road network by foreign HGV drivers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, for which I am responsible, carried out 67,000 checks last year on foreign-registered heavy goods vehicles for compliance with roadworthiness, overloading and drivers’ hours rules. The Department regularly publishes statistics on the amount of goods transported to and from the United Kingdom by foreign-registered HGVs.

[Fiona Bruce]

I was recently advised by a constituent of an accident that she had on the busy stretch of the M6 between Sandbach and Knutsford, in which she was hit by a foreign lorry driver in a left-hand drive vehicle who did not see her in his mirrors as he moved into the middle lane. In virtually the same place, a family of six were tragically killed in an accident caused by a foreign lorry driver in 2008. What steps can the Government take to prevent such accidents from occurring again?

[Mike Penning]

I am aware of the problems that occur around the country, particularly as a former HGV driver myself, including the problems that foreign drivers have with their mirrors. That is something that we are considering with our European counterparts. However, we must realise that only 3.5% of the HGVs on British roads and 5.2% of those on our motorways are foreign. Although it is a big issue, the biggest issue is with HGV driving and the quality of driving as a whole, not just with overseas drivers.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

There would be the possibility of taking up to 5 million lorry journeys off our roads every year, provided that there was the rail capacity to take those journeys. There is a scheme to promote a dedicated freight railway line from the channel tunnel to Glasgow, linking all the main conurbations throughout Britain. Under that scheme, full-scale lorries, double stack containers and so on would go on trains. I am happy to explain the scheme to the Minister if he would be interested.

[Mike Penning]

My door is always open to the hon. Gentleman, as he knows. The biggest issue with rail freight is capacity. The west coast main line in particular, which runs through his part of the world and my part of the world, is at capacity levels. That is why High Speed 2 is so important.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman feels an Adjournment debate coming on. We shall no doubt discover whether that is the case.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to improve the punctuality of trains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The Office of Rail Regulation and I have made it clear to Network Rail and train operating companies that current trends in performance are causing concern and that we expect industry-wide action to get performance back on target as soon as possible. The industry has agreed a plan to achieve just that.

[Andrew Stephenson]

The recent letter from the Office of Rail Regulation to Network Rail raises serious concerns over the delay per incident rate on the rail network, which is going up. What discussions has the Minister had with the ORR, Network Rail and the train operating companies to address that specific problem?

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a worrying trend that the delay per incident rate is increasing. I have discussed the matter with Network Rail and the train companies. It is difficult to get to the bottom of it and it appears that there is no one simple explanation. A number of steps need to be taken by Network Rail and the train companies to deal with this issue. To answer his question directly, I am meeting both parties in about an hour.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that on 6 September, Southern, a railway company that provides services to my constituency, suffered as a result of cable theft? There were no fewer than 13,837 minute delays and 232 cancellations as a consequence. What is he doing to contact Ministry of Justice and Home Office Ministers to get this business sorted out once and for all?

[Norman Baker]

The right hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, which is a serious problem for the railway network, as well as for the energy network and the telecoms industry. We are taking it seriously. A cross-departmental group of Ministers, on which I sit for the Department for Transport, has met twice to consider what we can do within existing powers and what further steps might be necessary in regulations or legislation to deal with this serious problem, which is having a big impact on the economy and on passengers.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

May I welcome the Government investment in Reading station, which will make a massive difference to punctuality across the whole network? Will the Minister express his support for a western link into Heathrow, which would offer major economic benefits for the south-west, Wales and Reading, and improved punctuality?

[Norman Baker]

I recognise the strong case for better access on the rail network to our major airports, including of course Heathrow, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been particularly concerned about that. We want to improve access to Heathrow, and of course we have to ensure that any plans tie in with anything that might be done with high-speed rail.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

To follow on from the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), scrap metal theft is having a significant impact on train punctuality. Will the Minister agree to support tougher measures against the scrap metal industry to alleviate the problem?

[Norman Baker]

That is not ruled out. Obviously we do not want to go to the statute book as the first option, but there is a serious problem, and if Ministers are convinced that that option is a way to deal with metal theft, we will consider it seriously. We also have to ensure that we do not simply close down one avenue and see the stolen metal diverted somewhere else.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

12. What steps she is taking to repair roads.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The Department is providing £3 billion over the four years from 2011-12 onwards to local highway authorities in England for roads for which they are responsible. On top of that, we provided an additional £200 million in March for English authorities to repair damage caused by the winter. The Highways Agency is responsible for operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network in England, and in this financial year its budget for maintenance is £840 million, excluding costs associated with private finance initiative projects.

[Mr Raab]

According to a survey published by Autocar, the last Government left Surrey with the most potholes in the country, while the Federation of Small Businesses reports that poor roads cost a quarter of small businesses at least £2,500 each year. Will the Government confirm their continuing support for repairing Surrey roads through the local sustainable transport fund?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to confirm that the Government are committed to doing what we can to help local authorities with road maintenance. We have a highways maintenance efficiency programme to identify best practice, which we are funding centrally. In addition, I am happy to say that in March we allocated an extra £4.1 million to Surrey county council to deal with its specific problems.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

If we have severe frost and snow again this year, will the Government again make extra money available to local authorities to deal with the problems that that would cause on our roads in the coming six months or so?

[Norman Baker]

We deal with circumstances as they arise, but we are putting in place measures to ensure that local authorities make the best use of the money that they have. Salt stocks are high, and as I mentioned a moment ago we are investing in steps to ensure that the highways maintenance efficiency programme gets the best value for money from what local councils spend.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of the effect on road safety of the decision to permit longer heavy goods vehicles.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

The Government’s response to the consultation on the use of longer semi-trailers includes a revised impact assessment. It indicates that the forthcoming trial of 1,800 trailers should result in a marginal reduction in accidents and fatalities and their associated costs.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Given that the original consultation document admitted that longer lorries are less safe, and in the light of the tragic circumstances of last week, which were admittedly different, do the Government not now have cause to reconsider taking any risk with safety by introducing such lorries?

[Mike Penning]

What happened on the M5 was a tragic incident, and our thoughts and sympathies are with the families who have lost their loved ones and the people who are still very seriously ill in hospital. No assumptions should be made until after the police inquiry is completed.

The research was undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, a world-leading independent body. It indicates that there will be a 1.6% reduction in road casualties.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

14. If she will establish a public inquiry into the Grayrigg train crash in February 2007.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

The Grayrigg derailment was thoroughly investigated by the rail accident investigation branch in its 2008 report. The accident also received detailed scrutiny during the inquest into the tragic death of Mrs Masson. Ongoing rail industry actions continue to address issues arising from Grayrigg. The Government have therefore decided not to set up a public inquiry.

[Tim Farron]

Our thoughts and prayers must be with the family of Mrs Margaret Masson, following the conclusion last week of the inquest into her tragic death at Grayrigg in 2007. The inquest revealed that in February 2007 alone, there were no fewer than 700 points-related failures just on the line from Motherwell to Crewe. That is 700 near misses. Does that not demonstrate the need for a much wider, nationwide inquiry, and should not the Government now resolve not to deregulate Network Rail, which would further compromise rail safety?

[Mrs Villiers]

The Government are determined not to compromise rail safety. We are satisfied that very important lessons must be learned from Grayrigg and previous accidents. In taking forward reform of the railways to make them more efficient, maintaining the highest levels of safety will be a vital priority we intend to keep to.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)]

In just under four weeks in this job, I have met a range of people, organisations and parliamentarians involved in the transport world. For example, I have met the Select Committee on Transport, the industry-formed Rail Delivery Group and the Motorists Forum. I have also addressed the Airport Operators Association and visited the Thameslink site at Blackfriars to see for myself the progress being made with that vital project.

I am clear that my key objective is to ensure that the Department for Transport plays its role in being a driver of economic growth, not just today but in the future, by helping people and goods to get from A to B, while also helping the UK’s delivery of key environmental goals.

[Jack Lopresti]

Officials in the Secretary of State’s Department are considering the north-west Bristol to Hengrove major scheme bid. The scheme supports the delivery of 23,000 new homes, more than 100 hectares of employment land and 150,000 square metres of offices for local businesses and industry. Does she agree that the bid fits in well with the Government’s growth agenda?

[Justine Greening]

I am very well aware of that bid, which was received by the Department on 9 September. It is currently being assessed alongside the other 44 schemes that have been submitted for the development pool. We hope to be in a position to announce which of those 45 schemes will receive funding later this year.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T2. Despite the fact that the west midlands was hit harder during the downturn than anywhere else in the country, and that it is taking longer to recover and urgently needs action to generate jobs and growth, the railway initial industry plan identifies only two schemes in the west midlands and would result in the region receiving only £57 million of a total of £10 billion of investment. That is a complete and utter disgrace. I welcome the Secretary of State to her position, but would she be prepared to visit the west midlands to meet me, other MPs from the region and industry experts such as Centro to discuss how we can work together to tackle transport problems in the region?

[Justine Greening]

I am always happy to meet parliamentarians. I will ensure that as Secretary of State for Transport I am out and about around the country. I have already started doing that and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituency colleagues.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

T3. I hope that in the Secretary of State’s induction, she has been made aware of the unsuitable suburban rolling stock used on the main line Portsmouth to London service. Is she also aware that 1970s rolling stock has been reintroduced on the Portsmouth to Brighton line? Will she meet me to discuss how we can ensure that Portsmouth passengers get the services they deserve and the services they pay for?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

My hon. Friend and I have debated this issue before. She knows that I am reluctant for Ministers to have more hands-on involvement with the distribution of rolling stock on different lines, but I understand her concerns. My colleagues and I are of course happy to try to broker a solution, and I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. Are Ministers aware that there is growing concern about the potential sale of British Midland International to British Airways, which could have damaging consequences for Scottish businesses and travellers? I appreciate that under the Enterprise Act 2002 this is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, but will Ministers keep an overview and, if appropriate, report to Parliament?

[Justine Greening]

I have already spoken to Willie Walsh about the proposed deal, which, as the hon. Lady will be aware, has some way to go before it is finalised and before we know about the impact on connectivity. She will also be aware that a scoping document consultation has just closed. When we look at the emerging strategy for aviation, it is important to ensure that we see a United Kingdom in the sense that we should have a well connected transport policy.

[Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T6. In Mildenhall, Brandon, Elveden and across Suffolk and East Anglia, people are thrilled that the Government are finally completing the dualling of the A11, but the questions they are now asking are when will it be finished, and when can they finally drive at an appropriate pace all the way up to Norfolk?[Official Report, 14 November 2011, Vol. 535, c. 3MC.]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

I hope those people will drive not only at an appropriate pace but at a safe pace within the law. As my hon. Friend knows, we started the project early and promised that we would be as fast as we possibly could. We hope that it will be done in early 2014, but if it can be done earlier, we certainly will do it.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. Given the threat of ever higher train prices and the success of mutual solutions—for example, Glas Cymru—in reducing the burden on consumers, will the Secretary of State accept the Co-operative party’s People Rail proposals and put passengers in the driving seat?

[Mrs Villiers]

I am obviously always interested in ideas for improving our railways. The Government recognise the benefits of co-operative arrangements and mutualisation, and I am happy to meet the Co-operative party to discuss what it would like to do with the railways, and to see whether we can involve it in the reforms that we are taking forward.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

T7. As a south London MP, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know what a success Croydon tramlink has been. The Mayor of London and Croydon council have recently worked together to buy additional trams to increase the frequency of the service. Will she work with the Mayor in the medium term to extend the benefits of the system to other parts of south London?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

We believe that there is a good future for trams and light rail in this country, and I hope that my hon. Friend has seen the recent publication “Green Light for Light Rail”. We are happy to work with the Mayor and elected bodies up and down the country to try to progress light rail, because it has a good future and is very useful for passengers.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Michael Connarty. He is not here. Margaret Beckett.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

May I welcome the Secretary of State to her new responsibilities and assure her that her welcome will be much warmer, particularly across Derbyshire, if she makes an early decision on the eVoyager project—converting 57 vehicles from the CrossCountry fleet to dual power—and awards the contract to Bombardier?

[Justine Greening]

I would say two things to the right hon. Lady. First, I was in contact with Bombardier in my first three days in this role because I recognise the issues raised across the House. She is right that tenders are coming up in which Bombardier could participate, and I have no doubt, and very much hope, that it will want to bid for them. Secondly, I recognise the issues arising from the procurement process within Government, and we are working with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to consider how we can take those matters further.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

T8. Is the Secretary of State confident that councils in the west midlands have sufficient resources to address adverse weather and avoid the sort of chaos that happened in Redditch last year?

[Justine Greening]

We discovered last year and the year before that winter resilience is incredibly important. We have far more salt in reserve now than we did at this point last year, and we are working with local authorities up and down the country to ensure that many are better prepared and can use the salt more effectively.

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

The Secretary of State will have seen the Competition Commission’s damning report on the bus wars around Newcastle. May I urge her not to leave bus transport in the north-east to market forces, but to work with local and transport authorities to ensure that the people of Newcastle have the quality of bus services that they deserve?

[Justine Greening]

We are still waiting for the Competition Commission’s final report, but I can assure the hon. Lady that I am well aware of the importance of bus services to local communities up and down the country, including in Newcastle, and I shall pay close attention to any strategies that we develop in the light of the commission’s report.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Last Friday, I had the delight of sitting through the five Youth Parliament debates. They were really well-conducted and a fantastic opportunity for young people to express their views. Coming from a rural constituency, I was very pleased that the Youth Parliament chose transport as its campaign issue. What can the Secretary of State do to further its aim to have cheaper, better and more accessible transport?

[Justine Greening]

We have a range of approaches to ensure that transport is affordable and accessible to everyone, , including young people. As we have seen in London, getting young people to use public transport from an early age is one way of getting behaviour change. I am very conscious of that, and I shall be interested to see what more I can do in my role.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on local newspapers of relaxing the guidelines on the statutory publishing of traffic regulation orders?

[Norman Baker]

Obviously, we recognise that there is a potential impact on local newspapers, but we also realise that this is perhaps an archaic way of forcing local authorities to advertise traffic regulation orders, and that it involves a significant cost, to the extent that sometimes the cost of advertising is in excess of the cost of the work carried out.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

In her review of the interval between MOT inspections, will the Secretary of State consider the mileage covered by vehicles? For the average car, which covers about 10,000 miles a year, there is a strong case for extending the interval, but many trade vehicles and company cars cover in excess of 30,000 miles, which means that they have reached 100,000 miles come the three-year first MOT test.

[Justine Greening]

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, there are far more issues to do with the MOT test than just its frequency. We aim to look at all those issues as part of this review, and I shall be making an announcement shortly.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I, too, extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State on her new role.

The Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands, Glenis Willmott, has established that the European Union has no problem with the Thameslink contracts being retendered to incorporate socio-economic factors. The Business Secretary was on the “Today” programme this morning saying how much the Government supported the manufacturing industry. May I urge the Secretary of State to show her commitment to British manufacturing by considering retendering the Thameslink contract, which could be achieved in a matter of six to 12 months?

[Justine Greening]

We cannot retender that contract, not least because it would put on hold the vital work being done on the Thameslink project, which is creating, I think, 3,000 jobs. The hon. Gentleman’s point about better reflecting socio-economic factors in the procurement process is, however, a good one. That is precisely why we are looking at how we can improve the procurement process, which I should add was developed by his Government.

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

The post bus carries hundreds of passengers between Foxholes and the villages to Malton, but from April the Royal Mail will discontinue it. How can we access the community transport fund, which we have just heard about, to ensure that this vital rural bus link continues?

[Norman Baker]

I have every sympathy for my hon. Friend when such situations arise. As I have said, £10 million has been given to local authorities. Her local council is in a position to take that forward and decide how best to allocate the money, so it is best that she speak to her council. However, she makes a valid point, and I am monitoring the impact of bus services in rural areas.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the propensity of (a) men and (b) women to start new businesses.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

If women in the UK set up businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 150,000 new start-ups each year. If women in the UK showed the same level of entrepreneurship as women in the United States, we would have 600,000 more women-owned businesses in the UK, which would contribute around £42 billion to our economy. It is therefore obvious that we need to make the best use of all the talents available in the economy.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The new enterprise allowance scheme, which is delivered through Jobcentre Plus, is an excellent innovation to help people who want to start their own businesses. Will the Minister ensure that both women and men are told about this excellent scheme?

[Mrs May]

Indeed. The new enterprise allowance scheme is an important scheme that has been introduced to enable people who are unemployed to set up their own businesses, and we will certainly ensure that it is made available to both women and men. I also announced last week that we would be recruiting an additional 5,000 mentors for the women’s enterprise scheme, to encourage and help women in the vital first steps of setting up their own businesses.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen today’s PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which shows that the discrepancy between north and south is being widened by Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government policies? Given that women find it difficult to get into the employment market in the first place, what steps will she take to ensure that women in Wales, the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside have an opportunity to get into employment?

[Mrs May]

It is this coalition Government who have introduced the regional growth fund, which is actively ensuring that money is available in the various regions of the United Kingdom, to help ensure growth and prosperity across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

The case for encouraging women-owned businesses is clearly made. This Government have made great strides to encourage small businesses through their aspiration to ensure that 25% of Government spending on procurement goes to small businesses. Can we now consider the possibility of extending that to women-owned businesses, which would obviously have a great benefit for business and the economy?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right, in that the Government are actively using their procurement power to encourage small businesses and make it easier for them to apply for Government contracts. She makes an interesting point about positive action in relation to women-owned business. This is something that has been done elsewhere—for example, the United States—and we will look at the experience in those places.

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

Support to start businesses is all very well, but the regional growth fund is substantially smaller than the funding available from the regional development agencies, while Labour’s Aspire fund, which supported women-led businesses in obtaining finance, has been put on hold by Ministers. With cuts to help with child care costs, Sure Start services closing and family budgets under pressure, does the Minister not think that the Government need to do far more to support business and working women?

[Mrs May]

We have announced 5,000 mentors to help women to start up their own businesses, and we will also be establishing a women’s business council. We are doing things to help women in the workplace that go far beyond what the last Labour Government did. The right to request flexible working for all and the introduction of flexible parental leave will make a real difference to women’s lives.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

2. What her policy is on reducing (a) forced marriages and (b) honour killings; and if she will make a statement.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

The Government are committed to ending the abusive practices of forced marriage and honour killings, and to ensuring that victims are protected. These practices are indefensible and never acceptable. Our action plan to end violence against women and girls sets out our approach, which includes raising awareness, development of training for police and prosecutors, support for victims, and improving the international response.

[Mr Carswell]

How quickly will the Government move to ensure that forced marriage is made a criminal offence?

[Lynne Featherstone]

Up to now, this has been a civil matter under protection orders. We are making it a criminal offence to breach a civil order, and we will be consulting on the actual offence becoming a criminal one before Christmas.

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that schools spot any early signs of vulnerability to forced marriage?

[Lynne Featherstone]

We have an inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, to which the Department for Education sends a Minister. As the hon. Lady knows, issues relating to forced marriage are principally, though not exclusively, explored within personal, social and health education. The Department for Education continues to work closely with other Departments, and it reports to us in the inter-ministerial group.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to tackle hate crime.

[The Minister for Equalities (Lynne Featherstone)]

Tackling hate crime is an issue that the Government take extremely seriously, and we are committed to doing more to support and protect victims. We are meeting the coalition commitment to improve the recording of such crimes, and working with the police and other partners to encourage more victims to come forward. We are also working with the Government’s independent advisory group to develop an action plan on tackling all forms of hate crime.

[Angela Smith]

Next week is anti-bullying week. What is the Minister going to do to tackle homophobic bullying in schools?

[Lynne Featherstone]

We take all bullying very seriously, including homophobic and transgender bullying. The Department of Health has issued new guidelines on bullying that are much more condensed and to the point. Also, Ofsted has now included behaviours in its inspection regime. The hon. Lady is right: this is an appalling form of hate crime, and we are dealing with it.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

One in five gay or lesbian people has experienced a homophobic attack in the past three years. As someone who experienced such an attack in the ’90s, I am aware of the fear that follows such an attack. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the excellent work being done by West Yorkshire police to engage the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender community in tackling this awful hate crime?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I am sorry to learn that he had such an experience. The statistics on hate crime are quite frightening. In 2010, there were 48,000 incidents. I would very much like to congratulate the police force in West Yorkshire. It is vital that the police take this issue seriously, because they are in a position to act when someone comes to them to report it. We must tackle hate crime and ensure that every incident is investigated.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

5. What steps the Government are taking to provide support to women in the criminal justice system who have been victims of domestic violence and abuse.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the Government, and specifically for me, as I have responsibility for women in the criminal justice system. The National Offender Management Service, in conjunction with Women’s Aid, has published the framework to support women offenders who have experienced domestic and sexual violence. It contains guidance for commissioners and links to resources for practitioners. Women’s Aid and the National Offender Management Service are also training prison and probation staff to pilot the Power to Change programme, which aims to help women prisoners who want to leave a violent relationship.

[Nic Dakin]

With the closure of courts across the land, will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to guarantee that domestic abuse courts will remain in place?

[Mr Blunt]

We continue to examine the provision of court services across the country and there is an agenda to try to deliver justice much closer to neighbourhoods. Of course, dealing with domestic violence is an important part of addressing a particularly horrible crime at a community level. I have seen for myself the work done by the probation trusts, and that will go hand in hand with what needs to be done with the courts as well.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The House will be aware of the deeply disturbing cases where women have been stalked for many years by their ex-partners and have not been properly protected by the criminal justice system. Two months ago, I raised my concern and expressed the view that stalking should be made a separate criminal offence in order to provide greater protection for women. Labour has tabled an amendment to the Protection of Freedoms Bill in the House of Lords to do exactly that. Will the Government support us in our proposals to make stalking a separate offence and vote for those proposals in the Lords?

[Mr Blunt]

Obviously we have seen the proposals coming from the Opposition. We need to look at the evidence on how the existing legislation has or has not been used effectively and assess whether further work could be done on using existing harassment legislation properly. We are looking at the proposed amendment; during the course of the debate, we will come forward with a proper assessment and answer to it.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to encourage corporate boards to have a more representative proportion of women.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Women and Equalities (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Government are continuing to work with business and others to ensure that the recommendations set out by Lord Davies in March this year are implemented effectively. Cranfield university presented a report to the Prime Minister three weeks ago, which showed that steady progress is being made to increase female board representation. The rate at which women are being appointed to FTSE boards has doubled and the number of all-male boards has almost halved since 2010.

[Mrs Laing]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The House will warmly welcome the enormous progress made in recent times. In particular, we welcome the Davies report, but will my right hon. Friend agree that this is not just a matter of an abstract idea about equality for the sake of equality. Lord Davies cites a report by McKinsey which states:

“Companies with more women on their boards were found to out-perform their rivals with a 42% higher return in sales, 66% higher return on invested capital and 53% higher return on equity.”

Having women involved is also good for business.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. There has been progress. We know that there are now only 12 all-male boards within the FTSE 100, down from 21 in 2010. We know that women have made up an increasing percentage of the directors appointed to FTSE 100 companies since Lord Davies’s report. The point she makes is absolutely right: having women on boards is not just a women’s issue; it is about the state of the economy, and it makes good business sense.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

But is the Minister for Women and Equalities aware that of the last 93 appointments only 21 were women, and that the Cranfield school of management has said that two thirds of companies have ignored what the Government have said. Do we not need more than a nudge and wink, and to have some more positive action?

[Mrs May]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady could not bring herself to welcome the progress made on this issue since Lord Davies’s report. We are adopting the approach of encouragement and working with businesses. I think that is the best way to change attitudes in the longer term. We have already seen from the work done in Australia that the significant increase in the number of women on boards can be achieved without having to go down the route of quotas.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Given the clear benefit to the whole community of having a much more diverse corporate management in both the private and the public sectors, will my right hon. Friend look at having a common reporting date annually for the private and public sectors on the diversity of their boards? Could we follow that, in association with the House business managers, with a debate here so that we can keep the pressure up and everyone in the country can see the comparative position annually?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion. He highlights the importance of transparency in encouraging action in this area. That is indeed why we have developed the “think, act, report” programme for companies to sign up to. It encourages them not just to look at what is happening on gender diversity and the gender pay gap in their workplace, but to act on it and then, crucially, report on it because we believe it is that transparency that makes a difference.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

7. What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the treatment of women offenders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt)]

I engage in frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues about how we should address women’s offending as part of the Government’s rehabilitation reforms. Those discussions often include either my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities or my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities. We are working across Government to tackle offenders’ mental health problems, along with the Department of Health; to get them off drugs for good; and to give them skills for work, which involves the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Our Work programme reforms will of course affect offenders leaving prisons, and in that regard we are doing very good work with the Department for Work and Pensions. In all that work, we are taking full account of the distinct needs of women.

[Heidi Alexander]

The Government want prisoners to work a 48-hour week, but in a recent written answer the prisons Minister confirmed that just 161 women were working in prisons in March this year. That is a disproportionately low figure given the size of the female prison population. What will the Minister do to close the gap?

[Mr Blunt]

Most work in prisons at the moment is effectively a programme: it is a cost centre for the Prison Service. If we are to increase the amount of work done in our prisons to any significant extent, we shall need to adopt a rather more economic and commercial approach, so that the work of offenders can generate resources to deliver services for victims of crime. We are undergoing a system change, and there are many important and difficult questions to be answered about competition and similar issues. That applies just as much to women as to men.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government rightly dislike adopting targets, but has the Minister an aspiration in regard to the number of women he expects to be in prison at the end of the current Parliament?

[Mr Blunt]

My aspiration is, of course, zero, but although we have delivered a highly effective policy on crime and criminal justice, I am, like my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities, realistic enough to know that it is unlikely to be achieved. We will, however, work towards its achievement.

Over the past year the number of women prisoners has fallen by 1.5%, and the number of women arriving at prisons to serve sentences of less than 12 months has fallen by 10.7% .

Dartford Crossing

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am pleased to present a petition on the subject of the Dartford crossing on behalf of my constituents in Thurrock. The petition has been prompted by the Government’s announcement that they intend to increase tolls at the Dartford crossing and to make proposals for an additional crossing in the lower Thames, the three options under consideration all passing through the constituency of Thurrock. Some 2,000 signatures have been collected on this petition and similar ones run by the Thurrock Gazette and by the community forums in Bulphan, Orsett and Chadwell St Mary.

The petition reads:

The Petition of residents of Thurrock and others,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to any increase in the tolls charged for the Dartford Crossing and any option for a new Thames crossing in the south Thames area, which the Petitioners believe would involve the building of new roads in Thurrock and increased congestion on Thurrock’s already crowded road network.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to reduce tolls on the Dartford Crossing and to reconsider proposals for a new Thames crossing in the lower Thames area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000981]

Hinchingbrooke Hospital

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

11:32

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Minister of State to make a statement on the decision to allow Circle to run Hinchingbrooke hospital.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)]

Today, a 10-year contract was signed by Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust and Circle allowing Circle to take over management of the trust, which has struggled to be financially viable in recent years. Major service problems have persisted and, despite repeated attempts to tackle it, the trust now has the largest legacy debt as a proportion of turnover in the NHS: £39 million, which amounts to almost half the hospital’s £100 million turnover. Moreover, the Care Quality Commission has expressed concern about the fact that its stroke services are failing and its cancer services under-achieving. The local NHS accepted that major changes were needed, and early in 2007, when the previous Government were in power, established the Hinchingbrooke next steps project to identify options for securing the trust's future.

In 2008, East of England strategy health authority chose a franchise model, and in 2009 it launched a competitive procurement process to identify a preferred bidder. That was agreed with the previous Government, and the power to bring in another person or organisation to manage an NHS hospital was introduced under that Government’s National Health Service Acts 2001 and 2006 and the Health and Social Care Act 2001.

At the end of last year, following a rigorous and open competition that included NHS organisations, NHS East of England announced that Circle had the most viable plans to turn the trust around. That decision has been endorsed by the Department of Health and the Treasury following an equally rigorous approval process this year. It should be noted that it was the Labour Government who set up the initial competition, a process from which many NHS organisations dropped out, leaving only private providers in the competitive tendering frame.

Circle is an established provider of services for NHS patients, although it should be emphasised that under this contract NHS services will continue to be provided by NHS staff, from NHS buildings, and that patients will continue to have access to them as they do now. No NHS staff are leaving, and assets will remain in public ownership. Hinchingbrooke hospital will continue to deliver the same NHS services, as long as commissioners continue to purchase them, adhering to the key NHS principle of care being free at the point of use. This is not a privatisation in any shape or form. Circle will help clinicians and health care professionals improve Hinchingbrooke from the bottom up. Its plans include improvement in length of stay, rationalisation of theatre usage and improvement in back offices. Commissioning leaders, hospital consultants and Royal College of Nursing representatives in Huntingdon clearly support Circle commencing the franchise. Tony Durcan, the RCN professional officer for Cambridgeshire said:

“Circle are very impressive…I welcome working with them.”

He went on to say that he believes the decision to work with Circle

“does secure the long-term future of Hinchingbrooke.”

If Circle achieves its forecasts, the whole of the trust’s accumulated deficit will be repaid by the end of the 10-year contract. Circle is paid from the trust’s surpluses, so if there are no surpluses Circle does not receive a fee. Furthermore, if the trust makes a deficit under Circle’s watch, Circle must fund the first £5 million. At deficits above that, the trust can terminate the contract, so Circle really must perform well.

The Government believe this is a good deal for patients and staff at Hinchingbrooke. It is a new management model being tried in the NHS for the first time, but the trust has had huge problems over the past decade, and it now has an opportunity to turn its fortunes round. The local NHS even stated that without this deal Hinchingbrooke hospital’s future would have been in doubt.

The local NHS will maintain close scrutiny of the contract. The Appointments Commission has appointed a chair and two non-executive director-designates to form a new Hinchingbrooke trust board from February 2012 that will appoint a franchise manager. The franchise manager will be responsible for day-to-day monitoring of contract performance. During the initial mobilisation stages, NHS Midlands and East will continue to oversee the franchise agreement.

Patients and the public deserve, and must get, a safe and sustainable NHS based on its core, historical principles. This contract will deliver that.

[Liz Kendall]

Patients, the public and NHS staff will be concerned about the implications of this unprecedented agreement not only locally in Cambridgeshire, but for the NHS across the country. Let me be clear that Opposition Members accept that there have been problems with this hospital for some time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—who is currently visiting St James’s university hospital in Leeds—will set out the background to this issue and how it was dealt with by the previous Government in a statement later this morning, but it is the current Government who have made the decision to transfer the management of Hinchingbrooke to the private sector, and it is the current Government who must account for their actions.

First, I want to deal with the practicalities of the agreement. How many bids to take over the running of the hospital did the Government receive, and what criteria were used to judge them? Circle’s chief executive confirmed on the “Today” programme this morning that Circle has no experience of running emergency and maternity services, so why was the company chosen? What confidence can patients and NHS staff have in the chief executive’s claim this morning that Circle will be able to pay off Hinchingbrooke’s £40 million debt simply by cutting waste and bureaucracy when all previous attempts have failed—at the same time as, apparently, providing patients with Michelin-star meals and delivering profits for Circle’s shareholders? Can the Minister assure the House that this agreement will not, in reality, lead to staff jobs being cut and services being closed, and can he give a firm guarantee that all services currently run at Hinchingbrooke, including accident and emergency and maternity, will remain open throughout the entire period of the deal? Will he also set out whether the agreement requires Circle to work with other local NHS services and the council, what profits are permitted under the agreement, and how decisions will be held to account locally under it? Will he also place a copy of the agreement contract in the Library of the House?

The Minister must also today answer serious questions about the implications of this agreement for the wider NHS. He must set out whether the Government envisage any limit to the role of the private sector in the NHS. We know that Department of Health officials have been discussing the takeover of 20 other hospitals by private companies, so will the Minister tell the House how many of these hospitals will be taken over by the private sector? What steps have the Government taken to ensure the financial stability of Circle and its parent company, Circle Holdings? What will be the implications if the company goes bust, as Southern Cross did, for patients and taxpayers?

Finally, important questions need to be answered about why this company has been chosen. Given its close links to the Conservative party, there needs to be full transparency about all meetings—formal and informal—between Department of Health and Treasury Ministers and this company and any of its paid advisers. So will the Minister agree to publish full details of these meetings so that patients and NHS staff can have full confidence that the Government followed proper due process in their decisions?

Patients and the public will be deeply worried that this morning they have seen this Government’s true vision for the future of our NHS with the wholesale transfer of the management of entire hospitals to the private sector. The Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament not only allows that to happen but actively encourages it. Patients and NHS staff do not want this and the public have not voted for it. It is time that the Government agreed to drop their reckless NHS Bill.

[Mr Burns]

I am rarely speechless, but I am left speechless by the sheer effrontery of the hon. Lady. I have to remind hon. Members that this process stems from the previous Labour Government’s legislation in 2001, which was consolidated in 2006. This process started in 2007 at strategic health authority level, when she was a special adviser in the Department of Health. It continued, and the decision to move forward from a Department of Health level was taken in 2009 by the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the shadow Secretary of State. It is often thought that shadowing a Department that one ran is helpful because one knows where the bodies are buried. The problem for the shadow Secretary of State is that not only does he know where the bodies are buried, but he was the one who buried them in the first place.

The hon. Lady asks how many bidders there were. As she will appreciate, a number of processes have taken place. There were 11 bidders at the start, the vast majority of which were private sector bidders, although there were some NHS ones—this was in 2009, under a Labour Government. The number reduced to six in December 2009, again under a Labour Government. Of those six bids, one was from an NHS body and one was from an NHS body in conjunction with the private sector. In February 2010, when I believe the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was the Secretary of State, the number reduced again, this time to five. All these bids were from the private sector, except one, which was made in conjunction with an NHS trust. In March 2010, again under a Labour Government, the number reduced to three, with one bid associated with an NHS body, and then it reduced to two, with both bidders in the private sector.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

When did that happen?

[Mr Burns]

In July last year, as part of the ongoing process started by the previous Government.

The hon. Lady also asked whether the contract and the business case would be put into the public domain. They will be published in due course although, as she will appreciate, certain commercially sensitive information will be redacted, which is only reasonable. She also asked about staffing and whether there would be redundancies. May I tell her that there will not be redundancies as a result of the operating franchise? Circle has said that it might need to redeploy and retrain some staff within the hospital, but it does not expect job losses. I reassure the hon. Lady—I think she would like this reassurance—that, as I am sure she understands, Hinchingbrooke will remain an NHS hospital, the staff will remain as NHS staff, and the services will continue, as I said in my statement, within the format of all other services provided in every other NHS hospital, which is within the format of reconfigurations, if and when. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says I cannot guarantee that they will stay over. I can give the greatest and most honest guarantee as of now because nobody—listen carefully so that it is not got wrong—can guarantee what services a hospital will be providing in 10 or 15 years, due to different and changing circumstances.

The hon. Lady also mentioned, as a hare that she wanted to start running to frighten people, the question of the 20 hospitals within the NHS that are having financial and other problems. The fact is that in the past month or so all those hospitals have published their tripartite formal agreements with regard to the foundation trust pipeline, and I can tell her that all those are options by which to move forward, either as stand-alone bodies or possibly mergers and acquisitions with other foundation trusts within the NHS.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister of State is a resilient man. Considering that he was rendered speechless, his recovery has been both quick and complete. The House will be aware that the terms of this urgent question are narrow. I appreciate that Members may want to refer to other cases, but they must do so with reference to the specifics of the issue that has been aired from the Opposition Front Bench and by the Minister of State.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Is not the key point that the deal will lead to better NHS services for people who live in the area of the hospital? The Minister has reassured us today that if it does not, there will be changes.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that measured contribution. The most important thing must be providing world-class, quality care for patients, not only in the Hinchingbrooke area but throughout the NHS across the country. I am confident that this deal does that, working with the NHS within the NHS, but with a management provided by Circle to do just that.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Can the Minister guarantee that the terms and conditions of current and new staff will be guaranteed by the private sector company, and that it will not go for the easy option of cutting terms and conditions?

[Mr Burns]

With respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman fully understands what I have said. I said that the status of staff at the hospital will not change in any way. They will continue to be NHS-employed staff working for the NHS as they did yesterday and as they will from the day the project starts working.

[Chris Ruane]

So that is yes?

[Mr Burns]

It is, indeed.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Many of my constituents are affected directly by what happens at Hinchingbrooke hospital, and the service there has been hit hard over many years by some of the disastrous schemes of the previous Government—private finance initiative contracts that took money away, and money abstracted by the previous Government’s private treatment centre, where private providers were paid more than NHS rates. What we now need is improved service and stability of service. Will this now finally be provided?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can say that this is the best chance for the hospital, which has had a very troubled history, as he knows as the constituency Member for Cambridge, because of the financial problems and governance and management problems. I am confident that this is the best way forward to establish this hospital once again on a firm footing to provide the finest health care for his constituents and those of hon. Members in the Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire area.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I do not understand how there can be a surplus to be given to the private company. Surely every penny of taxpayers’ money should be spent on the care of patients. Does this mean that Circle will be inclined to reduce care so that it makes profits?

[Mr Burns]

I have to say that I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question.

[Chris Ruane]

You are very condescending.

[Mr Burns]

I am not. I am just being honest. If there is a loss, Circle will pick it up, up to the first £5 million. Hinchingbrooke is a struggling hospital with a deficit of £39 million. That is why we are having to take the actions that the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported instigated more than three years ago. There is a formula that gives an incentive for Circle to deliver, to raise the quality of care, to reduce and, we hope, over the 10-year period to remove the deficit altogether.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

When a hospital’s consultants have a financial interest in its performance, what safeguards will prevent their private interest in increasing the volume of treatments provided putting the hospital’s financial health ahead of that of the local national health service?

[Mr Burns]

Under the agreements that have been signed, the consultants are there to manage an NHS hospital treating NHS-only patients and to ensure the finest quality of care for the NHS. That is the safeguard.

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

At a time when progressive reform of our NHS requires greater collaboration and integration of services, with more being done for patients beyond the hospital, cannot Ministers see that that will be much harder to achieve when Hinchingbrooke hospital and others have been handed over to a private company with a single commercial interest in maximising profits and getting more patients into the hospital? Cannot they accept that it is a privatisation and that it is wrong in principle and wrong in practice?

[Mr Burns]

If it is privatisation—I utterly reject the claim that it is—and if it is wrong, it was the right hon. Gentleman’s Government who gave the powers to do this in their legislation and it was his successor as shadow Health Secretary, when Secretary of State, who instigated the proceedings to bring this about. It is a little odd for the right hon. Gentleman for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for narrow, grimy and party political reasons, to try to blame us for something that he and his party instigated.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his excellent announcement. The Circle group runs a hospital in Peasedown St John in my constituency. It has a fantastic partnership model that is a good example of how public-private co-operation should exist and provides better services for my constituents than those that were there before, so the announcement is thoroughly to be welcomed.

[Mr Burns]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I have every confidence that what has been decided today is in the best interests of getting Hinchingbrooke hospital back on its feet. I am heartened not only by his support, but by the fact that the vast majority of people living in the Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire area fully support it, as do clinicians and the NHS locally. I was particularly heartened by a rational statement of fact by the RCN’s area organiser for Cambridgeshire—he was on the negotiating board—who said that he was very impressed when dealing with Circle and was looking forward to working for it. The ultimate point is that there was a possibility two or three years ago that if nothing could be done to turn the hospital around it would have been closed, which would not have been in the interests of local people.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will Circle be able to sell off any of the organisation’s assets and separate the ownership and operation of the hospital, as was the case with Southern Cross?

[Mr Burns]

Under no circumstances will it be able to do that. As I keep saying to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, Hinchingbrooke is and will remain an NHS hospital, but a private company is providing the management. The NHS, through that management, will continue to operate the hospital.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) on securing the urgent question and allowing the Government to concede that they have adopted a Labour policy by bringing in private management. Will the Minister look at the possibility of extending what we might call a pilot to Kettering hospital?

[Mr Burns]

The answer is no. I do not want to disappoint my hon. Friend, but the simple answer is that Hinchingbrooke hospital, as the right hon. Member for Leigh will know, has a historical problem that the NHS tried to solve but failed. Given that the previous Government enacted powers to allow a franchise in exceptional circumstances, it is better to use that model to turn around the hospital rather than let it fail altogether. It is not a principle that we are considering extending across the NHS.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

The Minister said in reply to an earlier question that there would be no forced redundancies. However, as he explained, Circle will pay off the deficit over a period of time and has an obligation to make profits for its shareholders. Can he explain how it will manage to do that while paying off the deficit?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)]

Did they not understand the policy when they voted for it?

[Mr Burns]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point from a sedentary position. The driving force behind the arrangement and the key criterion for Circle is the need to turn the hospital around, with regard to its quality and standard of care and its finances. The challenge for Circle is to eliminate completely the £39 million historical deficit over the 10-year period and put the day-to-day running costs of the hospital on a firm footing. I am confident that, within the framework of the agreement, that offers the best change to turn the hospital around.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on exploiting the position presented by the Opposition. Given that this is a one-off, as he has said, what is the future for the other 20 hospitals that are in a desperate financial state? Is this a blueprint for the future and can we look forward to other partnership arrangements coming forward?

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to put on the record the way forward for those 20 hospitals. This is not a blueprint or model to be used by other hospitals. It is on the statute book, as the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) knows. Where there are problems with the 20 hospitals that are seeking foundation trust status, the SHAs, departmental officials and the trusts themselves are looking at them. They have all published TFAs in the past six weeks or so with their intention for the way forward. I think that I am right in saying that for all of them there is a variety of options that range from a stand-alone FT bid to a possible merger or acquisition with another FT or trust. There are no TFAs for a franchise arrangement. As I have said before, this is a first and, as of now, unique model.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

On 31 December 2010 Circle’s debt stood at £82 million. Does the Minister know what its debt is at the moment, and can he guarantee that its priority will be paying off the hospital’s debt rather than its own?

[Mr Burns]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman, because of the way in which the agreements have been framed, that there is an incentive and a pressure on Circle to seek to deliver on reducing and—we hope—eliminating over the 10 years the £39 million historical deficit. On the question of who has what size of a deficit, I must tell him that my concern is to remove that shackle from the neck of Hinchingbrooke hospital.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Notwithstanding the inconsistency of the Opposition’s position, will the Minister clarify whether this marks clearly the termination of public NHS trusts as preferred providers of public NHS services?

[Mr Burns]

It was all going so well up until now, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman, who has shown a keen interest in the progress of the Health and Social Care Bill, will know that we are concentrating on any willing provider—based on quality care, not price—rather than preferred bidder.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that in an Adjournment debate some five months ago, we put forward a leaked document that stated that exactly what has happened today would happen. He denied that it was happening, but obviously it has, so will he answer the question that was put to him in that debate? Is it not the case that the only way in which the company can make a profit is by stopping the provision of expensive services, such as maternity and accident and emergency services, and by creaming off other services from neighbouring hospitals?

[Mr Burns]

With regard to the hon. Gentleman, I have over the past few months been very restrained. In the light of his question, however, I shall now share with the House what was going on.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the foundation trust status of his local hospital. A leaked document got into the public domain, but it was nothing to do with me or other Department of Health Ministers; it was an early draft of a tripartite formal agreement. What the hon. Gentleman did then—because he is an Opposition MP and he is entitled to do so—was to run a campaign in his area stating that the Tories were going to privatise his local hospital. I assured him from day one that that was utter rubbish, that there was no truth in it and that he should wait until the TFA was finally published. It was published recently, and of course there was no proposal in it to privatise the health service—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Burns]

Can I tell you, Mr Speaker, as a final thing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the final bit.

[Mr Burns]

The cynicism of politicians is such that when that happened, so that no face was lost, the hon. Gentleman claimed that his campaign had been so successful that it had forced me to reverse my position.

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

The Minister seems to believe that the continued running of the NHS is the responsibility of the previous Government, rather than of his own Department. Does he accept that this deal is his decision and that he has radically extended the role of the private sector in our health service?

[Mr Burns]

I do not know who has been briefing the hon. Lady, but the lines are wrong, I am afraid. She is right that the final decision was taken by me, in this Administration, but—[Interruption]—if she will just wait a minute, I will tell her that all we were doing was following what the previous Government set in motion. I will tell her something else: if there were a Labour Government in power and not this Conservative Government, the Labour Minister of State would be standing here today and making exactly the same points—

[Liz Kendall]

You don’t know that.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady says that I do not know that, but surely she accepts that Labour politicians are consistent and would consistently follow their own policy. I am sure that they would be here doing so.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I encourage the Minister to carry on drinking the peppermint tea, because then he will remain calm. Hinchingbrooke hospital does not have an A and E department, so what resources will be available to those NHS hospitals that have to absorb the extra patients?

[Mr Burns]

I think the hon. Lady is mistaken. I am advised that Hinchingbrooke does have an A and E—

[Valerie Vaz]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Burns]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but of course she is a Member for the north-west, whereas I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who is the MP for Hinchingbrooke, that it does have an A and E. I will check and write to her immediately, and no doubt if I am right and she is wrong, she will in her charming way correct the record in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister and to colleagues, because everybody who wanted to question him had the chance to do so.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

12:03

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

The business for the week commencing 14 November will be:

Monday 14 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Education Bill.

Tuesday 15 November—Motion relating to fisheries, followed by motion relating to fuel prices. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.



The business for the week commencing 21 November will include:



Monday 21 November—General debate on the 2010-2011 annual report from the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Tuesday 22 November—Opposition day [12th allotted day] [half day] [second part]. There will be a debate on a Democratic Unionist party motion. Subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to Croatia and European Union enlargement, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Daylight Savings Bill.

Wednesday 23 November—Opposition day [un-allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 November—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 November— Private Members’ Bills.



I should like to remind the House that we will meet at 11.30 am on Tuesday 15 November.



I should like also to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 1 December 2011 will be:



Thursday 1 December—A debate on “Keeping the UK moving: the impact on transport of the winter weather in December 2010”, the fifth report from the Transport Committee, followed by a debate on “Bus Services after the Spending Review”, the eighth report from the Transport Committee.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for that statement.

Ahead of Remembrance Sunday, it is only right that this House records its deep debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who have served and continue to serve in our armed forces. We will remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in services up and down the country this weekend, and we will all wear our poppies with pride.

In normal circumstances, the House rises at this time of the year for practical reasons, to make way for the beginning of a new Session and the State Opening of Parliament, but even though that has been put off until next year, we are still to have a short recess now. During the summer recess, Parliament had to be recalled the day after it rose in order to deal with the phone hacking scandal, and then it had to be recalled a second time to deal with the riots. With no Government in Greece and contagion spreading to Italy, does the Leader of the House think that it is right for Parliament to take a break just as we face the biggest economic crisis of our lifetimes—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

You all voted for it.

[Ms Eagle]

It was voted for before those events. Is the Leader of the House making contingency plans for a recall to deal with the worsening economic and political situation in Europe?

Given that the right hon. Gentleman has already helpfully announced all the recess dates for next year, will he now tell us the date of the rearranged Queen’s Speech? With crucial elections taking place countrywide on 3 May 2012, and with the Easter recess taking place between 27 March and 16 April, I am sure that he would not wish to put Her Majesty in a position where the ceremony of a State Opening runs up against election purdah. Our Head of State should not be used in a pre-election stunt by this Government, especially in her diamond jubilee year, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can reassure me on that important point.

The fact is that there should be a new Queen’s Speech next week, not next year. If one were happening now, the Government could start by admitting that they will have to revise their economic growth forecast down for the fourth time in 18 months, as unemployment and inflation soar and growth stalls. They ought to abandon their disastrous top-down reorganisation of our NHS and get to grips with the fiasco engulfing Britain’s border controls, and if the Chancellor had any sense he would swallow his pride and unveil a plan B to rescue our stagnating economy.

On the shambles at our borders, will the Leader of the House confirm to the House that the information given to the three inquiries that the Home Secretary has announced so far into those events will be published, so that we can get to the truth of what happened? Does he agree that that is especially important given that the former head of the border force has directly contradicted the account that the Home Secretary gave to the House and to the Home Affairs Committee?

The Rio plus 20 summit, the biggest meeting on the environment in 20 years, has been moved to avoid a clash with the diamond jubilee celebrations and to allow the attendance of all 54 Commonwealth leaders, but, despite the Prime Minister’s pre-election pledge to lead the “greenest Government ever”, we hear this week that he does not plan to attend. Does the Leader of the House agree that, by not attending, the Prime Minister is failing to show any leadership at all on climate change, despite his pre-election posturing and husky-hugging photo calls? Is it not now clear that the Government’s green credentials are being put in the bin quicker than the constituency correspondence of the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin)?

Speaking of privacy, I note that in the run-up to James Murdoch’s second appearance before the Culture Media and Sport Committee this morning, it has become clear that at least one Committee member has been subject to covert surveillance by News International. We know also from the comments of former members of the Committee that they were initially reluctant to pursue the phone hacking scandal with full rigour because they feared that they would be targeted in exactly the same way. Did the Prime Minister know about that when he decided to give Andy Coulson a job at the heart of Downing street? If not, why not? Given those extremely disturbing developments, which touch directly on the rights of Members of this House to pursue the truth without fear of intimidation, can we have a debate on Select Committee powers?

[Sir George Young]

I endorse what the hon. Lady said at the beginning of her remarks. Many of us will be at Remembrance day services on Sunday, and I am grateful to the House for enabling a portcullis to be prepared that Members of Parliament can insert in the wreath. I commend the Royal British Legion for its work in making that facility available.

On next week’s business, discussions took place through the usual channels on the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday and the House has voted on the matter. I say to the hon. Lady that if she compares the first two years of this Parliament with the first two years of the previous Parliament, she will find that we are sitting longer than our predecessor. It is also the case that we are regularly sitting in September. We sat in September last year and this year and we will do so next year, whereas we did not sit in September in the previous Parliament, so it is not the case that the House is not sitting as long as it has done.

I announced the dates of the Easter recess well in advance. We did not get the date of the 2010 Easter recess until a fortnight before it happened. The Queen’s Speech will be announced in the usual way. I hope that the hon. Lady will encourage good progress to be made in the other place with the Government’s legislative programme. I made a statement, I think, last year on the fact that the Queen’s Speech will be held in May to coincide with the fixed election dates of every five years, so that matter has already been dealt with. The Chancellor will make his statement on November 29, which will include the Office for Budget Responsibility’s updated forecast.

The hon. Lady asked about the reports referred to in yesterday’s debate. The chief inspector’s report will be made public, as the Home Secretary confirmed yesterday. The other two reports have data protection issues concerning disciplinary matters and will not be made public. On the related matters of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Leveson, it makes sense to await the outcome of the Leveson inquiry and the current DCMS report.

On Select Committee powers, we are committed to publishing a draft privilege Bill, which will be an opportunity for the House to consider issues of privilege. I anticipate that Select Committee powers will be embraced in that draft Bill.

[Mr Bone]

I did not support next week’s closure of Parliament, but I suggest that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) did. Given what is happening in the eurozone and the fact that interest rates are very high for Italian bonds, it appears that the euro is on its last legs. If the euro collapses next week, will the Leader of the House recall Parliament so that we can debate that joyful occasion?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the Prime Minister made a statement following the G20 meeting earlier this week. The House normally requires two days’ notice to be recalled, and as we are not sitting for only two days, I am not sure that I can respond positively to his request.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will not be surprised to hear that I am going to raise the matter of e-petitions again. Many e-petitions are being started by national newspapers and, as a result, are breaching the 100,000 signature threshold in under a week. The fact that e-petitions are being passed on to the Backbench Business Committee means we are becoming an e-petitions committee, rather than a Backbench Business Committee. Will he consider as a matter of urgency—preferably next week—allocating time specifically for e-petitions in Westminster Hall, to give us some breathing space until the Procedure Committee makes its recommendations in a report on how to deal with e-petitions in the long run?

[Sir George Young]

I believe e-petitions have been a success in building a bridge between people and Parliament and in ensuring that the House’s diet reflects the interests of those outside. I welcome what the hon. Lady’s Committee has been able to do so far in finding time to debate e-petitions and I recognise that the success of e-petitions has increased pressure on it. We are committed to a review of the Backbench Business Committee, and concurrently there is a review of the calendar of the House. That is the right context in which to visit the issue she rightly raises of the increased pressure on her Committee to find time for debates.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can we have a statement on the rate of interest we will be charging on the first tranche of the loan to Ireland? Some £400 million was paid to Ireland on 14 October. In an answer to a parliamentary question, I have been told that we have not yet agreed on the rate of interest, but that it will be significantly lower than it was at the time we discussed the matter in the House, earlier in the year, despite the fact the Irish Government bond rate is still well over 8%.

[Sir George Young]

I point out to my hon. Friend that we are debating related issues—the International Monetary Fund and the eurozone crisis—in Westminster Hall next Tuesday, when I expect a Treasury Minister to be responding. There will an opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise that question in that debate, which I am sure he will want to attend. I will ensure that the Treasury Minister is forewarned about where he is coming from.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, there will be presidential elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the 28th of this month. Substantial evidence, which I have here, is emerging that a named individual, in collusion with some senior politicians in the DRC, is extracting billions of dollars of value, probably unlawfully. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that subject?

[Sir George Young]

If there is any question of criminal activity, the appropriate authority is the police. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has taken the necessary steps to draw the matter to their attention.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

The Mayor of London has worked hard to champion the effect that financial services and the City have on the overall UK economy. May we have a debate on how we can help in a positive way and work with the City to create jobs and growth for the future?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that financial services make a substantial contribution to Government revenues. With London as a financial service centre, we have a competitive advantage over many other countries. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has that matter at the front of his mind, and I suggest she awaits his statement at the end of the month.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

As hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree, some good progress has been made towards the changing structure of British Waterways and our fantastic canal network; however, discussions are ongoing on the transitional funds for the new trust. Can we be assured that there will be a debate in the House to deal with those important questions before any irrevocable decisions are taken?

[Sir George Young]

I understand that the matter may be subject to the Public Bodies Bill, which is still going through Parliament. I will bring the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and seek to get the assurance he wants about the assets that are about to be transferred.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

May we please have a debate on the growth of academies? Nationally, under the coalition, the number of academies has grown sixfold, but in my constituency almost half the schools have become academies in just the past few months.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the sixfold increase in the number of academies since this Government came to office. Standards have increased in those schools, and in many cases, academies are linked to other schools in the same area and are driving up standards broadly. I would welcome such a debate, but I cannot promise one in the coming fortnight.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that a report issued by PricewaterhouseCoopers this morning shows that Wales and the north-east are suffering most from the economic downturn and his Government’s disastrous policies. He will also know that the regional growth fund is neither strategic nor large enough to address widening regional inequalities. Will he make time available to have a debate on what his Government are doing—or not doing—to address the growing north-south divide?

[Sir George Young]

I am sure the hon. Lady does not want to be too dismissive of the regional growth fund, which is structured in such a way to assist those areas that have been overdependent on public employment for much of their job creation. We have taken other initiatives, such as enterprise zones and the investment in apprenticeships. I repeat to her what I said to an earlier questioner: how we promote growth is at the forefront of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s mind, and I urge her to await his statement at the end of the month.

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

May we have a debate on renewable energy to discuss whether the time has come to follow the Danish model wherein local communities, which often see no direct benefit from wind farms, are compensated by developers should there be a loss of local amenities and a reduction in house prices?

[Sir George Young]

I will bring my hon. Friend’s suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. My hon. Friend will know that built into the planning system are incentives that encourage local people’s benefiting from some of the planning approvals awarded, particularly in the case of new development, and I will see whether that might be extended. My understanding is that in many cases there are benefits to the local community where, for example, wind energy is harnessed and that energy can be used in the first instance by local people.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the increasingly perilous situation surrounding Iran developing nuclear weapons, may we have an early debate on the subject, which should be attracting the attention of this House? Such a development would destabilise the middle east, and many of us are very worried about what the reaction of Israel might be.

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in which he spent some time on Iran. He made it clear that, while nothing should be taken off the table, in the meantime we prefer a diplomatic approach combined with adequate pressure on Iran to see whether we can try to find a stable solution to what is, I agree, a rather dangerous position.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Today I have written to the Leader of the House to say that the European Scrutiny Committee is deeply disturbed by the lack of formal parliamentary debate on the eurozone crisis. We have taken a unanimous decision to call on the Government to give Government time as soon as possible for a full three-hour debate on the Floor of the House. We are also calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give evidence to the Committee in person. Will the Leader of the House grant that wish?

[Sir George Young]

The House has found time to debate matters relating to Europe: we recently had a debate on the referendum, and the Government provided a whole-day debate on the Council of Europe, so it is not the case that Europe has been entirely absent from our agenda. I have announced that there will be a debate on the accession of Croatia to the European Union. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has put his request to the Backbench Business Committee. He will know from the business I have announced today that the Government are providing time for general debates—there is one today on armed forces personnel and one on security on Monday week—so I do not rule out at some point a debate along the lines he has suggested.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Is it not obvious to all of us that the reason the House of Commons is not going to be sitting next Wednesday and Thursday is so that the Prime Minister will not have to stand at the Dispatch Box on the day the new unemployment figures come out? If we are not here next week, I will be working hard in Dudley. I am sure the Prime Minister has already booked another one of his fancy foreign holidays. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Conservative Members might not be interested in unemployment, which is why they all voted to skive off next week, but I would much rather be here working out how we can deal with the record levels of unemployment that this Government have inflicted on Britain.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman is obsessed by some conspiracy theory. The Prime Minister spent two or three hours before the Liaison Committee this week; he comes before the House regularly on Wednesdays; and he has made more statements than his predecessor. I think the person who will be most relieved that there is no sitting next Wednesday is the Leader of the Opposition. We take unemployment seriously. We had a debate yesterday, when the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning set out what we are doing to address the high level of unemployment that we inherited from the Labour Government.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Earlier this week, I was walking down Whitehall and a piece of paper from a gentleman called Mr Livingstone was thrust into my hand. It purported that he was going to have a fares freeze on transport in London. Imagine my surprise when I got back to my office and looked at the history, only to discover that last time he promised to do that, when elected he put up fares by 10%. May we have a debate on transport in London so that innocent Londoners can be made aware of the outrageous claims of this man?

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate. Of course, if fares were cut, that might have a read-across to the capital programme, including Crossrail and the tube upgrades. I am sure that Londoners are far too sophisticated to be misled by the sort of piece of paper of which my hon. Friend was the recipient earlier this week.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The “Not in my Cuppa” campaign by the World Society for the Protection of Animals was successful in defeating a mega-dairy proposal in Nocton, Lincolnshire, but we now discover that a vote by six councillors in Powys, against officers’ advice, means that one may be built in Wales. May we have a debate on protecting animal welfare and resisting these mega-dairies?

[Sir George Young]

I think that that is more a matter for Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government or, if it is a delegated matter, for the Welsh Assembly. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to the attention of the relevant Minister, but we are anxious to devolve decisions and we believe that most of those decisions are best taken at local level rather than here in Whitehall.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Now that this House has voted to bring an end to the racketeering that is clamping on private land, we should not lose sight of the fact that until April next year many, often vulnerable, people will still be caught out by unscrupulous firms. May we have a statement to set out what can be done for my constituents who have had tickets issued by City Watch for cars they do not own, when they were at home, or before they arrived in the car park, or who have been clamped while administering emergency first aid to a fellow patron? Perhaps most disgracefully, the vehicles of the elderly and disabled have been towed away and they have then been issued with four-figure fines.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She will know that the Protection of Freedoms Bill, which is currently in another place, bans the clamping of vehicles on private land. In the meantime, I applaud what she is doing to protect vulnerable people from the activities of clamping authorities. I commend all Members of Parliament to do what she has done and, where appropriate, if they cannot reach a resolution with the clamping company, to raise cases with the Security Industry Authority or the British Parking Association. She reminds the House of how important it is that that Bill should reach the statute book and that such abuses should not take place again.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the child protection implications of the Government’s policy of increasing to 35 the age of those who will receive only shared accommodation housing benefit? Crisis estimates that 50% of those affected have regular contact with their children. Where are these children to sleep on overnight visits to their separated parent? Are they to sleep in their parent’s room or on the sofa in the shared accommodation? Are there to be enhanced disclosure checks on the other residents in the shared property to ensure the protection of these children? Can we debate the implications for children placed at risk by this Government policy?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Lady will know that there have been some broader changes to housing benefit regulations whereby people of an older age are expected to continue to share with their parents, but I am not sure whether that is the issue she has in mind. If she is concerned about child protection, then yes of course I will raise that with relevant Ministers and make sure that we do not put children unnecessarily at risk because of the changes.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I am getting e-mails from people who think that the fair fuel motion on the Downing street website is what we are debating next Tuesday, but of course we are debating a different fair fuel motion. Is not this misleading people that they are getting something that they are not, and should not we review the whole e-petition process and perhaps the way that the Backbench Business Committee gives out business?

[Sir George Young]

There is a commitment to review the work of the Backbench Business Committee, which could embrace the issue of e-petitions. It is the case that an e-petition will not be debated, either here or in Westminster Hall, unless it is adopted by a Member, and the Backbench Business Committee then has the freedom, along with the Member who has presented the petition, to decide on what basis the debate should take place; and it might then be, as my hon. Friend said, a different debate. When we review e-petitions and the Backbench Business Committee, we could see whether there should be the latitude that we have at the moment or whether an e-petition should be debated automatically, regardless of whether any Member of Parliament wishes to put the motion forward.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

A speech and language therapy programme at Feltham young offenders institute that reduced reoffending from 80% to 17% has been cut to save money. Does the Leader of the House accept that that is a false economy? Will he grant an urgent debate on the use of speech and language screening before prison and before school, as well as programmes to reduce offending and reoffending and to reduce the number of those not in education, employment or training, which at 20% in Swansea is the highest in Wales?

[Sir George Young]

I applaud the work that is done at Feltham with often very vulnerable and disturbed young people. We had Justice questions on Tuesday; I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise the matter then. I will raise it with appropriate Ministers at the Ministry of Justice and see whether there is a way to protect that important programme.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner on the “total policing”, as he calls it, which saw a successful conclusion to yesterday’s protest in London? The Mayor of London is on target to put an extra 1,000 police officers on the streets of London by the end of this term of office. May we have a debate on the effective deployment of police officers when tackling public disorder and protest?

[Sir George Young]

I am delighted that yesterday’s protest went off peacefully. I commend the work of the Mayor of London on reducing crime in the capital and ensuring that there are more police patrols, for example by having single patrolling. I am sure that Londoners will recognise the wisdom of his administration when they go to the polls next year.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, the Chancellor told me and this House that he had no intention whatsoever of bailing out the euro. We now know that he will use the International Monetary Fund to put billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into bailing out the euro. May we have a debate or a statement on this issue?

[Sir George Young]

We have had a statement on that issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was at this Dispatch Box a week ago and he answered the precise question that the hon. Gentleman has put. I refer him to Hansard.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In the past year, a £3.5 million rebuild of Whitefield infant school in Nelson and a £4.2 million total rebuild of Laneshawbridge primary school in Colne have been agreed. However, last Friday I visited Barnoldswick Church of England primary school, which has very cramped buildings. A rising birth rate in the area means that there is a lack of school places in the town. A total rebuild of the school is long overdue. May we have a debate on Government funding for additional school places?

[Sir George Young]

I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education. We have put extra funding into additional school places, with a total of £1.3 billion. We have preserved the capital programme, despite the difficult decisions that we have had to take. I will ask my right hon. Friend to write to him about the school to which he referred.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

May I try once again to get the Leader of the House to secure an urgent debate before 12 December on the proposed changes to the feed-in tariff regime, which will be very damaging to the economy of north Wales? I know him to be a fair man and I am sure that even he will accept that it is an abuse of this House when a policy is implemented 11 days before the consultation on that policy closes. My constituents cannot express their concerns and manufacturers will lose £12 million over the next three months because of the changes proposed by the Government before the consultation has even concluded.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses. He will have had an opportunity to register that concern when the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) addressed the House on feed-in tariffs on Monday last week. He will know that the position we inherited was unstable and unsustainable. There was no mechanism for responding to increased demand and the lower cost of solar panels. If my hon. Friend had not announced those changes, there would have been an extra burden on consumers and the available sum would have run out. That is the background to the decision. I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate before 12 December.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

By 2021, the number of people living with dementia is predicted to rise to more than 1 million. There is active interest across the House in how we will deal with this ticking time bomb. Will the Leader of the House consider holding on the Floor of the House a general debate on dementia so that we can discuss this issue in detail?

[Sir George Young]

That is a timely request, because earlier this week we launched a campaign to raise the awareness of the early signs of dementia and to encourage people to come forward, have the symptoms treated and get the support that they need. My hon. Friend will know that we launched the national dementia strategy a year ago to drive up the quality of service that we provide. I would welcome such a debate and I can only suggest that she goes to the Backbench Business Committee or applies to Mr Speaker for a debate in Westminster Hall on a Tuesday or Wednesday.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Has the Leader of the House seen the article in The Times today which suggests that the National Memorial Arboretum is facing a funding cut? That has been denied by the Ministry of Defence. Will he arrange for an urgent statement from the MOD to set out what the funding will be in the current financial year and in future years? This is a great memorial and it is an excellent way to mark the sacrifices of our servicemen and women. I was there only a few weeks ago with Greek veterans from the second world war, when I saw for myself once again what a wonderful memorial it is.

[Sir George Young]

I agree with hon. Gentleman. I assure him that there are no plans to reduce the grant in aid that we give to the National Memorial Arboretum. If he is able to stay, there will be a debate in a few minutes on related matters, during which he may have an opportunity to develop his case. The Government take this matter seriously. As he knows, we also support the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to the tune of some £45 million. We place a premium on the work of both those organisations.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

Last week, following a phone call from a journalist, I discovered that a fake Twitter account had been set up by somebody purporting to be me, which I found completely unacceptable. That can happen to anyone across the country and can cause unnecessary nuisance. I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the responsibilities of social media and networking sites, and on whether one should have to provide some form of identification to set up an account.

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. No one has done me the flattery of setting up such an account in my name, so far as I am aware. I think that I am right in saying that social media organisations usually insist on the name being the same as that of the applicant. If there is any question of impersonation, there is a process by which they take the account down. Of course, if any fraud were involved, it would be a matter for the police. I will raise with Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers the abuse to which my hon. Friend has referred. I hope that no lasting injury has been done to his reputation.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Over the past few weeks, 12 Tibetan nuns and monks have set fire to themselves in protest at the treatment of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people in China. Lhamo Tso, the wife of the acclaimed film maker Dhondup Wangchen, who is currently serving six years in prison for making a film about the abuse of human rights in Tibet, is currently in the United Kingdom to draw attention to the plight of her husband, who only exercised his right to free speech under the Chinese constitution. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or a debate on human rights abuses in Tibet?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman makes a forceful case and rightly draws attention to the abuse of human rights. I cannot promise time for a debate, but perhaps he would like to apply for an Adjournment debate so that we can debate this issue at greater length and so that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or another Foreign Office Minister can outline the representations that we are making to seek to end these injustices.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

Following the announcement of the Olympic torch route before next year’s London games, the highlight of which will be on 31 May when the torch travels through Crewe in my constituency, may we have a debate on spreading the Olympic spirit, so that we can discuss how communities outside London can be more involved in the Olympics and how we can ensure that there is a strong Olympic legacy?

[Sir George Young]

I think that 11 July is the operative day, because that is when the torch will go through north-west Hampshire. We all have a role to play in spreading the Olympic message. I know that Department for Culture, Media and Sport Ministers are anxious that all parts of the United Kingdom should benefit from the Olympic games. I would welcome such a debate and, again, I can only suggest that my hon. Friend applies for one on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Leader of the House consider a debate or a statement on extending the game shooting season into February? Discussions on that matter should include the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and other shooting bodies to seek their opinion.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me from my comfort zone. The end of the shooting season has been at the end of January for some time. There may be all sorts of implications if it was extended. I will raise with the appropriate Minister, who I assume is at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether this issue ought to be discussed and whether there are good reasons for moving away from the traditional beginning and end of the shooting season.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of requests from local and regional press for more accreditation for next year’s Olympic games. This week, I received a letter from the chairman of the British Olympic Association, Lord Moynihan, in which he promised to continue to lobby the International Olympic Committee to grant those requests. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to make it clear that Lord Moynihan’s commendable efforts have the full support of the Government?

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Yes, I will raise it with the Secretary of State and see whether we can get the sort of assurance for which he asks.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Codsall high school is one of the top-performing schools in the country for the teaching of physics and science, which is down to the passion, dedication and enthusiasm of the staff. May we have a debate in this Chamber about how we can encourage more of our best graduates to go into the teaching of physics?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend will know that the day before yesterday, the Education Secretary announced a £2 million a year partnership between the Department for Education and the Institute of Physics to do exactly what he has just referred to, namely attract the best graduates to become physics teachers. About 100 scholarships, worth £20,000 each, will be available every year for appropriate graduates. I am sure my hon. Friend will draw that scheme’s availability to the attention of his constituents.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

May I echo the earlier request of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for time for a debate on academies, and particularly the success of the academy programme under this Government? As I understand it, at the end of last month more than 1,300 schools had become academies, including Biddulph high school in my constituency.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Under the coalition, the number of academies has increased sixfold from 203 in May 2010 to 1,350 this October. Some 1,526 schools have been able to apply to become academies, and 1,031 have already been converted. As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), 116 underperforming schools have been replaced by academies since May 2010, and more than 40% of all secondary schools are now open, or in the process of opening, as academies.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May I join other hon. Members who have advocated a debate on the success of academies, especially in areas such as Sandwell, part of which I represent, where a recent Ofsted report gave four out of five academies in the borough good or outstanding ratings, compared with less than half the local education authority-run secondary schools?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend draws attention to a valuable part of the academy programme, namely the freedoms that academies have, which have been put to good use. The standard of education in the schools that have become academies normally exceeds the standard in those that have not, so there is evidence that we are driving up standards in our schools by taking forward the academy programme.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The Mayor of London has helped to fund additional trams for the Croydon Tramlink system and completed the extension of the East London line to West Croydon on time and on budget. May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) in pressing the Leader of the House for a debate on how our public transport system in London is being transformed, and on the grave threat of Ken Livingstone’s proposal to strip £800 million from Transport for London’s investment programme?

[Sir George Young]

As the Secretary of State for Transport who gave the go-ahead to the Croydon Tramlink, I particularly appreciate that reference.

I would welcome a general debate on London. My hon. Friend is right that there is a trade-off between lower fares and the investment programme. If we want to make progress with Crossrail and the upgrade of the tube lines, we need the revenue that the Mayor is currently planning to get from the fare box. If that revenue went down, there would be a knock-on effect on the capital programme.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I have recently received menacing letters from paid trade union lobbyists. May we have a debate on trade union lobbying, and particularly its influence on Labour party policy? We learned yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions and in points of order that it exerts considerable influence over Labour, and a debate would enable our constituents to learn the full extent of it.

[Sir George Young]

I would welcome such a debate. My hon. Friend is right—at the moment, some 82% of the Labour party’s revenue comes from the trade unions, a figure that went up under the last Administration. I would be very happy to have such a debate. We also await with interest the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the broader issue of party funding.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is urgent that we integrate the NHS with social care, so that we can provide transparent, accountable and holistic delivery to those who require support?

[Sir George Young]

I quite agree with my hon. Friend. He may know that there is a debate later today in Westminster Hall on social care and that the Health and Social Care Bill is now in another place. We want to break down the iron curtain that has historically existed between health and social care. The establishment of health and wellbeing boards and of personal budgets, to which both social services and the health service will contribute, is helping to break it down and provide a more cohesive service to those in receipt of social or health care.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

As others have mentioned, the Mayor of London has committed himself to raising fares on the underground by RPI plus 2% to get much-needed investment for the underground. His Labour opponent, however, has committed himself to cutting fares by 5% and not raising them until at least 2014. That would mean London being deprived of £835 million of investment in the tube service that we desperately need. May we therefore have a debate on how we can encourage investment in public transport in London and across the country, so that we can expose the lies of the Labour party?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend underlines a point made by other London MPs who are concerned that the infrastructure of the capital should be improved. I commend the Mayor of London and the former Secretary of State for Transport for the agreement that they reached on a settlement going up to 2014-15, which will enable a capital programme of some size to go ahead. That capital programme would be affected if the revenue stream that the Mayor has anticipated were to be eroded, and all Londoners would suffer a disbenefit because the improvements that they are looking forward to would not take place.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This week, the Muslim festival of Eid is celebrated. I was delighted last night to accompany a Muslim community leader from my constituency to No. 10 Downing street to celebrate the festival, and to hear from the British Army’s Muslim chaplain a moving description of his months with the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, and his praise of it. Does the Leader of the House agree that the role and contribution of British Muslims in our armed forces in rebuilding Afghanistan is under-appreciated? Will he help me identify an opportunity for Members to hear from our Army’s Muslim chaplain directly?

[Sir George Young]

I can accede to my hon. Friend’s request, somewhat unusually. If he stays in his place for about two minutes, he will have an opportunity to take part in a debate on armed forces personnel. I cannot think of a better debate in which he could participate in order to make the point that he has just so eloquently touched on.

Point of Order

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

12:47

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can anything be done to stop Ministers using the Lloyd George principle when answering written parliamentary questions? When he got lost in north Wales once, he asked a farmer where he was and got the answer, “You’re in your car.” Lloyd George said that that was the perfect parliamentary answer from a Minister, because it was short, accurate and told him absolutely nothing he did not know already. I have had to resubmit all my recent questions to the Department for Education, because they have not been answered. Would we not save a lot of time and money if something were done about that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the quality of answers from Ministers is not the responsibility of the Chair; nor is the point that he has made a point of order. He has none the less made his point very clearly, and I am sure the Leader of the House will want to ensure that Ministers answer all questions promptly, directly and accurately.

Armed Forces Personnel

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

12:48

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Armed Forces Personnel.

Tomorrow, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the nation will unite in an act of remembrance. We will honour the memory of all who have paid the ultimate price in the service of their country. In November 1919, on the first day of remembrance after the great war, King George V asked that the nation observe a two-minute silence in memoriam, so that, in his words,

“in perfect stillness, the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on reverent remembrance of the glorious dead.”

I am sure the whole House will join me in urging the nation once again to observe remembrance, as it does every year, with that same deep respect.

Remembrance is not a political occasion, and it is not about one’s personal views on this conflict or that. It is about recognising that the real price of war, any war, is a human price—a price paid not just by those who have died but by their families and by all those who have returned wounded, physically or mentally. We therefore remember the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people from the UK and the Commonwealth who fought and fell in the two world wars of the last century.

This is also about those who have fought for the country in more recent times. Next year will mark the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict, in which 253 members of Britain’s armed forces were killed liberating the islands. This year marked the 20th anniversary of the 1991 Gulf war, in which 44 service personnel were killed.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister shed some light on this matter? The Times today says that there is a cut in the funding for the National Memorial Arboretum. The Ministry of Defence has said that that is not correct and the Leader of the House previously said that there was no cut in grant in aid. Will the Minister confirm that there is no cut in any funding streams from Government sources to the arboretum, in which, as he will know, I took a very close interest when I was veterans Minister?

[Nick Harvey]

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he seeks. There has been no cut in the funding of the National Memorial Arboretum. I am afraid that the journalists, in framing their story, did not compare like with like. They counted in the previous figure a one-off capital grant and conflated that with the annual grant in aid, which had the effect of making it appear that there had been a cut. There has been no cut: the level of grant in aid remains as it was, and the capital works for which the previous project money was granted by the previous Government are now complete.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to begin his speech by recognising Remembrance day. All hon. Members will wear poppies tomorrow and on the weekend to pay tribute to those who have been either killed or injured in the wars. However, will he join me in condemning a small but naive group among the younger generation who choose to desecrate, damage and rob war memorials, which shows a growing distance between a younger generation and a generation who made the huge sacrifices for the very freedoms that we enjoy today?

[Nick Harvey]

It is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend in his place today, and I should like to thank him for his work in his previous role as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Ministry of Defence. I entirely agree with what he says. It is a tiny minority who behave in that completely deplorable manner. I am sure that all like-minded people would have no hesitation whatever in condemning them and in applauding the work not only of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, but of local authorities and others up and down the country who work assiduously to maintain war memorials.

The 1991 Gulf war was not the end of the loss of British lives in Iraq. One hundred and seventy-nine were killed on Operation Telic between 2003 and 2009. Last month, we marked 10 years since the beginning of operations in Afghanistan, where 385 servicemen and women have been killed. The House will have heard about the death of a soldier from 4th Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment on patrol in Helmand yesterday. Our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time as they come to terms with their loss.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is in theatre as we speak, preparing to observe Remembrance day with our troops there. That is because while we honour the memory of those who have died, those who fought and those who returned bearing the wounds of war, we keep in mind all those currently serving in our defence. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to them. Those serving do a very dangerous job not only on operations, but in their many other duties, as the sad death of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham of the Red Arrows reminds us.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I do not want to repeat what I said yesterday to the Prime Minister—there is no need—but on the wider issue of personnel, my hon. Friend will want to take this opportunity to emphasise that the Ministry of Defence will leave no stone unturned to ensure the safety of the Red Arrows and their personnel. We want to keep RAF Scampton open because the skies are safe there. However, personnel directly suffer iniquities from the RAF closing bases and not thinking about the future. There is further reportage in today’s papers on the return of all personnel from Germany by 2020. Will the Minister bear it in mind that we have a wonderful base in RAF Scampton, which could remain open to welcome back those who are returning?

[Nick Harvey]

I note what my hon. Friend says and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the RAF, but in respect of this week’s fatal accident, I must stress that the Military Aviation Authority is beginning a full and proper investigation of what happened and what led to the tragedy. It would be quite improper for me, as a Minister of the Crown, to say anything at this stage that would pre-empt that process. In the fullness of time, I have no doubt whatever that he and others will have the opportunity to raise questions about that.

The armed forces of today are different in many ways from those who fought on the Somme or at El Alamein. The conscription that created the massed forces of the world wars was a reflection of the existential threat facing the country at that time. When world war two ended in 1945, there were around 5 million men and women in uniform. Almost every family in the country was connected in some way to the sacrifice that had been made, and service in the armed forces was woven deeply into the fabric of the nation, but for many years now, our armed forces have been a smaller, professional, all-volunteer force, including reserve forces, which have been used widely in recent conflicts.

As the older generations who fought in the world wars or undertook national service dwindle, and as the services have reduced in size since the end of the cold war, public understanding of our armed forces has declined as a result. I am suggesting not that the respect and esteem in which our armed forces are held by the nation has in any way diminished—the way the people of Royal Wootton Bassett chose to mark the return of the fallen is surely testament to that—but that people understand less how members of the armed forces view risk and reward, and what motivates them to do the dangerous job they do.

What a life in today’s armed forces is like and the impact that service life has on modern families is also less widely understood. That is why, as we seek to reinvigorate the armed forces covenant, we must raise people’s understanding of the impact of service life. Fulfilling the armed forces covenant has to be a whole-of-society enterprise: it is not just for the Ministry of Defence but for all Departments; it is not just for legislators here in Westminster but for legislators at all levels; and it is not just for the Government, but for charities, the private sector and private citizens.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. Does he agree that that challenge will increase markedly once the Afghanistan operation is over as people see less of the armed forces on their television sets? Does he also agree—he may be about to come to this point—that one key area in which we can build that connection is through the Ministry’s plans for the reserve forces and cadets?

[Nick Harvey]

I had a feeling my hon. Friend would intervene on that matter. It is certainly the case—this has been tangible in the past few years—that the amount of media attention that is quite rightly devoted to the conflict in Afghanistan has had an impact on public recognition and awareness of the work that the armed forces are doing. As we know, their conflict or fighting role in Afghanistan is due to end by 2015. I suppose my hon. Friend is right in saying that there could be a risk that public awareness of the daily and regular actions of the armed forces will diminish, but of course, nobody at this stage can anticipate what demands will be put on our armed forces thereafter. In an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world, I fear it is unlikely that our armed forces will disappear or have a period of inactivity, but he is quite right to suggest that the increasing role that we plan for reserves, and the investment that we intend to make to build up their capacity and professionalism in the next decade or so, will, I sincerely hope, have the effect that more people in society will have some connection and contact with those who serve and awareness of what they do.

I recognise the valuable groundwork done by the previous Administration to reinvigorate the armed forces covenant: the 2008 service personnel Command Paper, produced by the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) when he was Minister for the Armed Forces, provides much of the intellectual grounding for the first formal tri-service armed forces covenant published in May. He will find the principles in the covenant familiar, particularly where it states:

“Those who serve in the Armed Forces…should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved.”

Now that the Armed Forces Act 2011 has received Royal Assent, these principles have been recognised in statute for the first time. In my view, that is a considerable step forward, and we are already acting to give the covenant life, particularly through encouraging action at a community level. This is about local authorities, devolved Administrations, charities, businesses, communities and individuals coming together to offer their support to the services and the service community in their local area, and to improve understanding and awareness among the public of issues affecting the armed forces community. That is why we call it the armed forces community covenant. It is a voluntary statement of mutual support between the civilian community and its local armed forces community.

In August, the MOD launched the community covenant grant scheme, which aims to support local projects that strengthen the ties on mutual understanding between members of the armed forces community and the wider communities in which they live. Some £30 million has been allocated to the scheme. The covenant has to be seen to be bipartisan, non-political and as an all-society effort, if it is to be meaningful and lasting. The Labour party should take a share of the credit for the progress being made, given that it put in place some of these useful steps.

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the previous Government for the measures they took. The veterans badge is another measure that has helped many of our former military personnel to show their support now that they are on civvy street. Does he agree that the armed forces community covenant would be further boosted if those who served in Her Majesty’s armed forces—often national servicemen—were allowed an armed forces service medal, which they could wear with pride on Remembrance Sunday? They served King and country, Queen and country.

[Nick Harvey]

The principle of an all-encompassing medal has been considered several times, but to date, at least, it has been ruled out because it cuts across the usual principles on which medals are issued. For the time being, that remains the situation. I understand the calls that some make for such a medal, but the principles on which medals are awarded will not allow for that, unless they are amended.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of the concern that the armed forces personnel who will be made redundant, but who otherwise would have qualified for the diamond jubilee medal, might not receive it? What is the Department’s thinking on that?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We will take it away and give it some serious consideration, and I shall come back to her and the House in due course. We will need to reflect on that point.

As I said, the armed forces covenant has to be an all-society and bipartisan effort, if it is to be recognised and respected, and if it is to endure.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

On the point about the principles and practical application of the military covenant applying across the board, does the Minister agree that it has to apply in all parts of the United Kingdom? Will he therefore join me in supporting efforts to ensure that, through legislation, the devolved regions are required to implement and follow through on the military covenant?

[Nick Harvey]

We certainly want the covenant operating, in practice and effect, across the whole UK. The armed forces are drawn from, and stationed across, the whole UK, and it is certainly our view that this should be a whole-UK effort as well.

Unfortunately, owing to the fiscal situation, we have had to make some difficult decisions to balance the defence programme and to begin building the formidable, adaptable and sustainable armed forces that the country will need for the future. I regret to say that this has also affected the pace and sequencing of measures to improve the welfare of service personnel, their families and veterans. I know that some of the decisions required to bring balance to the defence programme directly affect people—for instance, decisions on pay and allowances, and the decisions to reduce the size of the armed forces establishment. I greatly regret that we have had to take some of these measures, just as I regret the need to cut the defence budget as a whole to contribute to deficit reduction, but that is the reality of the situation the country is in.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one cut that has hit families particularly hard has been the decision not to refurbish 49,000 units of armed forces accommodation? Yet again, many, many families will be spending a desperate winter in unfit and unsuitable accommodation. Will he consider that point, especially in the light of the plans to save £250 million by bringing troops back from Germany? Perhaps some of that money could be invested in our armed forces families’ accommodation.

[Nick Harvey]

Unless I misheard, the hon. Lady suggested that the impact would be felt this winter. The regrettable pause announced to the housing programme will not take effect for another two years, so there is no question of it having a marginal impact this winter. It is a matter of profound regret that we have to pause the programme, but I must stress that the majority of family houses in the defence estate are in the upper two quality bands. Obviously, however, it remains the commitment of any Government to get all the housing into those top two bands over the long term.

I want to make it perfectly clear that routine maintenance and repairs are not affected, and specific improvements to kitchens and bathrooms will continue during the pause. Furthermore, as the coalition agreement states, we will continue to look for savings elsewhere in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation budget, and if we can make them over the next two or three years, we will put them back into the housing improvement programme in due course. I hope very much that we can achieve that. However, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly valid point, and it is one that I acknowledge and regret. I hope that we can do something about it, but this is the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.

We cannot do all that we would want to do straight away to improve the welfare of personnel, because the money simply is not available. As a result, we have had to prioritise ruthlessly in order to ensure that any extra money that we can spend, we spend wisely and on those things that are most urgent. So let me set out what we have done. First, there is operational welfare: operations have to come first to ensure that those in the firing line have the tools and protection that they need to do the job. That is not just about strategy and equipment, but about ensuring that personnel and their families are looked after too. As Montgomery set out in his principles of warfare,

“the morale of the soldier is the most important single factor in war”.

[Bob Russell]

The morale of the soldier is uppermost, but following on from the previous question, my hon. Friend has seen for himself examples of where the Government have found money, through the Department for Communities and Local Government, to modernise former MOD housing on one side of a road and into which civilian families are now moving—good news—yet where, on the other side of the road, there are identical but un-modernised houses occupied by the families of soldiers who, this time last year, were serving in Afghanistan. Why can the Government not find the money for soldiers’ homes, if they can find it for former MOD homes?

[Nick Harvey]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, I have seen that for myself. I visited that area earlier this year and I know exactly what he is referring to. He makes a good point, and if I were living in those military houses, I would feel just as put out about it as I know the residents do. I take the point entirely. As I have just explained, we are in a tight financial situation. Other Departments have had to set their priorities and also make big cuts in their budgets. Fortunately for those of my hon. Friend’s constituents who happen to live in the other part of the estate, they have had good news sooner than those living in the military housing. However, let me reaffirm the Ministry of Defence’s commitment to return to this issue as soon as funds allow in order to ensure that we continue the programme of improving defence housing.

One of the first actions taken by the new Government was the doubling of the operational allowance paid under the previous Government, taking it to over £5,000 for a typical six-month tour. We have changed the rules on rest and recuperation, so that any days of leave lost due to delays in the air bridge or any other operational requirements will be added to post-tour leave. This year we have doubled council tax relief from 25% to 50% for all personnel on operations, including in Libya. The deployed welfare package is kept under constant review to ensure that it meets the needs of both the service person and their dependants. Free phone calls are available for 30 minutes a week. Wi-fi access has been extended in operational areas, while texting and internet facilities have been improved, even in the forward operating bases. Those measures have been particularly important in ensuring that the home front and the front line can provide mutual support at a time that is difficult for families and dangerous for personnel.

Our focus on operations has meant that we have been unable to go as far or as fast as we want in other areas, as is certainly the case with housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has pointed out. However, that means that the initial key pledges in the coalition agreement have already been addressed. They include not only the operational welfare measures that I have mentioned, but providing university and further education scholarships to the children of members of the armed forces who have been killed since 1990. So far, 49 children have received scholarships. We have also included some 45,000 service children in the pupil premium system, recognising the uniqueness of service life and its effect on service children and service communities.

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. Friend is touching on an extremely important point. Will he confirm that we have started to return to what was universally recognised should happen until 12 or 13 years ago—that is, the costs falling where they should fall and not on the defence budget? It is the duty of the nation as a whole, not just the defence budget, to look after the children of the fallen.

[Nick Harvey]

I can assure my hon. Friend that he is quite right about that. The changes made are important, and we have discussed them with colleagues in other Departments. We are pleased that the Government have been able to agree them, but he is absolutely right that the costs will be met where they fall and that the Departments responsible for providing those services will be the ones paying for them.

We have endorsed all the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) in his report on improving mental health care, in particular: a structured mental health component in existing medical examinations performed while serving; an uplift in the number of mental health professionals conducting veterans outreach work from mental health trusts; the trial of an online early intervention service for serving personnel and veterans; and the means to allow the newly formed veterans information service to contact service leavers after they have left the armed forces. The new round-the-clock veterans mental health helpline is funded by the NHS and run by Rethink Mental Illness on behalf of Combat Stress.

[Mrs Moon]

Will the Minister confirm that we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Royal Marines and charities such as Combat Stress for highlighting the need to focus on mental health issues in the military? They have helped to make mental health issues not something that people hide, but something that they seek help for—something that people are proactive in admitting is becoming a problem and in dealing with before it becomes too difficult and damaging for themselves and their families. We owe those groups a debt of gratitude for working to make it acceptable to seek help.

[Nick Harvey]

We certainly do, and I agree very much with what the hon. Lady says. The Royal Marines were undoubtedly pathfinders in being the first to take measures to address the issue, and I know that the other services have sat up and taken notice of what they did. I believe that awareness of, and attitudes towards, mental health are shifting throughout the services, and I pay tribute to those in the services who have helped to bring that about. However, the hon. Lady is also right to pay tribute to those outside the services who work with them and who are beginning to address what, for many people, is a real problem.

We know from previous conflicts that some of those presenting with symptoms of mental illness as a result of their engagement have sometimes come forward many years later. However, the statistics show that people are coming forward rather sooner from the current operations in Afghanistan and the previous operations in Iraq, and they will probably continue to do so for many years. Far more have come forward far sooner than in the past, which must in some way reflect the changing attitude towards and awareness of the issue, and the growing availability of support and help to people on the outside. I pay tribute to everybody who is involved in all that.

That co-operative structure in delivering support—government at all levels working with professionals and charities—is being taken forward in other areas too. The defence recovery capability, which is a joint venture between the MOD, Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and other service charities, is taking the way we support our wounded, injured and sick personnel to a new level. For complex cases, world-class care is provided at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court for serving personnel. Personnel recovery centres and recovery and assessment centres are being established in major garrisons, where recovering personnel will be in a position to take advantage not only of excellent medical and rehabilitation services, but of the full range of facilities in large garrison areas. In prosthetics, the Government will work with service charities, including Help for Heroes and BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Service Men’s Association—as well as specialists in the NHS, to ensure that high-quality NHS facilities are available to our servicemen and women once they leave service.

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

The Hasler unit in my constituency does an enormous amount of work on prosthetics and so on. May I encourage my hon. Friend to come down to Plymouth to see for himself the excellent work being done there?

