House of Commons
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
1. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on Syria.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I speak regularly with my EU colleagues about Syria—most recently at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 14 November, where we agreed a further round of sanctions on Syria.
Chris Evans
This week, we have heard Turkey call for President Assad to step down. Will the Foreign Secretary give us an update on how secure President Assad’s position is in Syria?
Mr Hague
It is not very secure. We absolutely agree with the Turkish Government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister called in August for President Assad to step aside. We believe that the regime has lost all legitimacy, certainly in the eyes of the world, but clearly in the eyes of millions of its own people as well. So the regime should now understand that it has no future, that democracy should be introduced in Syria, and the regime should leave office.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What conclusions have the Foreign Secretary and his EU counterparts reached on Iran’s involvement in propping up the Syrian regime?
Mr Hague
There is no doubt that Iran has been involved in trying to prop up the Syrian regime. Iran is a country that has supported popular revolution in other parts of the middle east but then has been happy to collude in trying to repress such revolution in Syria—its ally. It has helped with technical equipment, expertise and advice on how to help the regime to deal with the situation, and it shows a hypocritical approach to events in the middle east.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Turkey is a vital ally of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the European Union. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with the Turkish President last week on what further specific measures Turkey can take to exert additional pressure on the Syrian Government?
Mr Hague
We discussed this at some length—the Prime Minister with the President—and I discussed it with the Turkish Foreign Minister in the margins of the state visit. We are all working closely—Turkey and the European Union nations—with the Arab League. Turkey is considering a range of measures that it could take on Syria, but, as the hon. Lady knows, the Arab League has led the way at the moment in announcing sanctions. I would not be surprised if further measures now follow from Turkey, on the basis of the discussions that we had last week.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I very much welcome the EU sanctions and, indeed, those from the Arab League, particularly in the light of the very grim UN report, showing that Syrian Government forces have killed at least 256 children. Following the recent visit to London by Syrian opposition representatives, what more can the UK and our EU partners do to support the development of a cohesive and peaceful political opposition in Syria?
Mr Hague
Cohesive and peaceful are two very important words. I met two separate groupings of the Syrian opposition last week: the Syrian National Council and the national co-ordinating body—a different grouping of the opposition. I encouraged them to find a common and cohesive platform together—at this extreme moment in their nation’s history, it is important for them to work together—and to maintain non-violent resistance to the Assad regime, to maintain their support around the world.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
2. What recent representations he has received on the implications for his Department’s policies of economic conditions in the EU.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I have had a number of recent meetings with representatives of British business who have emphasised the immediate need for eurozone countries to act to restore stability to their currency and the need for the entire European Union to adopt policies to encourage growth and job creation through open markets and less-costly regulation.
Mr Ruffley
Under the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the financial transaction tax would have to go to the Council of Ministers, which requires unanimity. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will veto the new Franco-German euro tax that will only damage the City of London?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear at the most recent ECOFIN meeting that we would reject an EU financial transfer tax, and he was supported in his opposition by 11 other member states.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell us what practical actions his Government have taken to encourage our European partners to complete the single European market?
Mr Lidington
I have discussed this in the past two weeks with senior members of the Commission, and I have encouraged them to introduce measures under the Single European Act. Yesterday, in Berlin, other Ministers and I talked to our German counterparts about joint action both to deepen the single market and to reduce the cost of regulations, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
What discussions has the Minister had with his continental cousins about the fact that the euro is burning while Brussels is fiddling? Would it not be much better to have an orderly withdrawal from the euro, rather than the crisis that we have at the moment?
Mr Lidington
I think, as my hon. Friend would admit in private, the idea that the eurozone can somehow be dismantled in an orderly manner is rather far-fetched. The collapse of the euro and a prolonged recession in the eurozone would do profound damage to hopes for growth and job creation in the United Kingdom. It is our largest single trading partner.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Could the Minister for Europe tell the House how work on the Government’s stated aim of repatriating powers from the European Union is progressing?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear to the British people in his Mansion House speech the other week that we need a rebalancing of responsibilities in the European Union, with some things being done, yes, at the centre, but more things being done by member states in future. That work is ongoing.
Mr Alexander
Perhaps the Minister for Europe could be a little more forthcoming. How many staff in the Foreign Office are working full-time on this endeavour, will there be a White Paper on the repatriation of powers, and when, indeed, could the House expect such a publication?
Mr Lidington
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will have to contain his excitement for a little longer. That work is ongoing, and of course, we shall keep Parliament acquainted with progress on it.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
3. What representations he has made to the Chinese Government following recent self-immolations in Tibet.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), raised our concerns about the increasing number of self-immolations in Tibetan areas with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister in Beijing earlier this month.
Mr Hague
We are seriously concerned about recent reports that young monks and nuns in Tibetan areas of Szechuan province have immolated themselves. As I said, we have taken that up with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, and with the Chinese embassy in London. We encourage, of course, the resolution of grievances that have led to that situation. We will continue to encourage the Chinese Government to take that constructive approach.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
As the Chinese Government have been able to recognise and respect the autonomy of both Hong Kong and Macau in the People’s Republic, should they not allow autonomy for Tibet, to ensure that, within the People’s Republic, its unique culture and identity are properly respected and recognised, and will the Government try to encourage it to do so?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very fair point indeed. As he knows, we recognise Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, but we call for meaningful dialogue between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities in the interests of autonomy in future. Of course, we always call for respect for human rights.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary welcomed China’s recent recognition of the aspirations and rightful demands of the Syrian people. Does he think that that is a positive development, as China may be beginning to realise that repression does not deliver genuine stability, and it should have the confidence to recognise the aspirations and rightful demands of the Tibetan people, too?
Mr Hague
Such language is positive and I continue to believe, as I said in the House yesterday, that the veto of our proposed UN resolution on Syria by Russia and China was a mistake and did not take into account the legitimate aspirations of the people of Syria. On the question of Tibet, we encourage the meaningful dialogue of which I spoke a moment ago.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of the implications for the governance of Equatorial Guinea of the recent constitutional referendum in that country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
We do not have an ambassador based in Equatorial Guinea, but we have an ambassador based in Cameroon who visits regularly and takes a close interest in developments there. He often raises directly issues such as human rights, good governance and lack of social development. We also raise those issues through the EU and the UN.
Steve Baker
As the Minister knows, hon. Friends and I published an excoriating report after our visit to Equatorial Guinea in the summer. Does he agree that certain principles of good governance, such as democracy, liberty and the rule of law, are universal and eternal?
Mr Bellingham
I agree that those principles are vital and they are ones on which we will focus and put a huge amount of emphasis. I thank my hon. Friend for his report, and I pay tribute to him and his colleagues for their energy and open-mindedness in reporting back to the Foreign Office on that visit.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Can the Minister update the House on the Government’s assessment of growing concern about the position in Malawi—unrest, autocratic rule and real oppression?
Mr Bellingham
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that. Although we are talking about Equatorial Guinea, I was in Zambia recently and had a chance not to visit Malawi, but to have an assessment of what was going on there. We are very concerned indeed about the way in which the Malawi Government evicted our high commissioner, but a high level delegation from Malawi recently came to the Foreign Office and we were able to have candid discussions with them. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there are certain measures that need to be put in place before we resume normal diplomatic relations.
Mr Speaker
The Minister is both well travelled and, as he has just shown, dextrous in his response to questions.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
May we assume from the Minister’s reply that the Government’s policy now is to encourage contacts with countries with records on human rights as despicable as that of Equatorial Guinea, and that hon. Members should accept private invitations for five-star business class visits paid for by the Governments?
Mr Bellingham
We have full diplomatic relations with Equatorial Guinea. We never hold back in telling that Government about our concerns regarding human rights and lack of good governance, and we have made it clear to the Government of Equatorial Guinea that they have a per capita income of $15,000 a year, yet that masks extremes of wealth between the very rich and the very, very poor. I welcome hon. Members going there with an open mind and reporting back to us.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
5. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on Iran.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We worked closely with our EU partners in responding to the International Atomic Energy Agency report about the Iranian nuclear programme, and I hope we will reach further conclusions on Iran at this week’s Foreign Affairs Council.
Yvonne Fovargue
What work are the Government doing to protect the safety and security of Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff in Iran, following the decision this week of Iran’s Parliament to call for drastic cuts in diplomatic ties? Will the Government respond to that with similar action if that call is agreed to by the Guardian Council?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue. The Iranian Parliament voted on Sunday to downgrade relations with the United Kingdom. As she says, the further decision of the Guardian Council is awaited. I have made it clear that if they go ahead with that, we will respond robustly. We will do so in consultation with our European Union partners. There is no Iranian ambassador currently here in London. The embassy is headed by a chargé so we are not able to respond exactly in kind, but we will respond in other ways and we will do so robustly.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Given that the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report provides no concrete evidence of a nuclear weapons programme—there is no smoking gun—does the Foreign Secretary accept that implied threats of military force could be counter-productive in that they could rally the people behind the hard-liners and drive whatever programme there is further underground?
Mr Hague
To be clear, the IAEA report of earlier in November speaks of its serious concerns at credible information about Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, so we should be clear about that. As my hon. Friend knows, we are not advocating military action. We are pursuing a twin-track approach of being open to meaningful negotiations but increasing the peaceful and legitimate pressure on Iran through sanctions, and we will continue with that approach.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s newly announced sanctions in response to Iran’s nuclear programme. Ahead of the right hon. Gentleman’s forthcoming meeting with European counterparts in December to discuss the issue, what is he doing to encourage financial institutions across Europe to take action?
Mr Hague
The Government made an important announcement on that a week ago. Last Monday my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the British financial sector is required to sever all financial ties with Iranian banks. Similar action is being taken by the United States and Canada. I expect some other nations to follow suit and, as I mentioned earlier, we are now discussing within the European Union additional measures that will follow shortly.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
6. What the outcomes were of the Istanbul conference on the future of Afghanistan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
The principal outcome of the conference, which I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom, was an agreement by Afghanistan’s regional partners on the future of Afghanistan, involving commitments to non-intervention, to the inviolability of its borders and to support Afghan-led efforts on reconciliation and the political process. The group has agreed to meet again in June next year.
Jason McCartney
Given that Pakistan is vital to Afghanistan’s security, how will the Government assess the impact on relationships between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States, bearing in mind the tragic incident over the weekend involving NATO forces?
Alistair Burt
It was tragic indeed. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan on 26 November to convey the United Kingdom’s condolences to the families of those involved and to the armed forces and people of Pakistan. We support an urgent inquiry by the international security assistance force into the circumstances and encourage Pakistan to take part. In the meantime, all parties should do their utmost to rebuild trust and confidence between them and take no action that would make that more difficult.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will recall that I wrote to him a year ago having met a number of Afghan women MPs who were extremely concerned about the future and who regularly put their lives at risk in seeking to represent people in their country. What is he doing to ensure that the rights of women in Afghanistan will be supported in future?
Alistair Burt
If I do not remember the individual letter, I certainly remember the sentiments, which have been echoed by a good number of colleagues over the past few months. Yesterday I received a delegation of non-governmental organisations expressing their concerns about this and a large petition. We have ensured that the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), the Minister responsible for combating violence against women, will attend the Bonn conference with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and that commitments to women in Afghanistan will be uppermost in our presentations. It is vital that the situation for women does not go backwards in Afghanistan and that the Government honour their commitment to equality.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Will conditions be attached to the withdrawal of our provincial reconstruction team in Helmand, such as an increase in the capacity of provincial government in the region, or will the team simply be withdrawn in line with the removal of combat troops by 2015?
Alistair Burt
We fully expect that the withdrawal of the provincial reconstruction team and those who support it will be in line with the timetable announced. We welcome the fact that further districts of Helmand were included last week in President Karzai’s announcement of a further tranche towards transition. We of course keep the closest watch on conditions on the ground, but so far our assessment is that the timetable will be able to be kept.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s responses, but this was clearly the precursor to next week’s conference in Bonn on the future of Afghanistan. What are the Government’s objectives for the conference?
Alistair Burt
Our objectives are to fulfil the three themes of the conference: to look at future commitments from the international community to Afghanistan; to support the political process; and to discuss civilian transition in Afghanistan. It is a very important conference and we hope that all parties will be able to attend. It is not a NATO conference, for example, and we hope that it will be possible for Pakistan to send representatives, as its future security is intimately bound up with that of Afghanistan.
Mr Spellar
May I also thank the Minister for his very full response to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) on protecting the significant gains that women have made in Afghanistan? What are the Government doing to ensure that the voices of Afghan women are heard at that conference and in subsequent discussions?
Alistair Burt
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. Civil society in Afghanistan and women’s involvement in it are growing. We have made representations over a lengthy period to the Government of Afghanistan to ensure that their own delegation includes a significant number of women representatives, which it will do, and they will voice their aspirations. Our delegation has also ensured that those issues are well up on the agenda, and it is important that the advances made by women in recent years, including that of 2.5 million girls now going to school, are not knocked backwards.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What progress has been made towards establishing a process to resolve the status of Somaliland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
Our position on recognising Somaliland is well known, but of course we understand fully the aspirations of the Somaliland people. The Somali people themselves must decide their future, but in the meantime we urge Somaliland to play a very full role in the Somali peace process. It is for neighbouring countries and the African Union generally to take a lead in responding to any changed political circumstances.
Alun Michael
I understand the position that the Minister has spelt out, but does he agree that everybody, including the transitional federal Government in the south, needs to respect and acknowledge 20 years of relative peace and exemplary democratic development in Somaliland, which means that we need a process that enables Somaliland, as the Minister has suggested, to be a part of the solution to the problems in the horn of Africa?
Mr Bellingham
The Prime Minister has called an international conference on Somalia, which will take place on 23 February, and of course Somaliland will be invited. I recently had a meeting with President Silanyo and extended that invitation to him, and he indicated to us that he may well attend. It would be a very important step forward if Somaliland played a really full role in the Somali peace process.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the Somalilanders take part in next February’s London conference, they will be able to do so without prejudice to their claim for de jure status, and that if they come to London they will be afforded the courtesy of separate talks with him and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, so that they might put forward in detail why they believe they should be granted de jure status?
Mr Bellingham
Somaliland will certainly be invited, and I hope that it will accept the invitation. It is very important that all the different parts of Somalia attend the conference and play a full role, and we also expect the main Intergovernmental Authority on Development—IGAD—countries and a number of other international players to attend. I simply say to President Silanyo and to Somaliland that we understand their aspirations, which they need to push in such a way that it looks as though they are being constructive in the wider Somali peace process.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
8. What assessment he has made of the risks to regional stability posed by Iran.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Iran’s nuclear programme and its support for terrorism are serious threats to stability in the middle east. We and many other nations are resolute in our response to those threats, and Iran must show that it is serious about addressing international concerns—or face increasing isolation and pressure.
Jonathan Reynolds
Given Iran’s involvement in the brutal Syrian crackdown, as well as its support for Hezbollah, the threat to Lebanese security and yesterday’s assertion that Egypt could be the new Iran, is the Foreign Secretary concerned that a nuclear-armed Iran would further be able to curtail freedoms in the region?
Mr Hague
Yes, of course. There are many dangers in a nuclear-armed Iran, the prime one being that Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, that it would be a great breach of that treaty, and that nuclear proliferation throughout the middle east might then multiply greatly and become a threat to the peace of that region and to the world. The hon. Gentleman is also correct to argue, however, that a nuclear-armed Iran could feel in a stronger position to pursue other activities that were against the peace and the human rights of other countries in the region.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
In tackling Iran’s nuclear programme, the international community must present a united front. Russia and China retain extensive trade links with Iran and appear unsupportive of additional UN sanctions. What progress have the Government made on persuading those other states to introduce and to implement robustly tougher sanctions on Iran?
Mr Hague
It is important to recognise that Russia and China have supported all the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been passed so far on this subject, and that they are part of the so-called E3 plus 3 process of negotiation with Iran. Those countries have certainly played their part in this. It is true, however, that they are not currently in favour of further tightening of the sanctions regime on Iran. We will continue to discuss that with them, but in the meantime we are pursuing tighter sanctions with the United States, Canada and the European Union in the ways that I described earlier.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
In the context of sanctions, diplomatic efforts and intergovernmental discussions, does the Foreign Secretary agree that public opinion here in the United Kingdom, and across Europe and the west, is extremely important, and that more needs to be done to explain the exact nature of the threat that Iran poses to the public so that the public come along with whatever we are trying to do?
Mr Hague
Yes, I fully take that point from the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is a very wide recognition of this issue. However, since it is a matter of escalating tension, and certainly of escalating pressure from our point of view over the coming months, we will make every effort to explain its importance and why we cannot simply ignore it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hezbollah continues to be funded both with money and weapons, and that last night it launched four missiles from Lebanon on to Israel? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that the Lebanese Government fulfil United Nations resolution 1701?
Mr Hague
Yes, it is deeply concerning that rocket fire has again taken place from Lebanon into Israel. I believe that it is the first time since October 2009 that we have seen such rocket fire. We strongly condemn any such action that stokes tension in the region, and we urge restraint on all sides.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
9. What recent progress his Department has made in promoting trade within Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
When I was in Zambia, Mozambique and Namibia earlier this month, I saw for myself the excellent work that officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development are undertaking in support of our African partners to improve the conditions for intra-African trade. The African free trade initiative remains the main vehicle for Her Majesty’s Government’s efforts on this important issue.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his response. There are still many obstacles to trade in Africa, including transport, trust relationships and intra-regional trade barriers, that countries such as China seem to be much more successful at overcoming. After his Nigerian mission in July, the Prime Minister pledged the UK to work with Nigeria and other partners towards enhanced west African trade integration. Will the Minister update us on progress?
Mr Bellingham
Yes, indeed. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Trade between sub-Saharan African countries currently stands at 14% of the region’s total trade, compared with Europe’s 60%. That is why DFID is making £160 million available to support the African free trade initiative. We have made good progress in east Africa with the east African trademark and in southern Africa with the Southern African Development Community trademark, and we are now looking to make similar progress in the west of Africa.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
How often does the Minister take trade delegations out to countries in Africa, and what criteria does he use to select the countries that he goes to and the businesses that go along with him?
Mr Bellingham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We are putting a huge amount of emphasis not only on breaking down these trade barriers but on making sure that UK businesses are fully aware of the opportunities available. UK Trade & Investment is now being not just reactive but very proactive in identifying companies that might be able to get contracts in Africa. It costs five times as much to send a container from Mombasa to Bujumbura as it does to send one from Tokyo to Mombasa.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the situation in South Kordofan and the Blue Nile states.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
We are very concerned about the ongoing violence in South Kordofan and the Blue Nile states. We are working very closely with our international partners to push for an immediate cessation of hostilities, full humanitarian access, and the establishment of an agreed process to address the root causes of violence in both states.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but given the role that Britain has played in trying to resolve this conflict, will he tell the House what pressure is being brought to bear on Khartoum to end the conflict in both regions, to allow full humanitarian access and to return to the terms of the comprehensive peace agreement?
Mr Bellingham
I had the chance to visit Khartoum in July. I had a meeting with Sudan’s Foreign Minister, at which I made it very clear that the lack of humanitarian access, the lack of progress on the CPA and the action on both sides of sponsoring proxies were completely unacceptable. We also robustly condemned the recent bombing of Yida and Quffa. We need a negotiated political settlement to move this issue forward.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
11. What assessment he has made of the UK’s relationship with Turkey; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
Turkey is a key partner in trade and investment, and in building international security. Last week’s state visit by President Gul demonstrated the vitality of our bilateral relationship.
John Howell
Economic growth in Turkey was 9% last year and its trade in goods with the UK is expected to reach £9 billion this year. Should not those be clinching factors in ensuring that we have a positive relationship with Turkey, and that the EU does not foolishly turn its back on that country?
Mr Lidington
We strongly support Turkey’s ambitions for EU accession. We think that Turkish membership of the EU would be extremely good news for the single market and for British and wider European business opportunities.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
When the Turkish Foreign Minister met the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, he brought a representative all-party group of Members of Parliament with him on the delegation. Is that not a good idea? Why does the Foreign Secretary not take a cross-party group of Members of Parliament with him to the Bonn conference on the future of Afghanistan, particularly with regard to the issue of women in Afghanistan?
Mr Lidington
I think that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can speak with confidence not just on behalf of the Government but for the strong cross-party consensus in this House for a peaceful, constructive and democratic future for Afghanistan.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that a key aspect of the UK’s relationship with Turkey is its responsibility to Cyprus as a guarantor power? Will the Government ensure that the opportunities arising from the exploration of hydrocarbon reserves on the coast of Cyprus are fully respected, and that the resulting benefits for all Cypriots are fully preserved?
Mr Lidington
Like all countries that are signed up to the UN convention on the law of the sea, we support the right of the Republic of Cyprus to exploit its exclusive economic zone. We continually urge the leaders of both communities in Cyprus to work actively towards a settlement.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the Minister’s previous comment, Cyprus would have been high on the Government’s agenda in their discussions with President Gul last week. We have to break the current deadlock in the talks. What more can the Government do to foster that aim? Will it include inviting the President of Cyprus to London?
Mr Lidington
It has not yet been possible to arrive at a date for President Christofias to visit London, but there is no objection in principle to that happening. Our role is to encourage and support the leaders of both communities to work with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to reach a comprehensive settlement. That is in the interests of every community in Cyprus.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the status of the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Palestine; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
We continue to support the resumption of negotiations on a two-state solution, based on the timetable set out by the Quartet. Political will and leadership are needed from both sides to break the current impasse. We welcome the progress that the Palestinian Authority has made in building the institutions of a functioning state. We continue to call on Israel to revoke its decisions to withhold tax revenues and to accelerate the construction of settlements. We remain concerned about the impact of the restrictions on Gaza.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is time that the Palestinians returned to meaningful negotiations with the Israeli Government to ensure that there is a proper peaceful settlement, as we would all wish, rather than pursuing admission to the UN?
Mr Hague
It is absolutely time for both sides to return to meaningful negotiations. The framework for that now exists, with the timetable set out by the Quartet at the end of September. Under that timetable, by 26 January both sides are meant to present their own substantive proposals on borders and security. I of course encourage the Palestinians to do that without preconditions, but I also encourage Israel to do so in a decisive and convincing manner.
Mr Hague
We are clear that more needs to be done on Gaza. Israel’s decision to move from a list of 120 permitted goods to a list of specific prohibited items was a positive step, but there has been no fundamental change in the crossings regime or in the economic stagnation of Gaza. We are working alongside our colleagues in the European Union to try to achieve some real changes on the ground, and that means helping Israel to meet its target of reaching pre-2007 levels of exports, with resumed access to traditional markets.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is very hard to see how there can be any confidence in Israel’s proposals while the settlements continue, the settler roads and the wall continue to be built, there is not free movement of Palestinians on the west bank, and the encirclement of Gaza continues. Will the Foreign Secretary put real pressure on the Israeli Government not just to stop settlement building but to remove all the settlements from the west bank?
Mr Hague
The Israeli Government are in no doubt about opinion in this country and the opinion of this Government about that. Settlements on occupied land are illegal. We are very clear about that and have condemned recent decisions to accelerate settlement building, and I condemn them again today. That is a mistake by Israel, which does not bring peace any closer or help us arrive at a two-state solution. The right approach for Israel now is to embrace the negotiations of which I have spoken, and to do so in a decisive and generous spirit.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The current situation on negotiations is that the Quartet has asked both sides to put forward proposals on security and borders. The Palestinians have put forward initial proposals, but Israel has failed to do so. If we get to 26 January, the end of that period, and settlements continue to be built and there has been no progress in negotiations, what will the Foreign Secretary’s view be of Palestine’s application for full membership of the United Nations?
Mr Hague
There have been initial proposals from Palestinians, but both sides are required to present more substantive proposals by 26 January. If that does not happen and the Quartet process does not succeed, the peace process will be entering a new crisis and a very troubling and concerning phase. I do not want to anticipate now how we will react to that in future at the United Nations. I set out our current position in my statement of 9 November.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
In view of the complete lack of trust between Israel and Palestine, we have to dig deep to find common ground between the two sides. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the short term we should focus on confidence-building measures to provide a platform for the resumption of negotiations in the future?
Mr Hague
Yes, all confidence-building measures will be welcome; indeed, the Quartet and its representative Tony Blair have often worked on them. We would welcome such measures alongside the Quartet process of which I have been speaking, but we still have not seen any such measures in recent times.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Foreign Secretary ruled out accepting that Hamas can be part of any peace process unless and until it signs up to the Quartet principles?
Mr Hague
Hamas rules itself out by its behaviour at the moment, there is no doubt about that. That is the current position. Of course, there is discussion of Palestinian reconciliation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we talked about that in the House yesterday. We look to a reconciled and new Palestinian Authority to have independent figures in it, to respect non-violence, to be in favour of a two-state solution and to respect previous agreements made by the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
14. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
We are very concerned about the limited progress that Bosnia and Herzegovina has made over the past year in implementing the reforms necessary for both EU and NATO accession.
Eric Ollerenshaw
Given that we have now had nearly 14 months without the formation of any Government in Bosnia, does my right hon. Friend think that we, neighbouring states or the international community could be doing anything extra before there is very serious economic damage to that country, on top of the political instability?
Mr Lidington
We continue to urge on the leaders of all political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina the need for urgent progress to establish that state-level Government. I talked about that to EU Special Representative Peter Sørensen and the international community’s representative, Valentin Inzko, a week ago. Every actor with influence on the Balkans needs to work towards greater stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
Yesterday two German soldiers were shot and wounded by Serb thugs in northern Kosovo. It is a huge problem. Will the Minister and the Foreign Secretary appeal to President Tadic, whether it is in Bosnia and Herzegovina or in Kosovo, to assume responsibility? The proposed talks next week about Serbia joining the EU cannot get under way so long as there is no democratic law-and-order authority in Kosovo—or, indeed, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mr Lidington
I deplore the incident that the right hon. Gentleman described, and I discussed it with my German counterpart yesterday. The Commission’s report on EU enlargement clearly sets out the fact that Serbia needs to address its relations with its neighbours if it is to make progress towards EU accession, as it hopes to do.
Topical Questions
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Tomorrow and Thursday I will attend the EU Foreign Affairs Council, where we will discuss Egypt, Syria, Yemen and the European neighbourhood policy, and we will also examine the latest developments in the western Balkans and in the middle east peace process.
Mr Burley
In his last middle east statement the Foreign Secretary called on the Israeli Government to make a more decisive offer than any that they have been willing to make in the past. Israel made profound offers during the peace talks, unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and has accepted the Quartet’s peace initiative. What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Palestinian Authority to make similar genuine efforts towards peace?
Mr Hague
It is very important, as we discussed a moment ago, that both sides embrace the opportunity of negotiations and respond to the Quartet timetable of substantive proposals by 26 January. In my view, that requires Israel to make that decisive offer, but it also requires Palestinians not to set preconditions for entering into such negotiations, and both sides to have the necessary spirit of compromise.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I join the Government in deploring the Iranian Government’s recent threats to downgrade diplomatic relations between Iran and the United Kingdom, and I welcome the sanctions imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which cut all ties with Iranian banks. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether those recent measures cover foreign subsidiaries of British banks, and foreign banks operating in the UK?
Mr Hague
The measures apply to the UK financial sector—to credit and financial institutions here in the United Kingdom. They do not, therefore, apply to foreign banks that happen to operate in the United Kingdom. Of course, the necessary defining measures will set that out in detail. The sanctions will be quite far-reaching, particularly as we are joining the United States and Canada in the measures, and I expect other countries to join in as well.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T2. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Union has centralised too much power, and that it should be one of the Government’s stated aims to return powers and competences to London from Brussels as soon as possible?
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
T3. During the visit of President Santos of Colombia, did we, the British Government, make representations about the appalling human rights situation in that country, particularly the attacks on and killings of human rights defenders? If so, did he give a concrete response?
Mr Hague
Yes, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we raised those issues. I raised them myself with President Santos at my meeting with him last week. The Colombian Government are well aware of opinion in this country about those issues. However, it is fair to point out that President Santos’s Government are very clear about their commitment to human rights and have made a renewed, much stronger, commitment in Colombia to their observance in that country. I believe in his Government’s sincerity and their commitment to dealing with those issues.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
T7. As small businesses in my constituency are keen to export goods and services to new markets, what is the Foreign Office doing to develop business and trade opportunities overseas?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
UK Trade & Investment is reinvigorating its efforts not just to increase foreign direct investment in the UK but to encourage firms to export all round the world. That is one reason why the Foreign Office has gone ahead with its network shift, so we have 50 new people in China, for example, and we have new missions including four new embassies in Africa.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
T4. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the commitment by President Santos on human rights abuses in Colombia. May I press the Foreign Secretary on that? Before we go ahead with programmes such as “Britain open for business” and others that support commerce between the two countries, will he ensure that, as far as possible, there are not only binding commitments but observed improvements?
Mr Hague
Yes, there are already observed improvements in the behaviour and performance of the Colombian authorities in this regard. The UK and Colombia signed a joint statement on human rights during the president’s visit, so we never underestimate the importance of this issue. Our strong engagement with Colombia and our commitment to strong bilateral relations with it are part of encouraging the continued improvement in human rights observance by the Colombian Government. These strategies fit together.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
What does my right hon. Friend see as the political implications of recent events in Egypt?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
My right hon. Friend has made repeated requests of the Egyptian authorities that they should announce a timetable for a rapid move from military to civilian rule. To that extent the elections yesterday, and the pride with which a huge number of people took part in them, are a very important step in the process. We wish it well, and we wish to see the transition to civilian rule move as quickly as possible.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. What assessment have Ministers made of the current political situation in Moldova, especially in view of the news of a delay in electing a new president?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The further delay in electing a new president is dismaying, but we welcome the fact that the 5 plus 2 talks are due to commence formally again very soon. It is in the interests of the whole of Europe for Moldova to move as swiftly as possible towards entrenching democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend act urgently to ensure that much more humanitarian aid reaches the Syrian refugees currently in Lebanon, and will he also act to bring about an international arms embargo covering all UN states to ensure that Syria is not armed further?
Mr Hague
We are certainly assisting: Ministers at the Department for International Development have committed a sum of £20 million to support international organisations helping with the relief of humanitarian suffering in or around Syria. My hon. Friend will understand that humanitarian access in Syria is one of the great problems, because of the appalling behaviour of the regime, which means that we are not able to get that help to all the people who want it. Syria should certainly no longer be purchasing any arms from any EU country.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
T6. At the end of October the Foreign Secretary announced plans to put guards on merchant vessels. Yesterday he said that action would be taken briskly, but did not confirm a time scale. [Interruption.] Will he today confirm what has happened since October, especially with regard to the establishment of procedures, protocols and various rules? When can we expect to see the pledge fulfilled? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand that the House is excited, but I am sure that when the Foreign Secretary traverses the globe his statements are greeted in respectful silence. It would be magnificent if that could happen here as well.
Mr Hague
Yes, that is universally the case, Mr Speaker—particularly with announcements on tackling piracy, which the hon. Gentleman asked about. The Department for Transport has, in consultation with the shipping industry, produced national guidance for maritime security contractors. He may be happy to learn that this is due to be announced and published later this week. The regulation will require such companies to comply with DFT guidance and to apply to the Home Office for licence to carry firearms. This is an important change in our policy with regard to tackling piracy, and it will soon be able to take effect.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should use our presidency of the Council of Europe to push through reform of the European Court of Human Rights, so that it does not consider cases that have been properly considered by national courts but concentrates instead on serious and systemic human rights abuses?
Mr Lidington
That is the clear top priority of the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which I discussed with members of the Parliamentary Assembly and the secretary-general last Friday.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that there are hundreds of journalists lying in Turkish jails without trial or sentences. Some of them have been there for nearly nine years. When the Secretary of State next meets his Turkish counterpart, will he mention this distasteful situation?
Mr Hague
Yes, Mr Speaker. Human rights are at the core of our foreign policy all over the world. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, which we have of course discussed with Turkey. However, as he raises the matter now, I will make a particular point of mentioning it again at our next meeting.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
What representations did Ministers make to the Turkish President when he was visiting the country recently about continuing human rights abuses in Turkey? Some 70 journalists are currently in prison, which is a worrying trend.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that 90% of the species for which the UK has responsibility reside outside the UK in the overseas territories. They are therefore not the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but of his Department. Given that that 90% are his responsibility, can he assure the House that he is spending nine times as much as DEFRA on protecting biodiversity?
Mr Bellingham
We had a very successful overseas territories consultative council last week. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the biodiversity issue, and I can assure him that we are putting a huge amount of emphasis on it. We spent £15 million last year on biodiversity and environmental schemes in the overseas territories; they are a key priority of the overseas territories.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary want to welcome the announcement by New Delhi on Friday of the partial opening up of the vast Indian retail sector to foreign supermarket groups such as Tesco, which has been a key objective of UK commercial diplomacy for many years?
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend points to a very important development. We have long advocated the liberalising and the opening up of the Indian economy. This will be vastly beneficial to the people of India and to the growth of trade. We want to see progress made on a free trade agreement between India and the whole of the European Union.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Of all the principal concerns and exhortations that the Foreign Secretary has conveyed to the Israeli Government, to which, if any, have they paid most attention?
Mr Hague
I hope, of course, that they will pay attention to the entirety of our representations, and to the strong feeling in this House and across the world that it is important to make a decisive move to reach a two-state solution to help to avoid the future strategic isolation of Israel. It is, therefore, the entirety of our representations that I would urge upon them.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I share the Foreign Secretary’s concerns about the restrictions on Gaza. He reports that fewer than half of the agreed 15,000 vehicles a month are making it across the border to improve the humanitarian situation there. Most recently, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister spoke of further restrictions on energy and even water supplies in Gaza. Will the Foreign Secretary urge the Israeli Government to reject such collective punishments of the people in Gaza?
Alistair Burt
I was in Gaza a few months ago and able to observe the pressures on the state. I visited a United Nations Relief and Works Agency school to see the difficulties there. We will indeed continue to urge Israel to ease the restrictions on goods going in, because it is to the political and economic benefit of Gaza and Israel if that situation is eased.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Two thirds of Afghan women think that their lives have improved, but nine tenths fear a return to a Taliban-style Government. When Ministers meet their counterparts in Bonn next week, will they make it clear that Afghan women’s rights must not be traded away in any future peace agreement?
Mr Hague
Yes, this is a very important issue. I shall be leading the UK’s delegation to Bonn next week, and we will underline that point in the make-up of our ministerial team, in everything that we say about the importance of human rights in Afghanistan, and in reiterating what I have said before—that a sustainable peace in Afghanistan will not be achieved without the extensive and wholehearted commitment of the women of Afghanistan.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
During the UK’s presidency of the Council of Europe, will the Foreign Secretary make arrangements for himself and the Prime Minister to visit the island of Cyprus, particularly at this crucial time in the talks?
Mr Hague
Clearly, we are heavily committed during our presidency of the Council of Europe, but my hon. Friend can be sure that we will visit Cyprus, because in the second half of next year it will hold the presidency of the European Union. We will be there, and I shall, of course, attend the regular meetings of Foreign Ministers that take place in whichever country holds the presidency. The answer to his question, therefore, is yes.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary think that getting rid of elected Governments, in any circumstances, is a price worth paying for saving the euro?
Autumn Statement
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Let me start by placing squarely before the House of Commons and the British public the economic situation facing our country. Much of Europe now appears to be heading into a recession caused by a chronic lack of confidence in the ability of countries to deal with their debt. We will do whatever it takes to protect Britain from this debt storm while doing all we can—[Interruption.]—all we can to build the foundations of future growth.
Today we set out how we will do that by demonstrating that the country has the will to live within its means and keep interest rates low; by acting to stimulate the supply of money and credit to ensure that those low interest rates are passed on to families and businesses; by matching our determination on the deficit with an active enterprise policy for business and lasting investment in our infrastructure and education so that Britain can pay its way in the future; and at every opportunity by helping families with the cost of living.
The central forecast that we publish today from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility does not predict a recession here in Britain, but it has unsurprisingly revised down its short-term growth prospects for our country, for Europe and for the world. It expects gross domestic product in Britain to grow this year by 0.9% and by 0.7% next year. It then forecasts 2.1% growth in 2013; 2.7% in 2014; followed by 3% in 2015 and 3% again in 2016.