[Nick Harvey]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to issue that invitation, but I have actually already visited and seen the work at Hasler for myself. He is right to pay tribute to the terrific work done there. [Interruption.] I did indeed tell my hon. Friend. I visited various parts of the facility in Plymouth, but he was perhaps unaware that the trip was on my itinerary that day. However, he is right: the facilities at Hasler are first class, and I can see the difference that they have made for people. That is an example of good practice that we would hope to emulate everywhere else. The Department of Health will introduce a number of national specialist prosthetic and rehabilitation centres for amputee veterans across the country, because we recognise that they will continue to need help and support throughout their lives. Those are just a few of the initiatives that we have been able to take forward, despite the testing budgetary circumstances we face.

[Mr Ellwood]

On rehabilitation, I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the work done at Headley Court, in the same vein as he did to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned. Headley Court is due to close down in the near future, so will the Minister provide some clarity on the time frame for when this excellent facility will move further up towards Selly Oak?

[Nick Harvey]

May I correct my hon. Friend? Headley Court is not due to close in the near future. We are talking about a development that is still a good many years off. The new facility in the midlands will be ready towards the end of the decade. It will be a much bigger facility, and it will initially offer support to armed forces personnel, although we hope that, in the fullness of time, the campus will allow for a modular approach that will enable veterans and members of the wider society to take advantage of it. Also, the clinical support there will be quite close to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, which will enable an even higher standard of care to be delivered. I am pleased to say that all the relevant stakeholders—the trustees at Headley Court, Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and others—are entirely aware of the scheme and supportive of it, so I see no reason for it to cause any disappointment or grief.

What has been achieved at Headley Court has been nothing short of remarkable, but we have to recognise that a country house in the Surrey countryside is not the ideal location if we are trying to build a modern, state-of-the-art facility. The opportunity afforded by a completely new build in the midlands will allow us to take what is being done at Headley Court on to a greater scale altogether, which will be of help to a greater number of people. I would not want anyone to think that the move was imminent, but the plans are in place and they will be rolled out towards the end of the decade.

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

Real estate is clearly important, but does my hon. Friend agree that one of the chief advantages of the relocation is the potential for far greater integration with the national health service? That will mean that the excellent service provided at Headley Court will be more likely to be emulated throughout our national health service not only for our service personnel but for everyone.

[Nick Harvey]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that that will be the outcome. I say again that what has been achieved at Headley Court is absolutely remarkable, and everyone involved deserves the highest praise and thanks from all of us for the work that they do. We must, however, take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the new facility to provide a national centre, which will be of lasting benefit. As I said earlier, some of those who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan with serious injuries will need support for the rest of their lives, and I am sure that the new national centre will have a part to play in that.

Looking to the future, the strategic defence and security review has set the vision for our people, including the development of a new employment model, which aims to provide an attractive package that better suits the demands of modern life. Those who serve today, and their families, have very different expectations and needs from those of even a generation ago. Moving towards a new employment model will mean looking not only at the terms and conditions of service but at different approaches to basing, accommodation and supporting family life. It is clear that a large number of service personnel and their families would benefit from a more stable lifestyle, involving everything from schooling the children and buying a home to providing better stability for spouses’ careers. It is also clear that the defence budget would benefit from such a proposal, as it would enable us to reduce housing stock and relocation costs. It would also allow us to reduce spending on allowances that would be no longer necessary.

On the other hand, the predictability and stability that someone with a growing family seeks might not be the same thing that motivates a young man or woman to join the armed forces in the first place. Their motivations might include learning a trade, seeking adventure, seeing the world or serving their country. Getting the balance right in recruitment and retention at different points in a career will present different challenges for each of the three services. Succeed we must, however, because military effectiveness is not built simply on getting the right equipment; it is built on people. The men and women of our armed forces are the greatest asset we have, and we must ensure that we provide them with what they need to succeed in the dangerous jobs that they do.

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

Looking to the future, will my hon. Friend say a few words about how he anticipates members of our armed forces being used in upstream intervention, as outlined by the Government’s Building Stability Overseas strategy?

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is perfectly clear that taking pre-emptive measures to prevent conflict can be very successful. It can certainly save many lives and prevent a great deal of suffering, and it will increasingly become part and parcel of our work. I am reminded of an analogy that the right hon. Member for Coventry North East used when he was Defence Secretary. He said that the logic of defence was akin to that of a football match. We do not defend our own goal by sticking all our players on the goal line; we do it by keeping our players at the other end of the pitch. Similarly, sending people out to try to the tackle problems before they arise is always the most effective approach, and it will be part and parcel of what we do in future.

At this time of year, as we pin the poppy to our jackets and coats and remember the great sacrifice that has been made over many years, it is a time for each of us to pause and reflect. The armed forces covenant is not just about what the Government can do; it is also about what the nation can do. That is not just about the financial support that is provided through taxes or directly to charities; it is also about the moral support that the nation provides to our armed forces.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The Minister might have heard earlier the suggestion from the Leader of the House, in response to my question, that we should recognise the contribution of all communities to the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, including the British Muslims about whom we heard last night from the Muslim Army chaplain.

May I also seek the Minister’s moral support for the application that I am helping my landlady to make at the moment? She is now 98, and would be very grateful to receive the medals for her late husband, Major Hamish Wilson, who died in 1943. She will be making that application shortly, and I think that it is very appropriate at this time of year.

[Nick Harvey]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Minister, you have been very generous in giving way, but you might not be aware that there is a time limit on Back-Bench speeches because so many Members wish to participate in the debate. Perhaps I can draw that to everyone’s attention.

[Nick Harvey]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I was indeed coming to the end of my speech. I entirely acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has just made about the contribution of the Muslim members of our armed forces. I was pleased to attend a Downing street reception to acknowledge that contribution a little while ago. In regard to the individual case that he mentioned, I will certainly look into the matter if he would care to write to me about it.

This House is an important part of the moral support that we offer to the armed forces. On Remembrance Sunday, politics is put to one side as wreaths are laid at the Cenotaph. Serving personnel are joined by ranks of veterans from the United Kingdom and from every corner of the globe to march down Whitehall. We are no longer graced by the presence of the brave souls who fought in the trenches during the great war, but we will remember them.

13:28

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

I should like to begin by joining the Minister in his thoughts on the loss of the soldier in Afghanistan this week, and on Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham. They served their country in different ways, and with great distinction, and their sacrifice should be remembered not only today but over the coming years.

It is fitting that we meet today to debate armed forces personnel in the lead-up to this weekend’s remembrance of those who have lost their lives in the service of their country. We must remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, as well as their families. We must also remember those who have suffered serious injuries as a result of their service, whether on active service or in training. We should also pay tribute to those who are serving their country—not just those on active service abroad but all those who, through their dedication and hard work, protect the freedoms that have been hard fought for over many generations. Their actions at home and abroad make the streets of Britain safer, and we all owe each of them an immense debt of gratitude.

Today’s announcement on the reorganisation of the Army footprint in the UK will have a major impact on the lives of many thousands of armed services personnel and their families. The announcement in this morning’s The Guardian and the subsequent press release from the Ministry of Defence about rebasing from Germany will equally have an effect on servicemen and women and their families. The fact that the Secretary of State chose to inform The Guardian yesterday and to put out a press release this morning rather than make a written ministerial statement to the House is not acceptable. The announcement on Germany was not included even in this morning’s written ministerial statement on the realignment of the Army footprint in the UK, which seems completely illogical to me.

The written ministerial statement on Army restructuring and the press release on Germany raise more questions than they answer. The press release states that the savings to the Ministry of Defence will be some £250 million a year, but no reference is made either to the investment needed to achieve that or to the year in which the £250 million will first be realised. Many will conclude that the cuts to Army numbers—both those announced in the strategic defence and security review and those announced in July by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox)—are paying to make these moves possible. I ask the Minister to confirm in his winding-up speech that these Army redundancies are subsidising this restructuring.

[Nick Harvey]

I think the hon. Gentleman conflates two things. A written ministerial statement has been issued today, which covers some big-picture decisions taken at a national level in the Ministry of Defence concerning the divisional and regional headquarters of the Army throughout the United Kingdom. The decisions have an impact on people throughout the UK and have been communicated to all relevant parties.

The hon. Gentleman also talks about tactical decisions to move certain units, which are made all the time and are never normally the subject of ministerial announcements. He portrays them as though they were all to do with moves back from Germany, whereas the reality is that three quarters of them are nothing of the kind. Two units are being moved back from Germany—one involves a total of 450 people, the other involves 120—but such things happen all the time and are not suitable for announcement in a ministerial statement.

[Mr Jones]

I am absolutely astonished. The Minister had 40 minutes in which to make an announcement, but did not choose to do so. I have to say that he is completely wrong. His written ministerial statement this morning rightly dealt with changes to Army headquarters in the UK—something that I was already on to when I was the Minister. He put out a press release—I have it here with me—that mentions the savings that could be made from the draw-down from Germany. Clearly, The Guardian was briefed last night on the major changes proposed regarding the withdrawal from that country. I am sorry, but I do not accept the Minister’s statement that these are minor movements around. These are major reorganisations that will affect many thousands of armed service personnel, civil servants and their families. The Minister said that some £250 million a year would be saved at the end, but the press release does not say exactly when that will be achieved.

As the Minister who used to be responsible for the defence estates, I know the figure I was given in relation to the rebasing from Germany. It was roughly £3 billion.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to the evidence given by James Murdoch to the Select Committee. He has admitted that members of the Committee were followed at the point when the Committee was undertaking an inquiry into the phone hacking activities of News International. This is obviously an extremely complex matter, but I wonder whether a breach of privilege might be involved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Anything going on in respect of evidence given to a Select Committee is a matter for that Committee to deal with. If the hon. Lady believes that a breach of privilege has been committed in any way, as an individual Member of this House she should write to Mr Speaker about it. It is not a matter that would be dealt with on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Jones]

I know that the consultants brought in by the MOD estimate that the figure would be more than £3 billion. I do not know whether pennies have suddenly dropped from heaven for this investment or whether since the departure of the former Secretary of State the Treasury has given the MOD an early Christmas present. It will be interesting to find out where this extra investment is coming from. We need a clear statement on that, particularly in respect of the converting of Cottesmore and Kinloss from RAF bases into Army bases.

In addition, the total footprint in Germany is 47,000 individuals if civil servants and dependants are included. What will be the cost on other Government Departments and local authorities of relocating these individuals to their new local communities? For the Minister and the MOD to have any credibility about these plans, we need the answers published and we need a detailed time scale for when people will return from Germany and how the moves will be funded. We need to know how the money will be spent and where exactly it is coming from. If we do not have that, there will be some incredulity about how the plans will be affordable and how they will affect the lives of many thousands of armed service personnel.

[Nick Harvey]

Let me clarify the moves for which the Army has preliminarily planned: 7 Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps will move from Bielefeld in Germany to Cottesmore, with some 450 service personnel moving by the summer 2013. This will allow a saving of £55 million a year from 2014-15. In the other move, 43 Close Support Squadron Royal Logistic Corps will move from Guterslohe to Abingdon in 2012. There are small capital costs involved, which the director general of the Defence Intelligence Organisation is perfectly content can be found from within his existing budget.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I just do not accept that. It is all very well to say these are small matters. Why will he not publish the overall plan? He has set an ambitious target of bringing the Army back from Germany. Why will he not set out clearly what the investment will be and what the costs of withdrawing will be in compensation and reparation payments to the German Government? It is not good enough to say that these are preliminary announcements. Why stick out a press release this morning, stating that £250 million a year is going to be saved and that this will somehow boost the British economy by £650 million, when the Minister has just admitted that these are preliminary plans? It is not good enough for our armed forces to be treated in this way. [Interruption.] The new Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), chirps from a sedentary position to question whether this is the right tone. These are issues that will affect many thousands of individuals and their families, so we need to ensure that we have the answers. Without that, credibility will not stand much scrutiny.

As we debate the future of our armed forces personnel, it is important, as the Minister said, to focus on the military covenant and how it can be strengthened. I also think it important to take account of what we have achieved over the past 10 years. The Minister rightly referred to the service personnel Command Paper, which was published by the previous Government and which was the first piece of work to make the welfare of our personnel a mainstream commitment in Government Departments.

Like the Minister, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) for his championing of the policy, not just through the MOD but across Whitehall. I believe that it genuinely changed the way in which the armed services and their families, and veterans, are perceived in other Departments. It brought about, for instance, the armed forces compensation scheme, the doubling of welfare payments to those on operations, the advancement of education services for service leavers who have served for six years, increased access to the NHS—I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for continuing that work with the NHS—and improvements in accommodation, including accommodation in Colchester, as I saw when I visited the town with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). Most important, it brought about increases in pay.

The Army recovery capability was another key achievement, and I am pleased that the Government are following it up. It will not just change the way in which we look after injured service men and women while they are in service, but enable us to ensure that they receive care and support throughout their lives. I want to record my thanks to the service charities, with many of whom I worked closely while I was a Defence Minister. They not only look after our veterans, but increasingly support men and women who are currently serving in our armed forces. We need to uphold the principles of the covenant, but we also need to ensure the upholding of the basic principle of the Command Paper that no disadvantage should arise from service.

I know that welfare support for the men and women of our armed forces and their families is a priority for Members in all parts of the House, and it is important that, on occasion, we speak with one voice in support of our veterans and service men and women. However, Labour Members will also scrutinise the Government’s policies carefully, and will make it clear when we think that they have got it wrong, and I think that the way in which they have addressed a number of personnel issues needs to be examined more carefully.

I welcome the Government’s progress in regard to, in particular, the enshrinement of the military covenant in law. Unfortunately, however, that was not done by choice, but was forced on Ministers by the Royal British Legion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester is chuntering, but he voted against the enshrinement of the covenant in law when the Armed Forces Bill—which became the Armed Forces Act 2006—was in Committee. He should remember what he did then, when it was open to him not to support the Government.

[Bob Russell]

I am sorry that, having embraced the unity of the House on the subject of Her Majesty’s armed forces, the shadow Minister should nitpick on the armed forces covenant—he should use the correct description—when he knows full well that members of the Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill were united. The Committee argued only around the edges, and that is what we are talking about here. The hon. Gentleman should not be churlish.

[Mr Jones]

It is not churlish to remind the hon. Gentleman what he did at that time. When we tabled an amendment to enshrine the covenant in law, he voted against it. I know that he is a Liberal Democrat, and thus can pick and choose and place a certain interpretation on what he does, but he must be reminded of the fact that he voted against that amendment. It was only after the Royal British Legion’s campaign that the Government were forced to change their policy and the covenant became law.

[Mr Ellwood]

While preparing for the debate, I wondered whether the Opposition would raise the issue of the covenant. They had 13 years in which to introduce such legislation themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the personnel paper and I concede that it was a good step forward, but it was not legislation. The fact that, after 13 years of Labour government, the covenant is now enshrined in legislation is thanks to our Government, not his.

[Mr Jones]

No, actually, it is not. In July 2009, I produced a Green Paper on the covenant. I do not think the hon. Gentleman read it and I do not think many of the new Ministers did either, because they clearly fell for the civil service tricks that were tried on me. They were obviously told how hard it would be to implement such a measure, although they finally realised that it could be implemented.

Although not widely read in the House, my Green Paper was widely welcomed by the services community. It received a good deal of coverage and would have formed part of our programme had we been re-elected. It is not true that it was not on anyone’s radar screen when we were in government. I suggest that everyone should read the very well thought out Green Paper that I produced. Even the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), the current veterans Minister, has admitted that it covered the main points.

One of the Government’s policies we are concerned about relates to armed forces and war widows’ pensions. The year-on-year change to uprate pensions using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces community, who rely on their pensions at a younger age than almost anyone else. The impact will be felt not just by the present generation, including those who are fighting today in Afghanistan, but by those who landed on the beaches of Normandy.

The Forces Pension Society estimates that, as a result of the Government’s changes, a disabled double amputee of corporal rank aged 28 will lose some £587,000 by the age of 70, and that a war widow with children will receive a basic per annum pension that will be £94 less next year. The society has said:

“The extent of devaluation of Armed Forces pensions has become a matter of deep concern to Service people, past and present.”

The society’s chairman, Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, has said:

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the Armed Forces so quickly'”.

Julie McCarthy of the Army Families Federation—I had the privilege of working closely with her when I was a Minister, and I pay tribute to her and to the representatives of the RAF and Naval Families Federations—has said:

“The demands of the service have not gone down... but”

personnel

“are seeing their pay frozen, the threat of redundancy and now allowance cuts.”

[Interruption.] In the light of that, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We really do not need a continuous commentary from Members who do not wish to intervene. A Member who wishes to intervene must stand up and make his or her point if the Member who has the Floor gives way. Otherwise, Members must not shout across the Chamber.

[Mr Jones]

As I was saying, I wonder whether the Minister will tell us why that change has been made permanent. It will extend even beyond the target date for the end of the deficit reduction period.

Another matter of concern to many Members involves the office of the chief coroner. As the military covenant states, no member of the service community, including dependants, should suffer disadvantage arising from service, and special provision should at times be made to reflect their sacrifices. That is why the post of chief coroner is so important. It can provide an independent, expert service for bereaved families, and scrapping it undermines the Government’s commitment to the covenant.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I have received letters from constituents who are worried about the effects of the abolition of the office of the chief coroner. Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision should be reversed as soon as possible?

[Mr Jones]

I do indeed. It worries me that, not only the Royal British Legion and other service charities, but a range of organisations that deal with the bereaved cannot see the logic of the decision. It disturbs me that the cross-party support I saw when I served on the Armed Forces Bill Committee in the last Parliament seems to have been withdrawn.

[Dr Murrison]

On the subject of no disadvantage, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is highly regrettable that the Administration in which he served allowed the MOD to pay for expensive barristers to argue the Department’s corner in coroners’ courts, which are supposed to be non-adversarial situations? That has been represented as a genuine concern in the context of no disadvantage, whereas the office of chief coroner has not.

[Mr Jones]

I disagree. We put in place, with the Royal British Legion, support for bereaved families at military coroners proceedings. That was important, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East was very keen to do it. I simply do not accept that not having a chief coroner will help bereaved families to get the answers they want, and I cannot see why this Government have suddenly changed their position from the one they held when in opposition.

The RBL has said the change in policy is

“a betrayal of bereaved armed forces families”

and that it

“threatens the military covenant.”

The Government’s stated reason for the change in policy is deficit reduction, but the costs of the office are widely disputed and both the RBL and INQUEST are prepared to work with the Government to find a more cost-effective option. It is regrettable that Justice Ministers—not MOD Ministers, I accept—have not listened to the RBL’s well-founded concerns.

It is difficult to understand the Government’s deficit reduction measures, especially when we learn that a firm of consultants, AlixPartners, has been employed by the MOD on a £4,000 a day contract, meaning that it earns more in a week than a front-line soldier in Afghanistan earns in a year. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the RBL’s arguments about the chief coroner.

Substantial numbers of armed forces personnel have been made redundant in recent months. That is, of course, only the start of the service personnel cuts that are to be made over the next four years. When the strategic defence review was published in October 2010, we were told that 17,000 personnel across the three services would have to go. As of July 2011, however, as the Government prepared to issue their latest round of redundancies, we were told that the number had risen to 22,000. When outlining the further reductions, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Somerset, failed to offer the armed forces any clarity on what the precise size of the armed forces would be by 2015. We are still waiting for confirmation of exactly how many redundancies there will be on top of those sketched out in the strategic defence and security review, and of whether the new Secretary of State agrees with the statement made by his predecessor. The new Defence Secretary has said that he “regrets” cuts to our armed forces, but it is not yet clear whether he has the courage of his convictions and intends to act on those regrets.

The redundancies issue is not just about numbers, though; it is also about the individuals and the skills that are being lost to all three services. When I hear that some of the individuals I once worked with when I was a Minister are now leaving the services, it makes me concerned about whether our armed forces and this country can afford to lose those capable and well-trained individuals. Greater clarity is the very least our armed forces deserve. If there are to be cuts, we should know where they will fall. Service personnel must be allowed the opportunity to plan for their futures and the futures of their families.

One of the most worrying aspects of the latest round of redundancies last month was that 800 members of the Royal Navy actually volunteered to leave. They were not asked to leave by the MOD, but instead felt that they would be better off outside the service. They made that decision at about the same time as we learned that morale in all three services is in decline. It is essential that today we ask why that is the case. We must ask why 800 members of the Royal Navy believed they had better opportunities elsewhere. It is vital that our forces are able to attract the best talent and retain it, and I am worried that we may be left with skills shortages as a result of the short-term budget changes currently being put in place.

The Conservatives did exactly the same thing when they were last in office in the 1990s, and in the following decade we had to deal with the problems that caused—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Devizes chunters from a sedentary position very often, but does she realise that as a Parliamentary Private Secretary she should be the eyes and ears of the Secretary of State, not his mouthpiece? A bit of quiet from the hon. Lady would be a better idea. She might want to take some lessons from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sat in the Chamber quietly while serving very effectively as PPS. May I put on the record my appreciation of the good job he did in that role? I was very sad to see him replaced, especially given what we have experienced today. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is obviously not listening: it does not help Ministers if she sits behind them whingeing and making snide comments. She should seek advice from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who might be able to give her some tips on how to do the job properly.

When he winds up the debate, will the Minister of State say what the MOD is doing to ward against the decline in morale in all three services?

[Bob Russell]

In the context of morale, the shadow Minister has not yet mentioned the condition of armed forces housing. Although I acknowledge the situation the last Labour Government inherited, they had 13 years to sort it out and those were years of relative economic prosperity, so can the hon. Gentleman explain why his Government did not modernise all the Army family housing in my constituency and across the country?

[Mr Jones]

That question is a bit rich—although the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal, and we know we have to accept such things from them. I visited Colchester garrison with him, where we saw the investment that had been made not only in recreation and training facilities, but in housing. He knows as well as I do the problem we all grappled with and that the current Government are still grappling with. I understand, of course, that the hon. Gentleman is hinting at the Annington Homes issue, but to get to the bottom of that, we have to go all the way back to a decision made under the previous Conservative Government. The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), is present, and his fingerprints are on that decision, which was not a good decision for the taxpayer and limited what we could do to improve armed forces housing. None the less, we made great strides in both married quarters and single-living accommodation in the Navy, the RAF and the Army, and it is now some of the best accommodation of its kind to be found.

Although the Minister hinted at possible future provisions, there is a question whether we should provide housing at all, or whether we should instead move to an allowance system, so that individuals have options in housing, rather than being wedded to a contract, which was also very bad news for the taxpayer.

[Mr Brazier]

Will the hon. Gentleman expand on how that proposal would work in places such as Catterick? It is the largest forces base and there is a huge concentration of soldiers out in the countryside with almost no civilian housing anywhere nearby.

[Mr Jones]

What has happened at Catterick and in other places is very interesting. People are speaking with their feet, as it were, by commuting large distances. At Catterick, many people stay in single-living accommodation during the week or commute to Tyneside or even further afield. We have to recognise that the way people organise their lives is changing. The hon. Gentleman talks about examining how we provide housing and allowances, and we need to do that. The piece of work that I kicked off—I do not know whether it is still going on—looks at the options, including paying allowances or working with, for example, housing associations to provide accommodation where people want it. In all three services, many people are choosing to buy or rent accommodation far from their workplace and travel at the weekend. That creates new challenges for the armed forces in providing single-living accommodation, and these are things that we need to examine.

We ask our armed forces to risk all on our behalf. In return, we must make sure that we give them the proper equipment, training and financial support that they deserve. The sacrifices that service personnel make for the country are such that they should not be treated as other public sector workers. They deserve special recognition. In that spirit of recognising the unique nature of military service, I look forward to hearing the contributions to today’s debate. The debate about our armed forces mainly concentrates on equipment, and that is important, but this is an opportunity to recognise the work that our armed forces do. We should not forget that without the input of the men and women of our armed forces, some of the fantastic, dangerous and, in some cases, unique things we ask them to do would not be possible.

14:01

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I have listened with interest, amusement and, often, respect to the words of the shadow Minister. I hope that he will have a stiff word with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who interrupted him, in the middle of a perfectly good argument, to talk about something that has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. He was a troublesome member of the Select Committee on Defence, but an extremely effective one, just as he was an effective Minister. So, too, is my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, whose words I also listened to with interest and respect.

I wish to thank the Government for holding this debate on armed forces personnel and for its timing. I have been looking through my records and it seems that this is the first debate on personnel since January 2009. Can that really be the case? I say that because it is our armed forces personnel and the training that they receive which make our armed forces the envy of the world. I have to say that the arrangements for having these debates on armed forces matters or on defence equipment are simply not working. I am relieved and pleased that the Leader of the House is having discussions on how to change things. One matter that I would point out to the Backbench Business Committee—I cannot immediately see any of its members in the Chamber—is that the pressure of time in this debate is such that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, on a day when there is no vote at the end. There is no shortage of interest in this matter and I hope that the Committee’s members will take that point away with them if ever we go back to ask for further time.

It is not surprising that there is no shortage of interest in this issue, given what the armed forces are going through. There is turmoil in the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces because of the degree of change that is having to be forced through. There are redundancies, restrictions on money for exercising and training, and changes to the allowances, not to mention the fighting that they are doing at the same time. The Defence Committee has been doing work on all those things, as the House would expect.

Sometimes people believe that it is the job and the role of the Defence Committee to speak for the armed forces, but strictly speaking that is not true. We are not a lobbying organisation for the armed forces or for the defence industry. Our role is to ensure that the MOD does its work as well as it can in the circumstances. Our lobbying role is to lobby for the country; we are not lobbyists for the armed forces. Lobbying for the country, we realise, as people and as a Committee interested in defence, that the country wants certain things. It wants its armed forces to be treated fairly and properly. It also wants its armed forces treated with respect and honour, and the Royal Wootton Bassett phenomenon is a demonstration of that.

There has been a discussion in the newspapers over the past few days about the issue of wearing a poppy and about the question of whether people feel compelled to wear one. There was even an article in The Independent by Robert Fisk entitled, “Do those who flaunt the poppy on their lapels know that they mock the war dead?” I read that article not with anger, but actually with a degree of sympathy. However, I concluded that it had got entirely the wrong end of the stick. He talked about his father, who had fought in the first world war, stopping wearing his poppy because he did not want to see so many damn fools wearing it. His father felt that those who wore the poppy had no idea what the trenches of France were like, and what it felt like to have your friends die beside you and then to confront their brothers, wives, lovers or parents. Of course, to a large extent that is true; those of us who have not been in the armed forces cannot imagine quite the horror that is involved. We may think we can but we cannot. Few of us in this House—there are honourable exceptions, and I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in his place—have had that experience.

As Wilfred Owen pointed out,

“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”—

it is a sweet and fitting thing to die for one’s country—is actually a lie. Horace, who wrote those words, did not follow his own advice. Interestingly, he did fight at the battle of Philippi, but he later claimed that he survived that battle only by running away, having thrown his shield away. I do not blame him for that. But we who have not fought do not wear the poppy because we claim to understand what war is truly like—as I say, we cannot do that. We wear a poppy for other reasons.

Robert Fisk’s article says that he declined to lay a wreath at the Menin gate because it was something of which he was not worthy. I think that that is a shame because, in those terms, which of us is worthy? I do lay a wreath on Remembrance Sunday, and I do not do so because I am worthy—I am not. I do so for many of the constituents I represent: the incredibly brave Chinook pilots who rescue our wounded under fire; the former Gurkhas who have done so much for our country; the families who bear so much of the brunt of death and injury; and the pensioners who survived the second world war and who fought in the Korean war. Those are the people who are worthy and I do it for them.

I also wear a poppy. That is partly because of my grandfather, who, like Robert Fisk’s father, fought in the first world war but who died at the second battle of Ypres. But wearing a poppy is also a public acknowledgement of debt, a public reminder of continuing need in the armed forces community, a public display of respect and a public expression of thanks. It is really not a public announcement, “Look I’ve given the Royal British Legion a bit of money.” Although it is true that sometimes politicians and others may feel obliged to wear a poppy because if they fail to do so they will be subject to public disapproval, one really should not get hung up on that sort of thing. The vast majority of people wear a poppy out of pleasure, and they wear it because they want to, rather than because they must—at least, that is my reading of the situation.

[Mr Brazier]

Like my right hon. Friend, I have never fought, but is there not one further argument, in addition to the powerful ones that he puts forward for wearing a poppy? The men and women who went off to fight in the two world wars were a huge cross-section of ordinary people, many of whom had no military experience at the time, yet on the eve of the battle of the Somme, not one single man was reported absent without leave.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend has got military experience, even if he has not fought. He highlights a point that my hon. Friend the Minister made about the current shortage of experience—within a cross-section of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) said—in what the armed forces do. I think that is, as my hon. Friend says, a reason for wearing the poppy.

Our constituents also wear a poppy with pride, and it is not pride in themselves. It is pride in their country and pride in what our young men and women, who are prepared to sacrifice everything they have and all that they are, do. In the end there are times when it is right to go to war. If diplomacy fails and if people are determined to behave as Hitler and Gaddafi did, they must be stopped, and we should give respect, honour and thanks to those who are prepared to do it for us.

14:11

[Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), my colleague on the Defence Committee, and his comments about the poppy.

The debate today is about armed forces personnel, so I shall talk about them and not necessarily about Parliament. It is interesting to find out who the people who currently serve are. Over a number of years, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have had the opportunity to engage with our forces in theatre and out of theatre. One finds that a fantastic variety of people make up our armed forces. They have a fantastic array of skills, some of which we bothered to give them and some of which they come along with in the first place.

I remember being in Kabul doing some canvassing for the presidential elections. I was masquerading as a soldier at the time and it was not for any particular candidate; it was about the process of presidential elections. I said, “Come on, boys. We had better go over here. We’ll go to the caff and have a word.” They said, “You’re good at this, aren’t you?” I said, “Well, one thing I ought to be reasonably good at is canvassing. You do the soldiering, I’ll do the canvassing.” We were walking up the street when all of a sudden the Fijian flanker I had been given to look after me started to chat to the locals. I said to him, “How come you speak the local language?” He said, “I’m Fijian. I went to school with people who speak Urdu, and I can get along with these people.” I asked, “You’re not an interpreter, then?” “No,” he said. “I just get on and do it.”

The Gurkhas seem to have some Babel fish in their ear. Wherever one goes with them, they are always in some way or another able to communicate with the local people. When I was in the Balkans, there were Chileans and people from the area with a Gurkha in the middle. For some reason or another, he was able to make those people understand one another in some fashion. In the Balkans, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will know, the Welsh also serve. Our communications fell down. The only reason we could speak to one another was that there were two Welsh boys with mobile phones and they could speak Welsh to one another, just like the wind talkers did for the Americans in south-east Asia.

There is a fantastic array of skills among our armed forces, but we have to equip them as well. They come with these skills by default and we use them, but we must not abuse them. One of the things that is missing from the debate is how we enable them to do the things we want them to do. I was in Iraq and the place was jumping, as it usually was when we went to Iraq. I was talking to an American, who said to me, “See, the difference is that we train warriors. They go forward—blitzkrieg—they can fight anything in front of them, but you train soldiers. Once the fighting is done, they take their helmet off, put the beret on and start to engage with people. They are multi-skilled, so it’s different. I don’t know what you do, but you train different people.”

That does not come about by accident. We must equip our armed forces and enable them. If, as the Minister said, we need to understand them, then we need to engage with them. I would recommend any Member to use the facilities of the armed forces parliamentary scheme to get under the wire and go and live in a tent or a ditch with those people for two or three days. Very often it will be, “And another thing—” so the Member will soon find out who they are.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I slept in a tent with my hon. Friend in Iraq when I served on the Defence Committee. Does he recognise that whenever we went anywhere, we always seemed to meet someone who was from Merthyr Tydfil?

[Mr Havard]

The “Taffia” is at work. That is true. At the local field hospital at Camp Bastion when we visited, Andy Morris, who is now Major Morris, was there as a paramedic. These are the people who jump in the back of helicopters and bring people out. He is a reservist, not a regular. There is a real debate to be had about what the balance of forces is going to be. The report by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is seminal. A decision will have to be made about the balance between regulars and reserves. We do not want to cheapen their capacity or their labour. We need to maintain and improve that quality. We must not make the mistake of using it as a way of cheapening the price, rather than improving the value.

The moral component is important. We heard reference earlier to war memorials. We all have the problem. I would like to find the bandit who nicked the bayonet off the Aberfan war memorial. We probably know who he is and where he lives, and we will get it back, but that is not the point. It is about respect. Tomorrow I will be in Rhymney comprehensive school, laying a wreath at the school at its memorial with the children. I will be visiting the cadets and the reserves at Maindy. We must engage with the people.

I do not have a big poppy. Perhaps the size of the poppy is important; I do not know. I have a 90th anniversary badge, given to me by the British Legion in Dowlais. There is a whole community involved. The social and economic impact that the Ministry of Defence has in all our communities is huge. We need to recognise that in deploying the resources that we have, because we also ask people to deploy.

Let me say a little about some of the things that we are discussing on the Defence Committee and the changes that are being made. Reference has been made to how it is possible to divide communities, as well as bringing them together. We can say that armed forces personnel have special interests, and therefore should have special services. By doing the right thing, we can inadvertently do something else and create divisions. Be careful that there is not a problem with consistency, rather than uniformity, in the application of these services across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) mentioned that earlier, and the same applies to Wales. The National Assembly for Wales yesterday published a document about what it will do to improve services for veterans.

The organisation of the health service will be different, because it is very problematic, as is housing and the rest of it. There is a variable geography and the operational delivery of services varies between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, but the Ministry of Defence must understand that the covenant is a UK document that will apply to service personnel wherever they are in the UK. If it does not have some consistency of application, it will get it wrong. That is a real problem it needs to grapple with, and I hope that we can help.

The Defence Committee—perhaps I am giving away secrets—plans to produce a report on housing in the same way as we produced reports on veterans and casualties. As my friend the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire said, the Committee’s work is to bring those matters to Parliament, because it is a servant of the House and our work should be debated here. Frankly, it is a disgrace that the House has not had a proper debate on the matter in more than 12 months. However well meaning Front Benchers have been in today’s debate, they have their political knockabout and absorb the time and the way the debate is conducted is not in the hands of Back Benchers. I know that the Backbench Business Committee has become some sort of petitions committee by default, but I appeal to it to provide time for the House to debate the work the Committee has been doing and allow Back Benchers to say what they want to say beyond the direct control of the Executive, rather than by any other process.

I would like to say one more thing about understanding people. We deploy the armed forces, so we need to protect them. One of the current debates about respect relates to people’s respect for how they are deployed and what we send them to do. The armed forces are sometimes uncertain about their legal and moral status, and if we are not careful, that will cause difficulties for the operational capacity to do things on the ground. It is known in the trade to those of us who discuss these things as the “lawfare-warfare” debate; is it legal, but is it also morally defensible? If we want respect and legitimisation, we must not only enable and provide for those people, but give them and the community on whose behalf they work some certainty that they are being properly deployed to do things that they feel comfortable being deployed to do.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The morality of war is very well set out in the Geneva convention. As long as our officers and soldiers put the convention at the front of all their actions, they will not go far wrong.

[Mr Havard]

I agree that the Geneva convention sets out an important architecture, but let me give an example to illustrate my point. We were once running an internment camp—not a detention facility—in Iraq because that is what was required. That was legitimate and part of the UN mandate. It was legitimised, but it had to be reviewed from time to time and the authority to run it had to be agreed with the new Iraqi Government following an exchange of letters and all the things that go with UN activities. Otherwise, our military personnel, from Colchester and elsewhere, who were running the camp, which was not anything like Guantanamo Bay, needed to know that they were secure in what they were doing. They now serve alongside others, more often than not in coalition.

The Americans are not signatories to the International Criminal Court, but the United Kingdom is. Often there are people on the ground in a foreign place with some sort of architecture of legitimacy between the Government who have asked them to go, or the United Nations, and individually they may well find that domestic and international law are different from one another. That issue needs to be considered. At the moment we put in place mechanisms that we believe protect our individuals who are on the ground, but they are citizens serving abroad. There is a relationship between international and domestic law that we need to be very careful about, and the subject will need debate, because I see operational service personnel second-guessing their decisions. Rather than doing what they would normally do, they send it back up just to make sure. The window of opportunity is gone.

I could give a practical example of that relating to the current problem of piracy in the Gulf, but I am not allowed to. The person concerned did not do wrong; they did right in order to protect themselves. What we must have in place is a decision-making process that enables us to take all those things into account with the speed that they need to be taken into account so that the decision-making process does not disadvantage the individual when they do the job that they are required to do, not later after some gang of lawyers have assessed whether it is right or wrong. We must celebrate all those who have served, all those who do serve, and all those who will serve, but we must be careful how we make organisational changes to do the things we wish to do.

14:25

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my friend and Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), and indeed our excellent Committee Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot).

As we remember those who gave their lives in earlier generations, we honour those who serve today. To visit them, whether on operations or on exercise, is to be humbled by the sheer quality of the men and women who serve in our forces, but over the generations since the cold war the structures that planned and organised them lost direction.

On the day after another young Territorial has died in Afghanistan, I want to talk about reserve personnel, but first I shall give the House some context—when tension between operational pressures and funding is especially tight. The Ministry of Defence has become distorted by the shape of most conflicts during the 20 years between the Gulf war and the Libyan operation. For most of that period, the main effort has been a single, medium-scale expeditionary force, led by the Army with air support. Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan mostly followed that pattern.

The intensity of the conflicts varied enormously, but each saw a brigade-sized expeditionary force supporting air elements in six-monthly rotations and in line with defence-planning assumptions, hence a strong temptation for the planners to configure our forces around that model. Resurgent problems in Northern Ireland and the 7/7 bombings figured very little in pre-strategic defence and security review planning, and two important overseas outliers were widely overlooked.

First, there was the planned invasion of Kosovo in 1999, when 1 million desperate refugees fled the Serb army. Almost all our allies demurred from sending ground forces and the MOD initiated a confused blizzard of call-out notices, summoning many reservists at a few days’ notice, even from units that it was in the process of disbanding. Britain was spared humiliation, of course, when the Serbs backed down under Russian pressure at the very last moment.

Secondly, in 2003-04 we were stretched well beyond expectations, as the continuing operation in Iraq overlapped with the incursion in Afghanistan.

The national security strategy rightly dismisses the assumption that our forces should be optimised almost entirely for medium-scale, Army-led expeditionary operations. It includes other roles, including, crucially, homeland security and upstream intervention, and there is even a faint hint of the scenario that dare not speak its name—general mobilisation for an unexpected crisis. Libya was Royal Air Force and Royal Navy-led—and led brilliantly, a point that I note in the week when we mourn the loss of Flight Lieutenant Cunningham of the Red Arrows.

How can we address so many scenarios, therefore, when the money available is so tight? The key surely is to reverse the slide towards an impossibly expensive manning model in which most units are full time, with costly payrolls, pensions, housing and so on. Of course they are worth it, but we cannot afford enough of them. Between two fifths and half the armies of our English-speaking sister countries are made up of volunteer reserves. On paper, ours make up less than one fifth, and in reality estimates suggest that the true figure is nearer 10%.

The US deploys National Guard armoured infantry brigades and fast-jet fighter squadrons to Afghanistan; Canada had a reservist company with every infantry rotation; and Australia has deployed formed companies and handed over its main commitments in Timor and Bougainville to reserve-led forces.

[Bob Stewart]

When we talk about National Guard pilots, I worry, because I wonder how much training they have to do, and whether it is different from what a regular has to do to be up to speed and to fly in combat.

[Mr Brazier]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Three quarters of the US National Guard’s fast-jet pilots are ex-regulars, so they are not wasting several million dollars in training when they leave, and the remaining quarter have to be very experienced pilots to be allowed to join.

As we stand in silence at war memorials up and down the country, let us remember that the vast majority of those who served and fell were not professionals, and that the volunteer reserves were the key link between our brave but small professional forces and the wider community. They also provided back-up that was immediately available and, crucially, a framework for expansion into a national effort.

In the great war, the Territorial Army provided almost half the combat units, winning 71 Victoria Crosses. The Royal Naval Reserve won 12. In the battle of Britain, the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons comfortably out-shot their regular RAF counterparts. Although those forces were trained in peacetime at a fraction of the cost of their regular counterparts, they were available when they were needed to fight—and fight they did.

When overstretch peaked in 2004, our small volunteer reserves provided a fifth of our forces in Iraq and one-eighth of the number in Afghanistan. Yet over the next two years, they were rewarded with a cack-handed reorganisation, recruitment ceilings and a demoralising freeze on collective training. Despite all that, they continued to achieve some remarkable successes. In 2007, when commenting on a company from the London Regiment, its commander Brigadier Lorimer—now General Lorimer —said:

“Somme Company was an outstanding body of men: well trained, highly motivated and exceptionally well led.”

More than 25,000 reservists have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and 28 have given their lives, including the young man yesterday. Yet, in 2009, all formed deployments to Afghanistan apart from field hospitals were stopped, and the use of reservists has degenerated into the backfilling of regular units, unlike what happens in the countries of our English-speaking counterparts.

Not surprisingly, the strength of the reserves rapidly dwindled, with the greatest deficiency among young officers. As the House knows, I was recently privileged to serve under General Sir Nicholas Houghton on his review of reserves. Two or three units I visited had no young officers left at all. While we were carrying out our study, the unhappiness among TA officers was compounded by the truly disgraceful announcement by the Military Secretary’s branch in July that an unprecedented four-fifths of TA commands were to go to regular officers, despite there being 25 Territorials in the frame who had all the necessary qualifications.

Our study recommended that we should move towards a better balance between regulars and volunteer reservists in the Army, with 30,000 trained reservists by 2015, and that they should

“no longer simply be used as individual specialists and augmentees, but as formed units and sub-units”.

The Royal Naval Reserve has plans to expand several areas, including its highly cost-effective air branch, which took over the training pipeline for some months in the overstretch crisis of 2004. It also has imaginative plans for the Royal Marines Reserve. The commission was disappointed with progress on the RAF, which has a pool of flying volunteer reservists that is only about a quarter of the size of that of the Royal Navy. Although there were some more imaginative ideas in the background, the recommendations it actually put forward were all rather expensive and seemed to be very modest in their actual value. That is why we recommended an independently led follow-up study on the RAF.

There are three keys to rebuilding our reserves: first, we must get out and recruit officers from the thousands of young men and women passing through our university officer training corps and restore the proposition. If we reintroduce demanding collective training for units and sub-units, it will restore the capability of the TA to deploy formed bodies and provide those leadership opportunities that are so vital for the commitment of young officers.

On a recent visit to 7 Rifles, I was told that four regular officers had just applied to join. I was astonished to hear, however, that some of them were stuck waiting to receive security clearance. Why on earth do we have security clearance for regular officers transferring to the TA?

That brings me to my second point. We need fit-for-purpose administrative systems, so that people can enlist, have their medicals and be fed into training without the endless delays that characterise the current dysfunctional system. My local unit, 3 PWRR, has had more than 100 recruits in a few months. Yet, the sheer incompetence of the MOD personnel administrative systems has already put off a large number of them.

Some regular officers are claiming that the TA cannot reach a trained strength of 30,000 by 2015. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who made an excellent speech earlier, not to listen to them. It is the dysfunctional system and the blockages in the regular-dominated training pipeline that is holding our reserve numbers back.

Hence, my third and final item on the shopping list is this. Let us reintroduce regionally based phase 1 training, so that Territorials are not scrabbling for a place at the back of the queue in the regular establishments. In July, the former Secretary of State announced a £1.5 billion investment in the reserves over a decade. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State is still committed to that. May I advise that it must be spent on rebuilding viable and usable structures to meet the 2015 deadline, not siphoned off to meet shortfalls elsewhere while that crucial date is allowed to slip?

Rebalancing our armed forces will enable Britain to afford more capacity within tight budgets—to expand the pool of talent available for defence, to increase the footprint for national resilience and, above all, to reconnect our excellent but increasingly remote regular forces with the nation they serve so well.

14:35

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Defence Committee with great integrity, honesty and ingenuity and sets the standard that the rest of us aspire to reach, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard), my fellow Welsh member of the Select Committee—the Committee has a great tradition of having a large number of Welsh members. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) is also a member of the Committee, and he always seems to have a downer on the RAF.

Last year, I spent Remembrance day not in my constituency but in Warsaw, where I took part in a remembrance parade there as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which was gathered in that city. As we stood there and looked across at the veterans from the Polish army and the Polish resistance, we really understood what Remembrance day was about. We never truly experienced, as those people did, the real horrors of war. When we are at war, defence is not the responsibility of our armed forces alone. Let us not forget others who gave their lives: our firefighters; the merchant navy, which lost more people than all three services; the munitions workers; the agricultural workers; the Bevin boys; the home guard; and the ARP workers. Defence is a whole community responsibility.

We are here today to talk about our armed forces personnel. It was with particular delight that this week I hosted an event here in the Commons for the RAF presentation team. In the very first words of introduction, we spoke about the team’s need to talk to local communities about why they fund their armed forces and why that funding is essential for the defence of the country.

We then went on to host people who had taken part in NATO’s Operation Ellamy and Operation Unified Protector. They talked about the commitment, creativity and, in these days of defence cuts, the increasing needs of our armed forces personnel, as well as the huge capacity that our people have. They talked with great passion about the partnerships within NATO. I know that Italy is going through a period where there is a certain amount of humour about its financial difficulties, but they spoke with great passion about the help and the support that they had received from our Italian NATO allies. For example, they described having arrived at a base in Italy where the accommodation they were given was ill equipped and had poor facilities—the equipment and services that we would have offered on many of our bases would have been similar. The Italians sent their people in and they worked 24/7 to bring it up to the standard that they knew that a NATO ally deserved. We should honour that commitment from a NATO ally to our forces, because it is about their recognition that that NATO partnership is important and that our service personnel, wherever they come from, respect each other.

Those service personnel also talked about the partnership that is essential to all armed forces personnel when they go into theatre, including the partnership with their families, who support them in going and send them messages of support. The support and safety of their families is integral to their ability to do their job well.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Isolation and worry are significant problems for many families when their loved ones are away. Does the hon. Lady agree that support networks such as Troopers Mums in my constituency, which do good work in keeping families calm and holding everything together while our military personnel are away, ought to be congratulated and encouraged?

[Mrs Moon]

I most certainly do congratulate such organisations. Service personnel have mentioned to me how important community support is for their families—for example, it is important to know that teachers are aware if children in their class have fathers who are away on operations. I am talking about Operation Ellamy, but I am sure that this is equally important for service personnel in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. However, when personnel leave at short notice, as was the case in Operation Ellamy, it is even more important because they do not have time to prepare their families. The support of the organisations that the hon. Lady talked about is absolutely integral.

[Bob Stewart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Moon]

I most certainly will give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

[Bob Stewart]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) said, one problem is that when reservists and people who live away from their camp are deployed, their wives and families are left isolated. The Ministry of Defence is trying to find a way to ensure that people who are not on base are looked after properly, because they get extremely worried when they feel isolated. I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees with that.

[Mrs Moon]

I most certainly do agree. It is even more important that we recognise the need to give such service personnel help and support to reintegrate into their families. Often, their families have not had help and support from other service personnel, so when their family member comes back, their anxiety can add to the tension within the family and cause a lot of conflict.

It was interesting to hear about the important role played by employers, particularly the employers of reservists, in supporting people in going away and returning, so that they can settle back into their normal employment. When one has been working with the brakes off, 24/7, in the theatre of operations, it is difficult to come back to the slower pace of civilian life. That is an important lesson that employers need to build into their approach when they welcome service personnel back.

Industry is also important. Everybody has made a great deal of distancing themselves from industry today, but in Operation Ellamy, we needed the support of industry to ensure that the forces at the front of the fighting constantly had the supplies they needed, and so that Operation Unified Protector could provide the protection that was needed. That team spirit and can-do attitude is incredibly important.

The service personnel also talked about the range, reach and accuracy of our weapons—I see smiles on the faces of those who were at the meeting. We need to recognise that new is not always best. They talked with delight about how the VC10 is still such a valuable piece of kit.

I would like to mention briefly a wonderful piece on the front of Defence News entitled, “Stop Doing Things That Are Stupid”—a lesson that the Ministry of Defence should always bear in mind. Perhaps it should be on the front of every Minister’s desk. The USA is giving front-line personnel reports to send back about kit and equipment so that they can say, “This works,” or “If you did this it would work better,” or, “This is useless. Get rid of it.” We should stop asking people back at the Ministry of Defence to answer those questions. Why can we not follow the US example and get our front-line personnel to tell us what they want and what works best in theatre?

One of the sad things we heard was that NATO bases’ interoperability has been lost. I will take that up in my role as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. We need our forces to be able to move around the NATO countries and know where they are and where they can find the things they need to make us more effective. A matter that we have repeatedly heard discussed is intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. In refuelling, we have relied on the Americans, but we cannot continue to expect them always to meet that requirement. It is critical that we consider how to develop and increase our own resources.

We owe the RAF, Navy and Army pilots a debt of great thanks for their professionalism. There were no deaths among our forces on Operation Ellamy, and they ensured that civilian deaths were kept to an absolute minimum. They showed a new way of operating in theatre. With few forces on the ground, they had to take greater responsibility for civilian life.

I wish briefly to discuss the military covenant. I have been extremely distressed to see the Royal British Legion being treated pretty shabbily for its involvement in the campaign and accused of delaying reform. The RBL is a vital voice for our armed forces, and especially for our veterans. I also struggle to understand why the chief coroner has come to be seen as surplus to requirements. I hope that the Ministry of Defence is considering that matter.

We have heard briefly about mental health. We know that American studies show that one third of American veterans needed psychological care, while one in five soldiers suffered combat-induced psychological problems post-Iraq. We also know that members of the reserve forces are more susceptible than others to mental health problems. We must commit to ensuring that every serving armed forces member and every veteran has access to the help and support they need, whether it is while they are serving, in theatre, when they come home, or many years later. We must not allow compassion fatigue to mean that as the years go by, we forget the service that people have given.

On accommodation, I welcome the Minister’s statement that money will go back into the accommodation budget if it can be found, but Julie McCarthy, the chief executive of the Army Families Federation, has said:

“The feedback we are getting is one of resigned disappointment. The upgrades that are being cancelled involved a total rebuild of houses—new roofs, windows, carpets, kitchens and bathrooms.”

The programme was about not just repainting a few rooms, but making quarters habitable. Our armed forces deserve habitable accommodation. They deserve the best that we can give them, and I hope the Minister will find the additional money needed.

14:48

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

I start by declaring my interest as a service pensioner and a current member of the reserve forces.

It is a great pleasure to follow four current and past members of the Defence Committee. I wish to develop a point that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) made in his extremely considered contribution, which is about the universality of the military covenant. I share his concern that we may forget that it is not a local covenant, or an English, Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh one, but a UK covenant. In preparing my report “Fighting Fit”, on veterans’ mental health, and more recently a report on military amputees, I have been extremely aware of the need to ensure that the complexity of the devolved arrangement is worked through. I have been buoyed up by the understanding of that necessity among officials and Ministers throughout the UK. There is a strong understanding that we must ensure that the covenant is applied throughout the UK and in equal part. From my experience of preparing that work, I am confident that it will.

[Mr Havard]

I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says and congratulate him on behalf of all hon. Members on his work on both those matters. I hope he is correct that a consistent approach will be maintained over time. My concern is that the process needs to endure not just for the next five years or the next comprehensive spending review period, but for a long time into the future.

[Dr Murrison]

I entirely agree.

Last week, with a number of hon. Members, I rattled a tin for the Royal British Legion in Westminster tube station. That is always an enjoyable occasion and it is particularly pleasurable to importune colleagues as they come through the barriers, and to fix one’s gimlet eyes on precisely what goes into the tin—indeed, it restores one’s faith in politicians. Perhaps I should not name names, but without exception, they were all extremely generous. Such occasions are well appreciated in the House and I recommend that all hon. Members participate in future.

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I shall pay my tribute this weekend—in my case at the war memorials in Trowbridge and Warminster. In each of the 10 years that I have been the local MP, I have noticed an increase in the number of people who wish to pay their respects. I was asked this morning on my local radio, which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) knows well, why we should wear a poppy. One point made earlier was that there is an imperative pressure to wear one. The truth is that it is an individual choice—nobody should feel obliged to wear any badge or mark of commemoration. However, purely anecdotally, it seems that more and more people are choosing to wear a poppy, and they are sometimes people whom we would not necessarily expect to do so. They do so not out of a sense of militarism, nationalism or patriotism, but out of a sense that we need to mark the sacrifice and contribution of people who have fought in conflicts. We might or might not agree with those conflicts, but nevertheless, those who fought in them have shown the best of us in their soldierly conduct. That is why people choose to wear a poppy and to be so generous to the poppy appeal and the Royal British Legion.

I look forward to the armed forces covenant interim report later this year. I welcome very much the evolution of the external reference group into the covenant reference group, and particularly Ministers’ insistence that it should be independent. The evolution of the Armed Forces Act 2011 was interesting—as has been said, the Royal British Legion certainly made a big contribution to it. I do not entirely share the perspective of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), but nevertheless, the Royal British Legion’s contribution was an important one. I look forward to seeing both the interim report and the covenant reference group’s response—its independence is extremely important.

I welcome Professor Hew Strachan’s work and the report of his independent taskforce, which was published in December last year. I hope we have an opportunity to discuss progress on the points in the interim report that have been accepted by the Government when it is debated later this year.

[Mrs Grant]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to give tangible meaning to the military covenant, and that the importance of doing small things in military accommodation, such as fixing kitchens and improving bathrooms, must not be underestimated?

[Dr Murrison]

Absolutely. The military covenant is not laid down didactically in the Armed Forces Act. It was debated at great length when the measure went through the House and the other place, and it is absolutely right that it should not be set in stone in those sorts of ways, although clearly we can talk about it. However, the armed forces, which are meant to be the subject of the covenant, will be pretty unimpressed if it is not followed with tangibles. We will always ask for more, particularly those of us who represent military or naval areas, and no doubt we will never be entirely satisfied. However, in difficult circumstances, the Government have continued the best of the work done by the previous Administration in trying to improve the lot of those who serve in our armed forces.

Mention has been made of the chief coroner. The Royal British Legion is an excellent organisation in almost all respects, but I take issue with it on this matter. I have counselled caution on its insistence that we retain a chief coroner. I have a particular interest: many of the military inquests that have been necessary over the past 10 years have taken place in Trowbridge in my constituency. I have visited those inquests, and I have spoken with David Masters, the then coroner. Coroners are independent judicial office holders, and have been so for hundreds of years. In this respect, part of the value of the coronial service has been that it has been prepared to be very outspoken, and there are Ministers who served in the previous Administration who bear the scars on their backs of the coroner’s many interventions, particularly on kit. That is absolutely as it should be. The whole point about the coroner’s contribution in the past 10 years is that he has spoken out, particularly on kit, and I have absolutely no doubt that that policy was changed for the better as a result of the comments of David Masters and Andrew Walker. I would be very cautious about altering a system that has delivered such good effect to the benefit of men and women at the front line.

This week we remember the fallen. Remembrance is an integral part of the covenant between the armed forces and the nation. In 2014, we will commemorate the centenary of the outbreak of the great war. In the UK, we have a tradition of commemorating and celebrating the end of conflict, not the beginning, which is a good thing. However, we need to make an exception in this case, because the great war was the seminal event of modern history. Not only did its outbreak herald four years of desperate, terrible carnage, but it set in place the conditions for the second world war. Both those conflicts have shaped and formed how we live today, and it is appropriate that we take the opportunity to reflect on and commemorate the early days of the great war.

There are a number of reasons for that. First, it is not right that the sacrifice of those millions of people between 1914 and 1918 should go unrecognised 100 years on. What sort of people would we be if we did not mark out this anniversary? It is a deeply human thing to wish to commemorate sacrifice on that scale. However, there are also lots of things to be learned from the great war, and there are messages for us today, particularly for children in our schools who, as has been mentioned already, we hope will grow up in a world without conflict of that nature, but who, nevertheless, need to know the full horrors of war, so far as they possibly can, so that we may try to avoid them as best we can.

The UK Government have been criticised for being slow off the mark. That is a little unfair. Next year we will, I hope, have our annus mirabilis, in that we will celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee and the London Olympics. However, we should keep our eye on what is to follow. This week President Sarkozy will unveil the Musée de la Grande Guerre in Meaux, a purpose-built museum for the great war, and it has been suggested that the British Government should do something similar. However, I would ever so gently point out that the British Government did do something similar, in 1917, before the great war was even concluded. I have been extremely impressed by the preparations of the Imperial War museums—plural—to mark the beginning of the great war. If fully carried out, their programme will, in my view, eclipse the Musée de la Grande Guerre in France, and I look forward to seeing it.

As we approach 2014 and decide how we will mark and commemorate the occasion, it is important that we focus heavily on the local and the parochial, the human and the personal. All of us as constituency MPs will have examples of small-scale projects in our areas that celebrate the contribution of local people—I certainly do in my area. I hope very much that all those projects, supported by the lottery fund and others, will come together in a national memorial—co-ordinated, I suspect, by the Imperial War museums—so that we can show a proper mark of respect in 2014 and commemorate the occasion in a way of which we can all be proud.

15:01

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to take part in today’s debate, especially at a time when the whole of Britain and the Commonwealth is preparing to mark a weekend of remembrance in the most dignified and unique way, and, here at home, in a very British way. The great British sailor, soldier and airman are the very best in the world. Throughout our nation’s rich history, our armed forces have never let us down—generation after generation of excellence and endeavour, courage and commitment, dedication and delivery; never turning away, even in the darkest hour; always the first to stand between home and danger. It is right that Remembrance Sunday is a focal point for Britain and that the whole country pauses to remember.

[Mrs Moon]

Does my hon. Friend share with me a great sigh of relief that it has finally been agreed that those service personnel who were awarded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal will be able to wear it this year and at last honour their colleagues who fell in the service of this country in Malaysia?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I share her thoughts about that medal. I know from previous experience that the very subject of medals can be controversial, but in this case I absolutely share the sentiments that she has expressed.

As I prepare, for the first time since leaving the Army earlier this year, to mark Remembrance day in my Barnsley constituency tomorrow, I am reminded of Sergeant Andy McFarlane from the Adjutant General’s Corps, who wrote a poem while serving in Afghanistan in 2008. It begins:

“The news is spread far and wide

Another comrade has sadly died

A sunset vigil upon the sand

As a soldier leaves this foreign land”.

“Bravery” is a word that is all too often used, but rarely earned. Those words speak of our bravest men and women, who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country—not in pursuit of personal gain or individual glory; not without knowing the risks; not while surrounded by the comforts of home; but in a foreign land where danger and uncertainty are, in fact, the only certainty.

For me, this weekend—and this debate—is simple. It is about the families at home, with their loved ones serving overseas. It is about veterans who live on, carrying the scars, mental or physical. Most of all, it is about the fallen. For two minutes tomorrow Britain will stand united, shoulder to shoulder in remembrance. Tomorrow, I will be remembering all who have served our country, but in particular I will be remembering my own regiment, the Parachute Regiment. Among others, I will also be remembering the soldiers of the Yorkshire Regiment and the soldiers of the Light Dragoons.

I will be remembering the late Corporal Bryan Budd VC of the Parachute Regiment, and his family. I will be remembering the late Corporal Mark Wright GC of the Parachute Regiment, and his family. I will be remembering the late Barnsley-born Captain Martin Driver of the Royal Anglian Regiment, and his family. I will be remembering the late Major Matt Bacon of the Intelligence Corps, and his family. I will also be remembering the late Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe of the Welsh Guards, the highest-ranked fatality in Afghanistan, and his wife, Sally, who joined me and other colleagues in Parliament earlier this week. Tomorrow, I will also be remembering in particular the soldier from 4th Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment who was killed in Afghanistan only yesterday. I am sure that I speak for right hon. and hon. Members across the House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this most difficult time.

Every life is equally precious and should be equally remembered. For those of us who have had the great honour to serve, despite leading very busy lives, every day brings quiet moments of reflection and remembrance. For me, they happen in this place every single day as I am walking down the long Westminster corridors, in the lift on the way over to the Chamber, or sitting behind my desk late each evening. For us, it is not just about the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. Every day, I find myself pausing to remember friends with whom I served, who never made it back to their loved ones. Every day, I find myself thinking about my own children, and about what might have been, had I not enjoyed the luck that I did. Every day, I am very grateful, and every day, I remember the families who will always be missing a mother or father, a husband or wife, a son or daughter.

I knew 10 of the first 100 men and women killed while serving in Iraq. At that point, I stopped counting. I felt that I had to. Despite what many believe about the wars and their implications for global security, for international legitimacy and for the nature of UK-American relations, no one should doubt that those who have fallen were among our very best and our very bravest. They are at the heart of all that is still great about Britain today.

I believe, however, that we must strive to do better as politicians in shaping the debate about defence, to ensure that the forces community receives the support that it needs and deserves.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is moving on to the point that we need to do more for those who have not adjusted as well as he has after coming out of the Army. I have seen many people not only with physical injuries but with the kind of mental scars that often do not appear until many years later.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes a useful point, which has already been highlighted by other Members in the debate. The reality is that those people who have served in the most difficult circumstances in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere often do not present symptoms from those experiences until many years after the conflict has finished. It is therefore incredibly important that we, as a society, as politicians and as a Government, keep a close eye on those people.

We must remember the last 10 years in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, contentious though they have no doubt been. Support from the Government, in Parliament and across the UK for our veterans and their families must always be unequivocal. We must remember the value of charities such as the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Help for Heroes and many others, all of whom contribute so much. For more than 90 years, the Royal British Legion has been a constant, a continuing pillar of strength for those who have served and for their families. I believe that its call, which was shared by many others, to leave the chief coroner out of the Public Bodies Bill was the right thing to do for our armed forces and their families. We should have listened to the legion when it made that important point.

We must also remember that, when the shots stop firing and the last bomb has detonated, our support for our forces must be absolute and unending. When Afghanistan and Iraq are consigned to the history books, our armed forces’ physical injuries and mental recollections of those wars will live on for ever.

Our veterans deserve not adequate, not better, but the best support. On Friday, a veteran and his wife, Mark and Helen Mullins, were found dead, having killed themselves in despair. We must not forget those who served but now struggle, those who fought but now feel forgotten, those who stood-to but now stand alone. We, on all sides of this House, have a duty to protect our armed forces and to ensure that public support for them endures.

I quoted earlier from Sergeant McFarlane’s poem, which concludes:

“Reveille sounds and the parade is done

The hero remembered, forgotten by none

They leave to start the journey back

In a coffin draped in the Union Jack”.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the fallen. We must not forget and we must always remember. I know that I am enormously proud to have been in our armed forces for 15 years. I know that this House is enormously proud of our armed forces. I know, too, that this weekend, our country will demonstrate our pride in the best armed forces in the world.

15:10

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is highly appropriate that we conduct this defence debate only a few hours after armed forces veterans gathered at their own private commemoration in the churchyard of Westminster Abbey, where His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh was present.

I always wear a poppy between 1 and 11 November, but I do not need to wear a poppy—it is actually on my heart. The date I particularly remember is not this weekend but 6 December 1982, when six men were killed and 35 wounded under my command in Northern Ireland.

This debate is about personnel, so I shall concentrate on that. Getting the manning right is crucial for defence. When I commanded the Cheshire Regiment, I commanded about 600 people. When I joined it, the Cheshire Regiment had 700 people. In my time, tank regiments went from having 56 main battle tanks to having 42. Commanding officers are expected to do just as much as before, but with fewer people.

Of course, reducing manning has a direct impact on operational effectiveness. The strategic defence and security review suggests that Army strength should be at 82,000 with 30,000 reservists. I remain worried about how we shall get 30,000 reservists within a few years. The strength of the Royal Air Force is planned to be 39,000, with only 2,000 reservists. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is worried and thinks that the RAF has to rethink the matter of reservists. He made the point to me privately—and I think he mentioned it in his speech—that it was reservist pilots who were the most effective in the battle of Britain.

I am worried about how the fitness levels of reserves will be monitored. Will they pass their annual fitness test and their annual personal weapons test? How will they do that? What about their dental records? They have to be dental fit, ready to go almost immediately. Mobilising reserves is not necessarily cheap—certainly not as cheap as some people might think.

The armed forces are still quite top heavy. Apparently, there are more than 250 officers of one-star rank in all three services. During the second world war, a three-star officer—a lieutenant-general—used to command about 100,000 people. That is the current all-out strength of the Army today.

I understand, although I am open to correction, that there are 33 officers of two-star rank and above in the Royal Navy. There are two full admirals, six vice-admirals, and 25 rear-admirals. If we include one-star officers, that means that the Royal Navy has more than one admiral for each of its 40 fighting ships—and, by the way, each officer of one-star rank or above receives a salary of about £120,000 a year.

I will not leave the Army alone, however. The Army has five four-star officers, who are generals, and, although I am not sure, I believe that it now has 17 three-star officers, who are lieutenant-generals.

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

rose—

[Bob Stewart]

The Minister is about to correct me, so I shall sit down and listen.

[Mr Robathan]

Off the top of my head, I think we have four three-star officers in the Army at present, although I share my hon. Friend’s concerns.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is correct. However, I am not trying to give exact figures; I am merely trying to draw attention to a trend, and to suggest that our forces are top-heavy.

[Dr Murrison]

Does not part of the difficulty lie in the MOD, whose civil servants, during both my hon. Friend’s service and mine, have been keen to equate themselves with starred officers? I believe that that has driven some of the current inflationary pressure. Does my hon. Friend agree that the first priority for Ministers must be to deal with that management overhead?

[Bob Stewart]

I entirely agree, and I am sure that the Minister does as well. We must get that under control. Someone told me—again, the Minister probably has the figures at his fingertips—that the Army has some 1,700 lieutenant-colonels. If that is the case, they could man three battalions, and we have only 38 of those.

I will not go into the same details about the Royal Air Force, but the principle is the same: it remains quite top-heavy. I know that the Government intend to have a crack at reducing the problem. What we want in our armed forces are people coming in at the bottom—that is, people who actually do the business, rather than those who are in the background sitting behind desks.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument, with which I agree. Does he believe that the only solution to the problem is for us to slow down the career progression of officers in the Army?

[Bob Stewart]

That is the dilemma. We want to encourage people to stay in the Army; we want to retain the experience of senior officers; and, in the event of something that we may not care to mention—a general war—we will require those officers to expand the Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury suggested.

As for the basing of our troops, I am still worried about where they will go when they come back from Germany, if we have to get them all out by 2020. The details of how many will go to which places are yet to be planned. I am particularly concerned about where those extra troops will be trained, because the training areas already seem to be mightily over-booked. Cost is another issue. Converting Kinloss, which is currently an RAF station, to enable it to house, say, an Army battalion, will not be simply a case of “All out, one in”. We should also ask where the families will go. As was said earlier, it would be a good idea to try to enable them to live further away, but there will be a problem with morale when there is a deployment and wives and children are separate from the main unit.

Finally, let me say a little about Afghanistan. I have heard an increasing number of complaints—some as recently as this week—about the suggestion that a quota of reservists are going there while regulars are being left behind. That quota, which may not be formal, is nevertheless causing some resentment. I ask the Minister to check on that. It costs more to deploy reservists; as regulars are already being paid for, they do not cost as much.

I am very concerned about reports this week that the United States will be withdrawing from Helmand. That has manpower implications. The gains from 2007 onwards might be in jeopardy, and who will take up the slack? It must not be us. We have three years to go before we are formally committed to withdraw from operations in Helmand and Afghanistan generally, although we will stay there in a training role. If the Americans withdraw, the commander in Helmand will have fewer manoeuvre units and fewer available reserves. I do not want us to reoccupy bases we have occupied previously, such as Sangin, Musa Qala and Now Zad.

It is also crucial that we maintain our own security as we withdraw. I know the Minister realises that; I am not trying to teach him to suck eggs. Withdrawing from an operational theatre is very complicated, however. It is often much easier to go in than to come out, and that can be very dangerous. We do not want to take pointless casualties, and we must not repeat the mistake of 2006, when we allowed our troops to be put into isolated locations unsupported. When we are withdrawing, we must not leave a thin line at the front and thin out from there. We must withdraw properly. I will not talk in detail about the tactics, but we must not leave our troops isolated and in a precarious situation as we withdraw.

I shall conclude now, but I should first apologise to the House as I must beg leave to be absent from shortly onwards as there is a constituency event I must attend. I do not wish to leave the Chamber, but once I have done the decent thing by listening to the next speech, I would like to be allowed to depart. Please forgive me, colleagues.

15:22

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am sure the engagement that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) must attend is a pressing one, and I do not wish to detain him.

Some hon. Members have served in our nation’s armed forces, and there are others who have not served themselves but who have close relatives who are serving. As I fall into neither of those categories, I shall keep my comments as brief as possible.

My concern is as a constituency Member of Parliament. Last week, I brought to the Prime Minister’s attention the concerns of my constituents Alan and Linda Eastwood, who are very worried about the Government’s plans to abolish the post of chief coroner. Their son, James, is a corporal with 1st Battalion The Rifles; he is 28 and has a wife and a two-year-old child. This week in a local newspaper, Mr Eastwood made the case for keeping the post of chief coroner much better than I could, so I shall quote his comments:

“James has only just returned from Afghanistan. We are one of the lucky families. James has colleagues who have been killed and colleagues who have come back with no arms or legs. I just cannot understand the Government’s position at all. To upset people who have suffered the loss of one of their family... I cannot see how the Prime Minister can justify it.”

It is no secret that I am a Labour politician, whereas Mr Eastwood tells me that he has never voted Labour in his life. I do not personally hold that against him, but I hope that I might be able to change his mind. Even if I cannot, partisanship is not the point in this issue. As a layperson, I believe that the point is that if Parliaments and Governments are to decide that young men and women are to be sent to situations where, in worst-case scenarios, they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice, the very least we can do is listen to those service personnel, those families and those organisations with the know-how—the people who know best. That is why I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will listen to families such as the Eastwoods and to the Royal British Legion on this most important, personal and sensitive of matters.

I have one brief further point to make. Before I came to this House, I worked in the voluntary sector for 15 years, latterly for housing and homelessness charities. Nobody works for organisations of that nature without coming across the problem of the number of ex-service personnel who become homeless. In 1997, a well publicised survey from the Ex-Service Action Group on Homelessness found that about a quarter of street homeless people had a background in the armed forces. I remember that there was outrage and intense media scrutiny at the time, as indeed there should have been.

Jointly, Government action and Government action in partnership with many extraordinary voluntary organisations reduced the problem—one study by the university of York found that this action led to a fall in homelessness from about 22% to 6%. I accept that producing such figures is not an exact science, but everyone accepts that a significant reduction was made. None the less, any homeless figure, however welcome any reduction achieved, is still too many. I know that many today fear that the Government’s caps on housing benefit and cuts to homelessness provision, and the significant job cuts within our armed forces, are likely to make the situation much worse. I therefore hope that the Government will not reduce the MOD’s resettlement programme and that they will carefully consider the arguments I have made today. Finally, I hope that they will also reconsider their decision to abolish the post of chief coroner.

15:27

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

I start by declaring my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I regret that I cannot make the same declaration of interest as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) as an Army pensioner, but that is probably because he is rather more senior than I am. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear that, apparently, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) is an Army pensioner.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who made a very powerful case on behalf of veterans and especially their families, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has just left the Chamber. I must say that I am not convinced that his readjustment to civilian life is best served by becoming a Member of Parliament, but that is another matter.

In discussion just now with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), I realised that I first wore a uniform in 1983—that can probably be bested only by the Minister—when I joined the combined cadet force in Kimbolton school, where I hope to return briefly this weekend. Every year since then—so for some 28 years—I have either marched or worn a uniform on Remembrance Sunday. This Remembrance Sunday, I will be in Newport Pagnell in my constituency for the eighth consecutive year. Above its war memorial is a small plaque, which is easy to miss, commemorating George Walters’ Victoria Cross. He was born in the town on 15 September 1829 and earned his Victoria Cross on 5 November—appropriate for me as a firework manufacturer—in 1854, some 157 years ago.

In those 28 years of attending Remembrance Sundays in uniform, I have seen an interesting transition. In the early days in the 1980s, attendance was probably not what it should have been, but over subsequent years, it has grown and grown. There has also been a change in the perception of the general public, from imagining that veterans were old men, recalling images of the first world war, to realising now that veterans come in all shapes and sizes—I am not looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham when I say that—and some are very young indeed. I feel obliged to say that to my hon. Friend, as there was a suggestion earlier that reservists—I say this as I suck in my stomach—were being mobilised without passing their combat fitness test. I reassure him that that is not the case. The act of remembrance on Remembrance Sunday is now embraced by a far wider community than it was 20 years ago. That has to be a very good thing and one that I hope we all continue to encourage.

Earlier this year, it was an honour to serve on the Armed Forces Bill. There have been some comments about whether or not the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law, as well as some slightly party political comments about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, who voted for it and who did not. I take the view shared by most members of the armed forces: I do not really care one way or the other. I repeat what I said earlier in the year: this Government will be judged not on words, but on actions. In years to come, this Government and their successors will be judged on whether the armed forces covenant was effectively enshrined in law by what is done, not by what is said.

The Bill dealt with three principal subjects, the first of which is housing. I welcome the fact that £61.6 million will be spent on service housing this year, but if one goes to Lympstone, for example, one sees that an awful lot more money will have to be spent in future years if we are to get the standard of housing up to the level that our armed forces deserve. The £400 million Firstbuy scheme, which will allow some 10,000 service and veteran families to get access to housing, is equally welcome. That is very good news, but 10,000 families is only a start; the scheme will have to be continued in years to come.

Secondly, on education, I welcome the £3 million being put into the pupil premium to help service families. Some years ago, when I was on the Defence Committee, we had an investigation into education. Such a policy was suggested at the time, although it may not have been called a pupil premium, and it is good news that it has been implemented.

Thirdly, on health care, I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire is no longer in the Chamber, because he has done a tremendous job in highlighting the mental health issues of servicemen and veterans. I have seen for myself the very good work that is being done and it is right that we pay tribute to successive Governments for that work. It has not been done instantly in the past 18 months; it has been done over a number of years, and I trust that that will continue in years to come.

I turn briefly to the strategic defence and security review. I was on HMS Portland about two weeks ago, where I came face to face with a young sailor who had been told that he would be made redundant, not voluntarily, but compulsorily. Members of Parliament should come face to face with people in that situation. It was a difficult conversation, which put the whole subject to the fore of my mind. He accepted what was happening, and I found it deeply encouraging that a redundancy programme is being put in place over the next 12 months to ensure that that young man will have the training and resettlement assistance that he needs to go back into civilian life. That is vital and I urge the Government to do more. Under no circumstances can that resettlement package be cut.

In my last few minutes I shall look forward to the future composition of the Army. We are set to have some 112,000 members by 2020—82,000 regulars and 30,000 reserves by 2015. I am particularly interested in the future of the Army in the context of contributing to the Government’s building stability overseas strategy. As we slowly withdraw from Afghanistan and end our commitments in Iraq, there is an acceptance that in future we will have to look at upstream intervention in fragile states. The comprehensive approach across Government, with the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence all coming together like three strands of a rope, will be vital to this country’s future interests. If I am honest, though, I feel that the Government document is slightly light when explaining how that upstream intervention will be carried out.

We all know that every £1 spent upstream can save £4 downstream, and I am delighted that DFID is committing 30% of its future investment in fragile states, but how exactly will we do that? How will we increase defence engagement in future years and grow the capacity of other nations? Will it be done by setting up a series of courses that we can support? With our current UN involvement, only a handful of British armed forces members are in the Democratic Republic of Congo or doing UN monitoring missions around the world. I believe that once we draw down from our commitments in Afghanistan, we can begin to make a real contribution to upstream intervention, and in the months to come I would like exactly how that will be done to be fleshed out.

I will finish with a few comments on the reserves. It will be challenging to get 30,000 reserves by 2015, but it can be done. Of course, only seven or eight years ago we had well in excess of 30,000 members of the reserve forces, and in the 1990s we had 58,000. I am convinced that in our society people are prepared to join the reserve forces, but it will not be straightforward. We will have to invest. We also have to realise that often the only link between Members and the armed forces in their constituencies is perhaps a cadet unit or Territorial Army unit, but the footprint we currently have, which forms such a strong link to our society, might not be the exact footprint we will have in future. It will be hard to find that balance, so it will be testing for hon. Members to find out what that footprint will be in future. Just because we are getting bigger does not mean that the footprint will automatically get wider.

I want to pick up on a point my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made about mobilisations of reservists being almost compulsory. As a bomb disposal officer, I hosted a dinner here on Saturday night for 156 other bomb disposal officers. My old squadron, 217 Field Squadron (EOD), is now part of one of the hybrid regiments, 33 Engineer Regiment, which is a regular regiment. A couple of the young officers—I will not name them, because if I did they would be in front of their commanding officer next week—told me that they are under pressure to ensure that reservists are mobilised rather than their own regular forces, which is causing minor resentment. That is something that the Ministers needs to ensure we address, because the future of our armed forces must be as one Army, in which we work together without resentment between the regulars and the reserves.

15:37

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Let me start by adding to the tributes paid by Members on both sides of the House and offering my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from 4th Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment who was killed yesterday while on patrol in Afghanistan and to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham, the Red Arrows pilot who died on Tuesday, whose dedicated service to the RAF included several operational tours in Iraq. Our thoughts are with them at this most difficult time.

As we approach Remembrance day, it is important to remember all those who have served our country. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today and delighted to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and many other hon. Members who made moving speeches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).

In my constituency I come across many people who remind me of the courage and determination of so many in the east end during the second world war. I will never forget the elderly lady who survived the blitz but lost her family overnight, or the many other stories of sacrifice and loss. The night of 7 September 1940 marked the start of a sustained bombing attack on London by the Luftwaffe. On the first night alone, 430 civilians were killed and 1,600 were seriously wounded in east London. The structural damage to London was enormous, and the east end was so badly hit that when Buckingham palace was attacked at the height of the bombing, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, said:

“It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face.”

In the Bethnal Green tube disaster, my constituency suffered Britain’s worst single loss of civilian life during the second world war. On the night of 3 March 1943, a large crowd tried to take cover in the tube station during an air raid, but, tragically, on entering the station via the steps on the south side, about 300 people became trapped, and as they slipped and fell on the steps there was a crush, leaving 173 people dead and 60 injured and needing hospital treatment.

In March this year, I joined my constituents and many others from throughout the east end to commemorate the 68th anniversary of that disaster and to remember those who lost their lives so tragically. Their memory is served by the Stairway to Heaven Memorial Trust, which is working hard to establish a fitting memorial to remind future generations of the sacrifices made, and I appeal to the Minister to lend his support to that important campaign, which requires another £200,000 for the project to be completed.

We must honour the memory of those who served our country, and do so not only with our words but with our actions. It is therefore right that we protect the memorials that have been established in honour of those military personnel and civilians who lost their lives. My Labour predecessor, Oona King, fought tirelessly through the Civilians Remembered campaign to establish a memorial to those east enders who lost their lives during the second world war.

The Hermitage memorial garden in Wapping, in an area that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) represents, commemorates those civilians who died during the blitz, but recently the memorial was vandalised and protective gates have had to be erected around it. It is of paramount importance that we ensure memorial sites such as the Hermitage garden are protected from vandalism and continue to serve as a reminder of those who sacrificed so much.

By the end of 2014, UK troops will have completed all combat operations in Afghanistan, marking 13 years of UK involvement there. The sacrifice of our armed forces has been great, and we will never forget the 385 UK military personnel who, with their lives, have paid the ultimate price for our country.

The welfare of our troops is paramount, and we must ensure that they have the support they deserve during active service and in retirement. We must ensure also that their families have the support they need. I welcome the Government’s decision to enshrine the military covenant in law, but, as other Members have pointed out, it was disappointing when they failed to support the amendment that the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) tabled to the Public Bodies Bill to retain the office of the chief coroner, which the previous Labour Government proposed.

My constituents are concerned that, without that office, there will be no independent and impartial advice for bereaved families, who should have the right to challenge the findings of any inquiry that they consider to be insufficient.

One of my constituents, Gareth Turkington, who lost his brother, wrote to me and said:

“Our family lost our son and brother Lt Neal Turkington 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles on 13th July 2010 in Nar-e Saraj, the Helmand Province of Afghanistan.

Neal selflessly committed his life to helping make our nation safer and to help make a difference by bringing freedom and prosperity to Afghanistan. His death was as a result of an Afghan National Army soldier carrying out a well planned and executed attack within the ISAF/ANA shared patrol base PB3. This happened despite three similar conflict related attacks at US/ISAF bases, resulting in 24 deaths and up to 40 injured.

My family and I were at his inquest. It was one of the most harrowing experiences of our lives. Today you have the chance to help ensure that both bereaved Armed Forces families and bereaved families in general don’t have to go through everything my family went through.

You have the chance to signal your personal support for all bereaved families by voting for Andrew Percy’s amendment to remove the Chief Coroner from the Public Bodies Bill.”

I appeal once again to the Minister to think again and support those families who are calling for that action.

Finally, our armed forces are among the best in the world. This is a poignant time to remember the huge sacrifice that our servicemen and women have made to defend our country. We must do everything to ensure that our freedom and liberty is protected by supporting them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I was not going to intervene on the hon. Lady, but I remind Members to refer to current serving Members by their constituencies.

15:46

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I am not a regular contributor to such debates—not least because I am usually outranked and certainly outpensioned by half the people who speak—although they are very important. I was in the Combined Cadet Force in the 1970s and my main contribution was trying to avoid carrying the Bren gun over the Brecon Beacons whenever we were on exercises.

My constituency has some very proud associations with the military—for example, with the Rifles in the Army and with HMS Cattistock, which is one of our minesweepers; its skills are admired by all, including the US navy. Indeed, we have a Royal Marines base in Poole, where the Special Boat Service is based. That service includes some of the most professional and admired specialists in the world.

Like many hon. Members here, I will be attending a Remembrance day ceremony in Poole park. I have done so more times than I care to remember. In my early years as a Member of Parliament, it was clear that the vast majority of people at the ceremony were world war two veterans, although some people had done national service and there was the odd person who had served in Northern Ireland.

What has changed is the number of young families turning up with photographs of fathers or mothers who have been killed in action. That has been the biggest change during my time in Parliament and it makes me think very carefully about the decisions we, as politicians, make about war and peace, and life and death, because people have to deal with the consequences of the United Kingdom’s policy. Given longevity, some of the youngsters who have lost fathers may well be around for another 70, 80 or 90 years—long after we have gone. Our legacy must be not only to support the military covenant, but to ensure that we look after those families who have lost a loved one. We must provide the best possible support we can to our armed services, which we all value so much.

Service accommodation is a very important issue. Over the past few years, there has been a great effort to improve the standard of all housing in the United Kingdom. A lot of money was spent on council housing to bring homes up to the decent homes standard. Yet much service accommodation remains not that good. I have had many conversations with the wives of Royal Marines in Poole, some of whom work as nurses or health visitors. They often say that when they visit people on benefits in Poole, their housing conditions are substantially better than those of some of the people in the Special Boat Service. Many have often said that they are a little ashamed to ask people back to their home because the standard is not very good.

I understand, as I think we all do, the economic situation that our country is in and the fact we have to make economies. However, as soon as money becomes available, we need to invest in providing decent housing standards for the families of people in the armed services. When we commit people, as we have done in the past, to 12 months in Afghanistan, we want them to be able to leave their families in a home we would all be proud of. Therefore, much work needs to be done on that matter.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

One of the problems that my hon. Friend highlights is that the armed forces are the only people who have to compete for funding in terms of their housing and the provision of weapons to keep them alive. It is not easy to work out how to resolve that dilemma.

[Mr Syms]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point; of course, he is very experienced in this area. That raises the question of whether another organisation should be supplying the housing instead of the Ministry of Defence. Having looked at the resources made available to Poole Housing Partnership, which deals with the several thousand council houses that we have in Poole, it is clear that it could easily maintain and upgrade the hundreds of MOD houses if there were some kind of tie-up or support. We need to think rather more creatively about how we can channel the resources that are available. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made a powerful point about a case in his constituency of homes on two sides of the road, some of which are being done up with public money and some of which are not, because their funding happens to come out of different pockets. It should not be beyond the wit and wisdom of our country to find a way through this.

It is terribly important that we understand the angst of service families who leave the service having been unable to buy a home because they have been serving in different areas, and so have to go on the social housing list and then find that they cannot be allocated housing. I hope that changes made at the end of the time of the previous Government and under this Government will make that somewhat easier. Most ex-military people should be at the top of the housing queue, not at the bottom. My general view of what has been happening with my constituents suggests that there is now a much better understanding of that, and that housing authorities are much more willing to find accommodation for them.

We all know about the difficulties there have been with people who are in combat one minute and getting on a jet to fly back to the United Kingdom the next. Within a day or two of being in combat, they have to adjust to being home. I am pleased that this country has done a lot more as regards the military hospitals and mental health back-up needed for the people in our armed services. I was also pleased to hear what has been said about resources to help service families and their children in relation to education.

We seem to be finding our way to a far more holistic approach towards support for the various aspects of the lives of those in the military. Certainly, there is a much better understanding of the importance of our military. Like many Members, I am sure that when I am in Poole park on Sunday for our usual parade, many more people than we saw years ago will turn out to commemorate service personnel. There is much more public support for the military. We must maintain that support for, and investment in, these very brave and exceptional people. As has been said, the United Kingdom armed forces are second to none; they do our country proud. We must invest in them and their families, and I hope that this debate plays some small part in progressing that.

15:49

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who talked passionately about the importance of supporting the families of servicemen and women in this country.

I think that I bring a slightly different dimension to the debate because I am possibly the only person here who is the partner of somebody within our military, and therefore feels absolutely passionately—

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Stella Creasy]

I apologise—I see the hon. Lady shaking her head. I was not aware that she had a connection as well.

[Sheryll Murray]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) is married to a member of the armed forces?

[Stella Creasy]

Absolutely. My point in raising this is simply to say that the concern for all of us who are interested in the welfare of our armed forces is not only about the people who serve but about those who support them. We have to support not only our armed services but those in their families who are affected by what they do.

Each of us is here today to remember the sacrifices of those who have served within our communities and our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) admirably put on record our gratitude to the people who, unfortunately, have lost their lives in the past few weeks alone. I echo those sentiments. I also want to put on record the gratitude that I am sure we all feel towards the people from my own community in Walthamstow who gave their lives. Let us therefore say to the family of Regimental Sergeant Major Darren Chant of the Grenadier Guards, who gave his life for our safety on 3 November 2009, that we will never forget his sacrifice.

I also want to recognise the contribution of those who have served and come home. In particular, I put on the record my thanks to Rob Richier, who retired recently after 35 years of service in the forces. He is now leading the Royal British Legion in Walthamstow. I was honoured to host a dinner for 150 people for his retirement and in support of the work that he is doing in Walthamstow. I have seen at first hand from working with him what a difference he is making to support members of the armed forces in Walthamstow.

I wanted to speak in this debate to raise a particular concern that affects forces families. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) referred to the tragic case that many Members will have seen in the press yesterday of a serviceman and his wife who felt so forgotten that they took their own lives after they had fallen badly into debt and were struggling with their financial situation. A critical issue that we must address in dealing with the welfare of our armed forces and their families is their finances. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) raised the particular concern of homelessness in relation to the armed forces. I want to consider the experience of the armed forces in accessing finance. I will draw on evidence of how the American military have dealt with this issue and of their concern about how armed forces personnel manage their money.

In 2006, the Department of Defence in America conducted research into the impact of payday lending on servicemen and women and their families. It recognised that companies were targeting them because of a number of factors, not least the relative youth of the military and the cash-flow fluxes and shortages generated by life in theatre and at home. Another factor was that the American military took a strong line on indebtedness among their members, which meant that many of them did not seek debt advice and counselling early on to avoid debt problems.

What is particularly striking is that the American military recognised the problems of debt among their servicemen and women as a threat to military readiness. They recognised that debt was the second most stressful aspect of the military lifestyle and that it outpaced separation from families and being on deployment. In particular, they recognised that because military families were not necessarily able to access credit in the way that the rest of can, they were particularly vulnerable to a reliance on high-cost credit. The research found that the average borrower in the American military had taken out nine payday loans in a year and was paying back $834 for a $339 loan.

Consequently, the John Warner National Defence Authorisation Act was passed in 2006. It closed the loophole that allowed American lenders to exploit service personnel and introduced an interest rate cap to make it impossible to lend to military personnel at more than 36% APR. Clearly, there are still problems in America with indebtedness in military families, but awareness about the issue has been raised, as has the protection for those families. Indeed, America’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now has a special service dedicated to soldiers, the Office of Servicemember Affairs, which is headed by Holly Petraeus. One of her many acts is to promote credit unions to service people.

I raise that example not simply to say how much the Americans have done to support the families of those who serve in the military, but to raise my concern that exactly the same problems are happening among military families in the UK. The payday loan companies that have exploded in the UK in the past 18 months are already targeting the military. Loansite.co.uk markets itself as the forces loan finder. Easymilitaryloans.co.uk—the title alone is a giveaway—makes a virtue of lending to service personnel in the UK with poor credit histories. QuickQuid, whose interest rate is 1,734%, states on its special military site:

“You provide security and protection for your country—shouldn’t your armour against financial problems include access to military loans when you need them?”

The consequences of that targeting are becoming all too clear, not least to the Royal British Legion, which has a dedicated benefits and money advice service that does fantastic work to help service personnel and veterans with debt problems. That service is up against it in the current economic climate, especially given the rate at which the high-cost credit industry is growing. It is particularly striking that whereas in its first year of operation in 2007 the service helped 2,500 army personnel, last year the figure rose to 11,000. It predicts that the figure will keep rising. The most telling point for this debate is that nearly a third of the service’s clients turn to it because they have taken out unsecured loans.

We know that high-cost credit is increasingly used by those who have no access to mainstream credit. Indeed, research in Sheffield found that 40,000 people in that city alone were in that position. We know that a worrying proportion of people taking out payday loans are doing so just to make ends meet. One in four of them need the money to buy food or essentials, with 44% of them using it just to pay off other debts. In that context, people who are financially fragile because they or a member of their family serve in the military are particularly at risk.