The OBR is clear that this central forecast assumes that
“the euro area finds a way through the current crisis and that policymakers eventually find a solution that delivers sovereign debt sustainability”.
If they do not, the OBR warns that there could be a “much worse outcome” for Britain. I believe that it is right. We hope that this can be averted, but if the rest of Europe heads into recession, it may prove hard to avoid one here in the UK.
We are now undertaking extensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. Like the Bank of England and the OECD yesterday, the OBR cites the chilling effect of the current instability as one of the central reasons for the reduction in its growth forecast. I want to thank Robert Chote and his fellow committee members, Stephen Nickell and Graham Parker, and their team for the rigorous work that they have done. Their forecast today demonstrates beyond any doubt their independence, but—[Interruption.] This is an important point for the House. If we accept their numbers, we must also pay heed to their analysis. In addition to the eurozone crisis, the OBR gives two further reasons for the weaker forecasts. The first is what it calls the “external inflation shock”—the result, in its words, of
“unexpected rises in energy prices and global agricultural commodity prices”.
The OBR’s analysis—independent—is that this explains the slow-down in growth in Britain over the past 18 months. Secondly, the independent OBR—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The statement by the Chancellor must be heard, and he should not have to fight to be heard.
Mr Osborne
Secondly, the OBR today has shown new evidence that an even bigger component of the growth that preceded the financial crisis was an unsustainable boom, and that the bust was deeper and had an even greater impact on our economy than previously thought. The result of that analysis is that the OBR has significantly reduced its assumptions about spare capacity in our economy and the trend rate of growth. That increases the OBR’s estimate of the proportion of the deficit that is structural—in other words, the part of the deficit that does not disappear even when the economy recovers. Our debt challenge is therefore even greater than we thought, because the boom was even bigger and the bust even deeper, and the effects will last even longer. Britain has had the highest structural budget deficit of any major economy in the world and the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside war—and the last Government left it to this Government to sort that mess out.
The OBR’s analysis feeds directly through to borrowing numbers that are falling, but not at the rate that had been forecast. In 2009-10, the last Government were borrowing £156 billion a year. During the first year of this Government, that fell to £137 billion. This year the OBR expects it to fall again, to £127 billion, then to £120 billion next year, followed by £100 billion in 2013-14, £79 billion in 2014-15, then £53 billion in 2015-16 and £24 billion a year by 2016-17. However, I can report that because of the lower market interest rates that we have secured for Britain, debt interest payments over the Parliament are forecast to be £22 billion less than predicted.
The House might also like to know, given the economic events described by the Office for Budget Responsibility, what would have happened to borrowing without the action that this Government have taken. The Treasury today estimates that borrowing by 2014-15 would have been running at well over—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, I know that the Chancellor is proceeding, but his statement must be heard. There are strong passions on this subject. There will be plenty of time for people to come in on the back of the statement, but the statement must be heard with a degree of courtesy.
Mr Osborne
The Treasury today estimates that borrowing by 2014-15 would have been running at well over £100 billion a year more and that Britain would have borrowed an additional £100 billion in total over the period. If we had pursued that path, we would now be in the centre of the sovereign debt storm.
The crisis we see unfolding in Europe has not undermined the case for the difficult decisions we have taken; it has made that case stronger. We held our deficit-reduction Budget on our terms last year, not on the market’s terms this year, as so many others have been forced to. In that Budget we set out a tough fiscal mandate: that we would eliminate the current structural deficit over the five-year forecast horizon. We supplemented the mandate with a fixed debt target: that we would get national debt as a proportion of national income falling by 2015-16. To be cautious, I set plans to meet both those budget rules one year early. That headroom has now disappeared, but I am clear that our rules must be adhered to, and I am taking action to ensure that they are. As a result, the OBR’s central projection is that we will meet both the fiscal mandate and the debt target.
The current structural deficit is forecast to fall from 4.6% of GDP this year to become a current structural surplus of 0.5% in five years’ time, and the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is forecast to stand at 67% this year, is now set to peak at 78% in 2014-15 and to be falling by the end of the current Parliament. So borrowing is falling, and debt will come down. It is not happening as quickly as we wished, because of the damage done to our economy by the ongoing financial crisis, but we are set to meet our budget rules, and we are going to see Britain through the debt storm.
There is a suggestion from some in the House that if you spend more, you will borrow less. That is something-for-nothing economics, and the House should know the risks that we would be running. Last April, the absence of a credible deficit plan meant that our country’s credit rating was on negative outlook and our market interest rates were higher than Italy’s; 18 months later, we are the only major western country whose credit rating has improved. Italy’s interest rates are now 7.2%, and what are ours? They are less than 2.5%. Yesterday we were even borrowing money more cheaply than Germany. Those who would put all that at risk by deliberately adding to our deficit must explain this.
Just a 1% rise in our market interest rates would add £10 billion to mortgage bills every year: 1% would mean that the average family with a mortgage would have to pay £1,000 more; 1% would increase the cost of business loans by £7 billion; 1% would force taxpayers to find an extra £21 billion in debt interest payments, much of it going to our foreign creditors. In other words, 1% dwarfs any extra Government spending or tax cut funded by borrowing that people propose today—and that is the cost of just a 1% rise. Italy’s rates have gone up by almost 3% in the last year alone. We will not take this risk with the solvency of the British economy and the security of British families.
The current environment requires us to take further action on debt to ensure that Britain continues to live within its means. This is what we propose to do. First, there is no need to adjust the overall totals set out in the spending review. Taken all together, the measures that I will set out today require no extra borrowing and provide no extra savings across the whole spending review period. Secondly, I am announcing significant savings in current spending to make the fiscal position more sustainable in the medium and long term; but in the short term—over the next three years—we will use these savings to fund capital investments in infrastructure, regional growth and education, as well as help for young people to find work. Every pound spent in this way will be paid for by a pound saved permanently. That includes savings from further restraint on public sector pay.
For some work forces the two-year pay freeze will be coming to an end next spring, and for most it will be coming to an end during 2013. In the current circumstances, the country cannot afford the 2% rise assumed by some Government Departments thereafter, so instead we will set public sector pay awards at an average of 1% for each of the two years after the pay freeze ends. Many people are helped by pay progression—the annual increases in salary grades to which many are entitled even when pay is frozen. That is one of the reasons why public sector pay has risen at twice the rate of private sector pay over the last four years. While I accept that a 1% average rise is tough, it is also fair to those who work to pay the taxes that will fund it. I can also announce that we are asking the independent pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets, and we will ask them to report back by July next year. This is a significant step towards the creation of a more balanced economy in the regions of our country which does not squeeze out the private sector. Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] Departmental budgets will be adjusted in line with the pay rises I have announced, with the exception of the NHS and school budgets, where the money saved will be retained in order to protect those budgets in real terms. This policy will save over £1 billion in current spending by 2014-15.
The deal we offer on public sector pensions is also fair to both taxpayers and public servants. The reforms are based on the independent report of John Hutton, a former Labour Pensions Secretary, and he says:
“It is hard to imagine a better deal”
than this. I would once again ask the unions why they are damaging our economy at a time like this and putting jobs at risk. I say call off the strikes tomorrow, come back to the table, complete the negotiations and let us agree generous pensions that are affordable to the taxpayer.
Let me turn to other areas of public spending, starting with overseas aid. This Government will stick by the commitments they have made to the poorest people in the world by increasing our international development budget—and the whole House should be proud of the help our country is providing to eradicate disease, save lives and educate children—but the spending plans of the Department for International Development meant that the UK was on course to exceed 0.7% of national income in 2013. That I do not think can be justified and so we are adjusting those plans so we do not overshoot the target.
Turning to welfare payments, the annual increase in the basic state pension is protected by the triple lock introduced by this Government. This guarantees a rise either in line with earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is greater. It means that the basic state pension will next April rise by £5.30 to £107.45—the largest ever cash rise in the basic state pension and a commitment of fairness to those who have worked hard all their lives. I wanted to make sure that poorer pensioners did not see a smaller rise in their income, so I can confirm today that we will also uprate the pension credit by £5.35 and pay for that with an increase in the threshold for the savings credit.
I also want to protect those who are not able to work because of their disabilities and those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs and are trying to find work, so I can confirm that we will uprate working-age benefits in line with September’s consumer prices index inflation number of 5.2%. That will be a significant boost to the incomes of the poorest, especially when inflation is forecast to be considerably less than that by next April. We will also uprate with prices the disability elements of tax credits, and increase the child element of the child tax credit by £135 in line with inflation too. But we will not uprate the other elements of the working tax credit this coming year; and given the size of the uprating this year, we will no longer go ahead with the additional £110 rise in the child element, over and above inflation, that was planned. By April 2012, the child tax credit will have increased by £390 since the coalition came into power. The best way to support low-income working people is to take them out of tax altogether, and our increases in the income tax personal allowance this year and next will do that for over 1 million people.
Let me turn to future public spending. Today, I am setting expenditure totals for the two years following the end of the spending review period: 2015-16 and 2016-17. Total managed expenditure will fall during that period by 0.9% a year in real terms—the same rate as set out for the existing period of the spending review, with a baseline that excludes the additional investments in infrastructure also announced today. These are large savings and we will set out in future how resources will be allocated between different areas of government.
I am also announcing a measure to control spending which is not for today or next year, or even for the next decade, but it directly addresses the long-term challenge Britain and so many other countries face with an ageing population. Our generation has been warned that the costs of providing decent state pensions are going to become more and more unaffordable unless we take further action.
Let us not leave it to our children to take emergency action to rescue the public finances; let us think ahead and take responsible, sensible steps now. Starting in 2026, we will increase the state pension age from 66 to 67, so that we can go on paying a decent pension to people who are living longer. Australia, America and Germany have all taken similar steps. This will not affect anyone within 14 years of receiving their state pension today. By saving a staggering £59 billion, it will mean a long-term future for the basic state pension.
We are showing a world that is sceptical that democratic western Governments can take tough decisions that Britain will pay its way in the world. That is the first thing that the Government can do in the current environment: keep our interest rates low and protect our country from the worst of the debt storm. But we need to make sure that those low interest rates are available to families and to businesses. It is monetary and credit policy that is, in a debt crisis, the principal and most powerful tool for stimulating demand.
Last month, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee decided to undertake further quantitative easing, and I have authorised an increase in the ceiling on its asset purchases to £275 billion. This will support demand across the economy, but we must do more to help those small businesses who cannot get access to credit at an affordable price.
We have already extended the last Government’s enterprise finance guarantee scheme, and we are today expanding it to include businesses with annual turnovers of up to £44 million and accrediting new lenders, such as Metro Bank. But this scheme is by itself not nearly ambitious enough and never will be within the constraints of state aid rules, so the Government are launching a major programme of credit easing to help small business. We have set a ceiling of £40 billion. At the same time, I have agreed with Mervyn King that we will reduce by £40 billion the asset purchase facility that the previous Government gave the Bank to buy business loans. Only a small proportion of the facility was ever used. I am publishing my exchange of letters with the Governor today.
We are launching our national loan guarantee scheme. It will work on the simple principle that we use the hard-won low interest rates that the Government can borrow at to reduce the interest rates at which small businesses can borrow. We are using the credibility that we have earned in the international markets to help our domestic economy. New loans and overdrafts to businesses with a turnover of less than £50 million will be eligible for the scheme, so that it stays focused on smaller companies. We expect that it will lead to reductions of 1 percentage point in the rate of interest being charged to these companies, so a business facing a 7% interest rate to get a £5 million loan could instead see its rate reduced to 6% and its interest costs fall by up to £50,000.
We have developed with the Bank of England a mechanism to allocate funding to different banks based on how much they increase both net and gross lending to firms. There will be a clear audit trail to ensure the banks comply, for we will use the experience of the European Investment Bank’s loans for SMEs programme here in the UK to ensure that it works. We are getting state aid approval, so that the national loan guarantee scheme will be up and running in the next few months. Initially, £20 billion-worth of these guarantees will be available over the next two years. Alongside it, we are also launching a £1 billion business finance partnership. That is aimed at Britain’s mid-sized companies—a crucial part of our economy, neglected for too long and now identified by the CBI director general and others as a future source of growth. The Government will invest in funds that lend directly to these businesses, in partnership with other investors such as pension funds and insurance companies. It will give these mid-cap companies a new source of investment outside the traditional banks.
If the business finance partnership takes off, I stand ready to increase its size; and we will develop further partnerships ideas and ideas for new bond issuance to help Britain’s small and medium-sized companies. No Government have attempted anything as ambitious as this before. We will not get every detail perfect first time round, but we do not want to make the best the enemy of the good. With the strain on the financial system increasing, the important thing is to get credit flowing to Britain’s small businesses.
The Government can use the low interest rates that we have secured to help young families, too, who want to buy a home but cannot afford the very large deposits that banks are now demanding. We will use mortgage indemnities to help 100,000 such families to buy newly built homes. We will also help construction firms that cannot get bank finance with a £400 million fund that will kick-start projects that already have planning permission; and we are going to reinvigorate the right to buy. This was one of the greatest social policies of all time. It brought home ownership within the reach of millions of aspiring families. It was slowly and stealthily strangled by the last Government, as discounts were cut and cut again. We will bring it back to life. Families in social housing will be able to buy their own homes at a discount of up to 50%. We will use the receipts to build, for every home purchased, a new additional affordable home—so new homes for families who need them; new home ownership for families who aspire to it; and new jobs in the construction industry, so that we get Britain building. That is what our new right to buy will bring.
In the years leading up to the crash, our economy became dangerously over-dependent on the success of a poorly regulated City of London. Meanwhile, employment by businesses in a region such as the west midlands actually fell. By 2007, the previous Government were relying on finance for £1 in every £8 raised in taxation. That left Britain completely exposed when the banks failed, and I can confirm that, next month, we will publish our response to the report that we commissioned from John Vickers to protect taxpayers better.
It is this Government’s policy to ensure that we remain the home of global banks and that London is the world’s pre-eminent financial centre. That is why we will not agree to the introduction of an EU financial transaction tax. It is not a tax on bankers; it is a tax on people’s pensions. Instead, we have introduced a permanent bank levy to make sure that the banks pay their fair share. I have always said that we wished to raise £2.5 billion each and every year from this levy. To ensure we do that, I need to raise the rate of the levy to 0.088%. That will be effective from l January next year. We will also take action to stop some large firms using complex asset-backed pension funding arrangements to claim double the amount of tax relief that was intended. This will save the Exchequer almost £500 million pounds a year.
Financial services will always be a very important industry for the UK, but we have to help other parts of the private sector in other parts of the country to grow. That means uncongested roads and railways for businesses to move products that cannot be reduced to a screen on a City trading floor. It means providing secure power sources at reasonable prices. It means creating new superfast digital networks for companies across our country. These do not exist today. If we look at what countries such as China or Brazil are building, we see why we risk falling behind the rest of the world. So today we are publishing the national infrastructure plan. For the first time, we are identifying over 500 infrastructure projects that we want to see built over the next decade and beyond: roads, railways, airport capacity, power stations, waste facilities and broadband networks. We are mobilising the finance needed to deliver them, too.
The savings that I have announced in the current Budget have enabled me today to fund, pound for pound, £5 billion of additional public spending on infrastructure over the next three years. New spending by Network Rail, guaranteed by the Government, will bring £1 billion more. We are committing a further £5 billion to future projects in the next spending period, so that the planning can start now. This is public money. By exploring guarantees and letting city mayors borrow against future tax receipts, we are looking for new ways to deploy it. But we need to put to work the many billions of pounds that British people save in British pension funds and get those savings invested in British projects. You could call it British savings for British jobs, Mr Speaker.
The Government have negotiated an agreement with two groups of British pension funds to unlock an additional £20 billion of private investment in modern infrastructure. We can today give the go-ahead around the country to 35 new road and rail schemes that support economic development. In the north-west, we will electrify the trans-Pennine express between Manchester and Leeds, build the Manchester airport and Crewe link roads and work with Merseyside to turn the vision of the Atlantic gateway into reality. In Yorkshire and Humber, there will be new stations and new tram capacity, and we will halve the tolls on the Humber bridge. I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and indeed other local MPs who have campaigned for years to make this happen. Under this Government it has.
In the north-east, we will bring forward investment on the Tyne and Wear Metro. In the midlands, the A45, the A43, the A453, the Kettering bypass, the Ml and M6 will all be improved. In the south-west, the Bristol link road and the A380 bypass will go ahead. For families across the south-west facing the highest water charges in Britain, the Government will cut the household bills of all South West Water customers by £50 a year. In the east of England, we are going to make immediate improvements to the Al4. In the south-east, we will build a new railway link between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford that will create 12,000 new jobs. We are going to start working on a new crossing of the lower Thames, and we will explore all the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow.
Here in London, we will work with the Mayor on options for other new river crossings, for example at Silvertown. We are going to support the extension of the Northern line to Battersea, which could bring 25,000 jobs to the area. Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get their Barnett share, and we are working with them to improve the links between our nations, such as the M4 in south Wales and the overnight rail service to north of the border.
This all amounts to a huge commitment to overhauling the physical infrastructure of our nation. We will match it by overhauling the digital infrastructure, too. The Government are funding plans to bring superfast broadband to 90% of homes and businesses across the country, and extend mobile phone coverage to 99% of families. This will help to create a living, economically vibrant countryside.
Our great cities are at the heart of our regional economies, and we will help bring world-leading, superfast broadband and wifi connections to 10 of them, including the capitals of all four nations. We will go ahead with the 22 enterprise zones already announced, plus two further zones in Humber and Lancashire confirmed today. I can also confirm that capital allowances of 100% will be available to encourage manufacturing and other industries into the zones in Liverpool, Sheffield, the Tees valley, Humber and the black country. Those allowances will also be available to the north-eastern enterprise zone, and we will consider extending to the port of Blyth to create new private sector jobs there, too. [Interruption.] This Government’s new regional growth fund for England has already allocated £1.4 billion to 169 projects around the country. For every one pound we are putting in, we are attracting six pounds of private sector money alongside it. I am today putting a further £1 billion over this Parliament into the regional growth fund for England, with support as well for the devolved Administrations. If we do not get the private sector to take a greater share of economic activity in the regions, our economy will become more and more unbalanced, as it did over the last 10 years.
Government should not assume that this will happen by itself. We must help businesses to grow and succeed, and we can do that at a national level too, with our commitment, for example, to British science. At a time of difficult choices, we made ours last year when we committed to protect the science budget. Today we are confirming almost half a billion pounds for scientific projects, from supercomputing and satellite technology to a world-beating animal health laboratory, and Government can encourage many more of our small firms to export overseas for the first time. We are doubling to 50,000 the number of SMEs we are helping, and extending support to British mid-caps, who sometimes lack the overseas ambition of their German equivalents.
We will make it easier for UK-based firms to compete for Government procurement contracts and make new applications out of government data. We will provide funds for smaller technology firms in Britain that find it difficult to turn their innovations into commercial success. We have listened to the ideas from business groups about encouraging innovation in larger companies, and we will introduce a new “above the line” research and development tax credit in 2013 that will increase its visibility and generosity.
We will give particular help to our energy-intensive industries. I have not shied away from supporting sensible steps to reduce this country’s dependency on volatile oil prices and reduce our carbon emissions. I am the Chancellor who funded the first ever Green investment bank and introduced the carbon price floor. Our green deal will help people to insulate their home and cut their heating bills. I am worried about the combined impact of the green policies adopted not just in Britain but by the European Union on some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries. We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs from this country, so we will help them with the costs of the EU trading scheme and the carbon price floor, increase their climate change levy relief and reduce the impact of the electricity market reforms on those businesses, too.
This amounts to a £250 million package over the Parliament, and it will keep industry and jobs here in Britain. It is a reminder to us all that we should not price British businesses out of the world economy. If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals, however worthy in their own right, not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.
Our planning reforms strike the right balance between protecting our countryside while permitting economic development that creates jobs, but we need to go further to remove the lengthy delays and high costs of the current system, with new time limits on applications and new responsibilities for statutory consultees. We will make sure that the gold-plating of EU rules on things such as habitats do not place ridiculous costs on British businesses. Planning laws need reform. So too—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House needs to calm down. One hon. Member has probably shouted enough for one day.
Mr Osborne
Planning laws need reform, and so too do employment rules. We know many firms are afraid to hire new staff because of their fear about the costs involved if it does not work out. We are already doubling the period before an employee can bring an unfair dismissal claim and introducing fees for tribunals. Now we will call for evidence on further reforms to make it easier to hire people, including changing the TUPE regulations; reducing delay and uncertainty in the collective redundancy process; and introducing the idea of compensated no-fault dismissal for businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
We will cut the burden of health and safety rules on small firms, because we have regard for the health and safety of the British economy too. This Government have introduced flexible working practices and we are committed to fair rights for employees. But what about the right to get a job in the first place or the right to work all hours running a small business and not be sued out of existence by the costs of an employment tribunal? It is no good endlessly comparing ourselves with other European countries. The entire European continent is pricing itself out of the world economy. The same is true of taxes on business. If we tax firms out of existence, or out of the country, there will not be any tax revenues for anyone. We have set as our ambition the goal of giving this country the most competitive tax regime in the G20. Our corporate tax rate has already fallen from 28% to 26%, and I can confirm that it will fall again next April to 25%.
We are undertaking major simplification of the tax code for businesses and individuals, including, this autumn, consulting on ideas to merge the administration of income tax and national insurance. We are publishing next week rules on the taxation of foreign profits, so that multinationals stop leaving Britain, and instead start coming here, and we will end low-value consignment relief for goods from the Channel Islands, which has been used by large companies to undercut shops on our high streets. We have supported enterprise by increasing the generosity of the enterprise investment scheme. Today, we are extending this scheme specifically to help new start-up businesses to get the seed investment they need. Even at the best of times they can struggle to get finance, and in the current credit conditions that struggle too often ends in failure. From April 2012, anyone investing up to £100,000 in a qualifying new start-up business will be eligible for income tax relief of 50%, regardless of the rate at which they pay tax, and to get people investing in start-up Britain in 2012, for one year only, we will also waive any tax on capital gains invested through the new scheme. We can afford this with a freeze on the general capital gains tax threshold for next year.
I also want to help existing small businesses which find the current economic conditions tough. Business rates are a disproportionately large part of their fixed costs. In the Budget, I provided a holiday on business rates for small firms until October next year. I am today extending that rate relief holiday until April 2013. Over half a million small firms, including one third of all shops, will have reduced rate bills or no rate bills for the whole of this year and for the whole of the next financial year too. To help all businesses, including larger ones, with next year’s rise in business rates, I will allow them to defer 60% of the increase in their bills to the two following years.
I also want to help any business seeking to employ a young person who is out of work. The OBR forecasts that unemployment will rise from 8.1% this year to 8.7% next year, before falling to 6.2% by the end of the forecast. Youth unemployment has been rising for seven years and is now unacceptably high. It is little comfort that this problem is affecting all western nations today. The problem is, of course, primarily a lack of jobs—[Interruption.] But it is made worse by a lack of skills. Too many children are leaving school after 11 years of compulsory education without the basics that they need for the world of work.
Our new youth contract addresses both problems with the offer of private sector work experience for every young person unemployed for three months. After five months, there will be weekly signing on. After nine months, we will help pay for a job or an apprenticeship in a private business. Some 200,000 people will be helped in this way but, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, this is a contract. Young people who do not engage with this offer will be considered for mandatory work activity, and those who drop out without good reason will lose their benefits.
If we are to tackle the economic performance of this country and tackle Britain’s decades-long problems with productivity, we have to transform our school system too, so that children leave school prepared for the world of work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is doing more to make that happen than anyone who ever had his job before him. The previous Government took six years to create 200 academies. He has created 1,200 academies in just 18 months. Supporting his education reform is a central plank of my economic policy, so today, with the savings that we have made, I am providing an extra £1.2 billion—as part of the additional investment in infrastructure—to spend on our schools.
Half of that will go to help local authorities with the greatest basic need for school places. The other £600 million will go to support my right hon. Friend’s reforms and will fund 100 additional free schools. These schools will include new maths free schools for 16 to 18-year-olds. This will give our most talented young mathematicians the chance to flourish. Like the new university technical colleges, these maths free schools are exactly what Britain needs to match our competitors and produce more of the engineering and science graduates so important for our long-term economic success.
To ensure that children born into the poorest families have a real chance to become one of those graduates, we will take further steps to improve early education. Last year, it was this coalition Government who not only expanded free nursery education for all three and four-year-olds, but gave children from the poorest fifth of families a new right to 15 hours of free nursery care a week at the age of two. I can tell the House today that we can double the number of children who will receive this free nursery care: 40% of two-year-olds—260,000 children—from the most disadvantaged families will get this support in their early years.
On education and early years learning, this is how we change the life chances of our least well-off and genuinely lift children out of poverty and that is how we build an economy ready to compete in the world. It will take time. The damage that we have to repair is great. People know how difficult things are and how little money there is, but where we can help with the rising cost of living, we will. I have already offered councils the resources for another year’s freeze in the council tax. That will help millions of families, but I want to do more.
Commuters often travel long distances to go to work and bring an income home. Train fares are expensive and they are set to go up well above inflation to pay for the much needed investment in the new rail and new trains that we need, but RPI plus 3% is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1%. This will apply across national rail regulated fares, across the London tube and on London buses. It will help the millions of people who use our trains.
Millions more use their cars to go to work, and pick up the children from school. It is not a luxury for most people; it is a necessity. In the Budget I cut fuel duty by 1p. The plan was for fuel duty to be 3p higher in January and 5p higher by August next year. That would be tough for working families at a time like this, so despite all the constraints that are upon us, we are able to cancel the fuel duty increase planned for January, and fuel duty from August will be only 3p higher than it is now. Taxes on petrol will be a full 10p lower than they would have been without our action in the Budget and this autumn. Families will save £144 on filling up the average family car by the end of next year. At this tough time, we are helping where we can.
All that we are doing today—sticking to our deficit plan to keep interest rates as low as possible, increasing the supply of credit to pass those low rates on to families and businesses, rebalancing our economy with an active enterprise policy and new infrastructure, and providing help with the cost of living on fuel duty and rail fares—all that takes Britain in the right direction. It cannot transform our economic situation overnight.
People in this country understand the problems that Britain faces. They can watch the news any night of the week and see for themselves the crisis in the eurozone and the scale of the debt burden that we carry. People know that promises of quick fixes and more spending that this country cannot afford at times like this are like the promises of a quack doctor selling a miracle cure. We do not offer that today.
What we offer is a Government who have a plan to deal with our nation’s debts to keep rates low; a Government determined to support businesses and support jobs; a Government committed to take Britain safely through the storm. Leadership for tough times—that is what we offer. I commend this statement to the House.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op)
Let me start by thanking the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. I said very clearly that people should not shout and yell at the Chancellor. He should be heard in respectful quiet, as the public would hope. The same goes for the reaction to the shadow Chancellor. Let us try to operate at the level of events.
Ed Balls
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me start by thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for advance notice of his statement, and the Office for Budget Responsibility for ensuring that the Chancellor is today setting out to the House the truth about the state of the British economy and the truly colossal failure of the Chancellor’s plan.
Let us be clear about what the OBR has told us today, which the Chancellor could not bring himself to say: growth is flatlining and will be down this year, next year and the year after; unemployment is rising; and there will be well over £100 billion more borrowing than he planned a year ago, and more than was set out in the plan he inherited at the general election. As a result, his economic and fiscal strategy is in tatters. After 18 months in office, the verdict is in: plan A has failed, and failed colossally. With prices rising and unemployment soaring, families, pensioners and businesses already know that it is hurting. With billions of pounds more in borrowing to pay for rising unemployment, today we find out the truth that it is just not working.
The Prime Minister likes to say, “You can’t borrow your way out of a crisis.” Will the Chancellor confirm that that is exactly what he has been forced to do? He has been forced into higher borrowing to pay for the crisis in growth and jobs in Britain, the higher unemployment and higher benefits bill that his failing plan has delivered.
The Chancellor’s out-of-touch and complacent hubris of a year ago now seems such a distant memory. The Prime Minister boasted that Britain was out of the danger zone and the Chancellor claimed that the UK was a safe haven, but we know the truth: cutting too far and too fast has backfired and all his claims of a year ago have completely unravelled. It is not as if they were not warned, including by their coalition colleagues. Before the election, we said that, like every country after the global financial crisis, we had to get our deficit down, which meant tough decisions on tax and spending cuts. The question is not whether that should be done, but how. That is why the Opposition warned that trying to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast risked choking off recovery and pushing up unemployment and borrowing. We said that the Chancellor’s plan was reckless, not cautious, and that he was ripping out the foundations of the house, leaving our economy not safe, but badly and deeply exposed to the growing global storm.
Let me remind the Chancellor what the managing director of the International Monetary Fund warned this summer. She said that
“slamming on the breaks too quickly will hurt the recovery and worsen job prospects.”
What has happened? Consumer and business confidence has slumped in the past year. Our recovery was choked off over a year ago. Since then, Britain has had slower economic growth than any G7 country other than Japan, and it had an earthquake. Unemployment is at a 17-year high and over 1 million young people are out of work. Today we hear that growth this year will be not the 2.3% he so confidently predicted in the June Budget this year, but just 0.9%. It will be even lower next year and lower than forecast the year after. It is the fourth time the OBR has downgraded his growth forecasts in just 18 months.
Today we learn that the Chancellor, even when judged by the one objective he set himself—getting the deficit down—is failing. With lower growth and rising unemployment pushing up the cost of failure, will he confirm that he will now have to borrow not £46 billion more than set out in his autumn statement last year, as he said in March, but a staggering £158 billion more? Will he also confirm that, despite the pain of the £40 billion of extra spending cuts and tax rises he boasted about a year ago, because the recovery has been choked off and unemployment is higher he will be borrowing more at the end of this Parliament than he would be under the balanced plan inherited from the Labour Government at the last election? That is a fact.
A year ago the Prime Minister told the CBI:
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”
That was not some kind of dodgy rolling target, but a clear commitment to eliminate the deficit by 2015. Can the Chancellor tell the House whether he will meet that fiscal mandate? Is not the truth that, with unemployment and borrowing up, going further and faster has been utterly counter-productive and self-defeating and has backfired? We have had all the pain, but none of the gain.
The OBR forecasts show that the Chancellor’s entire economic and fiscal strategy is now in complete disarray, yet all we get are excuses. He has blamed anyone and anything, including the Labour Government, the snow, the royal wedding, the Japanese earthquake, higher inflation, VAT, the eurozone and low-paid dinner ladies and teaching assistants—anybody but himself. [Interruption.] It is he who is to blame. It is his failing plan that has pushed up unemployment and borrowing. It is his reckless gamble that has made things worse here in Britain, not better.
If eurozone countries continue to fail to sort out their problems, of course that will have an impact here. [Hon. Members: “Ah.”] However, Britain’s economic recovery was choked off a year ago, before the euro crisis. The OBR has downgraded growth in Britain this year but upgraded growth in the euro area. Of the 27 countries in the EU, only Greece, Portugal and Cyprus have grown more slowly than Britain in the past year. Not only is it not too late for the Chancellor to change course, but the deepening euro crisis makes it even more important that he sees sense. Instead he is still clinging to the fantasy that any change of course would make things worse. He still clings to the illiterate fantasy that low long-term interest rates in Britain are a sign of enhanced credibility and not, as they were in Japan in the ’90s and in America today, a sign of stagnant growth in the economy. [Interruption.] This summer the head of the IMF warned the Chancellor—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The situation is very simple: however long it takes, the shadow Chancellor will be heard. That is all there is to it.
Ed Balls
Thank you, Mr Speaker. They do not like it, but this is the truth. The Government set up the OBR, so maybe they should listen to its forecasts.
This summer the head of the IMF warned the Chancellor that
“growth is necessary for fiscal credibility”,
but he said that a change in his plans would lead to a loss of credibility, even though he has been forced to confirm today that his growth and borrowing targets are wildly off track. Last month the IMF advised the Government that
“If (economic) activity were to undershoot current expectations and risk a period of stagnation or contraction, countries that face historically low yields (for example, Germany and the UK) should also consider delaying some of their planned consolidation.”
With the world darkening and with today’s news that here in Britain we are set to see stagnant growth not just this year, but next, is it not time the Chancellor listened to the IMF? How much worse does it have to get? How many more young people have to lose their jobs, how many more businesses have to go bankrupt, and how many more times does he have to come here to downgrade his growth forecast and upgrade his borrowing forecasts? How many more billions in borrowing do we need to pay for failure before he finally sees sense?
These would be difficult times for any Chancellor, but our fear is that once again in his statement today the Chancellor is making a catastrophic error of judgment. He is refusing to learn the lessons of history or economics; he is refusing to switch to a more balanced plan; he got it wrong 18 months ago, and he is getting it wrong again today. Repeating the mistakes he made last year will only make things worse. Is it not now time to listen to the IMF, to cut taxes and to have a slower pace of spending reduction? Is it not time for him to change course before it is too late?
What do we have instead? We have a cobbled together package of growth measures, which the Chancellor must know, and the OBR forecast confirms, do not address the fundamental problem—that his rapid, reckless and deflationary plan is choking off recovery and pushing up borrowing. We have been here before. This is the third emergency growth package in a year, so the last thing our economy needs is yet another fantasy growth package.
Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us look at the OBR’s own forecast. Does the OBR think that the Chancellor’s plans are going to boost growth? No, it has revised growth down next year, from 2.5% to 0.7%; and for the following year it has revised growth down from 2.9% to 2.1%. Does the OBR think that the Chancellor’s plans are going to increase employment and cut unemployment? Let me tell the House two things from the OBR forecast which the Chancellor chose not to tell the House. Unemployment is not only higher next year than this year, but higher the year after than this year; and employment is expected to fall by 100,000 next year.
We were promised a game-changer of a statement and a growth plan that would secure recovery. Instead, we have a plan for growth which leads to lower growth and higher unemployment. It is not a game-changer; it is just more of the same.
Let me turn to the measures that the Chancellor has announced. He has announced a new youth jobs fund, but why did he abolish the future jobs fund in the first place? The Government abolished it in their first month in office; their new plan will not be up and running until the middle of next year.
The Chancellor claims to have increased the bank levy, so why is he cutting taxes on banks this year compared with last year—down from £3.5 billion last year to £2.5 billion this year? Why will he not repeat the bank bonus tax and do something proper about youth jobs?
The Chancellor has announced a sensible halt to January’s fuel duty rise, but will he confirm that, as a result of last January’s VAT rise, motorists are paying 3p a litre more on petrol? He has belatedly announced a plan on Labour’s enterprise finance guarantee, relabelled as credit easing, but why did he wait so long, and why did he put his faith in Project Merlin, which has patently failed and, as the Bank of England confirms today, seen net bank lending to small businesses fall over the past year? As for his equally belated decision to set up a new infrastructure fund, this is from the same Chancellor who abolished the Building Schools for the Future programme at a cost of tens of thousands of construction jobs.
How much of this new investment has been pre-announced? How much will happen this year and next year? How much of it is pre-announced funding from the next spending review after the next general election? Will the Chancellor confirm that the new off-budget infrastructure fund will be subject to a National Audit Office value-for-money test to ensure that projects are not more expensive to the taxpayer than direct Government borrowing?
The Chancellor has also announced a rebate for energy intensive industries to correct the chaos caused by his botched carbon floor price. He has reinstated just 10% of his planned £4 billion cut in housing, but even in the past few minutes, as we have studied the small print, and despite all the bluster of the new measures, we have found that because this Chancellor is so determined not to break from his failing plan, he is once again giving with one hand and taking with the other.
How are these new growth measures being paid for? By hitting families and savers. How much will the Chancellor’s cut in tax credits cost a working family on average incomes? With inflation so much higher, is he still meeting the Prime Minister’s pledge to deliver real-terms rises in NHS spending in this Parliament?
As a result, and taking into account pre-announced measures in the Chancellor’s Budget and spending review, are the Government still hitting women harder than men? Are they still increasing child poverty and not reducing it? Given that he has already cut child care support by more than £1.5 billion, is he helping women who want to go out to work, or is he making it harder?
If we are all in this together, why with this Government is it always families, women and children who pay the price? It is clear: the Chancellor’s plan is not working. The OBR knows it, the markets know it, the IMF knows it, we know it and so, increasingly, do the Chancellor’s coalition colleagues. His arch rival, the Mayor of London, certainly knows it.
We all know why the Chancellor cannot change course. We know why he cannot accept the IMF’s advice. We all know why—even as the euro crisis deepens and he is borrowing £158 billion more than he planned—this oh-so political Chancellor will not budge because to change course now would be to admit that he has got the key economic judgments of this Parliament absolutely, catastrophically wrong.
If, after just 18 months, the Chancellor’s plan is leading to falling growth, rising unemployment and £158 billion more in borrowing, the country needs either a new Chancellor or a new plan—a balanced and credible plan on jobs, growth and the deficit. We need real tax cuts, real investment, a real plan for jobs, growth and deficit reduction: Labour’s five-point plan for jobs, growth and deficit reduction.
Protecting our economy, businesses, jobs and family finances is more important than trying to protect a failed economic plan. For his sake, for his party’s sake, and in the national interest, the Chancellor needs to change course, and he needs to do so now.
Mr Osborne
As far as I can tell, the shadow Chancellor complains that we are borrowing too much—and then proposes that we borrow even more. It is completely unconvincing and a reminder to Government Members why we are so pleased that he is in the job that he is doing, for he is a constant reminder of everything that went wrong with Labour’s economic policy—a permanent advertisement for why we should never trust Labour with our money again.
Let me answer the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He welcomes the fact that we have open and honest figures from the OBR. When did we never get them when he was at the Treasury? He complains about the bank levy. He was the City Minister, so why did he not introduce a bank levy? It will raise £2.5 billion a year. In the Labour policy document on the bonus tax that he proposes, his party costs its measure at £2 billion a year. That is less—a tax cut for banks, if can I put it like that.
The right hon. Gentleman complains about off balance-sheet borrowing. That is from Mr PFI. He says that we should have kept the future jobs fund, but 50% of all people who left that scheme were unemployed within 12 weeks, which is in part why we have an unemployment problem.
Yes we are committed to real increases in the health budget, and yes the OBR confirms that we will meet our fiscal mandate and our debt target—[Interruption.] In the terms set out by me in the emergency Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman told the House this extraordinary thing—that the OBR forecasts that growth in the UK will be less than in the euro area. That, I am afraid, is simply not true. I am not going to use unparliamentary language, but it is in the OBR document in black and white: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015—every single year, growth unfortunately is slow in the eurozone and slower than in the UK. That is one of the problems we are facing.
Let me respond to the three arguments that the right hon. Gentleman advanced in his reply. First, he said that we should try to borrow our way out of a debt crisis; he talked about extra borrowing. His plans—the plans of the previous Government—would have led to an additional £100 billion on top of borrowing over the course of the Parliament. Let us look at the facts. There is not a single credible political party in the entirety of Europe that is proposing more spending at the moment, apart from—and it is not credible—the Labour party. This is what Tony Blair said this morning on the radio—[Interruption.] Go on—have a go at booing him! Tony Blair said on the radio this morning:
“frankly whatever government is in power it is going to be pursuing a pretty tough programme at the moment”.
Blair or Balls—I think the British public made their mind up on Labour politicians long ago.
The second astonishing argument that the right hon. Gentleman deployed was to say that low interest rates in Britain were a sign of failure. Presumably that means that he wants interest rates to be higher in Britain. Presumably the fact that Italian interest rates are over 7% is a sign of success. Presumably the fact that Greek interest rates are 30% is an economic miracle. His policy for higher interest rates would put families’ mortgage bills up, increase debt interest charges for taxpayers, increase the cost of loans for small businesses, and put people out of work. Now people know—you vote Labour, you get higher interest rates.
The third and final argument that the right hon. Gentleman advanced is that the events happening in Europe will have almost no impact on anyone in Britain or on the British economy. [Hon. Members: “That’s not what he said.”] He mentioned it once in passing. That flies in the face of what the Bank of England says and what the OECD said yesterday. He quoted the IMF. The IMF supports our deficit reduction plan. It explicitly asked itself the question, “Should Britain change course?”, and said no. He quoted the independent OBR’s numbers, but he refuses to accept its analysis. Anyone who turns on the television and listens to the news knows that his argument is completely absurd, so we have to ask ourselves why he advances it. Why does he alone advance the argument that Britain is not affected by what has been going on in the world—by the external oil shocks, by the size of the financial crisis, by the eurozone crisis? There is a very simple reason: because if he admits that we are in a debt crisis, then he has to admit that we borrowed too much when he was in office, that the crash here was deeper than anywhere else, and that the effects were longer lasting. It would be an admission of his personal failure.
The right hon. Gentleman was the City Minister who let the City explode. He is the author of the golden rules that failed. He does not have the excuse of the Leader of the Opposition that he was only photocopying orders: he gave the orders; the orders came from him. Labour’s economic credibility will never recover while he remains the shadow Chancellor.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The whole country, I think, will welcome the supply-side measures announced today, which are an essential counterpart to the deficit reduction plan. Britain’s recovery depends on thousands of small businesses in our constituencies that need the confidence and the cash to invest and grow. That is why the credit easing package that has been announced today is so welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree, though, that the recovery can be secured in the long term only when we have banks that are operating normally —when we have a return to more normal lending conditions? Does not that reinforce the need for him to work extremely closely with the regulators and the banks to achieve this?
Mr Osborne
I agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee that the impact of the financial crisis and the deleveraging in the British financial system and other financial systems are having a huge impact not just on our recovery but on recoveries around the world. I completely agree that we need to try to clear the impaired balance sheets of the banking system. We need to try to get new lenders on to the high street. That is why we took the decision we took on Northern Rock—to get Virgin Money out there on the high street. I will have more to say on the banking system next month when I respond to the Vickers report and to the very good report from the Treasury Committee.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement of more investment in infrastructure, but the more I hear about the proposal, the more it sounds like PFI by any other name. Pension funds will invest in public projects only if it is a good deal for them. As with PFI, any sweetener that the Chancellor offers to the private sector will be at the expense of the taxpayer, both in the short term today and for future generations, so what precisely is he offering and proposing to attract pension fund investment, and how is he going to ensure that his scheme represents value for money for the taxpayer?
Mr Osborne
Let me explain to the right hon. Lady that what we are seeking to do is to get the pension funds investing in British infrastructure. We are not proposing to provide, in this respect, guarantees for these projects. There are some guarantees set out for specific Government infrastructure projects such as the Thames tidal waste tunnel. What I am talking about with the pension funds is not guaranteed projects like PFI; it is simply about trying to get private sector money invested in British infrastructure. [Interruption.] Let me explain, briefly.
We have Canadian and Australian pension funds investing in Britain, but not British pension funds investing on a sufficient scale. We are going to try to bring them together, through a private sector agreement, into vehicles where they can co-operate and then invest in infrastructure. This is not about the Government underwriting those investments; it is about trying to get the industry together to make private sector investments. There is a memorandum of understanding which sets out how this is done.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. It is a great shame that the shadow Chancellor appears to be living in a parallel universe to that of Government Members. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of his desire to set up a better and a stronger economy for the future, it would be a good idea to look again at the prospect of account portability in the banking system to create a truly free consumer choice for the future in terms of personal current accounts and small business lending?
Mr Osborne
I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a very important part of making sure that customers get the best possible deal. It was the part of the Vickers report that got the least coverage because of the interest in things like ring-fencing. We are determined to introduce changes that allow people to switch their current accounts very easily, and we hope to have them in place before the end of the Parliament.
David Miliband (South Shields) (Lab)
The Chancellor has recognised that 260,000 young people have been unemployed for more than 12 months—that is over 100,000 more than 18 months ago. He has rejected the argument for a job guarantee and instead embraced wage subsidies, which he says will help about 53,000 young people. For the sake of those young people, will he look at the similar scheme announced by his right hon. and learned Friend the current Secretary of State for Justice, in 1995? That scheme promised 130,000 jobs, but only 2,300 applications came forward. Will the Chancellor look at that experience to make sure that we do not have a repetition of the very low take-up of wage subsidy schemes?
Mr Osborne
We have worked with the business groups and businesses to make sure that the youth contract is going to be effective. I respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us some days ago that the problem of youth unemployment was not invented by this Government. I respect his honesty in saying that. This is a problem that all western countries are facing at the moment. Frankly, in Britain youth unemployment has been going up for the past seven years. A subsidised job in the private sector is part of the answer. The work experience places are already working well, and we are adding to those. Of course, there is some conditionality in all this, so we are introducing, for example, weekly signing on after five months.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
I welcome what the Chancellor has said about protecting our economy from the external pressures that we face and rebalancing and strengthening it for the future. Will he confirm that despite these difficult circumstances, this Government are acting to raise the income tax threshold so that the poorest in society do not pay income tax, are fully increasing out-of-work benefits by 5.2%, and are increasing the state pension by £5.30? Does not that demonstrate that this coalition Government are determined to protect the poorest in society despite the very difficult circumstances in which we operate?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right. We are uprating out-of-work benefits and the basic state pension. The coalition Government are committed to the triple lock. People can see the benefit of that today. He is also right that we are committed to real increases in the personal income tax allowance. We have already had two of those. The coalition agreement is absolutely clear on that. I also support it as a tool of economic policy. We want to lift more people out of tax altogether.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
What is the right hon. Gentleman’s precise estimate of the overall growth, if any, that will arise from today’s package, given that there is no net increase in demand? Is not his core £5 billion infrastructure package—just 0.7% of current expenditure—merely tinkering at the edges and completely incapable of pulling Britain out of its deepening slump?
Mr Osborne
As I said in my statement, I believe, particularly in a debt crisis, that monetary policy is the most powerful tool for supporting demand. The Bank of England has undertaken the quantitative easing programme, which the previous Government thought was the right policy as they authorised the Monetary Policy Committee’s request. We can also do a lot to try to improve the credit conditions for small businesses, which do a huge amount to employ people in our country. That is why we have taken action on credit easing. The right hon. Gentleman has to balance the cost that a 1% rise in interest rates would have for mortgage bills, debt interest bills, family business loans and the like, which I set out, with the need for the additional billions of pounds of borrowing that he is proposing on top of the borrowing that we are already doing and what that might do to the credibility of this country in international markets.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome opportunity for private pension funds to invest in infrastructure will also give a good return for those pension funds by unlocking the growth that can come from such infrastructure, particularly in rural areas such as East Anglia?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have made a particular commitment to two roads in East Anglia: the A11 and the A14. The A14 is a real challenge, as he knows, because it is a vital artery for the entire national economy. We are announcing particular commitments today to improve the A14. We want to work with local councils and local communities to make even greater lasting improvements to the A14 in the future.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Chancellor ended his statement by talking about quack doctors. Of course, in the book “George’s Marvellous Medicine”, George makes a potion to shrink his grandmother. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not understand that he will not grow the British economy by cutting tax credits, because that will make it uneconomic for many women to go out to work?
Mr Osborne
As I said, we are not cutting tax credits, but uprating the child tax credit. The hon. Lady should have listened to what I had to say.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I am confused and am hoping that the Chancellor can help me to sort something out. On page 82 of its document, the OBR states that it has cut its forecast for European growth to 0.5%. On another page, it states that it has cut the British forecast to 0.7%. Under the shadow Chancellor’s quack-onomics theory, interest rates should therefore be higher in Britain than in the eurozone, but they are not. Can the Chancellor explain why?
Mr Osborne
Because we have earned credibility for this country. That is what this Government have done. That has not been an easy thing to do, but it has brought our borrowing costs down while other countries’ borrowing costs have gone up. When this Government came to office, the interest rates in Italy were lower than the interest rates in Britain. They have gone up in Italy and come down in Britain. Of course, we now have the new Labour party policy, which is that it wants to see higher interest rates. I am not sure that the Labour Back Benchers have fully realised what a completely stupid policy that really is.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
With regard to the capital infrastructure investment, will the Chancellor confirm that the whole figure of £30 billion will be spent proportionately in Wales and the other devolved nations, and that in the case of Wales that will amount to £1.5 billion?
Mr Osborne
We absolutely will apply the Barnett formula to the infrastructure spending. I can confirm that. We specifically want to work with the devolved Administration on the M4 corridor in south Wales and, if possible, to do a deal on the future of the Severn bridge and its tolls. We are holding open the opportunity for discussion on that matter.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his announcement about the Humber bridge and commend the work of the Transport Secretary. Does he agree that that proposal will benefit low-paid workers, especially in the Humber, who have suffered even in the times of growth, when the number of private sector jobs in the Humber decreased?
Mr Osborne
I pay tribute again to my hon. Friend and the other MPs in the area, including my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) who first raised this issue with me some years ago.
Mr Osborne
Absolutely, I happily pay tribute to all the MPs of north Lincolnshire and Humberside who have campaigned for the reduction of the tolls. This was an injustice. The bridge was built many years ago and the debt was paid off, but the tolls were still very high. I am glad that we have been able to help. Along with our enterprise zones in Humberside and our commitment to the renewable energy industry in the area, this will really help the economy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor’s statement reminded me of the Budgets not of the last Chancellor of the Exchequer but of the one before that, because it included so much, and almost the kitchen sink. To change the mood in the country, most of which is now deeply in recession—certainly Yorkshire and the Humber are—were we not expecting some imaginative, bold policies today to end youth unemployment?
Mr Osborne
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that a fairly stark difference between me and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is that I am trying to make the books add up, whereas he did not. We have all been paying the price for that ever since.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I know that the Chancellor will ignore the pleas of the Labour party, given that it more than doubled the national debt when it was in power, but will he revisit the massive net increases in our contribution to the EU that will come through over the next seven years? They will amount to something like £20 billion, which would fund a 5p to 6p cut in small business corporation tax.
Mr Osborne
We have negotiated the first real freeze in the EU budget. Important negotiations are coming on the future financial perspective. I am absolutely clear, as are some other member states, that the EU has to live within its means as well.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Will the Chancellor explain why he is taking £250 million from hard-pressed families and giving it to some of the country’s biggest polluters, especially as green economies employ far more people than energy intensive industries?
Mr Osborne
As I said, we have introduced and funded the green investment bank, and we are supporting the green deal. The hon. Lady did not mention that there are £200 million of incentives to make the green deal work so that people can insulate their homes, their bills can come down and we can reduce our carbon emissions. I do not see how we would save the climate of our country and the world by pricing ourselves out of steel making, operating chemical factories, aluminium smelting and so on. If anything, it is likely that those industries would continue in other countries and be more polluting because those countries do not have the same regimes. I think that it supports our effort to reduce carbon emissions around the world that we keep those industries in Britain.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and in particular the announcements on rail fares and the fuel duty. Does he agree that those policies and others that he has expressed today show that the Government are helping hard-working people with the cost of living wherever they can?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have been able to take action on fuel duty so that taxes on petrol will be 10p lower than they would otherwise have been. We have taken action to reduce the increase in rail fares. I also stress that we have helped small businesses that employ people by extending the business rate freeze.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
If we are all in it together, why has the Chancellor announced further restrictions on pay for working people and their families, while the bankers who caused the recession are taking home salaries of up to £4.5 million? Is it because the people on that side on millionaire’s row are looking after their friends in the banking system, while kicking the workers in the teeth?
Mr Osborne
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it is half of the last Labour Cabinet who are working in the City at the moment.
If the hon. Gentleman is so passionate about this issue, why did he not press the Government he supported for 13 years to introduce a bank levy? On public sector pay, the shadow Chancellor was completely silent about whether the Labour party supported 1% average increases after the freeze ends. No doubt we will find out more about that later this afternoon.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Black Country chamber of commerce reports that 400 new businesses started in our region this year, 170 with help from the Government. I particularly welcome the national loan guarantee scheme. Does my right hon. Friend anticipate that that scheme might support business start-ups?
Mr Osborne
I think it will help new businesses borrow, but of course we have also announced today the seed enterprise investment scheme, a new scheme that will specifically help start-up businesses. It will give 50% income tax relief to anyone who invests up to £100,000 in a new company. Also, for one year only, we are allowing people to put capital tax-free gains of up to £100,000 into the scheme. It is all about trying to get investment into new companies such as the ones in the black country that my hon. Friend talks about.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
On 20 October, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said in the House that there would be no Treasury backsliding on the £1 billion available for carbon capture and storage investment from the Government. Yesterday morning the Chancellor’s deputy, the Chief Secretary, suggested that part of his £5 billion investment would be funded by taking money from that £1 billion. Can the Chancellor confirm whether that is the case, and what implications that will have for potential CCS projects that are working to a timetable of being on a commercial basis before the end of this Parliament?
Mr Osborne
We absolutely want to support carbon capture and storage technology in this country. I confirm that we are still committed to a £1 billion investment, which is a very significant investment in a technology, but it cannot be on an unrealistic time scale. [Interruption.] Well, the previous Government—indeed, the Energy Secretary in the previous Government, who of course is the Leader of the Opposition at the moment—made all sorts of promises about getting carbon capture and storage demonstrations up and running, and that did not happen. We are operating on a more realistic time frame, but we are committed to a £1 billion investment in that technology.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
There is so much to welcome in this statement, and I especially welcome the £1 billion increase in the regional growth fund and the infrastructure changes to the A45. Will the Chancellor set the record straight and say that our youth jobs fund is nothing like Labour’s future jobs fund, under which only 2% of the jobs in the west midlands were in private companies, and that our scheme will create real jobs for young people?
Mr Osborne
Not only was the future jobs fund primarily aimed at the Government employing people in the public sector, which of course was unsustainable with the very large deficit that Labour was running, but actually it did not work on its own terms, because 50% of the people who used the fund were unemployed within 12 weeks. The youth contract that the Deputy Prime Minister has worked on, which he presented last week, will make a real difference.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
There were two key announcements today. One was the national loan guarantee scheme and the £20 billion of credit easing, and the second was the investment in infrastructure of perhaps £30 billion. When does the Chancellor expect the business finance backed by the scheme to start flowing, and how much infrastructure spend does he expect this year and next, when it will have the biggest effect?
Mr Osborne
We are undertaking an ambitious programme of credit easing, and I hope to get it running in the next couple of months. We have to clear the state aid hurdles, and we are working flat out to do that, but I am confident that because we are partly following the European Investment Bank’s scheme in the UK, a lot of the work has already been done. The precise numbers on infrastructure in the next two years are set out in the book.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement on behalf of families and businesses in my constituency, particularly the billions for infrastructure, the strong support for science and innovation and the very imaginative scheme for unlocking credit easing for small companies. Does that not show that this Government are laying the foundations for sustainable economic growth, while the Labour party has nothing to offer but more debt, more tax and higher interest rates?
Mr Osborne
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. What was really striking in the shadow Chancellor’s response was that the heart of his argument was, “We’re borrowing too much, so let’s borrow more.” I do not think that is a very convincing argument. The only reason why he advances it is that he, almost alone in the Labour party, cannot admit that the last Government borrowed too much.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor confirm that it is “rest in peace” for the “greenest Government ever”? As far as Stoke-on-Trent is concerned, can he tell the House why there is nothing in the autumn statement about why the Prime Minister came to Stoke-on-Trent and promised us a local enterprise zone? There have been two extra ones announced today, and still nothing for Stoke-on-Trent.
Mr Osborne
I completely understand why the hon. Lady is fighting hard for her constituency and her city. In the end, the proposal put forward by Stoke for an enterprise zone was not as compelling as the other enterprise zone proposals that were put forward at the same time. That was independently assessed by the civil servants. I am very happy to sit down with her, and indeed other Members from Staffordshire, to work with them on what we can do to make the proposal a success. I am very much open to considering whether we can get the enterprise zone bid into a state where it is successful and we can go ahead with it.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
There were many measures in the statement that will help businesses with their cash flow, which is truly to be welcomed, for example extending the small business rate relief and credit easing. Will the Chancellor clarify that where business rates go up in line with RPI next year, there will be the ability to defer 60% for two years interest-free?
Mr Osborne
We are helping businesses with their cash flow, but it is not a subsidy to those businesses, more a cash-flow measure.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor has announced a number of supply-side measures designed to help small businesses. However, that is only one part of the equation. One of the main obstacles now for small businesses applying for loans or investment is the squeeze on personal incomes in their market. Can he explain to me how removing current expenditure and squeezing incomes further at this time, albeit for some very worthy projects in two or three years’ time, will benefit unemployment and alleviate the feeling of deep insecurity that there is in my area at this moment?
Mr Osborne
I would argue that we are not squeezing incomes. We have frozen fuel duty in January and taken measures to uprate non-working benefits in line with CPI, which is a very big increase, and pensioners are getting the largest ever increase in the basic state pension. However, we cannot afford the additional £110 on top of the uprating that we promised on the child tax credit.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that measures such as extending the above-the-line research and development tax credits and the creation of enterprise zones such as the one at MIRA on the edge of my constituency will be extremely important in bringing new manufacturing jobs to the west midlands?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is a powerful champion for Nuneaton, and I am glad that the enterprise zone is going to help his town. He specifically raised with me the issue of whether we could introduce an above-the-line R and D tax credit. I listened to his arguments and those of business organisations, and I am delighted that we are able to go ahead with that. We will set out the precise details of the rate and so on in the Budget.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In view of the fact that the published Treasury tables suggest that the poorest fifth of the population have lost more from the Chancellor’s statement than anyone else apart from the richest fifth, will he tell the House what impact his announcements will have on child poverty?
Mr Osborne
The Treasury is very clear that in the precise way in which child poverty is measured against the baseline, it has gone up. We have been honest about that in the document. However, there is also an inflationary increase in the child tax credit and other benefits, so the picture is more mixed and better for tackling child poverty. I would also make the broader argument that investing in early years education and schools, and so transforming people’s life chances, will do more to lift people out of poverty. That is surely a lesson that we have learned over recent years.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I commend the Chancellor on his statement, particularly the parts about young people and small businesses, which will be gratefully received in my constituency. I am sure that he shares my concern about the shadow Chancellor’s seeming lack of interest in interest rates and the amount of national debt. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend confirm that a top priority of the Government is to reduce the £130 million per day that taxpayers in my constituency—and all taxpayers—pay to get the interest on the debt down?
Mr Osborne
Despite the deterioration in the borrowing forecast, the debt interest payments that we are making are £24 billion less than forecast. That is the burden of the debt, and it would be billions more if the shadow Chancellor ever got his hands on the British economy again.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement on the 100% capital allowances for the enterprise zones in the Tees valley. I refer him to his statement that he will target £20 billion from pension funds for infrastructure investment. May I draw his attention to the fact that the industry has something like £80 billion in its kitty? I invite him to go back and raise more money for more investment in the same project.
Mr Osborne
I would certainly like to see even more money coming from British pension funds, but £20 billion is an ambitious target. It is a shame that we have not been able to mobilise private sector resources from the pension funds in the past decade in the way that we should. The Government are making a determined effort to change that, and I hope that the memorandum of understanding that we signed with two groups of pension funds will lead to more infrastructure investment in the Tees valley and elsewhere.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement and for doing so much for hard-pressed families and working people. Today, Italy had to borrow billions of pounds at almost 8% interest. The UK borrows at German rates because of the confidence in our economic policy. The strikes planned for tomorrow will damage confidence in the British economy. Will the Chancellor condemn the strikes and urge the Opposition to come out and condemn them?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us look at the Italian bond auction this morning—that is the sort of interest rate we might have to pay if Britain’s ability to pay its way in the world lost credibility. Was it not surprising that the shadow Chancellor did not mention the fact that there are strikes tomorrow? It is because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Unite union.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The giving with one hand and taking away with the other for child care is, frankly, playing with children’s lives and is disgraceful. By how much will the Chancellor increase the early intervention grant to pay for the child care pledge that he announced today? How much capital funding will he provide to local authorities so that they can expand and build nurseries? From what children’s pot will he rob that money?
Mr Osborne
We have introduced, for the first time, an entitlement for disadvantaged two-year-olds to get 15 hours of free nursery care. Such a policy was never introduced in the 13 years of a Labour Government. We have increased the figure to 40% of all children of that age and the cost is just shy of £500 million by the end of the period.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
Erewash is at the heart of the manufacturing base in the east midlands. I therefore welcome the commitment to improving the infrastructure in the UK. To maximise that opportunity, reopening the train station at Ilkeston would really help us in Erewash, assisting businesses and commuters. Would my right hon. Friend or a colleague from the Treasury kindly meet me to discuss how the project can form part of the Government’s plans?
Mr Osborne
The Transport Secretary sitting next to me has just genuinely volunteered to meet my hon. Friend. We will look at improvements to Ilkeston train station. I did not set it all out in detail today, but there is scope for further smaller investments in rail stations and pinch points on our road network—we have set aside considerable sums of money for that. I will ensure that my hon. Friend meets the Transport Secretary soon to put her case.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
On credit easing, how will the Chancellor’s announcement today apply in Northern Ireland? He knows that some 60% of bank lending to business in Northern Ireland is done by non-UK clearing banks, so I would be grateful if he elaborated on how he thinks it will apply in Northern Ireland. Will he work with the Finance Minister there to find a way through the current credit crunch for business?
Mr Osborne
First, I am happy and keen to work with the devolved Administration in Belfast on how the scheme will apply in Northern Ireland, given the specific issues that Northern Ireland faces with the involvement of the southern Irish banks. It is certainly a UK-wide scheme and we are particularly aware of the acute problems that the financial crisis south of the border have caused in Northern Ireland.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Today, we have seen a clear difference between a Chancellor who wants to manage and invest in our economy and an Opposition who spent and taxed their way through boom into bust. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, for the sake of every home owner and small and medium-sized business with a mortgage, overdraft or long-term loan, that he will follow a fiscal policy that delivers low interest rates for the long-term future?
Mr Osborne
I absolutely will. We have had a startling admission by the shadow Chancellor that he wants interest rates to be higher in Britain at the moment. That would be a terrible thing for our economy, but I will give him this: his policies would certainly lead to higher interest rates in Britain.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor is wrong to deny that the Government’s policies are making long-term youth unemployment worse. It is up by more than 80% since the start of this year. Would he now like to apologise for scrapping the future jobs fund?
Mr Osborne
As I said, the future jobs fund meant that 50% of people who went on it were unemployed within 12 weeks. The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) was very honest in saying that this Government did not create the problem of youth unemployment. Frankly, if we had more honesty from the shadow Chancellor, he would have a bit more economic credibility. I cannot help noticing that the British public think that the right hon. Member for South Shields would do a better job as shadow Chancellor than the man opposite jabbering at me.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
With the UK 10-year market interest rates at record lows, does the Chancellor agree that the rest of the world seems to support his plan, not the Labour party’s?
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Last year, the Chancellor cut £4 billion from housing investment. Does he accept responsibility for the catastrophic 99% collapse in affordable house building in the past six months, which is 187% in the west midlands? Does he agree that today he is restoring but 10% of what he cut, when the need for building homes and jobs has never been greater?
Mr Osborne
The Government’s capital spending plans are higher than those that the Labour party put forward in March 2010, which the Dromey family enthusiastically endorsed and tried to persuade the country to vote for. It is striking that, with the hon. Gentleman’s background, he has not mentioned the strikes, which will do huge damage to our economy and jobs. Why do not he and his colleagues condemn them and make sure that our country is working?
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s announcements on infrastructure. In particular, there is a hugely warm welcome for the announcement of Government backing for the Northern line extension to Battersea, which is key to unlocking many new jobs and homes in the Nine Elms/Vauxhall/Battersea development area. Does he agree that it is also important for the existing communities in that area, many of which are among the most disadvantaged in my constituency? It is good news for them, too.
Mr Osborne
I had the opportunity yesterday, with my hon. Friend and the Mayor of London, to visit one of the development sites between Nine Elms and Battersea. It is fantastic to see that project going ahead and I hope that the support and commitment we are giving to help with the borrowing required to fund the Northern line extension will help to create 25,000 jobs in that area of London.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The £5 billion programme of capital infrastructure is to be welcomed. What is not to be welcomed is that it will be paid for out of the pay packets of individuals in both the private and public sectors. Last year the Chancellor said that he believed that the British public were able to spend their money better than the British Government. When did he stop believing that?
Mr Osborne
Perhaps I can explain to the hon. Gentleman that taxes come from people working in the public and private sectors. Money spent on infrastructure is well spent. For every £1 spent on infrastructure we have made savings in current spending, so we are not adding to borrowing in order to fund it. It will help to create jobs and support the economy.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend hear Opposition Members laughing when he initially mentioned help with the cost of living? Does he agree that that is backed up by the shadow Chancellor’s refusal to recognise that low interest rates have kept many families in their homes over the past couple of years, including the very women and children that he says he cares about?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right. Low interest rates are helping to keep people in their homes, mortgage payments down and businesses going. If hon. Members want to know what the alternative would be, they should look across the Channel to European countries in the middle of the debt storm, with interest rates going up. We can see that is a path that we must avoid, but we will only do so if we do not follow the policies advocated by that lot opposite.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Chancellor now take the opportunity to admit at the Dispatch Box that £158 billion is the deterioration in the forecast that has just been announced? How long will it now take to balance the books, and is not the statement today an admission that this country will have more severe austerity going forward?
Mr Osborne
I said that the borrowing forecast had deteriorated, and—unlike the Labour party—I set up an independent body to ensure that those figures are independently verified and not fiddled, as they were by the shadow Chancellor when he was in office. I can confirm that borrowing would be £100 billion higher if we had pursued the spending policies set out by the Labour party.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
May I welcome the Chancellor’s statement today, especially in its support for small business? I recently visited a company in my constituency, Somers Forge, which is growing and providing young people with training and support. Does he agree that that is precisely the sort of business that will benefit from some of the measures that he has announced today?
Mr Osborne
Absolutely. We are doing a huge amount to support small businesses through our rate policy, the national loan guarantee scheme that we have announced and the support that we have given to companies that innovate and want to bring those innovations to market. We are doing all those things to help the small businesses of this country so that they can create jobs and grow.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The announcement of new investment in transport infrastructure is very welcome. Can the Chancellor confirm that that investment will not be funded by reducing or delaying existing projects, and what will his announcement mean for the future of the northern hub and investment in rail across the north?
Mr Osborne
I can give that confirmation. This is additional money that has come from savings in current spending. Specifically on the northern hub, the first part of that is the electrification of the Manchester to Leeds trans-Pennine express, but that will also benefit train travel times from Liverpool across the Pennines. We have also made other improvements like the Ordsall chord, which will help. We want to go further on the northern hub and the Department for Transport will produce proposals on that early next year.
Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you, I and many other hon. Members have campaigned long and hard for east-west rail and today’s announcement is tremendous news for Milton Keynes. As the Transport Secretary is in her place, can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirm the possibility that we will have east-west rail and, at the junction between east-west and High Speed 2, could there perhaps be a Buckinghamshire Parkway station so that residents of Buckinghamshire could enjoy the benefits of High Speed 2 as well as the pain?
Mr Osborne
I do not think that a decision has been taken on stations, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to bring home to the people of Buckinghamshire the benefits of high-speed rail.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The Chancellor stressed the importance economically both of regional connectivity and infrastructure. Can he confirm whether the Northern Ireland Barnett consequentials of the infrastructure changes will be ring-fenced? Further, can he offer any good news on air passenger duty for those who rely entirely on regional flights for that connectivity?
Mr Osborne
It will be up to the devolved Administration to choose how to spend the money that is allocated to them, but of course as it is one-off money—being capital spending—they will need to think carefully about how they spend it. On aviation, the Department for Transport will set out an aviation strategy, but it is confirmed in today’s document that we were able to take the decision that saved the long-haul flight from Belfast to north America.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and the announcement today that the Manchester airport A6 link road will be brought forward. That will be a real boost for Manchester and north-east Cheshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that capital investment is the right way to strengthen our regions, rather than relying on the increases in public sector spending that we saw from the last Government?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As my constituency is affected by that road link, I very much welcome it, although I stress that the decision was not taken by me for that reason. He will know, and local people will remember, that that road scheme was cancelled in the first week of the Labour Government in 1997, and I am glad that we have now been able to take steps to help south Manchester and north Cheshire grow.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor has already announced 500,000 job cuts in the public sector alongside pay freezes, both of which have deflated demand, reduced growth and helped to increase the deficit by £158 billion. He is now imposing a 3% income tax on all public servants dressed up as a pension contribution for a lower pension after working longer. Will he accept that that will mean a 3% reduction in the spending power of all public servants, which will be deflationary and which, as well as being unfair, unwise and discriminatory, will provoke an unnecessary strike tomorrow?
Mr Osborne
We are basing our pension reforms on the report from Lord Hutton. He particularly focused on the benefit, but he said that there was a case for the increase in contributions. He also said recently that it was frankly difficult to imagine a better deal. That was the former Labour Pensions Secretary. What I do not understand is what exactly the Labour party’s policy is on this. It is absolutely silent. Are you in favour of increased contributions? [Interruption.] If you are not in favour of the increased contributions, where in your so-called five-point plan are you spending the money to stop those contribution increases? It is completely economically illiterate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) talks about negotiations. Why do he and his party not condemn the strike, urge the unions to sit round the table and negotiate with us to get a deal, especially as the former Labour Pensions Secretary, John Hutton—a man I know the hon. Gentleman really admires—says that it would be difficult to get a better deal?
Mr Speaker
Order. I may or may not be economically illiterate, but I gently, tentatively and courteously point out to the Chancellor that I do not have a five-point plan.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for listening to millions of hard-pressed motorists and the Fair Fuel UK campaign and for not raising fuel duty next year. Is he aware that that will save 37,000 Harlow motorists more than £1 million next year? Will he listen to Essex man once again and set up a commission to look at the long-term problems of petrol and diesel price rises and see whether anything more can be done?
Mr Osborne
I should pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, who has led a dogged campaign on behalf of the people of Harlow and of the whole country to get some relief from the increases in petrol taxes that were planned by the last Labour Government. I am delighted that we have been able to help. I always listen to Essex man, who is represented in the form of my hon. Friend.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor acknowledge that public sector workers are themselves taxpayers who make a massive contribution to the good of the country, and will he stop treating them like leeches on the public purse?
Mr Osborne
Of course people who work in the public sector pay taxes and make an enormous contribution to the British economy, but the hon. Lady should recognise that public sector pay restraint and pension reform at a time such as this is one of the ways in which we can reduce the impact of the very large deficit that her Government ran up on the public sector work force.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I give a wholehearted welcome to the announcement concerning the lower Thames crossing, which will make a big difference to Kent, as will the massive help for small business finance. May I make a plea to the Chancellor to look further at small business equity finance? In particular, will he consider whether there is scope for expanding, or possibly floating, the business growth fund?
Mr Osborne
I am very happy to look at ideas to enhance the business growth fund, which is principally operated by the banks, under which they have committed to invest in the equity of small companies. We have already announced the seed enterprise investment scheme, which will help angel investments in companies. I am glad that my hon. Friend supports the commitment that we made to the new crossing at the lower Thames.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Chancellor has proclaimed support for business and jobs in the present climate. He also puts at a premium innovation, productivity and exports. Do his plans therefore extend to assisting firms in the sterling zone—I am talking particularly about the areas of medical devices, life sciences and sustainable technologies—that are finding the flow and scale of orders from eurozone countries compromised and the reliability of payments damaged because of austerity measures in those countries?
Mr Osborne
I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that austerity measures are to blame, but I certainly agree that that is a real problem. Of course one of the consequences of the ongoing eurozone crisis has been an increase in bank funding costs across the European continent. The further disruption to the financial system is having an impact on exports to the eurozone, which is one of the reasons that this crisis is having a chilling effect on the British economy. Later today, I will be going to another meeting of European Finance Ministers in Brussels to try to get a better resolution of the problems.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
In my constituency in the London borough of Hounslow, we have a real and immediate shortage of school places. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s announcement today of the £600 million investment in school places. Will he confirm that that will mean an extra 40,000 places for school children and will he say when that money will become available?
Mr Osborne
We are addressing the problem of basic need, which was ignored by the previous Government. I know in places such as my hon. Friend’s constituency, the problem is acute. Let me write to her about the specific impact on her constituency and how many additional places the investment will create in the surrounding area.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
In my constituency, religious and community organisations are now providing food parcels to poor families. At the same time, we are seeing executive pay and remuneration soar. There was nothing in the Budget statement that addressed executive pay or remuneration. Are the Government going to bring forward some controls to tackle that obscene inequality?
Mr Osborne
I know that the previous Government were
“intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.