The Royal British Legion states that debt problems tend to be much more complex for Army personnel than for civilians, and that they require a higher level of debt advice. It estimates that 63% of the debt advice that it offers is classified as specialist advice, compared with just 12% of the casework of normal citizens advice bureaux. Such figures demonstrate not only the importance of what the Royal British Legion’s money advice service does but the uniquely complex nature of the debt problems that many of our service personnel face.

We know that the payday loan industry is growing rapidly in this country, and that the risk of its targeting our military service personnel is increasing. We know, too, that we could act quickly to regulate the market as a way of providing real protection not just to service families but to the 6 million people in our country who are financially fragile. That was why I wanted to raise the issue today.

I hope that I can encourage the Minister to consider doing exactly what the American military have done, and at least commission research into the nature of debt in our forces’ families in the UK, so that we can understand the consequences of payday loan companies and the difficulty that those in the military face in making ends meet. I also hope that when he has seen that research, or even the work that the Royal British Legion is doing on welfare advice, he might be persuaded to speak to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to talk about how it would be possible to introduce a cap on the cost of credit to protect people. I also encourage him to consider how to ensure that we have a credit union that serves the UK military and their families, so that they can access affordable credit.

We all remember today the service of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives for a better tomorrow. I have simply raised my points to ask that that better tomorrow does not include debts, and that we as a Parliament act as quickly and appropriately as we can to ensure that we give all our citizens protection from payday loan companies.

16:01

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

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, especially on the eve of Armistice day. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces for naming Plymouth earlier this year as the venue for next year’s national armed services day events. I am sure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) also welcomes that. Plymouth, needless to say, is a very proud city with a very fine Royal Marine and Royal Naval heritage. The authorities there will most certainly handle armed services day with enormous professionalism, and it will be incredibly well organised.

Tomorrow, 3 Commando Brigade, which is based in my constituency, will march through the city. I am absolutely sure that there will be a very big turnout of people who wish to demonstrate just how loyal to the brigade they are, and how proud they are of the service personnel who have acted in Afghanistan during the past few months or so. Tomorrow and Sunday will provide an opportunity for us to show our respect, alongside civic leaders. It will tinged with sadness, of course, because there have been some casualties, including Corporal Mark Palin, whose funeral I attended in the summer, who lived in Devonport and made the ultimate sacrifice.

In passing, I wish to thank FIFA for deciding, eventually, to allow our English footballers to wear their poppies. That is appropriate, because in 1915, in no-man’s land, there was a ceasefire at Christmas, so the soldiers could play football. Unfortunately they did not play cricket or rugby, but they decided to play football. That is a clear indication of the part that football has played.

Today’s debate is about how we value our armed services, and valuing them is very important. As a Navy brat, with a father who served in the Royal Navy and was partly responsible for getting the gold and the King of Norway out of Norway in 1940, and with a whole series of family members who have served in the services, I can safely say that I think I have had a fairly good understanding of what it is like to serve in the armed forces and make the ultimate sacrifice.

Not only do I represent one of the principal naval ports, but as vice-chairman of the armed forces all-party parliamentary group with special responsibility for the Royal Marines, and through my participation in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have gained a much better understanding of how the armed services play such a significant part in the defence of our country.

During the summer on a trip from Malta to Majorca with one of the ships, I had the opportunity to see first hand how our Royal Navy people go about their jobs. One thing they talked about was how they felt let down that they did not have the opportunity to receive a medal for their anti-piracy work. They said that they got one from the EU but were not allowed to wear it because it has not been approved by the Queen. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister ensure that that situation is looked at?

[Mrs Moon]

I understand that there is to be review of the body that is responsible for giving medals, which is an obscure and almost secretive organisation. Should not that responsibility lie with the House and not with some obscure group of flunkies somewhere in a back room?

[Oliver Colvile]

The body should be asked to give advice, but perhaps ultimately, the decision ought to be made here.

[Mr Robathan]

The Honours and Decorations Committee might be obscure, but it exists to give advice to Her Majesty the Queen, who is the fount of honours and who gives medals, not this House. In my opinion, with which hon. Members may disagree—the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) is right that we are having a review—it is important that politics and party politics should not be involved in decisions on medals, because that should be done in the chain of command. I have been under pressure to intervene in gallantry awards for people whom I have never met. However, the granting of honours must be decided not by politicians, but by others who are involved in campaigns.

[Mrs Moon]

rose—

[Oliver Colvile]

If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene again, she is very welcome to do so.

[Mrs Moon]

Transparency is essential, and the big problem with the Honours and Decorations Committee is that it is not transparent.

[Oliver Colvile]

It is the job of the Queen to make decisions on who gets such honours.

In the few minutes available to me, I want to concentrate on the mental health of those members of the armed forces who serve to defend our country. Other hon. Members have spoken with some knowledge of that, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), whose paper on mental health and combat stress, “Fighting Fit”, has made such a significant contribution in helping us to determine our armed forces covenant and the Armed Forces Act 2011.

There is a great deal of difference, however, between passing legislation and ensuring that recommendations are put into action. For many, serving in the armed services will be one of several careers that they will have. It is important that they do not find themselves handicapped from having other careers and doing other jobs. Some might go into teaching and others might go into security or whatever, but it is important that we ensure they can go into other jobs.

A great deal of publicity was given to the fact that a significant minority of servicemen and women suffer from mental ill health as a result of their experiences. It is important that we ensure they are capable of going into other jobs, but according to research by the excellent Combat Stress, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, was set up in 1919 and which currently helps 4,600 veterans, suggests that of the 191,000 personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, about 4.6%—about 7,600 people—could develop post-traumatic stress disorder, and that another 37,600 people, or 19.7%, could be battling other debilitating mental health problems, such as depression, mood disorders and anxieties. It can take up to 13 years for mental illness to become apparent. We must not waste any time in finding a solution and putting a strategy in place. I welcome the Government’s changes to the delivery of our health services, but I am keen that there be a strategy to ensure that our general practitioners and other health professionals think through how to handle those mental health issues, especially in a garrison town such as Plymouth.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman has said about the incidence of mental ill health and the need for the health service and other bodies to cope with the mental health needs of those in the armed forces. Does he agree, though, that younger people in the armed services suffer more from mental health problems as a result of their involvement in combat after the age of 18? Given that the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe that still recruits soldiers from the age of 16—last year, 17.4% of new recruits were aged 16 and 29.8% were under 18—is it not time to review the age from which we recruit? Should we not recruit over-18s only?

[Oliver Colvile]

If I may say so, that is a non sequitur. A range of people, from across the board, regularly come into my office suffering from a mental health issue, and it is important that we look after all of them, not just a small number.

In preparing for this debate, I spoke with representatives of Combat Stress, who told me of their concern about the lack of detail in the Government’s approach, and asked for assurances that either health care or other policy areas would cover the mental health of armed forces personnel and veterans. It noted that the stigma surrounding people with mental health conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, was still preventing veterans from seeking help.

Last month, I attended, in the Speaker’s apartments, the launch of Combat Stress’s anti-stigma campaign, which aims to highlight the plight of veterans suffering from mental illnesses owing to the scars of war. I was told that 81% of veterans felt ashamed or embarrassed about their mental ill health, and that their fear of stigma and discrimination meant that more than one in three did not feel able to tell their families or friends about their problems. The other day in Lympstone, I met a Royal Marine who told me of his experience. He went home and told his wife about his problems, but she said, “Don’t talk to me about that. I had to deal with 200 e-mails today. I have a lot on.” He went off to find his mates, but that was not good enough either, so ultimately he had to find his fellow Royal Marines. We need to ensure much better connectivity for those people.

Finally, I am concerned about how the reservists are taken care of. We have in place a very good system under which regular armed services personnel can get a lot of help, but I am told that there are problems for reservists leaving theatre and re-entering their community, and that we do not necessarily do as good a job looking after them. I urge my right hon. Friend to do something about that. Reservists take time off from their normal jobs, and their employers expect them to go straight back again, which they will almost certainly do. However, can we do something about that? If we do not sort this out, we risk creating a ticking time bomb that will need much more resources and attention further down the line.

16:14

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

The wonderful thing about defence debates in this Chamber is that they are so well informed. When we stand to speak, we feel that we are really speaking to people who have expertise—people who served in the forces; people who are partners of people in the forces; people who serve on the Select Committee on Defence.

I cannot start a speech in a defence debate without congratulating the Royal British Legion. Yesterday, attending Prime Minister’s questions, regardless of whether I agreed with what the Prime Minister said, I could not help but notice the sea of red poppies on both sides of the House. The Royal British Legion truly deserves to be congratulated on the success of its campaign and on making the poppy a fixture every November. As an aside, I pay tribute to its “Time to do your bit” campaign. On Sunday, I did my bit by running seven miles along Cwmcarn scenic drive, which, as anyone who knows it will agree, is very hilly. I think I speak on behalf of my parliamentary researcher Dave when I say that, rather than just doing our bit, we were both in bits by the end, but there we go.

Since I became a Member of Parliament, the most amazing thing—a great honour, too—is that I am invited to so many remembrance parades. This weekend I will join people in Oakdale, Pontllanfraith and Meas-y-cwmer as they come together to remember the war dead. However, when we think of remembering people, we should be aware that there is a group of people in this country, only 1,011 in number, who have a case to be remembered that is rarely heard in the House of Commons. They are, of course, the nuclear test veterans—those who suffered illnesses related to the nuclear bomb tests in the Indian ocean in the 1950s and 1960s.

We are proud in Islwyn that we have the only commemorative stone to mark the commitment of those veterans to our forces; it sits in the memorial garden in Risca. I cannot mention it without paying tribute to a local councillor, Stan Jenkins, who is responsible for the stone. When he was the mayor of the old Islwyn borough council, he met with a nuclear test veteran and was so moved by his plight that every October he organised a march through Risca, with the whole community coming together to show its support for those boys, and this year is the last year it will be held. Their standard has been placed in St Mary’s church in Risca, and until it turns to dust over time, the cause endures and the fight goes on.

We as politicians are rarely faced with serious decisions, but in years to come, when children go to the memorial garden in Risca with their parents or grandparents and read what it says on that stone—a simple sentence: “Justice is all we ask”—and when they ask their parents or grandparents, “Did those soldiers have justice?”, what will we say? Will we say, “No. The Government stood behind judges and law courts and they kept frustrating them, so that they died without being compensated”?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

When I was the Minister for veterans, I made an offer to settle those cases. It was the lawyers representing the nuclear test veterans who rejected that settlement proposal. I feel—I know the current Minister feels this too—that the injustice in this case is not helped by the lawyers representing those veterans.

[Chris Evans]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Coming from a mining area, he knows as well as I do how much the lawyers frustrated justice for our miners too. I say this to the lawyers: if the Government have made an offer that is fair and acceptable to the veterans, they should accept it.

[Mr Robathan]

I am grateful to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. May I suggest that he says that to the lawyers in terms—not just in the House of Commons, as it is well known that anyone who wants to keep a secret should reveal it on the Floor of the House, but in the “Risca Herald”, or whatever it is called, and that he also talks to a firm called Rosenblatt?

[Chris Evans]

I agree, and I have said it before. I digress from the debate, but the miners’ compensation scheme was a wonderful scheme, yet it was frustrated by the claims farmers and other bloodsuckers who came along and tried to make money out of it. I think I have the support of the whole House in saying that. However, we have an opportunity to give those veterans justice. The Government need to stand up to the lawyers, and we need to do something about them.

When we discuss veterans, we often hear people in this House talking about “the forces family”. When I hear such phrases, I hope that they are not marketing speak or—dare I, a Labour Member, say it?—spin. I hope that they mean something. A member of a family is cared about regardless of what they do in their life; they know that help is available to them. Yet I hear all the time about veterans who leave the forces and receive no help, and in 2005, the Royal British Legion produced a report that stated that 6% of those leaving the forces had welfare issues and nowhere to go. I want the Government to do more.

It is easy, especially at this time of the year, to think of veterans as the old folk who walk in remembrance of their fallen comrades, but a veteran can be anyone—a 21-year-old or a 60-year-old—and we must do all we can to honour them. It is time for the Government to honour them properly, and that means creating a department for veterans. In the United States, George H. W. Bush said:

“There is only one place for the veterans of America, in the Cabinet Room, at the table with the President of the United States of America.”

That is what we should have in this country: the voice of veterans right next to the Prime Minister. At the moment, the Minister for veterans also has responsibility for forces education and accommodation. When my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was the Minister, I think that he was even in charge of the weather. My predecessor as MP for Islwyn was also a veterans Minister, and he always said that, in the year that he was Minister for veterans and in charge of the weather, the sun always shone and we had the sunniest summer on record. I do not know how true that is.

Veterans need a voice to stand up for them. We have a wonderful organisation in Veterans-UK, but people do not know about it. Its name should be on the tip of everyone’s tongue, just as those of the BBC and many other organisations are. More should be done to advertise it, so that when people leave the forces, they know that there is an organisation that can help them.

I really should not say this, but I am going to give the Government a bit of advice. If they really want to be popular and if they really want to see their poll ratings go up, there is one thing that the Minister could do, right here, right now. He could make veterans day, on 27 June, a bank holiday. In that way, everyone could celebrate, just as they did during the royal wedding. They could celebrate veterans by holding street parties to thank them for all that they have done. That is the least we can do.

We ask our servicemen and women to do a job that most of us have no idea about. We are not asking them to join Barclays bank, or Sainsbury’s or Tesco’s, to do a job of work from nine to five. We are asking them to make the ultimate sacrifice. It is therefore right that, on Sunday, and tomorrow during the two-minute silence, we stand together to thank them and celebrate them. Let us do that in the summer as well; let us put a smile on everyone’s face for once. That is the least the Government can do.

16:23

[Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am delighted to inform the House that this year’s Remembrance Sunday “Songs of Praise” will come from the garrison town of Colchester. It will be broadcast on BBC1 at 5.25 pm on Sunday. Tomorrow, we will have the two-minute silence, and on Saturday there will be the festival of remembrance in the Royal Albert hall. There is also the field of poppies next to Westminster Abbey. On Sunday, in cities, towns, suburbs, villages and hamlets the length and breadth of the country, we will remember those who have fallen in the two world wars and in other conflicts over time.

This time last year, 16 Air Assault Brigade, which is based in the Colchester garrison, was in Helmand province on its fourth deployment to Afghanistan. I had the great honour to visit it at Camp Bastion in March this year. Along with many other Members, I was also able to welcome representatives of 16 Air Assault Brigade when they came to the Houses of Parliament on their return. There was a huge welcome home parade, as we would expect, in the centre of Colchester where many thousands of residents came out to say, “Thank you, and welcome home.” There was then a most moving service of thanksgiving and commemoration at Bury St Edmunds cathedral. The most dramatic moment in this moving service was, for me, a song from a choir of Fijian men and women who serve in 16 Air Assault Brigade—evidence of how our armed forces have thousands of young people from the various countries of the Commonwealth serving with us.

I have already referred to family housing, and it is my hope that the Defence Committee, to which I have recently been appointed, will hold an inquiry into all aspects of service housing. At my advice bureau on Saturday, the wife of a serving soldier shortly to be deployed elsewhere told me how the state of her house, an Army house, is an utter disgrace, and that her infant child is crawling over mouldy carpets. On the education side, I am delighted as a Liberal Democrat to say that the pupil premium has been a real plus for the children of our military personnel who are serving our country.

This is a debate on military personnel. When we were in opposition, we complained to the Government of the day that our armed forces were overstretched and under-strength. Clearly, that situation has not altered. In fact, it is going to get worse. I asked the Library for comparative figures on the size of the Army and Navy in 1911 and 2011. I was informed that in 1911 the Royal Navy had 106,245 serving members, while today it is 35,430 and falling. The size of the Army in 1911 was 168,239, while today it is 101,300 and falling.

I am not necessarily a great fan of the Daily Mail, but on Thursday last week Steven Glover wrote an article with the headline, “I simply fail to understand how a Tory-led Government can’t muster a single warship to protect this nation’s shores”. He said:

“When you go to sleep at night you may imagine that somewhere out there in British waters there will be one or more warships flying the flag, and keeping an eye on possible dangers to our national security. Indeed, there usually is and has been for as long as anyone can remember. And yet since the beginning of October there hasn’t been a single British frigate or destroyer fulfilling this task. The Royal Navy, once the mightiest in the world, could not muster even one vessel to protect our shores.”

The article goes on at great length, but let me read out just one small further excerpt:

“The truth is, that the Government has so reduced Britain’s naval and military resources that we can no longer play the part of even a minor world power.”

Let none of that detract from our pride in the professionalism of our serving members.

[Mr Ellwood]

I feel obliged to intervene because it really is misleading to use a bit of the Daily Mail to pursue an argument in that way. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman used it, he clearly believed it and tried to make a point with it. What it shows, dare I say it, is a level of ignorance in his understanding of how the British Isles is defended. We have the Tyne-class sea patrol vessels, which do a fantastic job. There is also the point that if we were to surround Britain with warships, we would still not be able to cover much mileage. We cover our sea and air space with aeroplanes, which do a fantastic job. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that.

[Bob Russell]

I am obviously grateful for that informed observation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have ensured that that has been conveyed to the Daily Mail and Mr Glover in particular so that the record can be put straight.

All Members can take pride in the armed forces covenant. We should be thinking not just of current members of the armed forces, but of those who have served in the past and their families. In that context, I remind the Minister that the Equality for Veterans Association is calling for pensions for all who have served in the forces, and has presented a petition to No. 10 Downing street.

I also think that we should link armed forces day, for which the last Government can rightly claim credit, with the armed forces community covenant and with the need for an armed forces service medal, which I mentioned earlier.

[Mark Lancaster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on 5 or 6 February next year—I forget the exact qualification date—some members of the armed forces will be potential recipients of no fewer than five different medals for non-operational service?

[Bob Russell]

I was not aware of that. All I am saying is that a campaign has been organised by people who are seeking recognition.

Let me say something about the work of the independent medical expert group and “The Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme—One Year On”, which refers specifically to the issue of noise-induced hearing loss. Earlier this afternoon, I had a brief meeting with representatives of the charity Action on Hearing Loss, formerly the Royal National Institute for the Deaf. They told me that the United Kingdom’s compensation scheme involved a high threshold, and that in the United States personnel with a level of hearing loss half that required in the UK were entitled to compensation. I sincerely hope that that will be addressed in the Defence Committee’s inquiry into the armed forces covenant.

I should like the Minister at some stage to make a statement to the House on the future of the Ministry of Defence police. The last Government slashed the size of the MOD force in Colchester from 30 officers to three. That has had a significant effect on the policing of the Army estate, because the burden has fallen on the Essex constabulary, who do not have 27 officers to pick up the slack.

As for anniversaries and special events, reference has been made to the need for us to prepare for a commemoration, in 2014, of the start of the great war. I hope that we can begin preparations for another commemoration the following year, that of the 200th anniversary of the battle of Waterloo. I am sure that—in a spirit of European unity—the French, who joined in our commemoration of the start of the great war, will also join us in commemorating the Waterloo anniversary in 2015.

We have all been shocked in recent weeks and months by the theft of war memorials listing wartime events and the names of those who have died. I cannot come to terms with how anyone could steal such a thing, but they would also have to sell it to someone, and there must be dealers out there who know full well that a memorial of that kind must come from a dodgy source. I think that Government and Opposition should come together to produce legislation preventing people from dealing in that sort of scrap metal, because metal dealers must know that a bronze plaque marked “1914” and listing names and ranks has been stolen.

The issue of the chief coroner has been discussed. It is my understanding that the MOD believes that there should be more specially trained coroners so that the military get a bespoke service by having multiple coroners. It is thought that that would be a better deal. I hope that we can work together on this issue.

I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion, on its 90th anniversary, for all it has done, and to all the other veterans groups for all they do. I also pay tribute to ABF The Soldiers’ Charity—formerly the Army Benevolent Fund—the War Widows Association, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, Veterans Aid, Combat Stress and Help for Heroes. Without them, the lot of our current and past military personnel would be much poorer. Let me finally say that it is a special pleasure to represent a garrison town.

16:36

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank those Members who were responsible for securing this debate and, in particular, the Prime Minister.

It appears to me that more poppies have been worn this year than in previous years, and I find that heartening. That is certainly not down to “The X Factor” and the sparkly bright poppies that are worn by those who appear on television, but more young people are wearing poppies and it does my heart good to see that. Reference was made earlier to the Royal British Legion and there being, perhaps, an age barrier. It might have been the case that young people did not respond very much to past conflicts such as the first and second world wars and Aden, but the young people of today clearly do relate to the Royal British Legion. Those who are serving in Afghanistan and have served in Iraq recently are of their age group.

I can only imagine how good it must be for those who have family members serving, or those who have served themselves, to see younger and older people alike wearing the poppy with pride. That is a show of support for the services, and it signals that at this time of year the nation remembers those who have served their country and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

I recently had the privilege of attending a coffee morning in a local town hall to raise funds for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. That event is held annually and it is a practical expression of support for the troops. By holding it, the people of Ards and Strangford have contributed more than £10,000. Everyone who entered the hall and donated, and had their coffee or tea and sticky bun—they were all home-made, I understand—did so for the same reason: to show support and express thanks to the troops. The window of the local wool shop in Newtownards carries an advertisement telling people that the store will contribute free wool to knit hats for our serving troops, and that it will send them out to them, too. Hundreds have already been knitted and sent out. In all our local shopping centres there are dedicated Royal British Legion personnel standing at poppy stalls. I see that the vast majority of people in the town are supportive of our troops, and I now have an opportunity to speak for them in Parliament.

The latest figures show that Army recruitment is up across the board in Northern Ireland. That is noteworthy. In these times of economic uncertainty, people are having to look outside their normal comfort zone to find work, and it appears that the Army is filling a gap. There has been a rise in recruitment everywhere but particularly in what would have been nationalist areas. That speaks volumes about how members of the younger generation see themselves today.

When Newtownards celebrated the homecoming of the Irish Guards recently, one soldier remarked that the troops had been told that they could not parade through the streets of Belfast. They were bemused by that as many would have been returning to their home town. I was told that religion was not an issue between the troops, and I knew that would be the case anyway. When people put on the British uniform and serve in the British Army, they are our brothers—or sisters—full stop.

As these soldiers marched, there was a real buzz about the town, with thousands of people lining the streets to say thanks and to cheer on those who are out there fighting for Queen and country. For many of those involved it was a homecoming as they come from Ards. The Ards and the Strangford area has the largest Irish Guards association in the whole of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. One’s heart could not fail to be touched by the mothers who were crying and smiling at the same time. It is not impossible to do that, as I very clearly witnessed. Among the familiar faces that we all saw, I also met some young men who had been injured on the battlefields in Afghanistan. Despite Northern Ireland having a population of only 1.8 million, 20% of all serving personnel—soldiers and those in the Air Force or the Royal Navy—hail from my own beautiful Northern Ireland. We have every right to be proud.

The service at St Mark’s before the parade was poignant and touching, as we sat with the soldiers and heard them pray for each other. They also prayed for the Afghans that they had met. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) mentioned the special qualities of the British soldier and they are just that. The British soldier does his job in uniform and he very clearly does his job afterwards as well.

[Mr Havard]

In January I had the privilege of meeting members of the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment in Nad Ali, where I witnessed them starting the new initiative of local policing. The reason they could do that was because of the very qualities that the hon. Gentleman talks about. They could speak to the local people about their agricultural development in a way that they could relate to, and they were doing fantastic work in terms of not only security, but of building consent for a new Afghanistan.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He gave me his card and he said, “You can speak in English or in Welsh.” As an Ulster Scot, I choose English. I was not sure about the other bit, because I would probably have got it wrong.

The number of people lining the street from St Mark’s through the town was incredible, and the streets were glowing with pride as crisp Union flags flew from every shop and every house, and were in the hands of many of the people who were there. There was a sense of pride and honour, which permeated through gender, age and religious barriers. All were united when they considered our troops and what they had done, and thanked them for it. That raises the question that we have the opportunity to speak about today: how can this House be more supportive?

As we come to Remembrance Sunday, we have a timely reminder of the sacrifices that allow us to stand in this Chamber and debate any topic—we are here because of what has happened before. My childhood favourite, Winston Churchill, stood in this House debating the merits of war and the need for war in eloquent fashion on numerous occasions, as the history books show. I do not do that today; today, I stand for our troops and say, “Recruit them, train them, equip them, feed them, speak with them, help them and support them.” For me, and I believe for everyone in this House, “We will remember them” is not a phrase but a promise.

We have had the opportunity to go to Afghanistan on a number of occasions through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, of which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a member, as indeed are other Members here today. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), the Secretary of State for Scotland and Lord Maginnis were part of the group that went out there in March. Our troops need help on the battlefield, and we were much impressed by Camp Bastion and the medical facilities that were available. People there say, “If you ever get injured, make sure it is in Afghanistan and close to Camp Bastion, because you would not get the same medical help if you were involved in a traffic accident back home.” That is what we were seeing. On that occasion, two helicopters arrived—this was not planned, it was just the way things happened—with some American casualties and we witnessed at first hand the injured being taken into the medical centre and saw clearly the good work that is being done. I commend the staff for that.

The shadow Minister said that wherever we go in the world there will always be a soldier from Merthyr Tydfil. Wherever we go in the world there will always be a soldier from Strangford too. I say that because when I was in Afghanistan I had the opportunity to meet a young lady in the military police whose father I had helped with a planning application and whose mother I had helped with other issues. I also met a sergeant-major in the Irish Guards, who was from outside my constituency but whose uncle and aunt were personal friends of mine. I also had a seat at the Royal Irish barbecue there—for the record, it was a dry barbecue in Afghanistan, as there is no drink there. It was the first time that I can recall being with an Irish regiment at a barbecue where it was all water and lemonade. I sat across the table from a young guy who said, “Jim, it’s nice to see you here. I voted for you.” A guy in Afghanistan is able to tell me that he voted for me. I said, “That’s the reason I’m your MP—because you voted for me.” The service personnel asked me as a parliamentarian, and I believe they have asked every Member of Parliament, to be their spokesperson in the House, and I want to speak for them.

I also had the chance to be on a five-day exercise with the 1st Mercian Regiment in Catterick in north Yorkshire, which gave me the opportunity to speak to the troops and hear what they wanted. They are looking for security of their pensions and for continuity of service. They want the uncertainty of where they are posted to be sorted out quickly. They are looking for their housing issues to be resolved, for confirmation of their jobs and training, and for contact with their family. The Minister spoke earlier about wi-fi and the phone system. We witnessed that clearly in Afghanistan. The voice down the phone was their wife, their mum, their dad or their family and friends, and we noticed how important that was for the troops. We also witnessed the fact that they need a great deal of support.

The troops mentioned an issue which I hope the Minister will address in his closing remarks. They told us that they get 14 days leave, and sometimes on their way home they may find that they have to spend two days sitting in Cyprus, for example. That is two days lost out of their 14 days.

[Mr Robathan]

We have now ensured that if service personnel lose some of their 14 days’ rest and recuperation on their journey because of problems with the air bridge, the weather or whatever the reason may be, those days are added to their leave at the end of their tour. That gives people extra leave without disrupting the operation.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that positive response, which will take care of some of the concerns that were expressed to us when we were in Afghanistan and by other soldiers.

I commend the Minister and the MOD for the work they do for those who are injured, who experience life-changing events, who are emotionally or mentally traumatised, or who have to come to terms with the loss of limbs. I met two such soldiers with the 1st Mercians some time ago, and I have to say that the work done within the MOD was tremendous. The improvement was clearly visible, and the work continues afterwards. One may see the physical changes resulting from the injuries that have taken place, but one does not always see what is happening inside. That is what concerns me.

In conclusion, we send our service people out and ask them to do and to see things that most of us here would not have the stomach or the understanding to see or do. What do we need to give them in return? I believe the unanimous voice from the House will be that we need to give them support. We must support them, and I appreciate the motion being brought before the House. We need to do more than consider our armed forces personnel, as the motion says, but I believe it goes further than that. A commitment has been given, and I believe everyone will support the motion, as I certainly will.

16:48

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

Armed forces personnel issues are very close to my heart. My daughter serves as a Royal Navy officer and I grew up in my constituency with the knowledge of the importance of HMS Raleigh. I have heard first hand the concerns of Royal Navy personnel throughout that time, but I have recently learned of issues that concern me and I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to provide me with some answers today.

One area where civilians frequently come into contact with our armed forces personnel is search and rescue. According to a Library paper of 22 February this year on the search and rescue service, the RAF has 16 Sea King mark 3 or 3A helicopters in service, with 272 personnel currently employed in roles directly related to search and rescue activities, and that the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm has nine Sea King mark 5 helicopters, with 81 similarly employed personnel. That means that the average number of service personnel for every search and rescue helicopter is 17 for the RAF, but nine—almost half—for the Royal Navy. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister explain this difference between the two services?

The figures seem to suggest that some services are already more efficient than others and, therefore, that there is less fat to cut. A parliamentary written answer on armed forces deployment confirmed:

“Each service operates different harmony guidelines. Royal Navy personnel should not exceed 660 days deployed in 36 months, the Army 415 days in 30 months, and the RAF 280 days detached in 24 months.” —[Official Report, 14 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 820W.]

Those figures equate to a diverse average deployment length across the three services. The separated service figures show that the term “overstretched” means three different things to the three services. Coupled with the reputed average deployment length, the Army deploys for around six months at a time, the RAF rarely deploys for longer than three months and the Royal Navy deploys for around six to nine months. This suggests that the deployment burden on certain sections of the three services is higher than others.

As a result of the differences in separated service, the frequency of deployment also varies between services. A Royal Navy warfare or engineering rating, or a warfare officer, can expect to deploy repeatedly year on year. I know of one warfare officer—not my daughter—who has deployed for seven to eight months in each year from 2008 to 2011. This deployment burden should be taken into account when demanding redundancies, as any squeeze that increases the burden further could have consequences for manning those key positions.

Finally, I want to address the redundancies. Royal Navy personnel were informed of the outcome of the redundancy selection boards on 30 September this year, almost a month after the RAF and Army announcements on 1 September, placing all Royal Navy personnel at a disadvantage. It meant that they were the last to register in the career transition partnership, which will be working at maximum capacity anyway to manage the surge in service personnel taking redundancy. I understand that the delay allowed financial resources to be drawn from two financial years.

The disadvantage was confirmed in a letter I received from my constituent, Mr Spencer. He wrote to me about the recently announced redundancy tranche implemented by the Royal Navy. His stepson is a serving Logistician Steward and has been given 12 months’ notice of redundancy. He was informed at the end of September and it is now proving extremely hard to place him on any meaningful course to prepare for civilian life. Most college apprenticeships and other vocational courses start at the beginning of the autumn term, in September, and he is finding that the best training courses are fully subscribed until the end of the summer term 2012. Mr Spencer feels that little thought appears to have been given to this by the MOD, and I believe that it has done Royal Navy personnel a major injustice by badly timing the date on which individuals were informed. His stepson also approached the local armed forces careers office in Plymouth to inquire about entering the RAF as a regiment gunner or the Royal Navy to pursue a career as a Royal Marine. Both branches are recruiting new entrants, but he was told that he will not be able to apply to join either service for 18 months from the date on which he was informed of his redundancy.

Mr Spencer feels that that rule is rather narrow-minded, and the armed forces careers office was unable to give him the reasons for it. He points out that his stepson is fully trained in weapons handling and first aid, has the other basic military skills that one would expect of him and presents a low training risk. More importantly, he loves life in the forces, and, although he accepts the reasons for his redundancy, he considers it ridiculous that he is not able to apply for other branches of the armed forces when they are actively recruiting. Perhaps the Minister, when he sums up, will provide me with some answers to those questions.

16:55

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I should like to put on the record my admiration for our armed forces and, of course, for the service of our veterans. We have the best armed forces in the world, and with Remembrance weekend coming up, when I shall attend two parades, in Runcorn and in Widnes, I put on record my appreciation of the Royal British Legion, and its work not just to raise millions upon millions of pounds through the poppy appeal, but to support throughout the year, every day, our armed forces, their families and veterans. Halton British Legion, in particular, does an excellent job locally through its support for service personnel, their families and veterans.

There are many organisations, however, that do not receive the same recognition as the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, but organisations such as the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, the British Limbless Ex Service Men’s Association and Combat Stress are very important. The regimental associations also do a tremendous amount of work to support serving personnel, their families and veterans—particularly at this difficult time.

I work closely and have a close association with the Irish Guards, which do a great job of supporting families, service personnel and veterans, and I shall attend their service on Saturday evening. I have a close association, too, with the South Atlantic Medal Association 1982, which represents those who fought in the Falklands and also does an excellent job.

On Sunday morning, I shall be at a parade in Widnes, standing opposite the war memorial where I will be able to see the name of my great uncle, who died in 1917 from his wounds. My grandfather also fought in that conflict, and he was awarded the military medal for his outstanding bravery as a stretcher bearer and was, himself, wounded.

I make that point, because I was most honoured to be made the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and also veterans Minister. One thing that drove me to do my very best in that job was the fact that my grandfather, like many of his comrades, died in poverty and was buried in a pauper’s grave. That was a common experience, and he did not get the support that he should have received, or that he was promised by people such as Lloyd George.

Today, with the support that is available through the MOD, the Veterans Agency and the many service charities and voluntary organisations, I do not believe that anyone should be in that position. They can and should get help, but we know that people slip through the net, and it is important that we do as much as possible to—I hate this word—signpost or make available information not only for our serving personnel and their families but for our veterans, so that they can get help and support when they need it. There is lots of it out there now.

The previous Government did a lot to improve services for veterans, and for our armed forces personnel in terms of medical support, treatment and rehabilitation. Not enough was done, but some improvement was made to housing, and that was crucial. As a Minister I saw some of the housing, and I was quite appalled by it, so more needed to be done.

On mental health, the previous Government also took up a number of initiatives, and they were important in dealing with the issue, which had not been dealt with properly before, so I was very pleased that that work took place. Many good things happened, but we must always look to make improvements, so it is important that we continue to press the Government to make those improvements.

I would like to make a point about the National Memorial Arboretum. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that there will be no cuts to its funding. It is a tremendous memorial to the sacrifices of our armed forces’ personnel and anyone who has not been there should make sure that they go because it is truly stunning. Just a few weeks ago, I was there with veterans of the Greek campaign in the second world war. They have not received the recognition they deserve for that campaign. In Crete, we nearly inflicted the first proper defeat on the Germans—it was a very close run thing.

What concerns me is that a lot of negative things are being said about the Greeks as a result of the current economic crisis. We should not forget that the Greeks defeated a larger, better equipped Italian army and suffered as much as anyone under Nazi rule. In Crete, it was a Greek regiment that allowed many of our Commonwealth soldiers, sailors and airmen to get away and be evacuated. We should remember the sacrifices and help of the Greeks in the second world war. They fought with us in 1941, and it is important we give due recognition to that.

I am aware we have limited time, so I shall just make a couple more quick points. I do not support the Government’s cuts; I am against them. We need armed forces that can be deployed anywhere in the world in our national interest for whatever reason. That will not happen under the Government’s current strategy and with the cuts that are taking place. We should have strong armed forces across the piece—Navy, Air Force and Army—and there should be support for them.

I also do not agree with the policy of giving a date for when we pull out of Afghanistan. I cannot recall an historical equivalent when we have said to the enemy in the middle of a battle, “We’re telling you when we’re leaving the battlefield.” However, that is what has happened. We must recognise the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces, and the improvements they have brought about in Afghanistan. We should not be leaving Afghanistan until we are absolutely sure we have done the job properly. We should support the Afghan people and not leave them, possibly in the future clutches of the Taliban should they return. I am opposed to the cuts that are being made by the Government and supportive of ensuring that we have strong armed forces.

In conclusion, as I said, I am privileged and honoured to have been a Minister in the MOD and to have seen first hand on visits to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere the amazing work our armed forces do. They deserve to be supported by all parliamentarians, and I will continue to do all I can while I am a Member of Parliament to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at half-past 5 and we have four Members who wish to speak. I call Tobias Ellwood.

17:02

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is an honour to participate in this debate. I begin as others have done by declaring an interest as a member of the Territorial Army and by paying tribute to the brave and dedicated professional troops we send into harm’s way. It is appropriate to have this debate the day before Remembrance day. I wish the best to my old regiment, 5th Battalion The Rifles, which is now deployed in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 15. It is commanded by Colonel Tom Copinger-Symes and is now based in Nar-e Saraj as part of 20th Armoured Brigade led by Brigadier Patrick Sanders.

I congratulate the ministerial team on the work it has completed in just over 15 months. My goodness, what a situation it inherited: the finances were in a state and there was an absence of Whitehall leadership and interest in the MOD, and a lack of clarity in strategy. We have heard today the usual sounds from Labour. They have complained about the contents of the strategic defence and security review but, of course, they did not have one for more than a decade. Earlier today they quibbled about the detail of the armed forces covenant, but they failed to provide any form of legislation in 13 years in office. They talk about the morale of the armed forces, yet they led us into two very complicated campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan without a coherent post-conflict plan.

What has changed? First, the SDSR has provided clarity and strategy. The costly procurement overruns are now under control, thanks to the new major projects review board. The long overdue restructuring of all three services has now taken place, and today we have had the first announcement on the troops returning from Germany. Our defence export programme has expanded. Very importantly, the injustice done to the pilots killed in the Mull of Kintyre tragedy and their families has been reversed.

Specifically for armed forces personnel, we have doubled the operational allowance, we have provided more than £60 million for upgrading accommodation, council tax relief has been increased by 50%, and—this is very important and welcome to the armed forces—university and further education scholarships have been created to assist the children of service personnel killed on active duty. I think that Main Building is starting to look, feel and operate like a modern, professional and effective organisation, and I am grateful to the ministerial team for achieving that.

Let me turn to Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) served diligently as a Minister in the Department, and my comments are not directed at him because I know that he was very passionate about the armed forces and continues to be so. He raised concerns about cutting costs while we are still involved in a campaign and said that we should be doing the job properly. I would suggest that we did not send our troops into that campaign properly, and that we are now testing the nation with the length of time that we have been engaged in it—more than a decade. Although we can be proud of what is being achieved in Helmand, we do not work in isolation and it has taken us a long time to get Helmand right. A series of brigadiers were going out there, one after another, redefining and reinventing the wheel of what they should be doing.

[Derek Twigg]

indicated assent.

[Mr Ellwood]

I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. That is not the way that we should be using our armed forces personnel—sending them into danger. There was a lack of clarity in that mission, as well as mission creep, and there was no strategy.

I visit Afghanistan and Helmand province regularly, as do other hon. Members, and I have got the message that there was almost a conspiracy of optimism—telling us what we wanted to hear. I am afraid that that comes down to the level of interest, direction and clarity from Whitehall. It is all very well for our armed forces to do an incredible job in creating an umbrella of security, but we have to be concerned about what happens underneath it.

There are two aspects to counter-insurgency: working on economic development and reconstruction and on governance. Neither of those things happened while our service personnel were in Helmand, and in that vacuum they have had to do that job themselves. Our platoon commanders have been going into villages and townships, setting up jirgas with the elders and trying to get local and district governance working. That is way beyond what a platoon commander is instructed or taught how to do at Sandhurst.

It has taken a long time for the Department for International Development to recognise its role in providing support for governance and reconstruction and development—getting roads built so that the locals can use them and we win over hearts and minds. I am pleased to say that the culture in DFID has changed completely. That is not only because of what happened in the latter years of the previous Government but because of the leadership of the new Secretary of State for International Development.

If we are to task our service personnel with going into these places, there must be a coherent plan—a strategy. We must bear in mind what we do with our armed forces these days. It is not simply about kinetic war fighting. When there is a foot and mouth outbreak here in the UK, it is the Army we lean on. When the fire brigade goes on strike, it is those personnel who drive the Green Goddesses or the fire engines. If there is an earthquake in Haiti, that is not about war fighting—it is very much about support and humanitarian work—but it is the military we lean on. The skill sets that our service personnel now require are quite varied, and we must bear that in mind.

I have three observations to make about that. First, the versatility that we now expect from our armed forces is quite staggering and very different from years gone by. Secondly, given that we must now conduct operations that are not limited to the armed forces alone, we need to think about more interoperability with other agencies and Government Departments. Thirdly, we must focus a little more on strategy—on educating our officers and soldiers about these aspects.

General Charles Krulak wrote about the “three block war”, in which soldiers in an operation move from war fighting to peacekeeping and then to nation building. Nation building requires an understanding of how the United Nations, non-governmental organisations and the Department for International Development operate. Those are skill sets that we need to expand on. At the moment, we are just touching on those areas and there is work to be done.

On interoperability, I believe that winning the war fighting is only half the battle. We should remember President Bush standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1 May 2003 and saying, “Mission accomplished,” in reference to Iraq. How many years later did we actually get some peace there? We need to think about post-conflict operations and planning. We need to arm our service personnel with the skill sets they need to achieve that and to work with other organisations.

My final point is about improving strategy. We used to be very good at that. I ask the Minister, how can we hang on to knowledge after a conflict? How can we keep an open mind in dealing with the latest conflict and not use the strategy, tactics and doctrine from the last conflict, which might be out of date? How can we better prepare for the next conflict, wherever that might be? There are various ways in which we could do that. I would like to see an improvement in the role of the defence attaché. At the moment, they are like the major character in “Fawlty Towers”. They get sent to various embassies as passed-over senior officers to see out the end of their careers, but the role of the defence attaché is pivotal in establishing upstream relationships, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) mentioned. Those skill sets are worth developing.

How can we select our brightest and best, which is not necessarily the same as the most academic, to develop those strategy skills sets? How can we nurture the next Alan Brooke, Ismay, Parker, Guthrie or Richards? These are things that we need to get good at. We used to be good at them and we can excel at them again and offer those skills within NATO. It is not just about reading Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, which all military personnel do as they grow up. It is no coincidence that the word for general in Greek is strategos. Strategy is something that we need to work at.

I will end where I began in my first intervention: on the damage that there has been to war memorials. I pay tribute to those who have served and who continue to serve in our armed forces. I hope that those thugs who choose to rob the very memorials around which we will gather tomorrow realise what an insult they mete out to those, past and present, who have given so much to our country.

17:12

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Bearing in mind your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall tailor my remarks and speed of delivery accordingly.

It is always a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). It is also a great challenge to follow such eloquent Members as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and the ever-eloquent hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who is not in his place. He is truly the heir to Aneurin Bevan—at least I am sure that is what his memoirs will say.

First, may I put on the record my admiration for the work of my local battalion? The Staffords, the 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, have just returned from Afghanistan after a 10-month tour of duty. They will be proudly marching through Tamworth on 29 November and I, for one, will be there to welcome them, to honour them and to remember Private Gareth Bellingham, who unfortunately lost his life during the tour.

Because I appreciate that time is brief, I will simply focus on the message that I heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Bob Russell) and for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) about service housing. There is an old joke that soldiers like to grumble, but it is no joke that on the very day when the Government took office, 36% of those living in services accommodation said that they felt it to be inadequate. The biggest complaint that I hear from serving soldiers in my surgery and from friends and relatives who are serving is about services accommodation. I hope that when the Minister examines the Strachan report, and when we debate it, he will consider closely the recommendations about housing.

I was very pleased and honoured to serve on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, and then on the Public Bill Committee. I believe that enshrining the military covenant in law is a huge leap forward, but I would like the Minister to focus on housing. I do not want to repeat and reheat what others have already said, but I wish him to consider three things in particular.

First, will the Minister consider enhanced accommodation allowances for our service personnel? Secondly, will he consider developing the shared equity scheme that the previous Government piloted? Thirdly—this one will cost him nothing—will he encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to sit down with banks and encourage them to offer forces-friendly and flexible mortgages, to help our servicemen and women? They need a stable, fixed address and the opportunity to put their feet on the property ladder. If they can do that, it will help us to reduce the £285 million a year bill on the 50,000 units of service family accommodation, which often needs to be upgraded. These people have put their lives on the line for us abroad. The very least we can do is offer them the opportunity of having a good home at home.

17:16

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I begin by acknowledging, as many others have, the welcome and historic breakthrough of enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. However, as the Prime Minister himself has said, the challenge is to make the Government live up to the obligations in it in reality. It is critical that we bring the aspirations that we all have for the covenant together with the realities that we are faced with in trying to deliver it.

The awful reality is that members of the armed forces and their families may have to face death or injury while they are serving. If the worst happens, it is extremely important to ensure that the right processes are in place and to make certain that the wishes of those who have been killed or wounded are carried out. I wish to focus my few remarks on that.

All armed forces personnel are advised in pre-deployment briefings to make a will. A form, MOD 106, is provided for the purpose. Unfortunately, no advice is given on making the will, nor is there any compulsion to do so. Little information is given to those serving on the risk of mental incapacity following a tour of duty, or on the fact that if there are such complications, the management of financial affairs will not be sufficiently dealt with by a will. In reality, members of the armed forces would need to have a legal power of attorney document to be used in those circumstances, but it must be registered before the mental incapacity happens to make it valid for use when an injury occurs.

Many complicating factors conspire to mean that in many cases, our service personnel may not be properly legally protected in such situations. First, there is a cultural battle. Many young men and women who want to serve are less likely to make a will, because they feel invincible before a tour of duty after undergoing sustained training, or sometimes because they do not want to tempt fate. Secondly, a will speaks only from death. Many personnel are under the misconception that a will covers all eventualities, including mental injury, but it will not. That means that there is a real need to deal with the legal power of attorney option properly.

The consequence of not having a legal power of attorney document can be far-reaching and cause enormous problems for those left behind. I have been made aware of the case of a young man who tragically lost his life. He had made a will, but did not have legal power of attorney in place in the right way, which caused some difficulties. The will was also out of date, which meant that the benefits did not go the people he intended them to. Similarly, another person was in the middle of an acrimonious divorce, and his will did not work as he wished. The outcome was that it did not accurately reflect his updated wishes, which caused major complications for his family.

As we know, more people who serve in the armed forces are surviving terrible injuries that they would not have survived 10 years ago. Some are unable to manage their affairs when they have recovered from physical injuries, which means that someone must do so on their behalf. An LPA would solve a lot of problems in such cases. It is true that an LPA pack can be downloaded from the Office of the Public Guardian, but it costs £130 to register the LPA when all the forms are completed. That will seem like a lot of money to service personnel, many of whom are young people who might believe that nothing will happen to them—an LPA is probably the last thing they want to spend their money on. Defence instructions mention that document, but I am given to understand that they lack detail and contain errors.

If no LPA is in place, a deputyship must be applied for on behalf of the injured service person, which can be extremely expensive, as can the ongoing maintenance costs of a professional deputyship. I am aware of one case of a deputyship costing about £60,000 per annum to service. Solicitors who manage compensation claims will choose to instruct a professional deputy when a lay deputy is perfectly viable, which drives up the costs that take away from compensation schemes—they will have to borne by the MOD.

I see this as a specific covenant issue: if we are prepared to send young people off to fight and possibly die or be gravely injured for their country, and if we invest so heavily in the correct equipment and training for them while they are on operations, we must also have a duty of care to ensure that their affairs are in the order that they would wish them to be in if they are injured or killed. We have concentrated on equally important matters until now, but this issue needs to be looked at again in more detail as part of the pastoral care package that is offered to service personnel.

I am not seeking to embarrass the MOD or the Minister—this is a constructive suggestion on which I have worked with hon. Members on both sides of the House—but the Mental Capacity Act 2005 made this issue real, which is why it needs further examination. What should be done? I would like all those on deployment, and ideally all service personnel, to have an up-to-date will and LPA in place. It would be best to have a will pre-enrolment, but personnel should certainly have one pre-deployment.

I have also had meetings with a group who have a proposal for an organisation called the services trust—I met the group earlier this week. They would like to assist the MOD and serving personnel with information on some of the gaps to which I have drawn the House’s attention. The group could also help with processing LPAs and could act as deputies if necessary.

It would be useful to train admin officers to give relevant information on the consequences of not writing a will or of having no LPA. In fact, the Office of the Public Guardian held a consultation on what groups of people should be exempted from the £130 LPA fee, but it did not include the MOD. That unnecessary oversight needs to be corrected.

It should be feasible to spread the cost of an LPA over a number of months and to take it from the wage packets of personnel at source. That is done for a variety of costs, and it would be a simple matter to add it to the joint personnel administration system. Payments could even be taken out with payments for the armed forces insurance scheme.

To return to where I began, the Government have made a commitment to the welfare of the armed forces by enshrining the covenant in law. It is essential that that commitment is extended to ensure that not only their financial and operational needs are met, but their legal needs. I respectfully ask the Minister to give an indication of whether he is prepared to meet me and other hon. Members, and representatives behind the services trust proposal, to establish what can be done to address that proven need in our armed forces.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the next speaker that she must resume her seat by half-past 5.

17:24

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a Royal Navy reservist, and I would add, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his seat, that I am a reservist who has to run 1.5 miles in a particular time each week and who, if she does not have an in-date fitness or swim test, is no longer trained, let alone deployed.

I wish to make a few brief points. The first concerns redundancies, particularly Royal Navy redundancies. As the picture becomes clearer, anomalies are emerging, as my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) alluded to. I am concerned about certain ships’ companies that have been particularly hard hit. I understand that as many as 10% of one ship’s company might be made redundant.

I am also concerned about badly hit families. For instance, one person in a couple, both of whom are serving, has volunteered for redundancy and the other has been made redundant. Both will lose their job and, because they are in service accommodation, their home as well. I have been reassured about how the redundancies are being managed, but I would like the Minister to reassure us that, as those things crop up, they will be dealt with.

The second point concerns the military covenant and local government representation. I urge the Minister to work with his colleagues in local government to ensure that, when they consult on local matters, such as planning, traffic-calming measures and so on, they take into account our servicemen and women, who might not be able to go to public meetings and vote on those things. Some straightforward things can be done to ensure that they are properly consulted and included in their community life.

The third point concerns the deployment of reservists. I want to stress to the Minister that, like the regulars, reservists join to be deployed. That is why we join; that is why we train. I urge him to ensure that our reservists get sea time and flying time. It is why they do the job.

I want to make a general point about the need in the House to broaden, as well as deepen, our understanding of the armed forces. I was proud to co-host, with the shadow Secretary of State, the House’s first-ever Trafalgar night a few weeks ago. One of our colleagues, who kindly came along to the event and was keen to help and learn more, approached a Royal Marine and, bravely, asked him what the hell the Army was doing at that event and what it had done at Trafalgar. That incident shows that someone is keen to learn more about our armed forces, but it also shows that there remains much ignorance in the House about what the armed forces do, who they are, the different colour uniforms and so on. I encourage all Members with an interest in defence to ensure that we learn more about our armed forces.

We have heard this afternoon that we have too many admirals and that the admiral-to-ship ratio is not as it should be, but I would really like an admiral to be looking after our nuclear deterrent. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) referred to the fleet-ready escort, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned other ways in which we protect the UK. I can reassure them that the fleet-ready escort has, is and, I am sure, always will be a standing commitment of the Royal Navy.

Finally, I want to put on the record my thanks to all the armed forces personnel who live and work in Portsmouth. I am optimistic about the future. I smiled when my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East caricatured our defence attachés, but I am sure that our latest appointment as defence attaché to the United States has nothing in common with Basil Fawlty.

17:29

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

Once again, we have had a good debate. Like others, I want to begin by expressing my condolences to the family and friends of the soldier from 4th Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment who was killed in Afghanistan and the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Sean Cunningham, who was so tragically killed in an accident.

Like others, I want to pay a personal tribute to the men and women of our armed forces and to their families, who are an integral part of what they do. As has been said, this day—the day before Armistice day—and the days before Remembrance Sunday could not be a more appropriate time to have this debate. I am sure that all of us in the Chamber today will take the time tomorrow to observe the two-minute silence and remember all who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country, in the many foreign lands where they served, to enable us all to experience the freedoms that are taken so much for granted.

Over the years this Chamber has witnessed many defence debates, in which strong views have been expressed in all parts of the House. However, the one aspect of those debates on which there has been general consensus is the paying of tribute to all who serve our country. That said, it was only natural that we would witness some dividing lines today, especially when so many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the reductions in the future numbers serving in our armed forces, and when many other elements arising from the debate on the strategic defence and security review have been raised.

In mentioning Remembrance Sunday, I also want to put it on record that the correct decision was reached in allowing the many holders of the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal to wear it proudly at the many services being held across the country on Sunday.

Let me turn to the many fine contributions that were made from both sides of the House. I want first to highlight the speech by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who started by talking about turmoil in the Ministry of Defence, redundancies and changes to allowances. He clearly laid out the role of his Committee—a good Select Committee, one that, frankly, does the business. He encouraged us to think about the debate about wearing a poppy. He said that he lays a wreath—let me tell him that he is worthy of laying a wreath—on behalf of his constituents. We all wear our poppies, as a public acknowledgement of that debt, respect and thanks. We wear them with pride in our country and for those who have given their lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) surprised me somewhat when he talked about canvassing in Kabul. I am sure that Members in all parts of the House would ask themselves, “Does this man have no boundaries at all? Is there no line that he wouldn’t cross?” He talked about the array of skills that people pick up, as he said, by default. It was interesting to hear about the concept that the Americans train warriors, whereas we train soldiers. We know that those we train and whom we put on the front line have additional work to do beyond that. There is a peacekeeping element that we train our military for. My hon. Friend is right, and what I think he wanted to do today was make a plea for more time to debate defence issues. When we look back at the number of debates we have had and what is happening with defence in this country, we see that we need more debates.

There has been a rich variety of contributions today. Let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier)—who, with perfect timing, has just appeared, as if by magic. I congratulate him on the part he has played in studying the whole issue of the reserves. He has what I would describe as limitless knowledge of the reservists, as he indicated when comparing them with reserve forces from other nations and how they prepare and perform. He has done a tremendous job. He was also critical of dysfunctional systems, and rightly so.

Another member of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), also contributed to the debate. It was interesting to hear that she spent Remembrance Sunday last year in Poland, and saw the commemoration of many aspects of the Polish resistance. We should never neglect our constituents or the work that we have to do in our constituencies, especially on Armistice day, but we should, if we can, take the opportunity to see how people from other nations view their history and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I was among several Members here tonight who gave up some time the other evening to listen to the RAF presentation team talk about Operation Ellamy, and it was interesting to hear the recognition of the support for and from our NATO allies.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems of short notice to deploy, and of families feeling isolated when they are left behind. Help is really important in those circumstances. I do not come from a military family, but I know from talking to my constituents and from contacts in my area that, when people are left alone, perhaps with children, it is more than family help that is required. We must be able to give families further support.

My hon. Friend also expressed disquiet—I will put it no more strongly than that—at the treatment of the Royal British Legion in the light of its struggle over the covenant. At the end of the day, however, I think that we, as a Parliament, got there, and that is what matters more than anything else.

The “forces’ pensioner”, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), was right to say that the covenant must be applied right across the country, and that there must be no differential between one location and another. It must be there for all. I saw him last week in Westminster tube station collecting for the poppy appeal. All credit to him and others who did likewise. When I left London last Thursday morning for Swindon, I saw a Guardsman doing the same on Paddington station. When I returned some eight hours later, he was still there. He was in uniform, and he was attracting people to make a significant financial contribution. It is through such sterling work that people show their support for the poppy appeal.

[Mr Robathan]

People collecting at tube stations is a new addition, and the hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that the London poppy appeal has already raised more than £430,000. I think that that is the correct figure.

[Mr Brown]

If that is the case, we should congratulate all those who have made the effort to reach that sum.

The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire also mentioned 2014. We often commemorate wars coming to an end, but he is right to suggest that we should commemorate and reflect on the outbreak of the great war. I fully support his proposal. I must, however, share with the House a certain anxiety, because 2014 is also the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn, and I suspect that some people—not necessarily from my party, but from others—might wish to celebrate that as well.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made a poignant speech in which he clearly impressed on all of us the significance of this weekend. That was not lost on anyone. The hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) has had to leave for another engagement but he said that it was important to get manning levels right. We are expected to do just as much as before, but with less, so the manning levels have got to be right. He shared with us his concerns about the reservist figures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) referred to her concern about the chief coroner’s office and the issue of homelessness and resettlement, which a number of Members have raised.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) spoke about the covenant, housing and health care. As to the strategic defence and security review, he made it clear that when it came to redundancies there should not be a cut in the resettlement package.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) referred to the tragedy in her constituency during the second world war. As others emphasised, she too highlighted the need to protect and preserve memorials and I say to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that legislation that might be relevant is already in place—though I stand to be corrected—regarding the handling of stolen goods. The question is how honest those in a position to receive something are going to be about reporting the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow also mentioned the chief coroner’s office and said, basically, “Think again.”

The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned the Special Boat Service, his support for the covenant and the importance of overall assistance for families. He also referred to social housing and housing waiting lists. Let me share with the House the fact that one of my registered social landlords has, thankfully within the last two or three weeks, agreed that when people know they are about to leave the forces, he will treat them as having been in tied accommodation and make a serious attempt to house people before they leave the military. That, I think, is the first registered social landlord in the whole of Scotland who is doing this. I hope that good practice like that can be shared with others. People who have served in the military should not find themselves homeless on leaving it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), whose partner is currently serving, talked about the vulnerability of individuals. This was a speech I would have expected from her because of her deep concern about the debt problems that people can face. There are issues there: with the Royal British Legion ending support for people with debt problems, more needs to be done.

I am conscious of the time and want to hear the Minister speak. Let me quickly say that there were good contributions from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who spoke about mental health issues and combat stress, while my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) made loud and clear a plea for the veterans who were victims of nuclear tests.

Incidentally, the Minister pointed out that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was responsible for the weather when he was the Minister, but I have also been assured that he was the Minister for UFOs—but we will not go into that.

The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned military accommodation, as we would expect, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) paid tribute to the Royal British Legion and local support for military personnel. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) raised her concerns about search and rescue and the important matter of the length and frequency of deployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke about regimental associations and service charities, and the need for ongoing support for veterans on all fronts.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was the first to speak about the inheritance with which his Government was left and he also spoke about the strategic defence and security review. Only time will tell how strategic it is, but let us hope that there will be no serious consequences.

The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) spoke about service housing, which, as he said, is a vitally important subject. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for allowing me to attend the meeting on the services trust the other day. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take all that on board. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) made important points about redundancies, and about those who should qualify for the diamond jubilee medal.

I must end my speech there, although there are other issues that I should have liked to raise. We have heard some excellent contributions that gave us plenty of food for thought, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

17:45

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

Let me add my condolences to those that have been expressed in relation to all our service personnel who have been killed in Afghanistan. It would have been strange if we had not all shed a tear at some stage for those who have come back from that country in coffins. Let me also mention, in particular, the Red Arrows pilot who was killed in a tragic accident earlier this week.

This is a fitting day for our debate, and, just in case anyone thought that the timing was a coincidence, let me make it clear that it was not. Over the next few days, ceremonies will take place and wreaths will be laid throughout the nation to commemorate local sacrifices and local heroes. I am sure that every Member in the Chamber will be taking part in them. In Afghanistan, services will be held to remember not only the many who have given their lives in past, but friends and colleagues whose memory is very fresh and very real.

Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), mentioned the appalling desecration of war memorials. One can hardly believe that it takes place, and it reflects very sadly on those responsible. I have my own views on what punishment they should receive, but all I ask is that an exemplary punishment be imposed when some of them are caught, for reasons that we all understand. That is not Government policy; it is only my own opinion.

I am sure the whole House agrees that the nation’s true feelings towards the armed forces, particularly the fallen, have been demonstrated spontaneously over the last few years by the people of Royal Wootton Bassett, and, now, outside Brize Norton. It is about honouring the debt to the fallen.

I believe that 25 Members spoke in the debate. I shall respond to some of them as quickly as I can, and I hope the House will forgive me if I do not take interventions.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about a great many things, but I thought that the tone of his speech was churlish, if I may quote my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. The record will show that it was depressingly partisan and carping, and self-congratulatory at the same time.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned pensions and the change from RPI to CPI. I declare an interest: I am in receipt of a military pension. The hon. Gentleman knows that public sector pensions must be sustainable. The public sector pension time bomb has featured in the newspapers and other media for well over a decade, and it is incumbent on Governments to make difficult decisions. The previous Government ignored the time bomb, but this Government are dealing with it. In Greece and elsewhere in the eurozone, untrammelled Government spending and debt are leading to huge problems. It is no good the hon. Gentleman’s shaking his head; I am afraid that that is what is happening.

Many Members raised the issue of the chief coroner, and I understand why people become concerned about it. It is incredibly important for coroners to be properly trained, and we are taking steps to ensure that they are. We are looking at ways in which we can improve the position still further. That is, of course, the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. The question is, do we want box-ticking or do we want results? The answer is that we want results.

In my view, the campaign on this issue has been somewhat depressingly overstated. According to a document that I have here, recent ComRes polls clearly support the case for a chief coroner. Sixty-six per cent. of people questioned

“believe that a Chief Coroner is needed to ensure that coroners treat bereaved Armed Forces families sensitively.”

The poll was taken in September, before it really got going, and I suggest that 95% of people on the streets of our constituencies had never heard of the issue before that. What is important is the results of inquests and the good treatment of people at them, and we will get that right.

The hon. Gentleman told us a mere seven times that he had been a Minister, yet he took no responsibility for the dreadful state of affairs that we inherited in the MOD. There was a £38 billion black hole. [Interruption.] There most certainly was. Much as he may carp about the painful decisions taken in the strategic defence and security review, he must also answer for his responsibility as a member of the previous Government.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chairman of the Select Committee, brought us back to a more balanced view of life. He made a very sensible and thoughtful contribution, and I especially agree with him about wearing poppies.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) also made a thoughtful speech, in which he rightly emphasised the legal and moral complexities of armed forces’ international work, as well as the practical issues of support and equipment. I thank him for that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) for his work on Future Reserves 2020, and I agree with him about young Territorial Army officers. I am looking into the security issues involving 7 Rifles officers, but I understand the people concerned had left several years earlier. We should be pragmatic and sensible on this issue, however. Since I first entered the House a depressingly long time ago, my hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of the reserves.

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) reminded us of the whole nation’s role and responsibilities in respect of the defence of the nation. She also reminded us of the excellent performance in Libya of the RAF, the Navy and, indeed, some soldiers. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for his excellent work on prosthetics and mental health, and I look forward to hearing more from him about world war one, and to working with him on plans for world war one commemorations.

The hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is no longer present, but he drew our attention to remembrance and to our responsibility in this place to the armed forces, and especially to bereaved families. I agree with him on that.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is also not present. He said there were 15 three-star generals, and I may not at the time have responded accurately; I said there were not that many, but I may have given the wrong number. There are, in fact, eight three-star generals in the Army at present. He made a valuable point about the fitness of reservists—and I know he will be leading by example on that.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) paid tribute to James Eastwood and his parents, and I agree. Everyone who serves in Afghanistan deserves proper treatment, although I am not sure that a chief coroner would improve the service received by bereaved families. We are certainly concerned about anybody who is homeless, including ex-service personnel. It was said that 25% of homeless people are ex-service personnel. I think that would have been an exaggeration even 10 or 15 years ago. The proportion now is approximately 3% or 4%.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) made an important point about fragile states and concerns about Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development involvement. I will look into the issue of the 217 Field Squadron (EOD) reserve, and I will be happy to speak to him about it.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) reminded us of the sacrifice east enders made in the second world war, and we agree entirely about vandalism to war memorials.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned the constant need to maintain, refurbish and upgrade housing. All of us who own houses know about that, so I agree, but that is particularly difficult and the previous Government found it difficult and worked hard on it as well.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has taken a break from tweeting or twittering—or whatever the Prime Minister called it. She raised an important point about debt. I had not heard of QuickQuid and the targeting of service personnel, but we are not complacent and I have asked questions about this already. This specific point has never been raised with me, however, and I will look into it further. She was talking in particular about those who have left the services being targeted. All personnel get financial planning as part of their phase 1 training. That will include advice on not taking on a loan at ridiculous interest rates—I agree with her about that. Furthermore, we put particular emphasis on resettlement training, including for those early service leavers. I have never heard of payday loans, but I will look into the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), who is a champion for his constituency and for the Royal Marines, concentrated on mental health issues, raising very real problems. I walk on eggshells when discussing mental health issues, because the subject is very difficult, but we and the armed forces are very concerned about it. Again, I refer him to the “Fighting Fit” report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire and to the work we do with Combat Stress.

I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) about the standard in St Mary’s church in Risca, because I believe that the reredos behind the altar is in fact a memorial to my great grandfather, but I will check it out. He referred to some lawyers as “bloodsuckers”—his term, not mine. All I would say is that those who served in the 1950s, when of course there was national service, deserve our respect. They were doing their duty when they were at the nuclear tests. We do study these things and, in fact, if someone was in the forces, including in that cohort who witnessed the nuclear tests, they are less likely to be dead by now—their mortality rate is lower—than those who were civilians at the time. So we need always to work on the basis of facts rather than emotion on this. Those people who have suffered or think that they have suffered as a result of their service watching the nuclear tests have been given war pensions, because the balance of probability means that it is very much on the Ministry of Defence to prove that we were not responsible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester stood up for the armed forces, as always, and I would like to thank him for his great contributions to the debates on the armed forces and on the Armed Forces Bill. I say to him that mouldy carpets are absolutely not acceptable and I thought he was a very brave Liberal Democrat to quote from the Daily Mail.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that people in Northern Ireland have every right to be proud of their contribution to the UK’s armed forces, and I agree entirely. I was discussing that contribution only yesterday with Edwin Poots, the Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we also talked about the Camp Bastion medical facilities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I look forward to hearing his next contribution in Welsh.

I will need to come back to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) on search and rescue, but she did ask an interesting question about manning discrepancies between RAF and Royal Navy helicopters. I am told that they are not that large, but we can see. I have been to the Naval Families Federation in Portsmouth, and she is absolutely right to say that the harmony arrangements in the Royal Navy are extremely difficult. I am sorry about the redundancy announcements. They are actually chosen not by Ministers, but by the armed forces and single services. However, she made a very good point about timings. All redundancies are painful, and that is certainly the case when they are compulsory.

The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), to whom I pay tribute for his work as veterans Minister, was right about the situation in 1919. We have moved on, for a number of reasons, but I am old enough to remember the stories about ex-servicemen with one leg selling matchsticks on the corner. We have gone a long way beyond that, and rightly so, but we must go further still. He referred to the bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces in Afghanistan and the need for success there, and I am entirely with him on that.

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for his work as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the MOD and I am delighted to see that he has a new job in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [Interruption.] He has got another job, so the hon. Member for North Durham should not worry. My hon. Friend made my speech for me on both our policies and the early failings of the Afghanistan campaign.

I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) for his work on the Armed Forces Bill. I agree with him about the serious housing issues, on which we will continue our work. We have a group, involving the Housing Minister, that discusses the difficulties that service personnel face in buying houses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) raised the important issue of wills. I recently met a young lady who made some sensible suggestions on this subject. Her fiancé was killed in Afghanistan and she has had the most terrible time. We are looking at this, but we cannot compel people to make wills. We are including a software check-box that people must tick if they have not completed a will. I will certainly talk to my hon. Friend further about this issue; I am very happy to meet him to discuss it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about naval redundancies, which are painful. Community covenants, which we introduced, allow local government organisations to take proper note of service families. I agree that reservists want to deploy and about the need for education. That is why I commend the armed forces parliamentary scheme for the work it has done for so many people.

Our soldiers, sailors and airmen are good people and they deserve our respect. We have had to take some very difficult decisions in the light of the dreadful state of the defence programme that we inherited. That is a matter of regret, but I am proud of what we have achieved in the past 18 months. Tomorrow—

18:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Government statement today on Project Avanti, which is about Army restructuring, is very interesting, and is made all the more so because it appeared in an American defence magazine on 7 November. It is important that we understand why the American defence community knew about the statement in quite a lot of detail, including naming names, three days before the House did. Will the Secretary of State for Defence, when he is available, come to the House to give an explanation or, at the very least, instigate an investigation within the Department into how that happened?

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not aware of that. I will most certainly ensure that it is looked into very closely and I will let the hon. Lady know.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I hope that has clarified the point of order. The Speaker has let it be known on several occasions that when Government announcements are made, they should be made to the House first.

petition

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

18:01

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I am pleased to present a petition on the subject of the Dartford crossing on behalf of my constituents in Thurrock. The petition has been prompted by the Government’s announcement that they intend to increase tolls at the Dartford crossing and to make proposals for an additional crossing in the lower Thames, the three options under consideration all passing through the constituency of Thurrock. Some 2,000 signatures have been collected on this petition and similar ones run by the Thurrock Gazette and by the community forums in Bulphan, Orsett and Chadwell St Mary.

The petition reads:

The Petition of residents of Thurrock and others,

Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to any increase in the tolls charged for the Dartford Crossing and any option for a new Thames crossing in the south Thames area, which the Petitioners believe would involve the building of new roads in Thurrock and increased congestion on Thurrock’s already crowded road network.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to reduce tolls on the Dartford Crossing and to reconsider proposals for a new Thames crossing in the lower Thames area.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P000981]

Woodhaven Hospital

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(James Duddridge.)

18:02

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

I am particularly pleased to see the Minister on the Front Bench tonight. I know of his care and compassion on the topic of mental health.

Woodhaven hospital is a state-of-the-art mental health unit set in a therapeutic, semi-rural but easily accessible location in my constituency. Its acute Winsor ward has, unusually, en suite facilities for all 24 in-patients and other top-of-the-range features. It was a proud and happy moment for me when I cut the ribbon to open the new hospital just eight short years ago. Now, to the immense distress of service users and their carers, Woodhaven is threatened with closure.

Currently, 165 acute in-patient mental health beds are available to the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. They are in six units throughout Hampshire, as follows: 50 beds at Antelope House in Southampton, 25 each for men and for women; 20 beds at Elmleigh in East Hampshire, 10 each for men and for women; 24 beds at The Meadows in Fareham, 10 each for men and for women and four more, known as flexible beds, which can be used for either; 23 beds at Melbury Lodge in Winchester, 13 for men and 10 for women; 24 beds at Parklands in Basingstoke, seven for men and 16 for women, plus one flexible bed; and finally, the 24 beds at Woodhaven in my New Forest East constituency, 10 each for men and for women, plus four flexible beds.

The foundation trust proposes to close Woodhaven, which is virtually brand new, and The Meadows, which is also quite modern. That would reduce the total available beds in the region from 165 to 117. However, of the 50 beds at Antelope House that have been available for acute cases up to the present, 10 are to be allocated to long-term, challenging in-patients, effectively reducing the total number of acute in-patient beds that will be available in future to only 107. The foundation trust has suggested that some of the future occupants of the 10 beds might come from other acute beds out of the 165 total, but it seems much more likely that the 10 beds at Antelope House will be allocated to residents from Abbotts Lodge, a different kind of unit that is not included in the 165-bed total and will be shut. For that reason, the real reduction in available acute in-patient beds will be from 165 to only 107.

Those 107 acute beds will contain two distinct categories of in-patient: those who are voluntary and those who have been detained. On what I believe to have been a typical day in mid-October, and on a similar day this month, when 153 beds were in use across the whole trust area, no fewer than 88 were occupied by in-patients detained under the Mental Health Act. That constitutes 53%—just over half—of the existing 165 available acute beds. With only 107 beds available in future, that 53% figure will rise to approximately 82%. Conversely, the proportion for voluntary in-patients who are acutely mentally ill will fall from about 47% to just 18%. In practice, there will be only about 19 beds left for the whole of the trust area in Hampshire for acutely mentally ill people who voluntarily go into hospital.

That will have a huge and negative effect on patient choice. There will be little chance of choosing or obtaining an acute in-patient bed, as four fifths of them will be occupied by people who have had to be detained because they will not voluntarily agree to admission. Indeed, someone who desperately wants an in-patient bed would be well advised to create sufficient mayhem in order to be sectioned, if they are to have a reasonable chance of gaining admission. Once admitted, the voluntary in-patients will find that the effect of the greatly increased preponderance of detained in-patients in each of the four remaining units in Hampshire will be to make their wards significantly less therapeutic. Should the trust be thinking of such a huge reduction in bed totals at all?

I should say at this point that there is no fundamental philosophical disagreement between me and the representatives of the district and county councils on the one hand, and the management of the trust on the other. The trust’s spokesmen consistently agree that some acute in-patient beds will always be needed. For our part, my colleagues and I have no doubt of the value of strong community, assertive outreach, crisis resolution and early intervention services at home.

The key question that must be resolved—I hope that it will be resolved as a result of this debate—is simply what is the correct number of acute in-patient beds in Hampshire. Naturally, the trust maintains that by investing in extra services at home some people will be prevented from deteriorating to the point where they need to occupy acute in-patient beds, but I believe that stripping out more than one third of the existing beds, as the trust proposes, cannot possibly be justified.

Of course, the trust ought to make efficiency savings. It states that closing two out of six acute in-patient units in the area will save £4.4 million, £1.5 million of which is intended to be invested in what was previously described as a “virtual ward” but is now more sensibly described as a “hospital-at-home” service. The remaining £2.9 million is, of course, an easy way to make a significant annual saving, but it is not an efficient way, especially when one considers that, according to an Audit Commission survey, Hampshire already has the highest number of staff per 1,000 of the population in community mental health teams out of 46 trusts examined. Cutting front-line services and making efficiency savings are two very different things.

Twenty-six acute beds per 100,000 people is the current average among the 46 mental health trusts surveyed. The Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust has 28 beds per 100,000 and expects that figure to go down to 21 if the two units, including Woodhaven hospital, are closed. I believe that the actual total would be just under 20 beds per 100,000 people. At the moment, with 28 beds, we are in the top 19 of the 46 trusts. Whether we go down to 21 acute beds per 100,000 or to just 20, we shall be in the bottom six, and that is an immense gamble to take with the welfare of people who, almost by definition, are at risk of losing their lives.

Every day, the trust files a record of how many beds were vacant out of the total of 165, and at my request it has provided a print-out for the past three months. This shows, beyond any doubt, that bed occupancy levels are consistently high. Let us remember that we are considering 165 beds, spread over almost all of Hampshire and serving hundreds of thousands of people. The trust’s tables give a breakdown of the numbers of male and female beds vacant each day, and the numbers of so-called “leave” beds temporarily empty. Leave beds are those that have already been allocated to in-patients, but that are not being used for short periods, because their occupants are spending typically one, two or three nights at home. Even when leave beds are counted together with genuinely vacant beds, the total number of empty beds throughout the area is low—often, indeed, in single figures. Thus, from 21 September to 6 October this year, the overall daily totals were respectively nine, seven, five, five, seven, three, three, three, four, 11, nine, nine, eight, nine, seven and six empty beds out of 165. When one excludes the leave beds, however, as one should because they have not been genuinely vacated, one is left with numerous instances of 100% acute bed occupancy for the whole region. For example, there were no vacant male beds at all on 2, 7, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20 to 24 and 26 September; in the same month, there were no vacant female beds on 7, 10, 11, 16 to 18, 20, 23, 24, and 26 to 29; and on September 3, 4 and 25, gender information not being available for those three dates, there was either only one male and no female acute beds available, or only one female and no male beds available in the entire trust area in Hampshire.

Of course, one can debate how much use can safely and regularly be made of at least some of the leave beds that are temporarily vacant.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know from previous debates that one can have occupancy rates above 100% because sometimes, in emergencies, leave beds are drafted into use.

[Dr Lewis]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point, as I am for him being here to support me tonight. I know of his great interest in the subject.

Using the trust’s own figures, I have calculated the average acute in-patient bed occupancy over the three months from August to October. Even if all the leave beds are counted as available, which they are not, bed occupancy was 91.9%, and the figure would be higher if weekends were excluded, given the number of people who go home for short periods at those times. When only the genuinely vacant beds are considered, the average occupancy rate is seen to have been a remarkable 96.7%.

One of the most extraordinary assertions in the consultation document on the proposed changes is to be found on page 11, where it declares:

“The time that people are spending in our…hospitals is longer than the national average (our average length of stay is 51 days (including leave) compared to below 30 days (excluding leave) in other Trusts).”

That is an extraordinary manipulation of the data, as it contrasts the total of days spent on and off the wards in our trust area with the total of days spent only on the wards in other trust areas. A glimpse of the true situation is again to be found in the tables drawn up by the Audit Commission. In referring to all mental health admissions in the Hampshire PCT area, which is not quite the same as the foundation trust area but is a reasonable general guide, the Audit Commission states:

“Hampshire PCT is below the national average”

for length of stay. I do not know whether the trust’s blatant and gross failure to compare like with like was deliberate, but the public, their local representatives and Ministers are surely entitled to ask what the average length of stay excluding leave is in Hampshire’s acute beds, and what the average length of stay including leave is in the acute beds of other trusts, so that real rather than bogus comparisons can be made.

Time prevents a more detailed dissection of other dubious claims made by the trust. Its spokesmen refer to the acutely mentally ill suffering “disempowerment” as a result of spending what is usually a relatively short time on an in-patient ward. Most frequently, it insists that

“people have consistently told us they want to be at home”.

Such claims fly in the face of what we hear from service users and especially from carers, who want the assurance that an acute bed will be available when it is needed. I have yet to discover what, if any, systematic survey was undertaken to arrive at that conclusion. Who carried it out? How many people were surveyed? What questions were asked? The trust says that its soundings showed a desire for:

“Care within a community setting where possible, and avoiding going into hospital unless it is necessary.”

Well amen to that; we can all sign up to that, but that is a very different proposition from wishing to see a more than one-third cut in available beds that have an average occupancy rate of between at least 91.9% and 96.7%.

Only five out of the 46 trusts listed by the Audit Commission have 20 beds or fewer per 100,000 of the population. Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust wishes us to follow that example. Its consultation says that that small minority of trusts

“deliver good or excellent standards of care”,

and it recently identified four of those five trusts in a presentation to me and others. Although the overall ratings for those four trusts are, indeed, good or excellent, the picture is different where in-patient services are concerned: none of the four is rated as excellent, two are rated as good, a third is rated only as fair, and the fourth is rated as weak.

At meetings with the trust, I and my colleague, County Councillor Keith Mans—a former and distinguished Member of this House—have stressed the need for the new hospital-at-home model to be piloted before any of the six in-patient units is closed. If this exercise is really about “Improving Outcomes for Hampshire’s Adult Mental Health Services”—as the consultation document is entitled—rather than about saving £2.9 million a year, then acute in-patient beds should not be discarded until pilot projects clearly show significant reductions in the current very high levels of acute bed occupancy.

We need a step-by-step approach that clearly rules out the present plan to remove not just one but two modern mental health units, including Woodhaven hospital, right at the start. It is distinctly probable that the overview and scrutiny committee of Hampshire county council may decide to refer this matter to the Secretary of State. This evening, I look to the Minister for two assurances.

First, I want an assurance that Woodhaven hospital, which is so valued by our community, will not be closed until objective and independent surveys have been carried out assessing whether there really are dozens of people in beds for the acutely ill in Hampshire who do not need to be there. Secondly, I want an assurance that Woodhaven will remain open until a pilot scheme has demonstrated that the proposed hospital-at-home scheme is starting to reduce the current high levels of acute bed occupancy. It cannot be right that in-patient beds should be cut to 107 for the whole trust area in Hampshire, so that we are left with a woefully inadequate total of about 19 for voluntary in-patients once all those detained under the Mental Health Act have been accommodated. People’s lives are at stake.

18:20

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) on securing the debate and on being, as ever, so thorough and detailed in his exposition of the case that he puts before the House. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work of the staff who work within the NHS in his constituency.

I want to set out the current position, as I understand it from the briefings that I have had over the past few days, and to respond to several of my hon. Friend’s specific points. I assure him that under the proposals for adult mental health redesign set out by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Woodhaven hospital will not close but will change the nature of what is provided. I want to make it clear that there is a continuing NHS future for the facility, albeit not the one that he believes to be appropriate.

While the trust recommends that the acute adult mental health ward is withdrawn from Woodhaven, the excellent hospital which my hon. Friend opened eight years ago and which the community should rightly be proud of will continue to offer specialist adult mental health services. The aim of these changes is to provide the right mix of community and bed-based care—this debate centres on what that balance is—and ultimately the best possible support for people in his constituency who use these services.

My hon. Friend will be aware that during the 18-month engagement with the public that took place prior to the statutory consultation, the majority of patients consulted said—this is one of the areas that he challenges—that they wanted to be treated in the community. As a general principle in any field of health care, the more we can focus on prevention and on supporting people in their homes so that they retain their independence and stay connected with their communities, the better the outcomes we can achieve. The principles behind the trust’s proposed redesign can therefore be pinned squarely to the views of local people, and this is where I want to reassure my hon. Friend a little further. I understand that, through the consultation, the trust has been told this on repeated occasions. I have a quote from one service user:

“I was unfortunate enough to need the services of the home treatment team over Christmas 2008 and New Year 2009, but due to the care I received from the team I didn’t need to be admitted to hospital and I was able to stay at home with my husband and son.”

Clearly, my hon. Friend disputes the evidence that the trust is putting forward about whether patients want to be treated at home, but it is for this reason that it is recommending the integrated model for mental health services in Hampshire and the reinvestment of savings from acute services into community services. However, I will ensure that he is supplied with further evidence on these points so that he can satisfy himself and his constituents that the trust is basing its decisions on reasonable evidence.

Additional community services will ensure that patients receive flexible and bespoke care packages in their home wherever possible, even when acutely unwell. The intention of the proposals will mean that people are admitted to hospital only if it is clear that hospital is the best place for them to receive their treatment. The trust tells me that treatment and care for patients will be provided in the most appropriate and therapeutic environment for the patient and that acute beds should be available for those who need them. However, when local trusts propose changes to existing services, the public should be closely consulted. Again, my hon. Friend obviously feels that that is not what has happened. In the case of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, service user involvement projects and carers’ groups from across the county have worked closely with the trust to develop the proposals for the redesign.

I want to deal with a couple of the specific statistical points that my hon. Friend set out so clearly. He has demonstrated something that does not always happen in these debates, in that someone has done a lot of detailed research to try to nail the issue that he is most concerned about. First, I want to deal with the proportion of people detained versus those in voluntary admission. He referred to two days’ worth of data that he had collected and his conclusion that 53% of people were detained in those circumstances. However, I understand that over the past six months, on average, 22% of people admitted to the trust’s adult acute beds have been detained under the Mental Health Act. I have asked the trust to write to my hon. Friend with those figures so that he can see more data.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

The trust did fax me some figures of that sort. However, they did not make sense because when they were added up, the total was way below the number of beds that had been occupied. I honestly think that the trust is wrong on these proportions.

[Paul Burstow]

That is why I think it is right for the trust, having read this debate, to follow it up by writing to my hon. Friend. I know that he has been engaging with it face-to-face as well, and I am sure that he will continue to do so.

My hon. Friend made a point about the trust anticipating the effectiveness of the whole clinical pathway and about the focus on the most unwell reducing the number of people admitted under the Mental Health Act, in addition to reducing voluntary admissions.

My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of whether one counts leave beds. It is common for people who have been detained in hospital to have a period of leave from the ward before they are discharged. That can vary from a few days to several months. The beds for leave patients are not kept empty, but are made available for other acute admissions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said. It is therefore important to count leave beds when considering capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East set out clearly his concern about bed occupancy and the impact of leave beds. I will make sure that the trust considers this issue carefully as it draws together the feedback from the consultation before its forthcoming discussion with the Hampshire overview and scrutiny committee. I will ensure that his concerns about length of stay, which he set out so clearly, are put to it.

My hon. Friend made a request for a pilot. Although I will not go quite as far as he would like tonight, it might help if I provide him with some information about the process that the trust has put in place to evaluate and assess the proposed changes. I understand that it has invited the Centre for Mental Health to do an independent review of the proposals, which is expected to be complete within a month. The trust’s research and development department is also completing a thorough evaluation of proposals, comparing a range of quality measures at baseline and after implementation.

On the next steps, the trust has been in discussions with the Hampshire health overview and scrutiny committee, and it has been agreed that the trust will hold a number of stakeholder meetings. It is expected that the trust will return to the health overview and scrutiny committee at the end of this month and present a written report that describes the themes from the consultation feedback and the progress that has been made in those meetings. The trust will then make suggestions on the next steps, which it will agree with the health overview and scrutiny committee, with a view to reaching final decisions in early 2012. As I understand it, any changes will be implemented by the trust in a phased, transitional approach over a period of time, not as a big bang.

The trust will, of course, keep my hon. Friend fully informed. I know that he has been diligent in pursuing the trust with his concerns. I encourage him to carry on that dialogue. I again congratulate him on securing this debate and for clearly articulating his concerns on behalf of his constituents. I hope that I have been able to articulate some of the points that the trust has put to me and I look forward to a conclusion of this matter in the new year.

Question put and agreed to.

18:28

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 10th November 2011 Westminster Hall

Thursday 10 November 2011

[John Robertson in the Chair]

backbench business

Social Care Funding

Thursday 10th November 2011 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Mr Vara.)

14:30

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, as it will be to speak under Mr Bone’s chairmanship later. I thank hon. Members for coming along to the debate. Given the importance of the debate in the main Chamber on armed forces personnel, the level of support in this Chamber shows how important this topic is to our constituents and to people throughout the country.

The question of who pays for care has vexed politicians for decades. There has been no shortage of good ideas, based on evidence garnered from the many Government reviews and commissions over the years, but there has been a failure in political will, resulting in only limited action being taken. However, demographic change and its impact is now an issue moving rapidly up the political agenda. All parties have signalled a desire for a long-term, all-party solution to the care crisis. It is clear that now is the time for us to take action.

During the debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, there was little dissent from the view that the integration of health and social care is a good thing. In the Budget debate, there was no opposition to NHS money being given to councils to integrate services. The Care and Support Alliance, made up of more than 52 major organisations representing older and disabled people, those with long-term conditions and their families, has come together to support reform. Polling evidence from ICM last year showed that 62% of the public saw care reform as one of the most important issues for the Government to focus on, and more than 50% of people felt that political parties were not doing enough to work together to improve care for older people. There is therefore a clear mandate from the people whom we represent to work together to find solutions to the problems.

The coalition Government clearly understand, and are committed to reform. They set up the Commission on Funding of Care and Support under the leadership of Andrew Dilnot, who was supported by Lord Norman Warner and Dame Jo Williams. Their report, published in May, described the care funding system in England as “not fit for purpose” and needing “urgent and lasting reform”. From our constituency work, we all know that there is great uncertainty and that people are worried about the future, but most people are realistic. Just as they know that they should save for their old age, they know that they will need to make contributions to the cost of their care in later life. They crave a clear path, set out by the Government, that shows them how the costs will be fairly borne—how they will be divided fairly between themselves and the state. Above all, people want to be relieved of the fear and worry about the availability and quality of care as well as how they will pay for it should they need it.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she think that our constituents are also ambitious about what they want care in the future to look like, and that the challenge for the Government is not just about finding ways to fund what currently goes on, but about considering how we meet the massive unmet need in dementia care, for example? I am thinking of bathing facilities and all the other things that we want our constituents to have but that too many of them do not have access to at all.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the fact that there is inconsistency across the country in the quality and type of care available. The best care, which some people experience, should be available for everyone. We all want that for our constituents. As people in their 50s grow older, they will have far greater demands, which will be different from those of the generation now in their 90s or over 100. They will be looking to technology and innovation to come up with a range of services that will support them in leading life to the full, and in living healthily and productively as part of society, for as long as possible, so I agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

We know from our debate in this Chamber last week on the quality of care that elderly people experience in some parts of the NHS and from other care providers that the vast majority of people of all ages want elderly people and people with disabilities to be shown far greater kindness and respect. The commission says that the main failings of the current system are that it is confusing, is perceived to be unfair and is unsustainable.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene, particularly as I have indicated that, unfortunately, I cannot stay for the whole debate, which I had wanted to do. I hope that we can emphasise the point that as people are living much longer, it is an exponential curve. The incidence of dementia and Parkinson’s disease means that the need is far greater than a simple look at the graph would suggest. The cost is going to just take off. We need a Government policy that deals with that and recognises the huge changes that we will face.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, reminding us that people are living much longer, because the causes of mortality that prevented people from living so long in the past—especially cardiovascular disease and some cancers—are now more survivable, so people suffer from other conditions, which are sometimes far more complex to live with and to treat, especially diseases such as dementia and Parkinson’s. The fact that people are living well into their 80s and 90s and beyond 100 presents new challenges for the NHS and a range of other services—indeed, for society as a whole—so my hon. Friend makes a very good point.

The commission goes on to say that most people are unable to plan ahead to meet their future care costs. Assessment processes are unclear. Eligibility varies according to where people live, and there is no portability if people move between local authorities. The provision of information and advice is poor, and services often fail to join up. All of that means that people and their families often do not have a good experience.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what she has said. One of the key tools is integrating the NHS with social care, so that we can have a much more seamless approach to caring for people, and they understand where they can go for support. I am talking about breaking down the unnatural barriers between local areas, as well as about the funding that is necessary and a more transparent understanding.

[Sarah Newton]

I am sure that that is right. It is certainly a point that the Dilnot commission and people who have responded to it have made. They are very supportive of the Government’s plans to integrate social care with the health service.

It is a major worry for most families that they cannot protect themselves against the very high costs of care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) pointed out, looking after people with dementia can involve very considerable costs. However, the availability and choice of financial products to support people in meeting care costs is limited.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the highest priorities for the allocation of funds should be to support those families who care for elderly relatives at home? They often make great sacrifices and incur great costs. We must ensure that we give them the recognition and appreciation that they deserve, and one way in which we can tangibly do that is by ensuring that they have clear access to support from funds. Often, a very small amount of funding can make a big difference to those families and can ensure that they are able to continue caring for their relatives in their own homes for much longer. Should we not be treating that as a priority?

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) makes her point very passionately, as she always does, in standing up for the family. Of course, it is the family who take full responsibility in most cases for the care of elderly people, but we must remember that the funding of adult social care is also available for adults living with disabilities. Families are the foundation of all care at the moment. I am sure that, with the Government’s support, they will continue to be the core building block of the care system. She is quite right to raise that issue so that we can all show appreciation for the huge army of people who are quietly getting along each day to provide invaluable support to their loved ones.