We are introducing transparency in pay. We are bringing regulations before the House to force banks to disclose the incomes of their eight highest paid employees. We are also consulting on high pay more generally. We have introduced the bank levy, which the previous Government failed to introduce in 13 years and which the shadow Chancellor could have introduced when he was City Minister, but never did.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his support for micro-businesses, which, as he well knows, I extensively champion. The extension to small business relief is great and the new seed enterprise investment scheme is fantastic. Can we hope to have more focus on the very important tiny companies that are too often overshadowed by the big brother SMEs? They are the area for new jobs and for growth in the economy.
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is indeed a powerful champion of micro-businesses. She has spoken to me about them on a number of occasions in the past year. We have set out a number of measures that will help such businesses, including the rate relief holiday, the seed investment scheme and the support for innovation. We are consulting and having a call for evidence specifically on compensated no-fault dismissal for firms of fewer than 10 employees.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Why are hard-working families on tax credits, low-paid public sector workers and the thousands of young people in my city with no job paying the price of the Chancellor’s economic failure while he lets bankers keep their bonuses?
Mr Osborne
It was the Labour Government who let the City explode. They allowed that to happen when the shadow Chancellor was the City Minister. They had 13 years to regulate the City and I suspect that on not one occasion did the hon. Lady write to either Tony Blair or the last Prime Minister calling for that regulation. The Labour party presided over the biggest financial crisis in our country’s history. We are properly regulating the banks and introducing ring-fencing. We have brought in a permanent bank tax and transparency in bankers’ pay. None of those things existed in the 13 years of Labour Government.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement which includes measures that will really help Staffordshire such as the M6 managed motorways scheme and the announcement on energy-intensive industries. How much does my right hon. Friend expect to make from the anti-tax avoidance measures that he has taken and that the previous Government did not?
Mr Osborne
I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the support that we have given to businesses and families in Staffordshire. I am also glad that he welcomes the M6 managed motorways scheme. We have taken specific measures to deal with both tax avoidance and unfair tax treatment. For example, the measures that I have announced to deal with double tax relief and asset-backed pension contributions will raise £450 million and the measures to deal with low-value consignment relief, which was strangling music shops on our high street, will raise £100 million. We have taken action, which the previous Government failed to take, to ensure that everyone pays their fair share.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I look forward to meeting the Chancellor over the Prime Minister’s broken promise to award an enterprise zone to north Staffordshire.
Regarding lending to small business, can the Chancellor confirm that under his loan guarantee scheme, the credit risk will remain with the banks? If so, how will it work in practice given that the banks have been averse to lending and expanding their balance sheets? Furthermore, what safeguards will there be to ensure that they do not largely fatten interest margins and their profits under his scheme?
Mr Osborne
Of course I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to be part of those discussions on enterprise zones. Many areas of the country put in bids for enterprise zones. We were able to give the go-ahead to only the 22 that we announced previously and the two now for Humber and Lancashire, which I have confirmed today. There is also the expansion of the north-eastern one to the Port of Blyth, which is warmly welcomed on the Opposition Benches. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the problem. On the national loan guarantee scheme, he is right to say that we have to get the audit trail right. We are looking very closely and seeking to model a lot of what we are doing on the European Investment Bank’s scheme, which already delivers lower rates to small businesses in Britain. It is a small scheme but the procedures are already in place. I can confirm that the credit risk of the small business loan sits with the banks.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Chancellor agree that the Government must continue to oppose the calls from the Labour party to adopt its plan B? When in government, it took our country to the brink of bankruptcy, and adopting its plan B would risk pushing it over the edge. The B in Labour’s plan B stands for bankruptcy.
Mr Osborne
It is indeed a plan B for bankruptcy. It is striking that no mainstream or centre-left party in Europe, other than the Labour party, currently advocates more spending. I can reach only one conclusion: the Labour party does so only because the man that it has chosen to be its shadow Chancellor is the man more identified than almost anyone else apart from the previous Prime Minister with the financial and economic mess that this country got into.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Chancellor claims to support the manufacturing industry and told the House at the conclusion of this year’s Budget speech that he wanted to be
“carried aloft by the march of the makers” —[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 966.]
in order to create jobs and support families. Will he explain, therefore, why he thinks it a good idea that the Government are undermining and potentially destroying the British train-building industry by building trains for the Thameslink line in Germany rather than at the Bombardier factory in Derby?
Mr Osborne
The hon. Gentleman should be straight with the House. That was a contract signed by the previous Labour Government—[Hon. Members: “No it wasn’t.”] It was a procurement process initiated by the previous Labour Government that left no other option for the British Government than the contract signed. That was the contract that we were forced to deal with under the rules of the previous Labour Government. In the autumn statement document, we set out changes to procurement rules to ensure that these sorts of things do not happen again. I can also confirm that we have committed to building 130 carriages on Southern Rail, and I very much hope that they can be built in Britain.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
From his statement, it is clear that my right hon. Friend has listened carefully to businesses in the port of Falmouth, where we want to strike the right balance between protecting our environment and developing a sustainable regional economy and new jobs. Will he detail what measures he has put in place to overcome the obstacles in our way?
Mr Osborne
I remember visiting the Falmouth estuary with my hon. Friend and talking to the local harbour master, the port authority and others about the ridiculous situation whereby we cannot dredge the Falmouth estuary and expand the port. The specific reference in my speech to the EU habitats directive was in part a reference to what was happening in Falmouth. As Members will know, I am working extremely hard to overcome these problems so that we can get the estuary dredged, as it has always been dredged, create jobs in Falmouth and address the ridiculous imbalance in our society whereby, in order to protect seaweed at the bottom of the Falmouth estuary, we cannot dredge it and create hundreds of jobs in Falmouth.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
In view of the decision that the Chancellor has announced regarding the reduction in tolls on the Humber bridge, may I ask him—he, too, is a Cheshire MP—whether he will consider what can be done to reduce the proposed level of tolls on the Mersey gateway? More specifically, will he consider the condition limiting how much of the toll revenue Halton council can use to give discounts to local residents? As he knows, they can travel across the current bridge for free, but when the new bridge is built, both bridges will be tolled.
Mr Osborne
I very much want the second Mersey crossing to get the go-ahead, and the Government have committed the support, including financial support, to the specific plan. It has to be tolled to be paid for, however, as I am sure people understand, but I would draw a distinction with the Humber bridge: the debt on the Humber bridge was paid for many years ago and so the tolls were unreasonable. However, when providing new infrastructure, we have to find a way of funding it. It has to come either from general taxation—we are providing tax support—or out of the tolls. However, I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's specific point about the arrangements with Halton council, speak to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and get back to him.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Just three weeks ago, I set up an all-party group to campaign for the reopening of the east-west rail link. May I thank the Chancellor for agreeing to our requests, and will he confirm that the project has a benefit-cost ratio of more than 6:1 and is in line to generate up to 12,000 high-quality jobs along the route?
Mr Osborne
This is evidence of what a powerful campaigner my hon. Friend is on behalf of his constituents and Milton Keynes, and I am delighted that we can develop these plans, which have the potential to create many, many thousands of jobs. It would be good to reopen a railway line in Britain.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am concerned that the Chancellor might be missing a trick. Hundreds of millions of pounds of European regional development funding are waiting to be drawn down by the UK, including £100 million for the north-east alone. Is the Government’s failure to take steps to secure match funding—for example, through the regional growth fund—a deliberate policy or simply an oversight?
Mr Osborne
We are keen to make use of European funds where available, but there are issues of affordability with match funding. I can assure the hon. Lady, however, that if she contacts me with specific examples of European funding that she wants us to draw on, I will see whether it can be done.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The Chancellor will be aware that in the last year of the previous Government, the discrepancy in gross value added between London and the English regions reached 100%—the worst for two decades—so can he confirm that it remains at the forefront of his policy to fix this appalling situation?
Mr Osborne
Yes, absolutely. We must get the private sector in our regions growing. It is striking that, through all the years of the Labour Government—with the regional developments and their like—the disparity between the English regions actually grew. That is what happened under their regional policy. That was because they did not focus enough on getting the private sector growing. The Government can do that by supporting things such as the regional growth fund and through investment in transport infrastructure. I know that my hon. Friend has made a powerful case for improvements to Warrington town centre and traffic flow in the borough.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government have today announced plans that take three times as much from families as from banks. Given that, as we now see, half of all households cannot make ends meet at the end of the month, does the Chancellor think that, under his plans, more or fewer people will be forced to borrow from legal and illegal loan sharks?
Mr Osborne
That is a pretty ludicrous question. We have tried to help families through the freeze in fuel duty in January and with rail fares, and we are uprating working and non-working-age benefits in the way that I set out. We were unable to pay the additional £110 on the child tax credit child element, as I explained. That is because of the substantial increase that the uprating will provide.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on focusing firmly on monetary policy. May I urge him to consider the box-ticking farce that is the lending policy of most banks and to focus his excellent credit-easing policy on those sectors, such as suppliers to the construction industry, that are particularly disadvantaged by it?
Mr Osborne
I want to ensure, in the way that I set out, that the national loan guarantee scheme is available to companies with a turnover of less than £50 million. As I mentioned in my statement, the business finance partnership, which has not had as much attention as the national loan guarantee scheme, is a £1 billion fund—it can be more if it succeeds—specifically targeted at mid-cap companies to provide non-bank financing for those companies alongside, for example, pension and insurance funds.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
At a time when inflation is 5% and when the average nurse in this country has had a two-year pay freeze, faces two years of a 1% pay limit, a 3% theft on her pension and frozen or capped increments, does the Chancellor agree that over this Parliament the average nurse’s living standards will fall by 10%, and that, if the plans for regional pay go through, people in the regions might be even worse off?
Mr Osborne
First, we have committed to real increases in the health budget, and the official—
Mr Osborne
Well, the pay comes out of the health budget, and the official policy of the Labour party is not to increase health spending in real terms. [Interruption.] This is rubbish: that is the stated position of the shadow Health Secretary; that is what he says. On pay, I want to hear from the shadow Chancellor at some point this evening whether he supports a 1% average pay rise in the next few years, because then we will know whether the complaints that the hon. Gentleman has just made have any force.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Can he confirm that, despite the quack economics cited by those on the Opposition Front Bench, the chief economist of the OECD has said not only that we are on course, but that plan A is the right plan for this country?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend is right. The OECD was absolutely explicit in saying yesterday that we were right to be dealing with our debts, and if one looks, the forecasts for the UK were tough, but they were worse for many eurozone countries, which I am afraid is just an indication of the difficult world that we are in.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Chancellor will be aware of the widespread calls from manufacturing businesses to increase the range and extent of capital allowances. Did I hear him correctly that his proposal to increase them to 100% is restricted to some enterprise zones and is not available to others? If that is the case, how will he ensure that this will lead to an increase in investment, rather than displacement investment? In a place such as the west midlands, which already has some of the poorest areas in the entire country, how would a public sector worker reach any conclusion from today’s announcement other than that he or she is being asked to work harder, for longer and for less, for doing the same job as somebody in the south-west or south-east?
Mr Osborne
First, we are today asking the independent pay bodies—which I think everyone in this House supports—to look at more local pay. That is the start of this process. Secondly, we increased capital allowances for short-life assets in the previous Budget. On the enterprise zones and the 100% relief that I have announced, there were specific proposals from the enterprise zones that I mentioned to attract new manufacturing and business into the zones. We are conscious that we want to avoid displacement activities, so we have given those capital allowances not to all enterprise zones, but to the enterprise zones that we think have the most compelling plans to create new businesses, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Hard-working commuters and others in Orpington who depend on Southeastern trains have for years been hit by a fare increase regime of RPI plus 3%. May I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to cap rail increases at RPI plus 1%, which will provide hard-working families with much needed support in these difficult times?
Mr Osborne
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. I hope that this measure will help people living in Orpington who commute into London to work and that it will really enable us to help local people at this difficult time with their costs of living.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement on the port of Blyth, which is something for which I have been fighting for a long time—I asked the Business Secretary about that only last week, so this is good, quick thinking. However, is the Chancellor aware that south-east Northumberland, where Blyth and the estuary are, has the highest unemployment in the north-east and perhaps the country? Will he consider making the estuary and all the land around it into an enterprise zone, bringing the jobs to where the unemployment blackspots are?
Mr Osborne
I think I had better capture the moment when I get a compliment from the hon. Gentleman. We have acted quickly on a specific proposal that was made for the port of Blyth. We are going to consult on it and get the detail right. I am happy to consider the proposal that he makes. It has to be affordable, of course, and it has to work in terms of encouraging enterprise and new business, but we are absolutely committed to the north-eastern zone and to the port of Blyth being a successful part of it.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on a statement that is absolutely right for these tough times and, particularly for Londoners, on his investment in infrastructure projects. Will he consider, in discussion with the Transport Secretary, bringing forward the Crossrail infrastructure project to parts of London? That would be good not only for parts of London, but especially for my constituents. We have a station—Ealing Broadway station—that has been urgently in need of an upgrade for many years now.
Mr Osborne
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we are certainly not going to delay on Crossrail, which is currently being built—we can see that at the moment around London. We have looked at this, but with such a complicated project, I do not think that it is possible to advance it faster than it is going at the moment, because it is going as fast as it can.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s plan B. It is a small start, but at least it shows that his previous plan A—reduction of public infrastructure investment—was a mistake. Can he tell me what steps the Government will take to ensure that the construction companies that pick up contracts under his infrastructure investment scheme will take on apprentices, and also say how many jobs in the construction industry he thinks will be created by this £30 billion of investment?
Mr Osborne
I explained that, pound for pound and in each year, we were paying for infrastructure spending with savings in current spending or underspend, so the position is absolutely consistent with the plan that I set out before. On jobs, I have not put a figure on the total number of jobs created by all this infrastructure—I do not want to over-promise and under-deliver. It will create jobs, but we do not have a figure. We are dramatically expanding the number of apprenticeships. I want to ensure that they are in the construction sector, and I would certainly hope that large firms taking part in Government infrastructure investment projects—and, indeed, firms in our small business scheme—are also taking on apprentices.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
May I welcome the Chancellor’s vote of confidence in the space sector today? I hope that Portsmouth, via Astrium, might benefit directly from that investment, but wherever the money goes, can he confirm that this Government will be—if he will forgive the expression—a “launch customer” and that our procurement will support those companies in massively increasing their exports?
Mr Osborne
We are giving specific support to new satellite manufacturing, which is a real success story in Britain—it is one of those untold stories. I know that the sector is particularly successful in the area that my hon. Friend represents. From memory—I will certainly correct the record if I have got this wrong—we are providing £25 million to support the development of new satellites, as a result bringing, we think, an additional £150 million of private sector investment into the small satellites sector, which I think is also taking place in the area that she represents. That is a good example of the Government trying to encourage the private sector and get jobs across the country.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
The retail sector is finding it extremely difficult and is being hammered in the current economic climate, yet it is a sector that usually provides lots of jobs for young people. Did the Chancellor not consider a scheme to help underwrite credit insurance, in particular to help independent retailers?
Mr Osborne
If the hon. Gentleman has specific proposals on credit insurance, I will be very happy to look at them. When it comes to credit easing more broadly, I have set a £40 billion envelope, although I have committed only £21 billion today, as it covers the two schemes that were ready to go: the national loan guarantee scheme and the business finance partnership. We are looking at partnership schemes and other things that might work within the envelope, and of course we are vigilant about conditions in the broader economy—including issues such as trade finance—that might be affected by the eurozone crisis.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I am sure that the Chancellor is aware that Jaguar Land Rover is currently constructing an engine plant in an enterprise zone in my constituency of South Staffordshire. Does he agree that measures on enterprise zones, R and D tax credits and infrastructure development will help the continued manufacturing revival?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I of course agree with my hon. Friend. Again, another success story at the moment is the car industry. I am absolutely delighted by Jaguar Land Rover’s announcement, which is a real vote of confidence in the UK—the company could have constructed that engine plant elsewhere in the world. The announcements that I have made on R and D above-the-line tax credits will also help larger companies do their R and D in Britain.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the biggest problems of modern society is youth unemployment. The Chancellor said that companies would be given national insurance discounts and other incentives to recruit and train young people. What other help will they be offered for that purpose?
Mr Osborne
We are helping companies to train young people through our apprenticeship programme, and I am happy to be engaged in active discussion with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland about how that help can best be delivered there.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and welcome his announcement of a national infrastructure plan, particularly in the context of south Essex. There is no doubt that investment in vital infrastructure is a key driver of growth. Will he agree to work with Members in areas that will benefit from the investment, to ensure that we obtain the best return on it both locally and nationally?
Mr Osborne
I certainly give that commitment, and I hope that south Essex will benefit from the commitment that we have already given today to work on a third crossing over the lower Thames. There are a number of possible locations for it, but it will definitely help economic activity both north and south of the Thames.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Before the general election, growth was increasing, the deficit was being reduced and unemployment was falling. Since the election, growth is down, borrowing is up and unemployment is going through the sky, and ordinary people are feeling the pain. Can the Chancellor truthfully tell us that his plan is working?
Mr Osborne
I had probably forgotten that we had inherited a golden economic legacy from the Labour party. What I remember is that we inherited a country that did not have a credible plan to deal with the deficit, which the credit rating agencies had put on negative outlook, and which the CBI, the OECD and all the other international organisations said lacked a credible plan.
Of course, as the OBR has made clear in its independent report, we are dealing with the consequences of the catastrophic failure of the last Labour Government to regulate financial services better, not least during the period when the shadow Chancellor was City Minister. That caused one of the deepest crashes of our country’s history. [Interruption.] We no longer hear the phrase “No more boom and bust” from the shadow Chancellor. He invented that phrase, and he gave us the largest boom and the biggest bust in our entire history.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I congratulate the Chancellor on his statement, and in particular on the new tax breaks for private investors in start-up companies. As I have not seen the details yet, can the Chancellor briefly elaborate on how the system will work for smaller investors?
Mr Osborne
The seed enterprise investment scheme will provide 50% tax relief for all who invest in a qualifying start-up, even if they do not pay the 50% rate of income tax. The investment can be up to £100,000, although of course it can be much less. The companies involved can receive a maximum of £150,000. Those who have a capital gain can invest up to £100,000 of it in the scheme, and the amount will be tax-free for the next financial year. The scheme is aimed at small as well as slightly larger investors, and is designed to help start-up companies to obtain the finance they need.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The last Chancellor to see interest rates go through the roof was not a Labour Chancellor, but the one who was advised by this Chancellor’s right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If the Chancellor seriously thinks that the current level of interest rates is a sign of his success, will he consider any increase in interest rates to be a sign of failure?
Mr Osborne
We are doing all we can to keep our country safe in a debt storm. We need only look at the Italian bond auction today to see the market rates that Italy is paying. We are currently, in a debt crisis, borrowing money more cheaply than Germany. That represents a vote of confidence in the deficit plan of the United Kingdom.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for listening to the representations of energy-intensive industries, and I welcome the measures that he has announced. They will be examined closely by companies such as CEMEX, which is in my constituency. Can he give us an estimate of the number of UK jobs that will be saved as a result of his measures, both directly and in the supply chain?
Mr Osborne
We have not made an exact estimate of the number of jobs that will be saved, but I am certain that these measures will help to keep such industries in the United Kingdom. It is important that we do not price our industry out of the world market. That would do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions, but it would damage our economy. We have worked with the energy-intensive industries and the business organisations to develop our package, and I think that it achieves the right balance between ensuring that those industries remain competitive and meeting our international environmental obligations.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The Government have made a virtue of wanting to make work pay. How does it make work pay first to reduce child care tax credit, and then not to upgrade working tax credit in the same way as out-of-work benefit?
Mr Osborne
We are uprating the child care element of child tax credit, along with other elements of child tax credit, in line with September CPI inflation, so it is not true to say that we are not uprating child tax credit. We had to make a difficult decision on working tax credit, but we think that one of the best ways of supporting low-income working people is to take them out of the tax system altogether.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Last week I met members of the committee of the Federation of Small Businesses in my constituency to hear about their principal difficulties, one of which was gaining access to affordable finance. Today I believe that both they and manufacturers in Gloucester will be especially pleased to hear about the Chancellor’s creation of a national loan guarantee scheme to provide more and affordable finance. As he said, that will be the best key to increasing growth and the number of apprenticeships and reducing unemployment in our city and elsewhere. When does he expect the scheme to be open for business?
Mr Osborne
We hope to get it up and running in the next couple of months. We must clear the state aid hurdles—I am afraid that that is a fact of life—but we have been making good progress, and we hope that following the European Investment Bank scheme that already exists will make the process relatively simple. We are open to other credit-easing programmes such as partnership schemes, which some people have suggested, and we want to work with the Federation of Small Businesses and others to ensure that small businesses receive their money in the form of reduced rates for those who participate in the scheme.
I said explicitly in my statement that we would not make the best the enemy of the good. We must get the scheme up and running as quickly as possible in order to help companies in Gloucester and elsewhere that have found it difficult to gain access to finance over the last three or four years.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Chancellor referred earlier to the Severn bridge tolls. Can he be more specific about what he can do to help, in view of the assistance that he has given to the Humber bridge?
Mr Osborne
The issue of the Severn bridge tolls is different. There will come a point later in the decade when the question arises of what we do with the toll income and how it is allocated between England and Wales. I want to establish, in discussion with the Welsh Government in Cardiff, whether we can arrange to use the money from the tolls to support the M4 corridor in south Wales.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement, and, in particular, the help given to commuters in my constituency who will save £67 on their season tickets to London. Will he confirm that the shadow Chancellor’s illegal fuel tax policy contravenes annex III of the EU directive on VAT?
Mr Osborne
It does. It is an illegal policy, which is a novel thing for an Opposition to advance. As I have said, fuel duty and taxes would be 10p higher if we had not acted in the Budget or in the autumn. [Interruption.] I still have not heard whether the shadow Chancellor supports what we have done on fuel duty. He will probably say yes, but he will not say how he would fund it. As, unfortunately, he did not discover at the Treasury, we must make the sums add up in order to keep the country’s books balanced and ensure that we stay out of a debt storm.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
In the first nine months of this year, on the Chancellor’s watch, long-term youth unemployment in my constituency increased by 192%. I ask the Chancellor this: how can it be right that young people in my constituency are paying the price for the Government’s abject failure to get the economy moving?
Mr Osborne
Unfortunately, the young people the hon. Lady refers to are paying the price for the biggest boom and bust in our country’s economic history, which the Government she supported presided over. What this coalition Government are doing is introducing a youth contract to help those people in Lewisham and elsewhere. It will provide work experience after three months for the unemployed, it will require weekly signing on after five months, and it will provide subsidised jobs in the private sector, encouraging businesses to get people into work and offer apprenticeships. In return, it will ask those young people actively to look for work, and there are sanctions if they do not do so. That is what we are offering the young people of Lewisham, who were so badly betrayed by a Labour Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor for his £110 million vote of confidence in Kettering with the approval of two major road schemes: the widening of the A14 Kettering bypass, and the go-ahead for the A43 Corby link road, which is also known as the Geddington bypass. When does he anticipate the diggers will move in and construction can start?
Mr Osborne
If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend with a specific answer on when the diggers will start on the widening of the A14 Kettering bypass and on the Corby link road, but these are commitments for this spending review so it is in the next few years and not at some future date. I know how important both those roads are for the local economy and for local people, and I am really pleased that, thanks in part to the campaign and the support of the local Member of Parliament, we have been able to give them the go-ahead.
Mr Speaker
We look forward to hearing about the dates for the diggers, as I am sure do the people of Kettering.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
May I push the Chancellor a little further on borrowing, because so far in the exchanges he has not quite brought himself to admit that he is going to be borrowing £158 billion more than he planned to borrow a year ago? Will he confirm that that is the case—yes or no?
Mr Osborne
I set out the borrowing figures to Parliament and what the hon. Gentleman should admit is that the plan he is pursuing would add to the borrowing. We cannot borrow our way out of a debt crisis, and as long as the Labour party goes on advocating that approach, I suspect that its credibility will fall and fall.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am slightly concerned about whether the health of the shadow Chancellor is in order, as he has spent the past hour muttering to himself. However, may I ask the Chancellor whether he thinks that new Government policy should be announced to Parliament first?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents, I thank the Chancellor for the many initiatives that he has introduced for northern Lincolnshire and Humberside. Of course I cannot let the moment pass without a particular word of thanks for what he has done on the Humber bridge tolls, as it will be a great boost to the local economy. The national infrastructure plan rightly says that we have to wait until the new planning framework is in position before we can speed up the planning process. A number of major investments are pending in my constituency. Can he assure me that the full weight of the Government will be behind them to speed them along?
Mr Osborne
My hon. Friend absolutely has my assurance. If he wants to contact me with specific proposals that will create jobs in Cleethorpes and elsewhere in Lincolnshire, would he please let me know and I will do what I can to advance them, within the rules and the planning laws. As he knows, I am trying to reform those laws to make it easier to get the go-ahead for development that is sustainable and in tune with our broader environmental objectives. I want to make the planning system more rapid, and I should put on the record that the campaign that he has fought with other Members to get those Humber bridge tolls reduced shows that Cleethorpes has a powerful champion in my hon. Friend.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
As a Yorkshire MP, I strongly welcome the Government’s decision to electrify the trans-Pennine rail link between Leeds and Manchester and the huge boost that that will bring to our northern economy. As a York MP, too, may I ask the Chancellor whether the Treasury has examined the strong economic case for linking Leeds to York?
Mr Osborne
I do not have the specific details in front of me, but I will certainly engage with my hon. Friend on that proposal, and I hope that we can advance it.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
There are many substantial measures to welcome in this package, but I wish to focus on the national loan guarantee scheme, because it will help many small businesses in my constituency, particularly those in the manufacturing and engineering sector. Does the Chancellor agree that what we should be hoping for from banks is more sophistication when they allocate money to small businesses and more analysis of what the prospects of small businesses actually are?
Mr Osborne
Yes, I think that we all want to see a move to a banking system that is more responsive to local businesses and local people and that is not just based on a computer model that allocates credit and the computer says no. We want to return to having local bank managers empowered to make decisions, and a number of banks are doing this. One of the notable successes at the moment is Handelsbanken, which is out there lending money to small businesses and taking more of this local approach.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Chancellor’s statements of support in favour of energy-intensive industries will be welcomed in south Wales, the midlands and the north, which are areas that have seen a particular decline in manufacturing over the past decade. The statements will be particularly welcomed by Dow Corning, a chemical manufacturing company in Barry in my constituency. How will they work in practice in order to support these companies in reducing their energy bills?
Mr Osborne
We are going to provide specific compensation for electricity-intensive businesses affected by the EU trading system and by the carbon price floor. We are also going to increase the climate change levy relief and work to make sure that those businesses are not adversely impacted by the electricity market reforms. We have a suite of measures, but the overall intention is clear: we want to help businesses such as the one in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I should say that I was first alerted to what we can do by a visit before the election to the steel works in Port Talbot, where I was very struck with the argument made there that the business could simply be moved to Holland if we did not act. We have been able to come forward with help that I think is going to support industries in south Wales.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, the many measures in it and, in particular, the reaffirmation of his commitment to ensuring that we overcome Labour’s debt storm. Many hard-working families in my constituency who aspire to buy their own homes will be pleased with today’s measures to ease the housing market. Will he confirm how many people nationally he expects the mortgage indemnity scheme to help, when it might start and how many jobs it is likely to create?
Mr Osborne
From memory, I think it is going to help 100,000 people, and that is a real boost. With the other housing measures we are taking, including the support for stalled sites—the £400 million package we are providing—we hope that that is going to create several hundred thousand jobs in the construction industry over the period going forward. The 50% right-to-buy discount we are introducing revives one of the most effective social policies of the past few decades—one that the Labour leader recently had to admit had worked and that the Labour party was wrong to oppose. A crucial additional element is that we are going to use the money to build social housing, which is why I think it is a policy appropriate to the modern age.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
One of the key inflationary pressures on the cost of housing is the level of housing benefit available, which was scandalously allowed to rise out of all proportion under the previous Government. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no slackening of controls over housing benefit, so that housing costs can be controlled?
Mr Osborne
I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we are going ahead with the cap on housing benefit, which is an important part of controlling costs. It is not fair that working people pay taxes to fund the rent for people who live in houses that those working people could never afford out of their salaries. It is quite right to introduce a cap to try to control those costs. Of all the benefits provided under the previous Government, this was one that really went through the roof, so to speak. Dealing with it and controlling it is a very important policy and it is a tragedy that the Labour party opposes the measure and no doubt wants to get rid of it at the next election.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Mrs Evans informs me that my three children will be on an unforeseen holiday tomorrow and I wondered whether my right hon. Friend would join me in urging the unions to call off tomorrow’s irresponsible strike. Does he agree with the shadow Chancellor’s “huge sympathy” for those going on strike tomorrow?
Mr Osborne
We should not be having a strike tomorrow. Negotiations are ongoing and we want those negotiations to conclude. I urge the unions, even at this late hour, to call off the strike and stop doing something that will damage the British economy and potentially cost jobs. Let us get around the table and try to get a deal, because I think that what is on offer is not only generous to the public sector and people who rely on public sector pensions but is also fair to the taxpayer. As Lord Hutton, the former Labour Pensions Secretary, has said,
“it is hard to imagine a better deal”.
I urge the trade union movement to take the deal.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Chancellor and to colleagues, whose succinctness has enabled 96 Back-Bench Members to question the Chancellor in 97 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time. That shows what can be done.
Points of order
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, just after Department for Work and Pensions questions, you said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), that you were concerned that Government statements were being given to the media before coming to the House. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Work and Pensions Secretary said that all statements from his Department would be made to the House.
When the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), was asked a direct question yesterday on what she was going to do about disability living allowance and people in residential care homes, she said that she would come forward with her final response. However, the 80,000 people who were affected by the relevant proposal could have found out the answer this morning, had they turned to page 8 of The Times, where the Minister says that she will announce that she is going to reverse the decision.
Mr Speaker, have you received any indication from the Secretary of State or the Minister as to why they did not seek the opportunity to make that statement at yesterday’s DWP questions, during Report of the Welfare Reform Bill in the House of Lords, or at any point during the progress of that Bill through the House of Commons, but instead waited to give a statement to The Times?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order. The short answer to her inquiry is no, I was not given any indication by any Minister on that matter. Naturally, the timing of Government statements is a matter for Ministers, as is whether a Minister chooses to make an announcement via oral questions or during a debate in the House. However, the basic point stands that policy announcements should first be made in the House and not through the newspapers. I understand the very real concern that exists on this matter because it is shared by me, and I have discussed it with the Leader of the House.
More widely—I will entertain the point of order from the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) in a moment if he wishes to pursue it—let me emphasise my approach to today’s proceedings. I hope that the House will understand that I felt the matters in question had been rather fully aired outside the House, and it is therefore entirely to be expected that the opportunity should be provided for matters to be fully aired in the House. I know that the Chancellor would accept that as being entirely right and proper. The issues have been explored very fully. That, at least, is a satisfactory state of affairs.
Chris Williamson
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to my question, the Chancellor inadvertently misled the House when he said that the previous Government had signed the contract for the Thameslink rolling stock programme. Can you, through your good offices, invite him to come back to the House to set the record straight so that there is no doubt about the situation—that the contract has been signed, at least to preferred bidder status, by this Administration and not by the previous one?
Mr Speaker
That is a testing point of order from the hon. Gentleman. All hon. Members, including Ministers, are responsible for the content and accuracy of the statements they make to the House. If an error has been made it is the responsibility of the Member who made it to correct it. I am sure that the Chancellor’s attention will have been drawn to the point of order raised by the hon. Gentleman and there may or may not be a response from him. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, I feel sure, on the strength of my 18 months’ acquaintance with him, that he will pursue the matter like the veritable woodpecker he has proved to be. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me how I can get on the record the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has arranged a debate on Monday about ministerial statements.
Mr Speaker
Well, the hon. Gentleman has done so. He will have warmed the cockles of the hearts of committed parliamentarians in all parts of the House. For my part, I will go about my business with an additional glint in my eye and spring in my step by virtue of knowing what he has just told me.
As there are no further points of order, we come now to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has been so patiently waiting.
Electoral Register (Access to Public Services)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a requirement that electoral registration be a condition of access to public services; and for connected purposes.
I am introducing this Bill because I believe in the power of democracy. Earlier this summer, we saw the consequences of alienation. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions described
“a divided society, with a destructive minority apparently detached from notions of right and wrong”.
Of course, the riots were individual acts of criminality, but I agree with him that a large number of people feel so detached from society that they have nothing to lose. There is a democratic deficit. I therefore believe that we should actively include our whole community in our democracy, to combat such alienation.
At present, registering to vote is just about the nearest thing that we have to a social contract. It is an acknowledgement that we live in a democracy and that we abide by the outcome of that democracy, yet around 3.5 million people are not registered to vote. According to the Electoral Commission that minority, who are not engaged, are likely to be made up of the disadvantaged: young people, people on low incomes, private sector tenants, some but not all ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities.
My Bill aims to bridge the gap between that excluded group and the rest of our community because social breakdown takes place in that gap. If someone wants to access housing benefits, a state pension, a national insurance number or even a driving licence, they will need to be on the electoral register if the Bill is passed. I do not think that that is a great imposition. After all, if someone needs to be on the electoral register to get a credit card, why is it a problem to be on it to get a driving licence?
Linking access to public services with the electoral register will increase participation and provide an explicit link between the democratic process and the benefits that we enjoy because we live in a democracy, and, yes, it is tough love. It will mean that if people want the benefits of living in a democracy, they need to sign up to democracy. If they do not like living in a democracy, fine, they need not sign, but they should not expect all the good things in return.
Already, the electoral register has many useful purposes —for instance, it is the source of deciding who does jury service—and it is already possibly the country’s most cost-effective anti-crime database. The police use it if they want to catch up with someone or need to find out who a suspect might live with or know. Banks and credit companies use it to prevent fraud. Many councils already use it to check that people are paying their council tax or are on the right benefits. Charities and direct marketing companies use it to help their businesses and to raise funds for countless good causes. Finally, of course, its most important role is to give people a chance to vote. It is therefore in everyone’s interests for the electoral register to be as comprehensive as possible.
My Bill will target precisely the people who are unlikely to register, to bridge the 3.5 million gap. Sadly, we also need the Bill now to remedy a number of other measures being introduced by the Government that every commentator expects will widen that gap. First, they plan to make registering to vote optional. That is a dangerous step. It will legitimise disengagement and institutionalise an underclass. In countries where registration is optional, the already disadvantaged are those most likely to lose out. In the US, only six in 10 people on incomes below $20,000 register, and registration rates are just as low among under-25s and people who rent their homes—precisely the demographic of those who were involved in our riots.
The Government have suggested that councils might not need to chase up electoral registration forms with an annual canvass of every property. Again, I think that that is a retrograde step. My council, Merton, has told me that its canvass is effective. Before it took place, only 65% of homes returned their forms; afterwards, 97% did so. Finally, the Government have said that they would stop mums and dads registering their children to vote. When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, the register collapsed by 11%, and the Electoral Commission said that that adversely affected disadvantaged groups—just the sort of people with whom we most need to engage to prevent exclusion.
Combined, the Government’s measures are likely to take about a third of voters off the register—more in areas of deprivation. People on the edge of society will further disengage, and we will institutionalise the underclass. What is worse, because the register will be less accurate and comprehensive, far from preventing fraud the proposals will increase it. The Government’s own papers admit that fraudulent electoral registration is “rare”, and that 20 times more people are satisfied with how they register to vote than dissatisfied. Only 2% of us think that registering to vote is “very unsafe”.
There is little incentive to register fraudulently, because councils such as mine already use the electoral register to ensure that everyone pays council tax. In fact, the electoral register is widely seen as more accurate and less prone to fraud than virtually any other data set. A number of councils have looked at using other databases to improve the electoral register, but the consensus seems to be that the electoral register is already the best. They have told the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform that other databases
“tell us what we do know, rather than what we don’t”.
Many other databases are terrible by comparison. The Department for Work and Pensions database, for instance, includes people who are dead or who have left the country, and it does not include any information about nationality. As the information industry and crime fighters have known for years, the electoral register is the most accurate, because it is based on better intelligence from the people who actually live at each address and know who else does. Instead of undermining the electoral register in the mistaken belief that fraudulent voting is widespread, we should place greater emphasis on it in order to tackle other fraud.