The commission made a series of key recommendations. I cannot do justice to the report in the time that I have available, but to help our debate, I will summarise them briefly. The major one is to cap the lifetime contribution that an individual needs to make to adult social care costs to £35,000. Not everyone will be able to afford to make a personal contribution, so the commission recommended that means-tested support should continue and that the asset threshold for those in residential care, beyond which no means-tested help is given, should increase from £23,250, as it is today, to £100,000. Those who enter adulthood with a care and support need should immediately be eligible for free state support.

The commission also recommended reconsideration of the existing benefits that support the elderly. People should contribute to their living costs, which the commission estimated as between £7,000 and £10,000 a year. It recommended that the Government should urgently develop a more objective eligibility and assessment framework and that they should encourage people to plan ahead for later life with an awareness campaign, and develop a major new information and advice strategy to help people when the need for care arises. Carers should be supported by improved assessments, which should take place alongside the assessment of the person being cared for. Finally, the Government should review the scope for improving the integration of adult social care and other services, such as NHS services and housing, to deliver better outcomes for individuals and better value for the taxpayer.

The commission’s report was met by a broad coalition of support from a wide range of stakeholders and was warmly welcomed by all political parties. That contrasts with the acrimonious debates on the issue during the general election campaign. Since the report’s publication, the Department of Health has committed to consult on the recommendations and to consider other important recommendations proposed by the Law Commission.

The Government have recognised that they must take urgent action to address the current funding issues. While real spending on the NHS has risen by £25 billion since 2004, spending on social care for older people and adults with disabilities has simply not kept pace. Figures from the Department show that over the past four years, demand has outstripped expenditure by 9%. Since the coalition came to power, it has clearly understood that that balance in expenditure is wrong. Money for the NHS has been redirected to councils so that they can spend more money to support families, elderly people and adults living with disabilities to live independent lives. Additional money has been allocated for a range of support to enable people to remain safely in their own home and for adaptations that prevent accidents and illnesses that lead to people having to spend time in hospitals.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is talking about the additional resources that have been given to councils from the NHS budget. Will she reflect on the scale of cuts that local authorities are dealing with when setting their overall budgets? Does she feel compelled to comment on the claim that that is giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. We all understand that local authorities have had to make some major decisions about the allocation of resources and their priorities in serving their communities. I am proud of my council in Cornwall, which did not cut one penny from adult social care funding last year. In fact, this year, that funding could increase by £3 million or £4 million, although the council has not yet finalised its budget. It is very disappointing that some councils—although not all—have not used the money for such important purposes. It is estimated that approximately 7% has been cut from adult social care budgets across the country.

We have begun to see the effects of the withdrawal of the key services that the money should be funding, and which have been designated to prevent health problems among older people. The withdrawal is contributing to a far greater pressure on hospital beds. Delays in the discharge of people from hospitals are significantly higher than they were in the same months last year. Over 75% of delayed transfers for acute care are for people aged 75 and over. Research by Age UK and WRVS will be published in the next month or so, and it will provide evidence of the impact of councils not using the additional funds that they have been given by the Department effectively and of the additional pressures that that has put on hospitals and families.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever the size of a council’s budget, we need to ensure that it makes best use of the money? Some poor commissioning practices have gone on, discriminating against independent providers such as the Alzheimer’s Society and Age UK, which not only do a better job at a lower cost, but can rely on enormous amounts of volunteer and carer support and a whole raft of other stuff. We must ensure that there is a level playing field for those people.

[Sarah Newton]

I agree. My hon. Friend makes that important point extremely well. Local authorities and the NHS have had a silo mentality on commissioning. Undoubtedly, funds that could have driven up the quality and choice of care to support people have been wasted. I hope that the reforms that the Government are setting in train will overcome those issues. When the health and well-being boards come into play, if they link up properly all the providers in a community and set the agenda for commissioning services to improve health outcomes, they could have a powerful impact and achieve some of the things that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

In this debate, when we are talking about the budgets of the NHS and of local authorities, we must never forget that it is families who care for their grown-up children with disabilities or for elderly family members. Informal carers provide more support than any Government could ever afford to pay for. The most recent research from the charity, Carers UK, estimates that there are more than 6 million carers in the UK. The care and support that they provide to help people remain safely in their own home are valued at a staggering £119 billion per year, which is far more than the annual cost of all aspects of the NHS. Support to carers must be central to the future provision of services. It is informal carers, families and, in the majority of cases, women who worry most about cuts to services that enable them to help and care for their elderly and young family members.

Who pays for care is just one of the questions that the Government’s reforms of social care must address. There are issues of quality and regulation of services, training and pay for those working in this sector, as well as choice. The Government’s reforms need to look at finding solutions that work for different generations. Young people who will be saving for their old age and auto-enrolled into pension schemes could be incentivised to make an additional contribution each month to an insurance policy that will pay for their care later in life should they need it. The package of reforms developed by the commission has been welcomed by the financial services industry, which sees opportunities to develop new products to enable people to pay for their contributions towards the costs of their care.

The Dilnot commission’s package of reforms to support families in their caring responsibilities will require an extra £1.7 billion a year—a figure that will rise with an ageing population. Whether or not the commission’s reforms are implemented in part or in entirety, it is clear that more money needs to be found for social care and NHS integration. While I do not underestimate—I am sure none of my colleagues in the Chamber do—how difficult it will be to find that sum during this Parliament, constructive ideas have been given to the Treasury on how that spending commitment could be achieved without increasing taxation or borrowing more money. Consideration should also be given to removing the upper age limit on national insurance contributions, which could raise £3 billion a year, and to further reform to pension tax relief for higher-rate taxpayers.

[Fiona Bruce]

Should consideration not be given to reviewing the planning regulations when families seek to build extensions to their homes? There are far too few multi-generational homes in this country, yet there are some pedantic planning regulations to which local authorities strictly adhere without recognising the wider value to the community that such extensions can bring.

[Sarah Newton]

That is a good point and it should definitely be considered by those responsible for reforming planning policies.

We all have an important role to play in building momentum for change, contributing constructive proposals and trying to build consensus for vital change. I hope that this debate provides the Minister with a welcome opportunity to hear the concerns and constructive ideas of hon. Members from all parts of the House as he develops his White Paper.

I was particularly pleased when the Backbench Business Committee allotted me this date for my debate. It is the eve of Armistice day, when we remember all those who have served their country and made the ultimate sacrifice. As there are so few survivors remaining from the first world war, our thoughts and prayers naturally turn to those who are serving in conflicts around the world, particularly in Afghanistan. Many of us will also be thinking of the survivors of the second world war. There are some 11.7 million people living in England today who survived the second world war, and they make up 22.5% of the population. We owe a great debt to that generation for our freedom and for the way of life that we enjoy today. Rationing ended in the 1950s, so that generation really understands what an age of austerity means. For those of us who were born after the war, it is our turn to show not only our respect for them but that we have not forgotten their sacrifice. We must take care of them as they grow older.

Over the 50 years in which we have enjoyed peace in most of Europe and a growth in prosperity, we have singularly failed to make preparations for the care of that generation. The welfare state was a great post-war legacy. However, there are gaps in funding in the main provisions—the NHS and pensions—as increases in life expectancy have been consistently underestimated. It is essential that we make lasting reforms to the welfare state so that it can deliver on the promise made to the generation that created it.

14:52

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate and on the way in which she opened it. I am sure that we all agree with her final comment about caring for those who served in and lived through the second world war. It is important that we not only debate social care here, but ensure that a much wider debate on the current and future funding of social care takes place across the country.

The Dilnot commission was tasked with making recommendations on how to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system for care and support. No one here today will be able to go into too much detail about the report, but I should like to talk about some of the things that the report confirmed, including things that have been repeatedly said about social care for years. These are some of the key points. The current adult social care funding system in England is not fit for purpose and needs urgent and lasting reform. The current system is unfair and unsustainable. Without reform, it will deliver ever poorer outcomes for individuals and families. The funding of social care is inadequate—people are not receiving the care and support that they need. Indeed, there is an unacceptable level of variation in eligibility for services; we have 152 different adult social care systems. For a number of years, care has been rationed through the fair access to care system, but that system is now seen to lack transparency, consistency and clarity. Assessments for care are not portable. Given the variations in eligibility, the problem causes frustration and worse than that when people needing care have to move to a new local authority.

The provision of information and advice is poor quality and very limited. People struggle to find financial information and advice, and there is little information and advice for carers. While there are significant overlaps between funding streams for housing, benefits, the NHS and social care, the systems that administer them are not joined up, which means that we do not have integration, that we have poor co-ordination and that people have to suffer multiple assessments. Perhaps worst of all—Andrew Dilnot rightly drew attention to this—the system is so complex and difficult to understand that most people do not plan for or think about the future provision of care that they may need. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will have had cases of constituents who thought that social care was free and were shocked when they discovered that it is not and that they will be faced with paying the costs of care.

All those points are a disturbing appraisal of the system of care and support on which millions of people depend because they are frail, elderly or have a disability or long-term condition. We have known about all those problems for some time and I have spoken out on these issues since I came into the House in 2005, with a variety of different people filling the role that the Minister now occupies.

In 2009 and after much consultation, my party brought forward plans to establish a national care service. Given the pressing needs of those people with the greatest care needs, we also passed the Personal Care at Home Act 2010 to provide free personal care at home for the 400,000 people with the greatest care needs. It was not a perfect solution, and I do not think that anyone thought that it was, but it would have provided financial peace of mind to 400,000 individuals and their families.

My party’s proposals were treated as political footballs during the general election campaign. There were some regrettable political attacks on the proposals for social care, which was unfortunate.

[Glyn Davies]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the way in which those proposals were treated before the last general election was massively damaging? I was not a Member of Parliament then, but I was ashamed of some of the language that I heard coming out of the House. It is wrong to attribute the matter to any particular party. If we are going to deal with this issue properly, we have to set aside that sort of language because it serves no purpose and damages our reputation with the public.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed. As ever with interventions, that was almost the next thing that I was going to say. I was going to say that the whole incident was unfortunate. I am chair of the all-party group on social care and I want to see a consensus built in this Parliament to take forward a solution to the funding of care and support, so I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman.

We must set our minds to the fact that, this time, the debate must be different. We need to build consensus across the parties and across the country. The need for a solution is more pressing than ever. We know that requests for support are increasing. In 2009-10, there were 2.1 million contacts from new clients to social services, an increase of 4% from 2008-09 and of 8% from 2004-05. We also know that many hundreds of thousands of people never have their needs assessed.

At the Health Committee this week, I asked a question of the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services about levels of unmet need. He seemed unable to quantify it. How can we plan for provision of social care if we do not know the levels of unmet need? Research by Age UK showed that 82% of local authorities now provide care only to those with “substantial” or “critical” needs. I am glad to say—I think that the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth also has a council in her constituency that is perhaps doing a bit better—that my own local authority, Salford city council, is among the 18% of councils in the country that still provide care for those with “moderate” needs.

I welcome the commitment of my Labour council colleagues to try to meet the needs of the more vulnerable members in our communities. I understand how difficult the position is, but I value all those councils that are rightly taking the decision to protect social care. We know that vulnerable people in other areas are not so fortunate. Recent studies by the Office for National Statistics and the Economic and Social Research Council Centre for Population Change have looked at the issue of unmet need for social care. The centre concludes that, regardless of the data source used

“there is significant unmet need for care among older people.”

It gives the example of a group of people aged over 65 who needed help with bathing. Of that group, 66% were not receiving any help with bathing. That example was based on 2008 data. Since 2008, we have had front-loaded cuts to local authority budgets, which will have caused greater levels of unmet need.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) referred to local authority budget cuts and now the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has reported £1 billion of cuts to social care budgets in 2010-11, with a similar or greater level of cuts being predicted for next year. What impact those cuts will have is of concern to us in Parliament.

The NHS Confederation reminds us that when people’s needs for social care are not met, they turn to the NHS. The NHS Confederation says that that will mean increasing numbers of unscheduled and emergency admissions to hospital, as well as delayed discharges from hospital. Indeed, recent figures from the Department of Health show that the number of delayed discharges from hospital was 11% higher in September and October this year than in the same two months in 2010. Clearly, delaying discharges from hospital is an expensive solution to the problem of inadequate social care. Indeed, the NHS Confederation says that, without reform, the NHS will ultimately buckle under the pressure of demand from patients who need social care.

The problem of unmet need is getting worse and of course much of the extra burden will fall on unpaid family carers, many of whom are already overburdened. I will cite two examples of unpaid family carers that Carers UK has told me about.

One is Eric from Lancashire, who has cared for his wife, Diane, for 20 years. She has multiple health conditions and needs constant support. Eric had to give up work 15 years ago to care for her full-time. When his local council provided 10 hours of support each week, Eric could get out of the house, have some time for himself, do the shopping and even do some volunteering with local charities. Earlier this year, however, council cuts meant that Eric and Diane’s care package was cut in half, despite the fact that Diane’s health has not improved. Eric is worried about his own health, because he needs to use all of the time that he has free from caring for Diane, which is now only five hours each week, to run basic errands, and he no longer has any time for himself. We can all imagine how difficult that must be.

The second example is of an unpaid family carer who is in perhaps an even more difficult situation. Joyce, aged 58, cares for her husband Robert, who is 71 and has dementia. She gave up work as an accountant four years ago to care for Robert full-time. With their savings and Robert’s military pension, they are over the means test threshold for local authority support. Robert is doubly incontinent, and easily confused and distressed, so he cannot be left alone. Just to go to the supermarket, Joyce has to pay £12 an hour for a sitter. For longer breaks, she has to pay £18 an hour for specialist care. Paying for a day of replacement care or for a weekend away means that costs escalate, because Joyce has to pay for multiple care workers and even a nurse. It is important to note that the charges that Joyce is paying have risen by 20% during the past four years. Joyce gave up work to care for Robert and her only income now is from the carer’s allowance of £55 a week. She knows that residential care, when Robert needs it, will cost thousands of pounds a month, which makes her very fearful of the future.

I said earlier, and I think that it is the case, that there is clear agreement that our social care system is no longer fit for purpose and that reform of the funding system is overdue. However, the important point is that none of the people I have referred to in those examples would be helped with their current issues by the Dilnot report’s recommendations, because they offer little for overburdened family carers who are caring for people at home.

A report by the Strategic Society Centre suggests that the “capped cost” model recommended by Dilnot will pose a dilemma to policy makers and could create resentment among family carers. Carers such as Joyce save the state many thousands of pounds by providing informal care. However, when the person they care for enters residential care, they will still be liable for the first £35,000 of care costs. That does not seem fair.

The recommendations of the Dilnot commission are an important step on the path to reform, but we must look widely at what is needed. We must focus on the gap in funding, which exists under the current system as well as in the projections of future funding needs. We must also have the widest possible debate on the options that are available. It seems that there is a problem in getting a debate on these issues that is wide enough to build the consensus that Members from all parties have talked about in Westminster Hall today.

I know that the Minister who is here today is involved in an engagement exercise and that leaders from the care and support community are helping to lead those discussions. However, I want to ask whether and how we can debate this issue more widely. There are 6.4 million carers who have a stake in the issue. There are 1.6 million staff who work in the provision of social care, which is more than the number of staff in the NHS. We should perhaps not be surprised that those people find it harder to be in contact with MPs and Ministers to give their views. They do not have the time in their busy and pressed lives to go along to consultation events; it is very difficult for them to do so. It says much about the isolation of carers and of the staff who work with people who need care that they have few opportunities to get together and put forward their views and comments, so it is our job to find out about that, and to talk to and build a consensus with those people.

After the launch of the Dilnot report, the all-party group on social care asked how the public debate on future funding of social care would develop. We asked a Health Minister—it was Earl Howe, as the Minister who is here today was unable to attend that meeting—whether Andrew Dilnot and the other commissioners could continue to play a role, and whether the secretariat for the commission would continue.

In July this year, I, as the chair of the all-party group on social care, and the chairs of 11 other all-party groups associated with social care wrote to the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for social care, who is here today. The MPs and peers in those all-party groups stressed the need for action. We asked the Government to accept the urgent need for reform, but we also asked them to provide resources to support meetings across the country to promote the debate on social care, facilitated by members of the Care and Support Alliance, which is the umbrella group of more than 50 charities that represent older people, disabled people and those with long-term health conditions, as well as their families.

As we have already heard today, the future of social care is of national importance and it should involve the millions of people who depend on social care and the staff who provide care services. Can the Minister tell us what resources the Government will allocate to promote the debate on social care, including providing support to the members of the Care and Support Alliance to run meetings and take the debate forward?

Finally, can the Minister update us on the level of commitment that he believes exists in the Government and more widely to take forward the issues that have been raised today, and to take action to deliver what we said in our letter to the Prime Minister and others we want to see, which is a fairer system of charging for care that is matched by a financial settlement for local authorities so that they can deliver that fairer system?

15:06

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Robertson, for calling me to speak. It is a great pleasure and honour to speak in a debate such as this, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate to bring the issue of social care to our attention. As she said herself, the debate is also extremely timely, because tomorrow, of course, is Remembrance day and it is absolutely right that we remember those who achieved so much for the cause of freedom and for this country during the world wars and indeed afterwards.

I want to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who is the chair of the all-party group on social care. She made the point that we need to think very carefully about social care funding and that it is important to take an all-party approach to it, because it will affect many people for an extremely long period. We are talking, obviously, about elderly people, but everybody gets old and this is a long-term policy, with long-term implications.

We have to embed a set of policies—a framework, really—that can last, because one point that keeps coming up when we discuss the funding of social care is that we do not really know how to plan and we do not know, as individuals, what sort of structures will be in place; consequently, many individuals do not plan. The Government have a huge opportunity effectively to create the reasons why people can plan for their retirement and, as they arise, their care needs.

As other speakers have suggested, Dilnot makes it clear—or at least, implicitly clear—in his report that the sort of measures that he is talking about, including the ceilings that would apply before people have to pay for care and so on, will effectively create a situation where people are planning financially for their forthcoming care needs. We need to remind everybody of that when we discuss this issue in increasing detail, as a White Paper and so on arrive on the table.

In my constituency, I visit care homes quite frequently and I have often been asked to meet people who have just celebrated or are about to celebrate their 100th birthday; a huge number of people in my constituency reach that age. When I first started visiting them, it was really quite an honour, because members of my family never get to 100—although, obviously, they are going to.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman could be the first.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is very kind. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are all very optimistic.

[Glyn Davies]

It might be a good point to throw into the debate that, a fortnight ago, I visited a woman who was having her 108th birthday. The interesting thing about her—I think it contributed to her longevity—was that she had been a member of the Conservative association ever since she was allowed to join in 1928.

[Neil Carmichael]

Well, we certainly have experience in our Conservative association back at home. An interesting thing about my constituency is that I came across somebody who was 106. She wanted to make a complaint and she came up to me at some speed. I did not think it was anything to do with the care she was getting, and it was not: she had received a birthday card from Her Majesty the Queen every year for the past six years, but unfortunately she had received the same one each year, and she wanted a different one.

As that story shows, we have an ageing population, and that brings challenges, of which dementia is obviously one. More and more people are experiencing dementia, not just because they have it but because a family member has, and that can be just as challenging. We need to prepare the ground because an increasing number of people have dementia.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

One million people will have dementia by 2025. Does my hon. Friend agree that this terrible disease must have a proper place in any funding review or funding reform?

[Neil Carmichael]

That is exactly the theme I was about to develop, so I will simply agree with that excellent point.

In my constituency, we are promoting the “Write it Down” campaign. If somebody thinks they or a member of their family is getting dementia, but they are not quite sure, it is a good idea for them to write down sequences of events, because that will trigger a recognition or an acceptance that they or their loved one are forgetting things. The campaign is gaining quite some traction in my constituency, and I recommend that hon. Members promote it in theirs. Gloucestershire is getting quite a lot of accolades for the campaign, and families are successfully using this tool to diagnose dementia, which, we should remember, is not an easy thing to do.

I want to talk briefly about carers. Their role has been mentioned, and rightly so, because they do an enormous amount, and their numbers are huge. A fact that is sometimes overlooked, however, is that a lot of carers are surprisingly young, and some still go to school. We need to bear that in mind.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point. In my constituency, I have been visited by a group of people with young family members who suffer from dementia. A number of people develop dementia when they are quite young.

[Neil Carmichael]

Absolutely. I take the point that young people can also have dementia—that is certainly true—but the point I was making was that young people are caring for people once they return from school. That is a measure of the challenge we face in dealing with the role of carers, so the Government have to think carefully about the structures around carers and about the ability to give these people appropriate support and respite.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is good for us to be concerned about young carers, but is the hon. Gentleman concerned about the loss of education maintenance allowance? When I talked to the young carers project in my constituency, it told me that all but one of its young carers had been receiving EMA, and they were really afraid that they would lose all their incentives to stay in education. There is therefore an issue about support for young carers.

[Neil Carmichael]

This is certainly becoming a surprisingly wide-ranging debate. We have thrashed out the issue of EMA very carefully and thoroughly in the House of Commons—indeed, those of us on the Education Committee produced a useful report on the subject—but the Government have to think about wider issues in connection with post-16 education and so on. However, that is a separate issue; the important point here is that people who are going to school are carers, and I want the Department of Health to register that.

Another important aspect is the number of people with Parkinson’s. That problem is increasing all the time, and it is right that we focus our attention on it. The reason I mention such difficulties—not to the exclusion of others—is that it is important that we think carefully about personalised budgets so that people get tailor-made provision that they are happy with, and so that we join the NHS up with social care. I made that point in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth but I want to repeat it, because part of the answer is to ensure that fewer people end up in hospital, and we can do that by ensuring that the social care structure spots problems before they become serious or overwhelming and prevents problems from starting in the first place. If the social care system dovetails completely with the NHS system and is accessible and transparent, people who need care, and families with members who require care, will feel they are being properly listened to.

[Glyn Davies]

Let me make a point in the form of a question. It touches on several of the issues that my hon. Friend has just mentioned, and particularly on Parkinson’s disease. Does he share my concern that once people enter a care home, there is not the same awareness of the need to look for dementia or Parkinson’s disease as there is outside? There is not the same awareness of the onset of those diseases, because people are deemed just to be elderly, when in fact they are suffering from an illness.

[Neil Carmichael]

That is a good point. Earlier I mentioned the problem of diagnosing difficult illnesses —I obviously focused on dementia, but there are others. My hon. Friend is exactly right.

One theme that I have been picking up in care homes in my constituency is that increasingly, people do not enter care homes until they are older and actually need care because of their various illnesses. The pressure on care homes is therefore intensifying as a result of the changed profile of the people going into them. That has obviously put pressure on care homes’ finances, and there are differences between those that are supported by private provision and those supported by local authority provision. We need to explore thoroughly the question of the funding arrangements for care homes, and that should be part of the process that we get involved with as we move towards the publication of the White Paper.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is now out of the Chamber, mentioned commissioning, which is critical. Local authorities need to commission with a huge amount of sophistication, and they need to be fully aware of how to specify what they are commissioning for. The one good thing about the county council in Gloucestershire is that it is embracing the personalised care theme vigorously, but I would like to make one point. All personalised care is excellent if it is properly specified and funded, but we must be sure that the assessment process is fair. I constantly seek reassurance that that will be the case.

In my remarks I have signalled two general points that I think are important. First, we need to think long-term. We do not want a party political dingdong about this. We need carefully considered, thoroughly researched and above all well-meaning outcomes in the provision of care for elderly people, because we are setting foundations that should, I hope, last decades. Secondly, we must not think of the issue in terms of various silos providing care, while we hope for the best. We must be more holistic. As people grow older they will want to get access to different things. They do not want to be channelled by various bureaucratic systems. They want, effectively, to consider their options and decide for themselves, and they hope that when they cannot decide for themselves there will be a mechanism, in their family or through advocacy, to enable them to maximise the quality of their life for as long as possible. In the end, that is in all our interests. First and foremost we must create a system that people recognise as decent, fair and honourable.

15:21

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson, and it was also a pleasure to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). She referred to me, unusually—because I think that I am the only hon. Member here who was born during the second world war, and I survived it, but only just: we were evacuated shortly before a V1 landed on our house and blew it up, but nobody died. Fortunately I was with my grandparents in Leicester at the time. We are concerned about elderly people who fought in that war and now are either in care or being cared for in their own homes.

A headline in The Daily Telegraph of 28 October read, “Misery for millions as elderly care funds cut”. The Telegraph is not a newspaper of the left. It is normally supportive of the Conservative party, and I would hope that that is the basis for some sort of consensus, because we can all agree on this. I do read the Telegraph and find it very useful, and quite a good newspaper at times. I have no particular dislike of it, and it is spot on in that headline.

Importantly, it has been observed on more than one occasion that we do not care enough for our elderly people. Our attitudes to the elderly in Britain are not good, especially compared with those of some minority communities that have come from abroad, which have a kind of reverence for elderly people. Perhaps I would say that, because I am not as young as I was, but I think they value elderly people in a way we do not.

In some circumstances elderly people are regarded as a bit of a nuisance. I have some rather horrifying quotes from Professor David Oliver, who is senior lecturer in elderly care medicine at the university of Reading and secretary of the British Geriatrics Society. He said:

“Not long ago, a senior doctor walked onto my ward, turned to a nurse and laughingly asked: ‘How do you stand working with all these crumblies?’”

That kind of attitude is utterly poisonous. On another occasion a senior doctor said

“he was spending too much of his time ‘market gardening’—ie, looking after cabbages (old people)”.

Those are dreadful things to say, and people who say them should not be around elderly people. We must make sure that the people who look after elderly people have compassion and empathy, and a bit of reverence for people who have spent their lives working in society and contributing. I raise those incidents in a sense to shock us all into realising that in many instances we are not doing right by our elderly people.

That said, I know that there are many people who do wonderful work. I had two local authority care homes in my constituency and I visited them on several occasions. They had devoted staff, whom the residents loved; they thought they were really cared for. The visiting professionals all said that the care homes and what went on in them were first class. They have both been closed down, essentially forced to close by central Government. It is wrong that we should forcibly encourage local authorities to close local authority care homes and send the residents to private care. Some of the people who left may well have gone to Southern Cross homes—some of those that are now being criticised by the Care Quality Commission. We are not doing right by our elderly people, and we must do more.

As to costs, some 12 years ago the royal commission on long term care recommended that all care should be free of charge—free at the point of need, like the national health service. It was not a unanimous recommendation because, I think, the Government of the time, rather mischievously, made sure that one or two members of the commission brought out a minority report opposing free long-term care. Since that time Ministers have time and again said, “Oh, it wasn’t unanimous, therefore, implicitly, we don’t have to do that.” I took a different view, and tabled early-day motions in two successive Parliaments, calling for the Government to implement the recommendation for free long-term care. That did not happen; it was all about cost in the end, but I still believe that is the way forward. The costs involved would be significant, but in the scheme of things not an enormous amount.

I am the chair of the support group in Parliament for the National Pensioners Convention and Andrew Dilnot came along to present his recommendations to us two or three weeks ago. He is quite brilliant, frankly. His analysis and what he has come up with are first class. That should be the minimum default position, which any Government should take. I would like to go further than he went, but I think he is realistic, and, thinking that pushing Government to spend will be hard, wants to find the fulcrum point at which they might accept his idea. What he did was brilliant. The National Pensioners Convention, like me, believes that care should be free at the point of need, like the national health service, but Dilnot has come up with a fine scheme.

The National Insurance Act 1948 recommended that there should be a capital limit, which I think was £8,000 at the time. The minimum amount of capital that people could have was £8,000. If that is indexed forward it comes to a figure of between £250,000 and £300,000, so when Dilnot talks about £100,000 he is way below what would have been the case if we had simply indexed the figure forward. What we have now is disgraceful.

One result of what we have is that working-class people who managed, through saving and struggle, to become owner-occupiers are now having that little bit of equity in the family taken away from them. The wealthy do not have to worry. They have plenty of equity, and to look after granny when she has dementia they can perhaps take a little cash out of their overseas account, so it will not be a problem. However, for working-class people who have bought their home and become the first owner-occupiers in their family—and perhaps all of us would support in principle the idea of owner-occupation, if at all possible—that is being taken away from them. Many people in my constituency bought their council houses. I was not in favour of selling council houses, but it is just those people who now find that their capital has been taken away to use to look after granny. Typically, the grandchildren who would have inherited that equity and gone into owner-occupation will now not be able to do so.

People have come to my surgery and reluctantly admitted that they are keeping granny at home deliberately because they are desperately fearful that if she goes into a care home her house will be sold, the equity will be lost and their children will not be able to get into owner-occupation; there are no council houses to rent and they will be forced into private rented accommodation, and will have a much poorer quality of life as a result. That is the reality—it is actually happening. Those admissions are made reluctantly, because it is not something people want to say. Granny—it is usually granny because women live so much longer than men—may be suffering, and not getting quite the care that she should have, because she is staying at home. In the best of all possible worlds we all want to stay at home for as long as we can, and it is right that we should do so, but even care at home is not up to scratch.

I have examples, as I am sure others do, of care companies that look after elderly people in their own homes. The carers sometimes are not kind and are a bit impatient. The elderly person has to get out of bed when they turn up and go to bed when they turn up, and is sometimes left sitting in a chair all day with stale sandwiches on a plate beside them, not being able to do anything—not even go to the toilet. We are not getting the care even when we have paid-for carers coming in, so a radical change is needed. We must not only pay for care but ensure that it is good care, and that the people who deliver it are caring, compassionate and professionalised.

I spent much of my life before Parliament working as a research officer for the major public services trade union, Unison. In the past, many care home staff would have been Unison members, but the private care homes are not unionised. In my constituency, when one of the care homes I mentioned was privatised—closed down—I had a difficult conversation with the senior officer at the local authority, who eventually, after an hour, said: “We are doing it to cut costs. There will be fewer staff, they will not be in unions, and they will have shorter holidays, lower pay and poorer conditions of work. We can get the costs down.”

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it can be difficult to find people who want to be carers, whether in the public or the private sector, at home or in a care home setting? Perhaps we need to find new ways, beyond just unions, of elevating the status of the job as a profession or occupation, in the same way as social workers are now considering creating a college of social work.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree absolutely about elevating the status, but we do that first by having the carers professionally trained, ensuring that we get the right people to begin with, having them properly paid and having staffing at the right level. If someone is looking after too many patients and cannot cope, either in a hospital or a care home, the patients do not get proper care. In most areas of life, as quality improves we want higher productivity, which means a lower level of labour intensity, but in this area we want more people working, with each care person or nurse looking after fewer patients, to ensure that everyone gets the care they need, rather than having one junior nurse looking after a large room full of elderly people and not being able to cope late at night.

In the past couple of weeks we have heard some distressing stories about elderly people in hospitals not getting the care they need. We will all be elderly one day, and some of us might finish up in care because we might not have extensive families to care for us. I do not like the idea of being in pain and suffering at night and not being able to get anyone to help. I am physically fit and doing well at the moment, but we shall all be old one day. People are suffering in that way now, and the only way to deal with it is to ensure that we put in sufficient resource. I think there are people around who want to do these kinds of jobs but they will not do them if they are going to be overworked, undertrained, underpaid, and treated badly by private companies or care managers in hospitals.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has said about the barriers to entry into this work. I have been following the fortunes and recruitment patterns of a care home close to me in my constituency, which is struggling to get local youngsters to apply. We have talked through all the reasons for that, and the home thinks there are some cultural barriers. The hon. Gentleman made reference earlier to the different attitudes of people from different backgrounds and different parts of the world, and I think there is a cultural barrier to young people entering the workplace and spending their life giving care to older people. We have to admit that and address it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Possibly there is such a problem, but most of the care workers in the homes I was talking about were caring mature women. They had a genuine affection for the people they were looking after, which was wonderful to see. The residents liked being there, the care workers doted on them and the professionals who came in were full of admiration for what was going on. We have to replicate those conditions for all of us in one way or another. Perhaps we need to look at ways of recruiting people, but I believe there is compassion in humans and there are people who would do these jobs if they were treated with the appropriate respect and given the support, pay and conditions of employment we would expect. Unison has long been supportive of this kind of thing, campaigning against the privatisation of care and in favour of free long-term care.

Andrew Dilnot has gone a long way in the right direction and I applaud what he has done, but we have a lot more to do beyond what he has said. I hope that some of what I have said has rung a few bells, and that the Minister, and indeed the Opposition, start to take the issue much more seriously, and look after elderly people as they should be looked after.

15:36

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate as co-chair of the all-party group on carers, and I have a couple of simple requests for the Minister.

It is crucial that all political parties—both Government and Opposition—work together on the White Paper on social care. We have been waiting for the document for some time, and I understand that the Government have committed to introducing it next spring. It would be very helpful if the Minister cheered us all up in his concluding comments by confirming that there will be a White Paper on social care in spring 2012. He will make us all the more happy if he can confirm that it is the Government’s intention that the document will introduce proposals to ensure that we are able to deliver sustainable long-term funding to tackle the existing care crisis and provide for growing demand.

We must recognise the scale and nature of the growing demand. The Department for Work and Pensions produced a wonderful report earlier this year called, “Number of Future Centenarians by Age Group”. Someone is either a centenarian or not, so I do not know why the DWP has to classify them by age group: it is one of those wonderful “Yes Minister” things. The report forecasts that 11 million people alive today will live to 100—a huge number. However, the number of working-age adults who will suffer from age-related conditions will rise by almost a third over the next 20 years. It is predicted that between now and 2030, 30,000 more people over the age of 80 will be living in the typical shire county of Oxfordshire, which is the equivalent of a town the size of Bicester being added to it. From 2025, the population aged 60 and over in the county is expected to be greater than the population of under-19s, including students. In a county such as Oxfordshire, nearly 70% of people aged 85 and over are living with a long-term illness, and the Medical Research Council’s cognitive function and ageing study shows that 26.5% of men and women between the ages of 80 and 84 suffer or experience age-related dementia. At over 85, the figure suffering from age-related dementia goes up to 68.5%, which is a significant increase. That means that the number of carers is expected to rise from 6.4 million today to 9 million by 2037, which is a substantial increase.

That is all against a background—in the House, we have discussed this in a number of debates since the general election, and I will not read out the speeches I have made in the past—of local authorities having to deal with serious financial circumstances, which has led them to increase charges for care services and raise eligibility criteria. The percentage of councils providing support to those with moderate needs has decreased from about half in 2005 to less than a fifth, as eligibility criteria are raised to substantial or critical needs only.

If he has time in his concluding comments, will the Minister update the House on what his Department considers to be the impact of the Sefton ruling in the High Court yesterday? The ruling seems to indicate that it is unlawful for local authorities to freeze care home fees unless they have consulted care home managers fully and properly assessed the risks of decisions to care homes and their residents.

The vice-president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and others have calculated that the ruling will add a substantial amount to local authorities’ budgets, which have already been set for this year. We have some fairly tight figures for both local authorities and for care homes.

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

The key point in the High Court’s decision was the consultation. That was also a finding in the Birmingham case earlier this year, when the issue turned on whether the consultation was adequate and whether the authority had had due regard to various statutory duties. The issue now for local authorities is to satisfy themselves that they have had proper regard to the matters that the courts have directed them to consider.

[Tony Baldry]

That is a helpful update for the House, and I am grateful to the Minister.

[Barbara Keeley]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern—this may be the theme that he is developing—that there is a conflict between localism, the removal of ring-fencing and ensuring that a local authority delivers adequate social care? I find it hard to see, when exhortations are clearly not working with local authorities, how we can ensure that some authorities do not just cut their social care budgets to the bone and give people inadequate services. It is quite clear, with £1 billion in cuts this year, that they are not doing as the Minister would like.

[Tony Baldry]

I see the situation rather differently from the hon. Lady. Local authorities such as Oxfordshire are committed to delivering good-quality social care for elderly people. The challenge for them is to ensure that the increasing number of elderly people, often with increasing needs, receive appropriate care, whether at home or in residential care. A tight budget presents them with a significant challenge, but it is a challenge to which they are committed.

I appreciate that the hon. Lady comes from a unitary authority, but for two-tier authorities in shire counties such as mine, social care is now their most significant contribution. Increasingly, schools and education are running themselves, so authorities are going to be judged on the quality and the way in which they deliver social care.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

One thing that concerns me is local accountability. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman is making an argument for more local control, because democratic local accountability means that people in a local care home will have immediate recourse to elected local representatives, rather than having a simple national scheme such as the national health service. Perhaps if the national health service had more local accountability, we might not see some of the things that are happening at the moment.

[Tony Baldry]

I am not entirely sure where the hon. Gentleman is going with that point, so if the House will excuse me, I will not follow him down that particular line.

I do not think there is any lack of local accountability as far as the national health service is concerned. The Oxfordshire joint health overview and scrutiny committee is meeting today and will consider, for example, possible service changes at Horton general hospital in my constituency. The committee will, I am sure, vigorously interrogate the senior management from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and from the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire PCT cluster.

In the debate on social care, we must not underestimate the burden or the toll on carers of the task of looking after elderly people with age-related difficulties. Carers UK has found that carers providing significant amounts of care are twice as likely to suffer from ill health as non-carers. In 2008, a survey of heavy-end carers showed that more than half of those caring were in debt, and nearly three quarters were struggling to pay household bills. A large number of carers, about 1 million, have given up work or reduced their working hours because of caring. The peak age for carers is between 45 and 65, which is often the age at which they would be at the peak of their training, skills and career experience. That can be a cost not only to the carer, but to businesses and employers as they lose key people who have to care for relatives.

We have seen some excellent organisations such as Employers for Carers, which was set up by Carers UK and seeks to bring together numerous employers, generally larger ones, to promote flexibility and workplace support for employees juggling work and care, but that is not always possible for small and medium-sized employers. There is also a cost to the NHS. Sometimes, if we are not careful, there is a trade-off between the quality of social care, the provision of sufficient beds in nursing homes and residential care homes, and the need to prevent delayed discharges and bed blocking in hospitals. We had a debate on that not long ago, to which I contributed. In Oxfordshire, we are grappling with the issue of delayed discharges. If we are not careful, the cost to the NHS of delayed discharges will be significant, particularly at a time when more and more hospital treatments can be offered as elective day treatments. Generally, people are spending less time in hospitals, so delayed discharges add particular cost to the NHS.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. Does he have any thoughts on the point that I made earlier about the Dilnot commission and the £35,000 that must be paid out by the individual in the shared-costs model, which does not recognise informal care? He is making the point that people are giving up work to become carers, which has a huge financial cost. They may be struggling to pay bills but, even so, when their loved one goes into a care home, they will still have to pay £35,000. There is no recognition of everything that they have done that has helped the state save money. Does he agree that that is not fair?

[Tony Baldry]

We all have to recognise that there is only so much, on a cross-party basis, that Ministers will be able to do in the White Paper, which I hope will come out next spring. If the White Paper contains a sustainable funding process for residential care, we will all consider that to be a substantial step forward. We must not forget, however, that a number of issues will still be relevant to carers, particularly because, in order to maintain costs and keep them down, most local authorities are trying to keep people at home for as long as possible. For example, in my constituency and in those of many of the other Members who are present, it was previously the case that frail, elderly, but mentally alert people lived at home, but that has become increasingly true of people with age-related illnesses such as dementia or Parkinson’s, and it will continue, because however much the funding for residential care is increased, there will still be that population at home.

Another point that I want to reinforce to the Minister—I am sure that he will take it on board—is that a number of organisations concerned with social care are in consensus in supporting the recommendations from the Dilnot commission, particularly the recommendation on protecting families from catastrophic care costs by capping lifetime care bills because, at present, families coping with long-term conditions can face bills of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to pay for home and residential care. There are fears of unaffordable bills forcing families to provide round-the-clock care, and two thirds of carers end up spending their own income to pay for the care of the person for whom they care.

Those of us on the all-party group on carers welcome the Dilnot commission’s clear recognition of the need for additional resources for social care, to overcome an historic shortfall and to recognise the growing demand. We need a new national system of eligibility and portable assessments to create a more standardised system across England and to remove some of the uncertainty that families face as they deal with different systems in different council areas. We also need a new awareness, advice, information and advocacy strategy, to help families plan for care and access private, state and voluntary sector support. I think that there is strong consensus on those points, and I hope that the Government will adopt the proposals in the forthcoming social care White Paper.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend has been incredibly generous in giving way, and I am grateful to him. He is making an important point and I would like to underline it. As we have heard, the scale of the challenge facing the Government is so immense that we need short, medium and long-term solutions. At present, the Government face the challenges of deficit reduction and of other huge reforms taking place in our country, but it would be welcome if they set out in the White Paper a direction of travel and suggested proposals that could be achieved in the short term and that addressed some of the issues while not seeking to solve the whole problem all at the same time. We would take a paced, building-block-type approach.

[Tony Baldry]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but I think that we have all slightly lost track of the number of Green Papers, discussion documents and other things that we have had in relation to social care. What will be really important next spring is that we get a White Paper that has a summary that everyone can understand and that makes it very clear what will be the basic system for funding residential social care for the future. I think that that would be greeted in the House by a quick rendering of the “Hallelujah Chorus”.

Following my hon. Friend’s point, if the White Paper can set out the direction of travel for the rest, that would be good news. What we have seen all too often in the past is a discussion paper that concludes that the issue is so huge and so difficult that we have almost lost the will to live. Spring 2012 has to produce a White Paper with a clear commitment to the funding of long-term residential care, and then direction of travel for the rest is important.

Finally, I agree with the need to enhance the status of care workers. In my experience, the model adopted by many residential care homes has often been to recruit people from the Philippines or eastern Europe. The deal was that they came over, got trained, were often paid the minimum wage and, having been trained, worked in the national health service. Because the Government, perfectly understandably and quite rightly, are capping immigration from outside the European Union, it is no longer possible for nursing homes and residential care homes to recruit from the Philippines or outside the European Union, so we have to enhance the status of care workers, both in the NHS and in residential care homes.

On my patch, I have suggested to the chief executive of the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust—I am glad that he has responded positively—and others that we should consider setting up in Oxfordshire one of the new Government’s work academies, specifically for care workers. We need to ensure that far more people see care and working in the care sector as a valued profession that makes a real contribution to society. It needs a career path, with a national vocational qualification, training and proper involvement from further education colleges. The issue is of as much interest to the national health service as it is to residential care homes, because if those care homes have sufficient care workers it will be easier for discharges into them to take place. Moreover, we often need to ensure that the NHS has sufficiently well-motivated and well-qualified nursing care assistants. I hope that we will begin to see centres of excellence around the country that will train people as care workers, to ensure that we do not find ourselves in difficulties because nursing homes and residential care homes have to close because they cannot recruit qualified staff.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Would not the consequence of that be that care homes would have to pay better wages than they do at present? The hon. Gentleman has mentioned people from the Philippines. I had some in my constituency who were allowed to stay provided that they were paid for their qualifications, but the care homes refused to do so in some cases.

[Tony Baldry]

The management of any sensible care home will want to ensure that it invests in its staff. It has a duty and responsibility to do so. It has to play its part in ensuring that it, like any employer, helps with the required skills, qualifications and training of those people. This is an important issue and one that we have to get right if we are to have proper levels of care in the community, of residential nursing home care, and of care in the NHS.

15:57

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I wanted to speak in this debate because I have had two specific personal experiences in the past couple of years that have led me to think that finding a way to fund elderly care in this country is probably one of the biggest challenges that we face. I wish to take a few minutes of Members’ time to share those experiences, which I hope will underline to the Minister the urgency with which the Government need to act.

Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a councillor in the London borough of Lewisham and can honestly say that the worst meeting I ever had to attend was when the council was reviewing the eligibility criteria for adult social care. At the time, we were looking at whether we could sub-divide the category of “substantial care needs”, which are really serious needs for which people need help. It is about basic human dignity, so it was a difficult thing to consult on at the time. Hundreds of people attended the council meeting and I remember being almost moved to tears by some of the testimony that people gave about the support that they received. I am pleased that, that year, my local authority of Lewisham chose not to do away with funding substantial care needs. It still funds such needs, although in the current economic and financial climate, Lewisham has had to increase considerably the charges for care packages.

I realised at that time that adult social care in this country is woefully underfunded. It constitutes such a large proportion of local authority budgets that, in the present climate of huge cuts to local councils, they are faced with very difficult decisions about how they can fund care provision, while setting a balanced budget elsewhere. I am concerned, as I said in my intervention, that the so-called extra money being diverted from NHS budgets into adult social care is not really extra money at all. When the large cuts to the budgets of local authorities are taken into account, that money is merely being used to prop up what was already being done. For example, from my local authority experience, I know that out of a £270,000 million revenue budget, Lewisham council spends approximately £100 million every year on adult social care. If it has to find £80 million worth of cuts in the next three years, it has to take some very difficult decisions about how to make all that work.

My experience in Lewisham also told me that in this country we do not fund the sort of preventative care that is necessary to avoid having higher care needs later on in life. I urge the Government to consider how we can provide more preventative support, so that we do not have huge outlays further down the line. As people get older, their care needs become a lot more complex. If we can intervene earlier and provide the right sort of support, perhaps we will not have such high expenditure further down the line.

I said that I had two personal experiences that led me to take part in the debate. My other experience is very personal. Last year my nan passed away, after suffering with Alzheimer’s for a number of years. She spent the last years of her life in a care home. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke earlier about the experience of working-class people and what it means for them to pay for their care. My nan was a working-class woman. She worked very hard all her life and saved hard to buy her own home. She never went on a foreign holiday. She was very frugal with her money. She ended up having to sell her home, which was worth about £140,000, and using the small amount of savings that she had to pay for her care. There is obviously a limit on how much money one has to pay for such services. Her estate was worth in the region of £23,000 at the end of that process, but my family paid more than £100,000 for her care. The local authority picked up the costs of that care towards the end, because all her savings had been used. I think it would break her heart to think that what she had worked hard for all of her life did not get passed on in any significant way to my father, to my aunt, or to her grandchildren.

[Sarah Newton]

The hon. Lady has highlighted another illusion in the system: the illusion of the separation between the so-called self-funders and others. There are very, very few people who end up fully self-funding their care. Most people deplete their resources and end up having to be funded by local authorities. We must not always see the issue in black and white. Of those who self-fund, about half go on to require support from local authorities.

[Heidi Alexander]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point and I agree completely that there is not a clear distinction between self-funders and local authority-funded clients. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North about how wealth is inherited in our society. My family, perhaps unwisely, have not planned greatly for their retirement. My dad is a self-employed electrician. I think that he was planning to use some of the money that came from the sale of his mother’s house to fund his retirement. He does not in any way begrudge the money that he spent on my nan’s care towards the end of her life. I do not begrudge it. She had fantastic care in a fantastic care home, and that is completely right. However, I know that he feels that the system is perhaps not really fair. He asked me questions about people who play the system, and whether people transfer homes into somebody else’s ownership so that they do not have to pay.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is the seven-year rule about tax on gifts. Many of the more acutely aware middle-class people with accountants transfer the ownership of their property long before they die, so that they never have these costs imposed on them.

[Heidi Alexander]

That is precisely the point. Families are asking questions about how this can happen. We need to have a fair system so that people know what to expect to pay for their care in later life, can have some peace of mind about it, and do not think that somebody else, who perhaps has a better knowledge of the system, can play it in a way that means that they do not have to pay out in the same way.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is speaking very well from her own personal experience about an issue that affects the whole country. Last week, one of my constituents questioned why he will have to pay all but £28,000 of the value of his father’s home—which, in Salford, was not a costly home—to pay for nursing care. He thought all along that nursing care should be paid for because it is nursing. He still does not understand it and is very distressed. I wonder if that example, and the example raised by my hon. Friend from her own experience, suggests that we need to get out there with this debate so that people do understand it and so that everybody is in the same place—as has been said, not just middle-class people who can plan, and people who have accountants—and knows what it might cost them and how to go forward and plan for it.

[Heidi Alexander]

I agree completely. I go back to what I said at the start of my contribution, which is that this is one of the biggest challenges we face as a society and as a country. We can talk about the crisis in the eurozone, international terrorism or climate change, but how we plan for the needs of our ageing population is incredibly important. It may not be the sexiest debate out there, but we need to get people talking about it so that they can understand and contribute to how we should legislate on this issue.

In conclusion, I was at the event that the Minister attended earlier, which was organised by the Greater London Forum for Older People. It was a packed Committee room, and I heard the Minister say that this Administration will not be the Government who do not face up to this problem, grasp the nettle and tackle it. I urge him to honour the commitment he made to the pensioners in that room. For far too long, we have not tackled this problem. I fear that it will be placed in the “too difficult” box. We have already heard the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) talk about the need to publish the White Paper in the spring. I think the Dilnot commission report talked about a White Paper in December, so I put it to the Minister that perhaps we are already a little behind that timetable. The key issue, as I was discussing earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), is to have a Bill in the next Queen’s Speech. Will the Minister commit to that today? If he and the Government were to say that they will legislate on this matter in the next parliamentary session, that would be a sign that the Government take the issue seriously and that we can tackle the problem, which has, for too long, eluded us.

16:09

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I must apologise to you and to the Front-Bench spokespeople. Unfortunately, I will not be able to stay to the end of the debate. I apologise, but I have a pressing engagement in my constituency this evening.

I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing a Backbench Business debate on such an important topic. Several speakers have alluded to the crisis in care funding at the moment and to the service being chronically underfunded. I want to throw some light on why I think that that has become the case.

Age UK reported earlier this year, in June I think, that spending on adult and social care rose by only 0.1% between 2004 and 2010. Crucially, during that period the numbers of older people needing care expanded significantly, to say nothing of those in other generations who also need care. The number of older people aged over 65 increased by 7.7%, while the number of very elderly—the over-80s—increased by 11.6%. While the care budget for older people was static—rising by 0.1% in real terms, to be precise—the numbers requiring that care have expanded, and that rise is continuing. It is interesting to note that, at the same time, other budgets were rocketing: spending on the NHS increased by 27%, on the police by 20% and on schools by 12%. That is salutary, because we can see how older people’s care has been treated and valued over time. We arrive at the point where—I agree with everyone in the Chamber—it is not enough. Most councils have therefore been under pressure in that area for a considerable length of time, which precedes the public spending review of the past 12 to 18 months. Most have responded to the challenge by tightening the eligibility criteria for the provision of care at home and by making far more use of private providers.

The situation in my borough of Dudley exemplifies the problem. I have visited approximately 10 private care homes in my constituency, and I apply my own inspection criteria—crudely, whether I would have willingly allowed my mother to be cared for in the home. We are fortunate in Dudley—certainly in my part of it, Stourbridge—with the overall quality of our homes, but the fees paid by the local authority for people to be looked after are imposing on the good will of the management and staff in the homes.

The local authority pays roughly £380 per week per resident, but for the past three years there has been no increase in the fees, while those homes have had to contend with rising costs including for fuel, food and even, to a certain extent, staff. So private homes are struggling; if they are small or family-run concerns, the show has been kept on the road with an enormous amount of dedication and hard work. The result is that self-funding residents are often charged significantly more than the local authority-funded residents. I have consulted Age UK, which has consulted lawyers, about whether cross-subsidisation can be proved, because that would be against the law. However, it is difficult to prove, although it strikes me that the discrepancy is so high that some homes must be using the fees of self-funding residents to cross-subsidise the local authority-funded residents.

The care at home situation is just as bad. The proportion of local authorities providing care to people in moderate need fell from 36% in 2004 to 21% in 2010. I do not doubt that the figure is still falling. That must surely be a false economy, because the less care provided to those in moderate need, the greater the speed at which they will develop substantial needs. In some ways, the home care sector is in worse shape than the residential sector. What I mean is that, in my own borough, the transfer from public to private provision appears to have worked less well for older people who need care at home than for those in residential care. Like the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I have received a steady stream of complaints from the recipients of such home care, and the complaints are always the same, even though the providers might be different. There is a constant change in carers and no consistency of personnel, with a great variation in the standards of care provided, as well as in the kindness and compassion.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am interested in and sympathise greatly with what the hon. Lady is saying. Recently, I spent a day touring with a district nurse professionally employed in the national health service, and I saw the care and compassion that she gave to all her patients, whether it was re-bandaging or dealing with people suffering from cancer, and so on. The contrast between that professional, publicly employed person and what I hear about some of the private providers with inadequate staff is great.

[Margot James]

I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in the context of home care. I find quite a few of my constituents bemoaning the rapid transfer from the local authority staff who used to provide care to the private sector. I am often in favour of bringing in the private sector, but it has to be done carefully and intelligently, and with proper checks and monitoring.

Another point, also made by the hon. Gentleman in his speech, is that carers come at very different times, without any consistency or reliability; they often come too early to help someone get to bed and too late to help them get up in the morning. In too many cases the service is patchy, inconsistent and fundamentally unreliable, and something needs to be done. Perhaps the business model needs to be looked at. It cannot be beyond the wit of an employer to employ more people at certain times of the day. That is probably the only answer, which means that more money might be needed, which I appreciate is a vexed question in the current climate.

I agree with other hon. Members that the Dilnot report is an excellent contribution to the debate, but it has some drawbacks. First, Dilnot has commented—perhaps not in the report but I have certainly heard him in speeches made about the report—that residential care means-testing is the biggest cliff face across the entire gamut of social care policy. Savings of more than £23,250, including the capital tied up in your home—68% of householders aged 65 and over own their homes outright, without a mortgage, so we are talking about a lot of people—disqualify people completely from funding support. No banding, no scaling up or down, only one figure, below which people receive 100% funding support and above which they receive nothing. In response, people have had to sell their homes. We have heard some sad examples, in particular from the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), and listening to several contributions I have appreciated the difficulty for people from a working-class background who have struggled and saved and whose assets are small in total. I will make a point about that.

People who are fortunate in their health will not need residential care and will not have to sell their home. For people who need residential care and have no assets and nothing to lose, that is okay as well. However, people who own their own home and need residential care are at a striking disadvantage to others of their age group. That is why I appreciate Dilnot’s broad strategy to cap an individual’s contributions to the care needed and to raise the threshold at which people become eligible for support. More work remains to be done, however, to identify the actual figures deemed fair and affordable for the taxpayer to fund. Raising the threshold to £100,000 is a bold move, but is it affordable? I do not doubt that that conundrum is on the Minister’s plate, and there are more problems with the cap.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Dilnot pointed out that £100,000 is a crucial point at which the cost starts to take off, and his proposals would cost £1.7 billion a year, which is not a great deal in the scheme of things. After that, it starts to rise more rapidly. A £100,000 threshold would protect many people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and her family.

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is true that a £100,000 threshold would provide protection, and I hope very much that we can afford that element of Dilnot’s proposals. That threshold would provide a huge amount of help and protection for just the sort of cases that he and the hon. Member for Lewisham East mentioned.

Turning to the cap that Dilnot recommends, I believe that it should be rethought. He said that it should be between £25,000 and £50,000, beyond which no one should have to pay. Although my suggestion would introduce some complexity—I accept that that is a disadvantage—we must consider a scale on the cap that is linked to people’s assets. A one-size-fits-all approach, whether it is £50,000 or £25,000, does not reflect the huge variation in house prices throughout the country. The average house price in Dudley borough in my constituency is £145,000, but the average house price in Greater London is £420,000, so for families in my constituency, and perhaps in that of the hon. Member for Luton North, the cap on care represents a third of their assets, whereas for families in London in a house with an average value it represents little more than 10% of that value. That is unfair, and I hope that the Minister and his team will look at ways in which the problem can be overcome.

I am afraid we will to have to ask more of people who have seen the value of their home spiral over the last 25 years. I trust that with better use of resources, and thanks to Dilnot and the Government’s commitment to seek a cross-party solution to the vexed problem, we will no longer have to ask people to sell their home to fund their care. However, if we cap the amount that people must spend on care, we may have to ask them to remortgage part of the value of their home to contribute to the overall cost that Dilnot recommends. I cannot see a magic pot of £1.5 billion in the Government’s credit balance, so we must be realistic in what we ask them to do. Asking people to remortgage part of the value of their home to contribute to their care is not as bad as the current system, which requires so many to have to sell their home and to invest so much of the proceeds, if not all, in residential care costs.

In conclusion, the reaction to Dilnot has not been as favourable among health and social care managers as it has been among those of us, including organisations outside Parliament, who campaign on behalf of older people. They fear that they will have to find money from their cash-strapped adult and social care budgets. As the other main activity outside residential care is home care—I have described a situation that is far from satisfactory, as have other hon. Members—they fear that there will be less money to fund home care if they have to implement the Dilnot report to fund the higher cost of residential care. I share that concern.

What else can be done? I have said that I do not expect the Government magically to conjure up £1.5 billion in the serious and perhaps worsening economic situation. We must find a better way of managing our resources, and that money must probably come from one of the only protected areas of Government spending—the NHS. Hon. Members have mentioned that the Government have diverted £1 billion from the NHS to social care, and that has been well received, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. NHS spending has risen hugely in the past 10 years, and 27% for the six-year period does not cover the half of it. It does not cover the private finance initiative costs, which have been astronomical.

Too many older people in hospital would be better managed in the community. We have heard about bed-blocking, and that occurs in Dudley borough. People are waiting for residential care places, but the funding is not coming through to meet the need. That funding should be reconfigured more substantially in favour of community care. Many experts who know more about the NHS than I do—the King’s Fund, some hospital consultants and so on—recognise that we have too many hospitals. I am not saying that there is an easy answer, and no one wants hospitals on their patch to be closed, least of all me, but there may be a way of utilising that space and resource more effectively. I urge the Minister to discuss that with the Secretary of State to see what can be done. That would be a more fitting tribute to the Dilnot inquiry than trying to implement every detail in his report.

[John Pugh]

rose—

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to begin the wind-ups at 5 o’clock. Two more hon. Members wish to speak, and it is now 4.26 pm. I do not know whether this has been mentioned, but the Leader of the House has attended the debate, which shows its importance.

16:26

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate and on introducing it so lucidly. I do not know whether any hon. Members, apart from me, attended an event in the House earlier this week called, “Preparing for Old Age”, and organised by Age Concern and the Prudential. As I went in, I picked up various brochures with rather grim titles such as “What to do when somebody dies”, “Paying for care costs”, “Insuring against ill health” and “Coping with dementia”. I looked in vain for something called, “How to have fun in your 90s”, but there seemed to be nothing about that.

We are fortunate to have a Minister to respond to the debate who has a distinguished record in this area, both when in opposition and as a Minister. My reputation in this area has been somewhat more ignominious. I was in Richmond house for the first time when, as leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Sefton council, I was summoned with other party leaders for a dressing down by the then Minister, Lord Boateng, subsequent to a law case that had gone against Sefton, which was not an uncharacteristic event.

We were taken to court by, I believe, Help the Aged, because we took the view that we could resource care needs only according to the resources that the Government had allowed us. We lost the case, and went to Richmond house to explain our side of the story. We were called into a room and waited patiently until the Minister breezed in, gave us a dressing down, told us how tough the Labour party would be with councils henceforward, and sent us on our way. The interesting point is that the press release hit the streets even before we had left the room, so clearly it had been written considerably prior to the event.

Later, when I became leader of the council, I rationed the number of care homes, which were rather more expensive in the public sector than in the private sector, and found that my Labour opponent—he is now the distinguished deputy leader of Liverpool city council—had gone to the press and engineered a photograph showing a 100-year old resident with a placard saying, “Please do not close my home, Councillor Pugh”. Unfortunately, we did close it, because it had been endowed to the local authority and was unsuited for its purpose. It was costing us twice as much to run, as indeed were some private sector homes then.

Only the other day, Sefton council had a judgment against it when the freezing of care home fees was ruled to be unlawful. It is a balanced council with three parties in the cabinet. The managing director of the solicitors who took the case against Sefton council said,

“There is every reason to believe other councils are doing exactly the same as Sefton.”

Sefton responded by saying that the court was merely critical of some elements of the process. Sefton is a borough with the 13th highest proportion of people aged 65. The bulk of its controllable budget—it has many contracted-out services—is taken up by social services. Sefton unexpectedly had £30 million up-front costs to find by way of savings. It is completely unthinkable that that could be done without eliminating other departments and without affecting social services in some way. Funding social care is a difficult problem. That is what I have learnt.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We hear constantly about the difficulty of funding. The amounts we are talking about are very small in the overall scheme of things. The £1.7 billion for Dilnot would be less than half a penny on the standard rate of tax—that is the equivalent. Free long-term care for all would be 2p on the standard rate, which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) cut the standard rate by before the election. We are not talking about massive amounts. I have spoken to many groups, and if I ask, “What do you prefer—the fear that you could have your house taken away to pay for granny’s care or paying 2p on the standard rate?” time and again they will all say, “2p on the standard rate”.

[John Pugh]

We all accept that, whatever it may amount to in the round, it is hard for local authorities to meet their care costs within current budget constraints. It is hard for NHS hospitals that suffer because of people who should not be staying there, who they recognise ought to be in care, but it is sometimes cheaper to keep them in the hospital rather than anywhere else, which is not in the hospital’s interest. It is hard for families who have the job of fulfilling caring responsibilities, which can conflict with employment, and it is difficult if they live at some distance from their elderly relatives, as they tend to these days. It is particularly hard for the individuals in need of care and who have increasing costs set against diminishing resources. It will not get any easier for the reasons hon. Members have already rehearsed: an extension of what we might term our declining years; the demographic bulge that we have all spoken about; many carers are taking up their responsibilities at an age at which they are not in, let us say, the first flush of youth; and in terms of social policy we are discovering that neither community nor personalised care are cheap options.

Nevertheless, society has made some significant achievements. Since the great Liberal Government of the early 20th century, the state has underwritten the fundamental problems that used to afflict old age—poverty and infirmity—by providing a safety net. When that reform was introduced, there was the presupposition that families would continue to accept responsibility for elderly members—they usually did—and that people would also look out for themselves to some extent. The old age pension was a mechanism to ensure that they could do that, and people had the opportunity to take still more precautions via provident societies and so on.

However, we have moved on and today we have two central problems. I do not think I have heard other problems apart from these. The fundamental problem that has been cropping up in this debate is that, assuming the system meets basic needs, which I guess it does at the moment, there is the capacity of those needs to become so severe that they can wipe out people’s inheritance, and many people regard that as not in the order of things and not how things should be. There is the other problem, which has not been touched on to the same extent, but I get it in my constituency: a sense of injustice about what might be called the free-rider problem. People have told me that they have saved for their old age, and as a result they feel that they have been penalised, because people who have made no effort to save, or who have blown the money prior to reaching an age when they might need it, get the benefits that the savers are to some extent denied. Those two problems seem to linger around the system.

[George Hollingbery]

Perhaps the problem is even deeper. People in my constituency surgery do not just say that they think others have had a free ride; they say that they are actively advising younger people and their families not to save for old age, because it is no longer worth doing so. Plainly, the system is stacked so far to the advantage of those who do not save that people should not save at all.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman has usefully illustrated my point. We can argue that the state does not have a duty to preserve a family’s inheritance, notwithstanding the valiant defence of inherited wealth from the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). In normal circumstances, that is an unusual stance for him to take.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I was defending the small amounts of inherited wealth for relatively poor people, not the vast amounts inherited by very wealthy people. I would substantially reduce the threshold for inheritance tax, but my party would not agree.

[John Pugh]

We might dispute the borderline between the wealthy people who do not deserve it and the not so wealthy who do, but we have a system in this country, unlike in Germany, where the family has no legal obligation, and we ought to be alert to that. We have already heard in the debate about how some families, in seeking to preserve their inheritance, actually support their elderly relatives, which sometimes is a laudable and desirable outcome. On the free-rider problem, we can argue that, in allowing a reasonable level of retained capital prior to benefits, there is a reward for people if they show a degree of providence. Those who have more than that and therefore do not benefit to the same extent might regard themselves as not simply provident but fortunate.

I am not certain that Dilnot fully addresses the problem. It is too dramatic to say that people have the choice of dying or destitution, or dying before destitution or whatever. Realistically, the option that most people fear is the reduction of their resources to the level that they become solely dependent on the generosity of the state. It seems to me that that is what Dilnot seeks to avoid or prevent. It attempts to deal with the problem that Members have spoken about, which is the total wipeout of a life’s accumulated family resources. The issue is whether Dilnot’s proposals to cap people’s costs have produced a scheme that is both affordable and socially just. It can be argued whether, if someone is vastly wealthy, the cap ought to apply to the same extent.

Whether Dilnot is affordable is not a question that is easy to answer. Does it depend on front-end costs being picked up by adequate and affordable insurance schemes? It depends on the insurers being willing to offer such products. I have spoken to insurers who would prefer to offer annuities or suchlike arrangements, and who question whether they will be in the market to provide the products that Dilnot requires. The other issue is what counts as front-end costs, because we exempt things such as hotel costs. It may be some appreciable time before people get to Dilnot’s benchmark of £35,000, or, if they take out insurance, premiums may be higher than we currently imagine. Asking whether Dilnot is affordable is like asking how long a piece of string is. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) illuminated in her speech, it depends on where we set the lines.

Certainly, what is more affordable to Government is likely to be less attractive to individuals and their families, or might be more problematic for insurers. However, the one thing that we all accept, if we ever redesign Dilnot, is that there is a genuine need for cross-party consensus to work out what blend of insurance risk Government and individuals can support.

That is another point we must consider, and perhaps we have not quite got there yet. I understand the cynicism about what the Treasury may or may not be prepared to do, but before it works out what it can afford, we need a degree of consensus concerning what the state’s role should be on this issue. We need to know not only about the state’s detailed implementation of the policy, but what the purpose of the state is in this business. We must look at how we intervene, and at how we wish to intervene.

16:40

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this important debate. Had I not come last in the roster this afternoon, I would—of course—have made a philosophical, wide-ranging and sparkling speech on the philosophical implications of the Dilnot report. Hon. Members will be glad to hear that I am not going to do that, and I will restrict myself, if I can, to a few small points that have not yet been covered in any great depth. I apologise for being absent from the debate for an hour, but next door to the Chamber the Surviving Winter appeal was being launched. The appeal transfers the winter fuel allowance from those who do not need it to those who do and, if I may make a quick plug, anybody who would like more details about it should speak to me after the debate.

Some difficulties over the local funding of care for the elderly need to be pointed out, and I know that the Minister will have seen the submission to the process by Hampshire county council. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—who unfortunately is now leaving the Chamber—talked about private citizens having to pay more than the county council for care, and that view is supported in a letter that I received recently from Mr Winterton-Smith, who wrote to me at great length about the difficulties he faces in financing care for his mother.

I looked up some statistics. Market research by Laing and Buisson in “Care of Elderly People UK Market Survey 2010-11” estimates the average weekly cost of nursing care in the southern home counties, which includes Hampshire, as £787. On average, Hampshire county council’s nursing care beds cost £650 a week. That is a difference of over £5,000 a year for the private carer, and it is a substantial gap that needs to be looked at.

Hampshire county council’s submission shines a spotlight on the number of self-funders in the southern counties, and in Hampshire, nearly 60% of those who receive elder care are self-funders. One imagines that the funding pattern could become enormously complicated if some parts of the country need massive cash inputs to deal with people converting from self-funding to being funded by the state. I point that out in passing because I was asked to do so by Hampshire county council, which I am partially representing today.

I was always attracted to the insurance model; it seemed to be a way of providing for future care in a proper way. Unfortunately, however, it looks as if that model is too complicated for institutions to price properly, and even the guarantee provided by Dilnot does not provide sufficient certainty for insurers to enter the market in any real number. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the International Longevity Centre have pushed forward insurance models, but Dilnot speaks about the market and explicitly rejects such models as stand-alone solutions. He believes that insurance models can be part of a solution and that some schemes will help, but the overall model is rejected.

Policy Exchange—not the favourite think-tank of Opposition Members, I know—published a report last year entitled “Careless.” I have spoken widely about countries such as Germany and Japan that have partially insurance-funded models of care, but are beginning to struggle with the implications of rising costs, and such models are beginning to look unsustainable. The Policy Exchange report gives a figure of £106 billion for the full cost of replacing care that is provided throughout the community, both privately and publicly, to those who need elder care. All sorts of perverse incentives might arise in a system that provided universal care. People who now provide care for nothing would, quite understandably, not provide it in the same way as they used to. The sum of £106 billion is a frightening figure to consider. I have no particular basis on which to back up that number, however, but I merely cite it from that report.

We have talked a little about the link between adult social care and health spending, and cross-departmental spending. When I was reviewing the literature, I noticed a reference to a spat that occurred in County Durham when the local PCT spent money on gritting the roads. It did so because it felt that it was a good way to prevent accidents and stop people needing adult social care. To me, that made a great deal of sense. The council, however, got into the most terrible trouble; all sorts of newspaper articles said that it was foolish or idiotic and did not know what it was doing. The harsh reality is that trips and falls cost the health service money, and they cost many elderly people their independence, and later their freedom.

The council’s decision is exactly the sort of thinking that led to what I will happily call the excellent Total Place initiative launched by the previous Government. That agenda has real potential to provide some of the funding that we require to solve the problem of care for the elderly in the long term. Breaking down the barriers between Departments, and pooling spending to deal with complex objectives, are ideas that the coalition must pursue if we are to make real inroads into solving problems such as the care of older people in times of increasing complexity and tighter spending.

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Does he agree that we have huge unmet housing needs for the ageing population, and that we have not thought about the types of homes that would most appropriately enable people to live comfortably at home? By planning services in a particular location, all the aspects that impact on whether people live healthier and longer lives could be better developed and delivered.

[George Hollingbery]

I am grateful for that intervention, which leads me neatly into my next point, which is always the danger of briefing one’s colleagues about what one might say, then being called last in the debate.

There could be a great deal of entrepreneurial thinking on cross-departmental spending and other areas that do not immediately seem relevant to social care. As many of my colleagues will know—including the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) who is a member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government—I am slightly obsessed with planning and I have become an appalling anorak since I came to Parliament whenever we talk about planning. I believe, however, that there is potential in the planning system to mitigate costs. If, when designing new communities in major and strategic development areas—6,000, 7,000 or 8,000 houses at a time—we plan properly for the needs of older people, and build the right sort of accommodation and adaptable homes that can be used in future and adapted later, people will be able to stay in their community and be close to their support networks. If such centres are built near shops, supermarkets and hairdressers, people can carry on living in the same place for a long time. By then moving a few hundred yards out of their house into one of these facilities, they can leverage the asset that they have grown over the years and look after themselves more efficiently.

In short, this issue is not only about adult social care or Department of Health budgets: we need entrepreneurial thinking across the public sector to ease the problem. I hope that the Minister will encourage all his colleagues across Departments to do just that.

16:47

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery). I agree with many of the points that he made and I will come on to discuss them. I also thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for securing this debate, and all other hon. Members who have spoken.

I will begin not with how we are going to fund the future system of social care, but with the “crisis in care” that older and disabled people, and their carers and families, are experiencing. Those are not my words but those of the Care and Support Alliance, which is an alliance of 52 major organisations representing older people, disabled people, their carers and families. It is important that we are clear about the state of the current system and the scale of the task we face. It will mean difficult decisions for all political parties.

I will begin with a point that has already been made by several hon. Members. Under the current system, there are substantial levels of unmet need. Although the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services is right to say that that need is difficult to quantify precisely, the King’s Fund has estimated that the unmet need gap in the current system is around £1.2 billion.

Those unmet needs are increasing. To a large extent, that is because of our ageing population. That is a good thing, but it means that more people are living to a very old age with one, two or perhaps three long-term, chronic conditions, such as dementia. We simply have not seen that in the past, and it is happening at a time when budgets for both the NHS and social care are being squeezed and they are not changing sufficiently fast to meet the changing needs of our population.

However, unmet need is also growing, because councils are tightening and restricting their eligibility criteria for services. Eight out of 10 councils now provide services only for people with substantial or critical needs, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, those are people with very real and serious care needs, not simple needs. “Substantial” means very serious needs.

Mencap says that 83% of councils are meeting only substantial or critical needs for adults with learning disabilities. That is up from 73% only one year ago. Nine out of 10 councils have increased their charges for both residential and domiciliary care. Many councils are restricting the time allowed for home visits. Help At Home, one of the biggest home help providers in Leicestershire, told me at my surgery last Friday that Leicestershire county council is paying for blocks of 15 minutes of care, down from 30 minutes previously. It told me that if the carers go just over that, the council rounds down the time for which it will pay. That is causing huge problems, first and foremost for older people. In many cases, it is simply impossible to get an older person up, washed, dressed and fed in such a short time. It is also causing a problem for staff who, once unpaid travel times are taken into account, are not even earning the equivalent of the minimum wage in the course of a working week. As a result, Help At Home is losing staff and finding it very difficult to recruit new staff, which the organisation simply has not experienced before.

It is clear that one of the fundamental reasons for tightened eligibility criteria, increased charges, and reductions not only in preventive services but in services such as day care centres is the cuts to local council budgets. The Government say that they are providing £2 billion of additional funding for social care in the course of the spending review period. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services says that the reality is that social care spending has been cut by £1 billion this year, with even bigger cuts likely next year. Analysis by the House of Commons Library shows that, according to Department for Communities and Local Government figures, there will be a real-terms cut of £1.34 billion to adult social care in the Government’s first two years once inflation is taken into account; £1.3 billion is being cut from social care spending for those over 65.

The figures are based on the assumption that councils receive every single penny of the money that the Government say is being transferred from the NHS to local councils. In many cases, that is happening, but I have been told by several leads for adult social care that they are not getting all the money, and that that applies particularly to money for carers. The reality is that local council budgets are being cut by 27% during the spending review period and that that will have an effect on adult social care, because social care budgets are the biggest discretionary spend for local councils.

The Government say that there is no reason why local councils should end up cutting social care services because of the cuts in council budgets. I just point out that the Government have readily said that councils need extra money to pay for weekly bin collections. I ask hon. Members to reflect on that sense of priorities.

The consequences of the decisions are being felt by older and disabled people, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East also said, have been denied the up-front preventive services and support that could keep them healthy and independent in their own home. Older people, whether that is the old old or people aged 65, like my father, do not want to be reliant on any kind of help. They want to be independent. Our goal is not to be dependent on any kind of help from the state, but to live independently for as long as possible. However, the help and support that people could receive to achieve that independence is not happening. The consequences of the cuts and decisions are being felt by families and carers. Many hon. Members have talked about the pressures on carers, many of whom are at their wits’ end struggling to make ends meet, at grave risk to their own physical and mental health.

Something that has not been mentioned in the debate is the fact that the consequences are also being felt by businesses and the wider economy, as companies lose the skills and experience of carers who are forced out of the labour market because there is not enough affordable, good-quality and flexible social care to allow them to stay in their job. That problem will only get worse as people are required to work longer before they retire, and care longer at the same time.

The consequences are also being felt by taxpayers, as older and disabled people end up using more expensive hospital services when they do not need to. Several hon. Members have rightly said that delayed discharges from hospitals are up by 11% in the latest month for which data are available compared with the same time last year. That is because we are not getting the right system in place, which costs us all more in the long run.

I want to be clear: I firmly believe that we can make far better use of existing resources if we genuinely bring together health, social care services and other services such as housing and shift the focus not only more towards prevention, but much more towards a personalised service. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Meon Valley talked about the Total Place work under the previous Government. We must begin to see all these local budgets as one pot of money that can be used.

Hon. Members will have many good examples from their constituencies of ways in which preventive services have saved money. One example from the time of the previous Government is the partnerships for older people projects, which brought together health and social care around individuals’ needs. Overnight hospital stays for people in the projects were reduced by 47%; accident and emergency attendance was reduced by 29%; and once all the other services such as occupational therapy and physiotherapy were taken into account, £2,166 less per person was spent, so there is huge potential.

Even if we get those big shifts in the way in which services are run, more funding will be needed for the system in future. That is why the Labour party has offered cross-party talks on the proposals set out by the Dilnot commission. As hon. Members have said, there is widespread, although not total, consensus in favour of the commission’s proposals. We are serious about engaging in meaningful talks on the Dilnot proposals as a step towards a better system in future. We have set aside our experiences before the last general election, when very unhelpful comments were made, which wasted an opportunity for cross-party consensus.

If talks are to be serious, meaningful and successful, four key things need to happen. We have written to the Secretary of State setting them out, and I will outline them now. First, all relevant Departments must be engaged in the process. Securing agreement on the funding and implementation of the Dilnot proposals goes far beyond the remit of the Department of Health and the Health Secretary. The engagement of the Treasury is particularly important in the process.

Secondly, we have suggested that there should be an independent chair for cross-party talks, as we believe that that would make a successful outcome more likely. Thirdly, we think that an agreement is far more likely to be reached if there is transparent access for all parties to policy advice and information. We have suggested having an independent secretariat to provide equal access to the negotiating teams as required. Finally, we have requested that the leaders of the three main parties meet to agree a clear timetable for talks, with a view to securing a successful outcome and a joint statement before the publication of the White Paper next spring.

I think that many organisations representing users of social care and carers would agree that such steps are vital. If we are serious about cross-party talks to get all parties to sign up to big future public spending commitments, the talks need to be serious, and they need to have a serious process. I need not say this: such an agreement will be extremely difficult and challenging to reach in our antagonistic and combative political environment.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend, but I am slightly concerned that there might be—if one likes—a conspiracy between the Front Benchers of the different parties to keep down expenditure rather than do what is needed. It might mean the Labour party saying, “We are going to have to spend more,” and raising the revenue to pay for it.

[Liz Kendall]

I am under no illusion about the scale of the funding challenge to meet the needs of our ageing population. Funding the current, unfair and ineffective system of social care will cost £12 billion by 2025. The Dilnot proposals, on top of that, cost more than £3.5 billion. Dilnot is an important step that we want to have genuine talks about, but it will not solve the entire problem that we face about the future of social care. Yes, we can make a big difference by looking at how we join up health, social care, housing and other spending, but there are clear implications for all parties in taking the matter forward, and we all need to be aware of them.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making a good argument, and I am heartened by what she is saying. However, if the implications that she has just helpfully outlined exist, the debate has to be taken out to people. If there are implications for taxpayers, they have to know what they are. Many Members who have spoken today have said that it is quite clear that people do not understand or plan for care, and then the costs hit them. The debate out there, in addition to the essential cross-party talks, is important.

[Liz Kendall]

I could not agree more. The deal must not be done behind closed doors. There has to be a discussion between political parties, but most importantly, there has to be a discussion with the public—not just the current users of the system and their carers, but people who are not in the care system and younger people, who are working now and who will have to understand the issue. We have to have a full and proper debate.

[John Pugh]

During the previous general election, we all had a number of hustings meetings. Whenever the topic cropped up, a theme that came across forcibly from all members of the public was that they wanted the parties to discuss the issue together and that they were rather saddened by what happened immediately before the election.

[Liz Kendall]

I was not a Member of Parliament then, but from my own experience in hustings, I think that people feel let down when such an important issue becomes a political football. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who was the health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party at the time, did not engage in that kind of behaviour. I do not want to go over old ground.

We need to discuss the matter, but it will be difficult. We all know what politics is like, and how parties use things to get at the other side. The issue will not be easy—it is about public spending and implications for individuals. What will they and taxpayers have to pay? We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that the issue would be an easy one.

I agree with all hon. Members who have said that the issue is one of the biggest challenges that we face, even if that is a cliché. We all think about it for our constituents and in our own families. I think about it, as many other hon. Members do, for myself, as I hope to live to a ripe old age. It will be a difficult challenge, but I hope that today’s debate shows that we are at least prepared to engage with the difficult issues to take the debate forward.

17:04

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate. By doing so, she has demonstrated the breadth and depth of her interest and expertise, and the breadth of interest across the House, in the issues. Such debates are not always as well attended as this one. As you rightly noted, Mr Bone, the Leader of the House also attended for a while to listen to our deliberations, which speaks volumes about the importance that the Government attach to the issue.

I am delighted that so many members and officers of all-party groups took part in the debate. This is the second time this week that I have had the pleasure of the company of the chairs and other officers from a number of those all-party groups. Earlier in the week, I hosted an event in the Department of Health with APG chairs to discuss with them their thinking about the way in which we need to respond to the challenging agenda and to input into shaping the White Paper that we will publish—in answer to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—next spring. When I was asked at the meeting, I confirmed that we are aiming for April—that is what we mean by spring for this purpose—and I can reconfirm that today.

I very much agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), which were echoed in many contributions in this debate, about the need to have cross-party discussion and secure a cross-party agreement. One reason why we need to do that is that social care law has been very overlooked and neglected. The Law Commission report that came out this May quite rightly pointed out that our social care legislation has evolved over 60 years in a haphazard and piecemeal way. The confusing legal system is one of the reasons why social care has such a complex system, and why so many judicial reviews take place. We need a consensus to secure a legal reform that will last the test of time.

First, I would like to respond to some of the points made about the current situation of social care funding. I find it heartening that some of the points rehearsed in the debate acknowledged that the fragility of our social care system is not new—it did not start 18 months ago but is the pattern of many years, which we, as the coalition Government, are trying to address now.

I am not going to deny that things are tough, or that no council has had to make difficult decisions; it has not been an easy time for anyone. Difficult decisions have had to be made across Government because of the economic situation that we currently find ourselves in. However, the funding landscape is not as simple as I think some would like us to believe. The headline story of a Government intent on slashing social care services no doubt makes good copy, but it is not borne out by a closer examination of the facts.

In the previous spending review, which we announced last October, we provided an extra £7.2 billion over four years up to 2015 to protect social care, partly through councils and partly through the national health service. The aim was to alleviate the potential pressures on the adult social care system in what would be a challenging overall funding settlement for local government; that point has been rehearsed quite clearly by a number of colleagues in this debate.

We recognised that this year would be particularly tough. We have front-end loaded the funding for the first two years to insulate social care from cuts to local authority budgets, on which I will amplify a bit. Combined with a focus on efficiency, we believe that the additional funding that we have provided will enable councils to protect people’s access to care services. That is not just our view but the Local Government Association’s view, put forward in its submissions to the spending review. The King’s Fund also said in its report, “Social care funding and the NHS”, that central Government have put enough money in to protect adult social care services, provided that there are rigorous attempts to improve efficiency.

However, as the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and other hon. Members have said, spending is falling. Budget data collected by the Department for Communities and Local Government from local authorities suggest that social care budgets are around £200 million lower than last year, which is a reduction of just over 1.5%. However, it is not inevitable that reductions in spending lead to cuts in front-line services. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South quoted the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which had an interesting survey of their members that was published earlier this year. Boil it down a little further and what we find is that for every £1 that has been saved or taken out of spending in social care by local authorities, 70p can be attributed to efficiency savings. It is not about taking services out from the front line, but service redesign.

Yesterday, the Local Government Association released a prospectus inviting councils to take part in its productivity programme for adult social care. It said that there is scope for efficiency. In its foreword it said that if councils develop plans in line with policy objectives such as prevention and personalisation, they will minimise the impact of reduced funding for the front line, which is why I welcome the work that it is doing to recruit councils to its programme. From there, best practice can be shared with other councils to ensure that they are not making bad decisions when it comes to their budget choices.

[Barbara Keeley]

I understand the issues about efficiencies and the need to make changes such as the move to personalisation. However, from my experience—as I have said, I am in a local authority that is protecting social care—efficiency savings have caused our primary care trust to give up active case management for people with long-term conditions. Personalisation of personal budgets has meant that Age UK has not been able to conduct similar active case management for older people or to run drop-in centres for carers of people with dementia. Sometimes the change and the churn also cause loss. We have not touched today on the reorganisation of the NHS, but that has had an impact on things, too. I understand that we are in a system in which certain changes are good but can result in a loss of services that really impacts on people.

[Paul Burstow]

I am not seeking to hide or resile from that. What I am trying to do is demonstrate that the picture is not uniform or consistent. I want to quote some further evidence that supports that point of view, but first let me make it clear that of the £900 million that the ADASS survey identified as having been taken out of social care spend, 70p in every pound came not from cuts in front-line services but from service efficiencies and redesign. That very point was made by a number of hon. Members in the debate.

[Heidi Alexander]

The Minister is talking about efficiency savings within adult social care services, but would he accept that as every day goes by, demand for those services is increasing because of the needs within the existing population? May I press him a little more on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall)? Does he not think that his colleagues should be making greater protestations about decisions taken within local authorities? Rather than focusing on the bins, as my hon. Friend said, we should be talking about the needs of the elderly population and perhaps giving local authorities a bit more direction. Will the Minister tell us his views on that?

[Paul Burstow]

I do not believe we should micro-manage the decisions of every local authority. We should not dictate to local authorities about how to manage their resources. One message that came from local government before the election, which we, as a coalition, have responded to, was the desire to remove ring fences from budgets to give councils maximum flexibility. Total Place is exactly what that is about. It is about using budgets smartly to meet local needs in the best way to fit the community’s circumstances. In the past, such flexibility was constrained by the number of ring fences.

I have also picked up on some scepticism in the debate about the additional funding that is being provided through the spending review for adult social care via the NHS. There was some question as to whether or not that money was getting through. Of the £648 million for this year, nearly half has already been transferred—we know that from surveys that we have conducted—and agreements are in place to transfer the remainder. As to the reference to the money for carers, that was not part of this social care transfer; it was a separate requirement under the NHS operating framework. I am more than happy to debate that at a later stage, but right now I need to try to cover the main points in this debate.

Both primary care trusts and local authorities are positive about the development of these particular funds. They have seen them as a lever for more joint planning and co-operation. The feedback that we have had to date shows that the money is being spent on what it was intended for—prevention and rehabilitation, re-ablement, early supported hospital discharge schemes and integrated crisis response services. I am saying not that the money is a panacea but that those funds are making a difference in the communities in which they are being used smartly by the NHS and social care organisations. Times are tough and I am not going to pretend otherwise. Although I can present a relatively positive picture nationally, there are areas where cuts to front-line adult social care services are really beginning to bite.

Although some councils have coped with the cuts by tightening their eligibility criteria, it is not fair to suggest that that started in May last year. The trend started back in 2005. The way in which councils define and apply eligibility criteria is not consistent from one borough to the next. We will address those issues of definition as part of the review that we are taking forward in the White Paper.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Even squeezing at the margins means that more people will suffer and not get the care that they need. In other fields we spend more freely, relatively, and yet we are squeezing in this area. The Minister said that 70% of the cuts in spending is to deal with inefficiencies, but 30% is real front-line spending, which means that some people are suffering.

[Paul Burstow]

I am trying hard to be reasoned and respond positively to the points that have been made. I am not trying to dismiss things. I am not making a speech that pretends that everything is perfect. I am trying to engage seriously with the real problems that local authorities are having to grapple with. I am also trying to set out that there are different ways of doing things. Some councils are choosing to do things differently and in ways that allow them to protect the quality of the service and the outcomes for the individual. That is the test that is most important to me.

In regard to eligibility, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked about portability. It is one of the 76 recommendations in the Law Commission report. In the “Vision for Adult Social Care” that we published last November, I said that we are minded to progress the idea of portability in assessments. There is further debate to be had about how we translate that into portability of outcomes and services, and that is one of the issues that we are considering in the White Paper.

As I have said, we have a mixed picture across the country. It does not bear out the simplistic formula of “less money equals more cuts.” Age UK and WRVS are publishing a report which I will read with interest when it comes out. An illuminating report was published in September by Demos and Scope, which looks at how disabled people have been affected by budget changes in local authorities. We might expect to find that the biggest cuts in front-line services are made by the councils that face the most dramatic cuts in their income, but that is simply not the case. Demos’s report suggests that there is no direct cause and effect. The councils that it applauds for coping the best have not enjoyed the most generous settlements, and they are not concentrated in the most affluent areas. Rural and urban areas and rich and poor areas are found in equal measure at both the top and bottom of the table.

There are tough choices to be made in every town hall as well as in every part of Whitehall and in the national health service, but we need the choices to be smart, too, Places such as Tameside have invested in re-ablement services that help people back to independence after a period of illness and ultimately reduce their care needs. Tameside estimates that that saved it £2.3 million, which it then reinvested. Somerset county council has commissioned a number of projects that use volunteers to help people with low and moderate care needs to run their own groups, form friendship circles and keep in touch with activities available in their local community.

The West Sussex-based Carewise service was recognised by Which? magazine as a model of best practice. It helps older people who pay for their care to plan their futures. Planning, which is all too often absent, has been a theme of the debate. The organisation ensures that people get good financial advice. We are talking about improving services through integration, which is another important theme of the debate as is the use of personal budgets. Those budgets are now being rolled out through the trail-blazer pilots for direct payments for social care, for personal health budgets and for personal budgets in respect of Supporting People. Such changes begin to give the individual the opportunity to have a Total Place approach to the way in which they use resources and allow resources to be used to best effect.

When I went to Knowsley last year to see what was being done on integration, the most powerful aspect of the approach used was the fact that it involved thinking about “the Knowsley pound.” And in Torbay, which I also visited, the approach there was to look at everything through the eyes of “Mrs Smith.” It may not be appropriate in every community to look through the eyes of a “Mrs Smith,” but in Torbay it was thought appropriate. Officials in Knowsley and Torbay made the leap in the approaches that they took to see money not as theirs—to be held within the boundaries of their institutions—but as their community’s money, to be spent wisely on behalf of their community. That is the essential ingredient in delivering effective use of public money in times of austerity.

That brings me to the case for reform. Despite the funding challenges, there are steps that councils are able to take now to improve social care services and I hope that they will take those steps.

I will talk about reform in detail. I have been in the House for 14 years, so I am now entitled at least to have a sense of déjà vu about this debate, like some other Members who have been in the House for a long time. However, I think we are at a different stage in the debate. We are building on the work that has been done—the listening that has happened and the engagement that has taken place—over many years. Indeed, in framing the terms of reference for Andrew Dilnot, we set him the task of looking at everything that had been done in the past 13 years to ensure that we did not just reinvent the wheel and that we learned from what had been heard already. I am keen that we continue to do just that.

I am also keen that in this debate we address a very important issue about understanding, which is the issue about the nasty little secret at the heart of social care. It is a secret that we MPs all share and know about, but seven out of 10 people in this country do not know about it. It is that social care is not free and in fact has never been free. At the moment, we are in a situation where people look at the proposals that Andrew Dilnot has put forward and he is judged not against the standard of the reality of our experience of social care, which has been so well described in this debate, but against a fantasy of social care that is free, just as the NHS is free. All of us in this Chamber and all of us who have an interest in reform in this sector need to ensure that we do not allow that fantasy to get in the way of judging Andrew Dilnot’s proposals fairly.

That is a key part of how we can ensure that we make progress in this area. Indeed, it is key because of the catastrophic costs that people face. Those costs have been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh), and by the hon. Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). They talked about the anger that people feel that they have saved, worked, invested in their lives and been thrifty, only to have it all snatched away at the point that they are in need of support from the system. That issue of fairness is part of what we asked Andrew Dilnot to look at.

I want to make two more comments before I sit down for the concluding speech. There has been talk about the cap, about whether it does anything for carers and about changing the way that the system works. I want to make a suggestion that people need to think about. The cap has to be metered. People have to enter the system and then move towards the cap. The way that we design the meter is the way that we incentivise prevention; the way that we design the meter is the way that we build carers in and respect and value what they contribute. I hope that people will think about that in the weeks remaining before we conclude our process of debate and deliberation, leading up to the White Paper next year, because that is one of the ways in which we can redesign the system to be a system that is about supporting what people can do, that is about enabling communities to support people and that is about enabling families to contribute in the way that they want to.

My final comment is that I have found this debate to be very helpful and a useful airing of the issues. I hope we shall continue to debate these issues in Parliament and continue to have the debate in the community. But it is not just an open-ended debate; it has to be a debate that is closed and that comes to conclusions. That is what the White Paper is about. The White Paper is the conclusion of 14 years, as far as I am concerned. It is about how we get to the next stage.

I was asked about legislation. Let me just say that it is well above my pay grade to be the one who announces what will be in the next Queen’s Speech; I probably would not be a Minister for much longer if I were to do that today. However, when the decisions are made we will have looked at this process and the White Paper outcomes, and I hope we will be in a position to legislate at the earliest opportunity. Social care has languished and rested in the “too-difficult-to-do” box for far too long. We are the Government who are committed; we see the urgency and the need. I hope that together we can get the cross-party lead that results in the changes that are long, long overdue.

17:24

[Sarah Newton]

Thank you very much indeed for calling me to speak, Mr Bone.

This has been a really interesting debate and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Margot James), for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) for their contributions. There were numerous very helpful and constructive interventions from colleagues who had to join the debate in the main Chamber or go back to their constituencies.

I think I speak on behalf of us all when I say how much I welcome the tone of the Minister’s response, the commitment to producing the White Paper in April and his clear desire to wrestle with this issue to ensure that it does not disappear into the “too-difficult-to-do” category. He also showed a clear desire to work with all parties and to continue to listen to the concerns of the chairs of the all-party groups, who come from all parties represented in the House, in further dialogue and debate while he and the Government develop their White Paper.

Although we cannot do it in the format of today’s debate, it would be very helpful to hear the Minister’s response to the specific request made by the hon. Member for Leicester West about the nature of the cross-party negotiations that were proposed. That would give us all a great deal of confidence that there was a proper process in place to achieve cross-party support before the White Paper is produced, because that cross-party support would indeed enable the White Paper to have the best possible chance of becoming legislation at the first opportunity, which would allow the Government to start to address these issues.

I thank the Minister for his words of encouragement and I thank everybody who has participated in the debate. And Mr Bone, it will not surprise you that I am sure that as a result of this debate, and because of the number of Members who were not able to get to Westminster Hall to speak in the debate that they really wanted to speak in, you and the rest of the Backbench Business Committee will receive another request to have a further debate on this vital issue in the main Chamber, probably in January, when the work of the Health Committee, which is examining the area of social care funding, is completed and when the Minister has had opportunities to have further cross-party discussions. Thank you, Mr Bone.

Question put and agreed to.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

Thursday 10 November 2011

Post-legislative Scrutiny of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The Government have published today the memorandum to the Public Administration Select Committee on the post-legislative scrutiny of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 on the Cabinet Office website:

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/post-legislative-scrutiny-statistics-and-registration-service-act-2007-cm-8216.



Cabinet Office carried out the post-legislative scrutiny, which includes a preliminary assessment of how far the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 has worked in practice, and has set out the findings in a Command Paper (Cm 8216) to the Committee. This is in accordance with the current guidelines of carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of a Bill within three to five years of it receiving Royal Assent.

Copies of the Command Paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.

Project Avanti

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

On 29 June 2010, the Minister responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans established a project team to identify and implement the most cost-effective organisational structure for the Army’s regional structure. The strategic defence and security review White Paper¹ (SDSR) directed that the four Army regional divisional headquarters would be replaced by a single support command and that at least two of the 10 regional brigade headquarters would close. This capitalised on earlier work which concluded that the rationalisation of the regional structure would principally increase effectiveness with the added benefit of saving resources.

On 18 July 2011, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House— Official Report, columns 66-70WS—that in accordance with SDSR direction it was proposed that the Army’s four regional divisional headquarters² would be replaced by a single support command. The new formation, commanded by a major-general, would be known as Headquarters Support Command and it would be based in Aldershot. He said that its creation would lead to the disbandment of Headquarters 2nd Division at Edinburgh, Headquarters 4th Division at Aldershot and Headquarters 5th Division at Shrewsbury in 2012. Savings at the regional brigade level would be made through structural changes to each of the 10 regional brigade headquarters and to HQ London District, together with their supporting structures rather than by closing individual brigade headquarters.

Today I am announcing that consultation on those proposals has concluded and I have endorsed the approval given by the Army investment board to implement the restructuring of the Army’s regional structure. Formal consultation will now commence with the trade unions on the implementation and we plan to begin to stand up the new support command headquarters at the beginning of January 2012 when we shall disband HQ 4th Division. The headquarters of 2nd and 5th Divisions will disband by the beginning of April 2012 although tasks will continue to be carried out in Edinburgh and Shrewsbury until the end of August 2012 when we expect HQ Support Command to achieve full operating capability. The 10 regional brigade headquarters and HQ London District will also move towards their new structures from January 2012 and we expect the new structures in these organisations to be achieved by 31 March 2013.

I have written to colleagues who have the headquarters of the regional divisions or brigades within their constituencies and the adjutant-general has written to other key external stakeholders to apprise them of these developments. The project team will continue to engage with all other interested parties, especially those personnel who are affected by these changes.

¹Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review—Cm 7948 dated 19 October 2010.

²In addition to HQ 2nd Division in Edinburgh, HQ 4th Division in Aldershot and HQ 5th Division in Shrewsbury, the 4th regional division is HQ UKSC in Germany. The drawdown of HQ UKSC is being addressed under the Borona programme.

Witten Ministerial Statement (Correction)

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

On 7 November I made a written ministerial statement summarising discussions at the October Agriculture and Fisheries Council—Official Report, columns 3-5WS. In the paragraph relating to the AoB item on implementation of the laying hens directive I referred to implementation beginning in 2013. This paragraph should have read:

Under any other business Council heard an update from Commissioner Dalli on implementation of the laying hens directive, which comes into force on 1 January 2012. The Commission was clear that there would be no postponement of the ban on battery cages even though at least 11 member states were unlikely to have complied with the directive by the start of next year. The Commission said it would exercise powers, beginning targeted inspection visits at the start of 2012, and would begin legal proceedings against non-compliant member states. While there was an argument that non-compliant eggs should be destroyed, this would not make political or economic sense. Instead, the use of non-compliant eggs would be limited to production of egg products within the member state of origin. There was no opportunity for member states to intervene.

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

The Foreign Affairs Council (in both foreign affairs and development formats) and General Affairs Council will meet in Brussels on 14-15 November. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign Affairs Council. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will attend the development Foreign Affairs Council.

Foreign Affairs Council (FAC)

EU-Russia

The pre-FAC dinner on 13 November will discuss EU-Russia, although we also expect this to cover Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus. This will be a good opportunity to explore with partners medium-term prospects for the EU-Russia relationship. We will use the opportunity to set out what we want to achieve at the EU-Russia summit on 15 December: progress on the Transnistria conflict, reduction of trade barriers and progress on a new EU-Russia agreement.

Afghanistan

We are working to secure a strong and enduring EU commitment to Afghanistan which will reassure the Afghans that 2014 will not mark the end of international support. Ahead of the 5 December Bonn conference on Afghanistan, we want the FAC to agree a negotiating mandate for a long-term EU-Afghanistan partnership; commit to extend the EU policing mission (EUPOL) mandate in Afghanistan to the end of 2014; and make a political commitment to involvement in justice and development reform after 2014. Pakistan has a key role to play in this process, and we will continue to make the case for increased EU engagement.

Southern Neighbourhood (Tunisia/Egypt/Syria/Libya/Yemen)

We will continue to encourage partners to look at how we might incentivise the EU’s offer to its southern neighbours, especially Egypt and Tunisia, while continuing to ensure that it is clearly linked to reform benchmarks. This will be an opportunity for Ministers to respond to the recent elections in Tunisia. We expect the discussion to focus on how to maintain momentum to deliver the outcomes of the EU-Tunisia taskforce in September and plans for further support to Tunisia. On Egypt, the EU needs to assess further how its package of economic and trade incentives can support reform.

On Syria, we are urging the EU to consider increasing the pressure on the Syria regime, including through new sanctions, unless it immediately takes action to end the violence against protestors as outlined in the Arab League’s initiative of 2 November.

On Libya, Ministers will have an opportunity to welcome liberation and to reinforce EU support for the newly appointed Prime Minister of the future transitional Government. Discussion is likely to focus on progress on Government formation and an update on stabilisation issues. We want the Council to reiterate its strong message of support to the Libyan authorities.

Baroness Ashton is likely to raise briefly the continuing political impasse in Yemen and the damage this is causing to an already fragile economic, humanitarian and security environment. We expect more detailed discussion on Yemen at the 1 December FAC.

The Horn of Africa

We expect Baroness Ashton to seek agreement on the adoption of the strategic framework for the horn of Africa—which has been submitted under an explanatory memorandum to both Houses. The strategic framework focuses on regional and cross-cutting issues, including development, piracy, counter-terrorism and trade. We are broadly supportive of this approach as it will enable the EU to make its engagement in the horn of Africa more effective through consistent, coherent and complementary use of its instruments and by focusing more clearly on the underlying challenges of the region.

Baroness Ashton is also expected to seek agreement to a set of Council conclusions on Somalia. The conclusions are expected to reconfirm the EU and member states’ commitment to working with Somali stakeholders and international partners on a broad spectrum of issues including alleviating the humanitarian crisis, making progress towards a lasting political solution to the conflict, ensuring a credible and inclusive process towards a new constitution and tackling terrorist and pirate security threats that emanate from Somalia.

Serbia/Kosovo

Baroness Ashton is expected to update Ministers on the EU-facilitated dialogue between Pristina and Belgrade. We expect EU member states to give Baroness Ashton strong support for her efforts on the dialogue as a way of building practical co-operation between Kosovo and Serbia and of helping both countries make progress towards the EU in a more stable fashion.

Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)

We will continue to encourage the development of European civilian and military capabilities, better EU-NATO relations and a more joined-up approach to crisis management. There is likely to be informal discussion on the EU’s military planning structures on which we have made, and will continue to make, our opposition to new institutions very clear. We expect formal conclusions to be agreed at the 1 December FAC.

EU-US Summit

We expect Ministers to be briefed on the preparations for the forthcoming EU-US summit taking place in Washington on 28 November. The summit is likely to focus on the pressing issues on the international agenda, including the global economy and the Arab spring.

Foreign Affairs Council for Development Ministers

Future of EU Development Policy

Ministers will discuss the recent European Commission’s (EC) communication on “Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: An Agenda for Change”. The communication sets out a more strategic EU approach to reducing poverty, including through a more targeted allocation of funding. Council conclusions for this communication are set to be adopted at the next Development FAC in 2012.

EU Budget Support

This item will focus on the EC communication on “The Future Approach to EU Budget Support to Third Countries”. The communication aims to improve the Commission’s budget support mechanisms and proposes an updated approach to the provision of various types of budget support. Council conclusions for this communication are also set to be adopted at the next Development FAC in 2012.

The EU Common Position for the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness

(HLF-4, Busan, 29 November to 1 December 2011)

Ministers will adopt a common EU position for the fourth high-level forum on aid effectiveness, taking place in Busan from 29 November to 1 December 2011. The UK Government’s priorities, transparency and fragility, are well reflected in the draft conclusions. We will support proposals for an ambitious outcome in Busan, one that is endorsed by all including the broader development actors.

Horn of Africa

This discussion will be held over dinner, continuing the discussion held by Foreign Ministers during the FAC. This is an opportunity to encourage member states and the EC to provide support for the horn of Africa through 2012 for humanitarian and recovery-related requirements. We will also encourage the EC to ensure resilience is built into humanitarian efforts and communities are developed to withstand humanitarian shocks.

General Affairs Council (GAC)

October and December European Councils

The European Council of 23 October focused on economic policy, the G20, climate change and foreign policy. Although overshadowed by the ongoing eurozone crisis, the focus on economic growth was welcome. The statements on Libya and the Arab spring, although not on the original agenda, were also welcome.

The conclusions of the October European Council meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/125496.pdf.

This was quickly followed by an informal meeting of the members of the European Council on 26 October to prepare the Euro summit.

The statement from the informal meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/125621.pdf.

The Euro summit statement can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/125644.pdf.

The General Affairs Council will also discuss preparation for the December European Council. The agenda includes the ongoing economic issues for the EU, energy policy and enlargement.

Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF)

The European Commission has released the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the MFF for the period 2014-2020 on 29 June 2011. (See link below.)

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/documents/fin_fwk1420/proposal_council_regulation_COM-398_en.pdf

The UK’s position on the MFF is that budgetary constraint and ensuring that the EU budget contributes to domestic fiscal consolidation are the highest priorities.

The Prime Minister has stated, jointly with France and Germany, that the maximum acceptable expenditure increase for the next MFF would be a real freeze in payments. This must be year on year from the actual level of payments in 2013.

At a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for the MFF is unrealistic. It is too large; it is not the restrained budget the Commission claims; and it is incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in countries across Europe.

Baltic Sea Strategy

The General Affairs and External Relations Council and European Council endorsed the implementation of the Baltic sea strategy in October 2009. The broad aim of the strategy is to address common challenges in the region. The GAC is expected to agree conclusions welcoming a progress report on the strategy.

Opportunities for Volunteering (Legacy Report)

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)]

The Government have today announced the publication of the final Opportunities for Volunteering report. “Opportunities for Volunteering—the legacy report” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available for hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

The Government recognise that volunteers play an important role in building resilient communities. In the context of health, public health and social care, they contribute to the delivery of high quality health, care and support services; improving health and well-being; and helping to reduce health and social inequality. They frequently offer support to people at the most vulnerable points in their lives.

The Department supports the focus during this month on health and care by the European year of volunteering and believes this report demonstrates a long standing commitment to encourage volunteering in that context stretching back three decades.

This Opportunities for Volunteering legacy report sets out not only the Government’s recognition and appreciation of the scheme’s achievements since its launch in 1982. It also—primarily—sets out the reflections on the scheme from the Opportunities for Volunteering national agents who have delivered it on behalf of the Department. Achievements of the scheme, from the perspective of national agents, include:

developing the volunteer infrastructure;

improving volunteer management practice;

fostering an environment for projects to seek out new alliances;

helping small and emerging organisations to recruit volunteers and involve service users; and

empowering service users to become volunteers themselves.

The noble and proud tradition of volunteering across the full range of health and care settings, that Opportunities for Volunteering has embodied with distinction for so long, is being continued through the Department’s health and social care volunteering fund that was launched in December 2009 as the successor. This new fund is closely aligned with the four priorities of the new strategic vision for volunteering for health and care. “Social action for health and well-being: building co-operative communities”, the Department’s new strategic vision for volunteering, was launched in October this year.

UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the publication of the “UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011” and the Government response to the consultation launched on 22 March 2011.

The majority of comments on both policy and operational detail were in strong agreement with the overall approach set out in the strategy. All comments have been considered when finalising the updated strategy.

Each of the UK Governments will produce separate health and social care facing documents, which will address the operational detail.

We plan to publish the English health and social care document in the next few months and it will be subject to the agreement of the new health system in England.

This strategy and Government response have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The strategy can also be found at:

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_130903.

The consultation response also can be found at:

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Responsestoconsultations/DH_130901.

Consolidated Guidance on Detainees (Update)

Thursday 10th November 2011 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

The Government published the “Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Service Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Relating to Detainees” on 6 July 2010. The guidance was subsequently made the subject of two linked legal challenges; one brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the other brought by public interest lawyers on behalf of Mr Al-Bazzouni. Judgment in these two linked cases was handed down by the High Court on Monday 3 October. The Court dismissed the challenge brought by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, accepting the Government’s position that there was no material difference between “real risk” and “serious risk” as the threshold at which officers may proceed or must refer cases for more senior consideration, and that it was legitimate for the guidance to use the term “serious risk”. As a judicial endorsement of Government policy, this was an extremely positive outcome.

The Court, however, found in favour of Mr Al-Bazzouni on his challenge regarding the lawfulness of the exception in the annex to the guidance which states that the following could constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDT):

“methods of obscuring vision or hooding (except where these do not pose a risk to the detainee’s physical or mental health and is necessary for security reasons during arrest or transit)”.

The Court considered that although the exception could conceivably operate lawfully (so that UK officers could legitimately proceed where a detainee had been hooded in accordance with the conditions set out in the exception), it was unworkable to expect officers on the ground to judge whether the detainees held by foreign liaison services came within the exception, and that the annex should therefore be amended to omit hooding from the ambit of the exception. The relevant section of the guidance has therefore been slightly reworked to reflect this finding. The revised version of the guidance has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

To be clear, the Government stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf. Officers whose actions are consistent with the guidance should have confidence that they will not risk personal liability.

Grand Committee

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

Thursday, 10 November 2011.

Welfare Reform Bill

Thursday 10th November 2011 Grand Committee

Committee (12th Day)

Relevant document: 17th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee.

14:00

Amendment 76ZB not moved.

Clause 53 agreed.

Clause 54 : Work experience etc

Debate on whether Clause 54 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I have given notice that I intend to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill in order to be able to return briefly, I hope, to a subject that we have touched on before. Because of its significance, I want to clarify certain points.

Specifically, does this clause introduce a change? Is it a widening of the definition of work-related activity? If it is not, one might ask why the provision is in the Bill at all. We see merit in work placements and work experience but we are trying to understand the boundaries between them and work itself. This is important, as it is being made available and could be mandated for those in the WRAG—those found not fit for work. Are those in the WRAG currently involved in work placements and work experience? If so, what safeguards are being introduced? In particular, what guidance is given to providers in the work programme about all this, and what monitoring is undertaken? Is access-to-work funding available for work experience and work placements as for work? If not, how does that help disabled people move closer to the labour market?

I shall tag one further question on to this debate. It has been reported in the press—I know that the noble Lord is reluctant to comment on press reports—that somebody who has been in the work programme for two years and has not been in employment will come off and go into some form of community service arrangement. Are we likely to see any amendments come forward in this Bill that touch on this issue, or will that be dealt with in regulations, or is it pure speculation that we can ignore?

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I invite the Minister to comment on the way that I construe the clause, which is that it is facilitative and increases flexibility, which seems to me very welcome. Adding to the list of questions given to him by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, could he also say a little about the employment status of people in this situation and, for example, their insurance and other measures of cover? I am more conscious of the situation in relation to children at school. There are sensitivities. It is important that they are got right, but the principle is a good one.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for giving us the opportunity for this short debate. I wanted to ask the Minister about mentors for these individuals—what one finds, for instance, in the National Grid programme for young offenders, which has been so successful in rehabilitating young offenders. A key factor in that is the use of mentors in the workplace.

In the Youth Justice Board they are finding a great deal of success, again by using mentors in tandem with accommodation charities, and so on. In the past, the mentoring work of YoungMinds has identified that long-term relationships with a mentor have positive outcomes for young people. One of the very effective charities working with children in schools, Volunteer Reading Help, has volunteers who commit to at least a year’s work with the children.

Given the importance of mentoring, and my sense from discussions on apprenticeships that not much thought has been given to developing and training those individuals in the workplace who provided mentoring for apprentices, I would be interested to hear from the Minister now, or perhaps to have a note from him later, about how they intend to develop mentors for individuals caught by this clause in the future.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, these are all clearly very relevant questions, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he construes “work experience” or “work placement” in the same way as he does “work preparation requirements” in proposed new Section 11(3)(c) in Clause 56?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, this summer we increased conditionality for ESA claimants in the work-related activity group with the introduction of the work-related activity regulations. For the first time, those who are able to prepare for a return to work will be required to do so, where it is reasonable.

This measure is another aspect of work-related activity, and thus those groups—such as support group claimants, lone parents with children under the age of five and those with caring responsibilities—who are not required to undertake work-related activity will not be required to do work experience or work placements.

Noble Lords asked, in relation to Clause 16, whether this measure extends the definition of work-related activity, which is one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. The Bill seeks to clarify what may be included by way of work-related activity, rather than extend its meaning. Work-related activity is already defined in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 as,

“activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so”,

and Clause 54 makes expressly clear that this may include work experience or a work placement.

However, an adviser will only place a claimant on a work experience placement if he judges that it will help support the claimant back to work, and if it is suitable. If a claimant feels that the requirements placed upon them are unreasonable, they can request that the adviser reconsider whether an activity is appropriate. Claimants are also able to follow a rigorous complaints procedure if they do not think that they are receiving a satisfactory service. I hope that that explains what the formal protections are to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.

The focus of work experience and work placements will be on learning new skills and gaining valuable experience to get a flavour of the workplace environment. They will provide claimants who may have a limited work history with the opportunity to increase their confidence and employability. The precise nature of such placements will depend on what is deemed suitable for the individual, bearing in mind their physical and mental capabilities, and ensuring that necessary adjustments are made.

Placements would normally be short term, but there is currently no set duration, and this will normally be agreed between the adviser and the customer. Work experience and placements must be appropriate to the individual’s circumstances and need not be full-time. For instance, if a person’s health condition means that their mobility and pain levels improve over the course of the day, an adviser might find them a placement for two or three hours in the afternoon. This is quite different from the more challenging demands of paid work, which would normally be a longer-term and less flexible commitment with higher expectations placed on the worker.

The requirement to undertake work experience or work placements will be used flexibly by advisers as part of a range of work-related activities. It is not intended that such placements would necessarily replace other aspects of work preparation. It may be one of a number of work-related activities required of an individual which, in combination, best support a claimant to move closer to the labour market.

In response to concerns that work experience may be used to judge whether an individual is in fact capable of work, this is not the case. A claimant cannot be found capable of work unless they are found capable following a work capability assessment. This new measure will therefore not affect anyone’s underlying entitlement to benefit.

On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on access to work, the answer is that it is not available to claimants undertaking work-related activity. For claimants participating in sector-based work academies, funding will be available to help with reasonable adjustments during their participation in that provision. For work experience arranged through alternative sources, reasonable adjustments will be made where necessary to ensure that claimants are able to undertake any work experience or work placement in a safe environment which meets the needs of the claimant. Where necessary, Jobcentre Plus could assist employers with reasonable adjustments, using the flexible fund which is available to an adviser.

I shall clarify the issue of job outcomes for work programme providers. Work programme providers will not be paid for work placements and, therefore, there is no incentive for the provider to encourage a claimant to undertake long-term unpaid work experience, which I think is the underlying concern that the noble Lord has in raising this point. Payment arises for work placement providers only if a sustained, paid, full job outcome is achieved. Furthermore, sustainment payments also ensure that it is not profitable for providers to encourage claimants to undertake unreasonable work-related activity with the aim of making them enter the labour market before they are ready, as that is unlikely to lead to a positive long-term job outcome. I hope that I have described a series of formal protections but also an incentive structure that means that this is not going to lead to any abuse or, if it did, that it would be smack against the financial incentives that we have set up.

In response to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale’s question on substitute Section 11(3)(c) in Clause 56, I can confirm that the definition of “work preparation” will be the same and will include work experience or a work placement in both clauses.

I owe the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, an answer on mentors. I wish to express our interest in mentors. I am absolutely with him on the importance of mentoring, and as he may or may not know, I have developed my own project with CSV, called Grandmentors, where we test how older, retired people can support youngsters making the transition to adulthood, along precisely that thinking. That project, which I think is one of the very few formal projects with research around it, tries to establish the real economic value to the country of mentoring. I have put my own wallet behind it. I look forward to reporting to him when I have some decent findings.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am comforted that my concern was not so much about what providers might be up to as about whether work and work experience generally might be almost a way round the WCA for those who are otherwise in the WRAG. I think that the Minister has given us enough comfort on the key distinctions between work experience and work placements, although I note that he said that they do not necessarily need to be full time and that normally paid work would be more onerous. I accept the generality of what he says and that gives me the comfort that I was seeking. I am not sure whether he dealt with the question of employment rights, which is an interesting one, and presumably part of the distinction between work and work placements, but that is satisfactory for my purposes.

Clause 54 agreed.

14:15

Clause 55 : Hardship payments

Amendment 76A not moved.

Clause 55 agreed.

Clause 56 : Claimant responsibilities for employment and support allowance

Amendment 76B not moved.

Clause 56 agreed.

Clause 57 : Entitlement of lone parents to income support etc

Debate on whether Clause 57 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to Gingerbread for a briefing on this issue. It has asked us to raise this matter, which I believe has considerable merit.

Clause 57 proposes to extend further the numbers of single parents required to seek work. From early 2012, single parents not in paid work and whose youngest child is aged five or over will no longer be entitled to claim income support. Instead, single parents will be required to claim jobseeker’s allowance or another benefit. On JSA, single parents receive the same amount of money each week as they do on income support, but face a substantial increase in conditionality and risk a payment sanction if they fail to demonstrate that they are actively seeking and available for work.

This latest proposal is estimated to affect 100,000 single parents currently receiving income support who have a youngest child aged five or over. It is understood that the Government anticipate this will save something like £50 million in 2012-13 by removing entitlement to income support from this group of single parents. However, I wonder if there is any revision to that sum, given the state of the labour market and the difficulties that are confronted by people seeking work.

We have an opportunity to introduce a delay to the proposed change and instead align it with the planned introduction of universal credit from 2013. This can be achieved by simply removing this clause from the Bill, which is what this amendment seeks to do, and would mean that single parents with a youngest child aged five would continue to receive income support until universal credit is implemented. At this point, single parents, along with responsible carers and couple families, will be subject to work search and work availability requirements, as outlined in Clause 22; that is, “all work-related requirements”.

Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 57 is an extension of the lone parent obligation policy which we brought forward when in government. The LPO restricts entitlement to income support for single parents according to the age of their youngest child. The reforms have sought to move more and more single parents from income support to JSA. Implementation began in November 2008 and first affected parents whose youngest child was aged 12 and over in October 2009; parents with children aged 10 and 11 were also transferred to JSA. In October 2010, single parents with children aged seven, eight and nine switched into JSA. In previous years, single parents have been given clear advance notice of six months in order to prepare for the switch from income support to JSA. However, we have not yet passed this piece of legislation and this will be implemented in April 2012, which is certainly in the near term.

Some 57 per cent of single parents are in paid employment and many more want work as a means of increased income and financial independence. Those are key motivators, along with personal independence, the opportunity for social interaction and to set a good example for their children. Indeed, 42 per cent of single parents say that having almost any job is better than being unemployed and on benefits. Critically, single parents require jobs that allow them to be there for their children when necessary. With only one parent to do the school run, care for children when they are ill and support them with their schoolwork, jobs with flexible working patterns are absolutely vital, as is access to affordable, high-quality childcare. We have discussed that on a number of previous occasions. Flexibility does not just mean part time but can include job share, compressed hours in term time and annualised hours. However, employment opportunities that provide the degree of flexibility that single parents need are few and far between, particularly in difficult economic times.

The particular reasons for delay are as follows. On 7 October this year the Government announced an extension of childcare support to those working under 16 hours to be implemented as part of universal credit from October 2013. Currently, through working tax credits, as we are aware, single parents working 16 hours or more a week can access support of 70 per cent of their childcare costs up to £175 per week for one child and up to £300 per week for two or more children. This provides vital support to working parents on low to middle incomes and makes all the difference as to whether they can make work pay. However, it has always been a challenge for those with caring responsibilities or those who have been out of work for some time to make the leap from no work to 16 or more hours a week. So the further investment to provide childcare support at the same level for those working under 16 hours a week from 2013 onwards is welcome. This support will be of particular benefit to single parents of five and six year-olds who move on to JSA from income support after a period of time looking after their child. That is why it makes no sense to push 100,000 single parents into this position 18 months before the new childcare support is available.

In addition to the logic of delaying the switch from income support to JSA to enable single parents to access the new childcare support that will be available under universal credit, I suggest that there is a broader rationale in aligning this change with the overall implementation of universal credit. The transition from the current benefits and tax credits system to unified universal credit will require a huge administrative change in order to transition all existing claimants on to the new system. When resources are stretched, it would therefore be both needlessly disruptive to single parents and an unnecessary cost to the state to put the same group of claimants through two substantial administrative processes within a relatively short period of time—ending entitlement to income support in early 2012 and then a migration on to universal credit for existing claimants from April 2014.

It is also important to note that the Bill we are considering introduces changes that will affect the job search requirements of lead carers in couples families which will be implemented from 2013 as part of universal credit. From this point on, nominated lead carers in joint couple claims will be required to seek work when the youngest child reaches the age of five and be subject to increased conditionality accordingly. There is therefore no clear rationale for why single parents should be subject to identical changes in advance of nominated lead carers in a joint claim.

According to the Office for National Statistics, in the three months from June to August 2011, unemployment rose to 2.57 million, an increase of 114,000. The fall in the number of people employed was 178,000 and has been particularly driven by the loss of part-time jobs, down by 175,000. Single parents rely heavily on part-time work as this allows them to juggle their caring responsibilities with work. The total number of people claiming JSA is 1.6 million, of which 124,000 are single parents. The total number of single parents claiming JSA increased by 48,000 over the 12 months from August 2010. Unemployment is at a 17-year high and job creation in the private sector has so far failed to plug the rising tide of redundancies and job losses in the public sector. Overall, the picture is bleak, with markedly fewer family-friendly jobs available and increasing numbers of single parents trapped on jobseeker’s allowance, so moving an additional 100,000 single parents from income support to JSA when their youngest child reaches five is a blunt instrument in the current economic climate.

Increased conditionality and tougher sanctions only serve to add unwarranted pressure on single parents when suitable employment opportunities remain sparse, childcare costs continue to rise faster than earnings and single parents are not able to take advantage of new childcare support that will be introduced from 2013. Single parents will struggle to find work that is sustainable and that fits around their caring responsibilities when faced with increased conditionality, limited access to support for childcare costs, limited opportunities to access training and further education, low growth and a stagnant job market. I oppose the clause standing part.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I had not planned to speak but I support the opposition to the clause standing part. It seems eminently sensible that we should postpone this provision. I am prompted to speak by a rash of e-mails that I received today from people who clearly feel strongly about it, although I shall read from only one of the e-mails. However, I am ambivalent about the issue of lone parents and paid work. On the one hand I was a member of the Commission on Social Justice which, to a lot of criticism, recommended that lone parents with children aged 12 and over, I think, should become part of the workforce. One of the reasons for that, as my noble friend said, is the importance of paid work to women as a source of independent income and so forth. On the other hand, it also worries me that much new policy underestimates the importance and value of care work and the time and energy it takes. So, as I say, I am ambivalent. However, I think that lowering the age to five is perhaps going too far. It is putting a lot of strain on lone parents in terms of the competing responsibilities that we are placing on them. That is very much reflected in the rash of e-mails that I received today. I shall read out from one. I do not necessarily agree with everything in it but it reflects what people are feeling. This e-mail is in fact not from someone directly affected but from a grandmother who would have been affected had this rule applied earlier. She says:

“I have been informed that you are discussing legislation which will force mothers who are [on] welfare to look for a ‘job’ when the youngest is five years of age. I am a grandmother now but raised three children on welfare following marriage breakdown. It was not a lot of money but I had control of it”—

an issue that I have been raising in other contexts—

“and was able to survive and care for all my children. I did try going out to work but it was almost impossible to cope first of all with having time with them. Keeping tabs on where they were every day of the week was a nightmare. When I lived on welfare they knew they could come home after school bring their friends with them home if they wanted. Much safer for everyone. The proposal that children have to be out of their home from leaving for school in the morning until I get home later in the evening”—

I myself would not put it this strongly—

“is nothing less than child abuse—adults are exhausted after doing such hours”.

I think that we should be conscious of that point on exhaustion. We are asking an awful lot of lone parents. She continues:

“How are children supposed to develop with any feelings of confidence and security if they are constantly shunted around from pillar to post, treated as if they are an encumbrance, rather than being valued by the society”.

I shall not read any more. However, there is a feeling that we are devaluing the work of caring for young children whether it is done by mothers or fathers. This opposition to the clause standing part would allow us to pause and think again about whether this is the right way to go, particularly in the current labour conditions, and whether it would not be better to wait until universal credit is introduced and the childcare changes referred to by my noble friend are made. I hope that the Minister might be willing to pause and reflect on this matter.

14:30

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I, too, oppose Clause 57. I have not got a great deal to say on it. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. We have had debates about this on various Bills in the past, but you cannot discuss this without also considering what arrangements are made for child support. It is all very well to get women back into the workforce, and many women would like to go back into the workforce as soon as they feel that their children are able to be looked after, but you cannot look at one thing without also looking at child support, and I am not certain that this Bill in any way makes sufficient arrangements with regard to child support. Leaving out Clause 57 will give us time to think again. There is quite obviously a difference between seven and five. It gives a little more time to think about it in the way that the noble Baroness has just indicated.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I am reminded of an article recently published on the BBC website reporting on a survey about children reading with their parents. It reported that:

“For the majority (71%) reading with their child is one of the highlights of their day. But the poll of over 1,000 parents found 18% felt too stressed to do so. Two-fifths (41%) said that a child's tiredness stopped reading together being fun, while 30% cited their own tiredness as a problem. More than a third (36%) of the 1,011 survey participants said they were too tired to spend longer reading”.

Teachers were also surveyed:

“Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed (72%) attributed developed language skills and more advanced reading levels to those children who regularly enjoyed a shared book time with parents at home”.

The evidence is very clear that the home environment is the key experience for children in getting the best outcomes for their education, so we need to think about parents not having the energy after a long day’s work to spend that important time, particularly, perhaps, at the ages of five, six and seven, reading with their child.

I refer to an e-mail sent to me today by a primary school teacher. She wrote:

“Commuting up to ninety minutes a day would mean that I would have to leave my son in childcare and school from 7.30 am to 6.30 pm everyday … I am a primary school teacher in London and I see the affects of long term childcare on children. Some only see their parents for an hour each day or only at weekends!”.

The last time I worked with children—in a summer play scheme five years ago—what was particularly striking was that there were children who arrived early at the play scheme for breakfast and there were those who stayed until the end. These children in particular seemed a bit tired, a bit down and flat, so I can understand the concern that as the Government are implementing this, the adviser should very much keep in mind not only whether the parent is working but whether the parent will have a long commute there and back and the child will have a very long day at school, starting early and finishing late. Advisers should keep this in mind when they are considering whether a person has to take a job.

I am sorry to take so long, but to round up, I share the concerns. If there is anything that can be done to mitigate the impact on lone parents with children of this age, I would welcome it. There is a real question about the quality of childcare available. Research has shown that parents have traded quality off against affordability. They have understandably been so desperate to find childcare that the pressure to raise standards has not been as high as it might have been. In the current economic climate, with the great need for childcare, the Government have understandably been lowering the requirements for the education and training of managers of children’s centres, for instance. There is this constant pressure: we need more childcare places, so there is pressure to lower standards. One should listen very carefully to parents who say to their adviser, “I don’t have faith in the childcare in my locality”. One needs to give that weight, particularly in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where the Childcare Act 2006 does not apply and they have not necessarily got the push on greater provision that we would want. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on these points, and I look forward to his reply.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but, listening to the debate, I think that the opposition expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would provide the necessary time to reconsider the effects that the Bill will have in this respect. I also agree with my noble friend that the business about child support is a problem. Quite apart from the cost, the quality has come under quite a lot of doubt recently. The major point that I want to make is about stress on parents. I invite your Lordships to think about how stressed all of you have been by the extensive amount of work we have all had to consider recently, and bear that in mind when you come to consider whether or not to support this amendment.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, with regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on how we could take it slightly easier, I regret that I cannot apply it to myself because my children have gone way past that age, although they do not seem to be any less stressful.

Our policies for lone parents are based on the key principle that work is the surest and most sustainable route out of poverty. In June last year we announced our intention to align the age at which lone parents could reasonably be expected to work with the time their youngest child enters school. Current legislation, yet to come into force, provides that income support must be made available to lone parents with a child under the age of seven. This clause lowers that age to five so that lone parents with children aged five or over will no longer be entitled to income support solely on grounds of lone parenthood. We would effect this change through regulations, and implement it drawing largely on the experience of having progressively lowered the age from 16. Support for these lone parents will be available through jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance if they meet the relevant conditions of entitlement, or through income support if they qualify on grounds other than lone parenthood, most notably if they are carers.

We want to encourage lone parents to enter work but not at the expense of the crucial role they play as parents. We intend to carry forward the current safeguard that allows those with children aged 12 or under to restrict their availability for work to school hours. It is worth reminding noble Lords of the powerful impact that this policy has. When the age was brought down to 12, 16 per cent of lone parents leaving income support went straight into work and 56 per cent went on to JSA, many of whom will have subsequently gone in to work. We estimate that bringing the age down to five could lead to an extra 20,000 to 25,000 lone parents in work. Children in workless lone parent households are almost three times more likely to be in relative poverty than those where the lone parent works part-time, and five times more likely to be living in relative poverty than children of lone parents working full-time.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about flexible work. The Government are keen to promote flexible working and have a strong commitment to greater family-friendly working practices. We have committed in the coalition agreement to consult on extending the right to request flexible working to all employees. The public consultation process ended recently and we intend to respond to the comments by the end of the year. We understand that stimulating real culture change to make flexible working practices the norm across the whole labour market requires more than just regulatory change on the right to request. There also needs to be help for employers to operate in a more flexible way and demonstration of the benefits it can bring to them and their employees. The Government have a role in leading culture change. This is why we are working with business leaders and employers to promote the business case for flexible working and ensure that employers know where to go to find support to implement practices in their organisation.

This clause also amends Section 8 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009, which relates to the possibility of requiring work-related activity from certain lone parents with children aged under seven. Section 8 as it stands would require regulations in this respect to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This clause lowers that age from seven to five, in alignment with the lowering of the age for withdrawal of income support on grounds of lone parenthood alone. The key question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was whether it is right to make this change now rather than waiting for the introduction of universal credit. Introducing this change before introducing universal credit will help more lone parents into work, with knock-on reductions on child poverty.

A recent evaluation of lone parents’ experiences of moving into work also found that working had had a number of positive effects on their children, both direct and indirect. These range from children having the opportunity to go on school trips because of extra family income to observing the good example of a working parent and greater independence, both financially for the parent, once in work, and for the child, in terms of their role in the household. Help with childcare costs is currently available through tax credits and the flexibilities in JSA mean that childcare responsibilities are taken into account. There are a range of flexibilities available: lone parents with a child aged under 13 can restrict their job search and availability to their child's school hours, while lone parents will not be sanctioned for failing to meet requirements if they had good reason for the failure. Access to appropriate childcare will be taken into account before a decision is made.

On the state of the economy, we have to bear in mind that even in difficult times—which I accept that we are in—Jobcentre Plus holds an average of 275,000 unfilled vacancies at any one time, around a quarter of which are part-time opportunities. Clearly those figures are a snapshot which hides the number of new job opportunities that come up all the time. On average, about 10,000 new vacancies are reported to Jobcentre Plus alone every working day, while many more come up through other recruitment channels. It is not worth getting into a huge debate about the meaning of these figures but, as noble Lords understand, much of our approach to the work programme is aimed at trying to help the people who have not managed to get a job reasonably early back into the market. As the numbers of unemployed get bigger, one factor we are looking at is the average length of time that people are unemployed. As I say, there are flows all the time and many lone parents have excellent opportunities to find a job. Even in difficult times, there are still jobs going. On that basis, I commend Clause 57 to the Committee.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I want to check with him about the question of school hours. Does that really mean “school hours”, and will the adviser take into account that the person will have to travel for an hour or an hour and a half to get to work, and back again at the end of the day, so that it will go over school hours? Does it also mean that if a job requires someone to work in the school holidays as well, that will be seen as an inappropriate job for that person? I would guess that it clearly means that, but I would appreciate a response to my first question.

[Lord Freud]

On working in school hours, it is quite clear that the working includes the travelling time. It is incorporated in that and it is clear in the legislation. To refer back to the noble Lord’s earlier reading of the e-mail, I could not resist making the point that we still remain grateful to the Egyptians for inventing papyrus. Maybe in another couple of years we will have dumped it.

14:45

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the second part of the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Would someone be required to work during the school holidays? I shall let the officials think about that while I pose a couple of other questions. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord say that the Government appreciate that there are two objectives here: the care of children and the importance of work. He has explained the figures and the research the Government have done into the impact of work. Can he share with us their research into the impact on children of parents working at the point at which they have to make the transition into school?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I cannot bring to mind a particular piece of research on that question, but I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, probably went into this in great detail when she was working on her piece of research for the CSJ. If I can find something which pinpoints that particular question, I will certainly give the noble Baroness the reference. But the general point I sought to make is that a range of research in this area shows the great benefits for families of working, and if I can give a particular answer to her question, I will.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I suspect that that was research done for the department by Millar and Ridge. It absolutely did show positives, but it also revealed some of the strains placed on mothers and on children. If I remember rightly—I have to admit that my memory for research is waning—in some cases mothers moved out of work again because of those strains. The research showed both sides of the issue.

[Lord Freud]

Let us not debate research none of us can remember. I will have a look at this and if I can provide anything more solid, I will do so. On the point about school holidays, under the regulations, if a lone parent had to leave a job because no appropriate childcare was available in the holidays, that would be taken into account for good reason. Technically it is good cause, but it would become good reason.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I am so sorry, but in that case I need to clarify this. As I understood it, the question posed by the noble Earl was not whether someone would be sanctioned for being unable to get suitable childcare, but whether they would be allowed only to choose to take a job that enabled them to stay at home with their children during the holidays. The summer holidays last a long time and children might never see their lone parent during working hours. I think the point that the noble Earl was trying to clarify is this: if I am a lone parent and the only job I can find is one that requires me to work during the school holidays and I do not take it, is that good reason?

[Lord Freud]

I think it would be good reason. As I have just said, if someone cannot find appropriate childcare in the holidays—

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I am so sorry, but I must be expressing myself badly. I am assuming that childcare is available during the holidays, but if for reasons due to my own strange peccadilloes I want to spend the holidays with my child and the only job available is one that would require me to work all year round—during school hours in term time is fair enough, but also during school hours in the holidays—in those circumstances would I as a lone parent have to take that job, even if it meant that my child would have to spend the whole of the school holidays in childcare? Would the noble Lord clarify that point?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, the picture the noble Baroness draws is correct. If a job is available and there is appropriate childcare, the lone parent would be obliged to take that job.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, if not for the answer, which I am very disappointed with. I accept that the noble Lord does not have research on the question of transition available to him at the moment. I just want to lodge a concern that the point of transition for children either moving into school at all or moving from junior to secondary school is difficult, and there is research out there to support that. The research looks at the impact in later life if those transition points are not well handled. I would be grateful, before we get to Report, if the noble Lord would give some thought to whether he could give us some comfort that the Government would want to give a clear policy steer that they would expect their advisers to look kindly on lone parents who, for good reason, want to support their children during the key transition point into school. I have one final question. If a five year-old were not in school—I will not go into it; there may be reasons why a five year-old may not yet have started school—would that lone parent still be required to go out to work?

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, before the Minister replies, can I say that I am very disappointed to hear that lone parents with a child of six or seven who cannot find a job except one that occupies them during the school holidays as well, will be obliged to take a job under the new arrangement. That was not my understanding from my reading on this and it seems very disappointing that that is the situation. I would appreciate if the Minister would double check to be very clear on this particular matter. If he has done so, and he is clear on it, then in that case I suppose I will have to read Hansard again.

The other matter is about transitions in school. A point that is always emphasised to me is that the transitions into primary school and from primary into secondary school are key to the success of a child’s education. We need to ensure that we do not do anything to make those transitions more difficult. If there is research there that we can identify, maybe the Minister might be able to help with that, or perhaps he could undertake to look very carefully at this particular area. It would be helpful if he could see whether there is any adverse impact caused by the changes in terms of the transitions of children into primary school.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, could I also ask a question, which is to turn the comments and questions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, around the other way? If a lone parent has found a job as a dinner lady, precisely because her hours fit those of her young children, and she is therefore not being paid and not working over the holiday periods, is she at all exposed to the issue of work conditionality?

The second issue is on transition. Again, speaking from personal experience—and we all brought our children through school—many children sail through and love that first year of school. However, many children who suddenly go into what they regard as “big school” can find it very stressful. They revert to bed-wetting, have disturbed nights, are fearful, actually hide under the table when the school bus comes, and so on. In those situations, the lone parent needs to be on hand and available to go into the school if necessary, to collect the child from the school, during that first year of settling down. Most of us can talk from personal experience in that respect. The noble Lord would be very wise to listen to the point about transition—whether it is for one year, or ideally for two years, before the full conditionality comes in.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on the first question on whether the child happens not to be in school on their fifth birthday, there will be a small number of lone parents that we are aware of whose youngest child is aged five but who has not yet started school. We are therefore going to expand the existing flexibilities within jobseeker’s allowance to support these lone parents through the short period of time until their child enters school or reaches compulsory school age, whichever comes sooner.

On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the dinner lady—people who are employed through the school year—where the dinner lady is presumably on a contract through the process then clearly she has a job and would escape conditionality in holiday periods because she would be working in a long-term job. As one gets to short term fillings-in I expect that it becomes a bit more detailed and dependent on particular circumstances. The broad position, however, would be that they would be within the job for that period.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Thank you, I am very grateful for that. If I understand the Minister rightly, that means that through the period of the school holidays, for example, the dinner lady will go up the ladder—or down, whichever way you want to put it—to increase the amount of universal credit during that period, to compensate her for lack of income, and it would then be readjusted when she goes back to being a dinner lady in the school term.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, the noble Baroness is way ahead of us, as usual, as we structure how we do the universal credit. We are currently looking at that very closely in terms of how we do it. We have not settled this, but my view is to look at it in fairly cash-in-the-month terms, as she is implying. That is where I would come from as we started to devise it. However, I cannot give a commitment or go further than say how we would do that. I am not keen to elaborate averaging-out processes because I think that gets overcomplicated.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am very grateful to hear that. In order to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, could the noble Lord confirm that a dinner lady, or someone in that position, would not be subjected to in-work conditionality rules? The fact that there is a contract means that they are still in work. I may have misunderstood.

[Lord Freud]

Let me just try to pin down the point on transitions and whether people should be in work. There is little evidence relating to the effects of maternal employment on children's cognitive and behavioural outcomes in the UK, but what there is suggests that there are few negative effects of maternal employment once the child is aged over 18 months. If I can find some more research, I shall get it to noble Lord post-haste.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I will not trade research, but I think it would be helpful to come back to this on Report. I just want to put down a marker that some of the research around the impact of maternal work centres around two things. The two outstanding issues are, first, the quality of substitute care and how you control that in evaluating the impact on child development; and, secondly, the degree to which the mother wishes to work, which has always been a significant issue. There has been some work suggesting that if the mother wants to work, the effect on the mother can be positive, and that that is communicated to the child and, if that is not the situation, the opposite is communicated. Until now our regime has not required lone parents or partners to go out to work against their wishes in those circumstances. Obviously it is a little harder to do. Perhaps in his research the noble Lord might look at what might be the nearest parallel to that. Perhaps we should have a coffee and discuss research at a later date.

[Lord Freud]

The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, makes is an incredibly complicated and central one because people’s way of thinking about themselves is shaped by many things, not least by the expectations that others and the state have on them. We are trying to develop a really complicated socio-psychological set of impacts with the system. There is not an easy answer. We are trying to make people want to work because that is the expectation and that is the norm. That is what we are trying to achieve with our reforms.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I understand that. The fact is that the noble Lord is not trying to make people want to work but telling them that they have to work. The evidence may be complicated. For me, the point of the objective is simple. I do not think that the state should be substituting its judgment for that of a parent of a young child as to when it is better to go out to work. That should be left to the parent.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I could reinforce a point. We know from all the research, going beyond Jane Millar right back to the American research, that a lone parent who goes out to work and retains that work, if it is sustainable, benefits from the lift out of poverty. I entirely accept that that is important for the family as well as for role models. However, that is possible if and only if she has childcare that she trusts. Very often that childcare is from a family member, who is often a grandparent. The grandparent can address the problems of the child in the transition period and so on. Yet time and again we are doing nothing to recognise the role that grandparents may play and instead we are going to impose in-work conditionality on them, taking them out of the caring function that they would voluntarily and willingly embrace for everyone’s benefit. We will expect two generations to work and for the child to be somewhere out there.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thought that this started off as a relatively straightforward debate, but I am delighted that it has expanded into a huge philosophical debate which is very important. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken at least in support of the opposition to the clause. I think that some would go quite a bit further but there are important issues around childcare, the time spent with children, the propensity of the mother to want to work and the quality of substitute childcare. In one way or another, each of those has been touched on by noble Lords. I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who expressed the view that she was not totally signed up to the concept of lone parents in work when their children are as young as five, and I acknowledge that.

15:00

The noble Lord, Lord Freud, made the point that the thrust of the policy rests on the fact that helping lone parents into work is generally their best route out of poverty, is good for their self-esteem and all of that. We are signed up to that. Indeed, it was our Government, possibly with advice from the noble Lord, who started us down the path of reducing the age.

My opposition was quite specific. It was not about changing the age of five—there may be arguments for that, and that may be something that people will wish to return to later in our proceedings—it was simply deferring its implementation for two exceptionally sound reasons. One is that there has to be another transfer to universal credit before too long anyway, so why go through those two administrative processes with all the upheaval and costs that must be associated with them? The other is related to issues of childcare. The Government have introduced, or are going to introduce, improvements in some respects, so why not transfer parents from JSA when those improved childcare arrangements exist? Why push them through two different sets of arrangements?

As for available jobs, there is always churn in the job market. If the figure is down to 275,000—I can remember days when one would routinely quote 400,000 as the number of vacancies available through Jobcentre Plus at any point in time—the noble Lord must accept that there is a very restricted labour market out there at the moment. Forcing something like 100,000 lone parents to confront that, we would suggest prematurely, does not seem particularly wise.

I think that we have taken the debate as far as we can today. I am sure that it will be returned to at Report, and possibly more robustly than merely seeking the deferral which this clause suggests. If the Minister wants to quit while he is ahead on this and not face that, I invite him to do so here and now.

Clause 57 agreed.

Clause 58 agreed.

Clause 59 : Claimants dependent on drugs etc

Debate on whether Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this is by way of a serious probe to understand the Government’s plans and their progress on supporting individuals with drug and alcohol dependency. Clause 59 essentially removes the regime set out in the Welfare Reform Act 2009. Those involved in considering that legislation will recall that it ended up in a considerably better place than where it started. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who is not in her place, should be able to claim considerable credit for encouraging the Government of the day to move from where they were to where they ended up.

The thrust of those provisions involves requiring claimants in the JSA regime to take part in a substance-related assessment where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they have a drug dependency which affects their prospects of obtaining or remaining in work. The jobseeker’s agreement is suspended if the individual engages in a voluntary rehabilitation plan. Such a rehabilitation plan could involve submitting to treatment, possibly at a specified institution. In the event of somebody failing to engage in such a plan, a mandatory plan could be imposed, but the legislation is very clear that such a plan cannot require a person to submit to medical or surgical treatment. A similar regime is provided for in the legislation for people in the work-related activity group but not, of course, the support group. Perhaps the Minister can remind us what, if any, regulations to introduce these measures were eventually promulgated—none, I suspect.

The information pack provided with this Bill states:

“It is considered that provisions from the Welfare Reform Act 2009 are too narrowly focused, impractical and expensive. In December 2010 the Government published a Drugs Strategy outlining first steps to ensuring the benefit system supports effective engagement with recovery services, which is considered to be more successful than coercion. For these, existing powers can be utilised”.

Perhaps the Minister can set out for us how the first steps are progressing.

On the Government’s drugs strategy, page 23 says:

“The first step is to ensure that the benefit system supports engagement with recovery services. We will offer claimants who are dependent on drugs or alcohol a choice between rigorous enforcement of the normal conditions and sanctions where they are not engaged in structured recovery activity, or appropriately tailored conditionality for those that are. Over the longer term, we will explore building appropriate incentives into the universal credit system to encourage and reward treatment take-up. In practice, this means that those not in treatment will neither be specifically targeted with, nor excused from sanctions by virtue of their dependence, but will be expected to comply with the full requirements of the benefits regime or face the consequences. Where people are taking steps to address their dependence, they will be supported, and the requirements placed upon them will be appropriate to their personal circumstances and will provide them with the necessary time and space to focus on their recovery”.

Clearly, the availability of support services will be key to this approach. Perhaps the Minister can give us an assessment of what is currently provided and available. The provisions that are being removed from existing legislation contain powers to extend the application to alcohol. Perhaps the Minister can say what the Government have in mind for those with an alcohol dependency; what services are available and what assessment has been undertaken.

The 2010 drugs strategy also says:

“We will also look at amending legislation to make it clear that where someone is attending residential rehabilitation and would be eligible for out-of-work benefits, they will be deemed to have a reduced capability for employment and will therefore be automatically entitled to Employment and Support Allowance”.

Is this still the plan and where is the legislation that provides for that? Presumably entitlement would cease after 365 days, maybe earlier if the claimant has a partner with modest income or capital. Whatever the limitations of the 2009 legislation, it provided a range of protections for individuals: a substance-related assessment could only be conducted by an approved person; relief from certain tests if the claimant provided a permissible sample, but not an intimate sample; an absolute bar on having to submit to medical or surgical treatment; protections concerning supply of information; and protection in criminal proceedings in respect of information provided about drug use. How will these issues be addressed in the new arrangements?

I should also be clear that we share a common goal of supporting people to live a drug-free life. An opportunity to get and sustain a job is an integral part of helping to achieve this, but we are entitled to know and have on the record what the Government plan in this regard.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I will add a few more words on the 2010 drugs strategy. I very much welcome its view that the benefits system should support effective engagement with recovery services. It considers that this is more successful than coercion—a view that I strongly hold. As my noble friend said, the strategy covers all drug problems, including the severe misuse of alcohol. About 400,000 benefit claimants—about 8 per cent of all working-age claimants—are dependent on drugs or alcohol. I welcome the strategy of increasing the number of such claimants who engage with treatment and rehabilitation and go on to find employment.

I will ask a little more about the plan, quoted by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, about the choice between vigorous enforcement of the normal conditions and sanctions where claimants are not engaged in structured recovery activity, and appropriate tailored conditionality for those who are. How will that conditionality be decided?

My bigger question is: how can such claimants engage in structured recovery activity when the result of government cuts is that there are ever fewer agencies offering structured day programmes or any other form of treatment? I declare an interest as a trustee of Camden-based CASA. The noble Lord must pass it every day on his way back home. For 27 years CASA has provided in Camden a range of services for alcohol and drug misusers and their families.

Our dual diagnosis service for those with mental health and alcohol misuse problems has been ended. Our families service has been curtailed. Our older persons service has been halved. Our back to employment service has been closed. This month we had to shut our Camden day service centre in Fortess Road, which was well known, and sell the building. Many of our staff were made redundant and our premises were closed. That is the impact of the cuts on local government and other potential funders. My question to the Minister is not about the intention behind this, but about where people will get the services and the help that they need to be able to respond to the strategy. Furthermore, with the Government's withdrawal of 100 per cent of its grant to the National Agency on Alcohol Misuse—Alcohol Concern, as it is known—which I set up at the Government’s behest and with government money in 1984, who will help set up, co-ordinate and make known such services to the claimants who need them?

I would also like the Minister to tell us how those for whom structured recovery activities are appropriate will be identified. Also, how is structured recovery activity to be defined? I have been trying for 27 years to define it for our clients and have failed. I do not mean that as a joke: it is very difficult because it is a highly personalised service. I would be interested to know the Government's definition of structured recovery activity. We also know that the drug co-ordinators who were responsible for building the relationship between Jobcentre Plus and external agencies in the drugs field, such as treatment and probation services, have now been abolished. Who is expected to co-ordinate the work of Jobcentre Plus with the providers of these services in their local community?

The impact assessment for the drugs strategy states that:

“Employment support will be funded on an outcomes basis, using benefit savings freed up when people engaged with recovery services move into employment or full-time education”.

The assessment suggests that this funding provision will be delivered via the work programme. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of work programme providers are offering support with drug and alcohol issues, and how many people have accessed the support? Furthermore, as I hear that St Mungo’s and other voluntary agencies are receiving none of the anticipated referrals from the work programme, can the Minister outline where such services are being provided and where participants are being signposted to?

15:15

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, at the last Conservative Party conference the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith talked about 1 million children in this country being born into families where the parents are either substance misusers or misusing alcohol, so clearly it is key that we address this problem from the point of view of the welfare of children. Perhaps this is a good time to offer my congratulations to the Government’s drug treatment agencies and the UK Border Agency on the reduction in the use of class A drugs in recent years. However, it is still a very significant problem, while of course alcohol figures strongly in incidents of domestic violence, which is terrible for children to experience. So I hope that the Minister can give a strong assurance in his reply that robust mechanisms will be in place to offer help to job applicants who are suffering from these issues because a lot of the current provision is being cut back due to the recession. Particularly, how is capacity in the voluntary sector being harnessed in order to make the best use of those resources? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, Clause 59 repeals provisions introduced by Section 11 of and Schedule 3 to the Welfare Reform Act 2009. These provisions would have applied to claimants of jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance where their dependence on alcohol or drugs affects their prospects of finding or remaining in work. The regulation-making powers inserted by Schedule 3 to the 2009 Act could have been used to require JSA claimants to undertake a range of activities, including answering questions about whether they are dependent on or at risk of misusing drugs, and attending drug-related assessments or drugs interviews that would involve testing unless the claimant agreed to provide a sample that could be tested. Claimants could then enter a voluntary rehabilitation plan which might involve treatment. If claimants did not agree to enter the voluntary rehabilitation plan they could be required to enter a mandatory rehabilitation plan. Although a mandatory rehabilitation plan would not require a claimant to undergo treatment it could, for example, require the claimant to attend an educational programme or take part in interviews and assessments. These provisions also extended to alcohol dependency. Equivalent provisions were introduced for ESA claimants who are members of the work-related activity group. The mandatory requirements would have been enforced by using regulation-making powers to sanction a claimant’s benefit if they failed to comply.

These provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested, have never been commenced. The previous Government produced draft regulations for a pilot scheme to run for two years from October 2010. Those regulations were considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee in March 2010. The committee’s report, published in May last year, raised significant concerns. It recommended that the pilot scheme should not go ahead as drafted. The committee considered that the pilots were unlikely to be effective, contained a number of significant flaws and would not produce robust results. Having listened to SSAC’s concerns and having undertaken their own work on drugs, in December last year the Government published their drugs strategy, Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery. The strategy recognises that work is a key contributor to sustained recovery from addiction, but we also recognise that the previous Government’s approach of mandating drug testing and assessments, and requiring claimants to undertake a rehabilitation plan on pain of losing benefit, is not the right one. We say it is not the right approach in particular for the following three reasons.

First, it mandates claimants to do something, such as being tested for drugs, that is not directly about helping people to approach the labour market. That does not mean that entering treatment is not the right approach to help many claimants who are substance dependent to address their barriers to work, but—and this leads to my second reason—claimants enter treatment for a series of complex reasons, and whether or not they succeed also depends on a series of complex reasons. Forcing claimants to answer, for example, questions about possible drug use, requiring them to attend substance-related assessments about drug use and insisting that claimants enter a mandatory rehabilitation plan if they decline to enter treatment voluntarily would be asking them to do something a large proportion of them would not want to do. If we took the approach of the previous Government, we would create a high risk of those claimants immediately failing these requirements and having to be sanctioned.

Perhaps I could pick a trick that the Opposition have enjoyed using on me on occasion. I am aware that there may have been some differences within the previous Government regarding their attitude to this legislation. I am enjoying watching on the faces of some of the people opposite a similar smile to the one that I sometimes have to use.

Finally, we consider that the previous Government’s approach towards substance or alcohol-dependent claimants would be one that all the evidence from treatment providers and agencies who are experts in this area, as well as SSAC which consulted with those organisations, say would not succeed.

On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about our alcohol strategy and what service will be available, the Department of Health will be publishing a new alcohol strategy early next year which will set out what services we plan to have available.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord when is “early next year”. I know that he likes dates. I had understood that it was going to be by the end of this year, but he is bringing us fresh news, if it is to be early next year.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I like to be able to flesh out these adverbs—no, they are not adverbs. My grammar is slightly frail. The answer is that I cannot be any more specific. If that is news, I am not in a position to provide any more definition.

Clause 59 removes Section 11 and Schedule 3 from the 2009 Act, and also removes the provisions which Schedule 3 inserted into the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007. We know that the vast majority of people with substance dependency issues eventually want to break free of their addiction. The National Treatment Agency reports that, last year, more than 200,000 people in England entered treatment. That represents about two-thirds of all those with dependency issues. In 2010-11, 27,969 adults left treatment in England free of dependency, which is an increase of 150 per cent compared with 2005-06. Waiting times continue to reduce—96 per cent get into treatment within three weeks of referral. In England, we spend more than £400 million on drug treatment and this budget has not been cut. We want to build on that. We believe that the right approach is to offer support and encouragement for those who want to tackle their substance addiction. We are therefore ensuring that our advisers have the confidence to engage in the often difficult conversations with those who they believe have dependency problems, that they understand the issues that addicts face and that they work in partnership with local treatment agencies to improve referral rates. By encouraging closer working between Jobcentre advisers and treatment service providers we will increase the number of people moving into sustained recovery.

If claimants decide to take up the treatment opportunities available to them, we will look to ensure that they have the opportunity to focus on that treatment and make it succeed. This is not being soft on addicts. The choice to tackle addiction is not an easy one, as anyone who has tried will confirm. Claimants who decline the offer of treatment will be expected to comply with their ordinary full labour-market conditions as a requirement for continuing to be entitled to their benefit.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about universal credit. We are clear that the imposition of work-related requirements under universal credit must not conflict with an individual’s treatment regime. We want to maximise every individual’s chances of an early move into work. For those with substance dependency, the first logical step will often to be to confront their addition, and we do not want simultaneously to impose labour market requirements that make it challenging or even impossible to complete treatment. This will be our guiding principle under universal credit and we will make sure that this can be achieved. The structure of universal credit legislation makes this relatively straightforward. We have considerable flexibility in the powers we are taking in the Bill to ensure that we can tailor work-related requirements to fit with the circumstances and capability of an individual. We will be considering how best this can be done as we develop regulations.

The provisions inserted by the Welfare Reform Act 2009 are inappropriate and likely to have unintended adverse consequences for substance or alcohol-dependent claimants, their communities and the public purse. The provisions have not been commenced and do not reflect this Government’s direction of travel in dealing with the very difficult question of drug and alcohol addiction, nor do they take account of the introduction of universal credit, which will replace both the income-related strands of JSA and ESA in due course. Hence we seek to repeal them. I beg to move that Clause 59 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister. I should say that the purpose of raising this issue was not to mourn the passing of Schedule 3 but to understand where the Government were heading in its place. Perhaps the noble Lord dealt with it by saying that this can be accomplished by regulations, but the strategy says that those who are undertaking residential treatment would be deemed as not having been in the work-related activity group or its equivalent in universal credit. Would he say that the Bill provides the necessary flexibility to achieve that or is something else expected to deal with that?

Perhaps the Minister could also say something about the protections, which was one of the important features of the 2009 Act, that if somebody declares that they have a drug dependency—effectively owning up to something that could be a criminal offence—what safeguards does the noble Lord have in the current arrangements that would provide protections for individuals in those circumstances, assuming that the noble Lord believes that those protections should be there?

[Lord Freud]

To take the first question, we already have amended the regulations. We did that from 28 March 2011, amending the regulations relating to employment and support allowance. It is clear that those in residential rehabilitation for alcohol or drugs should be automatically treated as having limited capability for work while they are in residential rehabilitation, and this will help them have access to benefit at a time when they are focusing on their treatment.

On the matter of the protections, I am going to have to offer to write to the noble Lord. That is a pretty complicated matter. When we are not doing the things for which the protections were incorporated, it is difficult to understand where we might need some protections. I will have a think about that and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister for that and I think that this deals satisfactorily with the purpose of the probe.

Clause 59 agreed.

Clauses 60 to 63 agreed.

15:30

Clause 64 : Persons under 18

Amendment 76C

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

76C: Clause 64, page 51, line 16, leave out “figure of £145.80” and insert “monetary amount specified”

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, this is purely a minor technical amendment to remove references to specific maximum amounts of weekly benefit payable for successive accidents and prescribed diseases for persons under the age of 18. The present amounts specified as subject to uprating have changed since the Bill was introduced. The figures currently specified in Clause 64 were correct on the Bill’s introduction but have since been amended by the uprating order—and it is likely that they will change again before the provision comes into force. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment, which will remove the significance of the age of 18 in industrial injuries benefits legislation. It will mean that all existing and new claims by persons under 18 will be paid at normal industrial injuries disability benefit rates. That is a very welcome move. I have no problem with the government amendment permitting the maximum amount to be specified in regulations rather than in the Bill. However, I will pose a couple of questions.

First, will the Minister put on record that the Government are not intending to reduce the maximum amount payable under this provision? Secondly, will he say whether, assuming the amounts will be in regulations, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? Young workers who have suffered industrial injury may constitute a small group, but they are vulnerable and it would be useful to know whether the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter.

Thirdly, will the Minister let the Committee know whether payments made under the scheme will count as benefits under the proposed benefit cap? Our understanding is that they will be so included. Obviously, we will debate the benefit cap when we get to Clause 93. However, it seems that to include these payments, which are compensation for injuries at work, within a calculation of the total support that a family could receive from the state, would be somewhat unfair. It would mean that for a young person living with their family, any such support would be taken away from the total family entitlement, which would effectively turn the benefit into a means-tested benefit.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I will pick up on those points. I am grateful that the noble Baroness said that she welcomed the amendment. Clearly, the main thrust of it is to simplify. In this case she will have been delighted to see that we levelled up rather than anything else. It is always nice to be able to give money away occasionally. I confirm that we are not intending to reduce the maximum amount, which will be specified in the uprating order. We are working on the precise treatment of different elements—I apologise for the technical terms—and looking at the interplay between different benefits. We will treat some as the equivalent of earnings, some as the equivalent of benefit, which will knock out the right to universal credit, and some benefits will be disallowed. Clearly, that will be specified in the regulations. We can discuss that entire area when we look at the whole range of benefits. The principle is that generally, where something is the equivalent of state support, one does not want to double up state support. Sorry, I should clarify. When I said that it is in the uprating order, that is subject to affirmative procedure, so it will be affirmative.

Amendment 76C agreed.

Amendment 76D

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

76D: Clause 64, page 51, line 17, leave out “figure of £89.35” and insert “monetary amount specified”

Amendment 76D agreed.

Clause 64, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 65 to 67 agreed.

Clause 68: Housing benefit: determination of appropriate maximum

Amendment 77 not moved.

Amendment 78

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

78: Clause 68, page 52, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) In section 176(1) of that Act (Parliamentary control), after paragraph (aa) there is inserted—
“(ab) the first regulations made by virtue of section 130A(5) or (6);”.”

Amendment 78 agreed.

Amendments 79 to 86ZZZA not moved.

Clause 68, as amended, agreed.

Clause 69 : Ending of discretionary payments

Amendment 86ZZZB

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

86ZZZB: Clause 69, page 53, line 20, at end insert “providing these amounts are ring-fenced for the purpose set out in the Act”

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, noble Lords of a certain age and with long memories—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who unfortunately cannot be in his place this afternoon, but who has very kindly said that I can tell the Committee that he is in sympathy with what I am about to say—will appreciate the irony of me rising to defend the Social Fund.

Back in the mid-1980s, when I was at the Child Poverty Action Group, I was trying to convince your Lordships’ House to reject the introduction of the discretionary Social Fund in place of single payments made as a right to help people with one-off needs they were unable to meet out of their weekly benefit. Although I am defending the Social Fund today, I am not claiming that it does not need reform. Clearly there is a consensus that there are problems. However, nothing the Government have said has convinced me and many of those closer to the ground than I am that Clause 69 is the solution to those problems.

The clause abolishes discretionary community care grants and crisis loans. In their place, local authorities in England will have the power, but not the duty, to provide assistance using money transferred from the DWP without ring-fencing. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales will decide their own arrangements. I will focus my remarks on England, but I hope that other noble Lords will be able to provide a perspective for the other nations. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has apologised as unfortunately he has had to return to Wales this afternoon.

The Social Fund provides vital cash assistance. It is, in effect, the ultimate safety net. CCGs are intended to help vulnerable adults establish themselves or remain in the community. As well as their emphasis on helping people live independently in the community, they are also available to people on benefit who face exceptional pressure, such as family breakdown and long-term illness. Interest-free crisis loans are normally payable when an applicant can show that they are the only way to avoid serious damage or risk to health and safety, although the qualifying conditions have been tightened up recently. According to research by Crisis, 94 per cent of housing advisers working in private rented sector access schemes which help vulnerable people into private accommodation say that crisis loans and CCGs are vital or important to their work.

Local authorities are not being asked to administer a locally provided social fund. The discretionary Social Fund is being abolished. There will be no requirement on local authorities to provide cash assistance or, indeed, any assistance. All the signs are that most local authorities will provide any help in kind, rather than in cash. This has raised fears of stigmatisation, lack of choice and the undermining of financial independence. Moreover, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Maria Miller, told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the new service may not necessarily be an application-based service.

If I were writing the Minister’s brief, I would cite the recent Communities and Local Government Committee report, Localisation issues in welfare reform, which supports the proposal to devolve responsibility for the discretionary Social Fund, so I will get in first and point out that the report also acknowledges that there is legitimate debate about whether localisation will in itself be an adequate remedy for the long-standing problems of the Social Fund. It expresses some reservations to which I will return in relation to the amendments before us.

Having read the oral evidence and some of the written evidence to the CLG Committee, it does not seem to me that the main conclusions of the report reflect the balance of that evidence, and I have to say that I place more store on the views of, for example, Citizens Advice and the Social Fund Commissioner than those of the committee itself. The commissioner warns that:

“With over 150 local authorities in England, there is a high risk that a scheme providing unbounded discretion in each of those areas could result in geographical inequities that do not correlate with local needs … in the absence of any guidelines or criteria that set parameters for local discretion, it will be difficult to achieve some broad consistency of purpose and approach”.

In other words, localisation could aggravate rather than address one of the Social Fund’s current problems. The commissioner concluded that:

“There must continue to be a safety net for poor and vulnerable people because their needs will not disappear”.

As I will argue in a moment, without a ring-fenced budget, there can be no assurance that there will continue to be any sort of safety net.

Alan Barton, the social policy officer for Citizens Advice, in his oral evidence disputed the DWP’s characterisation of CCGs as delivering a social care package. He explained that:

“To a large extent, we are talking about items with which people furnish their properties”.

Many of those needing such items will not be in touch with local authorities. An analysis of 500 applications to the discretionary Social Fund by the Social Fund Commissioner found that:

“A significant number of vulnerable people trying to create or re-establish or remain in a secure home, who have ‘slipped through the net’ and receive no support”,

from other support services. With regard to crisis loans, Mr Barton acknowledged that,

“schemes for second-hand furniture, white goods, food banks and credit unions … are helpful to low-income people”,

but added that,

“we see considerable numbers who are in desperate need of cash to buy food and top up their electricity or gas cards when they do not have any light or heating in the house. It seems that there will be no provision for them under the new arrangements. They will have to go to charities that are already under huge pressure; credit unions, which are very patchy and charge quite high interest rates; high-cost lenders—a survey that we did with our advisers showed that 67% of them had seen people go to high-cost lenders when they had not got money from the social fund—or I suppose they might just go hungry or cold”.

That is the view of Citizens Advice.

Growing numbers are already turning to food banks. As Shelter argues, food banks should be seen as a last resort and,

“not become an established part of the welfare state. Shelter’s services staff observe that where clients have resorted to food banks many feel embarrassed and demeaned”.

Family Action, which together with a wide range of charities is supporting these amendments, warns that charities such as it will not be able to cope. It fears that in the worst case scenario, there will be greater resort to loan sharks—a fear that I have already expressed with regard to the move to monthly payments.

One of the main arguments put forward to justify this change is that local authorities are better placed to provide this kind of help. In his oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Secretary of State painted a picture of a,

“person sitting or standing in front of a local authority”.

That is contrasted with the remote decision-making under the present scheme. However, there is no guarantee that a transfer to local authorities will necessarily mean localised face-to-face decision making. Some authorities might choose to contract out any service, and there is nothing to stop them processing claims remotely or by phone. I am advised by Family Action that Westminster council recently announced that its emergency response team, covering social services activity involving children’s and adult social services, emergency repairs, homelessness and emergency lifeline calls will be moving to Dingwall in Scotland. As Family Action observed, it is unclear how staff based 850 miles away could be expected to deliver a more local service. This clause is about the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund, not its better targeting, as has been claimed. I believe that the case for localisation has not been made convincingly, and on this basis, I oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill.

15:45

The arguments I have put so far also support Amendments 86ZZZB to 86ZZZF, to which I now turn. The most important of these is Amendment 86ZZZB, which requires ring-fencing of the money devolved to local authorities in lieu of the Social Fund, for without it we have no way of ensuring that this money will be spent on meeting the needs that CCGs and crisis loans would previously have met.

If I express scepticism that local authorities will carefully set aside this money for the purposes for which it was intended, that is not intended as a criticism of local authorities. However, let us be realistic: local authorities are under tremendous pressure at present to meet even their statutory duties, as funding is cut back. Sir Richard Tilt, the then chair of SSAC and a former Social Fund commissioner—a highly respected one—told the Public Bill Committee that it did not seem,

“very likely that local authorities”,

would provide the kind of “final safety net”, provided by the Social Fund,

“for the poorest and most vulnerable”.

He observed that, in his experience, local authority “provision is patchy”.

The precedent created by the removal of ring-fencing from supporting people funds, also designed to help vulnerable groups, does not inspire optimism. Research by Homeless Link indicates that two in five local authorities are making disproportionate cuts in this budget, relative to the settlement received, while, according to Crisis, authorities are in practice cutting 13 per cent on average, although the overall cut in the supporting people budget is only 2.7 per cent. The amount allocated to each local authority is likely to be pretty small. Sir Richard Tilt expressed particular concern about the implications for CCGs, telling the Public Bill Committee in the other place:

“By the time you … have dished that out to 100 plus local authorities, there will not be a great amount of money at local level, and I think, as it is not ring-fenced, it is likely to disappear into other things”.

His concerns were echoed by Professor Elaine Kempson, a member of SSAC, who argued that without ring-fencing,

“will find even less fairness than the Public Accounts Committee found when it inquired into the current social fund”.

In her view, ring-fencing,

“is the very least that is needed”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 24/3/11; cols. 82-83]

—a view reflected in many responses to the DWP’s call for evidence. I acknowledge that the CLG Committee did not endorse this position because it believed that it is desirable that local authorities have autonomy to use the resource in innovative ways. However, ring-fencing a resource does not deprive a local authority of such autonomy; it simply prevents it using it for some other purpose entirely. I hope therefore that the Minister will be willing to give serious consideration to this amendment in order to preserve a vital safety net.

Amendment 86ZZZC addresses the fears voiced by voluntary organisations such as Family Action, Women’s Aid and Platform 51 that local authorities might impose a local or residence condition as a way of rationing assistance. Local authorities can apply such a condition when allocating social housing, other than when they are prohibited from doing so by law in the case of priority need groups. In the Public Bill Committee, Karen Buck MP raised this issue, citing an earlier exchange with the Secretary of State, whom she had asked:

“And we can protect against local authorities saying that this is not their duty with particular individuals?”.

He replied, “It is their duty”. When she then asked,

“Whose duty would it be?”,

he responded:

“It is a moral duty”.—[Official Report, Commons, Welfare Reform Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 164]

A moral duty is fine, but I doubt whether quoting the Secretary of State to that effect would cut much ice with a local authority. If the Government believe that there is a moral duty, they should make it a statutory duty. The amendment reflects in particular fears that a local connection rule could be used against groups such as homeless people, ex-prisoners or women fleeing domestic violence.

Amendment 86ZZZD reinforces a previous amendment by ensuring that provision will be made for those fleeing domestic violence. Women’s Aid surveys of residents suggest that significant numbers of domestic violence survivors set up new homes following their stay in a refuge. Many rely on the Social Fund to provide basic furniture, beds, cookers and white goods. In the view of Women’s Aid, the fund provides a lifeline for these families. Moreover, it warns that in its experience, failure to obtain financial support with help to move and furnish new homes may be one factor leading women to return to their violent partners, and the fear that they will be unable to obtain such financial help may prevent women leaving their violent partners. What kind of choice does that leave women? Either they risk exposing their children to significant deprivation or they continue to face the prospect of domestic violence.

Maria Miller assured the Public Bill Committee that the Government would take,

“extreme care to ensure that individuals who are subject to domestic violence continue to receive the sort of support that they need”.

As well as referring to budgeting loans, she said that she imagined that women fleeing domestic violence would be a high priority for local authorities. However, that does not constitute the Government taking “extreme care”. The amendment would enable them to make good on their commitment and thereby underpin their domestic violence strategy.

Amendment 86ZZZE is essentially an attempt to write into the Bill a degree of accountability once the discretionary Social Fund has been localised. Public money is being devolved with no strings attached to local authorities to provide the ultimate safety net for some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in their areas, yet there is no plan for post-implementation review on the grounds that policy responsibility for local welfare assistance will sit with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and local authorities in England. This strikes me as central government washing its hands of all responsibility for this important area of social policy. As far as I can see, there is not even a commitment to a good practice guide such as that issued for discretionary housing payments.

In response to concerns voiced about this, the Government argued that it will be sufficient to set out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter, although they now say that this may be supplemented by a requirement to report on how the funding has been used, and that this will be discussed with local authorities and others. This is progress of a sort, although as the CLG Committee observes, it falls some way short of the accountability mechanisms suggested by some stakeholders. The Minister, Steve Webb, told the CLG Committee that the Government sees accountability as being local. He said that,

“we would expect local people would know the money had come down and the kinds of needs to be met and would challenge the local authority and hold it to account. We think that is the best mechanism for accountability”.

The committee interpreted that as the Government relying principally on,

“the ballot box as the means of holding local authorities to account for their use of the Social Fund monies”.

Surely the idea that voters will hold local authorities accountable through the ballot box is fanciful. The people who are most likely to need this assistance are the same people who are least likely to vote. I simply do not see this being an issue in local elections for the rest of the electorate. Nor should it be up to local organisations to prise the information out of local authorities.

The CLG Committee recommended that central government identify clearly the amounts that are allocated to local authorities and collect information about their use until the new arrangements are bedded in. It suggested a period of five years. Amendment 86ZZZE goes rather further than this by seeking a review of the impact on those who previously would have been eligible for help. I suggest that we need to monitor both the use of the moneys and the impact of the localisation of this help. Even if the Minister does not accept that this should be written into the legislation— I quite see why he might not—I hope that he might be able to make a commitment to the Committee on this matter.

Finally, Amendment 86ZZZF seeks to postpone the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund until the migration to universal credit is complete and specified performance targets have been achieved. Despite the immense care clearly being put into the issue of delivery, we cannot be sure that things will not go wrong during the transition to what the Government described as the most fundamental reform of social security for 60 years. Would it not be prudent to maintain the ultimate safety net provided by the Social Fund until the Government are satisfied that universal credit is working well? There is a real danger that the absence of the ultimate safety net could impact negatively on universal credit itself during its implementation phase in a period when unemployment is still likely to be high and living standards remain under serious pressure.

My preference would be that Clause 69 does not stand part of the Bill. So long as it does, I believe that amendments such as these and the amendment in the name of my noble friends are vital to ensure that the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our society continue to be met. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my colleague, who, like me, at the time, was fulminating against the introduction of the Social Fund as a wicked Tory trick. I remember the debates very well. I was standing shoulder to shoulder with her at the time. In view of the experience since 1986, the Social Fund migrated into a place that met the need much better than I expected. There is a little vignette here which I hope I can convince the Minister to go away and think a little more about because the Social Fund replaced single payments. Single payments were a rock-solid, embedded system in the social security system and it was fully appealable, all the way through to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal and, indeed, to commissioners in 1986. One of the reasons why the noble Baroness and I were so aghast at the proposal was that the initial 1986 White Paper suggested that there should be no appeal of any kind on the grounds that these were discretionary payments, so how could you have rules for them?

That was all fine until the Council of Tribunals—these are big legal cheeses—produced a report and, for the purposes of the further elucidation of the Committee, I have obtained a copy of it. It is a special report of the Council of Tribunals when, in 1986, it waded into the argument. I shall quote two sentences about the importance of independent review of any social security decisions. The council was responding to the White Paper and said that,

“the people most affected by this proposal are among the most vulnerable in society. Very good reasons are needed before abolition of the right to an independent appeal in such circumstances, an appeal which has existed for over 50 years”—

in 1986. It continued:

“It would probably be the most substantial abolition of a right to appeal to an independent tribunal since the Council of Tribunals was set up by Parliament in 1958, following the Franks report. It is for these reasons that we are so critical of the proposal. In our last Annual Report we described it as highly retrograde”.

That was an interesting intervention at the time. What did the Government of the day do? They took it back and thought about it carefully and a man called Mr Tony Newton, who was the Minister of State, had second thoughts and went away and produced amendments, which the Commons accepted. They were then sent back to the Lords and the Lords capped the sensible amendments that had been introduced by the then Mr Tony Newton by introducing the Social Fund Commissioner. The Office of the Social Fund Commissioner was set up at that stage and has been extremely successful, much more successful than some of us thought at the time. It filled a need, and that need is greater now than it was then. My point about the vignette is that it is possible for Ministers of State to listen to what has been said to them about the need for independent scrutiny and review, to go away and reflect and to come back with some better ideas.

I cannot resist this Tony Newton quote. After a good deal of prodding in the ribs by many of us, he said that there should be,

“some clearly established machinery that was separate from and outside the normal management chain of . . . the social security system . . . to provide the kind of confidence that hon. Members”—

he was in the Commons at the time—

“felt was necessary to show that an element of independence was being applied”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/86; col. 43.]

He did the business and it was sorted. It was the House of Lords that put the final touches to it in a way that made the system work. That is a lesson that we should bear in mind this afternoon. The noble Baroness has set the scene very well, and I concur with everything she said, which is why I have put my name to these amendments.

16:00

I think it would help the Committee’s consideration if we turned to look at the money side of this because there is still a little uncertainty about the sums involved and the transitional arrangements. I have been looking at some the National Audit Office’s consideration of the DEL and AME prospects for the department. I remind the Committee—and it is quite a sobering thought—that the department has set a target to reduce running costs by £2.7 billion over the comprehensive spending review between now and 2014 and to reduce annual managed expenditure by £17 billion in pensions and benefits. That is a huge change. I do not need to tell the Minister that because he is trying to do all these things and we are trying to support him to do most of them. To be fair, the department has made savings—I think that is acknowledged by the NAO—of £535 million in running costs in 2010-11.

However, we as a coalition Government could be accused of doing this for financial reasons because the job is too hard to do, the administration is not easy and therefore if we have to make these savings of £2.7 billion, some of the administrative costs and some of the running costs of the expenditure on the benefit could be saved—the noble Baroness adverted to this in passing. What is our answer to that? I hope that we are able to say that this is not being done for financial reasons because you do not need to be an economist to work out that although the needs that the United Kingdom may be facing may be less dire than those facing some of our European sister nations, there is going to be a period of real difficulty. The last thing that any sensible Government should be doing is thinking of making changes merely to save money, if I can put it that way. The head of the National Audit Office said recently:

“The Departments’ big challenge is to cut costs by £20 billion”—

that is DEL and AME—

“in four years, while achieving substantial reform of the welfare system. It will not succeed without a good understanding of its expenditure, a clear vision, and a coherent, well-informed plan. There are signs of progress, but the Department will have to improve in all three areas if its March 2015 targets are to be realistic”.

That is the National Audit Office warning us that this is a very good trick if we can do it. I want some reassurances about the fact that we are not doing this to save money.

Subsidiary to that, I would like to hear a little bit more about the fact that we know that the Social Fund is administered through 23 Jobcentre Plus offices, and that is the part of the department that will be suffering the most acute administrative savings, I fear. I was looking at the evidence that the Permanent Secretary gave to the Public Accounts Committee. They are even now beginning to shift the spend across those 23 areas to try to mirror the local government areas that they will eventually have to match up to if these proposed changes go through by 2013. Can we learn a little more about that? I am very worried. The incoming requirement is that they establish needs in the areas that are being responded to on a quarterly basis so that the change is not too abrupt, and I can understand that there may be some sense in doing that. Am I right in thinking that there is a transitional phased spend programme based on legacy spending?

My concern is that if it is merely legacy spending, how can we be sure that it will face up to future requirements because they may dramatically change in the economic circumstances we are facing and they will certainly change regionally? There will be differences over the next two, three or five years in some of these spend levels so, if we are not careful, we will be sending money, such as it is, to a system we are not sure about in circumstances that we do not have any control over thereafter. I would like some reassurance about some of these transition arrangements. It is a significant sum of money, about £178 million at the last count, and covering all the discretionary elements of the Social Fund. That is a huge amount of money, and it is a lifeline. It stabilises people’s lives in a way that no other part of the social security system does.

I will turn now to the evidence for this policy. I suggest that if they like doing these things at the weekend, colleagues should compare and contrast the DWP response to the consultation that was recently mounted with the excellent principles set out by Mr Karamjit Singh CBE, the Social Fund Commissioner. He is an excellent man—I have worked with him a lot in the past—and he has done an excellent job. The department and Parliament owe him a debt for the work that he has done in administering the Social Fund and the Independent Review Service with such aplomb. He very helpfully set out on a single sheet of A4 paper the principles underpinning what he thinks the new arrangements should include.

The first point is a clear vision about who you are trying to help, which is absent from the DWP consultation response. He also refers to openness about the type of help available. I do not think that anybody knows what type of help will be available, according to the DWP consultation. When it comes to funding for both programme and delivery costs, we have no way of knowing whether that is going to be delivered in practice. As for “consistency of approach”, we will have 400 local authorities and two independent nations doing different things, so the DWP consultation fails on that test. A central overview, which he also mentions, is pretty difficult to achieve under the new system. The principles include:

“High quality responses that are timely, fact based and deliver a reasonable decision in relation to the individual circumstances”.

We have absolutely no guarantee that that will be delivered either.

Finally, and importantly, is:

“Access to an independent grievance process”.

The Commissioner is very robust, and you would imagine that he would say this. It is not just sour grapes because his process is being wound down. He takes a very clear view about access to independent grievance processes to ensure that decisions are fair and are seen to be fair. This takes only three sheets of paper in total, but it tells the story rather well. We need to reflect on that carefully.

I know that the Government, when they made these decisions in 2010, were under a colossal amount of pressure, and I appreciate that, as I appreciate the need for deficit reduction. However, the evidence is there. The Social Fund Commissioner is of course available and responsible for promoting research and improvements to the Social Fund, and from time to time they involve the experiences of customers. The last one he did was in July 2010. There was a desktop survey of 500 applications to the Social Fund at random, looking at grant payments and crisis loans. It is instructive to look at the kind of people who are helped by this. There is a summary of key statistical findings—I will quote only one or two.

The caricature of people who apply for Social Fund crisis loans are people who are gaming the system. They are using it as an ATM system to collect money for their weekend jaunts. When you look at the results of this survey, it is actually quite heartbreaking. I was surprised, for example, to find that of the 500 cases examined at the IRS, 58.5 per cent were made up by people of middle working age, between 25 and 49. That is not part of the caricature. The survey shows that 27 per cent,

“involved an adult with both mental and physical health problems”,

while 1.8 per cent,

“involved children with both physical or mental health problems”.

The survey showed that 72 of the cases—14 per cent—were made by women aged between 16 and 24, many of them with children, and many with illness in the family,

I could go on, but the last one, which I have chosen at random, is that 32.9 per cent of the 500 sampled were already,

“found to be spending more than 10% of their weekly income on debt repayments”.

So that is an established position from which they start.

I cannot resist another one. The average amount requested by customers was £1,596.55. The significance of that payment level is what it saves in terms of access to adult emergency services, social work departments and provision for homelessness and all the other consequences that flow from emergency situations not being responded to expeditiously and properly. It is a cash injection to stabilise people’s lives at a time when they need it most. We will need more of that kind of facility in future. If the Government were thinking of changing the system, they should have gone through the existing work of the IRS and the Social Fund Commissioner more carefully before suggesting that things should be devolved and left to local government.

There are two things that I find very difficult to support in what the Government are doing—and I mean that. The first, as I said, is the absence of an independent review service. After all the fights we had in the past to maintain it, giving it away as casually and easily as this will be very difficult for me. However, more important than that is ring-fencing. I cannot see any circumstances in which I could support ring-fencing to local authorities in the way that it is planned at the moment. I would have no confidence that it would be deployed for the purposes that it was originally voted for by Parliament.

In addition to that, I have no confidence that it will be used in jurisdictions like Scotland—and my noble friend Lord German may say a word about Wales. Although the money may flow to the Jobcentre Plus call centre in Scotland, it will be controlled by the Scottish Government. I do not think that we as a House can be sure of having any influence on that. If it is only backed up by a letter of information, setting out the aspirations of the Westminster Government, that will be nothing like a sound enough basis on which to deal with just short of £200 million of absolutely crucial social security spending.

I am willing to make concessions on all the other bits of this, but as things stand I am not prepared to concede on the independent review or ring-fencing. I do not say that to make my noble friend’s life any more difficult, because it is not easy as it is. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I were around in 1986. We drew lines in the sand then and, although it might affect my career prospects in future, I will continue to draw that line in the sand now.