The problem with our electoral register is not that there are too many people on it; it is that there are still 3.5 million who are not. My Bill is therefore a remedy for the Government’s proposals. It will reinstate those missing millions, the majority of whom may be eligible for benefits, tax credits, a state pension, a driving licence and so on. It will make the register even more accurate, and it will ensure that even more disadvantaged people engage in the democratic process.
In the past few months, I have heard many speeches about social breakdown and an excluded underclass without a stake in their community. I have not heard anyone calling for a “something for nothing” society. What this Bill says is that we should live in a “something for something” society: public services in return for a civic duty. Registering to vote might seem like a small thing, but if we send the message that people have to sign up to democracy if they want the rewards of living in a democracy, who knows, we might even strengthen it.
Registering to vote is a symbol of engagement, and recognition that people are not on the margins but a full part of our society. We do not need to take millions of people without a stake in their community off the electoral register—that will only institutionalise the underclass. We need an explicit social contract, and the Bill will achieve that. It will tackle fraud and reduce social exclusion, but more than that, it will ensure that more people have a chance to vote. If they do not like what is going on in their community, they will not have to destroy local shops—they can get rid of us. On that positive note, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Siobhain McDonagh, Ian Austin, Hazel Blears, Mr Russell Brown, Rosie Cooper, Nic Dakin, Mike Gapes, Meg Hillier, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Mr Andrew Love, John Mann and Mr John Spellar present the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 20 January 2012, and to be printed (Bill 255).
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)).
That the following provisions shall apply to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 28 April (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Newmark.)
Question agreed to.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this we may take Lords amendments 2 and 3.
Hugh Robertson
The amendments address a technical concern raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place.
Hon. Members will recall that the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 provides for the making of advertising and trading regulations. Under the Act, all such regulations, including amending regulations, are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Bill, when we debated it earlier this year, would have amended the 2006 Act to provide that advertising and trading regulations, apart from the first set, could be made via the negative resolution procedure.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 14 October, accepted the need to amend the 2006 Act to facilitate the amendment of the regulations via the quicker negative resolution procedure.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister has heard of the controversy surrounding the sponsorship of the Olympics by the Dow Chemical Company. As we approach this Friday, the 27th anniversary of Bhopal, there is concern among Indian athletes and Indian parliamentarians about the issue. Will it affect the regulations? If, for example, Dow withdraws its sponsorship or is asked to withdraw its sponsorship, will these regulations affect that in any way?
Hugh Robertson
The short answer is no. I am entirely aware of the controversy that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I believe the Indian Olympic committee is meeting this week and plans to make a decision. I am told that it is not planning a boycott or anything like it, but clearly that is a matter for the Indian Government and their Olympic committee.
It is recommended that the Bill be amended to provide that the affirmative resolution procedure must be used unless the Minister considers it necessary, by reason of urgency, to use the negative procedure. As I made clear when clause 2 was debated in this House, it was always my intention that the negative resolution procedure would be used only when there was an urgent need to do so. As such, the Government were happy to accept the Committee’s recommendation and to provide the additional clarification, and tabled amendments in Committee in the other place accordingly.
The effect of these amendments is that advertising and trading regulations will be made via the negative procedure only if the Minister considers that that is necessary by reason of urgency. In such a case, the regulations will confirm, on their face, that this is the Minister’s view. They also provide for the corresponding procedure in the Scottish Parliament, for advertising and trading regulations made by Scottish Ministers.
What we mean by “urgency” is that, for reasons of time, it would be impractical to use the affirmative procedure and necessary instead to use the negative procedure. This is likely to be because the amending regulations have to take effect quickly, before the earliest date that affirmative regulations could practicably be made. In essence, then, the amendments simply provide further assurance that the negative procedure would be used only when there is an urgent need to do so, and as a result provides extra assurance to Parliament. That was always the intention.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am pleased to support the Government’s technical amendments, which I think strike the right balance between parliamentary accountability and the need to be able to respond flexibly to urgent changes in situations. As we draw this process to a close, I will take the opportunity to commend all the officials who worked on the earlier legislation with me when I was Secretary of State and now support the Minister in taking it forward. This legislation is important for protecting the essential vision and ambition shared by Members on both sides of the House for our Olympic games. It relates to protection against ticket touting and the need to ensure the smooth operational running of the servicing for Olympic and Paralympic venues.
There are just eight months until the start of the Olympics. They are under budget, the venues and the Olympic village have been built on time and the torch relay has been announced. There is a real sense of excitement across the country. There may not be many other opportunities allowed by the long title or any other event to debate the Olympics, but I know that the Minister is always available to discuss matters of outstanding concern, such as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the legacy. I can assure the Minister that all those discussions will be in the spirit of the cross-party support that has been such an important feature of the preparation for the games.
Keith Vaz
Before my right hon. Friend brings her remarks to a close, may I pay tribute to her—she has rightly paid tribute to the Minister and the fact that the projects are on time—for all she has done over the past six years to help to secure the Olympics and to work with the Government on an all-party basis? We are very proud of what she has done.
Tessa Jowell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous comments. I warmly support the amendments to the Bill.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) rightly praises the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who praised the Minister, and I would like to praise them both for the excellent work they are doing.
It is interesting that we are debating two minor technical amendments to a Bill we debated not long ago. On Second Reading I pointed out that the explanatory notes stated that the Bill
“makes a small number of technical amendments to the advertising and trading, ticket touting, and traffic management provisions of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.”
We are now debating minor amendments to a Bill that itself made minor amendments to another Bill, but they are none the less important, because they reflect the spirit of what the Minister said when we debated the Bill. In relation to the advertising regulations contained therein, I think that we were all encouraged to hear that he is keen to introduce those as sensibly as possible. Indeed, on Second Reading he said that the advertising regulations would be treated with a “light-touch approach”. He later said that they would be handled “sensitively”, and on another occasion he said that they would be dealt with “proportionately”. We are grateful for all three assurances.
We are also grateful for the assurance that if, for example, the venue or timing of an event need to be altered, we have the ability to debate the matter in Parliament if those necessary changes relate to advertising. We all recognise that if, for example, a major burst water main causes a change in venue or timing at short notice, it is important, as others have suggested, that we have the power to ensure that we can continue to do what the Act is for: protecting the main sponsors of the event so that people do not leap on to a sudden change in order to introduce ambush marketing, for example. They are small amendments, but they are sensible and important and we certainly support them.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.
Terrorism prevention and investigation measures bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 June (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mr Newmark.)
Question agreed to.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Lords amendments 2 to 10.
Lords amendment 11, and amendment (a) thereto.
James Brokenshire
The Bill returns to the House after its consideration in the other place. It was subject to lengthy and detailed scrutiny here in the summer, with 10 sittings in Committee, a Report and a Third Reading, all of which were characterised by a high standard of debate.
Their lordships have now given the Bill the full benefit of their expertise, and I am pleased to say that its main provisions are largely as they left this House, reflecting an acceptance that, however unfortunate this might be, there are a small number of individuals involved in terrorism whom we cannot successfully prosecute or deport, and the measures in the Bill are needed to deal with such individuals.
The Bill returns from the other place subject to 11 Government amendments, which are largely minor and technical changes to clarify drafting and better to reflect the policy intention. I will briefly explain why we have made those amendments, dealing first with Lords amendments 1 to 10 before moving on to Lords amendment 11 and Opposition amendment (a).
Lords amendments 1 and 2 make a small but necessary change to clause 8. The clause provides that the court must, when granting permission to impose a terrorism prevention and investigation measure notice—a TPIM notice—at the outset of the process give directions for a directions hearing in relation to the automatic full review of the case. As the Bill was originally drafted, that directions hearing would have had to have taken place within seven days of the TPIM notice being served, unless the individual agreed to postpone it.
The programming of such hearings is, of course, a matter for the courts. It became clear that the original provision had unintentionally introduced a restriction on the discretion available to the courts to manage similar directions hearings in the control order context. We were therefore asked by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to make a change to the Bill in order to provide the courts with a degree of flexibility in that respect and to facilitate effective management of court time.
We have therefore amended clause 8 so that the court may programme the directions hearing later than seven days after service of the TPIM notice, if it so directs. Of course, the intention is that directions hearings will be listed within those seven days where possible, but when the court is unable to do so, for example over a holiday period, the amendment will give the court the discretion to list the hearing slightly later.
Clause 8 still ensures, at subsection (5), that directions given at the hearing must provide for the substantive review hearing to be held as soon as reasonably practicable.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
How much later might it be possible to review the decision? The period is one week to start off with, but could it amount to 28 days, three months, or will it be flexible, with the court having the jurisdiction to decide that issue as well?
James Brokenshire
It is the purpose of the amendment to give the court discretion, although a practice has been established through the jurisprudence on control orders which informs that process. It is therefore intended to provide the court with the flexibility, as I explained in my introductory remarks.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
May I probe and press my hon. Friend a little further on this point? As he knows, a number of colleagues in the House have the same concern about the TPIMs regime as they had about the old control orders regime: the uncertainty that arises for individuals in the court process. Does he accept that the amendments to clause 8 will increase that level of uncertainty for people who are put under TPIMs? Does he agree that there is scope for providing, if not a seven-day limit, at least a definitive statement about for how long, at each stage of the process, such individuals will be detained?
James Brokenshire
As I have already explained, we received this request following the consideration by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Government have not been seeking to provide any uncertainty—far from it. The provision is intended to reflect the practice of the courts. Therefore, following consideration of the representations that we received, we have introduced the Lords amendment that is before the House.
Richard Fuller
I greatly appreciate the Minister’s clarification. I fully accept that this is not a request by the Government. I am saying, from a political perspective on that role of the courts, that we are talking about the start of a process that imposes penalties on people and that, at almost every stage, has a level of indeterminacy about what is being put in place for them and how long it will last. Will my hon. Friend give some perspective on the suggestion that this change, even though it has been requested by the courts, further exacerbates the uncertainty in the imposition of such controls?
James Brokenshire
I do not accept that it provides uncertainty. It provides the courts with the ability to operate the regime effectively. As this matter was raised in the Lords, we are seeking this House’s consideration to ensure that the measure is properly applied. That is the basis on which we have introduced the amendment. I think it is appropriate to provide flexibility in the way that has been proposed.
Amendment 10 relates to the police reporting measure. It makes it clear that in addition to requiring the individual to report to a police station at specified times and in a specified manner, the Secretary of State may require the individual to comply with directions given by the police in relation to such reporting. That is necessary to ensure that the individual can be required to co-operate with the practicalities of reporting—for example, requiring him to report to the front desk of the police station, to speak to the officer there, and to sign to confirm his attendance. That has always been the intention behind the measure, and it is the current practice for control orders. It is necessary to ensure that the provision reflects the reality of how the measure is intended to operate. It is also in line with the general procedures for individuals required to report to a police station for any other reason—for example, individuals on police or court bail. Lords amendment 3 is necessary in consequence. It specifies that the definition of “TPIM decision” at clause 17(3) includes such a direction given by a constable in relation to the reporting measure.
Lords amendments 4 and 5 are essentially technical amendments which are necessary in consequence of changes to other legislation currently before Parliament. Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which has not been commenced, increases the maximum sentence on summary conviction in England and Wales from six months to 12 months. When the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill was drafted, the intention was that that provision would be repealed by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. Because of this, clause 23 provides that the maximum sentence on summary conviction for contravening a measure specified in a TPIM notice is six months. However, section 154(1) of the 2003 Act will not now be repealed. On that basis, these amendments are needed to revert to the previous practice when legislating for offences that are tried summarily. They provide for a maximum 12-month term in England and Wales, but include a transitional provision limiting the sentencing power to six months pending commencement of section 154(1) of the 2003 Act.
Lords Amendments 6 and 9 relate to the overnight residence measure. That is intended to ensure that the individual can be required to reside at a specified address and to remain there for specified periods overnight. The clear purpose of that is to manage risk. As part of that measure, it may be necessary to require the individual to remain within the residence and to prohibit them from entering any garden or outside area that forms part of the property or any communal area in a shared property during the specified hours overnight.
As it was drafted, the provision did not necessarily make it clear that the measure could be applied in that way. These are essential drafting amendments to remove that uncertainty and to make clear the policy intention. They put it beyond doubt that the individual may be required to remain within their residence—that is, essentially, behind their front door—during the specified overnight period. I should make it clear that, where individuals are required to remain at their residence or are electronically monitored in other contexts, they will usually be required to remain in their house or flat and will not be allowed out into their garden. The particular requirements imposed by the Secretary of State in each case must, of course, always be necessary and proportionate. The court will subsequently consider the proportionality of each measure as part of its review of the notice.
On the point about directions hearings that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) made, I should add that clause 8(5) still provides that the substantive hearing is to take place as soon as possible. I just wanted to reassure him in case he thought that the proposal was open-ended. That is certainly not the intention. I hope that the need to act expeditiously in this regard is clear to him.
Lords Amendment 7 deletes subsection (11)(a) of clause 26, which allowed a temporary enhanced TPIM order to amend any enactment. That subsection was drafted on the basis that the temporary enhanced TPIM order would need to amend other legislation to ensure that the enhanced TPIM system would function correctly. The Government considered it further following an amendment helpfully tabled in Committee in the other place by Baroness Hamwee. We concluded that the subsection was not necessary for this purpose and therefore amended the Bill on Report to remove it.
Lords Amendment 8 is necessary to ensure that the power to make a temporary enhanced TPIM order does not impinge inappropriately on devolved matters in Scotland. Clause 26, as amended, provides that a temporary enhanced TPIM order may not make any provision relating to devolved matters in Scotland, other than those already contained in the Bill, without the consent of the Scottish Government. In relation to those provisions touching on devolved matters that are already contained in the Bill, I can confirm that the Scottish Parliament passed a legislative consent motion on 17 November. I am grateful to Scottish Ministers and officials for their help in that regard.
Finally, Lords Amendment 11 relates to the transitional period provided by schedule 8. In the period following the coming into force of the Bill, the control orders in force immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period. Such a period is needed to ensure that there can be a safe, orderly and managed transition of individuals from the old system to the new system. As the Government have consistently made clear, the police have confirmed that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place to manage the move from the control order system to the TPIMs system.
James Brokenshire
I will just finish this point and then I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
We have received advice from the police that as the transitional period will fall over the Christmas and new year holiday period, a small extension to the period is necessary. That will assist in the effective management of the process of transition for individual cases over the holiday period. It does not reflect on preparedness. Lords amendment 11 therefore extends the transitional period from 28 to 42 days.
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Paul Goggins
I am delighted that the Minister did not give way when I sought to intervene, because he has been able to enlighten the House and demonstrate that Opposition Members who have been pressing him for months on whether the police and Security Service would be ready have partly been proved correct. Let us look at the bigger picture, however. With the Olympic games, a new system and the end of relocation, why does such a moderate Minister want to take so many risks with the safety of the public?
James Brokenshire
I certainly do not accept that characterisation, and I am very happy to come on to amendment (a). We regard national security as a top priority. The right hon. Gentleman has heard me say that, and I stand by those words. He will know the responsibilities that Ministers hold in dealing with such matters, and the very careful consideration that we apply when considering changes to legislation.
Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 11, which stands in the names of the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, would replace the 42-day transitional period with one of 365 days. It brings us back to an issue that was debated at length during the Bill’s passage through this House and the other place. To that extent, it takes us back over a number of points that have been debated and discussed in great detail, and my response is unchanged: I believe that the amendment is simply not necessary.
As I have repeatedly made clear, the Metropolitan police and the Security Service have confirmed to the Home Secretary and myself that extensive preparations are being made and that arrangements will be in place to manage the move from the control orders system to the TPIMs system effectively. Indeed, the Home Secretary received a detailed briefing from the Metropolitan police only last week on the transitional plans that it has drawn up. However, the police recently advised us that a slightly longer transitional period was needed, as it will fall over the Christmas and new year period. We have consequently increased the transitional period to 42 days, which will assist in the effective management of the process of transition in individual cases. It was for that reason that the Lords amendment was introduced.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I would not in any way wish to accuse the Minister of being soft on terrorism, but equally, given the relatively small number of people who are currently subject to control orders—about nine—does he not see that it might be more sensible to have an overlapping system of control orders and TPIMs for the difficult period of unknown threat around the Olympic games? There is some sense in that, given that at most nine people would be affected.
James Brokenshire
We have considered the issue very carefully, and as I said on Report, we have received assurances from the police and Security Service that effective arrangements will be in place to manage the transfer to TPIMs when the new regime comes into effect. What I said on Report remains the case: the police and Security Service have been developing the additional capacity and capability needed to prepare for the transition to the new TPIMs regime. That preparation has been ongoing for a considerable time.
I should be absolutely clear that the additional resources are not simply about providing additional human surveillance capacity. The police and the Security Service are using the additional money to enhance their use of a range of covert investigative techniques, including human and technical surveillance. Inevitably, some of the benefits from the additional resources will take time to be fully realised, as it will be necessary to take the time to train and deploy additional staff in order to derive full benefit from technical investment. However, the key point is that at the point of the transition to the new TPIMs arrangement, effective arrangements will be in place in both the police and the Security Service.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain the exact thinking behind that relatively modest extension of the transitional period to 42 days? I do not quite understand why its coinciding with the Christmas and new year period makes it difficult to introduce what will presumably be a simpler system than the one that we currently have.
James Brokenshire
Christmas and the holiday season obviously have operational impacts, and we are therefore simply adding those 14 days to the 28 days for which the Bill originally provided to assist in the effective transition and management at that time. It is not about readiness; it is simply to aid the transition process for those people who are already on control orders and who may subsequently move on to terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
On Report and Third Reading, I was told, “Well, you say that the police are prepared and that appropriate arrangements are in place to manage the transfer effectively from control orders to TPIMs”, and I heard clearly the comments that were made then. I will put in the Library a letter from Assistant-Commissioner Cressida Dick, which sets out the preparedness of the Metropolitan police and underlines that arrangements will be in place to manage the transfer effectively. I note that the Opposition have consistently made several points about that. Again, I underline that effective arrangements will be in place to manage the transition. In the light of my continued assurances on the matter, I hope that Opposition Members will be willing to withdraw amendment (a).
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for clearly setting out the bulk of the amendments. Having read the transcripts of the evidence sessions in Committee, it is clear that the Government were pushed and pressed, as is right, through effective scrutiny from all members of the Committee and Members in the other place, to table amendments to clarify the Bill’s intention. On that basis, the Opposition are satisfied with Lords amendments 1 to 10.
However, I want to comment on Lords amendment 11 and amendment (a) to it. As the Minister said, the Lords amendment increases the transitional period for which schedule 8 provides, during which a control order that is enforced immediately before the commencement of the Bill will remain in force, unless revoked or quashed before the end of that period, from 28 days to 42 days. The Opposition Front Benchers’ amendment would increase that transitional period to 365 days. It is worth pointing out that those who have put their names to the amendment include two former police and terrorism Ministers and a former Minister who dealt with terrorism in Northern Ireland in the previous Government. Those Members clearly have a lot of detailed information and experience in dealing with such matters, and they thought it appropriate to put their names to the amendment.
Why have we tabled amendment (a)? It is because we want to support the Government in keeping the country as safe as possible as they move to the new regime of TPIMs. I heard clearly the Minister’s comments about his commitment to national security being a top priority. Of course, the Opposition support that priority. However, we believe that a more flexible approach would be a better way forward on the transitional period that is in the Bill.
I certainly do not wish to reopen the debate on control orders, but we know that nine people are currently subject to them—a small number of people who are intent on doing grave harm to this country. It is not possible to prosecute them, but to keep the country safe, we need to impose intrusive restrictions on them. I think that there are 11 control orders in total, but nine have the power to relocate as one of the conditions. We know that the Home Secretary has used control orders with relocation provisions in cases CD and BM. In the case of CD, a challenge to the decision to relocate went to the High Court. It was dismissed and the relocation was upheld.
It is important to quote the Mayor of London, who obviously has a keen interest in those matters. He said on the case of CD:
“It’s clear from the court papers that he rejects and would like to destroy everything that makes this a great city. We don’t want this man in London.”
In moving to the new TPIMs regime, the relocation provisions will not be available to the Home Secretary in future. We want to ensure that no unnecessary risks are taken over the next 12 months. As hon. Members have already said, we will have major events in our city, including not only the Olympics and the Paralympics, but the diamond jubilee. So we need to ensure that London is kept as safe as possible in 2012.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady says that we need to ensure that there are no unnecessary risks, and she says, fairly, that she and other Labour Members share the Minister’s commitment to the security of the nation. But the Minister said that the period was necessary to ensure that effective arrangements were in place, and he believes that that period is 42 days. What evidence does the hon. Lady have that the period needs to be longer to ensure effective arrangements?
Diana Johnson
That is a very helpful intervention, because I want to move on to the evidence that was given to the Committee by Stuart Osborne, the deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan police service and senior national co-ordinator for terrorism investigations. He also represents ACPO. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) asked Mr Osborne how long it would take for a new regime to bed in before it becomes law, to which he replied:
“I think I said it would take a year to procure and train sufficient additional assets before it would be ready to do that. We have to order some of the assets so that they are made in advance. To train a surveillance officer and then have them fully able to operate in a challenging environment probably takes at least 12 months before they are deployable. Once they are deployable, they have to work within the environment under a new set of regimes that will need to bed in.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 10, Q31.]
On the basis of that evidence, which mentions the period of a year, hon. Members are concerned that we could be putting ourselves in a risky situation by rushing headlong into the new TPIMs regime.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Diana Johnson
I will, because I have just referred to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Stephen Phillips
It is important that the evidence is not taken out of context. My hon. Friend the Minister subsequently received assurances—as he will no doubt be able to confirm—from the security services and the Metropolitan police that there would be no problem with the Government’s proposed timetable for the introduction, and I am therefore surprised that the hon. Lady has referred to that passage of evidence without drawing the House’s attention to those assurances.
Diana Johnson
It is important that evidence given to the Committee, which I read out verbatim from the transcript, is put before the House when we are debating the amendment on 365 days. The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly put his point on the record.
Evidence was also given by Lord Carlile, and he talked about the cost of the new surveillance techniques that would have to be employed. He said that the costs would be between £11 million and £18 million per person per year, and he also mentioned that as far as he was aware the cost of a control order was £1.8 million per person. So a huge amount of money will need to be invested in ensuring that these new surveillance techniques are properly available.
Given the evidence put before the Committee and in the other place, we know that some senior police officers still have concerns about the readiness—[Interruption.] Well, in recent weeks there have been reports that senior police officers are not satisfied. I understand what the Minister said, and I shall ask him to address the point in a moment, but while we welcome the Government’s move from 28 days to 42 days—and I understand what the Minister says about that being appropriate during the holiday period—it is sensible to reconsider where we are at this stage. Given that some senior police officers feel that we are not prepared enough, that the Mayor of London has made his views clear and asked the Government to think again on this issue and that the Olympics, Paralympics and diamond jubilee celebrations are ahead of us, it is appropriate for the Minister to reflect on what the provision will mean. We have a two-week extension. Would it not be sensible to give the police and the security services more time and some flexibility to ensure that we have the resources, the people and the training in place? Is it not better to legislate now to keep control orders for that flexible period until we are absolutely certain and confident that surveillance is fully in place and all systems are operational?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Let me make a few brief comments in relation to a couple of amendments. On amendment 10, subject to any security requirements, will the Minister confirm whether the requirement to report to a police station will not be so onerous in terms of the timing that it actually precludes someone subject to TPIMs being able to undertake employment or coursework? If we want them to integrate, we must allow that to happen, subject to the appropriate security requirements.
My other point is in relation to amendment 11. When I saw a reference to 28 days being changed to 42, I had concerns that we were re-running a completely different debate. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have responded positively to the Metropolitan police’s request that for operational reasons a longer period is needed to enable the transition from control orders to TPIMs to happen.
I congratulate the Minister on not listening to the siren voices on the Opposition Benches who are tempting him to abandon TPIMs all together and to stick with control orders.
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Tom Brake
In one minute. It is regrettable that the paperwork that has been produced to support the contention that control orders should remain in place, or that the implementation of TPIMs should be delayed, relies on evidence from Mr Osborne. I am sure that the evidence was appropriate at the time but things have moved on. I do not know whether Mr Osborne is now actively engaged in the process of ensuring that the appropriate measures are in place. If he is, it might be worth asking him whether he feels that suitable preparations have been made. If he is not actively engaged, it might be that he is now somewhat removed from what is happening in practice.
Hazel Blears
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was desperately trying to sit on my hands. Does he not accept that people who are on control orders, and people in future who will be on TPIMs, are some of the most dangerous people in our country and they would not be on those orders if they did not pose a significant and substantial threat to the life, health and safety of our citizens?
Tom Brake
I am happy to confirm that clearly some of those people will be very dangerous, as the right hon. Lady says, but I must point out that some people subject to control orders have subsequently had them quashed. She is right that some—potentially all—of them will undoubtedly present a serious threat, but in practice some of them might not be quite as guilty as she believes.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and if there were significant evidence against these individuals, they would be prosecuted. Does he agree that it is difficult for the Labour party to give up the anti-civil libertarian agenda that it has built up over the past 10 years, and that it will do anything to maintain its control orders, regardless of the evidence presented?
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that control orders are a very serious and very great power used against people who have not been convicted? This is state power against an individual on the basis of suspicion, not evidence or conviction, so it is a serious matter. Does he also agree that TPIMs—despite my reservations about them—are an improvement on control orders and ought to be introduced as soon as practicably reasonable? I do not understand why they should be delayed for a year on the basis of the Olympic games. Presumably other events are approaching in 2013, 2014 and so on that would provide the same opportunity.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. One wonders why, having suggested that 365 days might be appropriate, the Labour party, excluding the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has not considered other significant events coming down the line for which it might feel that control orders should also be available.
I want to rephrase what I said about the Labour party playing for headlines in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. It might be more appropriate to deploy that argument in relation to the populist policing agenda rather than this serious issue of security.
In conclusion, I think that these amendments are sound, and I am happy to support them. I understand why the Minister has, in response to the Metropolitan police, chosen to extend from 28 to 42 days the transitional period for the implementation of TPIMs, but I hope that he will confirm that there will be scope, subject to security requirements, to allow people subject to TPIMs to undertake work or coursework where appropriate.
Hazel Blears
I am grateful for the opportunity to say what I hope will be a few words in this debate—we have been over this territory several times already. I want to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for the inclusive way in which he dealt with the Committee stage and to other Members on both sides of the House who had the opportunity to contribute. It is not often that people feel able to take such a role in Committee, and I think that the Bill was all the better scrutinised because of it.
The Minister knows how strongly and personally I and my right hon. and hon. Friends feel about this matter, and the debate in Committee was nuanced and balanced. It was not simply about seeking draconian powers to last for ever as part of an anti-civil libertarian agenda. The debate has genuinely been driven by the concern of Members on both sides of the House for our national security and by the recognition that in Olympic year, when the eyes of the world will be upon London and when there will therefore be a heightened threat, the pressures on the capacity and ability of the security services and police to deal with some of the most dangerous people in the country will be significant.
The Minister has attempted to meet the arguments by talking about additional resources. We have heard the evidence of DAC Osborne, who said that relocation was probably the single most useful power under the previous regime and that it would take a year to get the assets and surveillance in place, and I think it perfectly legitimate, even at this late stage, to press the Minister on some of the practicalities of how that coverage will be ensured and maintained during the Olympics.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said that those who have signed our amendment obviously have some experience in this field. The Minister has heard today from me, and from his hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), all members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We all share the same dedication to trying to ensure the security of our country, which is a very serious matter indeed. All we are asking for in our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 11 is to get us over the period in which we face the most heightened threat, which is a simple, straightforward, common-sense thing to do.
The Government have every right to move to the TPIMs regime. They have a majority in the House, together with their coalition partners. If the Government want to change the law from control orders, they have every right to do that. I am not objecting to that; all I am saying is that, when we face this heightened threat, with pressure upon pressure on our security and police services, is it not basic common sense to say, “Let’s tide it over until after the Olympics”? There will still be a threat—we will face a threat for years to come—but it will not be as great as the threat that we face at the time of the Olympics.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way; she is being generous with her time. If there is a threat, it must obviously be dealt with, but does she not accept that one deals with threats by using the law, in particular the criminal law? We do not always descend into special measures such as those that we are discussing, which have a dangerous tone to them of the unaccountable power of the state against an individual. Does she not accept that it is important to stick to the principles of the criminal law and not endlessly go off into special laws?
Hazel Blears
My hon. Friend has always taken a principled stand on these issues, and I respect him for it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised that in a tiny number of cases we will not be able to prosecute, because that would lead to disclosure and therefore, because it is based on intelligence, a risk to agents and techniques. I said in Committee that I wanted to see the figure reduced to the smallest irreducible number possible, because I accept that we are talking about special measures that are outwith the normal framework of our legal system and transparent justice. I therefore accept my hon. Friend’s concern, but it is the case, I am afraid to say, that there are people who pose a significant and substantial threat to us who cannot be prosecuted at the current time, and some measures have to be taken to protect the public against them. None of us goes down this path with relish. I have said it before, but let me say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who intervened earlier, that this is not a matter of Labour Members rubbing their hands with glee and wanting to put people under house arrest. Rather, it is about saying, “What is the absolute necessity to protect the public?”
Bob Stewart
I very much support most of what the right hon. Lady is saying. None of us in this House wants control orders or TPIMs, but we do not have a choice. However, it is much better that we legislate for these matters and deal with them properly under the law, rather than have what happens in some nations, where people are just lifted and then disappear. That is what we are trying to do. The people concerned are very dangerous—or apparently very dangerous: we cannot prove it, but we do not want to take the risk—and I am afraid that we have to put up with this lack of liberty.
Hazel Blears
The hon. Gentleman speaks, as he did in Committee, from a position of great personal knowledge—in many ways, far greater than mine or my colleagues’—from having had operational responsibility on the ground in similar circumstances. He understands that, although we are all reluctant to go down this path, on occasion it is necessary. However, we have a democratic framework—people can challenge the orders; they can go to court; they can litigate; they can launch appeals—which is absolutely as it should be.
Hazel Blears
I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions in the time remaining.
Patrick Mercer
The right hon. Lady makes some extremely good points. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—that such measures are the very last things that we want to impose. Next year will be full of difficult periods, including not just the Olympic games, but the royal jubilee. Although I still feel that the powers are inadequate or wrong, they are better than what we had before, so should we not have them? Why are we delaying this? Should we not have powers that are more effective introduced quickly, rather than slowly?
Hazel Blears
I do not accept the premise that the TPIMs regime will be more effective. DAC Osborne said in evidence that control orders were effective, that the police were used to dealing with them and that relocation was the single most useful power. He also said that control orders provided not only surveillance, but disruption, and were therefore more effective. DAC Osborne recognised that the TPIMs regime would involve a greater level of risk. The Minister said that that risk would be dealt with by the extra resources. We must wait and see, but the police themselves said that, far from being more effective, the move from control orders to TPIMs would be less effective because it would increase the measure of risk.
Paul Goggins
My right hon. Friend is being very generous with her time this afternoon, as always, and is advancing a powerful argument. She will recall that when the Minister responded to my intervention earlier by telling me that national security would always be his highest priority, I was slightly taken aback, because I would not have doubted for a second that that would always be the case.
In view of all the risks that will face us next year and the fact that an entirely new system is being introduced involving additional officers, can my right hon. Friend help me by explaining why, given a choice of dates, the Minister should pick the earlier rather than the later date to introduce his measures?
Hazel Blears
I am afraid that this is one of the rare occasions when I cannot help my right hon. Friend. I cannot for the life of me think why, if I were a Minister faced with this level of risk and if I had a practical solution that would not cost me a great deal of extra money, I would not seek the House’s agreement to an extension of the transitional period as a precautionary, preventive measure, just to get us through what I believe will be a time of heightened risk.
I am grateful to the Minister for placing information from the police in the Library to reassure us about their readiness, but I want to ask him a question. What provision exists to cover the—possibly—six people who are currently subject to control orders and to relocation provisions, and who are likely to return to London? In Committee, I raised an issue that has still not been resolved. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 allows a TPIM to be applied which specifies a residence where a person must reside, but paragraph 3 contains a power to exclude a person from a locality. I believe that there is still a contradiction between a person’s right to reside at his or her own residence and the power that would allow that person to be excluded from, for example, east London. What if the person’s residence is in east London? Which power will have priority, the power to exclude under paragraph 3 or the power relating to residence in paragraph 1?
I have still not received an answer to my question, and I am very worried about the position. If those six people, many of whom may well have residences in east London, choose to live there, will the TPIMs regime include a power to exclude them from a broader area than the locality in which the Olympics will take place? I should appreciate a clear answer from the Minister today. If it is necessary for me to write to him I shall certainly do so, but I should be reassured if he could give me that further information.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just a moment. We are straying from the amendments. I have allowed a bit of leeway, but I think that if interventions continue to take advantage of the leeway that I have given, we shall carry the debate beyond where it should be.
Hazel Blears
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am about to end my speech.
I thank the Minister and all his officials, who have certainly served him well and have no doubt contributed to the progress of the Bill. However, as the Minister will understand, I am not reassured by his comments. I know that he is doing his best to protect national security, but I think that he could have taken a simple step that would have given more reassurance not just to Members here but, more important, to people who will be living in their communities during what is likely to be a considerably more dangerous time for them as a result of this transition.
Richard Fuller
Let me explain why I oppose amendment (a), and explain to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) why she is hearing opposing voices not only from members of the two parties on the Government Benches, but from members of Opposition parties including her own. The reason is that the amendment is entirely without merit. It appears to constitute a rather unfair and somewhat unprincipled assertion that the Minister is playing fast and loose with the security of the nation, notwithstanding the protestation that of course we are all trying to make things secure and do what is in the country’s best interests.
In her rather brief contribution, the shadow Minister gave nary a reason why the Minister’s position is not the correct approach to take. All the speeches we have heard rely on a solitary piece of evidence provided in Committee, but surely hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that the Minister has been in extensive discussions subsequently and that the most important consideration must be the one that he put forward today, which is that effective arrangements are in place. That would be the most important consideration if we were dealing with a normal piece of legislation, but in fact we are dealing with a change to one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation that our country has had in recent times—the legislation on control orders.
The shadow Minister’s amendment is merely further evidence that the Opposition have not yet reconciled their conscience on this issue, nor on the fact that they took a wrecking ball to the rights and liberties that this country has held strongly and to its heart for many years. Yet again, Opposition voices cloak in the name of security the most repressive period in recent British history when it comes to individual rights. As the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned, people are put under these restrictions on the basis not of conviction, but of suspicion.
I must just say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears)—I hope I may call her that, given that we have spoken together on a number of Bills recently—that some of us have not had the benefit of high office that she has had, and when she talks about the importance of getting to the smallest irreconcilable minimum the number of people who will be subject to TPIMs or control orders, as it was under her Government, nine is not the smallest irreducible minimum for us. Some of us feel that that number can be reconciled only when it is zero and that everyone in this country has the right to a trial before they are imprisoned for extensive periods.
Mark Field
I entirely recognise the sincerity of what my hon. Friend says and I, too, have many civil libertarian sympathies, but does he not recognise that this regime is not all that much different from the control order regime that it seeks to replace?
Richard Fuller
Without getting into the details, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can say that of course many of us would like to go further. The Minister and I have had disagreements on this, but in conclusion may I commend him on the way in which he has seen the passage of this Bill through? I hope that in future we may be able to go further.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that the House is anxious to vote on this matter. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence on the Olympics given this morning by Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He called for a central hub to be created to police the Olympics, bringing together resources, intelligence and other aspects of policing. He and others felt that that was necessary.
On the questions raised by others concerning TPIMs and control orders, of course there is concern that some of these individuals will be allowed to return to London just as the Olympics are beginning, and the Government need to monitor the situation carefully.
My final point relates to the request for thousands of additional volunteers to come forward to police the Olympics—there is talk of 10,000 people. All I urge is that they are properly trained before they take on their responsibilities. I am sure that the Minister is conscious of the importance of the Olympics. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was right to have raised it, and I hope that the Government will bear it in mind when we consider the resources and practicalities of the next few months.
James Brokenshire
This has been a useful debate in the latter stages of the Bill’s consideration in both Houses. I am conscious of time and recognise that the Opposition might wish to press their amendment to a vote, so I need to be swift in my summation, for which I apologise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) highlighted issues regarding the police reporting requirement. We have looked into this very carefully, including the need for appropriateness. In other words, a constable, in giving directions, must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in his or her approach in this regard. I hope that gives him some assurance regarding the manner in which the directions power will be undertaken. I appreciate his long-standing interest in these matters and his desire to ensure they are dealt with in a reasoned and appropriate way.
Let me address the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) about the availability of information to the independent reviewer. I shall certainly look at the Hansard report of her comments because we want to ensure that the independent reviewer has all the information appropriate to be able to do his work and to report, as has happened with the independent reviewer in relation to control orders. I shall consider her requests regarding those issues to ensure that we are equipping the independent reviewer with all the appropriate information to enable him to conduct his duties in an effective manner and report to the House, as I am sure right hon. and hon. Members would expect.
On preparedness, I know why the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who was a Minister at the time of the appalling 7/7 incident, takes these issues so very seriously and is so focused. However, she will equally understand that I am limited as to what it is appropriate for me to say in the House about operational and practical issues in relation to specific arrangements for individuals. I understand her questioning but I hope she will appreciate that, in terms of capability and other issues linked to the work of the police and the Security Service, it is not, unfortunately, appropriate for me to respond to her fully in this place.
The right hon. Lady highlighted an issue in relation to the compatibility of individual aspects of the schedule. Clearly, the exclusion measure would not be used to exclude the individual from, for example, the street in which he or she lives. The notice must be enforceable and the measures will need to be applied sensibly. They will be put in place only where restrictions are necessary, so one measure cannot cut across another—there needs to be consistency, one measure with the other. However, I shall reflect on whether further clarification is required.
In essence, we return to the issue of preparedness. I have said that it will take time to realise fully some of the benefits from additional resources, but the key issue for me is that at the point of transition to the new TPIM arrangements, effective arrangements will be in place. That has been our focus in our discussions with the police and the Security Service, whom I thank for their work not only in relation to preparations for the Bill but for keeping us safe each and every day.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 10 agreed to.
Schedule 8
Transitional and saving provision
Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 11.—(Diana Johnson.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Public Bodies Bill [Lords]
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Lords have disagreed.
Following consideration of Commons amendments in the other place last Wednesday, hon. Members will know that the Government no longer intend to abolish the Youth Justice Board as part of the Bill. Therefore, I will not be asking hon. Members to insist on the Government amendment agreed by this House on Report. The amendment has reintroduced the Youth Justice Board into schedule 1 to the Bill. As my noble friend Lord McNally made clear in the other place, the Government have never waivered in our commitment to maintaining a distinct focus on the needs of children and young people in the youth justice system. We have never proposed to remove youth offending teams or dismantle the dedicated secure estate for young people.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is an unusual experience for a Committee to publish just after midnight a report containing recommendations that are accepted by midday the following day. As my hon. Friend has mentioned youth offending teams, I wanted to remind him that the Justice Committee, as well as pointing to the dangers of abolishing the Youth Justice Board, stated that if it survived it would have to take a lighter touch and a less centralised approach to the management of youth offending teams than it had taken in the otherwise good work it had done.
Mr Djanogly
I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution and acknowledge that the recommendation appeared in his report. I will certainly take it back to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who will take up the matter in due course.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
My hon. Friend will know that many of us welcomed the announcement he has made and the decision the Government took in the other place. We understand that it was a finely balanced issue, because there is a good argument for reducing or eliminating quangos that are not needed, but on balance many of us will be reassured by the decision. I and others hope that the Youth Justice Board will continue its increasingly effective work in delivering a reduction in crime and a reduction in offending by young people.
Mr Djanogly
I will touch on my right hon. Friend’s point later.
During the debates on the future of the Youth Justice Board, we set out to persuade Parliament that, now that an effective youth justice system is in place, the oversight provided by the Youth Justice Board was no longer required and direct ministerial accountability for youth justice should be restored. My fellow Under-Secretary of State made that point on Report. However, we acknowledge the opposition to our original proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. Its abolition was never about saving money, as the Ministry of Justice does not have major savings contingent on its abolition. In that context, we have decided not to pursue abolition using powers provided in the Public Bodies Bill. Instead, we will reflect further on the Youth Justice Board’s future role.
I want to make it clear that the Government still believe that there should be more direct ministerial accountability for youth justice, that there is a strong case for the reform of the Youth Justice Board, and that we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Bill. For example, a range of powers are open to us under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We will consider whether and how we can use those powers to achieve more direct ministerial accountability.
We will also consider the position of the Youth Justice Board within the context of the Cabinet Office’s policy on public bodies and its stipulation that all non-departmental public bodies should be reviewed at least once every three years. Let me be clear that the Government’s position on the Youth Justice Board will not be business as usual. Having said that, I assure all right hon. and hon. Members that over this period the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board have maintained effective working relationships, which will carry on as we take forward proposals for reform. The Government therefore support the motion agreed to in the other place, and I ask that this House does not insist on the amendment agreed to on Report.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his degree of elegance in basically climbing down from the Government’s previous position.
Our position all along—particularly in the shadow of this summer’s riots, which involved many young people—has been that it is essential not to make precipitate decisions on how we handle youth justice. We continually warned that it would not be appropriate effectively to abolish the Youth Justice Board, which continues to do such excellent work, but that does not mean that it should not be reformed from time to time, or at least reviewed.
I therefore welcome the progress made in the other place on the YJB, which I am glad to see has now been removed from the Bill, but I have some reservations about the Minister’s comments just now, and especially those made in the other place by the noble Lord McNally, who, when speaking about the future of the board, said that
“there is a strong case for the reform of the YJB, and we will consider our options for achieving reform outside the Public Bodies Bill.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]
The Minister’s words today were almost a precise repetition of that, and it sounds like a threat. It sounds as though the Government have made up their mind, and that what we have heard today is not so much a climb-down as a temporary retreat in order to attempt to do on another occasion the same thing that they intended to do in this Bill.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I get the impression that the shadow Minister is of the opinion that in this case any reform is unacceptable, and that the Government’s new line is just about doing the same thing but in another way. Is he against any reform?
Jon Trickett
If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard that I am not at all against reform or continual review, as no organisation ought to be. As events change, and as our understanding of crime and youth justice develops, as it will do over time, no doubt the YJB and other ancillary bodies will be reviewed, but it looks to me very much as if the Government have dogmatically made up their mind that the board must change and, in effect, be abolished.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Youth Justice Board has done fantastic work to date, for which it should be commended? The fact that it is not going to be abolished is a positive move. In terms of reform, youth offending teams will have to manage with smaller resources and teams, and it will be under incredible pressure, so does he also agree that the YJB is going to have to change the way in which it works, if only to respond to that?
Jon Trickett
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point. No doubt there is financial pressure on all public services, and probably rightly so given the climate in which we all live, but the truth is that dealing with justice and, in particular, with protecting the interests of young people is an important and primary function of government, so we ought not to make decisions in haste or for purely financial imperatives.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his moderate and considerate response to the Minister. My analysis is that there was strong support in both Houses and across the parties for the Youth Justice Board, so it is unfair to come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman implies, specifically because Lord McNally in the other place said:
“We will consider whether we can use these powers in the context of a more direct ministerial responsibility but will do so in consultation with the Youth Justice Board and with the intention of working harmoniously with it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]
I get the impression that the Government have understood people’s support for the board and its effectiveness, and that it is likely, even if changed over time, to continue.
Jon Trickett
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and for the moderate way he expressed them. We will see over time exactly what the Government’s intentions are.
The Government have set out to remove the independence of the youth justice system. The Minister repeated that they want, in effect, to bring it under direct ministerial accountability. There is no financial case that I can see for what the Government are trying to do. I have reservations about something as important as the operation of the criminal justice system, whether or not it deals with young people, being brought under ministerial direction. That is not a debate to be had this afternoon because the Government have withdrawn the proposal. However, any attempt to bring the criminal justice system under direct ministerial accountability will be resisted in this Chamber and in the other place, because it is a long-established tradition that the criminal justice system should, as far as possible, operate independently of the Executive.
The Government have not recognised the case for independence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said in Committee, the Government are committed to bringing the YJB under the remit of central Government. It is, in effect, a nationalisation. The Government want to nationalise the criminal justice system, whereas we want to defend its independence, as one would expect. In my view, none of the YJB’s core functions will be able to be carried out within central Government.
I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that have been debated elsewhere, but I simply urge the Government to keep in mind, in whatever review they carry out in future, that the independence of youth justice and of the criminal justice system in general needs to be maintained. After all, as has been widely acknowledged, the YJB does an amazing job. It has reduced youth offending, it has protected young people, and on the whole it has made the youth justice system better. In Committee, the YJB was praised, as it has been here today and was in the Lords the other week, by Members on both sides. I am glad that the Government have now recognised formally that it does invaluable work, and that they have withdrawn this proposal. We look forward to seeing in due course whatever the Government do next in relation to this matter.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) is slightly confusing the very necessary and important independence of the courts with the status of a body such as the Youth Justice Board. The Executive are, and must be, accountable to Parliament for the efficient provision of things such as custody and alternatives to custody. They may choose to do this by way of a semi-independent or arm’s length body, but that is much more an administrative decision than a decision about judicial independence, for example. The two concepts are different and should not be confused.
I rise to underline and clarify the points made by the Justice Committee in its 10th report, which was published on 23 November, just after midnight. In that report, we set out our concerns about what would happen if the Youth Justice Board was abolished and what the Ministry of Justice would have to do in order to ensure that youth justice got the focus that the YJB had given it in the good work that it had done. We also set out what needs to happen in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, whereby the Government have taken the decision not to abolish the YJB. Our concern was that one of the YJB’s weak points—perhaps the only one that came out strongly in evidence—was that quite a lot of people working in the sector felt that it was too “top down” in its approach to youth offending teams. The success that we have seen in youth justice has been achieved by youth offending teams bringing together every agency at local level and working together. That has been encouraged and supported by the YJB. However, the YJB itself told us that its oversight of youth offending teams will be lighter touch in future and that it is working to
“promote peer support and allow more room for professional judgement”.
That lesson needs to be learned. Indeed, when the Minister gave evidence to us, he gave examples from his own experience to underline that that approach was necessary. He also set out his own case for having greater ministerial accountability and greater ministerial awareness of what the YJB is doing.
The Youth Justice Board will continue. Many people will welcome that because it has provided a very specific focus and enabled things to be achieved in youth justice that have not been achieved in the rest of the criminal justice system. There has been a much better understanding of where to strike a balance between custody and alternatives to custody in youth justice than in other fields. There has also been much better local co-operation between the various agencies that deal with young people. We need to build on those experiences.
I wish the board well in the future. However, I underline the point that the Select Committee made in its report and hope that Ministers have noted it.
Simon Hughes
If I may, I will add a couple of brief comments.
First, I am grateful to the Government for listening and responding positively, constructively and graciously, as my noble friend Lord McNally did in the other place on 23 November. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) for his work and that of the Justice Committee in looking at this issue and putting their wisdom on the table, ready for whatever decision the Government made. That wisdom is just as valid and can still be picked up by the Youth Justice Board and the Government in the circumstances that the Government have announced.
Lord McNally made clear one reason for this decision:
“The other point that has come through in contribution after contribution is that the real influence and power in all this has been the reputation of the YJB itself. It has been able to call on friends in its time of need because of that reputation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 1074.]
I associate myself with those whom I call parliamentary friends from across the parties, Lord Warner, who was the midwife—if that is not an inappropriate gender assignation—at the birth of the Youth Justice Board, Lord Elton, Baroness Linklater, Baroness Scotland and others. They have made it clear that although at the beginning it was not evident that the board would be hugely successful, it became more and more successful. I join in the thanks and the tributes to Frances Done, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, and to John Drew, its chief executive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to point to the evidence on the ground of the success of youth offending teams and of that model. The figures, given all the trends in crime, have been extraordinary and have gone in the other direction. Youth crime has come down significantly. Sometimes we are confronted by campaigns or arguments in our local papers which suggest that youth crime is out of control and that youngsters are running amok. That is absolutely not evidence-based. In England, the figures have gone in the other direction. That is a tribute to those who have worked on the ground in youth offending teams, in collaboration with the local police and local authorities; those who work in the youth service, who do a valuable job; and those who have been on the Youth Justice Board over the years.
I wish to pay one tribute that I may not be thanked for, although I hope that I will be. Steven Bradford, who used to work with me in the House of Commons, went on to work in the Youth Justice Board. He was a wise and useful researcher when he worked here. The Youth Justice Board has been well served by a group of people like him who have been loyal and committed to an important part of public policy.
The Youth Justice Board has the confidence of young people, the confidence of the agencies that work with young people—Lord Ramsbotham is another person who was clear in his support of the Youth Justice Board—and the confidence of all those who watch these matters and seek a better penal policy. I hope that today is not regarded as a defeat for the Government, but as the Government understanding that it is right for the Youth Justice Board to go on. It will, of course, always be subject to review and it is right that Ministers have to answer in this place for the success of justice policies, whether in relation to adults or young people. They have done in the past and they will do in the future.
Mr Djanogly
I will briefly address the points that have been made, because I know that we have to move on to the next debate. First, I point out the consensus that there is in support of our position. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for that.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) made a point about nationalisation. I am not quite sure what he was getting at. He seemed to suggest that we should go back to business as usual. That is not our position. It is true that the YJB has done good work, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). However, it does need reform, as has been acknowledged by nearly all speakers.
We established a YJB transition programme at an early stage, to cover three strands of work: abolition, the moving of YJB corporate services to the Ministry of Justice, and the restructuring of YJB staff. The second and third of those strands will go ahead whether or not abolition takes place. It is difficult to disentangle the costs and attribute accurate costs to each, but that is the current position.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who explained his concern and, I believe, that of his Committee, that the YJB’s approach is too top-down. I assure him that I will take that point back to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), to help him in considering the options for reform before he brings forward his proposals in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5
Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices
Mr Djanogly
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on their Amendment No. 53 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees to amendments 53A to 53C proposed by the Lords in lieu of that Amendment.
Under Commons amendment 53, we would have retained the office of the chief coroner in statute but transferred its functions to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. However, we recognised the desire to have a single judicial figure responsible for leading the coroner system, a view that was expressed in both Houses and by a range of stakeholders. We therefore tabled further amendments in the Lords that would allow us to implement the office of the chief coroner without delay and bring into force the range of chief coroner powers envisaged under part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
We will not, however, implement the appeals provision under section 40 of the 2009 Act, which will be repealed. That will leave in place the existing system of redress, so that decisions can still be contested by way of judicial review or by application to the High Court by, or under the authority of, the Attorney-General.
The proposal before us will provide the system with leadership and will bring further improvements to jurisdiction, training and monitoring, and it will allow us to bring about all those things without further delay.
Jon Trickett
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out “agrees” and insert “disagrees”.
This is a similar debate to the last one, in the sense that the Government have now withdrawn an unreasonable proposal. The truth is, of course, that they did not have a majority in the other place to deliver either proposal, so although some good grace has been shown, there are also mathematical reasons to do with how the votes were going to go in the other place.
Hopefully, Members will never have recourse to the coronial system as a result of a sudden unexplained death of a loved one. We can all imagine that if we did, we would probably be in a difficult emotional condition. We would hope that we would be helped in discovering the true cause of that sudden and tragic death by a modern, professional, strong and independent-minded coroner.
Unfortunately, there have been too many cases reported in which the families, friends and colleagues of a loved one have felt let down by the coronial service that they have received. I do not need to dwell on the many occasions when the service was felt to have failed, but it became clear that the whole coronial service needed to be modernised, made more professional and above all made more accountable.
The Opposition are totally in favour of modernising public services that need to be modernised. We are in favour of reform, and I will not have anything else said. The view that the coronial service needs to be reformed and made more accountable is not simply that of a few party hacks in this place or elsewhere. It is the view of, for example, the Royal British Legion and of INQUEST, an organisation of which many Members will have heard. Between them, those organisations represent many bereaved families, including the families of our fallen heroes. So I have been perplexed throughout the Bill’s progress by the Government’s continuing failure to respond, not to our arguments, but to the voices of the bereaved and those who represent them, to the extent that, as the House knows, the Bill Committee refused to allow witnesses from the Royal British Legion to appear before it so that we could hear what they had to say on behalf of those families.
In the previous Parliament, it became the settled will of this House and the other place that the way to achieve far-reaching reform of the whole coronial service should be—at least in part—through establishing a new post, the chief coroner. The chief coroner’s tasks were well debated at the time and I will not rehearse them. Then, there was a change of Government and, bizarrely, as part of their review of quangos, this Administration decided to abolish the post of chief coroner, notwithstanding the fact that that post is not a quango. We repeatedly warned that that would be a major error and we therefore fully support the Government’s decision to take the office of chief coroner out of schedule 5, thereby securing the post’s existence.
I am happy that the hard work of organisations such as the British Legion and INQUEST, as well as that of many individuals, has finally paid off.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I supported the British Legion’s campaign throughout the Bill’s passage. I want to put something on the record briefly. Many representatives of faith communities in the city of Leicester have approached me because of their concerns that coronial services need to be improved across the piece and be sensitive to faith communities’ needs. I wanted to put that to the Minister, but he was speedier than I anticipated. Does my hon. Friend agree that representatives of faith communities should sit on the bereavement committee that the Minister is establishing to advise on those matters?
Jon Trickett
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who played a distinguished role throughout the Committee’s proceedings and spoke on Second and Third Reading. I know that he pays close attention to such matters as a hard-working constituency representative in the city of Leicester. I agree with his points.
Let me outline the reasons why we felt uncomfortable with the direction that the Government were taking. We heard that they were going to perform a fairly undignified climb-down on the post of chief coroner, and it looked like a wholesale victory, but, as is becoming the Government’s custom, the announcement was not made in this House or the other place, but to the media. We heard about it on the BBC the night before the Bill went into Committee in the other place. I think that that is deplorable.
Many people were misled into saying that it was a wholesale victory for common sense and that the Government had finally listened. However, when we saw the detail of the proposals, it immediately became clear that there was a flaw at their centre. The Government have decided not to delete the post of chief coroner—we welcome that—but they have also decided, as the Minister just said, to repeal section 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. That means that there will be no right of appeal against a coroner’s decision—as we have heard, from time to time, those decisions are contested—to the chief coroner, as the House originally intended.
The Government know perfectly well that there is no need to repeal section 40, which will allow for appeals in due course, since the 2009 Act understood that such action had to be taken carefully. A procedure was therefore put in place so that the process of appealing to the chief coroner would not be invoked until the Secretary of State allowed that to happen. We strongly believe that that should continue. In effect, the removal of the right of appeal will reduce the office of the chief coroner to an administrative post with limited oversight of the coronial system, and that is to be regretted. We agree with INQUEST, which has circulated a note to all hon. Members today, that section 40 of the original Act should be retained and that a pilot for the appeals procedure could then be undertaken by the chief coroner when the post is filled. That review could be undertaken alongside the Ministry of Justice’s review. That would allow the Government to make an informed decision on how to proceed with reform of the coronial system. It seems that the Government are unwilling to make an informed decision, but have just decided, dogmatically, that there will be no appeals system. I strongly believe that a pilot would prove beyond doubt the efficacy of a national appeals system to the chief coroner. Why on earth would the Government withdraw that power? It is baffling.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman talks as if the appeals system exists and is about to be removed, but in fact it does not exist, because the chief coroner was not appointed and the clauses were not put into effect. The situation that he is describing as some strange and horrific future possibility is actually what we have now.
Jon Trickett
Of course it is, and I am baffled by that intervention, given that I have just said that section 40 allows for an appeals system to be introduced in due course. What was envisaged was a proper coronial system with an appeals process and a chief coroner who would have authority over the whole system. The Government are seeking to stop that logical process, which could be tested first by a pilot, and to put in an illogical system, with a chief coroner who would effectively be reduced to a purely administrative post.
In response to a series of parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, Ministers have revealed that at no stage have the Government estimated the likely costs of additional judicial reviews, as opposed to an appeals system. On that basis, it is odd to argue that savings will be inherent in this decision.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Surely having a right of appeal would just mean more cost and delay. The really important role that the coroner has had historically is to make a judgment and provide closure. Is not that the most important of the coroner’s responsibilities?
Jon Trickett
The two interventions have been revealing. Both interventions, and the Minister’s original speech, envisage more judicial reviews taking place in the absence of a proper and orderly appeals process. The problem with judicial review is that it is more expensive than the appeals system. It can take years and it is burdensome, bureaucratic and emotionally painful to the bereaved families. The average cost to an individual is £30,000. We are talking about people, such as families of service men and women, who may want to contest the decisions of a coroner. Under clause 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, there is a simple system that allows for an appeal to the chief coroner, which would create a precedent for the whole coronial service. Rather than that, the Government are resting their case on the fact that the appeal process will go through judicial review. That is not an appropriate way in which to handle a very sensitive service.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He is being typically generous and kind. Judicial review is not a form of appeal. Sometimes it is used as collateral challenge, but it is not a form of appeal. It is used when there has been a procedural irregularity. The key message must be that the whole point of the coroner system is to get closure so that people can move on with their lives. A person has to get leave to apply for judicial review, and they must show that there has been some procedural irregularity or proper grounds for that kind of action to be taken.
Jon Trickett
The British Legion, which is closer to any of the service families than we are, says that it would prefer an appeals system. The hon. Gentleman has to say why he thinks that he understands better the needs of bereaved families than the British Legion. I suggest that he does not understand better, and nor do I. It is better to defer to the judgment of the British Legion.
Jon Trickett
I will not take any more interventions because there are other people who wish to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye. The Government clearly want judicial review, but the problem is that it is a complex system. We will have the individual coroner’s court, the chief coroner and then the intervention of the judiciary through judicial review. It is a complicated administrative and legal process. Families who are bereaved and who simply do not understand what happened to their loved one want an explanation and the matter to be brought to closure. A judicial review can take years before an issue is resolved and cost tens of thousands of pounds.
Mr Djanogly
Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why he thinks that the chief coroner’s decision is less likely to be judicially reviewed than any other decision?
Jon Trickett
There may be some judicial reviews under the chief coroner, but they will be fewer in number. It will be a far more efficient system. At the end of the day, we want to do what the families want. The families are saying to us—the British Legion, INQUEST and individual families—that they do not want what the Government are trying to achieve. If the Government’s reasoning is to save money, it would be more efficient, better emotionally and cheaper to allow section 40 to remain on the statute book so that a decision can be made in the fullness of time, with all the options having been carefully considered.
It has been suggested that removing the right of appeal, which was in the original Act and which the Government now wish to achieve, will effectively neuter the role of the chief coroner. More sinister than that is a rumour that is now circulating that the Government intend simply to fail to fill the post of chief coroner. Will the Minister now tell the House when he intends to fill that post?
Jon Trickett
I have said that I will not take any more interventions. The Government have moved considerably during the course of this Bill, and we will support the decision to retain the post of chief coroner. We welcome the Government’s decision in relation to that matter. For the reasons that I have given already, I will seek your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to divide the House on the question of the retention of the right of appeal to the chief coroner.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I begin by welcoming the decision—I will not call it a climbdown—to retain the post of chief coroner. I moved an amendment in this place to reinstate the post, and in that vote I was grateful for the support of the Labour Front-Bench team and some of my hon. Friends.
It is important to rehearse one or two of the arguments, as the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) did, about why we need this reform and why Conservative Members, at the time, supported the creation of the post of chief coroner. There have been numerous examples of people and families receiving appalling and disgusting treatment at the hands of the coronial system. On Report, I mentioned a couple of such examples, and consequently, since then, other people in my area have come forward with their own examples.
We agreed, therefore, that there was a definite need for the reform and for the post of chief coroner. Of course, had the post been filled before this all started, we would not be in such a weak position, having advanced that argument. Nevertheless, I welcome the decision—whatever the reason—to reinstate the post. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who tried to intervene on the Opposition spokesman, when exactly the post will be filled. One of the reasons I wanted to speak was to get an answer to that question.
Mr Djanogly
I can confirm that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will immediately discuss how and when the post will be filled.
Andrew Percy
I thank the Minister for that.
The question of the appeals process is not quite as simple or clear-cut as has been presented. Despite referring to the appeals process when I moved my amendment a few weeks ago, it was not one of the main drivers behind my joining the campaign. The fact that under the previous legislation it was accepted that the process would not start for some time demonstrates the difficulties that arise. There is the perception or concern that some people might use the appeals process almost to continue the grieving process. Members have talked about getting closure, but actually the appeals process can postpone that closure, which can be difficult for families.
I understand, therefore, that this is a difficult issue. The Opposition spokesperson made a sensible proposal—about having a trial—but that is not necessarily the answer, because, as the Minister said, those decisions can be judicially reviewed. The key point about the chief coroner was his role in driving the necessary reforms, which can continue with or without the appeals process.
Stephen Mosley
Is not one of the key points about the chief coroner, as envisaged by the Minister, that he will be responsible for training and monitoring? My hon. Friend mentioned constituents who have had disagreements with the coronial system. Those problems would be solved if we had a chief coroner to look at training and monitoring.
Andrew Percy
Of course, the position was created precisely to drive that top-down change and to ensure that people’s experience of the coronial system was even and equal across the country. That is the element that we have to focus on. We have to accept that we are where we are—the other place has determined the matter—and that there will be no changes to the appeals process, although I hope that the Minister will not take that possibility off the table permanently. Perhaps we could reconsider that matter further down the line.
We now need to focus on getting the position filled and driving forward that change. I welcome the position that we are in, and I join the Opposition Front-Bench team in paying tribute to the role of the Royal British Legion, as well as organisations such as INQUEST and, interestingly, the British Medical Association, which supported, and continues to support, the post of chief coroner. The Royal British Legion has done an exceptional amount of work in raising the matter and doggedly fighting for it.
This is also a question of our commitment to the covenant. Obviously it is not just service personnel families who are affected, but they are uppermost in our minds when we think about the post.
I welcome the fact that we have this position again. I hope that the appointment will be made as quickly as possible and that the genuine change that all of us, in all parts of the House, have agreed needs to be made, is indeed made. Finally, let me again make a plea to the Minister to consider the appeals process in due course, although I fully accept the complex nature of such appeals.
Robert Flello
Let me begin by adding my praise to INQUEST, the Royal British Legion and a host of other organisations, which are almost too numerous to mention, that have been behind the campaign to ensure that the Government finally saw sense on refilling the post of chief coroner—not appointing someone to the post, because it was filled. Somebody was appointed, but then, shall we say, let go. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for the work that he did, which is much appreciated.
I am extremely disappointed that, having been told time and again, and shown the error of their ways, the Government waited until the 11th hour—or not quite the 11th hour: it was probably around half past 7—finally to change their mind. However, they then behaved like a small child. Having been found out, they now want to kick the toys around spitefully. Section 40 can be introduced over time, in a measured way, using pilots. However, simply saying, “Okay, have the chief coroner, but you can’t have appeals,” looks petulant and leaves the Minister and the Ministry of Justice looking stupid. [Interruption.] Allow me to rephrase that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not mean for a moment to say that the Minister looked stupid; however, the stupidity of the actions stands out.
INQUEST has said as recently as today that it envisages that section 40 would
“remain on the statute book until, at a time to be agreed in the future, the provision would be brought into force by the Secretary of State under section l82 of the Act so a full pilot and review of the appeals process could be undertaken by the Chief Coroner.”
That is totally sensible. It continues:
“This would enable a properly costed, informed decision to be taken about rolling out a new avenue of appeal across coroners courts in England and Wales. Terms of the pilot and review would be decided between the Chief Coroner and the Ministry of Justice and, under our proposal”—
the proposal put forward by it and RBL—
“an appeals process would not come into effect for several years.”
All that is eminently doable, and to say otherwise is frankly wrong. INQUEST continues:
“An appeals process overseen by the chief coroner would offer families a route to resolve poor decision making.”
That relates to the interventions from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke)—[Interruption]—who is probably tweeting at the moment.
Robert Flello
I have got his attention—marvellous.
As INQUEST says, this is about
“poor decision-making by coroners before and during the course of the inquest so that any legal questions on these points could be dealt with quickly and efficiently. Currently, the only avenue of appeal for bereaved families about the decision-making of coroners and their conduct of an inquest is through judicial review which, as well as being expensive and complex, will often result in lengthy delays and adjourned inquest hearings while the issue is dealt with by the High Court.”
Let me give a quick example. Sheila Taylor bravely came to this House and spoke at a meeting with INQUEST on 20 October, following the tragic death of her son Mike, in April 2007. She says, among many other deeply poignant things:
“The Coroner’s Office didn’t inform us that we had a right to be present at the post-mortem. That had already been done before we were informed of Mike’s death, which made us suspicious. Was there some sort of cover-up? Had he been murdered? Had he been given the wrong drugs? The Coroner’s Officer was so rude in response to our questioning that we had to get our solicitor to speak to him on our behalf. We decided we needed a second toxicology report, but that caused a delay of 8 weeks before we could hold the funeral. You can imagine how upsetting that was.”
We can also imagine how upsetting it is for a family who have something that they are not happy about—indeed, something they have deep concerns about—but for whom the only avenue currently open is the judicial review approach, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said. Families such as the Taylors have to decide whether they want their son’s funeral delayed even further and the coroner to take even longer to look at their case, while they go through the expensive and lengthy process of judicial review. It does not need to be like that.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to suggest that I was tweeting. In fact, I was looking up the difference between judicial review and section 13 applications under the previous arrangements and section 40 appeals under the current arrangements, and it struck me that there was not much difference between the two. I wonder whether we are actually talking about a slightly illusory right of appeal.
Robert Flello
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should go and use a fully sized computer to conduct some proper research, rather than using a small hand-held device in the Chamber, which is probably not allowed by “Erskine May” in any case.
The Government have previously referred to cost, but—this has been said several times already, but I shall say it again because it is so important—the whole cost issue is a nonsense in many respects. Answers to parliamentary questions, responses to freedom of information requests and discussions with the Ministry of Justice have shown that the Government have not analysed the current costs of judicial reviews of coroners’ decisions or made any attempts to ascertain what the future costs might be, and have thus been unable to make any comparison with the section 40 appeals process.
If section 40 remains on the statute book, things can be done properly, carefully, steadily and slowly. There is no need for them to be done tomorrow. There is no need to say, as the Minister has, “We want to ensure that all this can be done quickly, so we must omit section 40.” I am sorry, but that is wrong, and I suggest that he should read the Act again.
I do not know whether the Minister suddenly thought “We are going to lose at the other end of the Corridor”, or whether there was a moment on Remembrance Sunday when he stood thinking about the ultimate sacrifice that people had made, and about the small sacrifice that the House could make by doing the right thing. Whatever the reason for his decision, however, I know for certain that he will not want to upset the Whips today, and that he therefore will not tell the House that he will not press the amendment that would remove section 40. That is a tragedy.
No doubt the Government will win the vote despite the brave stance of many Government Members, but notwithstanding that victory and notwithstanding the removal of section 40, which I am sure will happen, I ask the Minister to ponder this: he may win the vote, but he will have lost the moral and ethical argument. He will also have lost any chance of being viewed positively by the—sadly—tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of bereaved families out there, and those who represent them, who know that section 40 is the answer. He has done the right thing in regard to the chief coroner, for whatever reason, and I now ask him to do the right thing in this regard.
Stephen Mosley
I believe that the Minister wants the chief coroner to be able to ensure that coroners are fully trained and know how to deal with issues so that no mistakes are made. Appeals are necessary only if things go wrong, so is not the solution to ensure that they do not go wrong in the first place?
Robert Flello
I might have a little more sympathy with that argument had the Minister not said on previous occasions that there was no need for a chief coroner, and that the precautions listed by the hon. Gentleman were not necessary. He cannot have it both ways.
Mr Djanogly
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Government’s reforms provided for training under alternative proposals.
Robert Flello
I do not disagree with the Minister—he did say that the Government wanted to provide for training—but the point was made time and again from the Dispatch Box that there was no need for the chief coroner to do any of the things that were mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). Thankfully the Minister has seen sense in that regard. However, if the hon. Gentleman is right and the existence of a chief coroner means that all coroners will finally be up to standard, there will be few if any appeals, so where is the harm in including section 40? I suggest that there is no harm in it at all.
I think that the Minister needs to do the right thing. I know that he will not do it today, but I know that it will be done at some point in the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I point out that discreet use of hand-held devices is allowed in the Chamber? If it were not, I would have disallowed it in this instance.
Sir Alan Beith
The Select Committee on Justice has taken extensive evidence on the failings in the coronial system and the need for reform. We felt strongly that there should be a chief coroner and I continued to press that argument with Ministers on many occasions. The Government found alternative ways of trying to achieve the same things, and it would be wrong to suggest that in their use of the powers of the Lord Chief Justice they were not hoping to achieve significant reform.
Clearly there is consensus about reform. Anyone who has seen the experience of families who have had delayed inquests or poor service from coroner’s offices, and who is aware of the completely patchwork system of support for coroners around the country, realises that fundamental reform is required. That can now be achieved through the office of chief coroner, which I felt all along was the sensible way to do it. That involves professional leadership, training and tackling the jurisdictional issues so that, for example, the chief coroner can move inquests to a coroner who is in a position to provide the service when there is too much pressure in another coronial area.
Where there is not consensus is on the appeal issue. I know how strongly the Royal British Legion feels about that and I respect its campaign, but significant legal questions are raised by whether we substitute the decision of one coroner for that of another—that is a quite different process from judicial review. We do not have time to debate that in detail today, but I simply say that there is wide consensus on the need to reform the coroner system. There are many good coroners and many excellent coroner’s offices, but it is a very uneven system. The chief coroner should now be a mechanism for undertaking that reform, but the issue of appeals is one on which there is much more to be argued over and we might be holding out to families the false promise that they will somehow be in a better position than they would be with the present system. It would be wrong of us in this House to do that, so I urge the Minister to get on with the crucial reforms of the system, which the chief coroner can achieve.
Simon Hughes
I strongly endorse the views just expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). I represent a coroner’s court in Southwark and we have had very good coroners—Monty Levine, who was very famous, and Andrew Harris, the current coroner, who is a friend of mine. However, like other colleagues, I have had experiences, involving constituents and others, of really bad coroner’s decisions. The Taylor family have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), and Michael, who died, was a constituent of mine. I am also talking about the inquests after the Marchioness sank in my constituency, the battle that the lovely late Eileen Dallaglio had to fight on behalf of her daughter and the battles that all the others like her had to fight. In the end, they had to go through a judicial review because they were terribly treated by the coroner who dealt with that case.
I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind and that the scheme introduced eventually by Labour—we had to push but it was eventually put on the statute book—can now be implemented in respect of creating a chief coroner. I urged, as others have, that that decision be taken. It is reasonable to proceed gradually along the road that has now been accepted by the Government. They are clear that they are going to report back on Army coroner’s inquests—the Armed Forces Bill does that. As Lord McNally said in the other place, this is not just about training; it is about monitoring, reporting and direction. That will give us a good base. There will also be an annual report to Parliament.
May I end by saying that I also have the privilege of being the Member of Parliament for the headquarters of the Royal British Legion, and I know that INQUEST has worked with the RBL very well. They are very honourable organisations, they have fought an honourable fight and they have won an honourable victory. The House owes its gratitude to them and to the Government for understanding the strength of feeling on this case.
Mr Djanogly
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me just repeat that the Government are committed to urgent and meaningful reform of the coroner system to ensure that inquests are timely, efficient and effective and that bereaved families are provided with the information and support they need throughout this emotionally difficult process. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) speaking in favour of reform. He needs to be aware that the position on the statutory basis for reform was the same between all the parties in the House, despite differences over the position on the chief coroner. I was very pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) recognising that and making the point strongly.
The hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) made the very good point that as important as coronial reform is for military inquests, this goes much further than military inquests. I acknowledge his concern that faith groups should be considered and I take that back with me.
Various hon. Members spoke about cost and the implications for judicial review. My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) pointed out the need for closure for families and made their points very well. I understand the concerns about the cost of judicial review, but the chief coroner would not have had the final word on appeals. The option of judicially reviewing the chief coroner’s decision would still have been available, and bereaved families might have been encouraged to exhaust all mechanisms for challenging the coroner’s original findings. As a result, we would not have expected any reduction in the number of judicial reviews; indeed, there could have been an increase.
Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Hemsworth and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) asked why we are not—
National Policy Statements
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of and approves the National Policy Statement for Ports, which was laid before this House on 24 October.