16:15

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, there has always been a tension within social security, as David Donnison spelled out many years ago when we had what was then called supplementary benefit, between standard, national, no-postcode-lottery funding and payments, and the need for discretion. The Social Fund as it has become has that element of discretion and flexibility, which is why it would be madness to go to a call centre and think that you can do the thing that most requires discretion by telephone. I entirely sympathise with the Government’s wish to move away from that procedure.

My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, have eloquently explained the need for the Social Fund. I do not want to rehearse that, although if I had my way I would treble the money going into it because of its value to people. Indeed, the people who need it are not there because of financial mismanagement, let alone scrounging. They are there for the most part because of absolute, desperate, grinding poverty, having come out of care, prison or a refuge. They are the ones we seek to help.

Instead, I want to talk about something more mundane: the process proposed for the handling of Social Fund moneys, particularly community care grants, in future. Where that money is going to a local authority that is a single-tier unitary authority, I have no reason to think that it will not be able to get its act together because housing, social services and advice services are integrated on one level. However, it will be catastrophic for the shire counties where there are two-tier structures. I shall explain.

I come from Norfolk, a county which is about 60 miles by about 40 miles. When I was a county councillor representing Norwich I was closing schools that I had never visited and putting yellow lines on roads I did not drive on, and we called it “local government”. I have to say that the Jobcentre in my district had more local knowledge than most county councillors had outside their immediate patch. Under this proposal the money will go to a county council that has no local experience or knowledge. I do not in any way mean to criticise social workers who are doing a heroic job, but the council has none of the local knowledge at councillor or policy-shaping level that is required.

A second problem is that in a county council like Norfolk, there are a number of rural districts within which there may be small pockets of acute rural deprivation—even though they may contain thatched cottages covered with roses—but there is also the deprivation of Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn, Thetford and some of the poorest estates in the eastern region, in Norwich. If the county council decides to go on a format allocation, it may send money to rural districts that do not need it as their pockets of rural deprivation have been resolved because those people have voted with their feet—I know this to be the case—and have come into the nearest urban city area. I have known good social workers give them the bus fare to do so, and quite right too; I would do the same in their situation. So the first problem with sending the money over to the county council is that they do not have local knowledge, but the second problem is that there is a huge variety of circumstance in an area as large as Norfolk, and I have no confidence that that will be recognised in the use of that money by the county council.

The third issue is what we call ring-fencing. If I were a county councillor with this money and I was seriously worried, as most county councillors are in good faith and decency, about child abuse protection, I would regard this as a fund to plunder. I would regard other priorities as being of more urgent need. I am therefore not in any sense confident that that money will be spent where it should be.

For several reasons, I want to see instead, and I hope that this will happen, the money in two-tier authorities going to the local district council. First, the local district council should have much more intimate knowledge of its locality and local needs. If localism means anything, it does not mean distributing down to a county council, half of whose councillors have never visited the village or the area where the deprivation is concentrated. You might just as well have the money coming from London or indeed from Scotland. It has to go down to the local district council.

Secondly, over and beyond local knowledge, if we cannot have ring-fencing—I hope we do, but I will come back to that—then at least it should be integrated with the fact that it is those same lower-tier authorities, the housing authorities, that are going to be responsible for the discretionary housing allowance and for the development of this absurd structure of individualised council tax benefits. Okay, it is an absurd and foolish system but it looks as though we may be stuck with it for a while until better sense prevails and we can reintegrate council tax benefit into universal credit. This means, though, that district councils on the ground have to have the staff, the resources, the local knowledge and the detailed experience of those same client groups for discretionary housing awards and for council tax benefit. They should ally to that the grants and some of the loans of the Social Fund because often they are dealing with the same client group, and often for the same purpose.

We have heard that a high proportion of community grants are spent in securing rent access to the private rented sector. It means that discretionary housing allowance—two funds, in future on two tiers—will be doing the same thing for a local community. This is absurd. If we cannot have a ring-fenced fund, then at least the money should go to a district council which can see the best way of meeting the needs of young people coming out of care or of ex-offenders. It may be that more money should go into discretionary housing and less should go elsewhere, but you can meet the service in different ways. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that you then need to make sure that there is an effective reporting and monitoring regime so that local authorities at the district level are accountable for how they have spent the money. There is more than one way to meet a need, and that is why I am not always supportive of ring-fencing. Local authorities can often meet a need in a better and more effective way—you only have to see the difference between residential care and domiciliary services to realise that there is not just one way—but they have to have retrospective, so to speak, supervision and control by virtue of inspection and monitoring.

I am hoping that the Minister will respond positively to this and say that when dealing with two-tier authorities, the shire counties, where the document says that the money is going to the upper tier, he will give a commitment, as far as he can, that there will be a letter of guidance requiring county councils to distribute and allocate funds based on previous expenditure levels in the district council. Otherwise some rural districts may pocket the money to keep their council tax down while the urban areas that receive people from the rural districts who have voted with their feet will have an even heavier burden to bear on reduced funding. In addition, meeting need should be recognised as a part of a district council’s repertoire. If there is to be an assumption that a local connection should be required, I accept the need for special care, particularly for battered women. Actually, in practice that is the least of our problems because in my experience nearly all local authorities have a very decent arrangement of trading homes so that women coming out of a violent relationship can move on from a hostel to a half-way house and then into a permanent home in a different authority. That works pretty well on the ground, but there are many other groups that, if they can, rural authorities will encourage into urban areas so that their responsibilities are negated. I hope that in that case the money will follow the client. If it does, I have no problem with that at all.

When the Minister deals with the big policy issues raised by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I ask him also to comment on the process point and at least give some of us some comfort that this will simply not be exploited, manipulated and abused in good faith by upper-tier authorities to do things that, because of their lack of local knowledge, they regard as more important than this and, as a result, strengthen the capacity of lower-tier authorities which are going to be dealing with discretionary housing allowance and council tax benefit. They will have an additional resource in order to meet the local need that they are best placed to address.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to introduce ring-fencing or at least to allow ring-fencing for some time while we go through this huge transition with the introduction of this Bill. I do so for a number of reasons. Listening to the debate I am again reminded of the speech made by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith at the Conservative Party Conference this year. He highlighted the great amount of debt that this country carries and, in particular, the debt of unsecured loans that people have taken upon themselves. Will the Minister say whether he is concerned that individuals who currently benefit from the Social Fund might turn to loan sharks or take out unsecured loans and expose themselves and their families to risk and threat because there is nowhere else where they can get the support they need?

I have been meeting chief executives, and indeed I recently met a deputy chief executive of a metropolitan authority. After spending the evening with him, what really struck me was the immense burden that he carried. He had to make choices with limited resources. I asked him whether he found himself having to cut back in the areas of child protection and child and family social workers. He said that he and his colleagues were definitely not taking money out of those pots. Then, on meeting a group of chief executives and directors of children’s services in the Palace of Westminster to discuss children’s centres, again we heard that the money was definitely not being taken out of children’s centres and they were really trying to support those as far as possible.

My point is that there are so many calls on the limited resources of chief executives and directors of children’s services in local authorities. The risk is that this money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said, will be diverted into other very important provision, but that those families who need this ultimate safety net will lose out under the new arrangements. I look for an assurance from the Minister that this will not be the case. I should say that Barnardo’s, which has so much experience in this area has raised these concerns with me. One should also pay tribute to the Conservative Administration that set this up in the first place and the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, because from what I have heard, it has made a very positive impact on the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens and families.

The issue of accountability, of how this money is spent, has been aired and needs to be addressed. Should there be minimum standards that local authorities have to meet before they are allowed to use this money as they see fit? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

I have very little to add to what has been said by a number of speakers this afternoon because they have covered the ground extensively. I was particularly interested in Amendment 86ZZZD because it refers to,

“financial support for applicants fleeing domestic violence”.

We shall shortly be considering domestic violence in another context, that of legal aid, which has some reference to domestic violence. The important thing about this in the local government context is that domestic violence frequently takes place within a family environment. Therefore, the individual against whom it is practised has to find some way of getting out. I am interested that this amendment refers to “applicants fleeing domestic violence”. Very often these women and girls simply have nowhere to go. Therefore, this amendment places a responsibility on local authorities, if money is made available, to provide the necessary financial support for people fleeing domestic violence.

That is very important in the current situation. I have recently attended other meetings in that connection. It appears that probably about one in four women has suffered from domestic violence at one time or another. Very often, of course, it is practised in families against very young people, very young girls. It is very important that there should be some authority and resources given to enable this to be dealt with. It is dealt with quite adequately in this amendment and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, this is an unexpected, generic intervention. Although the Committee seems to be making real progress, I reassure my noble friend the Whip that I shall be brief. It relates to a period even earlier than 1986 and to a different and extreme subject, but there is a moral to what I am going to say, to which I gather Her Majesty’s Government in the Commons is responsive.

Twenty-eight years ago I became the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Higher Education. I inherited quite considerable cuts to the higher education budget and I decided that my time as Parliamentary Under-Secretary was going to be spent going round the country, available to any higher education institution that chose to invite me, and I would be St Sebastian responding to their observations about the cuts. I had two and a half years of pure joy because they made it extremely attractive to me to come and gave me a marvellous experience of seeing what they were up to. The experience of St Sebastian was cheap at the price.

16:30

I refer in particular to Liverpool Polytechnic, which had a distinguished record in terms of architecture. I can see the look on the face of my noble friend the Minister, who is wondering where I am going, but I shall continue to go there. The Department of Education and Science had provided significant sums to Liverpool Polytechnic in order to enhance the admirable things it was doing, but Mr Hatton and his colleagues took the entire sum that we had provided for Liverpool Polytechnic and put it into the housing funds account. A year later I visited Liverpool Polytechnic again, but Mr Hatton's colleagues were unwilling to have lunch with me, although they were extremely keen that I should meet them, which I agreed to do. Outside the premises of our rendezvous, a man was distributing the Socialist Workers Party newspaper, and, as he did not seem to be doing brisk trade, I accepted a copy from him. I went into the meeting with it under my arm, in a spirit of benevolence, similar to that of Rab Butler during the passage of the 1944 Education Bill when he was visited by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops, whom he disarmed by saying, as they came into the room, “I wonder, Archbishop, if before we get down to business you would lead us in prayer”.

The exposition by Councillor Hatton's colleagues to me was absolutely barefaced. They said that they had been extremely grateful to my department, which had nothing to do with housing, for the money that we had provided the previous year to Liverpool Polytechnic and which they had transferred to the housing account. The purpose of the meeting was to ensure that, if possible, I would do the same thing again. I had to explain to them that they had made it rather less attractive for us to provide money to Liverpool Polytechnic than it had been in the past.

Ring-fencing can create problems. We wanted to help Liverpool Polytechnic but we were effectively denied the means to do so. Of course, hard cases always make bad law, but I have never forgotten that episode and I thought of it immediately when the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, moved her amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I hesitate to lower the tone after that marvellous exposition by St Sebastian—by the noble Lord. Perhaps the Minister will answer some questions for me. I have been reading the very large and very helpful response to the consultation exercise that the department kindly provided. I wonder whether he would help me with the sums. His Treasury and City background might help me to understand this. I am grateful for the briefing from Family Action and I take that briefing very seriously. I noticed that it had been giving out grants to people in need since 1869—even longer than the Social Fund—so it has some knowledge whereof it speaks. When organisations like that warn that things are about to get very bad, we need to listen, because they know what they are talking about.

Perhaps the Minister could help me to understand. I gather that in terms of crisis loans, during 2010-11, £152.9 million will be disbursed, and it is intended that from 2013-14 that will be replaced by the amount of £36 million, which will be transferred to local authorities. I am assuming that cannot literally be a cut of £160 million, or 76 per cent. I presume that there is a gross and net issue here. Perhaps he would help me to understand the effect of that transition.

Secondly, will the Minister tell us what work the department has done in estimating the impact of this recession, or other recessions, on demand going forward? Perhaps he could help us by looking at what happened previously. I note that the briefing from the Government in response to the consultation denies that the recession or youth unemployment had any part to play in the increased demand, although the fact that it started in 2008-09 would seem to imply a coincidence because that was around the same time as GDP began to go downwards. I wonder whether he could help us to understand that as well.

Thirdly, perhaps he could help me to understand how the new system will respond to changes? For example, how flexible can it be to changes in the profile of need in a particular local authority area? For example, if another of his policies such as the benefit cap were to have the unfortunate consequence of causing significant numbers of poor people to move from one area to another—I am not suggesting that it will, this is just for the sake of argument—how would that be affected by a local authority in that circumstance, or a circumstance like that?

I have one final question. Does he have any concerns about the consequences of what seems to me to be a move between what is currently annually managed expenditure to something that effectively becomes—albeit indirectly—a form of DEL? The only reason I ask is because one reason why something like this is part of the social security system is because it responds—and is managed and funded by central government to respond—to the changing profile of the labour market and the people in need because of changes in circumstances. How will government finances handle that in future?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I shall add some further questions about process. I shall not to go over the same ground that we have just covered, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for the historical background. This morning I started reading a report by her colleague, the Assembly Member for Cardiff West, on this very issue and on Labour's history in it in the past few years. In his report on this issue, the pride of place in the new Labour era goes directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with a major quote about the need for reform of the system. He then traces the whole history of the Labour Party's involvement and engagement with the Social Fund during the previous Government, and ends with a quote from the last document which we have, the DWP document of March 2010, which says that,

“the Social Fund has remained largely unchanged in the two decades since its introduction”,

that the existing scheme was “passive”, doing,

“little to help people build up personal financial management skills”,

and that it was “short-term”, “complex”, and presented a series of “delivery challenges” if the system were to,

“provide better value for money for the tax payer”.

I have no idea whether that is an accurate recording but he took his starting point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and his end point is that there is a problem which has not been dealt with, so reform is obviously essential.

The second piece of quite interesting information which I took from this document is on the report of the Calman commission. I do not want to appear like a cracked record here but I shall refer to an amendment in a moment. It is not clear to me which country we are talking about and whether “national” means England. However, one issue considered by the Calman commission, which was of course set up by the three parties represented around the centre of this Committee, was to recommend to the Government that the discretionary elements of the Social Fund should be devolved. The previous Government, in their response, said “We'll think about it”. I presume that the thinking has now moved on, which is why this issue may well be before us in terms of devolution. In a moment, I want to trace what I think is going to happen in Scotland and Wales because, although there is not yet a clear picture, there is a sense of direction in Scotland, and one beginning to emerge in Wales, as to what will happen.

First, Calman treated this as not being part of the major social security network. He regarded it as a different animal. Another quote which I liked, because I had the greatest respect for this Labour politician, is when the late Donald Dewar said that the Social Fund was,

“flawed in concept and arbitrary in its impact”.

Reform was therefore essential, but that essential reform is still on the table. What is likely to happen in Scotland is that its Government, as I thought, are likely to add an element of their own funding to this sort of money and to create their own scheme, so that there will be a different scheme in Scotland, administered by I do not know whom—possibly by the third sector—and managed on a whole-Scotland basis. The argument that is developing in Wales is very similar: there will be a possibility of an all-Wales scheme, delivered by and responsible to the National Assembly for Wales.

In that context, we therefore have to be clear that most of the questions and discussion which we have had so far are about what happens in England. I respect that and it is very important, because that is probably where there is now the greatest area of concern about how it will all work. I am sure that in Amendment 86ZZZEB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) refer to England, and that the word “national” in “uniform national appeals process” in new subsection (5A)(c) again refers to England.

We have this problem because we refer to nations. We have a National Assembly for Wales. That means that Wales is a nation. I am not certain how we refer to England at the moment. Presumably that is what the amendment needs. There has to be concern about how this will be delivered. It is appropriate to leave the structure and nature of the business to Governments in Scotland and Wales for them to shape in a way that is appropriate to them because they will have the legislative and financial competence. Of course, this Parliament will have no competence in that matter because the formula will be moved on through a structure that will eventually end up in the Barnett formula. It is important perhaps to look at models that we can share across the United Kingdom. The one for England is not yet absolutely clear.

Before I leave the issue of Scotland and Wales, I ask the Minister whether there has been any mention in Scotland and Wales of the use of the legislative consent motion. That is the device by which a devolved Administration can either ask for or accept permission to legislate, or give the permission to this Parliament. It works in both directions. I wonder whether that has happened. There is still some concern about the nature of what the Administrations want to do.

I will not repeat the arguments on the ring-fencing issue, but in England it is also the case that where you have accountability for funds that emanate from Parliament, there must be some accountability to Parliament. I will start by asking the Minister about the issue of the accounting officer. If discretionary funds are moved in the way that is described, am I right in believing that the accounting officer for those funds will be the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions? We should remember that by definition this is the person whom Parliament may call to account for the stewardship of the resources within their control. How on earth will the Permanent Secretary of the DWP account for money that has been spent without any ring-fencing or contract of any sort by local authorities throughout England? I would be grateful for an answer to that.

The Bill has no lines of accountability across departments. I would like to know what the line of accountability across departments is. If the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government were the accounting officer, would they be the accounting officer for some parts of the fund, with the DWP Permanent Secretary having responsibility for others? What are the lines of accountability across departments? Or will accountability be split between various departments? In other words, who should Parliament call to account for these moneys.

The second issue is about reporting back. We have heard about ring-fencing going in one direction. If there is to be an accounting officer and Parliament is to call them to account for those moneys, what will be the reporting back mechanism from local authorities in England to the accounting officer in whichever department it is? If that is not described, clearly we will lose the sense of being able to account for public money. I certainly worry about that.

I have asked a range of questions that need to be answered. I start from the premise that I have worked from this wonderful document. I will give a reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on this matter. It seems to me that we started with a problem many years ago and ended up with a problem that is still there. We need to find an answer but in so doing we need to ensure that we have covered all the possible corners that may be preventing us getting to the most appropriate solution.

16:45

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, many years ago when my noble friend Lord Brooke was my temporary boss in Northern Ireland, never in a million years did I expect that he would ever be described, or indeed would describe himself, as St Sebastian. The reason I mention that is that I knew that when he became Secretary of State, he had moderately recently been a Treasury Minister. My job in Northern Ireland, inter alia, was to look after the Social Fund in the then 32 Northern Ireland social security offices. It quickly became apparent that the calls on the Social Fund in any particular office at any particular time were extremely erratic. I asked my civil servants if London would object if I moved money around the system in order to try to balance it up. Of course the following year I had to do it again because of that erraticism.

It is all very well expecting the Social Fund, which is expatriated to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as a whole, to operate well with ring-fencing, but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that ring-fencing can ever apply when it is expatriated to local authorities in England for the simple reason that one local authority will build up a certain amount while another will be permanently in deficit. That is not going to help the people whom the Social Fund is intended to help in the first place.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 86ZZZB, 86ZZZC and 86ZZZD and we support the other amendments in this group. We have our own amendment, Amendment 86ZZZEB, and I should say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I am happy to accept his amendments to my amendment. Perhaps we can go through the Lobby together when the opportunity arises.

The Social Fund, particularly the discretionary component, helps some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised individuals in the country. We have been given a lot of historical perspective on this, but my brief says that the fund has its origins in the exceptional needs payments scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. However, some may go back a bit further. We should recognise that the fund as it operates today is not perfect. Indeed, a number of noble Lords have made that point. When we were in Government, we paved the way for change and consulted on it. The case we made was the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord German, which was that the system was short-term, passive and complex. Its role was as a sticking plaster to deal with short-term crises and did not address the longer-term challenges which individuals face, particularly those of financial and social exclusion.

That said, we should never lose sight of the importance of a safety net for those who are in desperate need. We have all received powerful testimony from a range of organisations to the difference that a crisis loan or a community care grant can make when individuals with acute needs are faced with very difficult circumstances. It helps the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society and we know how an early intervention can prevent a slide into even more desperate circumstances.

The case has been made by others, particularly in a very powerful presentation by my noble friend Lady Lister, as to why we should continue to support this. I would like to comment on some of the other contributions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that the great mistake he made was to confront Derek Hatton with a Socialist Worker under his arm. It should have been Militant, and then he might have got a better reception. So far as ring-fencing is concerned, I recall one party conference when a certain Dennis Skinner was speaking from the platform. He addressed the mayor who had come to open the conference and suggested that he should melt down his chain and put it into the housing revenue account, so there are precedents as well.

One of the difficulties I have with the government proposals is in trying to understand precisely their vision of what should result from this process. On page 25 of Local support to replace Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans for living expenses in England, the Government’s response to the call for evidence, they say:

“There is no expectation or desire from central government that the new service will mirror the current Social Fund scheme in whole or in part”.

If that is right, what is the Government’s vision? What are they seeking to achieve? My blood ran cold when I turned to page 27—this was the point made by my noble friend Lady Lister—where it says:

“One of the design issues raised by a large number of respondents is whether provision should be in the form of cash payments or goods and services, including for example food parcels and both new and re-conditioned household items”.

The next paragraph says:

“The need to offer recipients choice or control over the item they received was not generally considered a requirement and by a number of respondents it was thought to be undesirable. There was a strong sense that if there is a genuine need recipients will accept the support that is offered”.

What sort of country are we living in where we have those sorts of rules? It is “take it or leave it”, living off the scraps from the supermarket when they clear the shelves at night.

My noble friend Lady Sherlock pressed on a range of points concerning funding. I shall address Appendix C of the document I just referred to. Bandied around somewhere in the text is a figure of £178 million, but this annexe says it gives us,

“National-level data from the latest available financial year and 2005-6”.

The year then was 2009-10, so it was not as up to date as my noble friend. It says:

“We have indicated our intention and already taken action to manage the current levels of demand and spend for Crisis Loans back towards 2005-06 levels. 2005-06 data should therefore be regarded as more representative of the levels of demand and spend at the point of transition to the new local provision”.

The gross spend on crisis loans in 2009-10 was £67 million, but what was it in 2005-6? It was £20 million. Is that what the Government are about now, trying to scale back from even the 2009-10 figures to just £20 million in allocating moneys to start this process? It is an absolute disgrace if that is the proposition, and this is supposedly not meant to be about saving money.

Notwithstanding that, the information we have had is that the Government are cutting back on some of these arrangements. Crisis loans for items only following a disaster and crisis loans for living expenses have been cut back from 75 per cent to 60 per cent, supposedly aligning with the hardship payment rate under JSA. Crisis loans for living expenses are limited to three in a rolling 12-month period. There is already a process under way to cut back on this spend before we get into the new arrangements. I would like to understand the rationale and the justification for that.

I thoroughly and wholeheartedly support the proposition concerning ring-fencing. What we are talking about is money that goes into local authority budgets, ring-fenced for a specific purpose. The Government have made great play of reducing ring-fencing on local authorities—as we did in Government to a certain extent—but as a technique and as a means of ensuring that the money that goes through to local authorities is spent on that endeavour, it is well tried and tested. There is not a problem in doing it. Indeed, one of the experiences we need to reflect on is what happened to the “Supporting People” programme. That programme was originally ring-fenced. It was then un-ring-fenced, I think with the support of the CLG Select Committee, but at least in those circumstances local authorities were required to continue to report centrally about how that allocation had been dealt with. It was not rigid but at least there was a reporting requirement. I do not know, but perhaps the Minister can tell us, whether any such arrangements are proposed so far as the Social Fund is concerned.

My noble friend Lady Hollis was absolutely right to identify the issues that will arise under two-tier authorities. She suggested that one way of dealing with this would be to have a mandatory allocation to districts, but that raises the whole question of who people will engage with at the local level to get the support they need. Most of their needs will be related to housing, which is at the district level, but some may be related to adult services, which are the functions of a county council. Where people go and what the process will be is entirely unclear.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, supported the issues around ring-fencing. He made the point, as did other noble Lords, about the pressure that is on local authorities at this time. They have had dramatic cuts made to their budgets and some of those cuts have been front-end loaded. In some respects, they have had greater responsibilities imposed on them under the Localism Bill. Indeed, what are hard-pressed councils to do when such extraordinary pressures are placed on them? They must try to make decent decisions so as to protect and support their communities. This is another example of the Government, in the guise of localism, pushing down on local authorities and giving them the supposed problem that they are not prepared to face up to and deal with themselves.

My noble friend Lady Turner centred her speech on issues around domestic violence. I wholeheartedly agree with her, and that is why the amendment should be supported.

The greatest difficulty with all this is being able to see what the Government’s vision is. Local authorities are innovative and many of them will work very hard to protect in every way they can the vulnerable citizens in their communities, and indeed those from outside their communities. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point about connections. If local authorities put in place a focus on people with local connections, it will particularly disadvantage those whom the Social Fund is designed to help—the people who are settling back into a community and perhaps do not yet have a fixed abode. They may be rough sleepers or—I think this is the expression—they sofa-surf, which is when they kip down for the night on friends’ sofas here, there and everywhere. Helping those people means that a barrier cannot be put on some localised connection. I would support all the amendments which seek to avoid that.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was absolutely right to say that we need consistency of approach and transparency in all this. In part, that is what our amendment seeks to do: it would establish that there should be mechanisms to make sure that we get consistency. As I say, that has to be on an England basis because separate and well funded schemes will operate in Scotland and Wales. That is fine, and we should be happy with that. One of the other challenges here is that these changes are being introduced at a time when there is a whole maelstrom of change going on around localism, welfare reform, our health and social care provisions, and what legal aid support people can receive. In the midst of all that, these changes are being brought forward. They will affect the most vulnerable people in our society, and if we have a duty as Members of Parliament and certainly as members of a Government, above all we should look to protect them. These provisions simply do not do that.

17:00

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the current discretionary Social Fund is clearly in need of reform, as several noble Lords agreed today. From 2006 to 2011, the number of crisis loan awards tripled. The evidence does not suggest, however, that this increase reflected an underlying increase in genuine need, as it was largely independent of the recession. Analysis of the increased demand showed that it was driven by young single people on jobseeker’s allowance, many of them still living at home, rather than reflecting a more general trend across all benefit client groups. Strong action has already been taken to get spending under control, and demand has already reduced markedly.

Analysis of the current community care grants scheme shows that the remote operation of a highly discretionary scheme may not deliver the best use of a limited resource. The scheme is often poorly targeted due to the lack of integration with the wider social care agenda. Local authorities and the devolved Administrations are better placed to determine and support the needs of local vulnerable people than the current centralised system.

Clause 69 paves the way for reform of the discretionary Social Fund. Community care grants and crisis loans for general living expenses will be replaced by new local provision designed and delivered by local authorities in England and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. Budgeting loans and crisis loans for alignment to benefit or wages will be replaced by a national system of advances of benefit through the payments-on-account provisions set out in Clause 98. So the majority of the discretionary element of the Social Fund money will still be administered at national level because it is closely aligned to the ongoing benefit system: that is the most efficient way to do it. That discretionary loan fund pot at national level, which revolves, is currently standing, I believe, at £1.2 billion. I compare that with the £178 million going locally which is divided into grants, currently at £141 million, and general living expenses at £36 million. That does not add up to the full £178 million because there is another £1 million of transition funding.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister explain where the figure of £36 million comes from? The 2009-10 figure for crisis loans for general living expenses is £67 million. The Minister is clearly one year on from that, but has the figure halved over that period?

[Lord Freud]

If the noble Lord looks at page 11 of the government response document, it shows that the tripling was clearly driven by a phone-based service. As I said, we are getting that more under control. The 10-year average spend is £30 million, and clearly we are aiming to get back down to more sensible levels through this method, as I said.

[Baroness Sherlock]

The Minister obviously has access to in-year figures, which we do not. If he were to project forward from the most recent figures that he has, what would he expect the spend to be?

[Lord Freud]

At the end of this year, we are expecting it to come down to £60 million.

[Baroness Sherlock]

That is twice what you are projecting handing over.

[Lord Freud]

It is on a downward—

[Baroness Sherlock]

Just checking, thank you.

[Lord Freud]

There is a downward trajectory, and the measures that we are putting into effect do not reflect that full amount. The full amount is £60 million, but the underlying figure is coming down by more than that if you annualise the latest set of figures.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I just wanted to be sure that I had understood, for the record, that he is proposing to halve the amount being spent on crisis loans for general expenditure as a result of this change. I thank him very much for that clarity.

[Lord Freud]

I will make it absolutely clear that this is not a halving on an annualised basis when one considers the decline in trend. I would like that on the record as well.

I will take the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the risk of high-cost lenders, or loan sharks as she referred to them. We recognise the danger that illegal and high-cost lenders pose to vulnerable people, who can become very dangerously indebted if they are driven to use such services. We are committed to continuing to provide an interest-free lending facility for those who are least likely to be able to access mainstream credit. We call the process “budgeting advances”. That is a national provision of payment on account that will replace Social Fund budgeting loans. The budgeting advance will be paid to those vulnerable people least likely to access mainstream lending, to help ensure that they are not driven to use illegal lenders. That process, when we put it into the universal credit, will have a much different feel to the paper-driven process that we have today. The two systems of budgeting advances will run in parallel while we introduce the universal credit.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I note the Minister’s figures—which startled me—about what he thinks will happen to the crisis loan for general living expenses. Given that those are loans, does he expect there to be any virement? In other words, will the budgeting loans, the alignment process and the rise to 1,500 and so on meet some of the suppressed demand that will, in future, exist for crisis loans?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am not sure that I got the point of the question. Would the noble Baroness repeat it?

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Yes, by all means. Crisis loans are for general living expenses. There is therefore a close connection between them and general budgeting loans, which also deal with those expenses—unlike community care grants, which are in a different category altogether, and which can be completely ring-fenced. Do the Government expect any virement between the two funding headings? The depressed figure that was responded to by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, which appears to suggest that about £60 million was coming down to £30 million, would none the less be offset by an appropriate increase in the budgeting loans that he is talking about as payment on account.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the straightforward answer is that currently we are not seeing that alignment, based on the measures that we are taking.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Do you expect to see it?

[Lord Freud]

We are not expecting it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, perhaps I, too, may ask a question on the crisis loan budget. As I understand it, at present, if there were a disaster, people could get help from crisis loans. If there were a disaster, for example a flood—and more and more flooding is taking place—would local authorities get additional money to help out, or would they have to use the money that has already been transferred from the DWP, which may already have been spent on other things for that ring-fencing? Will there be provision to help people in the case of disasters?

[Lord Freud]

In the case of disasters, other measures would be introduced. This will not be a core methodology to deal with particular localised disasters.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

At present, people can turn to discretionary crisis loans in such cases. I would feel more reassured if the Minister could tell us what that provision would be.

[Lord Freud]

I will have to fall back on offering to write on that particular matter. I do not know exactly how we finance local disasters. In practice, the Social Fund has not been much used in that area. However, I will have to write on how funding for local disasters works.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. It may not be as extensive as flooding, but a not untypical example is a gas explosion in a high-rise block of flats that results in 80 or 100 families having to be rehoused and needing financial support to buy furniture and this, that and the other. Is it expected that that will come from this provision or will there be additional allocations?

[Lord Freud]

The obligations of the local authorities are centred on housing provision. There are a number of duties around what local authorities have to do to rehouse people according to their homelessness obligations. That is where some of the crises would be dealt with. Local authorities could look to provide the support using some of the Social Fund money that they have available. In practice it will be a more efficient use of money because we will have a one-stop shop for that kind of problem in the housing area.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, would it not also be reasonable, in cases of very substantial disasters extending perhaps beyond the compass of a single block of flats—although that would be a serious local tragedy—to look at the Bellwin scheme, which as I understand it is designed to deal not with the initial tranche of costs but with the substantial extra costs that local authorities will face if they are confronted by a major natural or physical disaster?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That was deployed in relation to the flooding in Cumbria.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I raise this to ask not so much about housing but about people's white goods and furniture that may have been destroyed for whatever reason. My understanding is that, at present, they can turn to discretionary crisis loans in such cases.

[Lord Freud]

As I say, that is not a major use of the fund. Clearly, the local authority with its housing obligations is very well placed to manage that on a holistic basis. In the case of that example, there would be a better and more efficient use of funding than we have today.

The amendments in this group seek to place constraints on the changes to the discretionary Social Fund that would undermine the much-needed reforms and prevent the needs of vulnerable people being addressed in an effective way. In line with our commitment to localism, and to allow local authorities to make the best decisions for their respective areas based on their more detailed knowledge of local concerns and requirements, we do not propose to ring-fence the funding given to local authorities in England and in the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales. Local authorities have entered very positively into discussions with us and have come forward with interesting and innovative ideas on how support can be delivered. For example, one large rural authority is considering using some funding to pay the delivery fees charged by an existing provider to deliver free goods to the vulnerable people they need to reach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether the funding would go to the upper or lower tier. The funding will be allocated to upper-tier local authorities in order to provide the greatest possible flexibility to local areas. From our discussions with local authorities, we know that a range of delivery models is being considered. Some of these models will result in funding being devolved to lower-tier services such as housing. Decisions about the ultimate funding route for each area will be determined by a range of local factors, including the location and the nature of existing services and how these align with areas of deprivation and need, and the level of funding that will be devolved. In less deprived areas it may not be necessary or practical to operate a number of services.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I simply do not understand that answer. It will go to upper-tier authorities: then what?

17:15

[Lord Freud]

As I was trying to explain, the upper-tier authorities will then design their services in different ways. Some will decide that the most efficient thing to do is to give it to a group of lower-tier authorities; some will do it themselves; some will devolve it to the housing operations within lower tiers. What I am trying to say is that there will be various responses.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

So it would be entirely up to the county council as to how they distribute this money, if they distribute it at all, and whether they actually use it for the services that are proposed.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on the argument between the upper and lower tiers, yes. I will come back to the issue around ring-fencing, where there has been some pretty powerful argumentation. That is what Amendment 86ZZZB seeks to ring-fence. At one level, that will restrict such innovative thinking. Ring-fencing could also prevent pooling of funding streams and ultimately limit the ability of each local authority to devise schemes that best address the specific needs in their respective areas.

We have had some excellent contributions. I think the best one—no, that was invidious—very enjoyable one was from my noble friend Lord Brooke with his reminiscences of Degsy Hatton. It is quite clear that we need to make sure, if we are putting money out for vulnerable people, that it goes to vulnerable people and is not diverted elsewhere. We are localising this funding for sound reasons, because the closer to the ground you can get with this funding the better it is likely to be spent. Local authorities clearly already have duties to provide assistance to vulnerable people.

There is clearly a great weight of feeling in this Committee, very well expressed—brilliantly expressed in many cases—and I will take those thoughts away, reflect on them and come back with an answer about where those reflections have gone. Reflection can be a fairly external matter. However, we will be setting out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Clearly, at one level at least, that provides sufficient clarity on the purpose of the funding for local authorities. Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on cash for emergencies, that cash is meant for emergencies. Of course, with local disasters, there comes a point when they are overwhelmed but I shall reply in writing on that.

Amendment 86ZZZD would require local authorities to provide victims of domestic violence with financial support. Local authorities, along with other specialist support services, often already provide more tailored support than the current community care grant scheme offers. Where an individual requires household items, it may be better to offer furnished accommodation in such circumstances. Local authorities will have the appropriate support services on the ground and be in the best position to assess what type and level of support is required. On top of this, they already have a duty to provide support and accommodation to anyone made homeless as a result of domestic violence, and this complements a wide range of assistance which is also available at local level.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, that is a district council function, not a county council one. When half the local authorities in England are split between two tiers, it really is not going to work like that.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is very concerned about this issue and it may be that there is a breakdown in some particular circumstances. But there is a duty on authorities to meet these duties. In my reflections, I will look at this because it may be connected with how we might find a solution to the more general concerns.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

Would the Minister also consider having talks with the Local Government Association, possibly in conjunction with his ministerial colleagues, about at least reaching some form of understanding or issuing guidance that might be given to the superior local authorities in dealing with their constituent districts? That would bring in some sensible rules of engagement or criteria for assessment of adequate performance.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I am just pausing while I think about the reflection process. Can I ask my noble friend to leave the reflective process as open as possible? I do not want to be over-circumscribed in how we reflect.

It is also worth noting that even under the current system, community care grants do not support those in the process of fleeing domestic violence. Under the current scheme, victims of domestic violence must have already fled the family home to qualify for support from the discretionary Social Fund to set up home.

I turn now to Amendment 86ZZZE which requires the Secretary of State to,

“conduct a review into the impact ”

of these reforms, and to commence,

“one year from the coming into force of this Act”,

and that there should be subsequent annual reviews which should be published. Eligibility for an award under the current scheme depends on an extensive range of factors so that identifying those who would previously have been eligible is not a simple matter. This would therefore place an almost impossible task on the Secretary of State. Comparing the recipients of support from the existing scheme with those under a wide range of new local support seems to miss the point that the driver for these reforms is better targeting. We would expect certain under-represented groups such as pensioners to be better served by a more local approach. Local authorities will want to consider ways of monitoring and reporting on their activities to provide transparency to those they serve.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, if the Government are successful in their desire to open up the scheme more to pensioners, it will mean that less money will be available for non-pensioners. What are the Government’s thoughts on that?

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, local authorities will have to provide support for vulnerable people in their areas. They have a difficult balancing act to perform, particularly in the difficult economic circumstances we are in. Exactly how they spend the money is, in the context of the ring-fencing question, something for them.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry if I am being a little dense here. When the Minister says that local authorities will have to provide support, if there is no statutory duty to do so, what validity will this have? What power would central government have to make sure that local government provide support if they place no statutory duty to do so in the legislation?

[Lord Freud]

Local authorities have a number of duties under which they are bound, and those are the duties to which I am referring. Let me continue.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could we ask the Minister to provide us with a list of the duties and the statutory references to them so that we have them on the record? We will then be able to see clearly what is covered and what is not.

[Lord Freud]

I would be highly delighted to provide that list of duties. The new national provision of payments on account will be monitored by the department to ensure that it is working effectively and efficiently. We are confident that the combination of this national provision and the new local provision will be a better way of providing support to those who need it most.

Amendment 86ZZZEB seeks to standardise the delivery by local authorities of the new provision and appeals, and introduce an independent tier of review for local authority decisions. This would defeat the purpose of our proposed reforms by, in effect, requiring local authorities to administer a national scheme. It is not clear whether this is intended to cover only English local authorities or to extend the responsibility to local authorities in Scotland and Wales. The whole reason for devolving assistance to the local level in England is to enable decisions to be made at the most appropriate level to effectively identify and target those in greatest need. It will be the responsibility of local authorities in England to decide on appropriate arrangements for internal review. As already discussed, local authorities are answerable for the services they provide and have a range of duties towards vulnerable people that they are required to meet, which I will list.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

By tier, if you would.

[Lord Freud]

Picking up on the powerful point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on the Independent Review Service, that service review’s decision is made on whether to award discretionary Social Fund payment. These decisions must have been subject to an internal Jobcentre Plus review before being passed to the Independent Review Service. The reforms to the discretionary Social Fund will mean that the Independent Review Service’s workload will diminish and eventually come to an end. It would not be appropriate or feasible to have a national review scheme to deal with the diversity of new provision delivered by local authorities and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Local authorities will set up their own internal review mechanisms if they think it appropriate to do so. In addition, the Local Government Ombudsman is fair and impartial, and is available to people dissatisfied with decisions made by their local authority.

Amendment 86ZZZF would delay the introduction of new systems until universal credit is fully rolled out and has achieved prescribed performance targets. This would delay the benefits of a more localised approach to the discretionary support. Performance standards are already in place for the current benefit regime, for which the Secretary of State is accountable, and this will continue to be the case for universal credit. The business plan for 2011-15 confirms that the department will continue to publish a range of indicators on the performance of delivery businesses, including claims processing, customer and employer satisfaction and labour market services. With these measures already in place, we do not see the need for regulations to set out the performance targets or standards for universal credit which the amendment would require.

On the question raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on cuts-driven reform, the White Paper on universal credit gave the commitment that this was not a cost-cutting measure and that costs would be funded. The initial funding allocation is fixed for the rest of the spending review period and future allocations will take account of changes in need.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

Will the noble Lord also circulate to us in a letter what the future funding allocations will be by subheading, including that held centrally and that going out to local authorities over the rest of the spending review period?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I hesitate to commit to that. If it is available at a reasonable price, I will do it but I will not if it is not.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I am sorry but the noble Lord has just given a commitment that this is not a fixed money measure and that funding will continue at a certain level until the end of the CSR, so he must know what those figures are.

[Lord Freud]

Yes, my Lords, the figure is £178 million per year, which I think is in the documentation, until the end of the spending review.

17:30

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

But we also need to see the breakdown within those headings.

[Lord Freud]

Could the noble Baroness make it clear what breakdown she means? I think she meant by area.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

By allocation.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I think there are two issues. First, what is the total pot for the rest of the spending review? I think the noble Lord has confirmed that that is £178 million—fixed or to be uprated by inflation?

[Lord Freud]

Fixed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

So it is declining in real terms. The second issue is how it is allocated among local authorities. Will it be done as part of the general revenue support grant, so that it gets mixed up with all the other things, or will it be dealt with separately?

[Lord Freud]

I understand that it is fixed for two years, which takes us to the end of this spending review.

I turn now to a number of questions raised by my noble friend Lord German, who asked about the devolution aspects. The Scottish Government have consulted on the approach that they might take to deliver the new local provision. They considered local as well as Scotland-wide approaches and they now have to decide whether the local approach, in line with the English approach, or the centralised approach is best. If the Scottish Government decide to go down the centralised route, that would be an interesting test case of whether devolving down to the local level, to populations of between 12,000 in the City of London and 1.4 million in Kent, or centralised to cover 5.2 million people across Scotland, is the best way to administer this sort of discretionary support. Clearly, we have taken the view that the closer to the populations served, the better.

If the Scottish Government choose to divert funding from other sources to top up the funding they receive from the UK Government, that is their choice, but they will have to tell the Scottish people from where the money has been diverted. My noble friend asked about legislative consent motions, but those are not necessarily for Social Fund reform. On the accounting officer question, for the national payments on account provisions that will clearly be the DWP Permanent Secretary. I shall come back to him on the devolved moneys.

I hope that I have adequately explained why these amendments are necessary. I shall reflect on the points that have been made so powerfully. Meanwhile, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank the Minister for his full response. Unless I missed it, I do not think he dealt with one amendment, but I shall come to that. I thank noble Lords for their very helpful contributions to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, gave a cautionary tale of what happened in the 1980s. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but the Minister’s response that local authorities will set up an internal review mechanism if they think it is appropriate is not the kind of positive response that, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his former incarnation made when similar points were being made about going from single payments to the Social Fund. Perhaps on his behalf I could say that I am disappointed with that response.

A number of noble Lords made the point about the money that would be available in the future. One thing that we have not talked about is that, at present, the crisis loans bit of it has money recycling, but money will not be recycling because there will not be any loans. Presumably, that will also mean, not just that it is not going up with inflation, but that there is no money coming back into the system. Again, that will make less money available for local authorities.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made a very powerful point when he read out the principles that the Social Fund Commissioner set out and then compared and contrasted them, in good student essay style, with what the Government produced. My noble friend Lord McKenzie made another good point when he asked where the vision was for what the Government want to achieve. I am no clearer about that vision. We have talked about the importance of local decisions. The noble Lord reiterated the point about decision-making at local level but did not address the point that it is possible that these decisions will not be made at local level. If Westminster can send its emergency decision-making up to Scotland, what guarantee do we have that decision-making on “daughter of Social Fund” will be taken locally? If that is the vision and purpose, perhaps the Government need to make it clear and set down that those decisions must be made locally—otherwise we might not have localism at all. We need more reassurance on that.

The noble Lord, Lord German, made some important points about accountability. The Minister responded but did not explain what the reporting-back mechanism will be. Accounting officers may be accountable to the Permanent Secretary at the DWP, but how will they be accountable if there are no reporting-back mechanisms and no requirement to report on how the money is being used? Again, a bottom line must be written into this.

I welcome the fact that the noble Lord said that he will reflect on some of these issues, particularly ring-fencing. He said that he would like the reflection process to be as open as possible—so no ring-fencing around that reflection process. He made a very important statement, which will be on the record. He said that the Government would have to make sure that money will go to vulnerable people and will not be diverted elsewhere. I am pleased by that because we are clearly in agreement. However, I am not clear how we can achieve it without ring-fencing. If on reflection he could come back and satisfy the Committee that this can be achieved without ring-fencing, I am sure that we would all be very happy and impressed. However, I find it very difficult to see how it can be achieved without some form of ring-fencing. I remain to be surprised and impressed.

On domestic violence, the noble Lord made the point that someone must already have left home in order to get help from the Social Fund. I understand that, but does he not accept that some women will be afraid to leave their home if they are not sure that there will be help for them when they take their children into the great unknown? At present at least they know that there is a very good chance that they will get help from the Social Fund. There is a real danger here.

[Lord Freud]

I will make this absolutely clear. Where one gets help from in those circumstances is the responsibility of local authorities under their homelessness obligations. The Social Fund plays a part way down the track. It was not the solution to that problem, so nothing is changing in that area. I would like noble Lords to understand that that is not an issue that arises from this change.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but that is certainly not how Women’s Aid sees it. It talks about it being a lifeline, and this lifeline is being taken away. Obviously the housing itself is the most important thing, but for a house to be a home it needs furnishings and the worry is that those furnishings will not be there for people. Perhaps in his reflections he can come back with better reassurance about that than at present.

I do not think the noble Lord has said anything about local connections. If he did, I apologise. The point was made that there should be no form of local connection test. Did the Minister say anything about that? I quoted from the other place, where the Secretary of State answered this by saying there will be a moral duty on local authorities to meet needs, but there are a lot of people who are going to be leaving institutional care. I refer not just to people fleeing domestic violence; they could be ex-prisoners or members of the Armed Forces. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not have what is recognised as a bona fide local connection. The worry is that they could be left high and dry and we could be back into a kind of Poor Law situation where people are pushed around as they try to find somebody who will help them. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that.

[Lord Freud]

I think I am going to be reduced to the letter.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

In that case, I look forward to this letter. I particularly look forward to the list of statutory duties and whether it will put flesh on that moral duty to provide a safety net that the Secretary of State talked about. I am not aware that local authorities have that statutory duty, but I look forward to seeing it when the Minister’s little list appears.

I acknowledge the fact that the Minister has accepted the spirit of the amendment on ring-fencing with his very strong statement about what must not happen. I look forward to the outcome of this reflective process and I hope that it will go some way—all the way, actually—to meeting the Committee’s concerns. We have had a very strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about his bottom line on this, which I am sure is ringing in the Minister’s ears, much more than anything I have said would ring in his ears. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 86ZZZB withdrawn.

Amendments 86ZZZC to 86ZZZF not moved.

Clause 69 agreed.

Schedule 8 : Social fund discretionary payments: consequential amendments

Schedule 8 agreed.

Clause 70 : Purposes of discretionary payments

Clause 70 agreed.

Clause 71 : Determination of amount or value of budgeting loan

Clause 71 agreed.

Clause 72 : External provider social loans and community care grants

Clause 72 agreed.

Clause 73 : State pension credit: carers

Clause 73 agreed.

Clause 74 : State pension credit: capital limit

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 74 stand part of the Bill, but we have had discussions along the way which, for the time being, we find satisfactory, so we shall not oppose the Question.

Clause 74 agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.45 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 10 November 2011.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Cluster Munitions

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Lord Elton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider that Article 21 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, incorporated in the Oslo Treaty of 2008, debars states party to that convention from promoting the adoption by other states of another convention containing weaker restrictions on the use of such weapons.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is fully committed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and our Article 21 commitments. We will not sign up to anything that would undermine it or dilute our obligations under it. We believe that engaging in negotiations for a protocol on cluster munitions in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is consistent with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 21 of the convention. These are negotiations within the framework of an international humanitarian law treaty, which are aiming at establishing restrictions on a significant number of cluster munitions, which would have a notable humanitarian effect.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, Article 21 actually requires us to promote the norms established by the Oslo treaty and the CCM. The norms in the CCW convention that we are now discussing are significantly lower and permit the use, for instance, of the M85 weapon, which formed a considerable part of the saturation bombing of the Lebanon by Israel in 2006, when 4 million sub-units were used. Can my noble friend not see that the United Nations kitemark on a convention of this sort, which permits the use of many sorts of these child-killing weapons, will lead the rest of the world to think that the use of these weapons is respectable? This is not promoting the norms that we have undertaken to promote.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

A lot of what my noble friend says is very wise. I emphasise that our consistent aim has been to ensure that any protocol on cluster munitions which emerges from the CCW parties is complementary to and does not contradict the rights and obligations of state parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I see the concern of my noble friend. The Government are anxious to take account of the worries and views of noble Lords and of Parliament generally. I repeat that we will not sign up to anything that would undermine the gold standard, as it were, of the existing convention. I give my noble friend that reassurance. A lot will depend on the negotiations and how they come out. Our position will be determined by that, not by any undermining of the kind which the noble Lord fears.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, notwithstanding the changes that we agreed the other day, would the Minister spare me having to thank him for that Answer, which I am afraid increases concern rather than decreases it? Will he not recognise that there is a very strong body of opinion in this House and in the House of Commons, which was brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for disarmament the other day, about the negotiations in Geneva for a protocol whose sole purpose is to ban some antique cluster munitions that are not very relevant to today’s world and which, if it is agreed, will have the effect of legitimising the modern cluster munitions weapons, including those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that were used to such disastrous effect in the Lebanon? Will he not recognise that these feelings are strong and well founded? Will he not agree that it would be completely wrong—politically, not just legally—for this country either to support or to subscribe to any convention that makes that distinction and has the effect of legitimising these appalling modern weapons?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord made a number of points. The antique cluster weapons are of course often the nastiest, particularly if they are used, so banning them is no bad thing. As for the negotiation over the protocol, obviously we will take into account the points that the noble Lord has made. However, perhaps he should take into account the point that 85 to 90 per cent of all cluster weapons are with non-Oslo state parties and so are left out of the present commitment, to which we ourselves are totally committed. If his advice is that we should ignore that situation, that sounds to me like a direct attack on a humanitarian benefit that we might achieve. I wonder if he would not like to reconsider his position.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, what is the mechanism for the adoption of the convention? Is it a majority vote by the Security Council? Do we have a veto?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We have already adopted the convention and it is a question of getting more countries to sign up to it. Alas, there are a number of important countries—the United States, Russia and China, for a start—that have not done so. That is the mechanism on the existing convention. If any protocol emerges from this, and that is a very large if—it depends on the force of our stance and our commitment not to sign anything that would undermine the convention—that would have to be approved by the United Nations and would have to receive signatories in the same way.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that, where competing international treaties or protocols are being negotiated, the United Kingdom will always strive, particularly in the context of arms sales, for the higher ethical standards in the spirit of our disarmament obligations that we have maintained for well over 60 years?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Clearly, we will give primacy to the gold standard, as I call it, of this convention. If it reassures my noble friend, I confess that we are disappointed with the progress of negotiations so far. We will continue to press the world’s major users and producers to give up more, be more transparent and be more explicit in their commitment to working towards a world free of cluster munitions, which is the aim of all of us.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Hannay, is that in the current approach there is a risk of legitimising the use of modern cluster weapons. Could the Minister respond to that point?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

First, let me say that the previous Government made excellent progress on this. The noble Lord may remember that when I was sitting in his place we supported that, and some brave and bold decisions were taken that we were all very pleased with. The risk is there in the negotiation, but it is a risk that we are determined to avoid. We do not want to legitimise lower standards or undermine or dilute the Convention on Cluster Munitions in any way. That is the approach that we will use in our negotiations. I cannot go into our detailed stance because that would not be very helpful at this stage, but the noble Lord is right that there are risks in this matter, and we are determined to avoid them.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of us doubt that modern cluster weapons are less nasty than the antique ones? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will not in future sign up to any convention that permits the use of modern cluster weapons?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

As I said, we will not sign up to any convention that in any way dilutes or undermines obligations. I made the observation on antique weapons merely because it is a minimalist better-than-nothing point that banning antique weapons would be a start. Obviously, we would like to see a total ban, but we have to face the fact that 85 to 90 per cent of cluster munition countries and manufacturers are left out of the present convention. We must battle on to better things, but we cannot achieve it all overnight.

Education: Qualifications

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:16

Asked by

[Baroness Quin]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what studies they have carried out on the trends in numbers of students studying for A-levels and other further education qualifications.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)]

My Lords, my department publishes an annual study showing the number of 16 to 17 year-olds studying A and AS-levels and other qualifications. At the end of 2010, a record 600,000 16 to 17 year-olds were in full-time education studying A and AS-levels. A further 413,000 were in full-time education studying vocational qualifications. Record funding of over £7.5 billion is going into 16 to 19 funding this year and the Government are committed to raising the participation age to 17 from 2013, and to 18 from 2015.

[Baroness Quin]

Has the Minister seen the recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which seems to imply that education cuts are specifically affecting the 16 to 19 year-old sector? Does he agree that with the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance, the cuts in education and the deterrent effect of tuition fees, against the background of rapidly rising youth unemployment, 16 to 19 year-olds are facing a very difficult situation? Action may be urgently needed across government to give this vital section of our population increased educational and work opportunities for the future.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I obviously agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about the importance of extending educational opportunity for that age group. That is why we are committed to raising the participation age and why we have put record funding into the 16 to 19 year-old group generally. As we have debated before, we have prioritised, at a time when we have less money than we would like, funding for pre-16s. All the evidence shows that academic achievement up to the age of 16 is the strongest determinant of subsequent success, both educationally and in job terms. We have done that, but I agree with the noble Baroness that 16 to 19 year- olds are important and we are looking across government at our participation strategy to address some of the concerns that she fairly raises.

[Baroness Coussins]

My Lords, what are the most recent trends, identified by the comparative European and international studies in which the UK participates, into how many students aged 16 and over are studying a modern foreign language?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Given that the noble Baroness is asking that question, I suspect that the answer may well be that other countries are doing more in terms of modern foreign languages than our own country. I share her concern: we want to redress the balance. As she knows, we are keen, through things like the English baccalaureate, to encourage take-up of modern foreign languages in our schools. In time, that should work its way up through the education system.

[Baroness Walmsley]

What can the Government do to help schools access the technology they need for e-learning and distance learning through which they can access the specialist teachers that they cannot employ in their own schools? That would help students to widen the range of subject areas that they could take at A-level. Obviously, modern foreign languages could be a case in point.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I agree with my noble friend about the importance of technology and the way that it opens up all sorts of opportunities that were not there before, perhaps particularly for children in rural areas. We need to look at that and make sure that its potential is fully realised.

[Lord Taylor of Blackburn]

My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a figure for A-levels. The Question goes on to ask about other, equivalent “further education qualifications”. Can he give us any idea of how many pupils are taking the international baccalaureate?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I do not have the precise figures but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with them. I know of his interest in the subject; we have discussed this before. It is, as he knows, a relatively small number but I am glad to say that I think it is increasing slowly in the maintained sector as well as the independent sector. I will do my best to get up-to-date figures and write to the noble Lord with them.

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, what work are the Government doing to monitor trends in the number of students who go on from A-levels or other pathways of learning to apply to university? In particular, what steps are they taking to monitor whether the changed funding arrangements are deterring numbers from lower socioeconomic groups from making such applications?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, we are developing destination measures, which should help us to get a better picture than we currently have of what happens to children after they leave school, whether they go into further or higher education or into jobs. It is important to know what the destinations are, so we are working on those measures, which will help us. As to monitoring the effect of some of the changes that we have had to make—for example, over the educational maintenance allowance, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—we will keep it under review to see what impact it has.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance is widely held to be a major culprit in the recent drop in the number of students attending FE colleges? Is he aware of the wide disquiet that exists about the operation of the replacement for the EMA, and will the Government consider reversing the decision if the number of students in FE colleges continues to drop?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, as I have said, we are keen to keep the effect of the changes that we have made under review. As the noble Baroness will know, we were driven to make those changes because the proportion of children in receipt of EMA—46 per cent of them—meant that it did not feel like a targeted approach. We wanted to target the money that we have more closely on those children who need it most, which is what lies behind the redirection and the creation of the new bursary fund. The noble Baroness referred to the impact on FE colleges. I know that a survey was carried out by the Association of Colleges to look into that. That survey, which looked at around half of all colleges, found that the number where enrolment had increased was the same as the number where it had decreased. The overall fall was only 0.1 per cent, which, given that there was a fall of 40,000 in the age cohort generally, does not feel like a significant change. However, we must keep it under review and we certainly will.

Legislation

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:23

Asked by

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the volume of primary and secondary legislation being introduced in Parliament.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, like every Government before us, this Government intend to enact the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech. The number of pages in primary legislation enacted so far in this Session is less than in other comparable Sessions.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat spare Answer. However, will the Government give serious consideration to the establishment of a commission of wise people, properly resourced, to look into the now profound and multi-faceted problem of increasing—and increasingly complex—legislation, which has dire effects in terms of citizen disaffection, bureaucracy and failed implementation?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend says, and he is right; legislation is more difficult and complicated, in large part because we live in a more difficult and complicated world. You just have to look at the growth in technology and the subsequent substantial increase in regulation and secondary legislation. There is more legislation from Europe; there are active judges and so forth. However, I wonder whether my noble friend’s solution is necessarily the right one. You could not get much more collective wisdom than is present in your Lordships’ House, where every piece of legislation is discussed and debated very thoroughly.

[Lord Williamson of Horton]

Does the noble Lord agree that this epidemic of legislative obesity has produced on average 3,165 pages of government Acts each year for the past three years, compared with 1,325 pages a year under the Attlee Government in 1945 to 1947, when really important legislation was being enacted? This extends to secondary legislation; in the last yearly statistics—we are right up to date—there were 10,662 pages of statutory instruments, of which admittedly 8.5 per cent were made under the European Communities Act but 95.1 per cent were our national legislative mountain. Does the Minister agree that is extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to comprehend what is being enacted in their name?

[Lord Strathclyde]

I am not going to quarrel with the noble Lord’s figures or, indeed, his conclusion; increasingly people have difficulty in catching up with the changes that are made regularly in legislation. Unless we get this right, there is a danger that at some time in our lives we will all become law-breakers solely out of ignorance. We keep these things under review and we wish to have legislation which is clear and simple and easy to understand. I know that this House will support our efforts.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.

[Lord Haskel]

The Leader of the House says there are fewer pages enacted. Is this because the legislation is poorly drafted and requires a lot of work by your Lordships?

[Lord Strathclyde]

No, my Lords, of course not. What is true, however, is that certainly in this Parliament there are more and more amendments being put down by your Lordships. Your Lordships are incredibly active in wishing to see changes or even putting down probing amendments, and that means that we have spent far longer on legislation than we have done in previous Sessions, particularly on Committees of the whole House. That is not necessarily a bad thing but it is also true that your Lordships need to have a little bit of self-denying ordinance so that we do more than just delay the programme of government.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, my noble friend should not feel unduly exposed in this because the problem is of great antiquity. Does he know that Tacitus said in silver Rome that whereas formerly we suffered from crimes, today we suffer from laws. Dean Swift began trying to find a solution when he said that in Brobdingnag:

“No laws of that country must exceed in words the number of letters in their alphabet; but few of them extend even to that length. They are expressed in the most plain and simple terms, so that people are not mercurial enough to discover above one interpretation”.

In Brobdingnag, of course, to write a comment upon any law was a capital crime.

Seriously, does the noble Lord recall that under the guidance of Lord Hailsham, for example, and his predecessor, Reginald Manningham-Buller, within the Cabinet structure there was severe constant scrutiny of the very problem with which the House is now concerned? It does need to be taken seriously.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, only in this House could we go from Prime Minister Attlee’s Government to Tacitus, to Swift, and then to today’s Cabinet. My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal, Sir George Young, and I—and others—yield to no one in our desire to try to make legislation shorter, clearer and better. It is not an easy task—and it is a serious task, as my noble and learned friend pointed out—but I also know that in this House there is a desire to achieve these aims.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches—the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is desirable to have an automatic review of legislation after three to five years, to measure its effectiveness?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the previous Government instituted a process of post-legislative scrutiny that we have taken up, and it kicks in after three to five years, when the Government publish a memorandum. Increasingly in future Sessions of Parliament, we will see more work being done to measure the effectiveness of legislation that this Parliament has passed.

Environment: Cockle Beds

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their approach to tackling problems resulting from illegal fishing on the cockle beds of the Ribble estuary.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the management of local fisheries, including cockling on the Ribble estuary, has been devolved to the North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and, as such, the conservation authority leads in managing the situation in co-operation with all interested parties, including enforcement agencies. In the light of recent events, North Western IFCA has closed the cockle fisheries for safety reasons. It is now a criminal offence to take or remove cockles in the Ribble, and the Government welcome and support this action.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, it is nearly 800 years since Magna Carta gave people the right to pick cockles from the shores of England. However, is it not now time that there was a better regime, in view of the chaos when the cockle beds were recently opened in the Ribble estuary near Lytham St Annes? Hundreds of people converged on the cockle beds, dozens had to be rescued and there was general chaos—and it was discovered that many people did not have permits. What will the Government do to help IFCA and other local agencies to protect the interests of the legitimate fishermen in that area who pick cockles so that they have a safe, reliable and environmentally sustainable business, which is being put at risk by what is going on?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As my noble friend will know, the situation is that North Western IFCA took the decision, in the light of the safety requirements, to protect lives. The Morecambe fishery is closed; the Ribble estuary fishery has just been reopened; and the price of cockles, at £700 a tonne, has encouraged a lot of people who do not have permits to go cockling. However, IFCA recognises the effect that the by-law will have on legitimate fishermen and is urgently looking into possible management measures that it could introduce to ensure a safe fishery and to operate it as soon as possible. The Government support IFCA in this endeavour.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising this important issue. The House remembers the Morecambe Bay tragedy, which involved cockle picking. In the aftermath of that, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was established, which has since made great progress in rooting out modern-day slavery and supporting a competitive industry. Can the Minister therefore reassure the House that the Government remain committed to a properly resourced Gangmasters Licensing Authority that will not be merged into a larger enforcement body?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We are indeed entirely supportive of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which plays a very important role in preventing the exploitation of workers. In this instance, the authority has not been particularly involved—there is no evidence of gangs working the fishery—but I am pleased to give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is deep confusion in the north-west of England, in Cumbria and around Morecambe Bay, about the present situation? Although, rightly, most attention has been paid to the saving of human lives, the natural environment is very fragile. Can the Minister assure us that Defra is monitoring that situation to ensure that irreparable damage is not done to the cockle beds and to other related species?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord has clear local knowledge of the area. He will know that the Morecambe cockle fisheries are closed in order to encourage restocking. The Government, Natural England and the IFCA itself are very conscious of the need to preserve a proper balanced ecology, and that is exactly the reason for the closure of the Morecambe cockle fishery.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is right to remind us of the tragedy in Morecambe Bay, where 23 Chinese workers lost their lives. Does the Minister agree that IFCA needs to be robust in checking permits, that wherever possible permits should be issued to local fishermen, because that is their livelihood, and that where there is illegal fishing we should again be robust in arresting those people?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend Lord Storey, who also has local knowledge of the area. The principles he espouses are ones which I personally would endorse, but this is of course a matter for the local IFCA, as the issuing of permits is in the hands of the North Western IFCA.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What testing is organised by the Environment Agency to test for contamination of the cockle beds by sewage outfalls from south Cumbria and the Morecambe Bay area?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not sure exactly what the procedures on that are, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord. Healthy food is obviously important, and shellfish infection can be very dangerous. The Government are mindful of that. I cannot tell the House the exact procedures at present, but I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

NHS: Hinchingbrooke Hospital

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

11:36

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what profit margin the contract between the Department of Health and Circle Health Ltd specifies for the running of Hinchingbrooke Hospital announced today.

[Baroness Thornton]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, we do not know Circle's profit margin. I can, however, explain the basis on which Circle will be paid. Circle will effectively receive a success fee for bringing the trust into surplus and keeping it there. If Circle does not make the trust operate at a surplus, it will not receive any fee and it will lose money on the transaction. Circle will receive all surpluses up to the first £2 million of any year's surplus, and then a share of surpluses of more than £2 million to keep it incentivised to generate the further surpluses that the trust will retain.

[Baroness Thornton]

I thank the noble Earl for that comprehensive explanation of taxpayers’ money. The issues I want to address are ones of transparency in process and criteria. Will the Minister provide details—I do not expect them this morning—of the meetings and minutes of meetings between Ministers, civil servants and Circle Health Ltd, and meetings with Mark Simmonds, MP, who is a paid adviser to Circle and a former member of the Conservative Front Bench? How will the Department of Health know whether this is a good deal? I can see how we will know whether Circle has made a profit or not. What is the objective here? Will a clinical as well as a financial audit be built in, and will those results be made public? In other words, how will the taxpayer know whether this is a good deal?

[Earl Howe]

I will, of course, write to the noble Baroness with detailed answers to the first part of her question, which would take too long for me to answer now. I can say that this is a transfer of risk to the private sector. That is why it is a good deal. It is also a good deal in another sense, because patients will still have a hospital in Hinchingbrooke. This is a hospital that in common parlance could be described as a financial and clinical basket case. No NHS bidders were willing to take it on. When the previous Administration left office, only independent sector operators were in the frame to do so. We therefore knew at the last election that there would be an independent sector solution. I think that it is a win-win situation all round. It is good news for Hinchingbrooke patients, and I understand that under normal Freedom of Information Act rules the contract involved will be made available, subject to commercially confidential details being redacted.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House who was consulted in making this decision and what sort of support was found among the local community and hospital staff?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, there was extensive consultation, but the important point for my noble friend to understand is that this was a locally led process. Ministers—and, for that matter, civil servants in the department—were not involved in the decision process. The decision was made by the strategic health authority board and the recommendation then came to Ministers. However, I can tell my noble friend that support for this decision has been very widespread, not least among the medical community in the area.

[Lord Laming]

My Lords, will this hospital continue to provide the same range of facilities as it does now? I understand that it does not provide A&E, for example, but will it be given the freedom to reduce the range of services in the future or will it have to carry on with the same services that it provides now?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as part of the franchise, Circle is committed to maintaining the current level of services, including accident and emergency and maternity services, as long as commissioners continue to purchase them for local patients—a commitment made following a consultation in 2007. Any proposals for a significant change to the services provided at the hospital will be subject to public consultation, as with any NHS hospital.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree]

My Lords, am I correct in deducing from what my noble friend has said that the choice was either no easy future for this hospital or the course that is now being adopted?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, so serious were the problems of Hinchingbrooke, both clinically and financially, that frankly the alternative to a franchising solution might have been closure of the hospital. I think that Ministers in the previous Administration reached that conclusion. It is one of the largest accumulated deficits that we have ever seen in any hospital. The problems facing Hinchingbrooke are therefore very significant.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, given the number of trusts that are in financial difficulties, can the Minister indicate whether he anticipates any further moves of this kind? If so, what processes would the department wish to see in place to ensure both value for money for the taxpayer and the highest possible clinical standards after any such transfer of responsibility?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we do not envisage any other solution of this kind in any other trust. Of course, close monitoring will be necessary, and the contract with Circle is very clear in this instance—it has to perform according to the specification. As I said earlier, if it does not turn the hospital around, the financial risk up to £5 million of deficit, cumulatively, lies with it. I believe that this is extremely advantageous for the taxpayer. On the clinical side, of course the CQC will be extremely concerned to ensure that quality of care is not just turned round but significantly improved.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how often Circle is reporting to the CQC on the clinical outcomes, given that there have been clinical problems at this hospital, how often it is reporting on the financial turnaround and to whom it is reporting?

[Earl Howe]

No, I cannot, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, if it is this easy for a private company to make the necessary economies to put this hospital back on course without compromising patient care, as was claimed by the spokesman on the “Today” programme this morning, can the noble Lord say why—a question that was not answered on that programme—the NHS could not make those economies itself?

[Earl Howe]

The previous Government tried very hard to put an NHS solution in place. As I mentioned, by the time they left office no NHS provider was willing to step in and say that it was capable of turning Hinchingbrooke around—the problems were that serious. Given that situation, an independent sector solution was the only one on the table.

[Lord Haskel]

I do not want to sound like a penny-pinching accountant, but exactly how do you work out profit on a hospital? How do you work out a surplus? What about capital expenditure? What about depreciation? What about all these other things that are involved? Have all these things been worked out?

[Earl Howe]

They have, my Lords, but the best way of answering the detail of the noble Lord’s question is to say that I will send him as much detail as possible from the contract, which factors in all the matters to which he referred.

[Lord Woolmer of Leeds]

My Lords, the Minister referred to an accumulated deficit. What is that deficit at this point? Will the contract require the new providers to ensure that that accumulated deficit is, over the years, paid off, or is it to be written off at the point at which the new provider takes over?

[Earl Howe]

The accumulated deficit is approximately £39 million; part of the arrangement specifies that Circle will work towards paying off that deficit over the 10 years of the contract.

[Lord MacKenzie of Culkein]

I understood the chief executive officer of Circle Health Ltd to say on television this morning that his organisation was a social enterprise on the Waitrose model. My understanding of Waitrose is that all employees are partners and that profits are either paid back to the partners or reinvested in the company. Is that the situation with Circle Health Ltd?

[Earl Howe]

My advice is that Circle is part-owned by its employees; more than 50 per cent is owned by them. The remaining share of the ownership is by private sector investors.

Business of the House

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:46

Moved By

[Lord McNally]

That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Elton set down for today shall be limited to 1½ hours and that in the name of Lord Selkirk of Douglas to 3½ hours.

Motion agreed.

Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2011

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations 2011

Water Supply (Amendment to the Threshold Requirement) Regulations 2011

Motions to Refer to Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord McNally]

That the draft order and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Transparency

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:47

Moved By

[Lord Elton]

That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to transparency.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name. I have to point out to your receding Lordships that, had things been different on Tuesday, I would now be moving a Motion for Papers and nobody outside this Chamber would have had any idea what on earth I meant. Now, following acceptance of Proposal 8 of the Leader’s Group on working practices, I am simply drawing your Lordships’ attention to something, and the rest of the world can understand what we are doing. Your Lordships are therefore already taking part in a miniscule footnote to a small sub-paragraph of history: a micromove in the direction of transparency; a tiny part of a much larger tide. Incidentally, the very next day, the House agreed the proposal from the Privileges and Conduct Committee to amend the code so as to remind Members that its underlying purpose is to provide openness and accountability.

Openness and accountability are not the same, and neither on its own produces the other. In an admirable report to the Cabinet Office on privacy and transparency, Kieron O’Hara points out that the,

“transparency philosophy contains two separate and independent agendas”.

He calls them,

“the accountability agenda … and the information agenda”.

The first, the accountability agenda, is gradually providing the means by which formal internal systems of maintaining accountability are supplemented by informal external means. This means that, as well as Permanent Secretaries breathing down the necks of Deputy Secretaries, the public are increasingly looking over the shoulders of both. The language in both cases is strictly figurative.

The wealth of information now available to the public —by the “public”, I mean principally the electorate—makes them increasingly able to judge the performance not only of the government machine but of Ministers who are driving it. So the coalition Government’s early commitment to what I regard as a breathtaking acceleration in the move towards transparency and openness in government was courageous. It was consciously courageous. They said:

“The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account”.

They claimed that, by so doing, they would also secure,

“significant economic benefits by enabling businesses and non-profit organisations to build innovative applications and websites”.

The economic benefits of this appear to be part of the second O’Hara agenda. I shall allow that to distract me from the intricate, fascinating and sometimes opaque subject of central government transparency to which I am sure my noble friend will do ample justice in her reply. Some of us were a bit doubtful whether what emerged from the mill of transparency would lend itself readily to the sort of process, or have the sort of effect, that the Government expected. Sceptics remained doubtful when, at the Centre for Public Scrutiny conference a year ago, my noble friend Lady Hanham said that,

“releasing the data in its rawest state”—

your Lordships should note “rawest state”—

“will enable businesses and non-profit organisations to build innovative applications and websites which will make the data easier to understand”.

Did not the Treasury have to hold seminars for financial journalists on how to understand and interpret COINS before and after the publication of those data? Government, it seemed, was to produce data much as a mill produces flour—it would be for others to turn it into bread and cake.

We waited—really not very long at all—and they did. What is more, they made them easier to use as well as easier to understand. To take a small example: the Department for Transport’s parking database was not citizen-friendly material when it was published, but, today, if you put Transport Direct into your web search engine, you can find the nearest car park wherever you are on this island. That is useful not just if you are a holidaymaker; it saves time and therefore money if you are a retailer trying to find somewhere where customers arriving by car can park and get to your shop and spend money there. The same website has brought in data from other sources, both public and private, with a view to making it a tool to plan every aspect of a journey by road or rail, by public or private transport.

That example is outside the accountability agenda, so let me turn to one that falls within it. I quote the Prime Minister, who wrote in the Telegraph on 7 July that,

“five years ago, it was made far easier for the public to access, understand and use data on survival rates following heart surgery. And guess what happened? Those survival rates rose dramatically”.

In that case, transparency easily outperformed formal internal systems of maintaining accountability. Death rates for some procedures fell by 20 per cent or more. That is a figure to remember. The NHS extended publication of outcomes as a result to more areas of surgery and, today, it estimates that we avoid 1,000 deaths every year by doing so and acting on it. Opening the professionals up to the public also opens them up to each other. In any trade or profession, this identifies best practice and spurs emulation. Spread across the medical disciplines alone, results such as this can bring enormous benefits not only to patients but to the Exchequer and, eventually, to our own pockets and purses. Spread across the whole spectrum, not just of central and local government activity but across amenable private enterprises as well, they may well achieve the savings and the growth, predicted at £90 billion by some, expected of them.

Transparency can be a double-edged weapon. The protection of confidentiality disappears as completely as a net curtain disappears when the light is turned on in the room behind it. However, confidentiality is often both desirable and necessary. The patient who wants to know why his operation went wrong and who would benefit enormously if the outcome of all similar operations could be aggregated and published on a database is the same patient who very much does not want his personal details to appear on a public website. There are difficulties here, not just in deciding where the border between confidentiality and transparency should lie, but in retaining the confidentiality of anything that it is decided should remain behind it. Data on huge numbers of those operations can be aggregated and anonymised, but anonymising processes can be reverse engineered, and techniques for this keep evolving, because there is a market for the sort of personal information that we wish to keep private. All data sets are subject to this potential risk. Getting it wrong could have pretty dreadful results. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell us what response the Government are giving to the 14 recommendations of the O’Hara report on this subject—perhaps not individually, as it would take too long, but in general.

From Monday’s debate on Amendment 20 to the Health and Social Care Bill, the Minister will be aware of the anxiety in this House over the balance between benefit and risk when it comes to imposing, for instance, a duty of candour on hospitals. There are major transparency issues also in the Localism Bill, which is also before the House. The public should take comfort from the energy and thoroughness with which this House examines these changes before deciding whether or not to accept them, and in what form. Had there been fewer people getting up at Question Time, I would have drawn attention to that when we had the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a few moments ago.

I spoke of the coalition’s early commitment to a breathtaking acceleration of this move to transparency. That was no exaggeration. In 2010, 2,500 government data sets were made available. This year, the number is already 7,500. That is a 200 per cent increase. I understand that this country now has more government data accessible to the public than any other country in the world except the United States of America, and they keep ahead of us only because they have a vast surface area and they count all the maps as data sets.

The move to transparency is an international phenomenon. A very important aspect, and one in which Great Britain has taken the lead, is the introduction to transparency in the giving of overseas aid—transparency not only at our end of the transaction, but at the recipient’s end as well. To get transparency at the recipient’s end is the present aim and is only just beginning. The International Aid Transparency Initiative —IATI—was launched in 2008 and started by establishing a common format of published accounting for aid programmes. In January this year we became the first country to publish DfID’s aid information entirely in this form. At the next meeting of IATI, in Busan at the end of this month, will Her Majesty’s Government be pressing other Governments to join the eight organisations now publishing in this format?

Next Tuesday, the first international aid transparency index will be published. We should be among the top three of the 58 donor countries included. We now want to establish the same procedures in recipient countries as we have here, a move which has been recommended by Transparency International among others. To that end, will the Government exert themselves to secure from the EU early legislation to make it mandatory for oil, gas and mining companies to publish in common form all payments they make to foreign Governments, disaggregated by project as well as country? Like Tearfund, I believe that there should also be a requirement to publish production volumes, pre-tax profits, employee numbers and labour costs. The people of countries from which immensely valuable commodities such as oil, copper, diamonds and so on are extracted by foreign or international corporations are often exceedingly poor. By these means we can, for the first time, bring to them the benefits that transparency is already beginning to bring us. When that happens, I will gladly seek once again to draw your Lordships’ attention to Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to transparency.

I have touched only the surface of the subject. I look forward to your Lordships contributions, especially that of the noble Lord, Lord Gold. I beg to move.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I would like to remind your Lordships that all Back-Bench contributions are limited to eight minutes and that when the clock shows eight minutes, time is up.

12:01

[Lord Prescott]

I welcome the contribution that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I will pursue the topic in a different way, but will take up his opening remarks on accountability. He wanted to look at how Ministers are driving such a policy and will judge them on that. I want to address my remarks to that point on transparency. We can all agree that basic legislation has been passed by all Governments to move in this direction. Indeed, my own Government, in which I was in the Cabinet, introduced the Freedom of Information Act, which was probably the most important piece of the legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred. Alongside that, there are other factors, such as the register of interests and the register of lobbyists—all these things play an important part in transparency and accountability. There is general agreement on that.

The one difference between this Government and my own of course is that we were able to pass legislation; this Government have been in office only 18 months, so we have to give time to see their legislative framework. We know already that the commitment to the register of lobbyists has not yet come about, although there is some talk that they may introduce that. We will wait and see. In all these matters, I am particularly concerned whether those who are driving this policy in this Cabinet are actually doing what they believe. The Prime Minister has said he wants to see a revolution in transparency. Why did he find it so difficult to tell us how much taxpayers’ money he spent on a kitchen and bathroom? I do not deny him that, but it is about transparency over taxpayers’ money. When he has his regular meetings with the Murdoch operation—not a company known for transparency—a meal becomes a private meal and we are not entitled to know what was discussed. That seems to set some of the tone.

Looking at other members of the Cabinet who are leading and driving this policy, the Secretary of State for Education, Mr Gove, had to admit that he was using private e-mails to avoid having to report under freedom of information rules. He was a Cabinet Minister, avoiding saying what he was doing. The Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Fox, has now gone but he certainly was not showing a great deal of transparency in his actions in pursuing a separate foreign policy. The latest example is the big argument between the Home Secretary and a senior civil servant—three inquiries are under way but there is a great big argument about transparency. That indicates there is not a great deal of commitment to be open in the information being made available about the action of those Cabinet Ministers.

The one I want to address my attention to is Mr Pickles —the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He almost makes himself the champion of disclosure of information, but, as we know, quite recently he had a meal in the Savoy Hotel with Bell Pottinger and some other people involved with planning. He said, “Oh, I don’t have to declare that”—and he did not. He did not declare it in the register of interests, he fended off the Ministerial Code and he also declared in those cases that it was a private affair, as did the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron. We have found a new argument for non-disclosure—provided it is private, you do not have to disclose it. More important is what is discussed and said—that is what transparency is about. It undermines the credibility of those who say they believe in greater transparency. Bearing in mind that he makes this point about spending on a private meal, Mr Pickles has also gone out of his way to make clear that I was apparently spending money—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, also made a great deal of comment about—on a meal that I had in a casino in Australia. The Government at that time, in 2004, were looking at casinos as part of regeneration, and we insisted that we paid the bill. We used the government credit card. By the way, despite what the press implied, I have no credit card from the Government. I understood that Ministers did not have credit cards. It is the accountability officer who is in charge of those matters.

Nevertheless, a great deal of play was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, by Mr Shapps, the Housing Minister, and by Mr Pickles—all three of them party officials, either head of their party, vice-chairman or previous chairman. It seems to me that they are politically motivated people. Years ago I was accused of that and fought a Labour Government who claimed that I was politically motivated. I put my hand up; I was proud to be that. These three people should ask themselves whether they were not acting in a political way in making their statements about that matter. That is my concern, and I want to justify it by making this point.

All the headlines of the Tory press, working with the Tory Ministers, made the point that Prescott was gambling. I have never gambled in my life, except in politics; I have done a lot of that but I have not put money on things. The implication was that I was spending taxpayers’ money. That was a lie, untrue, although the words were carefully used. I could have taken action, but it was my department. It was as if I was handling my department’s expenditure card. My question is: what is the Government’s position on these expenditures? Currently it is not necessary to reveal information for sums below £500, only above £500. With the help of the Library, I have found that in recent announcements by the Cabinet Office and the Departments of Energy, of Health and of Justice, when asked whether they had a record of expenditures below £500, they all said, “No, because it is too expensive to find that kind of information”. Furthermore, they said that they cannot go as far back as 2007-08. Yet this department goes back to 2004 and 2006. If you consider every bit of expenditure, of course it is not too expensive.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, looked at that information, but it actually said that I spent that money in a restaurant. I admit that the department did spend money in the casino. However, if she is concerned about waste, as she often claims, why did she not investigate the figures to see that £2,000 was spent on that credit card for watches? Why the hell would anyone want to spend that sum buying four watches on a government credit card? Why did that not arise and cause concern? Apparently it did not. In those circumstances, why was it not investigated? The Government gave their own answer in July, saying that the evidence was that the cards were cloned. Why were they so eager to bring attention to me when they knew that the cards had been cloned? To me, that seems a pretty political operation. Given the evidence of cloning, why did they not carry out an investigation? Why did they not look into those circumstances? That is what concerns me. Other departments have said that they cannot go below £500, yet this department could go right back to 2004, with all the expense necessary to do it, and, when asked why it did not fully investigate, it said that it was too expensive. Then why did it go back to 2004? I will be answerable for whatever I have done, but it is the political motivation that worries me about these things.

It is quite right to look at expenditure and it is proper for Ministers and Members of Parliament to be accountable. However, if it is politically oriented, and if other departments are not following the same criteria as that department, and if they do not investigate the obvious problems, which they admitted probably came from cloned cards, please forgive me if I think it is political.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will tell us whether she did investigate properly. I have asked the Cabinet Minister to do a proper investigation. Only if there is honesty can we have proper transparency. At the moment, it looks to be more politically motivated, and that is what concerns me. It has all the smell of hypocrisy. So let us be a bit more honest about it.

12:08

[Baroness Benjamin]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this extremely important debate and I look forward with great interest to hearing my noble friend Lord Gold’s maiden speech.

Transparency and accountability are vital when companies are in receipt of public funding. The creative industries receive public funds in the form of grants: theatres, museums and art galleries receive funds from the Arts Council, and investment in films comes from the BFI. The commercial broadcasters obtain their revenue on the basis of lucrative licences awarded by Ofcom. Therefore, it is reasonable that the public should be entitled to expect these organisations to be accountable and transparent in all areas, including their equality and diversity policies, and to expect the funders and regulators to enforce this transparency on their behalf.

Unfortunately, they have fallen short on this. The Arts Council requires equality monitoring of the funding recipients but keeps the results secret, as does Ofcom of the companies which have been granted licences. Both merely publish sector-wide summaries. Before the BFI took over, the UK Film Council required equality monitoring of applicants for funding but did not require or collect data for productions when they went ahead. All that means that the public cannot find out what progress has been made in our creative industries regarding diversity and equality.

All major political parties recognise that the influence of broadcasting on society is so great that it should have higher standards with regard to equality and transparency, and be held to greater account. There is separate legislation covering the BBC and all parties in government have ensured that the BBC continues to have a strong equality and diversity remit. Previous Governments also ensured that the same practice applied to commercial broadcasting. The Broadcasting Act 1990, which established the Independent Television Commission to regulate commercial terrestrial television, includes Clause 38 which states:

“Any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or Channel 5 shall include conditions requiring the licence holder … to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment … equality of opportunity between men and women and … persons of different racial groups”.

This clause was expanded to include disability in the subsequent Broadcasting Act 1996.

The ITC included in every licence a contractual obligation to carry out equality monitoring of staff and management, and this data was published annually. The public was able to see how well the licence holders were reflecting the diversity of the audiences they served and allowed those broadcasters who were making good progress to be congratulated.

The Communications Act 2003 extended this clause across cable, satellite and radio, and provided transparency and accountability on equality and diversity across commercial broadcasting. But in 2005, Ofcom, the successor to the ITC, decided that it would no longer enforce this clause. It chose instead to encourage “a climate of compliance” and concluded that allowing the public to see the licence holders’ equality monitoring data might discourage broadcasters from sending it in. This move clearly set back diversity and equality in commercial broadcasting. The 2009 report on equal opportunities published by Ofcom showed that the employment of women and people from culturally diverse backgrounds fell and that 16 companies had no information on whether any of their workforces had a disability.

There have been suggestions that the Equality Act 2010 on its own is sufficient to cover the broadcasters and that Ofcom should have no role with regard to promoting equality among the licence holders it regulates. But the Equality Act places no greater responsibilities on broadcasters than any other industry in the private sector and will not ensure the level of transparency that is absolutely essential in our extremely influential broadcasting sector.

The coalition Government have made clear that equality in employment is a priority. They have said:

“We need concerted government action to tear down these barriers and … build a fairer society”.

It also set out several clear commitments to transparency, such as:

“We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis”.

The Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, has made statements in favour of transparency and accountability for what is spent on behalf of taxpayers.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, said:

“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture—and it’s called transparency”.

The Government’s commitment to equality and transparency should mean that all public bodies, including regulatory bodies, should be doing all that they can to promote equality and diversity, rather than taking the view that it is not their responsibility.

I believe a simple amendment to Section 27 of the Communications Act, to clarify what steps the regulator should take to promote equality of opportunity in employment by those providing broadcasting services, would demonstrate how well the mainstream media is succeeding in reflecting diversity and equality. For several years, the broadcasters have sent this data in for each qualifying licence, so this is not an additional proposal. This approach costs virtually nothing and will permit the greater accountability and transparency that has been lacking for the last six years. I urge the Government to take note of this suggestion. It will send a positive signal to young people from diverse cultures, who often feel excluded, that the coalition Government understand the additional pressures that they face, and are determined to insure that their voices are heard in the public sphere.

I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will ensure that organisations which receive public funding, or are in receipt of licences, are made to publish data fully demonstrating their commitment to transparency and accountability in the areas of equality and diversity.

12:16

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield]

My Lords, I add my welcome for this morning’s debate, which is on a theme of daily importance to the relationship between the state and the citizen. I, too, keenly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gold. I shall concentrate on a specific, though crucial, element of the question before us: access to public records—the paper exhaust trail left by successive Governments. I shall focus in particular on those contents of the state’s archives deemed too sensitive to be released until at least 30 years have elapsed since pens were put to paper, minutes taken, memoranda composed and the typewriters, in those days past, rattled into action.

I must first declare an interest, as president of the Friends of the National Archives and professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary, University of London.

A key aspect of the coalition’s transparency agenda that deserves an unqualified welcome and the hosannas of a grateful historical profession is the announcement, on 7 January 2011 by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that from January 2013 a 20-year rule for record release will replace the old 30-year rule created by the Public Records Act 1967 and brought into force in January 1972. The plan is that each year, starting January 2013, two years’ worth of archive will be opened at Kew until the 10-year gap between the old and the new rules has been closed. I am confident that this fresh documentary flow will fructify quickly in the form first of undergraduate, masters’ and PhD theses, and then in a fascinating new wave of well sourced books of contemporary British history which will swell through the bookshops.

Why am I so confident? Because this is exactly what has happened over the 19 years since the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, then Minister for Open Government in the Cabinet Office, announced what contemporary British historians came to call the Waldegrave initiative. The noble Lord instructed departmental record offices across Whitehall to re-review those files of interest to scholars which had been held back longer than the 30-year norm to see if they could now be released. The staff of the Whitehall records community and the National Archives rose magnificently to the task. When counting the yield finished in 1998, 96,000 files had been re-reviewed and declassified. I am sure that the total now must be double that.

The Waldegrave product amounted to a new currency with which historians could trade. Much of it embraced once ultra-sensitive Cold War material dealing with nuclear weapons policies, programmes and release procedures, civil and home defence, intelligence and security and transition-to-war planning. To open the World War III war books that had been declassified was to peer into Armageddon.

A stream of richly documented theses and well sourced books has resulted from the Waldegrave initiative. Of course, the documents by themselves are not enough—they never are. Whatever the policy area that gave them birth, their contents must always be blended with the personalities and backgrounds of those who wrote and read them, and the context of the times in which those readers and writers lived and breathed. The files must be revisited, too, with a sympathetic awareness of the hopes that lit the minds of their creators and the fears that darkened them. The historian must always avoid what Edward Thompson once called the “enormous condescension of posterity”. One goes back to the archives to understand the minds behind those memoranda, not to sneer at them.

The old files are an indispensible part of national transparency—our theme this morning. They are a very special phenomenon, a kind of frozen history. The scholar needs to apply a touch of the cryogenicist’s craft to them: you warm up the cold papers a little bit until their limbs begin to twitch; the files then start to breathe a bit—then you can begin to talk to them, ask them questions, bring them to life for yourself and your readers.

The time may well have come, as Whitehall cranks itself up to implement the new 20-year rule, to set in train what might be called “Waldegrave II”—to set in motion another trawl for files, which it was felt in the 1990s were too hot to be released, to see if they can now be transferred to the National Archives for public inspection. If the Government in these times of fiscal constraint were to mount such an initiative, building on the great success story associated with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, it would not only receive another loud hosanna of gratitude from the historical community but add lustre to the coalition’s transparency policy.

Still more might that policy be burnished if the Government accepted the Pilling report on official histories, which urged that new histories should be commissioned when funds allow, and the associated Hamilton report on the better marketing of official histories, once that is produced.

Catch-up history is a retrospective form of delayed freedom of information. A confident democracy such as ours should uncover its state paper trail as fully and swiftly as it can, warts and all. Such good practice is an antidote to conspiracy theory and the hijacking of our recent past for the purposes of crude political partisanship. The pursuit of such a policy of transparency is one of those rare activities that result in unalloyed benefit to scholars, the reading public and the quality and integrity of the state that enables it to happen.

12:22

[Lord Gold]

My Lords, I begin by thanking your Lordships for the warm and generous welcome that I have received since entering the House in February. I would particularly like to thank all the officers and staff here who have assisted me greatly, not least by helping me to find my way around. As I regularly get lost, I fear that their help will be required for some time yet. I also wish to thank my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, for their guidance on the day of my admission.