It falls to me to introduce the motion because the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), the Minister with responsibility for shipping, is this evening hosting a reception on the occasion of the 27th assembly of the International Maritime Organisation.
The national policy statement sets out national policy which must be considered in determining whether development consent should be granted to port infrastructure projects that are examined by the Infrastructure Planning Commission or, with effect from next April, when it is intended that the Infrastructure Planning Commission will be abolished, the major infrastructure planning unit in the Planning Inspectorate. It is also intended that the national policy statement will stand as a material consideration for port developments below the capacity thresholds that are set out in section 24 of the Planning Act 2008, which fall to be considered by the Marine Management Organisation. The national policy statement applies to ports in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where ports policy is devolved.
Members will know that the previous Administration consulted on a proposal for the national policy statement on ports between November 2009 and February 2010. Alongside and beyond this consultation, Parliament also undertook scrutiny of the draft national policy statement. Scrutiny in this House was undertaken by the Select Committee on Transport, which held three oral hearings, took written evidence and in March 2010 published a report of its findings with 22 recommendations and conclusions, to which the Government have responded. I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the previous Transport Committee, including the then and present Chairman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for the important work that they undertook, the thoroughness with which they approached it, and their readiness to do that within a relatively short period.
This debate is taking place because the Government have agreed with the House to anticipate, as we did earlier this year for the suite of energy national policy statements, the relevant requirements of the Localism Act 2011, which will not come into effect until next year. I will speak briefly about the Government’s planning reform agenda; the purpose of national policy statements; and the background to the Government’s ports policy and the need for new infrastructure, which is central to the national policy statement.
On the planning reform agenda, the Government are committed to making the planning system as a whole work better. “Better” means faster, fairer and easier to understand for all involved, including applicants and objectors, while of course giving due regard to environmental considerations. It most emphatically does not mean denying people a right to be heard. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government are satisfied that the system of engagement and consultation set up by the Planning Act 2008 fully secures that right, so we have not sought to modify that. Engagement with local people and their representatives from an early stage is crucial if applications are to come to the Infrastructure Planning Commission or Planning Inspectorate with the project as well defined as it can be, and with proposals for avoiding, mitigating and/or compensating for adverse impacts.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that after a year-long planning inquiry, a proposal for a massive container port at Dibden bay on the edge of the New Forest was turned down? I understand that there would not be provision for any such inquiry in the future. Can he assure me and my constituents that a streamlined planning process for such a proposal would be no more likely to be carried than it was under the previous, rather more detailed opportunities for challenging it?
Norman Baker
I do not believe that the change in arrangements makes that more likely, but obviously every application is considered on its merits and according to the circumstances that apply at the time.
The Government have set demanding targets for the consideration of what could be complex cases, but applicants and their consultees must contribute by thinking well ahead and ensuring that applications are fit for purpose. The Department recommends that ports should start in this spirit by consulting on port master plans. These are neither statutory documents, nor part of the formal Planning Act regime, but nevertheless they could help enormously to promote local understanding of what a port is trying to achieve and how best to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts. Master plans are not confined to large ports. Newhaven in my constituency is an excellent example of a port engaging thoroughly with its community in that way.
Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)
Paragraph 4.4.1 of the national policy statement states:
“Ports in England and Wales operate on commercial lines, without public subsidy and with investment from their own operating profits or from the private sector investors.”
Will the Minister assure me that the Government will uphold that policy rigorously and fairly, particularly given the desire of the port of Liverpool to use a publicly funded cruise terminal to compete with the privately funded cruise terminals in Southampton, which breaches the principle of fair competition?
Norman Baker
I am sure that it is Government policy to uphold all policies fairly, and I imagine that that is what my hon. Friend the shipping Minister and others will seek to do.
Where we have made a change is in the intention to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission so that, from next April, major project applications will revert to the Secretary of State for decision following consideration by the major infrastructure planning unit, which is to be set up within the Planning Inspectorate. That reinstates an important element of democratic oversight in the process, although I should make it clear that the Secretary of State intends to consider applications on the facts, on the advice of the major infrastructure planning unit, and in accordance with the national policy statement.
Another aspect of the Planning Act that we have retained is the principle that applications should not succeed if their adverse impacts outweigh their benefits. I do not believe that many applications will fail that test if they are thoroughly prepared in accordance with the national policy statement, but none the less this represents a robust safety net in case we fail to foresee any significant adverse impacts. The Infrastructure Planning Commission, and the major infrastructure planning unit that will succeed it, will not be a completely one-stop shop, but it nevertheless reduces the separate applications potentially required. Marine licensing, as set up under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, streamlines previous licence and consent requirements, and associated development can now be fully integrated with the main application.
The purpose of national policy statements more generally is to provide a framework for preparing, considering and deciding planning applications. Therefore, this national policy statement does not purport to be a complete statement of Government policy as it relates to each and every aspect of ports. In essence, it is a planning document.
The UK is of course a trading nation, and well over 90% of our international trade by weight arrives or leaves by sea—the lion’s share of a total traffic of around 500 million tonnes a year. Ports are under-appreciated. They ply much of their trade behind high security fences, and even large ships can be surprisingly inconspicuous to those living in the port’s hinterland. We need port capacity to carry that trade and provide for coastal traffic, which can help to take lorries off our roads and reduce the incidence of pollution and congestion.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the national policy statement and those statements that will have a positive impact on ports, such as Falmouth, set out in today’s national infrastructure plan. One helpful recommendation relates to the habitats directive and helping to balance the economic and social impacts of a port against potential impacts on habitats. It proposes setting up an industry body that would work with Ministers to review some of the over-zealous interpretations of the habitats directive and its impact on licensing port activities. Will the Minister shed some light on when that body will be set up and which industry bodies will be represented on it?
Norman Baker
I am afraid I cannot answer that question in detail, but I will ask my hon. Friend the shipping Minister to respond to it. We are determined to strike a balance between the sensible needs of a working port and respecting the natural environment as far as possible, and it would be quite wrong if one of those were able to triumph unduly over the other. We can strike a sensible balance in our arrangements, and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is right to raise the matter, so I will ensure that the shipping Minister writes to her with the answer that she has asked for.
Mr Denham
The Minister could unlock £150 million of totally private investment in Southampton’s container port next September if only he and his colleague’s officials cut through the red tape holding up that investment and the dredging of the River Test, which is necessary for large container ships. I am sure that he will not have been briefed on the issue, but I urge him to take it away and see what can be done to resolve it.
Norman Baker
I will happily take that issue away. It is important that we unlock private investment, that we help our ports and, at this particular time, as the Chancellor said today, bring forward investment where possible, so I will look at the problems that exist in the area and see whether they can be overcome. It may be that they cannot, but it is perfectly proper to raise the issue in the Chamber.
Ports are diverse. They cater for liquid-bulks, dry-bulks and break-bulks, ro-ro, including trade vehicles, and of course containers, and they play host to many kinds of warehousing, distribution and process activities. Their markets can be lively and volatile, and they need to be nimble in the short term to react to changing market conditions and patterns of demand, yet they must also plan for the long term. Port infrastructure is long-lived, lasting 20, perhaps 30, years and more, so it is important that such decisions are taken carefully, with full regard to all their significant consequences.
In the short term, the ports industry is well placed to respond to economic recovery. The first phase of Hutchison’s Felixstowe South project is already open, and that will help to secure the nation’s ability to accommodate the largest container vessels; we have seen the announcement by Dubai Ports World that it plans to complete the first phase of the London Gateway container terminal by the end of 2013; ABP Southampton, to which the right hon. Gentleman perhaps alluded, is pressing ahead with its own expansion plans; and other ports, including Bristol, Teesport and Mersey, already have consent for development.
We cannot afford to be complacent, however. Investors in ports need to be able to plan development for every type of traffic, and to do so in a planning context that is stable and well understood. Equally, ports’ neighbours need to know how their essential interests will be protected through the planning system.
The national policy statement brings together established policy for ports and established policy for mitigating their adverse impact. The fundamental policy that we set out in the ports national policy statement is market-led, building on the success of the industry since it was freed from the constraints of state ownership and the national dock labour scheme. Port operators are best placed to decide the type of facilities they need, so this is a non-location directive national policy statement, and I make no apology for that.
At the same time, development must be in sympathy with the environment, including the marine environment —to pick up the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made. The national policy statement sets out in some detail how that translates into requirements for planning applications and their accompanying environmental statements. Unless there is provision for sufficient capacity, disruption at major ports has the potential to translate very quickly into serious disruption to people’s everyday lives.
The national policy statement expresses confidence that the ports industry, with each owner/operator taking its own commercial view, will deliver the resilience that the country needs against disruption, and the national policy statement is very clear that the planning system should give weight to delivering that important resilience.
Finally, in completing the national policy statement, we have been fully conscious of the fact that ports are nodes in a network, and that connecting infrastructure is essential to their success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister said that authority over, and responsibility for, ports is devolved to Northern Ireland, the area that I represent, so from a ports point of view, what is the relationship between Westminster and Northern Ireland? In other words, do we have continuity of strategy and parity so that the relationship between the mainland and Northern Ireland is real and we all benefit?
Norman Baker
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are, indeed, well established and close links between the Department for Transport and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We certainly draw attention to and discuss with the devolved Administrations any issue that appears to have importance outside the English coastline, as it were, so I hope that that reassurance satisfies him.
Several consultees, as well as the Transport Committee, argued that the national policy statement on ports should be designated alongside the launch of our consultation on the proposal for a national networks national policy statement. I have some sympathy with those arguments, but so much of transport policy is interconnected that one could make a case for linking many other documents in this way, and the practicalities do not always work out. In the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s recommendations, we explained why we are confident that both national policy statements will work as free-standing but mutually consistent statements.
Our reforms to the major infrastructure planning process will ensure that there is a concise framework for development that can be readily understood by all those involved in the planning system. Ministers will be responsible for decisions to consent or to refuse major infrastructure development, thus closing the circle of democratic accountability. I look forward to listening to contributions and responding to issues raised during the debate. I commend the national policy statement on ports to the House.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
This motion is brought before the House on the day that the Chancellor has unveiled his national infrastructure plan on which the UK’s economic recovery is supposed to rest. I have to say that those are grand hopes for a 150-page wish list with little coherence and even less sense of how it will be delivered. Although it is welcome that the House is getting the chance to debate the national policy statement on ports—an important innovation pioneered by the previous Government and made possible by the passage of the Planning Act 2008—it is time that Ministers faced up to the opportunities that are being missed because of failure to join up key decision making on transport infrastructure.
First, though, let me say what we support. We are pleased that national policy statements are going ahead and that Ministers have chosen to accept the Transport Committee’s recommendation that debates on them should take place in Government time.
We have heard today, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, that Britain faces continued stagnation. Unfortunately, it will take more than a national policy statement on ports, no matter how finely crafted, to return our flatlining economy to health. However, although not sufficient, thriving ports are necessary to any recovery. Any successful route out of these doldrums will require an economic rebalancing that includes Britain’s exporting more to the rest of the world.
With about 90% of world trade taking place by sea, we need more than ever to ensure that Britain has sufficient modern, efficient port capacity that is capable of handling the size of ships and containers that are coming to dominate global trade. That port capacity needs to be linked to a land-based transport network that provides reliable and efficient links for exported and imported goods. That means having fast and free-flowing road links to major ports and increasing capacity on key rail routes, not only in relation to train paths but to enhancing the loading gauge to allow larger containers to be carried. That is why the last Labour Government worked with Network Rail to allow containers of 9 feet 6 inches to be carried between Southampton and the midlands. Today’s statement on rail freight interchanges is therefore welcome.
Our ports are essential to this island nation. They are part of our heritage and our future as a global trader. In 2010, the UK’s ports handled 512 million tonnes of freight, making our ports sector the largest of any in Europe. Ports and directly related services account for about 58,000 jobs, widely distributed across the country. From Immingham to Southampton and from the Medway to Liverpool, ports are at the centre of local economies.
We support the principles behind the policy statement in that port expansion is essential economically but must be conducted in ways that benefit local economies, drive regeneration and are environmentally sensitive. That is because businesses seeking new markets will be looking to the new Administration to deliver on the significant expansions consented to by the previous Government: a two thirds increase in the handling capacity at Felixstowe, consented to in 2006; the London gateway port that the Minister mentioned, handling up to 3.5 million containers a year and consented to in 2007; a doubling of capacity at Liverpool, also consented to in 2007; and further major expansions given the green light at Bathside bay in Harwich, at Teesport, and at Bristol.
Although we agree with the underlying principles of the statement and will therefore support its approval, the way in which it has been presented exposes serious shortcomings in the Government’s approach to planning transport infrastructure. I hope that the Government will reflect on that and make changes so that their already disjointed infrastructure planning does not deteriorate further.
The need to link ports with other infrastructure projects, particularly in road and rail, is obvious. However, the Minister has not given a satisfactory explanation of why he has ignored the recommendation of the Transport Committee to integrate the NPS on ports with the promised NPS on national networks.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Eddington report was published in 2006 or 2007. The previous Government did not get on with improving road infrastructure to the ports. I say gently that it is a bit rich for him to criticise this Government for not moving more quickly on that.
John Woodcock
Progress was made, but unquestionably more needs to be done. I think that it was incumbent on the incoming Government to respond positively to the recommendations made by the Transport Committee just before the last election. It is a matter of great regret that they have not done so.
The Government have chosen to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission, yet the entire statement is written on the basis that the IPC exists. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in winding up, if he has time, or in writing if necessary, whether the end date that he gave of April next year is a firm date or simply a target, and whether that change will require further consultation on the NPS.
The House is being asked to approve the NPS without reference to wider ports policy, most notably on ownership models, including mutualisation. As the Minister is well aware, that is of great interest to many Members and local communities, most notably around Dover and the trust ports. The lack of any guidance on ownership and changes of status in the NPS demonstrates why it is not a substitute for a proper ports policy. I hope that the Minister, whom it is an unexpected pleasure to see today, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), will commit to coming before the House with a comprehensive statement on ports policy, in which the NPS sits.
It is unfortunate that the statement gives such limited consideration to the economic and social impacts of port development proposals, particularly on local employment. After the fiasco of the Thameslink procurement process, Ministers claim to be alive to these issues, yet they seem to be little more than an afterthought in this document.
The Transport Committee recommended that the statement should include preference for port development to reduce inland road transport, yet that is missing from the statement. It contains no wider policy on how to achieve a reduction in the reliance on road freight. We hope that Ministers will consider revising the NPS to ensure that development decisions are taken in a way that specifically promotes and encourages a modal shift for onward transportation away from roads and on to rail and coastal shipping.
On climate change, there is little in the NPS on emissions. The Government need to make it clear whether they will accept the advice of the Committee on Climate Change to include the UK’s share of shipping emissions in the 2050 target.
Finally, we support and welcome the growing demand from the offshore energy sector for additional port capacity, including in my constituency of Barrow and Furness. The Government need to take a more proactive role to ensure that the UK takes a larger slice of this booming market. That is referenced in the NPS, but there is little detail. Will the Minister say how the Government intend actively to promote the potential for ports in the offshore energy sector?
The statement shows some progress but, with the economy flagging, the Government need to raise their game on ports and infrastructure across the piece.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The NPS is extraordinarily important. Representing Dover, I know just how important it is. Only today, the approval has been announced of a plan for the development of the western docks at Dover. It is a gold-plated plan on a rather larger scale than it needs to be, with a price tag of £400 million of investment, and the application has taken getting on for five years to go through the system—an awfully long time. Although the planned capacity will possibly not be needed until 2025 or 2030, owing to the economic difficulties that the country has faced in recent years, and although a gold-plated scheme certainly is not needed, it is an important step forward for the development of the port of Dover. It is much easier to amend an application once permission has been granted than to make a new one.
The fact that it has taken so long for the application finally to be approved underlines the need for a far swifter system of getting applications passed and sorted out. As the Transport Committee made clear in its report, there have been calls from business interests and others for major infrastructure projects to be handled properly, not with extensive public inquiries and long drawn-out decision-making processes but in a shorter and sharper way—something a bit less than the terminal 5 or Sizewell B inquiry nightmares. The NPS is therefore extraordinarily welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) was right that the application at Dibden bay took a long time and got thrown out. It took four years, and I believe that it cost the applicant some £45 million, so that was dead money. That makes no sense whatever. The new, swifter method will be much better.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), rightly made the point that it is desirable to consider the wider aspects of the matter. My understanding is that the NPS is more focused on planning applications for ports than on whether development rights will be granted. I agree with him that, some years on from the Eddington report, which was produced back in 2006, not a lot has happened to the road infrastructure to ports. Although I picked him up for making a slightly partisan point about that, the fundamental point was accurate. We in Dover have been waiting for the upgrade of the A2, which is an important potential artery to the port. It was in the roads programme back in 1997, but was taken out and has not yet got back in. We have been waiting for that road to be dualled and upgraded for years, but it has not happened. We feel very strongly about that, and the Eddington report was fundamentally correct on the matter.
I turn to the NPS itself. The contents page reveals a massive focus on the environmental side of things. There are sections on, for instance, the environmental impact assessment, habitats and species regulations, pollution control, climate change control, biodiversity—so the list goes on. There is, one suspects, a greater concern about flood risks, coastal change and all the environmental things—including, I dare say, the lesser-spotted shellfish—than on socio-economic impacts, tourism and, above all, regeneration.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I totally agree with the point that my hon. Friend has just made, and I wish to highlight one example in my constituency. The port facilities have existed for more than 100 years, and they offer every opportunity for growth and more jobs. However, they sit close to sites of special scientific interest, which are impeding that development. The fact that those SSSIs have been sitting close to that port development for so long surely illustrates that nature is resilient enough to accept port expansion.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for that fundamentally good point.
We need to think harder about the people involved. We need to consider ownership models, as the shadow Minister said, but also regeneration, tourism, jobs and money. We need to think about strengthening and boosting our economy, and making the most of our ports, just as much as we think about the environmental side.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
The Select Committee on Transport published its report on the national policy statement on ports when the last Government were in office. We reported in March 2010—indeed, it was the first national policy statement to be reported on. The cross-party Transport Committee is not influenced by which party is in power. We reported at the time of the previous Government and we registered several serious concerns, and concluded that, unless proper consideration was given to our recommendations, the national policy statement was not fit for purpose. We therefore made a very clear statement then.
Considerable time has elapsed and several changes have been made. We are now looking at the revised national policy statement, so my comments will refer to some of our criticisms and also to some of the changes that have been made since we produced our report.
The key change since that time is the decision to abolish the Infrastructure Planning Commission. It was decided that, following consideration by the infrastructure planning unit and the Planning Inspectorate, the Secretary of State would make the decisions. It was also decided to abolish regional economic strategies and regional planning strategies. Some of our criticisms were of the planning process and the lack of clarity. The changes bring more clarity to the system whereby decisions are made. The background against which the planning statement is being assessed is therefore now rather different.
Time has resolved another major criticism that we made. We were extremely concerned that the policy statement was made before the Marine Management Organisation, which was to examine port development below the threshold for the infrastructure commission, had actually been set up. The Marine Management Organisation has now been set up and consulted, so that major criticism and concern has been addressed.
We expressed several concerns about environmental issues, and the Government’s response states that our concerns have been considered in a different part of the statement—in the documents appended to it. We register the Government’s response. We still have some concerns, but we accept that the Government have pointed out another way of addressing them.
We were very worried that the Government were not providing an update on ports’ traffic forecasts, which are extremely important. There was some dissension about the forecasting of ports traffic that was proposed as a basis for the ports statement. The Government’s response has not been to accept the precise form in which we wanted those forecasts to be updated, but it states that they will provide
“new forecasts in the near future”.
In a spirit of reasonableness, we accept that that concern has been addressed. We will wait and see how those new forecasts are provided.
Those major concerns have therefore been addressed, at least in part. The changes go some way towards dealing with some of the major concerns that we, as a Committee in the previous Parliament, had when we stated that we did not think that the statement was fit for purpose.
It is very important that the ports policy statement is correct. As hon. Members have pointed out this evening, ports are extremely important: 90% of the UK’s trade by tonnage and 512 million tonnes of freight go through our ports, and ports traffic contributes £17.9 billion to GDP, taken together with the employment that it generates. Indeed, the direct employment is at least 132,000 jobs, with many more indirect jobs. The ports sector is extremely important and that is why having the correct ports policy matters.
I want to deal with some concerns to which we have not received a satisfactory response. I think it is important to register them. One is the absence of a definitive ports policy, other than to say that the Government’s policy on ports is market-led. The Committee in the last Parliament felt that that was not good enough, because ports are such an important part of a thriving economy. Little progress has been made since in defining a ports policy. In fact, the ports policy such as it is was defined in an interim policy set out in 2007, and the Government have now said that that interim policy, together with additional statements that have been made, is their definitive ports policy. I suppose that we could look at it that way, but it does not meet in full the point of concern that the Committee has raised, and I hope that we can see further progress on that.
The Committee also raised the concern that the policy statement on ports seemed to concentrate almost wholly on container traffic. While that is the basis of the ports’ trade, we are concerned that other developments, such as offshore wind, were not considered properly. I am still unclear where such additional developments feature in the Government’s statement.
I reiterate the concern that the Committee raised about the absence of national policy statements on national networks at the time that the ports policy statement was put forward. I accept that some progress is being made. We are now being told that the national network statements will be laid in January. That is progress, but it would have been better if it had been done before we approve the ports policy statement. At least we have had some assurances that those statements are coming.
It is important that we know the Government’s plans for other transport networks apart from ports, partly because of the economic importance of ports, but also because their impact on the economy, including the regional economies, is affected a great deal by how goods are transported to and from those ports. It is therefore necessary to look at road, rail and inland networks, and at the issue of multi-modal transport, and how that can be encouraged. It is important that we know how that will be addressed, and I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on that basis.
We heard evidence during our inquiry from the northern ports that they felt that southern ports were very much at an advantage because of the extensive public investment in road and rail networks around them. The Committee in the previous Parliament felt that that was a very important issue, and this Parliament's Committee is of the same view. I noted the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) this evening about the application from Liverpool for a turnaround cruise facility at the port. The application has been made because the possibility of such a facility, and the return of the cruise ships to Liverpool, is so very important to the regeneration of the city. I hope that when a decision is made on this issue—and there has had to be a consultation, as is proper—a reasoned approach will be taken, and recognition given to the fact that Southampton currently has 65% of the market for the turnaround facility, while Liverpool has only 5%.
Dr Julian Lewis
The hon. Lady of course has a constituency interest in this matter, and I represent a constituency close to Southampton. Does she appreciate that what is really worrying is that Liverpool received a great deal of both European and public money in order to build its port of call facility, and it gave undertakings that it would not use that facility as a turnaround point to start and end cruises? It now appears that it never had any intention of sticking to those undertakings, so if it were—bizarrely—to achieve retrospective permission to do what it promised not to do, surely it should have to pay back all the money and not just a quarter of it over a very long period, as is proposed.
Mrs Ellman
As a constituency MP I recognise the supreme importance of the turnaround facility to Liverpool. However, I also recognise that a reasoned judgment has to be made on the proper way in which to go ahead. The statements that the hon. Gentleman made about Liverpool’s intentions are not accurate, but this is not the place in which to pursue the detail of that. I hope that a reasonable decision is made. Liverpool City council has made an offer to deal with the very point that the hon. Gentleman has made, but that is for somebody else in another place to address. I simply ask for reason to be applied to resolve the issue.
Charlie Elphicke
I do not want to intrude on the private grief between Southampton and Liverpool. I represent Dover, which has a little less cruise business. It is also further away and can take a more dispassionate position. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that there is something of a state aid issue here and that that needs to be handled with extreme care?
Mrs Ellman
The state aid issue is a matter that will have to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. After discussing it with all the relevant parties, I hope that a reasoned judgment can be made.
Earlier today, when the Chancellor delivered his autumn statement, he referred to the regional economic significance of ports and made reference to the support that he intended to give to developments in the Mersey and the Manchester ship canal in relation to Peel Holdings. It is because ports have such an important economic effect on a region that the issues that I raise are so significant and I hope that the Government are able to consider them.
In light of the time that has elapsed since the report was compiled by the Committee under the previous Government and the changes and statements that have been made, I believe that the port statement should not be opposed. None the less, I want to hear from the Minister about how he will address some of the outstanding issues that I have raised tonight.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. We have heard from speakers in whose constituencies are some of the great ports, such as Newhaven, Barrow-in-Furness, Dover and Liverpool. The port of Cambridge, however, is less active than it used to be. It was one of the country’s significant ports, dealing mainly with the Dutch trade, until the Fens were drained. If we do not get our climate change policy right, Cambridge may once again become an important port.
I will try to be brief as there is little time left. I will not highlight why ports are so important to this country; I assume that that is obvious. Although the ports are very important for leisure and tourism, there are other factors involved. Goods that come into that port then have to move on. Currently far too much freight is moved by road, and road congestion is very damaging. In 2006, Transport for London estimated that road congestion in and around London cost £1.6 billion a year, and that figure will go up. More locally for me, the A14 in my constituency is used by a large number of heavy goods vehicles, which are largely travelling from the very successful port in Felixstowe. Those vehicles cause a large number of accidents and most of the congestion, which is why I welcome the £20 million that will be spent on trying to alleviate the problem and ensure that we do not have those accidents.
The key solution is to do more with rail freight and I should like to hear what the Government are planning to do in that regard. Rail freight over the past decade has grown by two thirds and saved 2 million tonnes of pollutants and 31.5 million lorry journeys. There is still more to do. The Felixstowe east-west rail freight link could be boosted. There is some work happening now, but more needs to be done.
I also wish to highlight the role that canal freight plays. Canals are much more efficient in terms of CO2 than roads. Tesco has been using barges since 2007. In addition to rail freight or canal freight, will the Minister also consider the idea of inland ports so that we can minimise the amount of road travel? That is one of the key aspects that I should like to hear more about in his statement.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I understand that, for reasons that are slightly beyond my ken, people seem to be very anxious to finish at 7 o’clock this evening rather than at the normal time of 10 o’clock. I suppose that that is something to do with the fact that we are beginning to sit rather earlier.
The issue of Dibden bay, which I referred to in an intervention, is the single most important constituency issue in New Forest East in the 14 years that I have represented it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, it was a long time before the considerations on whether a giant container port should be built at Dibden bay produced decisive outcomes. We had a year-long public inquiry, as I said in an intervention, but we also had, as he said, several years leading up to that public inquiry. If the new procedure, first through the Infrastructure Planning Commission put forward by the previous Government and then under the replacement arrangements proposed by this Government, allowed for public consultation—
Business without Debate
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Empty Homes
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is an honour to have secured this Adjournment debate on empty homes. It is an issue that I and many Members on both sides of the Chamber have raised in recent weeks and months. Indeed, only last week, three Members asked about empty homes during the ministerial statement on housing.
I shall digress for one second. This debate may be my last in the House with my Movember moustache, which is coming off on 1 December. Like many Movember men across the country, I have sprouted some hair on my top lip—you can just see it, Mr Deputy Speaker—to raise awareness of the Prostate Cancer Charity and men’s health issues. All Members would agree that with the tragic events over the weekend we need to be more open about men’s health, particularly issues such as depression.
I became involved in the issue of empty homes because of my deep concern about overdevelopment in my Colne Valley constituency in west Yorkshire. It is home to the lovely towns of Slaithwaite, Marsden, Holmfirth, Honley, the Huddersfield suburbs of Lindley and Birchencliffe and many more beautiful areas. I was concerned that our beautiful Pennine countryside was set to be dug up for new identikit homes.
The idea of green fields being developed is bad enough, but it defies all logic to be doing it while thousands of existing empty properties are being left to rot. In fact, my local council, Kirklees, has just voted for a local development framework that will impose 22,470 new homes in the district over the next 15 years, with some going on green belt. I say, bring Britain’s empty homes back into use first.
There is a groundswell of support for the empty homes campaign. I have to admit that I am a big fan of Channel 4 shows such as “Grand Designs” and “Restoration Man”. The presenter of the latter show, George Clarke, will be telling the nation about the scandal of Britain’s empty homes in a forthcoming series on Channel 4 next Monday and Tuesday evening—that is the plug out of the way.
The Government have responded really well to this problem, with targeted initiatives and cash to back it up. The inspirational—I do not use that term loosely, as he is a master of his brief and has seen off eight Opposition Housing Ministers—Minister for Housing and Local Government has spoken with me at great length on the issue, as has the Minister here this evening, who I know will give more details of Government help later.
What is an empty home? Homes are left empty for a number of reasons—for example, when they are between tenants, being refurbished, in probate or when the owner is in care or hospital. For the purposes of this campaign and this debate, however, we are primarily talking about long-term empty homes. These are properties that are stuck empty, and I believe that getting those houses back into use could be a quick and relatively inexpensive way of providing more housing.
How many empty homes are there? Across the UK as a whole, there are close to 1 million empty homes and approximately 350,000 long-term empty homes—this at a time when 2 million families are on housing waiting lists. Those figures are based on statistics from the Governments in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, plus advice from the Empty Homes Agency about the number of empty properties across the UK that are not currently accounted for in official figures.
In my patch, we have been trying to get accurate figures from Kirklees council—I need to put the record straight on this. Following the original freedom of information request on the issue, we were told that there were 6,864 short-term empty properties—properties with a council tax exemption—and 3,463 long-term empty homes, or properties no longer exempt from council tax. By adding 1,000-plus second homes or holiday homes, the total comes to over 11,000. Obviously not all those homes are available for bringing back into use, and nobody has ever suggested that.
Kirklees council has now revised the figures, giving me—and everybody else who has been asking—another figure on long-term empty homes. However, whether it is 11,000, 7,000 or 3,463, it is one too many when people are waiting for homes and when the developers are eyeing up our greenfield sites. The Government have stepped up to the challenge, making £150 million available in the housing strategy, which will be delivered quickly. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have more details on the scheme, which he and his colleagues have been working on.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate about such an important issue, which is crucial to my constituency, where there are some 2,600 to 2,700 empty properties. Would he be shocked, as I was, to discover that local authorities cannot bid for the empty homes fund?
Jason McCartney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that contribution. Those are some of the issues that I hope the Minister will say something about later. Councils, community groups and all sorts of community people need opportunities to tap into those funds, and those are some of the points that I will be making later.
I acknowledge that, through the new homes bonus, 16,000 empty homes have been brought back into proper use in just one year. That shows what can be done. However, the Housing Minister has admitted that it is a scandal that 700,000 or 750,000 properties are empty when so many people are in desperate housing need. The Government announced last week that they were adding another £50 million to the existing £100 million fund for empty homes, making a total of £150 million.
Let me set out some of the benefits of bringing empty homes back into use. The refurbishment and reoccupation of those homes could clearly contribute significantly to meeting England’s housing needs. The reuse of empty homes can also help to protect the beauty and openness of England’s natural landscapes for future generations, by negating the need for development on greenfield sites, which is important in my area of west Yorkshire. The renewal of existing communities can take advantage of existing infrastructure such as transport links and schools. Refurbishment constitutes a much more efficient use of construction materials than new build, and the reinvigoration of existing communities can add to the local economy.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
As always, my hon. Friend is making a strong and persuasive case on behalf of his constituents. Does he agree that, as well as there being many empty homes, changing shopping patterns have resulted in many empty shops? Many are substantial buildings that could be refurbished at a reasonable cost and brought back into use as homes.
Jason McCartney
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. Empty shops are an issue in my part of the world, as they are in his. Indeed, there are concerns that there are slightly too many charity shops, for example. I have also been thinking about how the flats and apartments above shops could be brought back into use. That would mean families and young couples living in our town centres, which would not become no-go zones in the evening. That would help, so I thank him for making that valuable point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Northern Ireland’s “Living over the shop” scheme? We have used it over the past couple of years to provide accommodation above shops, enabling young people to live in town centres, so perhaps there should be discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly, in order to enlighten the Minister about the possibilities.
Jason McCartney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I am willing to learn best practice from all over the United Kingdom. The scheme described by the hon. Gentleman sounds exciting, and if it has worked in Northern Ireland, I hope that we too can take advantage of it.
I am particularly excited about the opportunities to reinvigorate certain trades and specialisms using local materials. Good-quality insulation and other energy-efficient measures should also be key to the renewal of empty homes. There are plenty of plus points. In my area, I should like educational establishments such as Kirklees college to become involved. Perhaps students could use empty homes for hands-on projects. I note that Kirklees college runs a course called “Construction and building crafts”. What better way for students to employ their skills than to return homes to use so that families can live in them?
As I have said, the Government have already acted. The reoccupation of empty homes has been included in the scope of the new homes bonus, and 16,000 homes have been returned to use. However, I should like councils to be given more incentives to bring about reoccupation of empty homes. I should also like to see the use of brownfield sites. That really would be a sustainable housing policy.
I am pleased that communities and local voluntary organisations will be able to tap into the funding so that it does not go only to councils, but I should like to hear more about the Government’s plans to allow councils, if they wish, to introduce an empty homes council tax premium on homes that have been empty for more than two years. That could serve as an incentive to the returning of homes to productive use.
Graham Jones
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but might not the premium actually prove to be a disincentive? Some people might go off the radar, their properties might be registered as occupied, and they might therefore pay a 100% rather than a 125% rate of council tax.
Jason McCartney
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. Councils might wish to consider introducing such schemes themselves, given that they have the local knowledge. Perhaps they should introduce it on a trial basis. It might work better in some areas than in others. I am pleased that the Government are considering different options, and that they are happy to devolve power to councils so that the various needs of communities can be dealt with on a more local basis.
Some key changes need to be made to the draft national policy planning framework. Instead of the presumption clause in favour of sustainable development, let us consider a presumption clause in favour of returning empty homes to use and ensuring that brownfield land is developed before greenfield land.
Given that commercial banks rarely lend money on empty homes, the Minister might wish to consider a sustainable low-cost loan fund. It could be kick-started with cash from the empty homes fund and managed by a commercial bank in partnership with an appropriate body such as the Empty Homes Agency. The loan fund would help private empty home owners who needed money to return their properties to use. They could borrow modest sums from the fund, and repay the loans from subsequent rental income set at affordable levels. Would-be buyers on low incomes could also purchase empty homes cheaply and return them to use with the help of modest loans from the fund. Cash for the fund could also come from the proposed empty homes premium, which could impose a 150% council tax rate on properties that had been empty for over two years. I should like the Minister and his team to consider all those ideas, and then report to the House on their conclusions.
Let me suggest a right to help local people to rescue abandoned properties. Will the Minister consider an amendment to current legislation on the community right to reclaim land? Should local people be able to use a new “community right to reclaim abandoned property” clause, which would enable them to apply to a tribunal to bring long-term abandoned properties in their areas back into use?
Therefore, lots of action has already been taken. I hope that I have given lots of ideas for more, and I shall now sum up to allow colleagues to make a brief contribution. Let us put renewal and regeneration ahead of greenfield development. Let us use existing buildings and infrastructure as efficiently as possible, with the economic, environmental and social benefits for all. Let us finally get Britain’s empty homes back into use.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on making a powerful speech containing lots of good ideas. The situation that he described in his constituency is identical to the one faced in mine. I welcome the measures in the Localism Bill providing for neighbourhood planning, and I am chairing the steering group of the Truro and Kenwyn parish neighbourhood plan. We face the same challenges that he portrayed so well. Through the development of our neighbourhood plan, we have identified a great number of empty properties in our villages and the city centre of Truro, as well as other buildings that we believe can commercially and viably be brought back into use to create much-needed homes for local people. However, in constructing our plan, we are aware that it will have to be inspected by the inspectorate, and the types of properties that my hon. Friend described being brought back into use will be considered by the inspectors as “windfall” properties and therefore cannot be counted as contributing towards the housing targets that we are developing to meet local need.
I would very much like the Minister to consider that point, and when the Government are considering the national policy planning framework I would like them to examine the fact that these windfall properties need to be judged on their merits. I hope that if a good neighbourhood plan—such as, I am sure, ours will be when it is introduced—can demonstrate viable sites for bringing empty buildings back into use, they will not be deemed to be “windfall” properties but can be taken into consideration for our housing targets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for bringing to the House’s attention this important subject, which is very close to my heart, as I know it is to his. I was delighted that this move to bring empty homes back into use was written into the coalition agreement between our two parties and that we have now had the opportunity to put some real cash into the programme to deal with it. I also congratulate him on his moustache and wish him well with his fundraising.