Following my admission, I decided that before making my maiden speech I would fully familiarise myself with the work of the House and perhaps pick up some debating tips from noble and experienced Members. That was my first mistake. That is not to say I did not receive tips—I received many. But as I sat listening to debates, I realised what a task lay ahead of me. The quality of debate, the thoroughness of preparation, the skill of delivery, the humour from many noble Members—the passion, as we have seen from the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, this morning—all made me reflect upon my own skills, or lack of them, in this area. My second mistake was not to realise that the longer I delayed, the greater would be my trepidation at the thought of speaking here for the very first time.

My first appearance in this Chamber was not in February this year. In fact, twice before, I appeared as solicitor to counsel who, wearing a long-tailed wig, silk stockings and buckled shoes, addressed the Law Lords from the Bar of the House, trying not to be distracted by Members of your Lordships' House who just wandered in from time to time to see what was going on. It never crossed my mind then that one day I would have the great privilege and honour to be permitted to cross the Bar and take my seat here.

I was not the first member of my old law firm, Herbert Smith, to be made a Peer. In fact there are now three former partners and one former articled clerk in the House. My noble friend Lord Hart of Chilton sits on the Benches opposite. My noble and learned friend Lord Collins of Mapesbury, will take his seat on the Cross Benches when he returns from the Supreme Court, and my noble friend Lady Shackleton of Belgravia—she is the former articled clerk and she has done quite well since leaving Herbert Smith—sits with me on this side of the House.

The firm has not yet managed to recruit anyone to the Liberal Democrat Benches or, indeed, to the Bishops' ranks, although for some reason there was a steady flow of solicitors who, perhaps having seen the error of their ways, left the law to become clergymen, so perhaps there is still a chance.

On 31 August last year, as part of its plea bargain with the US Department of Justice, I was appointed for three years as corporate monitor of BAE Systems plc to ensure that the company was operating in a compliant and lawful way. In taking up this role I followed in the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who had been appointed to undertake an inquiry into the way in which the company conducted its business. The noble and learned Lord made 23 recommendations for improvement and change and I have been monitoring the company's progress in advancing these recommendations. I am pleased to say that, with just a few minor exceptions, where work continues all recommendations are now in place.

I mention this work not just to inform but more particularly because it has brought very much into focus the importance of transparency when conducting business, particularly international business, both as to the manner in which that business is conducted and in relation to a company's dealings with its customers. Competition is fierce and, regrettably, sometimes our British businessmen find themselves competing against others, operating to a different code of conduct, who seek to gain market advantage by unfair means and are sometimes assisted in that through a lack of transparency in the way in which other countries operate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has stated that this Government are committed to extending transparency to every part of public life. If I may respectfully say so, that is a commendable, if somewhat ambitious, objective. In his letter dated 7 July this year, the Prime Minister wrote:

“We recognise that transparency and open data can be a powerful tool to help reform public services, foster innovation and empower citizens. We also understand that transparency can be a significant driver of economic activity … with open data increasingly enabling the creation of valuable new services and applications”.

I fully agree with that view. Greater transparency results in Governments being more accountable. If we know how money is spent, we are better able to improve controls on spending and reduce costs. More particularly, companies will have a better opportunity to compete if they have access to public sector contract and procurement data that enable them to make informed decisions.

While there remains a considerable way to go before this society is truly transparent, this aspiration is one by which we here in the United Kingdom can provide a lead to the way in which other countries should operate.

With the passing of the Bribery Act 2010 this country is already leading the way in setting a benchmark for honest trading and dealing and, pleasingly, some countries appear to be emulating our example. I know from my work with BAE Systems that there are many international customers who have truly welcomed this approach to open and honest business. Many countries are raising their standards and demonstrating that they will award contracts to the business that truly deserves to win on merit, not as a reward for bribes or other improper behaviour.

I regret to say that there are some who feel that the Bribery Act goes too far and that for British industry to compete internationally it must be permitted to bend the rules a little, as allegedly happens elsewhere. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that this negative view will be proved wrong. If international companies stand firm against corruption, there will be progress even in those countries where corruption is thought to be rife.

So, just as the Prime Minister sets out what he and the Government want to achieve here, I respectfully suggest that we should be seeking to encourage our international friends to follow our lead and embrace transparency in the way in which they conduct public life. In this country we have many innovative and ambitious businesses ready to compete internationally and able to take advantage of such a change of attitude. Working together, major companies and this Government can achieve a great deal in this area. We should aim to create a new international code of conduct for trade that encourages transparency and outlaws corruption. The assistance that this will provide to British industry and businesses seeking to undertake international trade will be substantial.

12:31

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gold, in his maiden speech. He comes to this House with a most distinguished career in the law and his speech today demonstrated to all noble Lords what an asset he will be to our debates. I understand that when he stepped down as senior partner at Herbert Smith, the law firm that he mentioned, a note was circulated to staff saying that,

“he has brought his own special type of magic to everything he has done since he walked through the doors of Herbert Smith”.

I am sure that all noble Lords who have heard his speech today will be looking forward to seeing more of that magic in this House.

I join previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on securing this debate on such an important issue. Transparency is crucial in the securing the accountability that is fundamental for the health of a democracy. I also congratulate the noble Lord on what to my ears sounded like a most cogent case for transparency. I declare my interest as a member of the advisory council of Transparency International UK.

I start my substantive remarks by congratulating the Government and the responsible Minister, Mr Francis Maude, on their commitment to transparency through the open data programme. That was started by the previous Government, and was a particular project of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I am sorry that in an otherwise compelling speech the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not acknowledge that fact. On this point, I was also sorry that such a distinguished historian as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, in congratulating the Government on bringing in the 20-year rule, somehow omitted to mention that that rule was legislated for by the previous Government. Airbrushing history in this way is the opposite of transparency.

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield]

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s stricture on the chin. He is absolutely right, it was an omission, but it was inadvertence rather than malice.

[Lord Wills]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting the historical record straight.

I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have taken on the open data programme with real determination and vigour. I was going to rehearse some of the merits of it but the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did it far better than I could. This promises significant immediate constitutional benefits in transferring power to citizens and less immediate but potential longer-term benefits in improving value for money in delivering public services through greater engagement of users. It will also encourage innovative developments by not-for-profit organisations and businesses. Again, the noble Lord set out just how quickly people can take advantage of all the opportunities opened up by this programme. Confidence in the ability of the programme to deliver results must be increased by the setting up of the Public Sector Transparency Board and its distinguished and experienced membership, some of whom I had the privilege of working with when I was a Minister with an interest in this area in the previous Government.

While the Government should be given credit for their achievements in this area, elsewhere their commitment to transparency is not quite so clear. We have already heard from my noble friend Lord Prescott on one aspect of this, but I want to focus on the Freedom of Information Act. When I raised this issue in your Lordships’ House, the responsible Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, responded to my criticism by accusing me of rewriting history because:

“There has been an absolute tsunami of transparency. My right honourable friend Francis Maude has been frightening the life out of Whitehall and his ministerial colleagues by the way he has been forcing through transparency”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. 1455.]

That is perhaps not the most fortunate choice of image for those of us who believe in the benefits of transparency but, more importantly, his response wrongly conflates the work on open data and on freedom of information. They are not the same. There is one critical distinction between them: the open data initiative, for all its considerable merits, is a top-down programme. The Government decide what data sets to release. In contrast, the Freedom of Information Act allows the citizen to decide what information they want to have, and then there is an established process that decides what should be released and what withheld.

Those are twin approaches to securing greater transparency and they ought to be complementary. However, there is an asymmetry in the Government's approach, with enthusiastic progress being made on open data while freedom of information has more or less stood still so far—in fact, in some key areas it is actually going backwards. We are a year and a half into the lifetime of this Government and so far they have done virtually nothing to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act beyond the actions already set in train by the previous Government.

I have been criticising the Government about this for many months so, after all these criticisms, I was delighted to see just this week that an exchange in the other place suggested that the Government are at last consulting on extending the Freedom of Information Act to other organisations. I hope that those consultations will be followed by action in the near future, and another 18 months or so will not be allowed to pass before anything happens.

On its own this lack of progress to date would be disappointing, but what is worse is that two landmark Bills brought forward by this Government, both referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, actively restrict the scope of the right of the citizen to secure information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Localism Bill envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities' functions will be carried out for them by other bodies under contract. As it stands, that will significantly weaken the right of the citizen to make freedom of information requests about those functions. I tried to help the Government to remedy what I hoped was an unintended consequence of their legislation by submitting amendments both in Committee and on Report, but all were rejected out of hand. As a result, far from increasing transparency as the coalition agreement promised, the Localism Bill decreases it.

That is not all. Under the Health and Social Care Bill, NHS work will be performed in future either by NHS bodies or by independent providers. Although the independent providers will not be directly subject to the Freedom of Information Act, they will be subject to a contractual obligation to co-operate with the commissioning bodies in answering freedom of information requests. So far, so good. However, the disclosure clause applies to information held on the commissioning body’s behalf,

“for the purposes of this Agreement”,

and the standard NHS contract goes nowhere near covering the full range of information currently available under the Freedom of Information Act from public authorities. It appears, for example, that any request for the provider’s correspondence with suppliers whose products have proved to be substandard are likely to be met with the response that this is held for the provider’s purposes, not the commissioning body’s, and therefore is not subject to disclosure.

It gets still worse. The shredding offence in Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act applies when an authority or a member of the authority’s staff deliberately destroys, amends or conceals a record after it has been requested in order to prevent its disclosure, but if a contractor shreds a record in order to avoid having to pass it on to the commissioning body to answer an FOI request, the contractor commits no offence. Again, if a public authority claims that it does not hold requested information, the Information Commissioner can investigate whether this claim is true; but if a contractor claims that it does not hold particular information, there is no mechanism for validating that claim. The contractor would not be subject to the commissioner’s jurisdiction. In fairness to the Government, they have not ruled out addressing these issues; they have simply pushed them into the long grass, beyond post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, and there is no guarantee at all that even then they will take action.

In the mean time, which may stretch on for years, citizens will be denied access to information that they currently have about areas of potentially great concern to them, covering all the range of local authority services and what could turn out to be matters of life and death in the NHS.

In conclusion, the report card on this Government’s commitment to transparency and information is mixed. Where they remain in control of the data released to the people they serve, the commitment should be applauded. However, where the citizen is more in control, then this Government have been pedalling backwards in crucial areas. Sadly and regrettably, this tarnishes their record.

12:41

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for moving this Motion. As he has said, the Government are committed to open government and transparency. The Prime Minister has set out a series of transparency commitments to be delivered within our key public services, including health, education, criminal justice, transport and government financial information. The open data consultation closed on 27 October and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of the responses received and of the White Paper which will follow.

My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the report on privacy and transparency produced for the Cabinet Office by Kieron O'Hara. He stated that privacy is extremely important to transparency, but that they are compatible only as long as the former is carefully protected and considered at every stage. He came up with 14 recommendations, but there are still questions that I pose to the Minister. When does public interest outweigh privacy? Who makes these decisions? What happens when data held are out of date or incorrect? How will this be rectified?

Here in the House of Lords we have, through Written Questions, Oral Questions, debates and our Select Committees, opportunities to hold the Government to account. If we feel that the explanations given are inadequate, we can rephrase the question. Sometimes, however, the answer will be that the information requested is not held centrally or could only be answered at a disproportionate cost. Again, who decides? I hope that this Government's programme for transparency will ensure that this type of response will not be overused.

Personally, I have grave reservations about the way we use computer systems to achieve our goals and particularly the way in which we cede supremacy to them. I give an example: Defra's single farm payment system has been a nightmare since inception. For many farmers and parliamentarians, transparency in dealing with the Rural Payments Agency has been totally absent. Farmers have been heavily penalised for simple, explicable errors in their returns, while the computer systems have proved incompatible, partial or downright wrong. More than once, I and others have had to refer fairly simple solutions to these problems right to the top. Similar problems exist in other departments, and news items over the past 10 days or so have referred to both HMRC and the MoD, for example.

I ask the Minister what operating guidelines are given to government departments and to other arm’s-length bodies to make their work more transparent. Does she feel the present guidelines are adequate and if not, when will the situation be rectified? Clearly there will be other sections of Government where restrictions must remain. I think of our security services and the work of the police force, which could be compromised if unsuitable material came into the public domain. However, this does not mean that nothing needs to be improved. There are aspects which could be made better. The way in which CRB checks are applied needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure that those cleared for working with young children and older members of our community are not thereby freed from all normal scrutiny.

Although nobody else has mentioned it, I cannot be alone in wondering whether we have moved too far in the use of tick-box forms to replace observations and questioning of behaviour. It is very hard to obtain a sensible response when computer data indicate that all is well. Even when examination of those data confirms that there is a problem, it seems to be more normal to tweak the system than retrain or replace the person responsible. Will the Minister confirm that transparency will not remove the normal sanctions for inefficiency?

It is crucial that greater transparency works everywhere as it has already done successfully in some areas. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the help and development that has come from sharing information in the medical system. Perhaps I, more than most, have reason to be grateful for all those who helped me. It is just a year ago since I had a triple heart bypass. Six years ago, British heart surgeons decided to publish data on how successfully they treated patients. They compared their results and methods to increase the quality and effectiveness of their work. Survival rates have improved by as much as 50 per cent. Sharing of expertise has brought huge benefits.

If greater transparency improves outcomes and helps people to find the right doctor, the right school for their children or benefits them in their daily life, it surely must be welcomed. Open data should bring greater choice. They must hold public service to account and, as we heard earlier, could help to stimulate innovation and enterprise through the sharing of knowledge. However, they could also be irrelevant, out of date, inaccurate, intrusive and an opportunity missed. I hope that this will prove not to be the case.

Might I also make a plea for those who live in rural areas? For all of us who live in urban areas, access to computers and information is readily available, but I remind the House again that there are huge swathes of this country where that access is just impossible at this stage. I hope the Minister will pass this plea on to other colleagues within those departments.

12:48

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for opening this debate. I echo his comments about the modest contribution that your Lordships’ House can make to this. I also refer him to the decision in the last Parliament in the other place to establish Public Bill Committee procedures for legislation. The open evidence sessions that take place before a Bill is considered in Committee and gone through amendment by amendment is a welcome introduction.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gold, to your Lordships’ House. He made an excellent maiden speech and his point about transparency in international business affairs was important. It echoed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about transparency in international aid. By definition, more transparency in international affairs will lead to better governance and perhaps more democratic processes. There are some signs of that. Perhaps in what has come to be known as the Middle East spring, there is an indication that greater transparency can have a beneficial effect.

The previous Government, of which I was a member, committed themselves to transparency and like my noble friend Lord Prescott I am proud of the freedom of information legislation. As far as transparency and good governance are concerned, the House of Commons Committee report of 2008-09 on good governance made the point that transparency is a vital prerequisite for any stem of ethical regulation and is the best way of ensuring that office holders have the broader public interest in mind when they spend public money or perform other public duties.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to transparency. However, it is one thing to say that you are committed to transparency; the question is, do you actually do transparency? I have to say that this is open to question. For example, in the case of the Public Bodies Act, which has closed down many public bodies and brought functions back into central departments, transparency is being lost. We are moving from public bodies with open board meetings, where a lot of information comes into the public domain, back into government departments. Transparency will be lost. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ludicrous proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. The idea that the protection of young people in our prisons is best done by officials, rather than by a board that brought focus, accountability and transparency, is to be very much regretted.

I was very interested in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, relating to diversity and equality in the Arts Council and Ofcom. She asked the Government whether they would agree to an amendment to the Communications Act. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will be able to be positive on that point. I also hope that she will accept the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, to establish a new project—the second Waldegrave project or the first Warsi project. It seems well worth having a further trawl through the papers that were not released under the 30-year rule. I am glad that the noble Lord acknowledged the previous Government’s efforts in relation to the 20-year rule. I reckon that means that the ministerial office of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was covered by the 30-year rule but this means a speed-up. I am sure he will be delighted that all his actions will come into the public domain very soon.

My noble friend Lord Wills made a very important point on the Freedom of Information Act. The Government have been slow to make further progress with FoI legislation. We are now told that there is a consultation. I should like the noble Baroness to say when she expects improvements and reforms to be made. I hope we will not go into a two or three-year consultation period before any change is made. I hope the Minister will answer my noble friend on the issue to do with the Localism Act and awarding contracts to other bodies. If we are moving to a situation in which, essentially, local authorities become enabling authorities but cease to run many services themselves, it is essential that the bodies to which they contract are fully covered by FoI legislation.

It is the same in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill. I will come to the decision announced today about Hinchingbrooke. It is clear that we are moving into a situation where many more private sector providers will be providing services to the NHS in the future. It is also clear, as my noble friend said, that the current Bill does not allow much information about that to come into the public domain. I am sure that my noble friend will table an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill; I certainly hope so. It is not good enough to say that we will simply wait to see how the legislation pans out. By the way, I can tell the Government that I know how the legislation will pan out: it will not pan out very well for the NHS or its patients.

On the NHS, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the outcome information that came from the initiative taken by heart surgeons, led by Sir Bruce Keogh, who is now medical director at the Department of Health. There is no doubt that it had a hugely positive impact in improving the outcome of coronary care services. What concerns me about that is how few other specialists in the health service have followed that example. We need to ask some of the other specialties why they have not followed the example of their cardiac colleagues.

I welcome the Government’s intention to institute a duty of candour on the NHS. I am the chair of an NHS foundation trust that has just opened its board meetings to the public. It is invigorating and means that real issues about staffing and quality are out there. I welcome that; it leads to a much improved relationship with our public and, incidentally, our staff. However, I come back to the issue raised today by my noble friend Lady Thornton. Why did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, not answer her Question about contact between ministerial circles and the company involved in the Hinchingbrooke contract? It was a straight question. If this Government were really transparent we would get an answer.

My noble friend Lord Prescott mentioned the personal e-mail addresses used by Mr Gove, the Education Secretary, and his staff, bypassing FoI rules. What about Dr Fox and the grey area over ministerial meetings with lobbyists? What about the delay in setting up a register of lobbyists? Clearly, my noble friend Lord Prescott has identified this problem of a redefinition of private activities by Ministers to get around the rules. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to the points that my noble friend put to her.

In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for securing this debate, I do not know whether he is happy with how it has turned out. It has certainly been very interesting. We welcome the Government’s commitment to transparency. However, I fear that their message to other parts of the public sector is, essentially, “You be transparent but we as Ministers will exclude quite a lot of our activities from the public domain”. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to that.

12:57

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for tabling this debate, which has proved to be wide-ranging. I also thank the other noble Lords who have made contributions today, raising important points, challenges and even kind plaudits. This is a timely debate because we are at an important milestone in our journey towards transparency and open data. I will briefly remind noble Lords of the background to this agenda and then give a quick round-up of progress to date. I will then deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate and cast a forward look towards the Government’s ambitions for transparency, which will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the spring.

In opposition we developed plans for a more open way of doing government. We envisaged a time when people knew that they could easily and quickly find out: which parts of government and which initiatives cost what, whether on a regional or national basis; who in government, whether a civil servant or a special adviser, did what and what they were being paid; which government contracts were coming up, and so on. We had a vision that people could choose public service provision using the same customer feedback techniques that so many of us are now used to when, for example, researching hotel options or flights on TripAdvisor, or shopping on Amazon.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave the example of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery, which reported that mortality in coronary surgery had fallen by a fifth over five years. The professional body attributed this result to the public reporting of outcomes. We are not just talking about cost accountability; we are talking about data that save lives through the spread and adoption of best practice. As I said, it is a journey. Open data are the means and open government is the end.

Since the election we have ensured that we progress on this journey at great speed. In May of last year, just two weeks into the coalition Government, the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Secretaries of State, setting out the Government’s specific commitments on transparency. Much of the data that we released initially were about Whitehall, Westminster, people and money. However, important though this is, the example of cardio surgery shows vividly that there is more to open data and transparency than accountability. Following the success of the previous year’s data releases, on 7 July 2011 the Prime Minister publicly set out a second series of further open data commitments, targeting key public services, including health, education, criminal justice, transport and more detailed government financial information.

Today we have an astonishing amount of data on data.gov.uk, with over 7,500 data sets, more than any other comparable transparency service in the world. Much of this is big, complex and not necessarily accessible to the public. In many cases it is used by the professionals, whether that is the surgeons I described earlier or local authority commissioners, NHS managers, school authorities or welfare services.

We are also seeing data being repackaged and released for citizens to use. For example, FixMyStreet helps users to find the right telephone number or form to report local problems, ranging from dog fouling to broken street lights to pot holes. Since its launch, FixMyStreet has received more than 90,000 citizen reports. The website police.uk allows users to use offences reported in their locality by entering a street name or a postcode. It includes a range of offences such as theft, shoplifting and criminal damage and has received more than 430 million hits since its launch. By May of next year this website will show what has happened after a crime has been reported to the police and you will be able to track that crime’s progress through the courts.

We can also use public data to build economic value, stimulating innovation and enterprise in the UK’s knowledge economy. A growing market place has already sprung up in the health sector as a result of open data and transparency. Companies such as Dr Foster and CHKS are at the front of this growing industry with an estimated total value of around £50 million per annum. Estimates of the total potential growth contribution of open data-based markets vary from about £16 billion per annum to about £90 billion per annum.

The Chancellor’s and Business Secretary’s growth review on 29 November will contain a series of commitments to liberate new data to support enterprise and growth in sectors as diverse as life sciences and digital technologies. In addition, a public data corporation will bring together data from government bodies such as HM Land Registry, the Met Office and Ordnance Survey into one organisation, providing easily accessible public information as well as driving further efficiency in the delivery of public services.

I will now respond to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the issue of the recommendations of the O’Hara report and the outcome of the open data and public data corporation consultations. These issues are being seriously considered and are broadly welcomed by the Government. We are positive about the specific recommendations and we will respond in a White Paper, which is due to be published in spring.

In relation to international aid, the Government believe that greater aid transparency is essential to efforts to improve results from development to co- operation worldwide. The Secretary of State will be seeking agreement by donors to implement the aid information standard developed under the UK-led International Aid Transparency Initiative.

A question was raised in relation to EU-level action to improve transparency in the extractive sector to match the standards being set in the UK. The Government are supportive of that.

My noble friend Lady Benjamin raised an extremely valid point. It is amazing to see how shining a light on the decisions that people make can have a positive impact on behaviour, including behaviour around the employment and engagement of people from diverse backgrounds. I will write to her in relation to the specific amendment that she proposes.

The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, raised yet more benefits of a drive towards transparency and data release. I will ensure that his comments are seriously considered.

I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Gold and congratulate him on a both humorous and thought-provoking maiden speech. His work for the Conservative Party is hugely appreciated; he brings much wisdom, calmness and sound judgment to his role as chairman of the Conservative Party disciplinary committee.

I am sure that my noble friend listened carefully to the substance and style of this morning’s contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I am disappointed that the noble Lord feels that disclosure has been somewhat political; the public have a right to know and the Government are committed to openness. He raised a specific question about the level of £500, which was established as a minimum requirement for departments to release information. DCLG, in line with its past releases, chose to release information on transactions lower than £500. The point that the noble Lord made about the casino dinner was released in response to a Parliamentary Question to DCLG, which was answered factually. Sir Gus O’Donnell has received a letter from the noble Lord, and DCLG will respond directly to him in the next couple of days.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is encouraged by the Government’s consultation on extending the Freedom of Information Act. The Government have introduced provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill to extend the Freedom of Information Act to companies wholly owned by multiple public authorities, whereas currently the Act applies only to companies wholly owned by a single public authority. This will bring more than 100 more bodies within the scope of the Act. We are not stopping there. We are currently consulting on the possible inclusion of more than 200 bodies within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, on the basis that they provide functions of a public nature—these include harbour authorities, exam boards, the Local Government Group and the NHS Confederation, to name but a few.

[Lord Wills]

Before the Minister leaves that point, can she answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Hunt about when the Government will take action on the consultation that she has just mentioned?

[Baroness Warsi]

The Government’s recent open data consultation consulted on an extension to the types of organisations to which the open data policy could apply. The Freedom of Information Act will also be subject to post-legislative scrutiny to see how it is working in practice. Further policy in this area will be developed. At this stage I do not have a specific timeframe, but I can write to the noble Lord once I have further information.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked some important questions about how what we are trying to achieve appears to be hindered by how we achieve it. The Government are committed to achieving the very benefits that she highlights and will give serious consideration to the challenges she raised, which could stand in the way of those benefits. She also raised an important point in relation to privacy, and I can assure the noble Baroness that we will not extend transparency at the expense of privacy. Personal data will be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raised some important points about politicians. All politicians, all of us who are in the public sphere, must be committed to the very basis and essence of this agenda; otherwise, we will be accused of hypocrisy, not just by each other across these Benches but by the public. I can assure him that all those in this Government are committed to that very basis of transparency and openness. Our goal is for participation and engagement—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am glad she said what she said, but does she accept that if Ministers redefine some of their meetings as private that is not being transparent?

[Baroness Warsi]

I completely take the point that the noble Lord makes. I repeat that we all bear the responsibility to make sure that what we say is what we do. I hear what he says, and indeed comments made by other noble Lords, and I will make sure that they are heard by all of us who are in this Government.

Our goal is for participation and engagement from an engaged society that knows it has a role to play in shaping the world in which we live. This is what open government means. Noble Lords may remind me that this is not a new idea, but what makes it a timely one is the increasing focus on how society works and how public services are actually delivered. What makes it achievable is the continuing democratisation of technology, with almost 80 per cent of households now having access to the internet. The fact that some households do not have internet access was raised in this morning’s debate and I will take that back.

Providing easily accessible data allows people to choose what services are right for them, localities to determine what their communities need and the public sector monopoly on provision to be opened up. This is a sea change in the relationship between the state and the individual. We are moving from a “We give, you get” approach to public services, to an “I choose when and where” approach.

This Government have every intention of putting into practice the ambitions they stake out on the global platform of OGP. We have an obligation to continue to lead this agenda and to use our successes to bring others with us. I hope that I have whetted noble Lords’ appetites in relation to our joint chair of the OGP, for the role we have to play in the growth review later this month, for the White Paper due in the spring and for what I think is an exciting and fast-developing agenda.

I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his earlier remarks and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the range of possibilities that our transparency agenda offers to all of us.

13:10

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I understand from the Table that the change in the nature of the Motion does not deprive me of the opportunity of replying briefly to the debate. I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gold, on a most interesting and excellent maiden speech, in which he confirmed Herbert Smith’s reputation as a formidable nursery of nobility and brought to our attention the importance of transparency in commercial, as well as national, transactions.

I will not pick up all the points everyone made, but I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I readily accept that I should have been more courteous in accepting the efforts of the previous Government, but I remind him that what I actually said was not that the present Government invented transparency but that they started an acceleration of the movement—a breathtaking acceleration. I was careful to give 2008 as the date of clarity being brought to the surgical procedures to which I referred. I acknowledge that this movement is not new, but it is very much better and stronger.

Three specific points were raised that are worth following: the possibility of Waldegrave II; the need to look again at Section 27 of the Communications Act; and the importance of accessibility to transparent information if some of our citizens are not to be disenfranchised.

The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, made a forceful contribution, in which his expression was shared between his voice and his hands—the latter not always as courteous as his voice. However, his point was taken on board by my Front Bench, I am sure.

I conclude by saying that the purpose of this debate was to draw attention to the Government’s commitment to this breathtaking acceleration in transparency, and to point out that it has effects that spread through the whole polity and economy of this country. It raises highly sensitive issues of privacy, which have been discussed and raises the question that was central to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott: what actually is private? As I said at the outset, drawing the line is very tricky and technical, and it is important that it should be drawn impartially.

In their present initiative, the British Government are world leaders, as we have already seen. They are extending the benefits of transparency to disadvantaged countries in the world, which is entirely admirable. In the process, the Government are releasing an enormous possible gain for our economy—up to £90 billion, we are told. I therefore congratulate my noble friend Lady Warsi and the right honourable Francis Maude for the part that they have played in pushing forward this initiative.

Motion agreed.

Remembrance Day

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

13:14

Moved By

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

That this House takes note, on the eve of Remembrance Day, of the debt which our nation owes to all those who have sacrificed their lives in defence of the realm.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to begin this debate on the eve of Remembrance Day. We are here to recognise the debt that our nation owes to all those who have sacrificed their lives in the defence of the realm. In the Royal Gallery there is a Book of Remembrance in honour of Peers and servants of the House, and of their next of kin, who died in action with the British armed services in two world wars. I am proud that the names of my mother’s oldest brother and of my father’s youngest brother are inscribed on its pages. The former lost his life in action as a Grenadier Guards officer just before Dunkirk, and the latter, who was a squadron leader, was hit by anti-aircraft fire when bringing back photographs of enemy military installations, just before the American liberation of southern France.

We honour the supreme sacrifice made by so many servicemen and women on behalf of their country, and we owe it to them that their actions should continue to give inspiration to future generations. No one understood this better, I believe, than President Abraham Lincoln when, after the Battle of Gettysburg on 19 November 1863, he appealed to his war-torn country never to forget the sacrifices made in pursuit of a great cause. He said:

“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain”.

He went on to emphasise the noble objective for which they had died, which was,

“that this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that Government of freedom; and that Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth”.

The same sentiments should surely resonate with us. We too have to rededicate ourselves to ensure that those in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth who have made the supreme sacrifice, did not die in vain. We too have to make certain that their unfinished work in sustaining the cause of freedom and promoting justice is continued.

Speaking for those who died in the First World War, a Canadian surgeon, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae in his poem, “In Flanders Fields”, gave the same message:

“To you from failing hands we throw

The torch: be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep

Though poppies grow

In Flanders Fields”

We have wider responsibilities too. If we put ourselves in the shoes of a young soldier in the front line going in to battle, he would expect us to look after his wife and family if he does not return or is seriously wounded. Therefore, I would like to repeat my support for the Government’s action in enshrining the principles of the military covenant into law and their promise to inform Parliament annually on what is being done to meet the requirements and special circumstances of servicemen and women. I strongly support the plan that the report should cover issues such as housing, health and education.

I believe that we have to keep in mind not only the sacrifice made by those who gave their lives in defence of the realm but the practical needs of those who have been bereaved in two world wars, in the Falklands and much more recently as a result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This year is the 40th anniversary of the War Widows Association, and I welcome the Minister's recent assurance that opportunities for wives to visit graves will be continued, and I hope that he will respond constructively to their other concerns. It is a tragic fact that 16,000 members of the armed services have lost their lives serving since the end of the Second World War. They are commemorated at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire; and those who fell in two world wars are commemorated on many thousands of war memorials throughout the United Kingdom.

I say to the Minister how strongly I deplore the appalling actions of those who vandalise such monuments because they wish to sell plaques and statues to unscrupulous scrap metal dealers, to be melted down. This desecration has to be stopped. I hope that the Minister will consult urgently with other departments and the British Transport Police to establish what concerted action should be taken to prevent those shameful crimes.

When we honour the dead, we must not at the same time forget the many who return home wounded. Those who do not return would expect nothing less. Here, I pay tribute to the surgeons in the hospital at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, which I had the opportunity to visit with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I also praise the work of the dedicated doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals at Headley Court, who fit new limbs and boost morale with such impressive results. Many of the wounded are suffering terrible injuries, and we must continue to improve the accessibility of support for them and their families. The charity with which I am involved, the Scottish Veterans’ Garden City Association, is dedicated to providing purpose-built homes for ex-servicemen and women who are disabled. The present total is 612, and more are planned.

Remembrance can take many forms. I have always been moved by the true story of an eight year-old girl in the south of England during the Battle of Britain. She saw an RAF fighter pilot in his parachute being machine-gunned by a Messerschmitt 109 as he drifted towards the earth over Ashford in Kent. She felt that that had been a terrible price he had had to pay for protecting her. Many years later, Jean Liddicoat, as she had become, was a grandmother living in Staplehurst. Her grandson questions her about the Battle of Britain, which he is studying in school. She answers him, and he says to her that in the cemetery next door is the grave of an unknown airman which has been left neglected and forgotten. She goes to see it and, sure enough, on the headstone are the words,

“An airman of the 1939-1945 War … Known unto God”.

Jean tidies up the grave and makes it look beautiful. Then she starts making inquiries. After eight years of investigating, she discovered that on 5 September 1940, during the Battle of Britain, eight RAF pilots were killed, but only six were identified. She therefore knew that the unknown airman must be one of two men. She also discovered that he had in his possession at the moment that the Spitfire plunged into the ground a half-hunter silver pocket watch. Its mechanism had stopped at the moment of impact. What was more, the unknown airman’s sister, Margaret, who was approaching 92 years of age, had come forward and identified the watch as being exactly the same as the one given to her brother.

Jean Liddicoat, to whom I spoke this morning, now knew who the airman was, and she found out as much as she could about him. His name was Freddie Rushmer, and he was a flight commander of a squadron which had more confirmed victories in the Battle of Britain than any other in both the RAF and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. On the day on which he did not return from his mission, there was absolutely no time to go searching for a fallen comrade in the war being waged for Britain's very existence.

Freddie Rushmer had never had a funeral service, so one was arranged at All Saints Church in Staplehurst. RAF officers from No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron and representing the present Tornado squadrons attended, but did not expect a large congregation nearly 60 years after the Battle of Britain. When they arrived, they found to their astonishment that the church was full to overflowing with local residents—some were standing outside. Whoever the unknown airman was and whatever he did, they wanted to remember the man whom they believed had died to safeguard their freedoms, who had died for them.

As I said, remembrance can take many forms: a little boy proudly marching on Remembrance Sunday, wearing the medals of the father he has lost; a family seeking out one cross among thousands in a distant war cemetery; and the people of what is now Royal Wootton Bassett choosing their spontaneous way of paying their respects as the fallen were brought home through their town.

Those who died in defence of the realm did not all do so on great battlefields. Many men and women showed the same levels of courage and commitment in secret, and often in darkness, far behind enemy lines. In these days of equality between men and women, we remember not only the women who wore uniforms but those who were parachuted into enemy-occupied Europe in the Second World War on difficult and dangerous missions. The Special Operations Executive had 55 women agents, 13 of whom died in action or in concentration camps. There is a memorial to all SOE agents just across the river from our Chamber, with a bronze sculpture of Violette Szabo. Her face and expression depict her enormous bravery and determination. She was captured, tortured and killed in Ravensbrück concentration camp, but she told them nothing. Later, the very young daughter she left behind grew up to write a most moving account of her mother's heroism. Underneath the memorial are the words:

“Their names are carved with pride”.

On the wider role of women and warfare, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, campaigned for the magnificent memorial in Whitehall which was unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen. The noble Baroness said then:

“This monument is dedicated to all the women who served our country and the cause of freedom in uniform and on the home front”.

The words of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, spoken on the BBC on 14 July 1940, were prophetic and applied to countless victims as well as to those who had the opportunity to fight. He said:

“There are vast numbers, not only in this Island but in every land, who will render faithful service in this war, but whose names will never be known, whose deeds will never be recorded. This is a War of the Unknown Warriors”.

The debt of gratitude which we owe to all those who sacrificed their lives is inestimable. It places a great responsibility on us to carry on their unfinished work and, as President John F Kennedy, put it, to create and sustain the rule of law, where the powerful work for justice, where minority rights are protected and where peace will be preserved.

Finally, I commend the wise, farsighted and enlightened words of the Royal British Legion, which tells us that the poppy and Remembrance Day have come to represent,

“war, peace, hope and sacrifice but with a stubborn sense of regeneration”.

I beg to move.

13:27

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, both on securing this very timely debate and on the eloquent and moving speech to which we have just had the privilege of listening. It is both heartening and humbling to see how seriously we as a nation continue to take Remembrance Day. When I was younger, there were serious discussions about whether events around 11 November should come to an end as the memory of the Second World War faded from most people's lives, but this weekend millions of people all over the country will be either taking part in or watching services of remembrance. It is right that that should be so, and it is very appropriate that we should have this debate.

I have no financial interest to declare in this debate, but I remind the House that I am the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group. I shall speak about two matters. The first is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, referred, which is the desecration of war memorials by scrap metal thieves. The second subject, if I have time, concerns preparations to commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of World War I. Both those matters have been the subject of Oral Questions which I have asked recently in your Lordships' House.

I start with the subject of metal theft, and endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, said. The situation is now almost out of control. The increase in the world price of scrap metal, particularly copper, has made it a lucrative crime. It is also one that it is easy to get away with, mainly because of the inadequacies of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. The absence of a proper licensing system for dealers, the use of cash to settle transactions and the imposition of absurdly low penalties for breaches of the law have all combined to produce the present epidemic of crime.

I shall resist the temptation today to speak at length about the disruption to train services caused by cable theft on the railways, the damage to churches as a result of the stealing of lead from church roofs or the attack on public services in the electricity and telecommunications industry, but I want to say something about the desecration of war memorials. At Prime Minister’s Question Time last week, Mr Cameron described it as,

“an absolutely sickening and disgusting crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 918.]

In an article in the Daily Telegraph on Monday this week, the Mayor of London wrote about how the plaques on a war memorial in Sidcup commemorating the deaths of 342 in both world wars, including that of Lieutenant George Cairns, who won the Victoria Cross in an act of extraordinary bravery in the Burma campaign in 1944, had been, in Boris Johnson’s words,

“brutally jemmied off and sold for scrap”.

Your Lordships may recall that in the exchanges on my Oral Question on 3 October, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, whom I am delighted to see in his place, spoke about the theft, just a week before, of 14 brass memorial plaques from Carshalton war memorial. There are countless other examples all over the country.

Following my Question, I have received scores of letters and e-mails all asking for the law to be changed. My response to that on 19 October was to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House long enough to know that the chances of seeing a Private Member’s Bill through to enactment are pretty remote unless it has already been passed in the other place or the Government take it over. I am therefore, as an insurance, pursuing an alternative route with the help of the Public Bill Office. I hope to be able to announce something soon in the hope that I shall be able to count on the Government’s support for what comes forward. I am looking with some intensity at the government Chief Whip as I say this.

The other matter that I wish to raise today and that is also directly relevant to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, is the question of how we commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of World War I. This has been concerning the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group for some considerable time. Following my Question on 22 March to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I was invited by Professor Hew Strachan to a seminar on preparations for 2014 at All Souls College, Oxford. It was attended by the DCMS and MoD Ministers, Ed Vaizey and Andrew Robathan, plus a large number of representatives from France, Flanders, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and India, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Imperial War Museum.

From listening to those discussions, it was very clear that other Governments are far more advanced with their planning than are ours. The Government of Flanders, in particular, has an amazing programme planned for 2014 and beyond. They are investing €15 million in 44 infrastructure projects, including the renovation of the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ieper, the expansion of the Memorial Museum in Passchendaele, and the construction of a museum garden and the opening of war sites in Zonnebeke. They are also spending a further €5 million on events such as music festivals and exhibitions. Initiatives that they are planning here in Britain include the creation of a peace garden at the Guards Museum in Birdcage Walk, with earth taken from Passchendaele, and an exchange programme for young people.

I cannot speak too highly of the Flanders Government’s commitment to war heritage and to what is now rightly called “peace tourism”. Already they welcome 350,000 visitors a year to Flanders, most of them from Britain and the Commonwealth. Thousands participate each evening in the Last Post ceremony at the Menin Gate in Ieper. Now, as 2014 approaches, they are looking to do much, much more, and I think we should thank them for that.

At the all-party group meeting to which I referred, it became increasingly evident that we in Britain were in danger of being left behind as other countries pressed ahead with their arrangements. The group asked me to write to the Prime Minister expressing concern at the apparent lack of preparedness here and saying that we need a government policy and a clear political lead, with a decision on which government department is to lead on the issue. I received an encouraging reply from Mr Cameron on 18 August, which said that, while there were no detailed plans yet, discussions were “ongoing across Whitehall”. Mr Cameron said that he understood our concerns that it is not yet clear where departmental responsibility for organising events across the UK will lie.

Happily, on 2 November—just last Wednesday— No. 10 made the very welcome announcement that Dr Andrew Murrison MP has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative and co-ordinator for the commemorations to mark the centenary of World War I. This is good news. I shall be meeting Dr Murrison next Tuesday, and he will be addressing a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group on 6 December. I need hardly say that all Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place will be very welcome to attend.

I should be grateful if, when the Minister replies to this debate, he could say a little more about what Dr Murrison’s role will be. We really wish him well. We want to work with him and we want to make quite sure that we catch up with what other Governments are doing so that we commemorate this very important centenary in the right way. It will start in 2014 and will undoubtedly run for the four years through to 2018.

13:36

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, first, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas on securing this debate, on his excellent opening contribution and, as we all know, on his very deep commitment to our Armed Forces.

I was privileged and proud last year to attend the festival of remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall as a guest of the Royal British Legion—something that I have always wanted to do. I was similarly privileged and proud in the early 1980s, when I was a junior Defence Minister, to have an official position at the Cenotaph.

As a constituency Member of Parliament for 13 years, I used to regard remembrance weekend as something very special. My constituency in north-east Lancashire—Nelson and Colne, which later became Pendle—was a very patriotic area and one of substantial recruitment. I always used to attend the legion concert, as well as service parades in the morning and afternoon. When one attended some of the smaller community services, it was very sad and distressing to see the names of so many individuals from one family who had lost their lives, particularly in the Great War—the ghastly, pointless First World War. My own great-uncle, who served in the Liverpool Scottish Regiment, was killed on 3 July 1917 aged 23 and is buried in the Brandhoek Military Cemetery in Belgium. What concerned me during those 13 years was the decline, as I saw it, in the numbers attending the individual memorial services. Indeed, I suggested to our local authority that perhaps we should have one major constituency service in the morning, allowing the smaller events to take place in the afternoon.

However, in recent years we have seen a substantial sea-change in the attitude of the public to our Armed Forces following, I think it is fair to say, a realisation that our troops whom we initially sent into Afghanistan were ill equipped and substantially underresourced. The media got behind our forces and, of course, considerable improvements have been made to their kit. Now, the kit is probably the envy of the world in many respects.

As has been referred to, the Government enshrined the military covenant in law during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill. I think it would be fair to say that the combination of a sympathetic and sensible Minister and pressure from a number of noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords improved the Bill during its passage. Of course, reference has been made to the very impressive turnout as coffins pass through Royal Wootton Bassett, and yesterday’s roll call of deaths brings home to us the current losses. In my judgment, it would be interesting to see whether there is any carry-across or manifestation of increased support for our Armed Forces in poppy sales and in attendance at remembrance parades, as well as continuing support for service charities.

There are around 100,000 war memorials in this country, of which perhaps 1,200 or so are listed. The spate of thefts has been referred to today and previously by my noble friend and colleague Lord Tope. Could the Minister tell us whether there are any laws at the present time that govern damage or desecration to our war memorials? If not, should we not consider their introduction?

In today’s paper, there is an indication that the funding for our very impressive National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire is going to be cut by a quarter. I visited it a couple of years ago, and it is hugely impressive. I realise, of course, that economies have to be made in defence spending, but do we really have to reduce the funding for such an impressive national memorial?

Turning to the matter of the young, does the Minister know whether the British Legion visits schools on a regular basis? Are poppies made available in schools? Should this not be rather more encouraged? I have previously suggested that schools should adopt their local war memorials for the dual advantage of both cleanliness and preservation. It would also make our youngsters more aware of the sacrifices that have been made.

Sadly, some who have given their lives have not been properly acknowledged and treated. It is surely a scandal that it has taken until next year, 2012—some 70 years after the ending of the Second World War—to erect a memorial to the 55,573 brave members of Bomber Command who were killed in action.

I also pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work that it does, which I have seen throughout the world, and to the memorials of many communities overseas. On my visit to Normandy earlier this year to visit the landing beaches, I saw the way so many memorials in small French communities are maintained, with full acknowledgement of the particular regiments that liberated those communities.

Sadly, there is no sign of the world becoming any less violent and there will inevitably be casualties in the future. For our forces, we must provide the best possible medical care, make generous provision for dependants—I know that my noble friend Lord Loomba will refer to war widows in particular in his speech—and always ensure that those who make the supreme sacrifice on our behalf have a decent funeral and an appropriate memorial.

13:43

[Lord Bilimoria]

My Lords, my younger son is 10 years old and I remember that when I turned 10, my father, the late Lieutenant-General Bilimoria, went to war, fulfilling any young officer’s dream: to command his battalion—the Second Fifth Ghurkha Rifles Frontier Force—in battle. He took part in the Indian Army’s liberation of Bangladesh. I remember reading in the papers every day a list of casualties and the sacrifices made, and dreading seeing my father’s name. Watching my mother enduring the anxiety was awful. My father’s battalion sadly lost several of its members in action. As we speak today, the Second Fifth Ghurkhas are celebrating their 125th anniversary on their Raising Day, and the whole regimental family is together in India.

When I say regimental family, that is what the army family is; it is the serving troops and their families, but also the ex-servicemen and their families and the widows like my mother and their descendents. At every one of these reunions, we always remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. My father’s battalion won three Victoria Crosses during the Second World War: one was posthumous, awarded to Subedar Netra Bahadur, and the other two were awarded to Havalder Gaje Ghale and Naik Agan Singh Rai. I was privileged to have been brought up from childhood with Agan Singh Rai and Gaje Ghale, and in fact Agan Singh Rai was my father’s subedar major—his regimental sergeant-major—when my father commanded his battalion.

I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, for this debate and his inspirational speech. We as a nation are tremendous in the way we remember the sacrifices made by our service men and women over the years. As a public, we show this support and remembrance year after year through Remembrance Sunday and a multitude of services that go on in every corner of the country, the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal and the millions of poppies worn. Thank God that FIFA was finally made to see sense after its nonsensical banning of the wearing of poppies, which it saw as a political statement. It never has been and it never will be. This is about remembrance, appreciation and gratitude, and particularly about making sure that future generations never forget and are inspired by the noble sacrifices made.

Yesterday, my six year-old daughter took part in a Remembrance Day service at her school, which included a minute’s silence. She brought home the poppy that she had made and showed it to me with pride. We have the wonderful memorial gates commemorating the service of 5 million volunteers who served in the First and Second World Wars from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. I was proud to be the chairman of the commemoration committee for six years, and these gates exist thanks to the drive and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who no doubt will speak about this inspirational living memorial.

The public spirit and support for the Armed Forces are probably at an all-time high in modern times, with Royal Wootton Bassett, the hugely successful newly-founded charity Help for Heroes initiative, the work of the Army Benevolent Fund—the soldiers’ charity—and the amazing warmth and respect shown to the Chelsea Pensioners of the Royal Hospital of Chelsea, where I am proud to be a commissioner.

We never needed to be told about a big society. The British public have been practising this instinctively for years. I was really happy to read the report of the task force of the military covenant a year ago, which made so many excellent suggestions.

This debate is also about the Armed Forces covenant, which states:

“An Enduring Covenant Between The People of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government—and—All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown And their Families”.

We are told that the Armed Forces community includes regular personnel, reservists, veterans, the immediate families of those categories of individuals, and the immediate families of service personnel and veterans who have died. The level of support has been categorised into four areas.

The first is to give recognition and gratitude, which I think we do. I am grateful to the Government for establishing a Chief of the Defence Staff commendation scheme. The second level is to take positive measures to support disadvantage. This is because our service men and women have such an unsettled way of life, and it worries me that initiatives such as the boarding school scheme for officers’ children are under threat. Could the Minister confirm this? It is disappointing to see that the formal ID card for veterans and service families has been rejected, with “value for money” being the reason why the scheme is not being supported. Could the Minister confirm this? The Armed Forces’ housing—particularly the Army’s—is on the whole below standard. Is there any way the Minister could confirm whether these long-term housing contracts are going to be renewed before 2021? Could the rent that has been set at below-market rates be looked at?

The third level of support is the financial package. Here, there is no question about it: the Armed Forces get paid a pittance compared with what we expect them to do. The Army doctrine publication tells us:

“All British soldiers share the legal right and duty to fight and, if necessary, kill, according to their orders, and an unlimited liability to give their lives in doing so. This is the unique nature of soldiering”.

Do we genuinely, hand on heart, feel that we are correctly compensating them when the salary for a private is only £17,265 at the low end, and the new entrant rate is £13,895?

The fourth level is special treatment. We keep hearing about the Armed Forces covenant meaning that the Armed Forces community should get fair treatment. I think the term “fair” is inappropriate; they need to get special treatment always. This is where we fall short of countries such as the United States in the way they look after their veterans and their special hospitals. In India, all retired soldiers and their families are entitled to free medical care from armed forces hospitals for life. This is special treatment, which is so well-deserved.

The Armed Forces are all about esprit de corps and morale. Where morale is concerned, we have had issues. There has to be mutual trust and respect between the Armed Forces, the Government and the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry to say that this mutual trust, particularly between the MoD and the Armed Forces, is breaking down. I have spoken about huge issues of morale across the services. The Government rushed through the SDSR last year with resulting cuts. On the one hand, our forces are stretched, just having completed Iraq; the Afghanistan operations are now 10 years on; and we have to deal with situations such as Libya at the drop of a hat. Our noble service personnel feel that they are out there in these conditions knowing that their jobs are not secure and seeing their comrades being made redundant. They know that the public are on their side but feel let down in many ways by the MoD and the Government. What is more, we are made to look a laughing stock in our short-sightedness. Almost a year ago, in our debate on the SDSR, I said in my speech:

“nobody predicted 9/11 and nobody predicted the Falklands War; they both happened. Sadly, no one knows what is going to happen next. We have to be prepared for the unexpected”.—[Official Report, 12/11/10; col. 404.]

What happened just a couple of months later? The Arab spring and then Libya. We as a country had decided by then to do away with our aircraft carriers, our Harriers and our Nimrods, and we could have done with all of them in the Libyan operations.

The SDSR was all about means and not ends. We in Britain are a major player on the world stage with our hard power and our soft power, and we will be required to intervene again. Once again, it could be “known unknowns” such as in the Iran situation, or it could be “unknown unknowns”, in the way the Arab spring happened overnight. With the eurozone crisis, Chancellor Merkel has already said that if the euro falls, there will be war in Europe.

We may have stayed out of the euro—and thank God we did—but we are a key integral player on the world stage and we will not be able to stay out of any forthcoming conflict. We have an Army now of fewer than 100,000. This is so short-sighted. We strive for peace, but, unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, said, conflict is inevitable whether we like it or not. The defence of our realm is the Government’s No. 1 priority, and that rests entirely on the amazing sacrifices made by our Armed Forces. Last month, I chaired an event as president of the UK India Business Council on east and north-east India. It was attended by a senior Minister from Nagaland, where of course the famous Kohima epitaph reads:

“When You Go Home

Tell Them Of Us And Say

‘For Your Tomorrow,

We Gave Our Today’”.

We as a nation will never forget. We will always be inspired and we will always be grateful.

13:51

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I would very much like to affirm from these Benches our support for what is expressed in the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk. I, too, congratulate him on the way in which he introduced the debate. From these Benches, we are particularly conscious of all that is implied about the debt that we owe to the fallen, because the Church of England and the other churches and faith groups of this country are hugely involved in the services and acts of remembrance that will take place over the next few days.

I started in ministry in the Church of England 35 years ago. As an assistant curate in a parish in the north-east of England, I very well remember my first Remembrance Sunday service. It was an important occasion, but not one that was attended by exceptional numbers. In the second year, I remember, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, experienced, someone remarking that probably by the turn of the century we would not be holding such acts of remembrance. Clearly, it was not a person with the gift of prophecy.

Over these past 35 years, I have watched these acts of remembrance grow hugely. There was a significant time when the various important anniversaries of the Second World War—the 50 years after the beginning and end—were marked that you suddenly began to notice the change. However, the involvement of this country in recent conflicts has meant that those who assemble are now from across the age range. Acts of remembrance frequently take place at public war memorials, but they nearly always involve members of the clergy of all denominations leading acts of remembrance. As well as that, there are war memorials in churches throughout the land, and other services of remembrance will take place within those churches.

This keeping alive of an understanding of the debt we owe to people who have given their lives is something that the churches have been very diligent about. In recent times I have noticed that people are attempting to find ways to make sure that this is not just an exercise in history but to help people to understand more the nature of the human cost. I have seen a number of churches within my diocese where people have carefully researched the names on the war memorials from the First World War and the Second World War, have traced the stories of families and the people involved, and compiled booklets with details of them. Often, these are even accompanied by photographs. Of course, this sort of thing can usually be done only in small rural communities where memories are long and families are frequently still in the area and where there are not huge numbers of names on the war memorial, but it is interesting that these activities have come about in recent years.

As other noble Lords have already remarked, we are within three years of the centenary of the start of the First World War. I, too, was appalled by the acts of vandalism to war memorials involving the theft of metal plaques, but it is also the case that some of these memorials are not now in the best of condition, as time has inevitably caused deterioration. Is the Minister aware of any plans to survey the condition of those memorials during the next couple of years, so that they can be in as good a condition as possible for that significant centenary?

Part of acknowledging the debt to those who have given their lives is by continuing our responsibility for those who have survived the wars of recent years and who need support and for those who have given service in our Armed Forces. To that end, I, too, welcome the attention that this House gave to the military covenant in the Armed Forces Bill. It is vital to find ways whereby the military covenant has real meaning within the country and is more widely understood, without turning it into legal contract.

However, there is still some way to go to instil confidence within serving personnel that there really is going to be some form of change. I am privileged from time to time to be invited to visit various military units within my diocese, and there are quite a number. I did one such visit just last month. It included meeting a unit which is about to return to Afghanistan for another tour of duty early next year. It is a large establishment and it gave me the chance to meet people who had varying lengths of service. While I constantly found that the sense of pride in their unit and their professionalism were highly evident, it was noticeable that, when discussing what the military covenant might mean, there was some scepticism. Usually, this came about because personnel who have served in Afghanistan and met our American allies are well aware of very different arrangements within the United States for the care and support of veterans.

That having been said, they certainly welcomed the fact that efforts were being made to make sure that the military covenant was becoming more prominent. However, I guess that the quality of the first report on the covenant will have a great bearing on how the members of our Armed Forces react to it and the effect that it will have on their morale. I hope that it will demonstrate that all these matters are being taken extremely seriously.

It was very noticeable last week, and, indeed, this week, how many members of the current Armed Forces are on the streets selling poppies. I think that that is a demonstration of the current members of our Armed Forces understanding very well the debt that is owed to the past and their presence helped enormously in encouraging people in their support. My experience is that this support for members of our Armed Forces is strong whatever the public feeling might be about the particular campaigns that were or are being waged. This Sunday, I expect to be in Bury St Edmunds for the main act of remembrance followed by a service. Not only will our own Armed Forces be present but those of America, because there are two United States Air Force bases within Suffolk. Part of the value of these acts of remembrance is that the reality of what we are remembering is very much before us with current young members of the services present. It helps to make the cost of conflict not seem remote and consequently an understanding of the extent of our debt becomes that much greater.

I believe that an acknowledgement of our debt is widely supported in our nation. I welcome this debate, showing the support of this House for acknowledgement of that debt.

13:57

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate. It is extremely appropriate that he has taken part in this debate, because the church has such a part to play in the services of remembrance that we shall recognise on Sunday and on the other occasions associated with Remembrance Day. I join him in congratulating my noble friend Lord Selkirk on what I thought was an outstanding introduction to this debate. It set absolutely the tone that was needed.

I think that everybody in this House shares those experiences. I became a Member of Parliament in 1970. One stood on Remembrance Day at the war memorial in King Square in Bridgwater. Year after year, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, one sensed a diminution of interest. A few survivors from the First World War were still there. I remember meeting Mr Harry Patch, who was the last survivor of the lot. Gradually, they faded away. Then the survivors of World War Two started to look pretty old as well. My noble friend Lady Trumpington is one of the survivors in this House of those who gave great service to their nation in the Second World War.

As we stood there, these memories moved on. And then, gradually, events came in. There was a feeling that this was an old ceremony to do with those wars. Korea had not made much impact, but then we had the Falklands and Northern Ireland. Then the message came round: “Shouldn’t some names be added to these memorials?” One particular moment stands out for me. I remember standing in King Square in Bridgwater and then going into St Mary’s church. Then, as I came out of St Mary’s at the end of the service, one of my policemen gave me a message, telling me that my private secretary wanted to speak to me from Northern Ireland, to tell me that there had been a bomb at the Remembrance Day service at Enniskillen, and that a number of people had been killed or seriously injured. The shock of the desecration of that occasion went round the world. It was in fact enormously damaging to the reputation of the IRA and any latent sympathy it may have had, as well as to any Irish freedom movement there may have been in the United States, among other places.

This was coupled, as some may remember, with the extraordinary generosity of spirit of Mr Gordon Wilson, whose daughter was killed on that occasion. I remember standing in the shower in Admiralty House early the next morning, listening to him on the “Today” programme, before I had to make a Statement in the House. I remember the extraordinary way in which he was able, with that generosity of spirit, to speak as he did after losing his daughter in that tragic event.

I shall also never forget, and many noble Lords may remember, the extraordinary service we had two weeks later. The British Legion at Enniskillen were determined that they would still have their service, and British Legion standard bearers from all round the country were determined that they would attend that service as well. Rank upon rank of standard bearers gathered in the square in Enniskillen. I managed to persuade—she did not need much persuasion because she understood entirely—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to come with me to that service. The solidarity, right across parties, and right across the divisions that might otherwise exist in Northern Ireland, had an enormous impact on me.

After that, we moved on to the first Gulf War, and then more recently the Afghanistan campaign and the second Gulf War in Iraq. What one noticed in those early Remembrance Day services and parades was that very few servicemen standing there had any medals. Now you look at them and see the impact of more recent years and their activities. I am going to take part and help to conduct a service on Sunday in our local parish church with a very good friend of mine, a retired brigadier who served in the Parachute Regiment—a man who is very well known to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. His son is serving in the Parachute Regiment, and is coming up for his third tour, I think, of Afghanistan. One realises the commitment and involvement that we now have.

What has really come across so clearly now is that, as it is said, war is the failure of politicians and rulers. Having had some responsibility in that area, I agree with that entirely. Take, for example, the Second World War: I am sure that Hitler did not actually think that England, in the end, would fight for Poland. President Galtieri thought he could grab the Falklands without any conflict and that Britain would think that it was too difficult to do anything about it. Mistakes by politicians, rulers and leaders lead us into those situations. Saddam Hussein was quite convinced, I think, that nobody would really mind about a silly place like Kuwait, which had caused a lot of trouble for some of its neighbours, and that nobody would rally to the cause of freedom, independence and freedom from aggression.

It is against that background that one has noticed how the mood has changed. In the early part of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of people had reservations about the wisdom of those events. That in some part rubbed off on our Armed Forces, which were not held in sufficient respect—it was felt that they were involved in something that we should perhaps not be doing. Then, however, whether because of Help for Heroes, or because of a recognition of the suffering and the casualties—the fatal casualties, but particularly the appalling physical injuries that many were suffering—the British nation rallied. Whatever the views were about the rightness of those particular campaigns, there was absolutely no question about the support of the nation for those who were loyally undertaking their duty in the Armed Forces of the Crown.

It is against that background that I look at this occasion today and look at what our responsibilities are. I support the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. He raised the issue of housing. It is our duty now to remember those who have made the sacrifice. It is also our duty to remember their families and the suffering that they have and to see that the many organisations and charitable organisations, such as the British Legion, SSAFA and others that seek to help in this area, are supported. We also have a duty to those who have come back with quite appalling injuries. The wonders of modern medicine have now made possible their survival, but they are left with major challenges. This may all be lumped together in the military covenant. We have responsibilities to those who survive, to those who are injured and to their families at this time.

We need our Armed Forces. We face major challenges at the present time. If wars are the failures of politicians, the sad truth is that they will make mistakes again. It is against that background that we need to ensure, as a duty to those who have served and have made the ultimately sacrifice, that their survivors and their successors are properly equipped and properly maintained to continue the sacred task of defending our nation’s interests.

14:06

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and introducing it in a most moving and inspirational manner. We are debating,

“the debt which our nation owes to all those who have sacrificed their lives in defence of the realm”.

This subject raises two questions. First, does the nation really owe a debt to those who have sacrificed their lives in defence of the realm? Secondly, how should that debt be repaid? I shall take these two questions in turn.

The first question looks simple, and its answer appears self-evident: of course we do. This is the assumption made in almost all the speeches that have been made so far. This is also the assumption which underlies the report of the task force on the military covenant, and the review by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

Imagine how somebody might argue against this. In the standard neoliberal fashion, it might be argued that, unless the Armed Force are conscripted—in which case, of course, a different moral logic applies—they are volunteers. They know what they are doing when they join the Armed Forces. They accept a job for which they are paid. It is a contract of employment that is voluntarily entered into, and is no different from any other. If people therefore lose their lives or limbs it is part of their contract, and the nation owes no debt. This is a standard neoliberal argument made in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is also to be found in many current writings by neoliberals.

It might also be argued that sacrifice of lives and limbs is not unique to the Armed Forces. The police, miners and firemen all risk their lives: why should we single out the Armed Forces? When we do, are we treating them in some privileged manner which is founded on emotions or romantic glorification of war rather than on solid rational grounds? I suggest that there are solid rational grounds for privileging the Armed Forces, and these are fourfold.

First, they are the only group who explicitly commit themselves to the sacrifice of their lives. Unlike firemen and miners, or even the police, they are not employed to do other things which incidentally might involve loss of lives; rather, willingness to risk the loss of life is the very raison d’être of the job.

Secondly, the Armed Forces incur loss or temporary surrender of basic democratic and civil freedoms that no other occupation shares. Members of the Armed Forces may not join a trade union, they may not openly dissent from or criticise the Government and they may not question operational decisions made by their superiors. The standard democratic freedom that every other employee enjoys is denied to members of the Armed Forces.

Thirdly, the Armed Forces act on behalf of the nation in a way that no other occupation does. They swear their loyalty to the nation, place their well-being in the nation’s charge and render the most essential service of preserving the integrity of the country.

Finally, the fourth reason why there is good moral logic in privileging the Armed Forces over other occupations is that very high—indeed higher—professional ethics is required of them. Greater mutual loyalty is required of them; greater courage and bravery as well as a greater willingness to risk their lives for the sake of their comrades. They are also expected to show greater commitment to the collective ethos and to subordinate their personal security to the security of the country at large.

My answer to the first question is that yes, of course, there is every reason to argue that the nation owes a debt to the Armed Forces. That raises the next question: what form should the repayment of that debt take? Since the Armed Forces have offered to risk and lay down their lives on behalf of and in the interests of the country, the country obviously incurs several obligations. I want to mention three, only one of which has been heavily emphasised in the debate so far.

First, the nation has an obligation to remember them with gratitude, and honour their memory in appropriate ways. No financial compensation can adequately measure up to the way of remembering and cherishing people and fulfilling the dreams that their sadly truncated lives have not been able to realise. We remember, honour and cherish their memories by constructing memorials, national Remembrance Day and telling stories about their deeds in our text-books. In telling those stories and constructing memorials, we not only redeem the tragic dimension of their death but build bonds of unity among our own people. It is worth remembering that Remembrance Day is only common to five or six out of 185 countries. India has no remembrance day. France does not. Germany—for obvious reasons—does not. Even in the United States, it appears in a very unusual form. It might be worth looking not only at the history of Remembrance Day—is it a response to the Crimean War or the First World War?—but at the changes it has undergone over the years and why it is, in some sense, relatively unique to our country.

The second obligation we have is to look after the dependants of those who have died and to attend to the needs of those who have suffered grave injuries and disabilities. This calls for generous compensation schemes, pensions, rehabilitation, integration into normal life and other forms of support. The task force on the military covenant and the Boyce report make excellent suggestions and I wholeheartedly endorse them.

However, there is a third obligation, which is in danger of being neglected. The nation incurs a profound obligation to ensure that the wars in which the Armed Forces are engaged and in which they may have to sacrifice their lives are fully justified, either in terms of the interests of the country or in the wider interests of humanity at large. Since the Armed Forces are expected to obey the civilian authorities and are politically neutral, the civil authorities that decide for them often have a tendency to take them for granted and to think that the military machine can be deployed for any purposes that their masters choose. Wars are therefore declared sometimes without much forethought, because they distract attention from domestic problems or because they are politically convenient and give the halo of glory to otherwise mediocre politicians. It is precisely because the Armed Forces are expected to be uncritically loyal that the Government must think 10 times before sending them to an almost certain death. Iraq and Afghanistan do not meet this test, as I have argued before your Lordships in the past; nor, I think, did Suez or Vietnam. It becomes morally hypocritical to send young people with promising lives to ill conceived deaths and to compensate them with offers of payments, as if a promising life is worth a lump sum of so much money.

Every death is a tragedy. It should be an occasion for critical national self-reflection on how to improve the way in which we take momentous decisions involving war. The Armed Forces trust the nation to value their lives and to demand sacrifices only when they are fully justified. The nation must prove itself worthy of the trust that the Armed Forces put in it.

14:15

[Lord Walker of Aldringham]

My Lords, I, too, thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on giving us this opportunity to reflect on the eve of our remembrance commemorations. It is gratifying, too, to behold the degree of regard in which our society holds our Armed Forces across the country and which so powerfully helps to sustain our men and women when they are serving overseas. However, that regard—as the noble Lord, Lord King, has already said—cannot be taken for granted. In the 1990s, we saw that our people were less willing to make sacrifices on behalf of our Armed Forces. The funds raised for our people after the war in the Falkland Islands amounted to more than £25 million; the funds raised for the last Iraq war were less than 2 per cent of that. The involvement in Iraq, clearly, was the reason for that unpopularity, but it seemed at that stage that the British affinity between the people of the nation and our Armed Forces was at a low-ish point.

That gave rise to clarion calls from all sorts of people —not least the Chiefs of Staff—raising the profile of the issue. They raised the issues, as we have heard, about equipment, medical treatment, accommodation, medals, education, pay and allowances, and homecoming parades. That was not only to bring pressure to bear on the Government but to bring to the notice of our society as a whole that they needed to help make this new covenant manifest.

Your Lordships will know that our society has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. We have been able to live in peace and go about our daily business without much concern for our own safety or that of our families, even though of course there have been some pretty appalling terrorist incidents. As a society, we have very little understanding of the horrors of war. At the same time, we are increasingly affluent, middle class and liberal, with high expectations of rewards and gains. We exhibit increasing educational standards but a lower level of physical fitness. We seek greater variety and choice and have an interest in leisure risk but not real risk. We have changing organisational structures, increasing public accountability and transparency, and fluctuating economies. We are a litigious society and seek compensation at every turn. We demand flexibility in a high-tech world and often give minority groups more face time than the silent majority. The trouble is that our enemies—the terrorists, the dictators and the ethnic cleansers—are not suffering from mid-life crises and taking court action. They are out there, and if anything, they are consistent.

Those 16,000 names on the national memorial at Alrewas, listing those who have died in service since the end of the Second World War, bear witness of the extent to which we as a nation have used our Armed Forces in that time. It is not just those who make the sacrifice, as we have already heard. All who serve on operations put their lives at risk, whether they die or whether they are injured. Countless numbers have been wounded, while many others have been psychologically damaged, which comes out only later in their lives. Behind every one of those names on the war memorial there are wives, husbands, partners, parents, children and colleagues who loved them and who live with the pain and consequences of their loss every day.

How are we doing as a society, looking after this thing called a covenant? Are we playing our several parts? The charities, in my view, are doing well, although their window of opportunity may close as we pull out of Afghanistan and come off the headlines. The services-related charities have managed to hold up well in terms of donations from the public, and I pay tribute to Help for Heroes for the way in which it helped raise the profile of the services’ needs to their current level.

Our people are doing well, too, from small groups of determined men and women undertaking amazing physical feats to the generosity of individual donations on the one hand, through the warmness of the welcomes received at homecoming parades to the compassion and respect demonstrated at events such as those held at Royal Wootton Bassett on the other. I feel genuinely that the majority of our citizens recognise the price that has been paid, and continues to be paid, by our soldiers to enable them to enjoy the freedoms that they have.

One area in which I do not think we are doing as well is in the Government's implementation of the covenant, although I recognise that much work has gone into it. We must remember that this is a contract under which, in return for the sacrifice made by those in the forces, the Government will ensure they are equipped properly, trained, given the best possible care if they become casualties, and are treated fairly.

Although I believe there are several areas in which we are failing to meet this fundamental requirement for fairness, I will mention only three. Before I identify them, I should remind your Lordships of what our service men and women do for all of us. I spent some time last week talking to one of the brigade commanders, who was, in the distant past, my military assistant. I asked him how he was finding it there. He replied, “I follow the policy of reverse vertigo”. I said, “What is that?”. He said, “I dare not look up. If I look down, it is fine; when I look up, it is not”. Although I talked about a changing society earlier, perhaps the one constant that we would all recognise is the soldier himself. He is a remarkable individual who never ceases to amaze all of us with his achievements. Henry Kissinger once said that the Brits are the only people left on earth who love to fight. Well, we have certainly kept our eye in, and we should be thankful for it.

These are young men and women called upon to put the needs of the nation before their own and who, as we have already heard, forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. We ask them to operate along the roughest edges of humanity while observing the civilised norms of the society from which they are drawn. That is not an easy task. They face an unprecedented degree of public scrutiny and analysis. Of course, they still live in a hard, frightening and dangerous world. The miracles of modern transport do not absolve them from moving great distances on their feet carrying heavy loads. Snazzy new kit does not stop the bullet from killing them or the bomb from maiming them. The state of their digestion is a matter of public interest. The days are still hot and the nights dark and cold. While there may come a time when technology transforms the world, we are not there yet. So it is down to these young men and women, in their fragile human form, to defend our freedoms. We must not forget that they find themselves in these circumstances because of the decisions taken by our political masters.

I will now speak about the three areas in which I believe we are failing them and which it would be perfectly possible to put right and affordable even in the current economic climate, given due priority. First, as I have said before, I do not believe that the third sector should be exploited to fund men and women who are still serving in the forces. That is the irrefutable responsibility of the Government. Charitable money is desperately needed to support those who have left the services. Every pound that the charities commit to those in service denies help to deserving veterans and their families elsewhere.

Secondly, as others have said far more eloquently than I, there is a compelling case for the retention of the chief coroner. We owe this much to all bereaved families, whether in the services or not. For those who have lost a soldier son, father, mother or daughter in some far-off and unimaginable war, the ramifications of not retaining such a post are extreme.

Thirdly, in no way is it morally defensible to make compulsorily redundant those who have so recently fought for their country. We are not talking about a situation of demobilisation after a major war, as the circumstances are entirely different; nor are we talking about large numbers. As it is likely that the majority of the redundancies from the Armed Forces following the SDSR will be voluntary, we are probably talking about a few thousand being made compulsorily redundant. It is difficult to imagine how these people will feel, having volunteered to fight for their country and having been sent to do so, often several times. Having survived life-threatening battles with their enemies, they return home, keen to remain in service, only to find that an ungrateful Government are kicking them out. This is not the way to show that the nation values such people.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I draw the noble and gallant Lord’s attention to the time.

[Lord Walker of Aldringham]

I will finish by saying that the Prime Minister has said that the military covenant has been put at the heart of our national life. Because the principles of the covenant are now part of the law of our land, we have not only an opportunity at this time of remembrance to put these matters right but, I believe, a duty to do so.

14:24

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I believe that this House is hugely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for the quite outstanding way in which he introduced it—emotional but also factual.

I declare an interest as vice-president of the War Widows’ Association, which held a service in Westminster Abbey this morning, supported yet again, as it has been year on year, by the Duke of Edinburgh attending and laying a memorial in the abbey. The members of the association are quite elderly, some of them very elderly, but they were joined today by widows who are very young and have young families. That is a result of the operations with which we in Britain have been faced.

Remembrance and debt are met in a number of ways. We meet them this weekend as a nation in the services that we hold. However, there are a number of other ways. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, year on year, is meeting the debt that we owe to those who have sacrificed their lives. Some years ago I was asked to carry out a review for the commission when it was having industrial relations problems. It affected me very strongly when we visited war graves in different parts of Europe—including France and Italy—and saw, row after row after row, the graves of soldiers who were 18, 19 or 20 years-old. A whole nation of young people had sacrificed their lives for us. We cannot forget that and we must continue to meet the debt that we owe to them and their families.

The military covenant, on which I congratulate the Government, is another way of meeting our debt to those who have sacrificed their lives, those whom they left behind and those who will come after them as well. If the Armed Forces are anything, they are a family; a family of young men and women working, serving their nation together and acting as a family looking after each other in the bad times as well as the good times.

Another way that various Governments have sought to meet the debt that we owe is through the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The debate that we are having today is, in many ways, very sombre and respectful, but it is also looking backwards. I think we have to look forwards because you cannot wheel out debt and remembrance once a year every November and come back to it the following November. It is as ongoing as the service that our young men and women give to this nation when they sign up, knowing that they may have to pay the ultimate price—indeed, so many of them have paid it and continue to do so. There has only been one year since the end of the Second World War when our service people have not been somewhere in the world on operations in the name of this country. The role that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body carries out is part of the commitment that we give to our young service men and women. It is independent, and it carries out its work, I would suggest, in a very fair way. I was honoured and privileged to be the chairman of the review body.

The problem that we have with the Armed Forces is that decisions that we reach today impact on their lives year on year, not only when they are in the service but when they are out of it and when they retire. I am looking at the overall terms and conditions under which we recognise part of their contribution—it can only be part of it. I was appointed chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in 1997. I came to it following two or three successive years when their annual pay award had been staged. Noble Lords might think that is rather mercenary in this debate. It is not, because the cutback in the pay that they had under the then Tory Government meant that at the end of their service their pension was going to be affected every single year until they died. That has a major impact on the pensions of Armed Forces personnel. If they are lucky, they leave the service in their 50s and that is the point at which their pension is based. They come out at a time when it is quite often difficult for them to get another job. Even if the economy is buoyant, they are at an age where, in this so-called ageless society, age is a factor. The pension impact is very important.

Last year, I was not only shocked but appalled to learn of two contradictory statements from the Government about the measures that we are taking as a nation, although I accept that we have to take some others. Initially, the Armed Forces were not going to be involved in the public sector pensions review. Subsequently, we were told that they would be. That decision, particularly if there is a move from RPI to CPI for pensions, will have a significant impact on armed services personnel. It does not meet the covenant that we have reached with our personnel.

Not only that, but this year any member of the Armed Forces earning more than £21,000 per annum received no pay award, which means that we have young lads and women in Afghanistan risking their lives being told that they will not get a pay award. It does not impact on them individually but on their families. Most of those personnel will have young families on whom the impact is substantial. Accommodation has been mentioned. It has been, and still is, an ongoing sore not only in this Government but in the previous Labour Government.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that we each have eight minutes in which to speak. Pensions and pay are two important factors, which impact on our service men and women. In the past year, we have seen a breach of what is referred to as “family harmony” in the Army, but not in the other two services, of just over 10 per cent. That cannot be helpful.

In conclusion, I shall quote paragraph 120 of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body 2011 report. It states:

“We are seriously concerned about the cumulative impact of the overall changes in prospect. Inflation is higher than was expected when the pay freeze was announced, allowances have been cut, and the change in pensions indexation reduces the value of the pension more than other public sector groups. Taken together, these changes pose considerable risks to morale and potentially to recruitment and retention”.

In replying, will the Minister give a commitment to urge the Government to lift the pay freeze and to make sure that we honour the commitment we give to our Armed Forces personnel in regard to their pensions?

14:32

[Lord Loomba]

My Lords, I wear my poppy with pride, as do many in your Lordships’ House. This weekend, the entire country will observe Remembrance Day and there will be silence for those who gave their lives in the two world wars. Therefore, today’s debate on the eve of Remembrance Day is very important. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on securing this debate.

It is imperative not only to remember those who sacrificed their own lives to allow us to live in a world of democracy but to teach current and forthcoming generations about this tribulation. Generations have grown up in a country and they do not know its past. They remain unaware that the basic human rights that they expect today are as a result of those who have lost their lives fighting for our rights. History must never be forgotten in case it repeats itself. It should be enshrined for all of us, and we should always remember, that the fruits we enjoy today are products of the selflessness of the millions who gave their lives.

Key issues such as human rights, justice, education and poverty are all deeply connected to our democratic values. However, we must always take the time to remember that the democracy on which our judicial system is reliant today came at the cost of people in other countries. Let us not forget that people from India, the West Indies and Africa, and Gurkhas from Nepal, fought with us and for us in both world wars. At that time there was no Commonwealth; there were only colonies. Soldiers came from all corners of the world. From India alone, more than 1 million soldiers lost their lives.

Unfortunately, war and conflict are not only deeply rooted in the world’s history but are ongoing in our present. The Rwanda and Burundi war literally wiped out hundreds of thousands of people. The international armed conflict in Bosnia took the lives of more than 2 million people, thus making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II. The Democratic Congo Republic, as with events in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, paid a heavy price in efforts to remove dictatorships.

The war in Afghanistan has created more than 2 million widows in a country with a population of only 30 million. After 30 years of civil war, Afghanistan has one of the highest percentages of widows in the world. A very high percentage of these widows are young, illiterate and have children to support. Providing for their children is a daily struggle, and they are forced into begging and prostitution. With the death of their husband diminishing their economic security, they are placed at the lowest level of society and their human rights are eroded.

The children of widows are invariably forced into the workplace at an early age to help support their mothers. These working children are denied their right to an education. Many are forced to beg like their mothers or to work in factories where child labour abuse is common practice. In some cases, girls are forced into marriage at a young age so that they are no longer a burden on their mothers.

War has an ugly face. Ultimately, people pay a heavy price which cannot be measured in terms of consequences such as poverty, hunger, famine and disease. There are no victors in any war.

I declare my interest as a founder chairman trustee of my charity, the Loomba Foundation, which has been working for more than a decade to raise awareness of the plight of widows around the world who have lost their husbands through conflict. There are more than 245 million widows and 500 million children—one section of the world’s population—who suffer in silence due to their loss. More than 100 million widows live in poverty and struggle to survive, and are often soft targets for murder, rape, prostitution, forced marriage, property theft, eviction and social isolation, as well as physical and emotional abuse. Their children do a lot worse. Statistics show that about 1.5 million children of widows worldwide do not live past their fifth birthday.

The Loomba Foundation is proud that last year the United Nations declared 23 June as International Widows Day, which was initially established by the foundation in 2005. I should like to ask the Minister if the British Government would support International Widows Day and pay our debts to war widows.

It is clear that wars are very destructive. We owe it to those who lost their lives fighting for our rights that their memories are not lost, and we should work towards a future that is not riddled with war and conflict but is a united world. Remembrance Day is an event that should have a perpetual place in our history because there is nothing more worthy than giving one’s life to preserve the values that we hold.

14:40

[Baroness Fookes]

My Lords, my noble friend has spoken very eloquently of the plight of widows worldwide. My own focus, I confess, has been much narrower, as president of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain, a post I am very proud and privileged to occupy.

This morning, I went to the opening of the Field of Remembrance outside Westminster Abbey. That brought home the poignancy of loss. All those plots organised by different organisations, with little crosses stuck in—each representing one lost life. I planted two crosses on behalf of two of my organisation’s members, too frail now in their 80s to come and do this themselves. It was a humbling experience.

During my time as president, I have heard innumerable stories of the difficulties that have faced the widows, who are very often extremely young with young children. They suffer all the emotional havoc that comes from losing a husband or a partner and all the difficulties of bringing up children on one’s own, probably with very little money. That was certainly the experience of many of the women in the Second World War to whom I have spoken.

We have to look long term. I agree that we cannot simply have a November remembrance service and then forget it the rest of the time. It is like those who go to church on Sunday then behave abominably for the next six days. We need to get away from that syndrome completely.

I served on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for 10 years. Like others have mentioned, the sight of all those rows of graves is very intimidating, although they are beautifully kept. One of the great joys of serving on the Commission was seeing how it kept the standards going under all kinds of difficulties, such as modern wars, the encroachment of cities into the former countryside, earthquakes, floods—you name it, all kinds of things which would interfere with the good upkeep of this as a remembrance. The Commission does a wonderful job and it was a wonderful post which I greatly enjoyed occupying.

I thoroughly applaud one of the things it did during my time there. It started to put up plaques showing the historical context in which one was viewing the graves. That was important, as it explains to succeeding generations, for whom this is history, what the graves are doing there. To have some context, I think, is extremely important and fits in with all the other ways in which we can teach young people in succeeding generations about what occurred and how important it is to remember. So I applaud all those who try to make it alive and real for youngsters. I hope very much that the various bodies who are involved in charitable work in any way whatever try to take the message into schools, where people will perhaps understand more readily what is involved in war.

There are also those who are not of the armed services as such, but whom I think we ought to remember. I think of the merchant seamen who often risked their lives in the most appalling conditions to help save this country from starvation and to bring us munitions. Think of the nurses who were operating in terrible conditions with awful wounds to see to, and who themselves were under pressure. This very morning I was standing next to a lady representing nurses and midwives. It suddenly came home to me very much that we owe a great debt to all those who are not from the armed services as such, but whose work is absolutely invaluable in dealing with the whole war effort.

We of course have an immense responsibility, as others have indicated already, towards those who survive war but with great difficulty. I think particularly of those whose minds are shattered by war as well as their limbs. I believe that organisations such as Combat Stress do a great deal of work. We are also much more aware of the long-term difficulties that can be experienced. This is something that I hope the Government will take on board because the symptoms very often do not show themselves immediately. Therefore we need to look long term, as we do for physical injuries. Many people now survive who simply would not have done so but for very advanced medical techniques. I suspect this is a worry that we are going to have for 50 years and more. It is very easy to forget about once the main dangers are over so we need to have a long-term commitment, I think that this is extremely important.

For the last part of my contribution, I should like to consider a rather sore point, touched upon by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker—the issue of the chief coroner. My noble friend the Minister will recall that when we were in opposition, we worked together in order to ensure that such a post existed. There is a certain irony, shall we say, in the present position. I want to believe that we can manage without him and that the kind of work that we expected him to do can be done by other people. But I have a very real worry that if his duties are distributed among others, then it will be nobody’s job. We need a person in this role. If we cannot have a chief coroner, which I would still like, then we need at least a person of repute and sufficient seniority to carry weight. I think that is extremely important and I urge that upon my noble friend. He will recall that one of the reasons why I and those involved in the services wanted this measure, was that military inquests are of a different order from normal inquests. They require a degree of sophistication and an understanding of military facts and ethos. That was developed slowly and painfully for the families of those who had died, but then we had a few coroners with that expertise. I did not want to see that lost, and that was the view of many others involved. Therefore it was felt essential to have a chief coroner with direct responsibility for the training of all coroners, particularly those needing expertise in military inquests.

I continue to think that that is the case. I am hoping for a crumb or two of comfort from my noble friend on this issue. I live in hopes. I think I see a shaking of the head in front of me. Oh, it is a nodding. I will wait eagerly to see what my noble friend says at the conclusion of this debate. I also thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for giving us this wonderful opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of the nation, for the wonderful service rendered by our Armed Forces.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

14:48

[Baroness Flather]

I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, as well. It is an opportunity for all of us to express our feelings about this occasion. It is a wonderful thing to be able to do that, we very rarely get a chance. My only sadness was that he did not mention the Indians—more than 4 million of them—who served with the British in two world wars. Since we are remembering people, and thinking of those people who were there with the British in two world wars, we might have thought of the Indians because they were crucial.

I should declare an interest. I am an Indian. I wanted to tell noble Lords about something that happened to me when I was a mayor in 1986. During my mayoral year, I was at the wreath-laying ceremony on Remembrance Day and afterwards somebody asked me, “Does Remembrance Sunday mean anything to you?”. I was very shocked by that. It was the first time that a seed was planted that made me think that people have to be informed of what the Indian role was in the two world wars.

Not only that—my father was a student here during the Great War, and Gandhiji said to the Indian students, “By all means help the war effort but don’t kill people”. So my father became a stretcher-bearer and spent the Great War in Mesopotamia. He never talked about it; my brothers, who were older, tried to ask him questions, but he never wanted to talk about it. I think he had such an appalling time that he did not want to recall it, as many prisoners of war did not. But in view of that, it was even more awful to be asked such a question.

Gandhiji also said, in the Second World War—and this has sometimes not been put across correctly—that we must help the British win the war, because then we will get our freedom. He said that if the British did not win the war, we would not know where we would be. So he actually encouraged Indians to volunteer in the Armed Services during the Second World War.

In the first year there were something like 1.5 million Indians. In fact, it was very interesting because India had a standing army of 150,000. When the British expeditionary force went to France it was outnumbered; it was when the Indian standing army started to come across and join the British that things started to change in France. So it is quite strange to know that India had a standing army of 150,000, and they were sent over as soon as possible to fight in France. Also, there were Indians in Palestine in the First World War.

In the Second World War, Indians were much more important. There were 2.6 million to 2.8 million Indians—there are no clear figures—who volunteered. There are very few veterans left now, but I have spoken to them and they said that when officers came to recruit to the villages, they said, “Join the armed services and you will get your freedom”. This was a great draw for them to join. Some people think that the Indians joined the armed services because of poverty. I am sure that was a factor, but I am pleased to say that it was not the only factor. Their contribution in the Second World War was absolutely crucial. North Africa was the first turning point of the war, and there were huge numbers of Indians there. In fact, we have a German friend whose uncle was posted to north Africa; the uncle told this little boy, “Don’t worry about me—I’m only going to fight the inferior races”. It is interesting to have this handed down from his uncle to him to us. This is how it was—we were considered the inferior races, but we did not do so badly after all. It was a great and important turning point.

The Burma campaign speaks for itself, as 1,250,000 were got together by Field Marshal Slim of whom two-thirds were Indians. I really hope that these things will not be forgotten totally, at least in your Lordships' House, because you care about these matters.

Because of all these things that people did not remember or know, as these memories get older and older, I really wanted to see a memorial to the Indians—but also to the Africans and West Indians. It should really pull at the heartstrings, the fact that West Indians—Jamaicans—were at the Somme. They came all the way to die at the Somme; not only that, but it took them six months to get permission to join the British Army and serve. These are things that we should know about, because the whole immigration after the war is rooted in the war. People forget to connect it. Who came here first? It was the people who had served in the Air Force and the Army.

There were two tyre factories in Southall and, as ever, the managers could not get any British workers. So they went back to the villages where their men had come from in the Punjab and recruited there specifically to work in those tyre factories. It is from that the migration to Southall started—and Southall, as noble Lords know, was full of Sikh people.

Sadly, I do not know whether most of your Lordships have seen the memorial. I hope they have. It is on Constitution Hill, not far from here. The names of the winners of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross are in the pavilion next to the memorial. I hope that people go and look at it and do not just pass through it, as they often do. The sad thing for me has been that we have never had a Prime Minister or a senior Cabinet Minister or anybody come to that memorial. The Queen inaugurated it but, even on that occasion, nobody from the then Government of any seniority came. It is quite interesting that when the Australian memorial was inaugurated, the Prime Minister went. One begins to wonder whether it is a question of kith and kin after all. We all remember the Anzacs and all the dominions, but do we remember the former colonies, which gave a great contribution? I am not sure that we remember them in the same way.

I also just mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is the only person who has helped and supported us. She honoured us with a dinner, at which we raised quite a lot of money, and she has been twice to the memorial at the ceremony. But nobody else of any note has yet been there, and I invite all of you to visit.

14:57

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, every year we cherish a number of bank holidays, whether Christmas, Easter, St George's Day or May Day. They all have different meanings for people and, for some, little meaning at all. They are viewed with varying degrees of importance. However, I believe that there is no one day more significant for us in Britain than Remembrance Day, an annual event for which we do not have a public holiday.

The emphasis on recognising the debt we owe to the fallen, like shifting sands, is moving from a focus on the world wars to more recent conflicts. The Wootton Bassett corteges are tangible evidence of the increased poignancy and recognition in the public consciousness of this.

I therefore thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas for securing this debate. It is timely to allow us to reflect this year on the mostly positive news to highlight how we recognise the debt owed to the fallen, but also on seeking to look after—better—those who have been left behind and those who continue to serve. It provides an opportunity today to corral and re-emphasise some key points that have arisen from related debates during this year.

By tradition, a Sunday in November provides a formal period of reflective ceremony for families and friends to remember those they knew so intimately who gave their lives for their country. More tangibly, for those directly affected, it is a time also perhaps for a grim but dignified reflection of their changed lives—on family life which might have been, with absent fathers never bringing up children and wives having to cope with overwhelming challenges. More indirectly, we pause and think of those we never knew, from all conflict zones going back several decades, represented by countless names written in bold black letters, hewn in stone on memorials in the UK and around the world.

In June 2011 the War Widows Association marked the 40th anniversary of its foundation, as has already been mentioned. A moving service held in London allowed those present to honour the fallen and their spouses, and reflect on their bereavements, which have happened not just in the heat of war zones but too often from tragic incidents such as friendly fire or accidents in service. It was also an opportunity, collectively, for the war widows, of whom there are over 30,000 in the UK, to quietly reflect on their successes, including the fight over many years for a pension 100 per cent free of tax.

A debate on the subject of the war widows that same day last June highlighted the need for further improvements to their care and welfare. This included the need for a change to data protection laws, still outstanding, to make it easier for the Ministry of Defence to transfer war widows’ personal information directly to the association. Current registered numbers are low, at just over 3,000 people. The debate further highlighted the need to protect fully a widow's pension. There remains a legacy issue affecting potentially over 4,000 people. If the death of a spouse fell between 1973 and 2005, after which the Armed Forces pension scheme came into force, and the widow subsequently remarries or co-habits, her pension is withdrawn.

Above all, 2011 has seen the contrast between the war in Afghanistan and civilian life at home highlighted in sharp relief. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has already mentioned, the Armed Forces covenant, presented this May and enshrined in the Bill, emphasised the need to have a closer bond between the services, communities and local authorities. It served to reaffirm the commitment between the state and the services concerning the defence of the realm, including the sobering point that those serving in the forces must be prepared to fight unquestioningly, and if necessary be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. As written in the Army doctrine document, this is founded on the highest principles of personal and collective commitment, and grounded in those key values of integrity, discipline, selflessness, outstanding training and unquestioning authority.

In return to those serving, to servicemen and their families, the state commits to deliver on a number of important social, welfare and health principles, with quality benchmarks to include equipment for fighting, family support, housing, education for children and recognition, to name just a few. In stark contrast with these principles, the riots that this country suffered from earlier this year demonstrated the moral and social bankruptcy seen in some parts of our society. People, mainly young, beyond the control of their parents or authority, were wantonly stealing goods from shops because they were tempting and available, all gained under a cloak of protest at government policy. To echo the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, I find it quite extraordinary that soldiers, some of whom may have come from the same cities and not dissimilar backgrounds to the rioters, have continued to serve in highly dangerous conditions against this background at home but remaining as professional, as focused and as brave as ever. It adds further weight to the debt owed not just to the fallen but to the seriously wounded and to those continuing to place themselves in danger. It is also a testament to the highest quality of selection, training and discipline within our UK Armed Forces. There is progress in tackling these legacy challenges at home—which were partly responsible for the riots—and I applaud the Government for taking strong action in working to effect societal change, including the increase of personal responsibility and the reduction of welfare dependency.

Education also has a role in helping us to understand the debt; my noble friend Lady Fookes has already spoken about this. The sacrifices made are more easily understood in society and in communities and passed down through the generations if history is given a greater priority in schools and is better taught, so that it is more interesting and meaningful. Improved teacher training is under way, placing a greater focus on the background to conflicts and on the linkage to related events. This will help pupils to establish a greater perspective to their place in the world and, we hope, will lead to the engendering of a greater purpose to and responsibility in their lives. As my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford has highlighted, schools should be encouraged to take an interest in adopting local war memorials, to teach pupils about the sacrifices within their communities.

It is hoped that a greater awareness of conflict and the reasons behind conflict, with tangible improvements in our moral standards, in encouraging greater self-help and in giving more help for our fellow human beings in society, will help begin to repay the debt which we will be remembering again in depth on Sunday.

15:05

[Lord Glasman]

My Lords, I also echo the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, for a beautiful speech and particularly for the beautiful words in relation to memory from Abraham Lincoln. That was beautifully chosen. This is only the third time I have spoken in the House; that is because I am extremely nervous, and because of my incredible sense of gratitude at being able to speak in a free institution in a free country. This is a marvel to behold. I was in a Select Committee this week on a Private Member’s Bill on pedlary. It was said that while the concept of the pedlar may go back to the 13th century, it is not really compliant with EU directives. I wondered what it would be like to subject the House to such a directive. It is wonderful that we have kept the particularity of our traditions and can speak freely on these matters.

We have just had 5 November and Guy Fawkes’s night. That is an example of statecraft, of an attack on the realm that was turned into great political memory. A link was established between the monarchy, Parliament and Protestantism that has lasted for hundreds of years. It seems to me that we have not grasped how to preserve our memory in this country—how to give flesh to the covenant. The covenant is not a contract. The noble Lord, Lord King, spoke of something sacred in the obligation that we owe. This is the third time I have spoken and the second time that I have spoken on the concept of remembrance. The last time I spoke was about Remembrance Sunday, suggesting, with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend Lord Davies, that we need a day that we can establish a tradition within. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, told a beautiful story about tending the graves of the neglected dead; that could be a beautiful tradition to establish on Remembrance Sunday.

It is also the concept of the generations. I am from a Jewish background: I owe my life to your parents and grandparents. It is not just the people who fought; it is the people who lost family and loved ones, and the way that that has to be endured. They should also be remembered when we think of the defence of the realm. We should have one day a year and use our imaginations as the Tudors and Stuarts used theirs, to create some national memory. Could not schoolchildren visit grandparents? Could not some link be established, so that we can remember our obligations to previous generations and, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, look to the future? If we have no way of remembering the sacrifices, we will lose the memory. Just having a moment of reflection by the cheese counter in Sainsbury’s is not as good as we can do. That is why we should return to the idea of a genuine holiday on Remembrance Sunday, so that we can have a day where we can establish traditions like fireworks night—some way of remembering the sacrifices made in this country and the fact that, alone in the world for a while, we preserved democracy and liberty, against extraordinary odds.

I am something of a radical traditionalist, as some noble Lords may know. I say to the right reverend Prelate that it took a few days for the church to remember what St Paul’s Cathedral meant, but I am very glad that it did. It was completely by chance that the protesters in their tents stumbled upon the site of St Paul’s Cross, the oldest site of democracy in our country, upon which the Corporation of London and this House base our democratic inheritance. It is extraordinary that they discovered it, and now they celebrate it.

This country is a marvel, and it is full of miracles. We need to preserve our institutions and have days and commemorations when we can remember all that is best about our country and that in difficult times we cared for each other, looked out for each other and were prepared to make quiet sacrifices.

I support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, said about the coroner. The matter of the coroner is of concern to grieving families, and just to put it into the accounting system would be too petty.

In remembering people’s sacrifice, we as a House need to be much more imaginative in thinking of a day when we can remember and the sorts of traditions that we want to see. Fireworks night is now a tradition but it was instituted by Members of this House in order to remember the institution of this House. I urge all of us to think of ways in which we could put aside a day and develop traditions whereby we can remember the enormous sacrifices made not merely by the dead but by their loved ones.

15:11

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for his moving opening speech. I echo his words that it is a privilege to speak in a debate of this sort in this House.

My remarks will follow partly in the spirit of my noble friend Lady Flather. I make the point before I start that it is enormously important to acknowledge the varied nature of the sacrifice that has been made in the struggle to maintain freedom in this country, and that full acknowledgment of that is part of ensuring better relations between different groups in our society.

Ireland provides a striking example. I remind noble Lords that in the case of Ireland there was no conscription in either the First World War or Second World War, so all the sacrifice that was made by Irish people of different traditions was entirely voluntary. In the First World War, nearly 135,000 Irishmen volunteered, in addition to the 50,000 who were already serving with the regular Army and in the reserves in August 1914. Within a few weeks of the outbreak of war, no fewer than three Irish divisions—the 10th (Irish), the 16th (Irish) and the 36th (Ulster)—were formed from Irishmen, Catholic and Protestant, who responded to the call to arms. An estimated 35,000 Irish-born soldiers were killed before the armistice in November 1918. Over 4,000 of those died in the 16th Irish Division.

We have grown increasingly free in recent years of that version of the relationship between the two countries in which the only important military event was the Easter Rising, in which 450 people died. I am increasingly aware of the other important context of the sacrifice of Irishmen of both traditions in the First World War. I should add that, in the Second World War, 170,000 Irishmen again volunteered freely in the Allied cause. It is important, and no accident, that the increase in what is called the peace process, but more profoundly in the better relations between the two islands, has been characterised in recent years by an awareness, both in Ireland and in Britain, of the importance of those men and women who gave their lives in the First and Second World Wars. That process culminated in the important visit made by Her Majesty to Dublin earlier this year.

I shall say a few words about the Irish who died in the First World War. The first Member of Parliament to die was Arthur Bruce O’Neill, the Unionist MP for Mid-Antrim, who died within a few weeks of the war starting, on 6 November 1914. He had four children and his wife was expecting another. That other child was Terence O’Neill, who became Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and a Member of this House. I also happily report that another kinswoman of Arthur O’Neill, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, is in her place. This House has intimate connections with the case of the very first Member of Parliament who died in arms in the First World War.

However, this is not a question of unionist sacrifice alone. Several Irish Party MPs joined up in the First World War. One of the most moving moments in that war was the speech made in June 1917 by Captain Willie Redmond, the brother of the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, who had cheated on his age to get in and serve but at the age of 55 spoke to Parliament about what was happening at the Front, in one of the most dramatic speeches in uniform ever given in the other place. He was killed at Messines in 1917. A number of other Irish nationalist MPs—most recently, I think, Stephen Gwynn, who is the subject of a biography published this week by Colin Reid—also served in that war.

These remarks about Ireland, on the importance of acknowledging the importance of mutual sacrifice and the positive role that that has played in recent years, do not apply only to Ireland. That is why the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, were so important. An important book by Shiraz Maher has just been published, Ties that Bind. It reminds us of the sacrifice of Muslims in the First and Second World Wars as they fought alongside the other Imperial and Commonwealth forces. About 65,000 Muslims were killed in Flanders and Mesopotamia alone in the First World War. Similar Muslim sacrifices were recorded in Burma, Italy and north Africa in the Second World War.

The noble Baroness has already referred to the beautiful set of Portland stone gates installed in 2002 on Constitution Hill that acknowledge that sacrifice alongside that of other Commonwealth soldiers. I support the noble Baroness’s words. It is a reasonable request on her part that senior members of the Government should consider attending that place and marking in some way the importance of that sacrifice. She has made a tremendously important point and I support it as strongly as I possibly can.

15:18

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, at this time of national remembrance, I would like to use my time to talk about a national loss of memory, rather than of memory. It is a matter of great concern to me because it involves the greatest single loss of life by any of our fighting forces in any single engagement since, I think, the Battle of Hastings. This also involved: a massive failure on the part of the supporting authorities for the provision of equipment; a total failure of duty of care to the widows and families of the fallen; and the insult of today not even recognising it as a campaign in the official histories of the services. Yet—if one can stretch the point, and I have already apologised in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk—it was important to the defence of this realm, including our laws, reputation and principles of humanitarianism. I am talking about the suppression of the slave trade.

After Wilberforce’s moment of triumph in this House in 1806, there followed a 54-year campaign for suppression. The whole burden fell on the forces of the Navy and the rapidly-developing Marines, who had ceased to be sailing soldiers and at that time were beginning to be proper amphibian forces. Suppressing the slave trade required massive intervention on the waterways surrounding the coast of Africa. There was a terrible lack of accurate intelligence about where they should be and what they should do; and they had no shallow-draught boats with which to fight this battle.

Having won the Battle of Trafalgar, there were no enemies left for the Navy, so nobody was spending any money on it. They were certainly not going to build a fleet of shallow-draught boats to fight with. They were told to take what craft they could get from the southern ports of England, sail out and suppress the slave trade. In the course of doing so, they lost 23,000 people through fatality. For every one killed in battle, another three were lost to the diseases that beset the troops, who had no protection against them.

A total of 23,000 died in a fighting force engaged over 54 years. In doing so, they succeeded in suppressing the slave trade, but they got no help from anybody, least of all from many of the vested interests in Britain. They had to fight in dreadful conditions in shallow water and in villages where local tribes and their leaders wanted the slave trade to continue because they made a fortune. The slavers themselves would wait for the flotillas from England to arrive, then come in behind them and try to attack and kill our forces, because they wanted their vested interest in slavery to continue.

Only after six years did the Navy bother to send out a couple of frigates to try to cure that process, but in the first five years a total of 1,580 flotillas were sent out, of which not one returned intact. The total number of deaths in the first five years alone was just over 11,000. It was an appalling slaughter. Worse still, because it has never been categorised as a campaign, the Admiralty and Government would acknowledge no obligation whatever to the widows and families of the fallen, who became a complete burden on society and were left to drift for the rest of their life—as far as they could eke it out. There was no money spent on equipment and nothing on welfare. If that sounds surprising for 204 years ago, we have a few more recent episodes that could remind us of the same today.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, has invited me to join forces with him in forming a committee to erect a monument to the heroes of that campaign and I have happily agreed to do so. He is committed to raising a statue to Mary Seacole, and I have a commitment to raising one to the warriors of suppressing the slave trade. We will work together to do so, though my only argument with the noble Lord is that Mary Seacole rates seven pages more than Winston Churchill in the history curriculum. I am not sure that that is entirely fair. In contrast, the suppression of the slave trade does not get a single paragraph and that is a disgrace.

As we stand today, we need a statue and I have a clear view in my mind about what it should look like. It should obviously carry the image of a heroic warrior at the front, but behind him I want the bodies of a dead wife and children. It would serve as a great reminder to the generations today of the sacrifice that has to be honoured as an obligation. In the immortal words of Nelson, they are a “bequest to the nation” which we must never fail. I am concerned that we do fail, and I have been delighted to hear the comments made on their behalf today. However, we are still not doing enough and I hope that a statue in those graphic terms might help to advance this cause.

15:23

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord James. He is absolutely right. We have discussed this at some length and I will touch on that in a moment. One thing that I would add, and what is often forgotten about the loss of life, is that in that campaign more than 200,000 slaves were released and often taken back to Africa when possible. So it is a far more important campaign than people realise.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and thank him for the help he has given me on the Arctic convoys, which I will talk about in a moment. What I really want to mention are memorials. We think of them as remembering individuals, as they do and should. However, they are also—this is where my views have changed, or developed, over the past 20 or 30 years—an educational process. They teach us about our history—not just the history of Britain but of the world. I will return to that in a moment. It has been touched on to some extent by others.

I want to mention the Arctic convoys because I frequently go to the west coast of Scotland. I have always known about the Arctic convoys and the dreadful conditions in which sailors from both the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy served. Not only were there constant air and naval attacks on them, but if the ice built up to a certain extent on merchant ships they simply turned over. If your ship turned over in that sea, you would die very quickly. I said that there ought to be a museum since there was not one and many people thought that there should be. I was proud to attend recently the 70th anniversary of the Arctic convoys at Loch Ewe on the west coast. I was delighted to learn that people were now trying to fund a convoy museum. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and my noble friend Lord West, who have both indicated that they will in some way assist, if only in publicity or by lending their names to this group.

Jock Dempster, who is one of the veterans and chairman of the Russian Arctic Convoy Club, was presented with a medal by the Russians who were present. Americans and Canadians were present, as were some of our own people. However, there was very little recognition by the British Government of our involvement in the convoys. There is feeling about that. The Russians cannot understand why we do not remember it. The Russians teach their schoolchildren about the importance of the Arctic convoys. Their children know about it. They also know about it in the Russian ports in the Murmansk area. It is a classic example of an area that we have, somehow or other, allowed to slip from our memory.

There is now a charity that has been set up to build a Russian Arctic convoy museum. If anyone is interested in supporting it, they should look at the website. It is certainly something that I want to support and I have lent my name to it as a patron. It is very important that we remember the Arctic convoys. The charity would also like a medal to be struck for the Arctic convoys. I say to the Minister that I understand the problem of having separate medals for separate parts of a campaign. There is, after all, the Atlantic Star. However, I cannot believe that it is beyond our ability to come up with some additional way to recognise specific campaigns within a larger strategic area, such as the Battle of the Atlantic. The circumstances of the Arctic convoys were quite exceptional and brutal. I ask the Minister to look at ways of recognising that particularly heroic time.

The noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, has anticipated me. I was going to say a bit about the need for something on the slave trade. He talked about the loss of life; I have mentioned the number of slaves who were released. It is important because, as I have said before in this House, it is probably the world’s first example of a humanitarian intervention. As I have also said before in this House, when people rather loosely—and, in my view, foolishly—throw around claims about illegal wars, we must remember that several captains in the Royal Navy were brought before the court, as the noble Lord, Lord James, will know. Appeals were heard in this House, and they were charged with interfering with trade on the high seas and fined for it. That is an indication of how attitudes move. You have to say, “Thank heavens they continued”. That is an interesting aside on our history.

The noble Lord, Lord James, also mentioned the last charity that I want to mention. I declare an interest as unpaid chairman of the Mary Seacole Memorial Statue Appeal, which has been part of my educational process. Back in the 1970s, I was asked by some of the Caribbean people in my then constituency of Hammersmith to help to identify the grave, which had been overgrown, in Kensal Green Cemetery where Mary Seacole was buried. I knew about her background as a Crimean War nurse who was also greatly appreciated in Central America. There were no nurses, as such, then. Florence Nightingale put the nursing profession on the map but it is impossible to see Mary Seacole as anything other than a battlefield nurse. She went out on to the battlefield and looked after the wounded. She was a remarkable woman, who ended up being so popular in the United Kingdom when she returned from the Crimea bankrupt—because she had funded herself by running what was called the British Hotel there—that the troops here held concerts for three days to raise money for her. Troops do not do that unless they have a very positive memory of someone. Yet, by the beginning of the 20th century, Mary Seacole had been forgotten to our history. Both the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who I should thank for being a great supporter of Mary Seacole, recognise that British military history is full of international history, too. The British Indian Army has been mentioned on many occasions; there is Africa and so on. However, the people who alerted me to the grave of Mary Seacole in Kensal Green Cemetery were among the Caribbean people who came over to volunteer in 1939 and very often ended up servicing the anti-aircraft guns. We did not stand alone in 1940, we stood with the empire and dominions behind us and the contribution they made was enormous.

If you walk out into the Royal Gallery, look at Daniel Maclise’s picture of Nelson dying on the flagship and you will see a black sailor pointing up at the Frenchman who shot him. Look to the left of it and you will see what we would then have called Lascar seamen and women tending to the wounded and doing other tasks. The Royal Navy tells me that close to 200 sailors at Trafalgar were of African origin and that 20 per cent of those on Nelson’s flagship were non-British.

The values we defend and fight for are about freedom, democracy and the rule of law and the educational role here of all these things is important. If I succeed in raising funds for the Mary Seacole memorial it will be the first memorial to a black woman in Britain. That is also important. What she did for the military was profoundly important but what she did and still does today in the school curriculum is remind people that our history is not a narrow one, built just in this island alone; it is literally an international history and we rely on that to convey the message about freedom, democracy and the rule of law. I would ask Members to bear this in mind when they look at these charities. They are not just monuments of stone; they are monuments of feeling, of history and of thought.

15:31

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on obtaining this timely and important debate and on his masterly and moving introduction. In the wording of his debate, he has provided a possible let-out for the Government to extract themselves from an unfortunate position with regard to the Armed Forces covenant, to which I shall return.

Tomorrow uniquely, at 11/11/11/11, like many others I shall be remembering the sacrifice made and the recognition of it not only by citizens in the UK but in other parts of the world. I would like to draw attention to four of those places.

One lovely morning in early January in 1966, with the remainder of B Company The Rifle Brigade, I went to pay my last respects to the five members of my company who had died or been killed in Borneo and would not be coming back to the United Kingdom with us, knowing that they would be looked after by the Singaporean gardeners from that incomparable organisation, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This has, in fact, happened.

Moving further west, I sometimes lecture at the battlefield of Gallipoli; a place of terrible beauty but also a place of extraordinary magnanimity which I can illustrate by two of the memorials. One witnessed by Lord Casey, later Governor-General of Australia, of a Turkish soldier carrying in a wounded Australian to the Australian lines. Secondly, a monolith beside that extraordinary Anzac Cove, a strip of sand on which the Anzac Corp was landed in error, containing the words of Kemal Atatürk, president of Turkey, who himself gained fame there.

“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives,

You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country,

Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets,

To us, where they lie side by side, here in this country of ours.

You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries,

Wipe away your tears.

Your sons are now lying in our bosom, and are in peace.

After having lost their lives on this land,

They have become our sons as well.”

They are wonderfully magnanimous words. And then I move further west to Hermanville in Normandy, where every year there is a ceremony, started by the French in 1946, with the 3rd Division which landed there on D-day. After has boat has gone into the sea and thrown out a wreath, and the French flags are lowered, a party led by the mayor and the general march to the village, where they are joined by the schoolchildren. In the cemetery, after the British flags have been lowered, the schoolchildren put flowers on every one of the 3rd Division graves. They have done that since 1946.

Finally, I move further west to Ocracoke Island on the coast of North Carolina, where I once went for a memorable weekend. My wife and I thought we had found a snow storm on the ground, but it was in fact a cloud of snow geese in migration. There, when having breakfast before going fishing, the man running the restaurant said, “Have you come to see our cemetery?”. I asked, “What cemetery?”. There are four graves of sailors from HMS “Bedfordshire”, which was a trawler sunk in May 1942, that are looked after every year by the United States Coast Guard; and Her Majesty the Queen is sending a new British flag this year to mark the anniversary.

Those examples show that our dead are acknowledged and recognised all over the world. The Armed Forces community this year was given a huge boost by the announcement of the Armed Forces covenant—an enduring covenant between the people of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government and all those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and their families. This covenant is based on trust and goodwill. Each of those three partners has obligations. Among those laid on the Government is,

“special treatment for the injured and bereaved, as proper return for their sacrifice”.

The despicable defiance of the covenants by the metal thieves has been referred to by many noble Lords during this debate. However, to me, much more serious is the continued defiance of the covenant by the Government and, in particular, I name the Secretary of State for Justice in his refusal to appoint a chief coroner—as mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Walker, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. There were long-standing complaints about the failure of the coronial system to serve families up until the passing of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which appointed a chief coroner. The campaign was orchestrated by the Royal British Legion and the charity, INQUEST. Since then, despite the fact that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted for the chief coroner, the Secretary of State for Justice has opposed that appointment on grounds of cost. However, the costs he uses are spurious, grossly inflated and have never been compared with the revised proposals made to him. Furthermore, he has produced no supporting documentation or explanatory calculations of cost-benefit analysis. If the costs were as high as he alleges, the Royal British Legion and INQUEST would share his concerns.

I am saying this not just because this is the eve of Remembrance Day, but because I believe that it would be a tragedy if the Armed Forces covenant was discredited before it was introduced. There is great danger of that happening over the issue of the chief coroner. I ask the Minister to say to the Secretary of State for Justice that it is not too late for him to reflect on the devotion of the Singaporean gardeners, the words of Kemal Atatürk, the actions of the schoolchildren in Hermanville and those of the US Coast Guard in Ocracoke. He should draw back before 23 November, recognising the damage that might be done to the trust in the Government’s honouring of the obligation that they owe to those who pay the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of this great realm of ours.

15:39

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and it is a privilege to follow him in this debate, which was so eloquently and movingly introduced by my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas.

When I went to the Printed Paper Office to obtain the list of speakers, I saw that I was the final Member to speak from the Back Benches, and I wondered whether there would be anything left to say. However, as I have listened to every word in this debate, certain themes have come through.

I could not help but reflect, as I listened—particularly to the speeches of my noble friend Lord James and the noble Lord, Lord Soley—on the historic nature of this place. It was in this Chamber that Winston Churchill made almost all of his great wartime speeches, the Chamber of the House of Commons having been destroyed. As he made those speeches, I know that from time to time he looked up at the statues of the Barons of Runnymede, still above us as we speak today. The historical perspective brought to this debate, especially by the speeches of my noble friend Lord James and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, made me realise that although of course we have focused particularly on the sacrifices of the First and Second World Wars, there have throughout the ages been those who have defended the realm and the liberties of Magna Carta, the very foundation of the freedoms that we enjoy in this country today.

One has only to go to the Royal Gallery—the noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about this—to see not only the wonderful Maclise mural of Trafalgar but, opposite it, the mural of Waterloo. In 2015, we shall commemorate not only the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta but the 200th anniversary of Waterloo and, for good measure, the 600th anniversary of Agincourt. That gives a sense of historical perspective and belonging. Throughout our ages, the liberties built on Magna Carta and developed through a gradually evolving free Parliament have had to be defended on the field of battle and on the oceans many times by brave, brave men and, more latterly, by brave, brave women as well. We should also remember, in the context of anniversaries, that 2015 will see the 750th anniversary of the de Montfort Parliament.

All that, I hope, gives us a sense of belonging to an institution which is the ultimate bulwark of our freedoms. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and others have rightly talked about the sacrifices made in more recent conflicts. I shall be, God willing, at a remembrance service in Lincoln Cathedral on Sunday—the first time that I have not been in my little village church in Staffordshire, which I left recently—remembering the fallen. In Lincolnshire, we remember particularly the heroes of the RAF, and we shall be remembering two from the Royal Air Force who have recently given their lives, not in conflict but in perfecting their skills.

All of us have our individual and personal memories, which bring alive to us the sacrifices that we are seeking to underline in this Chamber today. I think of a trunk that I opened when my dear late mother died in 2000 at the age of 90 and discovering for the first time that she lost six of her cousins in the First World War—all of her male cousins, I believe. I think, too, of the services that we have had in the village of Enville, where I lived for well over 35 years, where, every Remembrance Day, the roll of honour is read. The Royal British Legion assembles from Enville and the neighbouring, rather larger village of Kinver, and it takes more than five minutes to read the names of those who fell, a number of them from specific families.

All that, as has been emphasised today in notable speeches by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, and others, underlines the debt that we collectively owe and the obligation that we collectively have. I am so glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, in his place, because he made a brief but moving speech. He referred to one thing that I specifically want to talk about now. Earlier this year, we had a Second Reading of the Remembrance Sunday Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. It is a Bill which I introduced in the House of Commons shortly before I left that House in May last year. I was sad that the then Government obstructed its speedy passage on to the statute book, as I made plain in my speech to this place earlier this year. I was sad, too, that I did not get a more encouraging response from my noble friend who was replying from the Dispatch Box. It seems to me that giving Remembrance Sunday a status equivalent to Christmas Day and Easter Day as a day when the tills stop ringing, when people have a chance to pause and remember, and when, as the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, said, they can be with their families, can do only good. It is a very little thing that we are asking for. It is an extremely modest measure but one that would mean a very great deal to war widows, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lady Fookes spoke so eloquently earlier, and to all those to whom the right reverend Prelate referred. I realise that it is not my noble friend’s departmental responsibility but I advised him that I would be referring to this. I hope that he will be able to give a little encouragement and make at least two people—the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and me—very happy today.

Finally, we have recently touched on the encampment at St Paul’s. I do not want to go into all the details now, as there is not time. There is not a Member in this House who does not defend the right to free speech and free protest, but I say this to those encamped at St Paul’s. Remembrance Sunday is but three days away. Remember that you are not there because of your own actions; you have the freedom to be there because of what generations of men and women have done in the service of their country. Therefore, I hope that, if you cannot pack up your tents and go—which is something that I should like to see—you will at least watch reverently and attentively and do nothing to disturb the solemnity of the day.

15:47

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to all the very wise words that have been spoken in all the speeches and I agree with much of what has been said. I have been wondering whether, at my great age of 89, I am the only person in this Chamber who was alive and had a job during the time that we have in mind.

I should like to pay a heartfelt tribute and express immense gratitude to the staff of the Royal Star & Garter home who looked after my wounded husband until his death. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Their work, thank goodness, continues.

Perhaps I may also mention members of the Home Guard. I particularly do so because my father, who won an MC in the First World War, commanded the Marylebone branch, which included the BBC, Harley Street, Oxford Street and the Windmill Theatre.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Trumpington]

Noble Lords may well laugh—they have very good reason to do so. My mother used to go away for one night during the year. Now your Lordships have ruined my entire speech.

The Marylebone area was very heavily bombed and many of my father’s comrades were casualties. Indeed, there were casualties among the Home Guard throughout the war. Its members did a wonderful job; they were brave men.

15:50

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, thanks have already been expressed a number of times to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for his opening contribution. Nevertheless, I still wish to take this opportunity to add my own. It is only appropriate that we should be having this debate close to Remembrance Sunday, which the nation observes in the middle of this month because it was on 11 November 1918 that the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and my noble friend Lord Soley have quite rightly reminded us that it was not just British military personnel who have made such sacrifices on our behalf over the years.

Remembrance Day enables us to commemorate in a very visible and dignified manner the sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, made in our name by our Armed Forces, both in years gone by and currently by those on active service at home and abroad. In your Lordships’ House, we admire their commitment, their patriotism and their courage, just as do the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. That feeling is reflected, as has already been said, by, for example, the people of Royal Wootton Bassett and in another way by the determination of the Football Association to ensure that the England team should be able to wear poppies during their match this weekend. This feeling is not reflected in the sickening actions of a handful of people who think it appropriate to strip the metal plates from war memorials with the names of those who have given their lives. I share the hope expressed by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, that action—if necessary new legislation—will be taken very soon to assist in bringing this despicable practice to an end. This practice is particularly abhorrent to the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group, which does such important and invaluable work in remembering those who have fallen by promoting and supporting the protection, conservation and interpretation of war graves, war memorials and battle sites.

We know that other countries are planning to commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of the First World War. I hope that the Government will also be commemorating the centenary in an appropriate and fulsome manner which reflects the significance of the Great War in the history of our nation and the enormous sacrifice that was made by so many. In that regard, I welcome the appointment of Dr Andrew Murrison MP as the Prime Minister’s co-ordinator of the centenary commemoration.

We tend even today to think in terms of men when we talk about the courage and commitment of our Armed Forces. We do not always recognise the major role that women play and have played in the service of our country, a point of which we were reminded in a debate in your Lordships’ House last June initiated by my noble friend Lady Crawley. She asked what steps the Government were taking to recognise the contribution made by women put on active service by the Special Operations Executive in the Second World War. As my noble friend said in that debate, and as the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, reiterated today, the women concerned served in occupied France, acting as couriers, wireless operators and saboteurs, working with the resistance movements to disrupt the occupation and clear the path for the allied advance. Needless to say, many of these brave women never returned. For that reason alone, they must never be forgotten.

In the past day or so, we have read in the press about an apparent suicide pact between an Army veteran and his wife who, among other things, were, it appears, struggling financially with very little to live on. Something in that case—for whatever reason—would appear to have gone tragically wrong. However, that is not the norm. We should recognise the contribution being made by many local authorities in the developing community covenants. The service charities also do tremendous work and it is only right that we should express our thanks to them for their work not only in supporting our veterans and their families—not least with the difficult adjustment that some find making the transition back into civilian life—but also for the support they provide for the men and women of today’s Armed Forces.

The welfare of our Armed Forces, as well as the adequate equipping and training of our Armed Forces, is of paramount importance. The previous Government published a Service Personnel Command Paper which was the first cross-governmental strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel, putting the welfare of our Armed Forces as a mainstream policy commitment through all government departments. Among other things, it doubled compensation payments for the most serious injuries; it doubled the welfare grant for the families of those on operations; and, since housing is an issue that has been mentioned today, it led to increased investment in service accommodation. We now have, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion and a political row, the military covenant enshrined in law to ensure that no disadvantage arises from service. I do not doubt that it is the Government’s intention to seek to adhere to the principles of the military covenant, but it will be through their actions, not their intentions, that they will be judged.

There are three issues to which I should like to refer and which I hope the Government will address. The first concerns the Office of the Chief Coroner, to which a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Glasman, have already referred. The office of the chief coroner has been legislated for, yet it is being abolished by the Government. The Government say that they are concerned about the cost, but arguments that it can be implemented at lower cost have been consistently and resolutely ignored. All bereaved families, and not least bereaved service families, deserve an expert independent coronial system at the most difficult time.

In a letter some 10 days ago to the Minister concerned, the Royal British Legion said that it was mystified by some statements that he had made in the other place some three days earlier. The letter went on to say:

“At this poignant time of year when the Nation pauses to remember, it seems incredible that the Ministry of Justice should be in such a determined rush to take away from those brave families the support they desperately need and so deserve—the Chief Coroner which Parliament, with cross-party support, promised them less than two years ago”.

The Royal British Legion regards this issue of the office of the chief coroner as,

“the first big test of the Armed Forces Covenant since it was written into law and a very important opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant”.

The Royal British Legion is right.

The second issue is military pensions, which have already been referred to by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. The permanent change to a lower rate of indexation will significantly reduce the value of pensions for soldiers and war widows. This year-on-year change will disproportionately affect service personnel because they rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else. According to the Forces Pension Society, a corporal who has lost both legs will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. A 34 year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would be almost £750,000 worse off over her lifetime. These are big figures, and this is a change which does not just apply to the current period of deficit reduction but will continue to apply permanently, stretching way beyond the period of deficit reduction.

The third issue relates to cuts in personnel. In October 2010, when the SDSR was published, we were told that 17,000 personnel would have to go across the three services. As of July 2011, however, we were told that 22,000 would have to go. We need to end the uncertainty about the future size of our Armed Forces and we need to know exactly how many redundancies there will be and where. Uncertainty over cuts and the threat of redundancy does not help morale, and service personnel deserve clear answers to enable them to plan for their own and their families’ futures.

Service personnel make many sacrifices, as my noble friend Lord Parekh pointed out. They are often separated from their families for long periods. They often work in extremely dangerous conditions and situations, risking their lives or facing the prospect of suffering life-changing injuries whether physical or mental. Neither are they able to have the same political or contractual rights that apply in other occupations. For those reasons, they should not be treated like other public sector workers but instead deserve special recognition.

Our nation comes together at this time of year in particular to show its respect and solidarity for and with those who serve and have served, and in particular those who have sacrificed their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, has also given your Lordships’ House the opportunity to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that today’s debate, which I know will be further enhanced by the Minister’s speech, has achieved the objective for which he hoped.

16:00

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)]

My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on proposing this debate and on his very moving speech.

Tomorrow, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month—and, for the first time, of the 11th year—we shall mark the moment when the guns fell silent at the end of the First World War. I wonder whether our forebears, when they first introduced this mark of respect in 1919, believed that it would last this long, or that a second world war and countless other smaller conflicts would be added to the ledger of remembrance. Indeed, it is hard for us to put ourselves in their place—not just to grasp the sheer horror of the conflict which had just ended, but to appreciate their hope that they had at least witnessed the war to end all wars.

The last survivors of the trenches have passed away, and we know to our cost that war continues to tear nations and families apart. Yet I believe that we still feel a connection to those who fought in the Great War, not because we watch episodes of “Downton Abbey”, but because every family in the land was affected by the conflict. It was truly the nation at war.

Remembrance Day is not just about the First World War, nor even about the two world wars. It marks the loss and debt we feel to all those who have died in the service of their country. Sadly, since the last time the guns fired to mark Remembrance Sunday, we have lost 35 brave personnel in Afghanistan. The world has changed enormously since the trenches of the First World War, and so has this country, and so have its Armed Forces.

What have not changed are the spirit and dedication which characterise our soldiers, sailors and airmen in all that they undertake. This past year, in Afghanistan and over Libya, countering piracy in the Indian Ocean or even walking to the North Pole, they have again acted with courage, professionalism and commitment, and I pay tribute to them.

Remembrance unites our country. The ceremonies at the Cenotaph are impressive and moving, bringing together Her Majesty the Queen and members of the Royal Family, the heads of the political parties, military leaders and Commonwealth ambassadors with thousands of the men and women who took part in the conflicts of the recent and more distant past.

That is only a part of what is happening. Up and down the nation, ceremonies will be taking place and wreaths will be laid, to commemorate local sacrifices and local heroes. In Afghanistan, services will be held, to remember not only the many who have given their lives in the past, but friends and colleagues whose memory is still very real. From the youngest recruit to the oldest veteran, their faces will show the mixture of sadness and pride that sums up the spirit of these ceremonies: sadness that they gave their lives, but pride that they did so in the performance of their duty and in the service of their country.

The poppy is the enduring symbol of this act of remembrance. It symbolises hope as well as memory. Every poppy seller, and every poppy buyer, is doing their bit to ensure that we remember the sacrifices our Armed Forces have made to make a better world, and that we do not forget. This is the season when the work of the Royal British Legion is particularly prominent, but that vital work carries on, every day of the year, to support the living.

The legion and its fellow service and ex-service charities are the channel through which the people of this country express their gratitude and respect for the men and women who have fought for them. The volunteers who form the backbone of these charities deserve our special thanks at this time of year.

As my noble friend Lord Selkirk points out, remembrance of sacrifice is not some optional extra, which is a good thing to do, if we have time. It is a debt, an obligation on all of us, whatever our age and whatever our political persuasion. That is why it is so repulsive to read of war memorials being vandalised to sell for scrap metal. A number of noble Lords mentioned this, including my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—to whom I pay tribute for the really important work he does as chairman of the War Heritage Group—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, and my noble friend Lord Lee. In responding to this issue, I can do no more than repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the other place on 2 November:

“We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan to deal with this, which will involve looking again at the whole regulation of scrap metal dealers. We are determined to do that to put a stop to this appalling crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 918.]

My noble friend Lord Lee made an excellent suggestion that schools might adopt their local war memorials. As part of their service to the community, members of all Ministry of Defence-sponsored cadet forces are being encouraged to take part in the In Memoriam 2014 project. This involves the locating and logging of the thousands of war memorials across the United Kingdom and marking then with smart water, which enables the metal components to be forensically tracked should they be stolen. It is therefore both helping to tackle the problem and raising awareness of the sacrifices that have been made.

It is also objectionable when groups seek to exploit this solemn occasion to further their own agendas. That is why it is so distressing to read of thoughtless actions, which lead to poppy sellers being treated as a nuisance or a health and safety hazard.

I will say a little about what the Government have done to honour the debt. It takes many forms, but starts from the moment that those who have given their lives arrive back in the UK. This year has seen the return of repatriation flights to RAF Brize Norton, after several years of flying in to RAF Lyneham. During those years, we have seen something quite extraordinary, as the people of Wootton Bassett have come together to show respect for the fallen, in a dignified and solemn way. They never looked for any recognition. However, I was delighted that Her Majesty the Queen was pleased to bestow the title of Royal Wootton Bassett on the town, as a permanent reminder of when it stood for all of us.

The example set by the people of Wootton Bassett placed a spotlight on the new arrangements for RAF Brize Norton. Quite rightly, the nation was concerned that we should get this right. I believe that we have done so. The new purpose-built facilities on the base give the deceased and their families the dignity they deserve. Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames Valley Police have sought to ensure that the route which the hearse takes after it leaves Brize Norton is both suitable for the cortege and gives an opportunity for members of the public to pay their own tribute.

Today will see the repatriation of Private Matthew Haseldin, who was tragically killed in Afghanistan last week. I know that he will be given all suitable marks of respect.

Each death leaves behind a grieving family. Another part of our debt to the fallen is that we should support their loved ones to the best of our ability. Last month, when your Lordships were debating the Armed Forces Bill, we recognised the importance of the inquest process as part of that support. The inquest has a crucial role to play in helping families understand what has happened and perhaps in helping them to come to terms with it. The Ministry of Defence will continue to work with coroners and families to make inquests as effective and valuable as possible. As your Lordships know, the Secretary of State is now under an obligation to cover this topic in his annual Armed Forces covenant report.

Several noble Lords have mentioned the position of the chief coroner. This will of course be debated in this House on 23 November. However, I can address the nugget put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. The Government are clear that urgent reform is required to ensure that the coronial system offers a much better service to the bereaved families of service personnel. That is why we are ensuring that coroners conducting military inquests can access proper, specialist military training and that inquests can be transferred to locations close to the homes of bereaved families. We are also introducing a new charter to set out the clear, enforceable standards that everyone should expect at an inquest. We are appointing a Minister, supported by representative bereaved families, to be in charge of driving and monitoring these much needed changes.

The inquest should and does help bereaved families to come to terms with their grief, but the loss that they have suffered is permanent, with the greatest impact perhaps on children. That is why it is so important that we have introduced scholarships for the children of those who die in active service to enable them to go on to further and higher education.

Honouring the debt to the fallen is the sum total of a host of small actions. It is honoured when SSAFA organises support groups for the bereaved. It is honoured when regimental associations make sure that they keep in touch with the families of the deceased. It is honoured when the Ministry of Defence and other agencies of the Government conduct their dealings in a sensitive and respectful fashion.

Last week the Armed Forces Act 2011 received Royal Assent, and the Armed Forces covenant is recognised in law for the first time. It has signalled the Government’s determination to rebuild the covenant. The debt that we owe to the fallen is an important part of that wider moral obligation to recognise what our Armed Forces do for us, and we will not neglect it.

In this debate about remembrance, it is fitting that I should again draw attention to the contributions of the War Widows Association, as many other noble Lords have done. Of course, my noble friend Lady Fookes is president of the association and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is vice-president. We had an opportunity to debate its work on its 40th anniversary on 8 June. It campaigns tirelessly and effectively for the widows and widowers of all conflicts, who occupy a special place in our thoughts. I am always impressed by how those who have suffered such a tragic loss are able to turn that loss into such a positive force for good, and I pay tribute to them.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, paid tribute to the work of Help for Heroes, and I echo what he said. My noble friend Lady Fookes pointed out the wonderful work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. My noble friend Lady Trumpington paid tribute to the Star and Garter and the Home Guard. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made a very eloquent speech about the contribution of Indian troops in both world wars. I assure her that we shall always remember the millions of Indian soldiers who supported us. I was very honoured to represent the Prime Minister last night at the remembrance meeting of Indian soldiers killed in both world wars, and to lay a wreath at the annual ceremony at the memorial gates on Constitution Hill that the noble Baroness did so much to make possible. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, spoke movingly of the contribution in both world wars of the Irish, from all backgrounds.

My noble friend Lord Lee asked whether the Royal British Legion visits schools and can sell poppies. I understand that the Royal British Legion is active in a number of ways to engage with children and schools on remembrance issues. For example, it produces a learning pack that schools can download from its website. It also offers specialist tours to battlefields and cemeteries and its members visit schools.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, asked about the appointment of Dr Murrison, which he welcomed. My honourable friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, Dr Murrison, will act as the Prime Minister’s special representative and co-ordinator for events commemorating World War I. We are aware that a number of Governments, including France, Belgium and, most notably, Australia, are quite well advanced in their thinking. As our own plans develop, we will ensure the proper engagement of all interested parties in the UK and overseas. I very much look forward to keeping in touch with the noble Lord on this important issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who of course is a commissioner of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the FIFA compromise to let England wear poppies on their armbands on Saturday, which we feel is a very sensible way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also asked about ID cards. We are working to incorporate a veterans card as part of a new contract for the defence discount scheme. Rollout is planned during next year, but I should make it clear that these will not be formal identity cards.

My noble friend Lord Lee mentioned the National Memorial Arboretum. There is no intention to reduce the current MoD grant in aid to the arboretum. Although it is independent of the Government, we provide it with a grant in aid to defray the costs of maintaining it as a place of national importance of commemoration.

My noble friend Lord Cormack, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, in, if I may say, an excellent speech, raised the Bill to extend Christmas Day and Easter Day restrictions to Remembrance Sunday. I can assure my noble friend that we are consulting with other departments on this issue and within the department.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about the Arctic convoy medal. The Government have agreed that there should be a fresh review of the rules governing the award of military medals. This will be conducted by an independent reviewer with full consultation with interested parties. The scope of the review and who is to lead it are expected to be announced shortly. This will include the issues surrounding Arctic convoy veterans.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, raised Armed Forces pensions. Specific proposals from the Armed Forces have not yet been formulated. Consequently, it is too early to inform service personnel of what the changes will mean for individuals. It is clear that a new pension scheme must be acceptable to service personnel, highly competitive in relation to other schemes in recognition of the unique commitment of the Armed Forces, retention positive in pulling personnel through to key career points and aligned with the development of the new employment model.

On the third point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, personnel preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations, such as Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, will be exempt from selection for redundancy unless they apply for it.

Concerns have been expressed by noble Lords about the position of widows who lose their pension on remarriage or cohabitation because they fall into the gap between 1973 and 2005. This reflects the fact that pensions paid to widows under the 1975 Armed Forces pension scheme, where the death was not due to service, cease upon remarriage or cohabitation. This is not the case for survivors’ pensions paid under the 2005 scheme, which are paid for life. I fully understand why this difference appears to be unfair. Nevertheless, successive Governments have maintained the principle that improvements to public service pensions should not be applied retrospectively. Addressing one issue would increase the pressure to address the legacy issues in all public sector pension schemes. This would have huge financial implications and is simply unaffordable.

I am running out of time, but I will address all those other questions I have been asked in the form of a letter.

Remembrance is not just about passive contemplation or private grief. It is about public action—action to look after the living who have suffered as a result of sacrifice, action to ensure that our young people understand their history, action to treasure the values which so many have fought and died for. In the moment of calm when the minute’s silence falls across the nation tomorrow, we should all bear that in mind.

16:21

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving reassurances on many of the subjects which have been raised today, particularly that the matter of the desecration of war memorials will be followed up with vigour in due course.

On the issue of protecting a war widow’s pension, I sense that the mood of the House is very sympathetic to the Minister doing everything he can within the framework of what is possible. On the chief coroner question, it might be a great help if the attention of the relevant Secretary of State could be drawn to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who made an excellent speech, I very much hope that the memorial gates at Hyde Park Corner commemorate appropriately all those from India who played such a role in the last century—India being the world’s largest democracy today.

The suppression of the slave trade, which the noble Lord, Lord James, spoke about, went on for a very long time. When I was a small boy, I was told that my grandfather, who was a midshipman, had to play a very small role in that. I think that story should be better known because the British and the Commonwealth have been involved in humanitarian projects and objectives on many occasions in the past.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley spoke very well about the commemoration of the Arctic convoys, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on the need for a memorial for RAF Bomber Command, which I hope will be opened before very long.

Remembrance is very important for the families of all those who fell in battle. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched upon the role of women. The best way I can illustrate the importance of remembrance is by quoting a very few words claimed to have been used by Leo Marks to contact Violette Szabo, to whom I have already paid tribute, in a wartime code. Violette Szabo’s husband Etienne had been killed during the battle for El Alamein. Violette herself later worked behind enemy lines. In the film “Carve her Name with Pride”, the words were used to symbolise the wartime love and loss experienced by a warrior for a married partner who had been killed. It is really remarkable for its shortness and simplicity. It reads as follows:

“The life that I have

Is all that I have

And the life that I have

Is yours.

The love that I have

Of the life that I have

Is yours and yours and yours.

A sleep I shall have,

A rest I shall have

Yet death will be but a pause

For the peace of my years

In the long green grass

Will be yours and yours

And yours”.

Motion agreed.

EUC Report: Grass-roots Sport

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:25

Moved By

[Baroness Young of Hornsey]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Grassroots Sport and the European Union (16th Report, HL Paper 130)

[Baroness Young of Hornsey]

My Lords, as London and the UK gear up for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and with the EU year of active ageing rapidly approaching, the publication of the EU Committee’s report, Grassroots Sport and the European Union, makes this debate timely. When the Social Policies and Consumer Protection EU Sub-Committee, which I chair, began its inquiry at the beginning of this year, it was not immediately obvious to all of us that the EU had any specific locus in the sporting arena. Your Lordships may be aware, however, that the Lisbon treaty, which entered into force at the end of 2009, granted the EU a formal competence in the field of sport for the first time. This now permits the EU to support, co-ordinate and complement the actions of member states, which retain primary responsibility for sports policy. To this end, the Commission published a communication on developing the European dimension in sport on 18 January 2011. It was this document that prompted us to conduct the inquiry.

The report considered how the new competence could best be used to support grass-roots sport by extending the benefits of participation to individuals, teams and communities. It focused on grass roots rather than on professional sport in light of the fact that one of the reasons for developing an EU sports policy and therefore introducing a competence was recognition of the social significance of sport. While it is fair to say that there was a degree of scepticism among some members of the committee at the start of the inquiry, we heard powerful evidence from a range of stakeholders that convinced the committee at an early stage that sport can make a valuable contribution to policy areas in which the EU has a stake. For example, we heard from volunteers of Street Games who run sports projects in disadvantaged communities where they have reduced anti-social behaviour and brought together diverse or fragmented communities. As part of its inquiry, the committee visited Swiss Cottage School in Camden to learn first hand how disabled children and young people in the area are benefiting from being involved in grass-roots sports. In addition, we heard about projects that are helping people into education, employment and training by developing skills such as team work, as well as confidence, and other initiatives that aim to reduce social isolation among elderly and migrant communities.

Sport alone will obviously not solve these complex social problems, but the committee became convinced that it is a powerful tool which policy-makers should use. The committee’s report recommends ways in which the EU and the UK can exploit the full potential offered by a sport through mainstreaming it into their policy-making and using it to deliver their objectives in a broad range of areas, including health, education, social inclusion and equalities. Increasing the participation of underrepresented groups such as older people, the unemployed, disabled people, migrant communities and other disadvantaged groups, should be a particular priority, as well as recognising the importance of recruiting and retaining volunteers.

The EU can also affect sport in a number of less obvious ways, and it is here that the committee considered that the new competence could be particularly helpful in ensuring that sport is taken into account. For example, EU legislation on the single market and intellectual property can ultimately affect the amount of money available for grass-roots sports projects. Our reports suggested ways in which the EU can avoid placing unnecessary regulatory or legislative burdens on sport, particularly when they affect volunteers, who are essential to grass-roots activity. In this respect, we recommended a review of EU legislation by the Commission, similar to that recently undertaken in the UK to identify regulatory burdens and ideally remove them in due course.

Although there have been signs that the Commission is starting to integrate sport into policy-making and funding programmes, we did not consider that it was taking place consistently enough. We considered that the EU could adopt a more focused role through the Commission’s sport unit in making a more compelling case for the integration of sport in a wider range of policy initiatives. This could be effected through data collection and research, for example, particularly with regard to the evidence base for the social outcomes that sport can facilitate, through improving mechanisms by which member states and grass-roots organisations can share best practice, making funding available through truly transnational projects via a dedicated sports programme and through recognising that more general EU funding streams, such as the structural funds, can also offer significant potential to grass-roots sports. While we accept that resources for any funding streams specific to sport are likely to be small, we are still hopeful that the matter will receive the attention that it deserves during the current negotiations in Brussels regarding the next multi-annual financial framework for the period 2014-20.

The redistributed revenues from the broadcasting of professional sport also provide a significant source of funding for grass-roots sport. The treaty now allows for the specific nature of sport to be taken into account in the assessment of commercial arrangements, such as collective selling and territoriality, that had previously come under scrutiny for their compliance with EU competition and internal market legislation. We welcome the Commission’s recognition of the benefits to be derived from collective selling. However, the uncertainty over what the specific nature of sport entails has been a long-standing concern of stakeholders.

Your Lordships may be aware that this matter received media coverage last month as a result of court action taken by a UK publican, Karen Murphy, who has been fighting for the right to air Premier League games using a Greek TV decoder. The European Court of Justice, which took note of the new article in the treaty and the requirement to recognise the specificity of sport, ruled that national laws which prohibited the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards were contrary to the freedom to provide service. While not providing an absolute green light for publicans across the land, especially regarding copyright issues, this decision could nevertheless have major implications for the Premier League and lead to cheaper viewing arrangements for foreign broadcasts. The implications for the funding of grass-roots sport from broadcasting revenues are far from clear, particularly as lower subscriptions may, of course, increase the volume of subscribers.

Digital piracy of sporting events is another issue of increasing concern, and our report recommended that sport be included in the Commission’s work on the digital agenda. Similarly, we recommended that any work resulting from the Commission’s Green Paper on online gambling takes sport into account. We heard divergent evidence on whether the gambling industry should be required to pay a fair return for the use of sport’s intellectual property. This is a complex issue, and we recommended that the Government and the Commission analyse the French levy and consult more widely on the issue.

Lastly, we concluded that the Commission needed to do more to ensure that the voice of grass-roots sport is sufficiently heard. Dialogue between the Commission and sports stakeholders is currently dominated by professional sport, particularly football, and is therefore not truly representative. Our report recommended that the Commission should put in place enhanced measures to inform grass-roots organisations about work being undertaken at the EU level and the opportunities available to them. The EU Sports Platform, as chaired by the ex-Taoiseach John Bruton, should help with this.

We also suggested ways in which the EU working groups, which progress many of the EU’s initiatives in this area, could be more productive and focused, including making use of smaller grass-roots organisations with expertise in specific areas where appropriate. In the UK context, we considered that Sport Northern Ireland, sportscotland and Sport Wales should be invited to join the DCMS EU Sport Stakeholder Group, which is currently only attended by Sport England.

Hugh Robertson MP, Minister for Sport and the Olympics, wrote to us on 22 May this year to set out the Government’s response. There is clearly a lot of common ground between our views and those of the Government on the issues we dealt with in the report. We welcome in particular their commitment to ensuring that the contribution of sport to other EU policy areas, including the Europe 2020 objectives, is recognised in the work plan for sport for 2011-14, as well as being mainstream throughout the EU’s broader activities. We also welcome their commitment to increased participation, including through volunteering, and in line with their London 2012 Singapore promise across government departments and building on their existing engagement with the devolved Administrations.

The Government were less persuaded of the committee’s recommendation to establish an EU sport programme as a specific funding stream under the next multi-annual financial framework, which we note does not form part of the Commission’s recent proposals in this respect. However, the Government did support the committee’s recommendation that sport should be mainstreamed through other funding instruments, including the structural funds, and they undertook to promote such opportunities to the UK sports bodies. However, the Government did not indicate whether that policy would be integrated into the UK’s negotiation stance in the next round of structural funds. We look to the Minister to tell us more about the Government’s intentions in that regard.

The Government also supported the committee’s recommendations on the need to address the digital piracy of sporting events in work on the digital agenda, as well as accepting the committee’s conclusion that too often EU legislation in unrelated areas unintentionally adversely impacts upon sport, particularly on volunteers. They also accept that there needs to be better vigilance and better use made of the impact assessment process. The EU’s impact on grass-roots sport would surely pass unnoticed without adequate dialogue between the Commission and the sports organisations on the ground. In this respect, the Government support our recommendations on the need for such dialogue to be more representative and outcome-based and for the Commission to communicate better, particularly to smaller organisations, the opportunities available to them at EU level.

We also received a response to our report from the European Commission in September this year. We were encouraged to read that the Commission was largely supportive of our report’s conclusions and recommendations, although it also suggested that financial constraints may prevent certain measures being adopted to improve dialogue between it and sports organisations.

The committee understands that the Council will adopt further conclusions on the role of voluntary activities in sport in promoting active citizenship and, in the wake of the recent international cricketing no-ball controversy, on combating match-fixing and promoting good governance in sport more generally. In similar vein, the Commission is currently developing its approach to online gambling following the publication of its Green Paper, and the committee will look forward to considering any proposals that may result from that process.

Since the responses from the Government and Commission were received, I have also had the pleasure of giving an address about our report to a conference in London that was organised by one of our main witnesses during the inquiry, the Sport and Recreation Alliance. The Commission and the European Parliament were also involved in that event, so it provided an excellent opportunity to make the committee’s views known on this matter.

I hope that my remarks today have demonstrated that the EU’s new competence potentially offers real benefit to sport and the millions of people who enjoy participating in it across Europe. The committee is hopeful that the competence will be used to ensure that even more people can reap the benefits of doing so, and we expect that the EU’s work in this area will only develop further over time. As sport is truly international, it seemed only reasonable that the EU should have a strong role in that context, as long as grass-roots activities at the local level continue to receive the support that they require and deserve. In that respect, we are hopeful that the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London and the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow will provide a lasting sporting legacy without taking much needed funds away from grass-roots sports. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords, and of course from the Minister on behalf of the Government, regarding this important matter. I beg to move.

16:38

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, this is a fascinating report and a particularly worthwhile subject to investigate. Sub-Committee G has produced a paper to the expected high standard, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. I should add that while I am a member of the committee now, I was not in place during the course of the report.

The committee has looked at a subject that requires, and has been given, in-depth investigation. I look forward to the response from the Minister, particularly in response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The European Union has the ability to develop and make a difference to the success of grass-roots sport. It will be able to integrate sport into policy-making and funding streams and to encourage more member states to improve their own performance, both on the playing fields and in letting grass-roots sport thrive.

The great benefits of grass-roots sport and taking part stand repetition. As the noble Baroness mentioned, sport is good for health and education. With regard to health, as we all know, we are in the midst of a massive obesity epidemic in this country that is creating a population with a high incidence of type 2 diabetes. This, I might add, is costing the British taxpayer almost £1 million an hour. I am not, of course, saying that grass-roots sport is a cure-all for all things obese, but it can certainly help. I also mentioned education. There is the physical side, including fitness and skills, and there are the social skills. Something that is often forgotten in competitive sport is that playing as part of a team is a great thing for the young of this country to take part in.

We cannot look at grass-roots sport without also looking at major sporting events. It would be difficult for one to exist without the other. Major events rely on the grass roots to buy tickets, shirts, scarves and other goods; and to watch pay-to-view terrestrial or satellite television. The grass roots also rely on funding gained from these major events. This is particularly poignant at the moment when we look at the enormous sums of money that have been mentioned in some sports, such as salaries and transfer fees. Money can trickle down to grass-roots events. The holy grail, though, is the sporting legacy from these major events. This is also the basis on which competing nations have won the right to hold events such as a world cup, championship or the Olympic Games. This is an area that appears to be difficult to achieve; therefore co-oordination from the European Union can possibly help to extend this sporting legacy further.

A study from the University of Kent was highlighted in the Guardian about six months ago. It looked at the sporting legacy from the Greek Games held in 2004. It found that there was a short-lived boost in sporting activity of 6 per cent in 2003-04. Five years later this dropped by 13 per cent. What made this more depressing was that over the same time Greece won the European football championship, so there was a big push on sport in that country. The legacy is not there now. The data and the study show that a broader strategy on active lifestyles must be implemented when these major events take place. I hope that the European Union will help to put that in place. This of course can be implemented on a pan-European basis.

Two countries with a sporting heritage, admittedly outside the European Union, are Australia and New Zealand. Australia held the Sydney Olympic Games, which were another successful major event. Once again, no noticeable legacy was found. More recently, we have had the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. We have yet to see what the sporting legacy will be from that, but in a country of 4 million, with every one of them wearing an All Black shirt, there were 120,000 visitors to the country and 1 million tickets were sold.

When the Rugby World Cup comes to England in 2015, I understand that we aim to sell 3 million tickets. Let us hope that it will produce a pan-European sporting legacy and stretch even further and be long-lasting. By then, I hope, a number of European countries will play in that World Cup.

So now we look to 2012 and how the sporting legacy will be achieved. We have the capital projects, the creation and improvement of stadia that will be used for the event, and the upgrading of thousands of local sports clubs and facilities. We should also not forget the protection and improving of sports fields across the country. These will have a long-lasting use after the event has ended, but we must ensure the legacy also brings more people to take part in sport.

The European Union has the opportunity to co-ordinate and to oversee progress. However, I make a sincere plea, along with the noble Baroness, not to overregulate areas where it is not required. This is so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

16:45

[Baroness Billingham]

My Lords, the European Union Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are to be warmly congratulated on producing this excellent report. Not only does it inform and update us on the role of sport in the EU, but it points the way to the future, where grass-roots sport can take its place at the centre of people’s lives.

It is a particular pleasure for me to talk about sport in such a context. In the 1990s, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I wrote and spoke constantly of the need to reflect the importance of sport in member states, and urged the Commission to provide legislation to reflect that. I was secretary and, later, president of the European all-party committee on sport, which undertook numerous reports and hearings that provided an opportunity for important debates. None was more so than when a Belgian footballer made his way to my office in Brussels to explain his predicament and his dispute with the football club for which he played. I almost said “which owned him”, since that was the nub of the case.

Little did I realise at that first meeting that the Bosman case, as it became known, would have such a fundamental effect, not only on football but on all professional sport. It changed for ever the rights and entitlements of individual players. I well remember telling the player that his case, within the existing legislation of the single market, was strong. I urged him to take it forward; he did and the rest is sporting history. Despite this and other controversial cases, the Commission refused to incorporate sport into EU legislation. Therefore, its inclusion in the most recent treaty—the Lisbon treaty—is welcome, if long overdue; sport is now recognised.

As with many good ideas, timing is everything. With economic chaos across Europe, the likelihood of generous funding—a strong, separate budget line—would appear to be a forlorn hope. What is to be achieved in the current situation? The report gives us good pointers. It reminds us of the scope of sport within society, notably in health, social and educational spheres. It highlights the role of volunteering, which is so crucial to both professional and amateur sport, and asks for recognition of this. Here in the UK we are focusing on volunteering in the build-up to the 2012 Olympics. Thousands of people have already signed up, with many more to follow.

By taking evidence from a wide range of sources, the EU Committee provides us with an excellent overview of where we are now and where we can be in the future. Not only does it look at the implications of the single market, it focuses strongly on intellectual property rights—all of which is aimed at protecting sport from negative factors and promoting good practice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the failure to take sport into account in the formation of legislation has caused significant problems.

What, in reality, can we hope for in the future? The Commission is now a paid-up member of the sports lobby, promising to include sport in all future policy areas and quite rightly granting it its proper status. The benefits for member states are highlighted in the EU work plan for sport. With better EU data collection, member states will be able to measure themselves against others. There are huge discrepancies, so the comparative performance data will enable member states to learn from each other, stimulating Governments to match up, either through better funding or better structures. No sporting body ever wants to be at the bottom of the league table.

The breadth and sources of submissions to the EU Committee are impressive. The Sport and Recreation Alliance made a strong case for the benefits of participation and the active notion of sport for all ages and standards, which is of course the hallmark of grass-roots sport. It also reminded us that sport and physical activity have a positive impact on educational attainment—a fact which sadly seems to have eluded Mr Gove with his dispiriting educational proposals. The point was strongly made that sport must be mainstreamed in structural funds if disadvantaged and unrepresented groups are to be helped.

Sport England highlighted a number of concerns, not least the sadly small number of women participating in sport compared to the number of men. Oh, for some form of Title IX across Europe—the USA really did get that right in the 1980s and Europe should be encouraged to follow suit.

My suggestion for enhancing sport in an economic downturn is based on co-operation. My inspiration comes from comedian and writer Tony Hawks, a committed and, indeed, good tennis player, who for the past seven years has founded and promoted Tennis For Free. For most of that time I have encouraged and supported him and lobbied for him with the LTA and with governments, until recently with scant success. His formula is simple. A charity, Tennis For Free, uses his local park courts at the Joseph Hood Recreation Ground in Merton, for a weekly free coaching programme on Saturday mornings. It is amazing. The courts, though pretty rundown, are packed, with mums, dads and kids all being coached, provided with racquets and balls and coming back week after week. It is all made possible by the far-sighted Merton Council, which has decided that the court should be free all week and the pay-and-play charges have been removed.

Now Tony has moved further. Councils up and down the country—most of them cash-strapped—have signed up for a similar package. There is no requirement for expensive upgrading of courts for Tennis For Free; as long as the courts are deemed to be safe, they are deemed to be playable. Some 80 councils have now signed up to that project; it is truly amazing. At last—at very last—Sport England has come online, recognising that this is a unique way to foster grass-roots tennis. It is funding eight new centres so that the basic cost for coaches, racquets and balls can now be met.

This I believe is a formula that could work for most sports: a charity employing coaches, a local authority giving its facilities free of charge and seed-corn funding from the Sports Council. It is a formula that could be used across all member states.

I thank the European Union Committee for opening up this debate and I thank all who contributed to the report. Let it be the first of many.

16:53

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, on 22 November I shall be taking over as chair of the Volunteering Development Council, following in the footsteps of my noble friend Lady Hanham. It is a great honour to have been asked to chair the council, because it represents the opinions and interests of the millions of people throughout this country who contribute to the daily life of our nation by volunteering. I would like to use today’s debate as an opportunity to say a few words about the relationship between the EU and grass-roots sports and volunteering.

First, may I place on record my appreciation of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her chairmanship of EU Sub-Committee G. She combines incisiveness and understanding of whatever subject is in hand with great good humour and a collegiate approach, and it is genuinely a pleasure to serve on the sub-committee. We are also, as ever, served very well by the staff of this House and in the case of this inquiry by the specialist adviser, Professor Richard Parrish.

Our report highlights the importance of volunteers in sporting activity and notes that, for example, the average football club will involve some 21 volunteers. Indeed, the Football Association estimates that there are more than 400,000 volunteers involved in footballing activities alone.

Why do they do this? For some, it is the love of a particular sport that stays with them throughout their lives. For others, it is drawn from a commitment to their local area and the role sport can play in cementing that sense of local community. My home town of Needham Market has a thriving and very successful football club that was first established in 1919. It has a number of teams and a record of success that is the envy of far larger towns. Over the 30 years that I have lived in Needham Market, I have seen hundreds of young people commit their time and energy to the club. There are currently some 130 young people active in football in the town, which has a population of only 4,500.

Other people become drawn to volunteering in sporting activities because of the many benefits that sport can bring to people who are disadvantaged in some way. We had powerful evidence from Street Games and the Prince’s Trust, among others, about the role that sport can play, not just in providing meaningful activity but in teaching leadership skills and providing a route to recognised qualifications. The RNIB, for example, explained how physical activity can improve balance, mobility and co-ordination for those with a visual impairment, and locally I have seen how the bowls club often brings great social as well as health benefits to older people.

All these activities depend on volunteers, and one of the great things is that much of the interaction goes across the generations in a way that few other activities do. Volunteering of any kind is and should remain essentially a local activity with support from local councils and national Governments. The European Union-level dimension to grass-roots sport and volunteering is hard to establish at first sight. Indeed, a very recent communication from the Commission spoke about having a legal framework for volunteering. Even as a Europhile, I would need some convincing of the need for that.

However, as our inquiry went on, it became clear to me that there is a role for the EU in grass-roots sport, although it is limited. First, many witnesses highlighted regulatory burdens as one of the great barriers to volunteering. The experience of the English Federation of Disability Sport was that,

“even small increases in administrative burdens can have a devastating effect on a club’s ability to recruit and retain volunteers”.

While I accept that it is often difficult to sort out the truth from myth about EU regulation, I would support the Sport and Recreation Alliance in its call for a review of EU regulation as it impacts on volunteers. A number of witnesses told us that both sport and volunteering are vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences as a result of EU legislation in other areas. The Sport and Recreation Alliance told us how regulations about working at height and on the use of open water had had serious adverse impacts on climbing and water sports. With the coalition Government committed to reviewing domestic regulatory burdens, perhaps it would be a good idea, before we end the EU Year of Volunteering, to begin to carry out a parallel exercise in EU law.

In an ideal world, impacts on volunteers would be considered pre-legislatively, rather than afterwards. Our evidence suggests that despite the coming into force of Article 165 of the Lisbon treaty, which, as we have heard, has given the EU a legal competence in sport, the procedures within the Commission are not giving sufficient weight to the opinions of the sport unit when looking at how other policy decisions might impact. There are certainly many formal channels for dialogue between policy-makers and sporting organisations, but our evidence suggests that these are dominated by elite sport and big money, especially in football. An MEP who is an expert in this field highlighted the lack of a real grass-roots voice in EU policy-making in sport.

We definitely detected among our witnesses a real appetite for the strengthening of pan-European networks between grass-roots organisations, especially for using the benefits of modern technology in the exchange of best practice. I note that the Minister was reticent about this, but both Street Games and the Football Foundation pointed to the success of their websites’ pages that detail case studies, briefing papers and best practice.

Marginalisation of grass-roots sports organisations extends to the funding programmes. The chief executive of Street Games told us that the application procedures are simply too complex and bureaucratic for small organisations. At this morning’s sub-committee meeting, we looked at a mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens programme, and it is shown that of the €215 million budget for its projects only €1.16 million has come to the UK. This is a significant under- representation in a programme that ought to be of great interest to the UK, and which includes sport.

Although it is tempting just to blame the bureaucracy, the fact that other countries are finding a way to get through the bureaucracy suggests that we have a particular issue. I certainly undertake to work with the current Government, if they wish, and with the volunteer sector to find out exactly why we are so poor at accessing this money. I look forward to the Minister's response.

17:00

[Baroness Grey-Thompson]

My Lords, I very much welcome the debate today, and I start by declaring my interests in sport, which are many. I am a board member of the London Marathon and UK Athletics, a trustee of the Sport for Good Foundation, which is part of the Laureus World Sport Academy, and an ambassador for International Inspiration. I sit on several committees of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and I am chair of the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation’s Commission into the Future of Women’s Sport. We are investigating areas such as commercialisation, investment, leadership and profile, which all have a massive impact at every level, and ultimately affect how sport and physical activity is run in the UK.

This is a very positive and important report and it makes a lot of sense about the power of sport. As others in your Lordships’ House have already said, sport teaches young people about rules, life skills, discipline, and working as a team—all things which are important in society. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on the report, because it strongly highlights that those who currently do the least have the most to gain. That is very simple, but oh so important.

In a visit to Rwanda with the Sport for Good Foundation, a couple of years ago, I saw at a very practical level how sport was being used to bring together and provide support for those who had been affected by the genocide. I have been fortunate enough to make visits with both the Sport for Good Foundation and International Inspiration to see that in other parts of the world.

I very much like chapter 2, which is summarised in paragraph 27, where reference is made to the groups who can benefit, which include women, an area of particular interest to me. I also very much welcome the highlighting of those areas and the positive response of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics in the other place, Mr Hugh Robertson.

It is important that more support is given to those groups and organisations that promote the inclusion of underrepresented groups. I emphasise that work is needed not only across Europe; there is a still a lot to be done in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, mentioned the lack of participation among women. It is important to emphasise not just that women participate in sport much less than men, but that, in the UK, 80 per cent of women and girls do not do enough physical exercise to benefit their health. That has major long-term implications for the health of our nation.

From recent research from the Commission on the Future of Women’s Sport, published last week, we also know that the amount of money that goes into men’s and women’s sport varies considerably. That impacts on participation and the interest in sport for women. If we look at the commercialisation of sport, 39 per cent of money goes into mixed sport, which include sports such as tennis and golf, which are relatively equitable, but also rugby and football, which are not. An average contract for a woman who plays football for England is £16,000 a year, plus a club contract of around £20,000 to £30,000.

If we look at where the rest of the money goes, we see that 60.5 per cent of it goes into men’s sport. That leaves a scant 0.5 per cent for women. That figure will be pushed up by the Olympic and Paralympic Games next year to around 1.5 per cent but is likely to drop afterwards, and is still shocking. We are therefore stuck in a closed circle. With fewer women participating now, there is less interest in the commercial side of sport, and therefore less media interest. In an average year, only 2 per cent of media coverage is devoted to women in sport. In the UK, we need to break this cycle if we are to change the pattern.

If we see more women doing sport on TV, that encourages more women to do it. The myth that people do not want to watch women play sport is simply not true. People who like sport want to watch women play sport. In the last women’s World Cup semi-final, 1.6m people watched England play France.

What about some solutions for the UK? What I believe is needed is for the sports sector to take a radically different approach from that it is used to. Rather than just opening the doors and expecting a different mix of people to come through, sport needs to adopt basic business techniques of identifying a target market, developing an understanding of what that market wants, and then delivering sport to meet the needs and preferences of that market.

There are a few good examples. England Netball’s Back to Netball campaign has allowed thousands of women to play regular netball without having to join a club or pay an annual membership fee. Other national governing bodies are also trying. It would help considerably to keep up the pressure on national governing bodies that take public money but fail to succeed in increasing participation among underrepresented groups. I ask the Minister for continued support in this.

Many national governing bodies could benefit from looking at how private sector providers, such as military fitness or Zumba classes, develop markets and deliver their offers. There is definitely more to be done in schools, too, and the latest research from the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation shows that girls leave school half as likely to meet recommended activity levels as boys. The introduction of the School Games and the current review of the PE curriculum provide a good opportunity for schools to redefine and redesign competitive sport so that it encourages all pupils to be active regularly, rather than just those who make the first team.

Paragraph 42 talks of the need to share best practice across Europe. I should like to suggest that British national governing bodies look at how the commercial sector operates in order to make real improvements. I also suggest that they use their own networks across the European international federations to share this best practice.

Paragraph 48 of the report identifies the need for more wide-scale research into the societal and personal benefits of sport. This is very important, and further work must be done—not because we are unsure whether sport for women has a value but because, as a sector, we need to be much better at turning anecdotal evidence into hard facts which will convince potential funders of the value of sport. I suppose that the flip-side is that we spend too much on research and monitoring, and then the amount of cash available for the delivery of projects diminishes, but there is a balance to be struck.

Box 4 on page 24 of the report highlights the case study of the Women’s International Leadership Development Programme and the links that this can provide to the wider gender and diversity equality movement. It is useful in ensuring that British national governing bodies have the chance to consider the opportunity that having a more diverse leadership would offer them.

Again, figures from the Commission on the Future of Women’s Sport show that only 20 of the national governing bodies’ board members are female and that eight national governing bodies, including the Football Association, have no women on their boards at all. The lack of diversity on the boards of national governing bodies is perhaps the biggest single factor that stops these NGBs achieving their potential in terms of participation growth and elite success. Such a change is completely within their own grasp.

Finally, I realise that what I have said may be seen as all doom and gloom, but there is some exciting work going on and we have a chance to really make a change. Rather, the areas that I have covered should be seen as an opportunity to do things differently and to do them better. We owe that to the young women and girls in our society. This report makes a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the wider context.

17:07

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am pleased to participate in this short debate and I congratulate the committee on its report. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for introducing this discussion.

Three or four themes have come out of the contributions. Clearly, health and the role that sport plays in improving not only the nation’s health but individual health, particularly in the context of diabetes, is an important point. Another is the requirement on all of us to think again about how sport can help with social inclusion and other areas by reaching out to groups that are currently under-represented, making their lives more meaningful and helping them to engage and participate.

Despite the fact that we are living in difficult economic times, there are still some practical steps that can be taken, and there were some very good and interesting examples from my noble friend Lady Billingham, as well as from the volunteering sector. I hope that the Government will take up the offer of further discussion to see in what ways we can build up from the real grass roots and get rid of some of the problems caused by regulatory and other areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as usual, made some very important and telling points from her good and significant experience in this area. The phrase that she left us with was, “Those who do least have most to gain”, which is something on which we should all reflect. She pointed out the incredible disparities that exist in the contributions made by government and other sources to the male and female sides of the sport. The fact that 80 per cent of us do not take enough exercise somehow summed up the points that others made in the debate.

Like my noble friend Lady Billingham, I should like to make a few general points, particularly with reference to grass-roots sport, and to draw attention to how things stood when we left office. I do so not for a party-political reason but because I think that it provides a good baseline for assessing how we respond to this debate. The report and the comments that we have heard reflect the fact that work done in the UK in recent years is well regarded across Europe. In truth, our model for sport is admired across the world.

During our time in government, we increased participation in both activities and competitive sport. We did this through three tiers: the Youth Sport Trust, dealing with school sport; Sport England, working at a community level with sport governing bodies, and UK Sport, financing the elite who are moving towards gold medal standard at the highest level. This model, in its totality, moved us from tenth in the world in 2004 to fourth place in the Beijing Olympics in 2008, behind China, the USA and Russia. That was an amazing achievement for what is really a very small country. Our target is to do at least as well in London in 2012.

Given that, it is somewhat odd to read in the Secretary of State’s recent blog:

“I can sum up our sports policy in three words: more competitive sport”.

If that is the case, why was a cut of £162 million for School Sports Partnerships announced without consultation in October 2010? If this is indeed the sports policy of the Government, why is there still no long-term strategy for increasing competitive sport in schools? We understand that DfE funding of £32.5 million is planned to stop after 2013 and there will be no more beyond that. The contributions of £11 million each from DCMS and the Department of Health stop after 2015. Sport England’s lottery funding, which is £4 million until 2015, stops after that. A further £72 million has been cut from Whole Sport Plans. There is no long-term certainty and there does not appear to be a strategy. I would be interested to get the Minister’s response to this.

It is worth putting on record that in 2006-7, 35 per cent of pupils in years 1 to 11 took part in inter-school competitive activities. By 2010, this figure had risen to 49 per cent. In 2006-7, 58 per cent of pupils in years 1-11 took part in intra-school competitive activities, and by 2010 this had risen to 78 per cent. In these competitions, 77 per cent of girls and 79 per cent of boys participated. That was a pretty good record, and should be the standard against which we judge what is going forward.

I would like to highlight three of the recommendations in the report, some of which were brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. To recommendations 120 and 121, the response from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics was:

“Domestically, increased participation in sport is a key priority for all the Government across the UK both in terms of health and social outcomes, and specifically in answering London 2012’s Singapore promise to inspire a new generation to play sport”.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, in response to a Written Question from the Shadow Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Mr Clive Efford, Mr Hugh Robertson said earlier this week:

“We are determined to get more people playing sport as a legacy from London 2012 and we will continue to hold national governing bodies to account for the delivery of their whole sport plans. I am confident that with the inspiration of the games in 2012, and a new approach with a clearer expectation of concrete results in return for Government investment, we will see the benefit at grassroots level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/11; col. 91W.]

Determination is good, but as for the rest, they seem to be relying on something turning up. I do not think that is good enough. As we heard today, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, there are some very good and persuasive reasons for believing that sport is a really good way of bringing the benefits to disadvantaged groups I was talking about earlier. It is to be hoped, therefore, that there is something to back up the aspirations of Ministers. Can the Minister help us out here? Can she provide some details to flesh out Mr Robertson’s confidence about concrete results? Indeed, what are the Government’s targets now in this area?

In response to recommendations 122 to 124, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics says:

“Despite its importance, all too often sport has suffered unintentionally due to policies in other areas”.

Can the Minister give us some examples of this and tell us what the Government are going to do to remedy this situation?

The Minister for Sport and the Olympics goes on:

“There is already good cross-departmental work taking place—for instance, with the DH and DfE in relation to grass roots participation”.

Again, can the Minister help us on this? What good work is going on and what are the expected outcomes?

Finally, in relation to recommendation 126, there is a great deal in the report about the potential of sport in delivering social objectives, much of which has been touched on already. In his response, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics gives some interesting comments about the relationship between sport and social returns. He says that young people who do sports at school benefit from wider academic achievement, compared to similar young people who do not. There is also a suggestion that taking part in sport can result in tangible savings to the economy. He says:

“Regularly playing badminton can save around £11,000 per person in their lifetime, comprised of savings to the health system and the value of increases in their quality of life”.

Is this plan B? Is this the way in which the Chancellor is going to revivify the country’s economic situation? If so, how may badminton courts will be required to be plastered across England, Wales and Scotland in order to achieve that?

To be serious though, will the Minister point out what research is being commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government on this topic, as the way in which sport enhances social achievement and reduces cost is at the heart of a lot of what we have been saying this afternoon?

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to an initial scepticism in the committee when it started its work, yet she also drew attention to the fact that this changed during the process of its deliberations. Reading the report and listening to the debate today should have convinced even the most hardened sceptic that this new competence is a useful part of the EU framework, and we support that. Lest your Lordships have any doubt at all, I would like to share with you an e-mail that pinged into my inbox as I was finishing off my notes for today. It came from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and was advertising an event that is taking place shortly. I was invited by the CPA to,

“score a goal for development by participating in its parliamentary penalty shoot-out for the Millennium Development Goals”—

which I am sure we will all be rushing out to do—

“taking place on Speaker’s Green”—

if I can continue my small advertisement for it—

“on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 November”.

See you there. The e-mail continues:

“With sport increasingly recognised as a viable and practical tool to assist in the development process, international and premiership footballers with an involvement in development initiatives will attend the event. You will have a chance to drop in over the course of the afternoon to test your skills against the professionals and discuss the contribution that sport can make in promoting global solidarity and development”.

I rest my case. That shows that the idea that sport is somehow a part, and not a separate aspect, of the work that we all want to do to improve society has reached the CPA and become part of the common discourse. In that sense, it reflects what is said in the report.

17:17

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for leading this afternoon’s debate on grass-roots sport and the European Union. We are grateful to her and her committee members for launching the initial inquiry that led to their report, published in April this year. The debate is particularly timely as we approach next year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games.

We all know that sport is firmly ingrained in British life. People of all ages, abilities and backgrounds from across the country take part regularly. That participation comes in a variety of ways: there are those who are active sportsmen and women; those who give their time voluntarily to support sporting activities; and the many millions who just enjoy watching sport. However, as we have heard today, compared to the significant amount of media coverage that professional sport generates daily, grass-roots sport often remains in the shadows. As the committee’s report recognises, grass-roots sport makes an important contribution to British society, but we are also looking at the role that the EU has to play.

As we have heard, sport became an EU competence with the ratification of the Lisbon treaty two years ago. Since that landmark moment, the European Commission’s work has progressed and, throughout this time, the United Kingdom has continued to be fully engaged, ensuring that the UK’s voice is clearly heard in Brussels and beyond. We want our relationship with the EU to be about maximising benefit for the UK as we work with our EU partners. We make no apology for that. Where there are changes that can add genuine value, or which will help our sports do even better, then we will willingly support them. However, where there is duplication, unnecessary regulation or overspending, then our job is clearly to say so and to negotiate in the best way to protect our interests. We have heard from my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of the difficulties posed by overregulation in trying to encourage grass-roots sports.

The Government presented their response to the committee’s report in June, setting out their position. As we have heard, we welcomed and supported a number of the report’s recommendations. I shall comment on some of the developments that have taken place so far. The European Commission’s first sports policy document since the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Developing the European Dimension in Sport, set out the Commission’s work plan for sport through to 2015, listing actions for both the Commission and member states. The European Council of Ministers subsequently adopted a resolution on the associated European Union Work Plan for Sport, 2011 to 2014, in May this year. It was intriguing to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, of the work that she had been involved with as an MEP in the 1990s, urging the Commission then to support sport. Some things take rather a long time to come to fruition, but we seem to have made progress since those days.

We fully recognise the importance the committee placed in its report on ensuring that sport is mainstreamed effectively both at the European Union level and at the national level. Despite its importance, sport has from time to time suffered unintentionally due to policies in other areas. We are encouraged that, at the European level, following strong UK interventions, the work plan now makes explicit reference—as we have heard—to the need to take sport into account when formulating, implementing and evaluating policies and actions in other policy fields, with particular attention to ensuring early and effective inclusion in the policy development process. Ministers and officials will continue to use each appropriate opportunity to ensure that this commitment is fulfilled across government departments.

Participation in grass-roots sport is a high priority for the Government, particularly as we look to leave a wide-ranging sports legacy from London’s hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games next year and from Glasgow’s hosting of the Commonwealth Games in 2014, as well as from the various other major sporting events in the UK in the coming years. We are therefore pleased to see that participation is one of the key priorities in the communication.

As we said in the Government’s response to the committee’s report, we are encouraged that one of the new expert groups set up under the work plan is focused on sport, health and participation and will be charged with producing recommendations on promoting physical activity and participation in sport. The UK is already playing a key role in this expert group, having put forward two expert representatives from Sport England and sportscotland as members. A number of noble Lords stressed health in their speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, my noble friend Lord Courtown and a number of other contributors all stressed the part that sport can play in having a healthy community.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, my noble friend Lord Courtown, the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, and others challenged the Government as to what we are doing to increase participation at a national level. In England, last November the Government launched Places People Play, which is a £135 million mass participation legacy programme. In the past six months, under the places strand, we have launched the £50 million Inspired Facilities fund and the £10 million Playing Fields Protection fund, which acknowledge the importance of having the right facilities in place to support grass-roots sports participation.

In this the EU Year of Volunteering, my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, drew attention to the important contribution of volunteers to grass-roots sporting activities. As an example, for the 70,000 places available for the London 2012 Games makers, we received around 250,000 applications. Under the people strand, the £4 million Sport Makers programme launched last month will capitalise on this by training the next generation of sports volunteers to organise and lead grass-roots sporting activities, creating sporting opportunities to give everyone the chance to take part. The enormous number of volunteers for those posts is an indication of just how enthusiastic the British population are about volunteering to contribute to sport.

The committee’s report recommended a focus on groups whose participation rates are lowest. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, said that we need to concentrate more on particular groups in society. To give one example of action being taken in this area, £8 million is being ring-fenced to support a legacy to inspire disabled people to take part in sport. This is currently under development. Disability groups are being consulted and the programme is due to launch in the new year.

In addition, the English Federation of Disability Sport has been awarded £1.5 million in Exchequer funding to accelerate its strategy to work with national governing bodies to make grass-roots sports more inclusive. For the first time, Sport England is making funding available specifically to create opportunities and accessibility. We are committed to securing a lasting legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We aim to drive forward wider attitudinal change towards disability sport, for example; and, through the School Games, to provide increased opportunities for all pupils—boys and girls, from all backgrounds and of all abilities—to compete at local, regional and national level. While we have been concentrating on the young in a lot of these debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, highlighted all ages and the importance also of making sport accessible for older people, and the ways in which that can contribute to their quality of life in later years, as well as in younger years.

The UK has played, and will be, playing an active role in each of the six EU expert groups on sport, through putting forward strong sectoral expert representatives. As evidence of that, the UK has secured the chairmanship of three of the expert groups—those on education and training, good governance and sustainable financing.

The UK has a good story to tell on good governance, an issue mentioned, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The current Polish presidency is also putting forward Council conclusions on match-fixing; again, trying to tackle aspects of sport that go wrong. The draft text of that is being discussed at official level, and the UK is working to ensure that the proposals are not watered down and are as strong as possible, and that there is real integrity in sport.

One of the concerns raised by the committee was that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were seen to be excluded in EU sports policy discussions. Ministers and officials have been proactive in consulting their counterparts in the devolved Administrations on EU sports policy matters. In addition to sportscotland providing one of the UK experts on the sport, health and participation expert group, the Scottish Sports Minister will, for the first time, be joining the UK delegation later this month to attend the European Council of Sports Ministers meeting. However, I should stress that it is the responsibility of our devolved Administration colleagues to cascade any information from the UK Government to their own relevant stakeholders, such as their respective sports councils.

The UK has many examples of the positive nature of grass-roots sport participation and will share these with our EU colleagues. For instance, this summer, we hosted a delegation of MEPs from the European Parliament’s culture committee. They visited a tennis project in Haringey that has completely revitalised the local community and heard from Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s foundation about the positive work it is carrying out in the area, including the Premier League’s Kickz programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has told us about the Tennis For Free programme, and there are other examples of this happening throughout the country.

The UK also recently hosted the European Women and Sport Conference. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, commented on the lack of women on sporting boards and generally participating, and the disparities in funding for women’s sport as against men’s. I am quite sure that the lack of women on sporting boards will be something that my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for Equalities, will be looking at to try and ensure that sport does not suffer from the lack of women in those positions of responsibility.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the structural funds. The decision on whether to fund a sports programme is part of the wider discussions of the future EU budget, the multiannual financial framework, which will of course include the structural funds. Discussions have taken place in friends of presidency meetings, but I believe that so far they have centred on technical clarifications. However, discussions on the EU budget, the structural funds and a future sport programme are of course linked, and the Government will be making the case for sport whenever opportunities present themselves in negotiations.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Scott mentioned the importance of Street Games. Obviously we recognise that Street Games can play a vital part in fragmented communities and in other communities, and can give examples of participation, of teamwork and of reaching across boundaries to a whole range of young people in those communities. My noble friend Lady Scott asked whether there would in some way, through the volunteer section, be a route to recognised qualifications through sport. We will be looking at that to see that people have recognition for their achievement in a formal way as far as that is possible. My noble friend also mentioned the fact that the UK is not applying for EU funding streams to look at volunteering. The Government would very warmly welcome her offer to look more closely at ways in which the UK can take advantage of the available funding streams. We heard from my noble friend Lord Courtown on the sums of money at the top of professional sport and the disparity between the vast sums that professional sportspeople seem to have at their disposal and the grass-roots fund, which is constantly looking for fairly modest sums of money. That is something the sporting community is looking at and will take forward.

I have touched on the issue of diversity on boards. On the participation of schools, there will be an increased focus on competition as part of the curriculum review. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has obviously been looking at the Secretary of State’s blogs. On the importance that he puts on competitive sport, we will find that there is cross-departmental work going on between the DfE, the DCMS and the Department of Health to try to ensure that those departments work together to encourage more sport in schools and to see that funding is made available through the different streams that are around at the moment for that purpose.

I may have missed some of the points that noble Lords have made. If so, I will write to them afterwards. To sum up, we are still in the early days of the development of the EU sports policy, but the direction of travel so far has been encouraging. The UK has uniquely positioned itself to be as influential as it can, both in our own interests and those of EU sport, through sports bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will continue to be fully engaged in developments and take advantage of opportunities for the UK within an EU context. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, and her committee for taking a proactive interest in this area and for producing such a valuable and wide-ranging report and recommendation. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate as we embark on a high-profile time for sport in the UK. We can see from this report and the debate that the United Kingdom is well placed to make the most of the new EU sport competence.

17:33

[Baroness Young of Hornsey]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. It has been most stimulating. It is particularly gratifying to hear some sort of endorsement for our report from those who have been participating in sport at a very high level indeed. I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson were able to participate this afternoon. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who, as a new member of the committee, made a very important contribution, I think, when he raised the issue of obesity and the potential for sport to be used to address that, among other things. He also pointed out the difficulty of ensuring that that legacy actually happens and gave us some examples.

Going back to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, I think she pointed out some of the challenges in thinking about a new area of competence in the current economic situation. It was also very useful to hear about Tennis For Free. It exemplifies the kind of work that can be carried out quite effectively with little or no money to push that kind of initiative through a whole range of different sports activities; and I know that there are other initiatives like that going on.

I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is aware that Street Games is an organisation. It visited the committee as part of its submission to the inquiry. It was notable that it brought along two volunteers who had formerly been involved, shall we say, in local activities that were not steering them in quite the right direction and who had ended up working with Street Games to great effect with their peers. They also gave evidence to the committee.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, a dedicated member of Sub-Committee G, who focused on volunteers. As we all know, they are the absolute bedrock of grass-roots sport, as they are in other areas of activity in this country. She emphasised the regulatory burden particularly on smaller groups and the lack of representation, a point to which virtually all noble Lords referred.

My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson raised the important issue of the participation of girls and young women in sport—perhaps I should say the lack of adequate participation. The lack of attention given to women’s sports was also raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I discussed that as we came over to the House today. If one looks at most newspapers and television, one would not even know that women play professional sport in this country. That matter needs to be addressed if we are serious about getting more girls and young women to participate in sport. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, recognised the potential of sport to do that and the way in which it can contribute to a wide spectrum of policy objectives, not only domestically but internationally.

I thank the Minister for reiterating the need to overcome regulation, among other things, and for her encouraging comment about continuing to push in negotiations around structural funds, the ESF and so on to embed sport in those discussions. There is a danger that either the area could be hived off into one corner with the thought, “Okay, we have dealt with sport now because we have put it in a kind of box and therefore we do not have to try to embed it elsewhere”, or it will become so thinly spread that people will not know where it is or what its specificity is. Somehow we will have to steer a course between those two extremes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson raised the issue of women on boards. It might be useful to look at other areas, such as the arts, where there have been quite a few initiatives that have had effective campaigns and mechanisms to broaden the membership of boards in the arts and the cultural sector.

In conclusion, I acknowledge absolutely the efforts of my fellow members of Sub-Committee G and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place. He was a member of the committee which carried out the inquiry, although he has now sadly left us for other pastures. There was much questioning and reflection, and a good deal of openness. As I said at the beginning, people were a little worried about where this might take us but in the end we were convinced of its worth.

I should also like to thank Professor Richard Parrish, who was our specialist adviser for the inquiry. I also want to record the contribution of clerks and special advisers, which we should never take for granted. I should like to acknowledge Talitha Rowland, who has moved on to other work within the House, and Alistair Dillon and I thank them for their work on the inquiry and the report.

This has been a particularly stimulating debate. We have covered a wide range of areas and issues in a relatively short time. I am very glad that we were able to have this debate on the Floor of the House. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 5.39 pm.