Like my hon. Friend, I have been in contact with George Clarke and Channel 4, and I am happy to add a second endorsement of the programme on empty homes that they are developing. He, I and they are appalled at the scandal that 250,000 properties are empty when millions of people are on waiting lists, anxiously looking for homes and unable to find them. As well as being eyesores and easily falling into disrepair, empty homes are often an expensive menace to communities and public services, attracting antisocial behaviour, squatting and vandalism.
The Government know very well that we need to build more homes, more quickly, and the housing strategy statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government last Monday shows real earnest intent. At the same time, we have to make better use of our existing homes, as that is better for communities, for the environment and for the families who have the new home to live in. We have been working on ways to bring empty homes back into use, and tackling those homes is one of the key pledges that we made in the housing strategy.
My hon. Friend appeared to have some difficulty in understanding the situation in his constituency. The figures available to the Department refer to the whole local authority area of Kirklees. He might be interested to know that in the six years from 2004 to 2010, the number of empty homes reported to the Department went up from 6,200 to 7,300, so there were extra empty homes at a time when housing demand was rising. However, the good news for him is that Kirklees council will receive £7.6 million under the new homes bonus over the next six years because it has succeeded in bringing 307 homes back into productive occupation.
The Government have taken a number of important steps, including the new homes bonus, in response to the empty homes problem. Back in September, I announced that we were allocating a £100 million budget so that housing associations, councils and community and voluntary groups could apply to bring empty homes back into use as affordable housing. I was astonished by the intervention of the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who said that councils are not eligible to apply for that money. That absolutely is not the case.
Graham Jones
That information was provided to me by a cabinet member of our local council, which had looked through the consultation. I was advised that it was not entitled to bid under the proposals. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.
Andrew Stunell
Then the hon. Gentleman stands corrected.
We recognise that there is a wide range of possible approaches to tackling empty homes and that different approaches are needed in different circumstances. Sometimes the right vehicle for doing that will be the council, but sometimes it will be other registered housing providers, housing associations or local community groups. The bidding guidance was published on 21 November and registered providers of social housing have until 23 January 2012 to submit applications. I earnestly suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should revisit his sources, because it would be tragic if Sefton lost out because of a misreading of the paperwork.
Andrew Stunell
No, I think not.
Alongside the publication of the guidance on the bidding system for the £100 million, we have also allocated almost £3 million of empty homes funding for this financial year to organisations that are ready and able to deliver now, so that work can begin straight away. As a result of that spending, 200 properties will be brought back into use.
We are also setting up a national intermediary in the next few weeks to administer the community element of the funding. There are legal reasons why it is not possible for that to be directed through the Homes and Communities Agency. It will allow smaller not-for-profit community and voluntary organisations to access some of the £100 million and will allow community groups to stimulate new and innovative ways of tackling empty homes. I have seen plenty of those already, so I know that there are organisations ready to go. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of a rolling loan fund. There are some complexities with that which do not appear immediately, but some of the models through that community route might well exploit that opportunity.
Funding will be allocated on a demand-led basis. To put it another way, we are not going to stuff people’s mouths or stuff organisations with money. We want the money to go to real schemes that will really deliver results. Let me add in parenthesis that the outgoing Government were great at allocating budgets to projects that could never be delivered, but we do not want to go down that route. Let us make it so that every pound counts towards bringing an empty home back into use.
On top of the £100 million with the launch of the housing strategy last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government was able to announce an additional £50 million of funding to tackle some of the worst concentrations of empty homes. Although I do not know the detailed circumstances of my hon. Friend’s constituency, I could well believe that some of the higher concentrations would be found in Kirklees and the measure might therefore apply to Colne Valley. I am sure he will want to explore that. A more intensive approach will be required than simply dealing with a home here and there, and it will involve refurbishing and reconfiguring homes, as well as improving housing in the public realm and tackling wider issues in the local area.
The funding details of that £50 million are being finalised and further details will be announced shortly, but there will be some differences between that fund and the £100 million fund. The £50 million fund will tackle concentrations of empty homes, and it will not be appropriate for all homes to be brought back into use as affordable housing, which is the clear intention of the £100 million fund.
My hon. Friend rightly praised the Government’s initiative of the idea of introducing a council tax premium, which is being consulted on. I hope that local authorities and others who are interested will respond positively to that proposal. He made a good point about the premium needing to be tailored to local circumstances. Councils will have local discretion to introduce a council tax premium on homes in their areas that have been empty for more than two years, to provide a stronger incentive for empty-home owners to bring them back into use. Of course, that could still be coupled with a discount or a free period at the onset of the home being empty. It will be important for local councils to configure their profile of charging accordingly.
I have already commented on the new homes bonus. In the first year of such funding being given to councils, £19 million can be attributed to empty homes coming back into use. As I have said, there are 307 such homes in Kirklees, which has got further to go than nearby Bradford, which brought 1,500 homes back into use with an equivalent budget coming back to the council. Again, my hon. Friend might want to speak politely—challenge, possibly—his council and ask, “What’s wrong with Kirklees compared with Bradford? Let’s get those empty homes back into use.”
Andrew Stunell
It was a rhetorical question; I have no intention of responding to it.
In addition to those measures and separately, my right hon. Friend has announced housing market renewal transition funding of £71 million to help families trapped in half-empty and abandoned streets as a consequence of Labour’s controversial regeneration scheme introduced in 2002 that far too often managed decline, rather than fulfilling its task of regeneration.
Following the spending review announcement, separate housing market renewal funding ended this year, but £35.5 million is being allocated to develop a transitional scheme intended to help those people. That will be a match-funding scheme, generating about £71 million overall, as I said, to resolve the worst problems in the five most challenged areas: Merseyside, east Lancashire, north Staffordshire, Hull and Teesside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) spoke about the conversion of shops into houses. Certainly, the Government are very much aware of those opportunities, and we are consulting on some changes of planning use classes that might make conversion to housing a simpler proposition in future.
It only remains for me to comment on the right to rescue that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley suggested might be useful. It will be difficult to combine that with the action that we are taking to prevent squatting, on which I am sure he is equally keen to see action.
Empty homes are a vital resource for the housing market. We need to get more of them back into use sooner, and I look forward to working with hon. Members and friends all around the House in doing so in the next few years.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Guisborough Royal Mail delivery Office
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Epilepsy
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Scott. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I am very pleased to have secured this debate. To be honest, it is so long since I began trying to secure it that I cannot entirely remember all the motivations for doing so. Recently I have had two different groups claiming ownership of the idea for it, and I am quite happy to accept that they are both right. I do not regard myself as an expert on epilepsy and I am not particularly motivated by self-interest or by the experience of relatives or close friends. Like many other MPs, I am motivated by constituents who have come to me to talk about their own experiences of epilepsy and by the interest of the various groups and charities that set out to help people with epilepsy. Consequently, any mistakes and omissions in my contribution this morning are entirely my fault, but I am extremely grateful to various groups for the facts in my speech and the good advice that I have received. They include Epilepsy Action, the Joint Epilepsy Council, Epilepsy Bereaved, the National Centre for Young People With Epilepsy, which is now called Young Epilepsy, and of course the all-party group on epilepsy—whose secretary in 2007 was, I note, the MP for Witney, who is now the Prime Minister.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I have a number of constituents who are affected by epilepsy. The Dattani family lost their son, Ravin, in February because of epilepsy, and with the help of others, in particular the local newspaper, the Coventry Telegraph, they have raised about £19,000. They point out that epilepsy causes more than 500 deaths each year in the UK, and one of the issues they have raised in correspondence with me is that often parents do not know the right questions to ask a doctor. That view is reflected in other correspondence that I have received on this subject, and it is a point that we should look into. In addition, the majority of people do not realise that epilepsy can end in death. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the Dattani family on their efforts to do something about epilepsy after the loss of their son, and particularly on raising about £19,000 with the help of our local newspaper?
Steve McCabe
I certainly congratulate the family on that fundraising, and the point about lack of information on epilepsy is crucial. The full title of the debate is “Prevention of avoidable deaths from epilepsy”, but given the nature of the subject I may occasionally stray into more general territory; I hope that you will forgive me for doing so, Mr Scott.
Epilepsy is defined as a tendency to have recurrent seizures, when a sudden burst of excess electrical activity in the brain causes a temporary disruption in the normal message-passing between brain cells. Epilepsy is not one condition but a composite of about 40 different types of seizures and up to 50 different syndromes. It affects about 600,000 people in the UK, which is one in every 103 people or about 930 people in each parliamentary constituency. It is estimated that about 69,000 people with epilepsy could have their seizures controlled with good treatment; about 74,000 people are taking aggressive drugs unnecessarily, because of misdiagnosis; a quarter of people who are known to learning disability services have epilepsy; half of the 60,000 young people with epilepsy are estimated to be underachieving academically relative to their intellectual capacity; and people with epilepsy have been shown to be twice as likely as those without epilepsy to be at risk of being unemployed.
Some studies suggest that the likelihood of early death in people with epilepsy is two or three times higher than in people without epilepsy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) indicated, the biggest risk appears to be poor seizure control, with the risk of early death increasing as the number of seizures that an individual suffers increases. A phenomenon that people are now starting to come to terms with is sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, or SUDEP. I understand that in 2009 about 1,150 people in the UK died of epilepsy-related causes. That means that, each day in the UK, approximately three people with epilepsy die, and at least a third of those deaths—one death each day—are potentially avoidable.
I am very grateful to Lucy Kinton, a consultant neurologist at Basingstoke and North Hampshire NHS Foundation Trust, who says that there is not enough research into SUDEP, which frequently affects young people who otherwise could be expected to have a fairly normal life. Indeed, she points out that our investment in research into epilepsy is much lower than our investment in research into other frequently occurring conditions, such as diabetes.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
As a child, I lived on what was called an epilepsy centre—my mother was the resident doctor there—in the middle of the countryside. Does my hon. Friend agree that although we have made huge progress since those days in terms of changing social attitudes and raising awareness, research into epilepsy is still very much underfunded? Is there not a huge need to make research into epilepsy an urgent priority, so that we can gain some of the knowledge that could prevent some of the future deaths from epilepsy?
Steve McCabe
I certainly agree that there have been considerable strides and we should not dismiss them, but there is an overwhelming need for further research and for improvements in specialist care and treatment. That is one of the points that I hope the Minister will comment on later this morning.
SUDEP accounts for nearly half of all epilepsy-related deaths. Research suggests that the seizure activity in the brain may sometimes cause changes in the person’s heartbeat or breathing, very occasionally causing the person to stop breathing completely. The single most important risk factor appears to be uncontrolled generalised tonic-clonic seizures, which, I understand, are the type of seizure that causes a person to lose consciousness, while their body becomes stiff and then starts to jerk. Such seizures can lead to sudden unexpected death.
It is estimated that there are about 500 cases of SUDEP every year, and a further 500 deaths every year due to other epilepsy-related causes. About 39% of adult deaths from epilepsy were considered to be potentially or probably avoidable. The main problems or deficiencies that cause these deaths include inadequate drug management; lack of appropriate investigations; inadequate recording of patients’ histories; adults with learning disabilities being lost in the transfer from child services to adult services; and one or more major clinical management errors being made. The absence of evidence of a package of care for those suffering from epilepsy is also a cause of rising concern. In primary care management, the main problems identified include sparse evidence of structured management plans, missed triggers for referral and professional communication failures.
For women with epilepsy, the risk of sudden death in pregnancy remains higher for those with other long-term conditions. The risk of maternal death is an estimated 10 times higher for women with epilepsy than for women in the general population. It is probably fair to say, however, that the risk is still low overall.
I am very grateful to Young Epilepsy, formerly known as the National Centre for Young People with Epilepsy, which works on behalf of about 112,000 children with epilepsy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for debate. I went to school with a young fellow who had epilepsy. I well recall how scary my first encounter with the condition was, because I did not know what was happening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for better awareness in schools? If there are pupils with epilepsy in a school, the school needs to know that, so that it can react in a positive way rather than with the fear that comes from not knowing how to deal with it.
Steve McCabe
Absolutely. Young Epilepsy is very effectively carrying out a pilot project, with more than 20 schools, to develop and test a model of best practice that can be replicated in any school. Although there might well be the usual problems of time and finance, I understand that the pilot is now at a stage where it could be rolled out across the country. That would go some way to addressing fellow pupils’ concerns and to preparing staff much better in what to do in particular situations. I am extremely grateful to Young Epilepsy for its work in that area.
The figures suggest that there has been a general increase in epilepsy, but that could be due to better diagnosis. There certainly seems to be a suggestion that greater attention to the recording and monitoring of people with the condition has been a factor, due to the GP outcomes framework and the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, and similar ones for Scotland. Misdiagnosis remains a significant problem: a rate of between 20% and 30% of people being misdiagnosed could equate to something like 138,000 people without the condition receiving anti-epilepsy drugs, at a cost of about £220 million a year.
There is evidence that epilepsy is more prevalent in the most socially deprived parts of the country than in the better-off ones. There is a particular problem, with which the Minister will be familiar, in the allocation of residential care for some people who suffer from epilepsy, with the local authority describing epilepsy as a health condition, but most other people saying that a combination of health and social factors are involved. A particular group to mention in that respect is prisoners. A number of studies have been done, not least by the all-party group, that show that the NICE guidelines are not followed in the vast majority of prisoner cases, and that there are problems with prisoners having access to the proper drugs and, significantly, with diagnosis. There also seems to be a problem with how some PCTs determine access to services, with some using referral and funding panels rather than relying solely on clinical judgment. I would have thought that that is not necessarily in people’s interests.
All of that leads to a picture of a treatment gap. About 70% of the population with epilepsy in this country could be seizure-free if they received optimal treatment, but only about 52% are seizure-free. Too few children are offered or referred early enough for surgery that could cure their epilepsy or at least significantly reduce seizures. I understand that there is a backlog of more than 2,000 children who could benefit from such surgery.
The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that there is a need for improved services. More than 10 years have passed since the then chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, said in his annual report that epilepsy services suffered from a lack of interest compared with the management of other chronic conditions such as asthma. Although national initiatives such as the NICE guidelines and inclusion in the GP contract have raised awareness of epilepsy, and although there are patches of excellence across the country, overall service provision in most communities has not translated into sufficient effective interventions. One purpose of today’s debate is to ask the Minister to meet with some of the epilepsy organisations, particularly Epilepsy Bereaved, to discuss what else we can do to prevent avoidable deaths.
I do not want to take too long because I want to let other people speak, but I should mention that there are recurring stories about the deaths of young people. A young boy of nine who experienced frequent seizures had benefited from excellent care from his paediatricians, but he died following a transfer of care during an overnight stay in hospital when his history was not adequately updated. In another case, a young woman died suddenly in her sleep, leaving behind two sons. She had had infrequent seizures but had never been given adequate advice. Some five years ago, two famous cases, those of Erin Casey and Christina Ilia, led to a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland, with which the Minister might be familiar. In summarising, the sheriff was absolutely clear that the risk of sudden death might have been reduced by access to a night monitor or much better information about the particular risk at that point in the evening.
I will not dwell on the number of things we need to do. I take the view that there has been progress in our understanding of epilepsy and that there is probably less stigma attached to the condition these days. I think that the previous Government and the present one have made efforts to improve the quality of care, but we know that significant problems remain. We need to think about whether we can set up a dedicated research fund to look much more closely at epilepsy. General practice needs to be much clearer about risk management, about the potential benefits of technology—for example night monitors—and the need to flag up injuries, A and E visits and missed prescriptions. Good medicines management is needed because, as I said earlier, about 70% of people could be seizure-free if prescribed the right medicine. Much more active monitoring of epilepsy deaths is also needed, so that we know what is happening and can draw up plans to help people to manage the condition.
The depth of the subject tempts me speak for much longer, but as I said at the outset, my purpose is to flag up some of the central issues involved in avoidable deaths and the actions that could be taken to help people who suffer from epilepsy. I will allow sufficient time for other colleagues to contribute and for the Minister to reply to the debate.
Mr Lee Scott (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, let me say that I intend to start the winding-up speeches at approximately 10.40.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this important debate.
I am epileptic. I have nocturnal epilepsy. I have tonic-clonic seizures, which, as the hon. Gentleman explained, are the severest form of epilepsy and the form that we all associate with the condition. I am, at least for another fortnight, between the ages of 20 and 35. I am single and, for the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that I sleep alone. I am also male, for the avoidance of any further doubt, and it might surprise people outside this Chamber to learn that I work long hours in a stressful occupation—at least I think it is stressful. I therefore tick every box for being at risk of sudden unexpected death due to epilepsy. I go to bed every night knowing that there is an infinitesimally small chance that I might not wake up again. That is, of course, a great concern.
I realise that anyone with epilepsy has a 24 times greater chance of sudden death than the normal population. Those particularly at risk of SUDEP are 23 times more likely again to experience sudden death. That understandably preys on the mind, but what concerns me more than anything else is the fact that I did not learn of all the risks at the time of my diagnosis; I discovered them because I happened to Google my condition. I sat at my computer with a chill going over me, thinking, “My goodness, I never knew any of this could possibly occur.”
I know that that is a wider concern from meeting many people, including a constituent of mine, Avril Walker, who lost her son Christopher to SUDEP when he was aged 19. I have also met many families through Epilepsy Bereaved and Jane Hanna. They all say the same: they have a sense of anguish at the loss of a loved one, which is natural and entirely understandable, but many of them have a much greater sense of frustration that at the time of diagnosis no one explained the risks of SUDEP to them. If they had known, they could at least have sought to undertake mitigating activities to reduce their risk.
I know what those activities can involve. Before my diagnosis, when my epilepsy was not controlled, I managed to throw myself down the stairs. I woke up with my head in a fridge, a washing machine and an oven, which thankfully was not turned on. I threw myself out of bed and hit my head on my bedside cabinet, making a large gash only just above my eye. When I went to accident and emergency, I was told, “Oh, you’ve just been drinking too much.” The irony, of course, is that the treatment for my epilepsy involves the avoidance of any alcohol. That is what makes it so difficult to control: if any alcohol is used in any food that I inadvertently eat, I will have a seizure in the night.
Thankfully, I adhere to my medicine. The diagnosis is so important because there is no greater impetus to adhere to medication than the knowledge of what might happen if one does not. The most sacrosanct thing in my life is ensuring that I have my medicine. I live what is essentially a double life—I am down here half the week and up in Blackpool the other half—so it can be quite difficult to ensure that I have the little packet of pills that I usually carry around with me. If I am without them, panic ensues and I have to rush down to the Victoria walk-in centre to get an extra prescription. May I complain to the Government about its being shut in a month’s time?
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s personal experience; our debates are always enhanced by such contributions. Does he think that there is any particular reason why doctors are unwilling to tell people diagnosed with epilepsy about the risk of sudden death?
Paul Maynard
I thank the hon. Lady for that pertinent intervention. I was intending to come to that. I think that all doctors dislike dispensing bad news. It is perhaps the least fulfilling part of the job. I am sure that some of the doctors to whom I have spoken think that the moment of diagnosis is not necessarily the appropriate moment for a detailed discussion starting, “Oh, and by the way, you’re 23 times more likely to die now, so you need to do this, this and this.” However, it underlines the importance of epilepsy specialist nurses, who can have a more structured conversation one or two weeks later, after people have got over the shock of the diagnosis.
The diagnosis is a shock. When I was diagnosed in my early 20s, I had no idea when I went to the doctor’s that morning that he would tell me that I had epilepsy. I was stunned by the news. That might not have been the most appropriate time to say, “And by the way, you’ve got all this to deal with as well.” None the less, it is vital that that structured conversation occurs at some point soon after diagnosis, because it is possible to do things to mitigate the condition, even if it is just blunting the sharp corners of one’s bedside cabinet, lowering the height of the bed or fitting a child gate above the stairs. If one knows what is likely to occur, one can at least try to mitigate it.
It also underlines the dramatic importance of adhering to medication. Many of the young people who are most susceptible live what one might call chaotic lives. They do not always pick up their medication. If they are away at university, they are not under parental control and one cannot monitor their medicinal intake precisely. If they are aware of the risks, a degree of self-discipline might be brought into play to ensure that they stick to their medication regime. I have heard time and again that sudden deaths seem to occur particularly in a university setting. That concerns me. Self-discipline is necessary as early as possible, and the diagnosis and explanation process are fundamental.
When the worst occurs—tragically, it will occur, because one can never iron out the risks entirely—a much better post-death process is needed. It is natural for the family to be shocked, particularly if they were not expecting it and had not been made aware of the risk factors. There is a lack of awareness in the coroner service and among the police. There can be nothing worse than finding one’s child’s bedroom turned into a crime scene because police are not aware of the potential for sudden death from epilepsy. All that could be much better handled with instructions from on high. The coroner service in particular needs to make a list of national charities dealing with sudden death to which families can turn for help. That would be of great assistance, because many people simply do not know where to turn.
I beg the Minister to encourage the medical profession to ensure that some medical professional has a conversation either at diagnosis, if they feel it appropriate, or within a fortnight or so, to explain the risks. That alone would make a difference, rather than a conspiracy of silence that leaves those with epilepsy to find out about it for themselves. If that conversation occurs, at least people can try to take the actions necessary to protect themselves. That would make the most difference.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Scott. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on obtaining this debate and on his splendid contribution, which covered the ground of all the campaigning groups working on behalf of those with epilepsy.
It is a great pleasure to follow the most important and worthwhile speech that will have been made in the House today, whatever happens in the Chamber. It is enriching for us to have the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) in Parliament. We are not members of the same party, but I will happily embrace him as a friend and call him such. Hearing at first hand from those who suffer from illnesses or disabilities is of enormous value to us. There is nothing better than to hear from the hon. Gentleman about the simple changes that might be necessary, such as blunting sharp corners and taking simple precautions, to avoid the tragedies that occur all the time. I welcome his presence in the House. If this House is to restore our greatly damaged reputation—it is of profound importance to us all that we win back the trust and confidence of this country—we need more Members such as the hon. Gentleman with experience that can give us diversity. The House must become more representative of the nation in every way.
My reason for speaking in this debate relates to a matter involving two constituents and lifelong friends of mine, Gwyn and Gill Thomas. I knew one of their daughters, Rhian, throughout her brief, radiant life. Her parents were devoted to her. On a visit to Florida, the place where Rhian was happiest, she died suddenly during the night. There was no warning or expectation, and Gwyn and Gill were left shocked, as would we all at the untimely death of one of our children, and bewildered by what had happened. As in many cases when a family experiences terrible grief, they have become enthusiastic campaigners to ensure that no one else suffers in the same way as they have suffered. They wish to avoid this being repeated in other families—a strong and understandable reaction. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has mentioned the concerns, and I have heard about them first-hand in the House from other parents who have lost young people in similar circumstances.
Channel 4 covered the case of the Casey and Ilia fatalities, which involved two families who suffered in a similar way. Erin Casey was aged 19 and Christina Ilia was aged 15—one a university student and the other a schoolgirl. The sheriff concluded that, had Erin been told of the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, she might have picked up her prescriptions and complied more with her medication—she might not have died. Had there been supervision in the form of nocturnal devices, which have been discussed, Erin might have wanted them and might not have died. On the death of Christina, the sheriff found that, had she and her parents been told of the risk, they would have discussed and considered the possibility of providing night supervision, possibly by use of alarm. If Christina had had such supervision, she might not have died during the night. The judge recommended that there should be a discussion of SUDEP in order to reduce the risk at diagnosis, unless there was serious harm to the patient. The timing of the discussion should be deferred, but needs to be planned. The role of a specialist epilepsy nurse is vital, and the failure of the authority to provide a specialist nurse service was viewed as contributing to the death. Those points were well made in the television programme and must be of concern to us all.
My hon. Friend has given a list of the possible remedies—drugs and how they should be used, and the existing advice—that appear to be available. Part of my constituents’ additional agony as a result of their bereavement is that they were not informed of many of the things that they have heard about since Rhian’s death. They want to go out and make sure that everyone else is aware of the possible remedies that could avoid such tragedies in the future. As with many other subjects discussed in the House, my views on this issue are the result of constituents’ problems. I thank the persistence of the campaigning of my constituents and all others who are determined that everything possible is done to avoid these unnecessary deaths.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Scott. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate and on the work that he and the all-party group on epilepsy are doing to spread awareness in Parliament of the nature of epilepsy and to raise the profile of epilepsy and its related problems.
As we have heard, epilepsy currently affects almost 500,000 people in the UK. It is one of those conditions that, I think, excite a certain fear among people who are not familiar with it. One of the important aspects of the all-party group’s work is to get past that fear barrier, so that people understand and the climate is created in which services can be commissioned properly.
We have heard about the danger of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy and that it affects the younger age demographic in particular. I understand that an information resource has been issued in Wales and Scotland on the risks and prevention of SUDEP. Is such a resource currently available in England?
Certain factors can increase the risk of SUDEP, and hon. Members have referred to them, drawing on their personal experience. The total number of people dying needlessly of epilepsy each and every year is more than the total of AIDS-related deaths and cot deaths combined, yet for some reason SUDEP deaths have never had the same prominence in the public imagination and public debate as issues such as cot death and AIDS. It is also most unfortunate that the death rate in Britain for SUDEP is 25% higher than the average for the European Union. This is a difficult topic and I understand that doctors may have a certain reticence about discussing the risk with young people at the point of diagnosis, but if our death rate is 25% higher than that of the EU, it shows that more can be done.
A straightforward and important suggestion has been made that medical practitioners should be required to have that discussion with people soon after diagnosis. As we have heard, it is young people between the ages of 16 and 35 who are at greatest risk. That is the age, certainly if my life between 16 and 35 is any example, at which people are least inclined to listen, behave sensibly or take advice. That makes it doubly important that there is a formal requirement for a medical practitioner to sit with young people and explain exactly what the risks are.
In preparing for this debate, I looked at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on epilepsy. They recommend that all people with suspected epilepsy should be seen by a specialist, but I understand that half of acute trusts—49%—do not employ one. NICE guidelines also state that people with suspected epilepsy should be seen urgently within two weeks, but I understand that the waiting lists of most trusts—more than 90%—are longer than that. Will the Minister comment on what action his Department is taking to ensure that people diagnosed with epilepsy are seen more promptly in the future?
A further recommendation from NICE relates to epilepsy specialist nurses. NICE guidelines state that they should be an integral part of the medical team providing care to people with epilepsy, but more than half of acute trusts and PCTs in England do not have one. How will the Minister ensure that trusts in England and, of course, clinical commissioning groups use NICE guidelines to plan and commission epilepsy services? Will the Department of Health agree to treat the matter as a priority and put an end to the current situation, where people with epilepsy continue not only to have a poorer quality of life, but to face a greater risk of dying? As I have said, there is a 25% higher death rate here than in the rest of the European Union.
We know and respect the fact that the Prime Minister has personally pledged to raise the profile of epilepsy and to tackle the stigma that surrounds the condition, to which I referred earlier. I understand that the Prime Minister has met my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) to discuss her ten-minute rule Bill on epilepsy. We know from the Epilepsy Society that, during the meeting, the Prime Minister agreed to consider the Bill and look at improving health and education services for people with the condition. In a letter to Lord Howe dated 16 May 2011, the Prime Minister acknowledged that
“there are historic weaknesses in the commissioning of services”
and that there is an urgency for change
“because these failures carry huge costs as well as having a massive impact on the lives of people with epilepsy”.
The Prime Minister concluded that there are
“potentially very significant savings from unplanned emergency admissions to be made by getting this right, which goes hand-in-hand with improvements in outcomes, including life expectancy and a reduction in the number of tragic sudden deaths in epilepsy”.
Labour Members respect the Prime Minister’s genuine concern about this condition, but I think the Minister would agree that we need to move on to action. The Epilepsy Society was very encouraged by what the Prime Minister had to say. He said that he would get back to Epilepsy Action but, to this day, he has not made any specific commitments. Does the Minister know whether the Prime Minister has had a chance to consider the points put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, representatives of the Joint Epilepsy Council and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who chairs the all-party group on epilepsy?
The Minister will also be aware that, during the last year of the Labour Government, the Joint Epilepsy Council won the support of the then Health Minister, Ann Keen, who so recently suffered a sad bereavement. She initiated a conference of epilepsy commissioners, which took place in January 2010. That was branded as jointly organised by the Department of Health and the Joint Epilepsy Council—a true partnership. Will the Minister tell hon. Members what discussions he and his colleagues have had with stakeholders and whether he is working with the Joint Epilepsy Council to address the shortfalls in service provision for people with epilepsy in England?
As I am sure that the Minister is aware, Epilepsy Action has carried out a study that revealed the variations in service provision, data collection, evaluation and quality of care. In the course of its study, it became apparent how many of NICE’s recommendations are still not being met, particularly in terms of access to specialist consultants and nurses, as I said earlier. Taken together, the facts from the survey do not paint a picture that is wholly encouraging. Some epilepsy sufferers and their families feel that it is a forgotten condition, which is why this debate is so important.
As the Minister will be aware, Epilepsy Action has called on the Government to take a lead in driving improvements to epilepsy service provision. Among other things, Epilepsy Action is calling for a national clinical director for epilepsy to ensure that local commissioners carry out a review of the implementation of the NICE guidelines, NHS work force planning to focus on the recruitment and training of sufficient epilepsy specialist consultants and nurses, commissioners to build a clearer picture of the epilepsy population in their area, a commitment to ensuring that all patients with suspected epilepsy see a specialist within two weeks, all acute trusts to have adequate diagnosis equipment in line with the patient population they serve and all patients to receive an annual review of their epilepsy. That would particularly help younger patients, who would be reminded, if they have forgotten, of the seriousness of their condition and of the things that they should be doing to help themselves.
Epilepsy Action is also calling for the introduction of effective transition services for children moving into adult epilepsy. Again, that is particularly important to the younger cohort. Finally, Epilepsy Action wants the Minister to consider ensuring that all patients with epilepsy who want a comprehensive care plan can get one. The Minister will be aware of those recommendations, and hon. Members want to hear how he plans to respond.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this condition excites a certain fear and, even today in 2011, a touch of stigma. Particularly for younger people—I consider people under the age of 35 to be young—the condition poses a risk of sudden death. That risk is higher than in other European countries, which suggests that there is something we can do. We know—the whole House knows—that the health service is going through a period of transition and change. I will not use this debate to challenge the changes that are going to happen, but because we are going through a period of change, it is very important that the measures are in place to ensure that the care people receive for such a condition is as good as it has ever been, particularly in relation to commissioning services locally. It is also important that we move forward with the improvements and pay attention to the quality of life of epilepsy sufferers that people campaigning on epilepsy have sought for many years. I await with interest the Minister’s response to the points that I have raised.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
I, too, am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate and on being so persistent in applying for it week after week until, finally, being successfully in the ballot for Adjournment debates. The hon. Gentleman is right to bring the matter back to the House for a debate and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed. The personal testimony and the testimonies we have heard on behalf of constituents speak to the devastation that the condition can bring to families and the people who suffer from it.
A lot of statistics have rightly been rehearsed to illustrate those points as part of today’s debate. They are undoubtedly very compelling and, as has rightly been said, quite depressing. They show that although we have known for a long time what needs to be done, it does not appear to be implemented as consistently as it should be across the country. There are places that follow the NICE guidelines and consequently make a difference, but over many years other areas have failed to invest or see the matter as an area of priority. That is not a comment on previous Governments’ records, but an acknowledgement of the difficulty in an organisation as large as the NHS of ensuring sufficient focus on something as important as this.
The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) paid tribute to the work of the all-party group on epilepsy. I come across many APPGs in pursuing my ministerial responsibilities; they are, truly, an important part of how this Parliament makes sure that the voices of many seldom-heard groups—or groups certainly not heard often enough—are heard by Ministers and the Government.
I will try to ensure that I respond to all the points that have been made. I have been encouraged to speak for as long as is necessary to do just that.
Paul Flynn
Members have, very generously, given the Minister 40 minutes to reply to the debate, which is rather longer than Ministers usually have. Will he find time in that 40 minutes to commit to the practical, affordable remedies that have been urged on him by the many charities involved in SUDEP?
Paul Burstow
I hope to do just that, and I hope to do justice to the points that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members made in the debate.
At least one hon. Member—my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who initiated the debate we had about a year ago—has contributed to the debate on this issue again. The message I took from last year’s debate was clear, and I take it again today. There is a real sense that we need change in the system. We need change that delivers a real focus on issues such as epilepsy to ensure that clinicians and the service respond properly to the evidence, act on the evidence, and translate it into services that are fit for purpose. At the moment, the service continues to fail hundreds of thousands of people living with epilepsy, at a huge cost to them personally and to their families. When we debated these issues a year ago, there was some uncertainty about how the Government’s plans for reform would deliver improvements. I would like to spend a little time today setting some of them out.
Paul Burstow
In a moment, if I may. We have plenty of time. I just want to say something about the voluntary sector, and then I will happily give way to the hon. Lady.
The outlook for most patients with epilepsy is good—it is important to acknowledge that—but we know that more than 1,000 people die of epilepsy-related causes each year. Many of those deaths are due to accidents or status epilepticus, but a significant number of them are attributable to SUDEP—sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. The devastating effect of any epilepsy death cannot be overestimated and cannot be understated. I pay tribute to the many voluntary sector organisations that have been referred to in this debate. They work hard to highlight the challenge, and to ensure that the failings that have been described are identified and tackled.
Paul Burstow
I will come on to outcomes and information in a moment. Understanding the performance of our health economies, compared with that of other systems around the world, is an important part of how to ensure that we focus on what matters most to deliver change and improvement. I will talk about outcomes, data and variation in a moment, if I may.
I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Epilepsy Bereaved, which since its foundation in 1995 has led cutting-edge work to establish major risk factors and ways to reduce risks and prevent deaths. The charity provides very well-regarded bereavement support, which helps to break the isolation that people experience following SUDEP, or other seizure-related deaths. I acknowledge the organisation’s concerns that failings in care and the commissioning of services have led to many avoidable deaths from SUDEP.
In the 12 months since we last debated epilepsy services in Westminster Hall, we have made significant strides in putting in place the necessary arrangements to level the playing field in commissioning epilepsy services relative to other services.
That leads me on to the NHS outcomes framework. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington referred to the NICE guidelines and the role of specialists. One role that the NHS outcomes framework can play is to ensure that commissioners, providers and others are better able to identify those things that can drive up performance in the NHS. The publication of the first NHS outcomes framework marks the start of a journey for greater transparency and accountability for the outcomes that the NHS achieves for patients. It demonstrates a move from traditional input and output targets towards a focus on delivering better health outcomes for all. The framework includes a focused set of national outcome goals and supporting indicators that patients, the public and Parliament will be able to use to judge the overall progress of the NHS. A number of those goals and indicators are relevant to epilepsy. They will, of course, inform the Secretary of State’s mandate to the NHS commissioning board and, in turn, to the NHS commissioning framework.
Let me give a few examples of the relevant indicators. In domain 1 of the NHS outcomes framework—preventing people from dying prematurely—the overarching indicator is about mortality from causes considered amenable to health care. This debate demonstrates graphically that epilepsy is one of the conditions where there is plenty of room for significant progress. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington rehearsed the statistics, which are compelling. They point, very powerfully, to commissioners having to look at this if they are to deliver measurable improvement against that indicator.
Domain 2, enhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions, speaks directly to the issues addressed in this debate. The overarching indicator is health-related quality of life for people with long-term conditions. It addresses such specific issues as the proportion of people feeling supported to manage their conditions. That speaks directly to issues such as care planning and case management. That indicator is not just in the NHS outcomes framework; it also sits within the adult social care outcomes framework, to try to align more joined-up thinking and commissioning on these issues. Improving functional ability in people with long-term conditions relates to ensuring that more people are able to stay in employment.
There are many other indicators. The aim of domain 3 —helping people to recover from episodes of ill health or following injury—is to capture information on patients’ journeys through the system. Domain 4—positive experiences of health care—will look at such things as patients’ experiences of primary care. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys described the conversations that should happen, and they should be captured.
The emerging commissioning landscape will contribute to improving not just epilepsy outcomes but outcomes across the board. In the past, commissioning has been too remote from the patients it is intended to serve. Commissioning decisions made by clinical commissioning groups will ensure that they are underpinned by clinical insight and knowledge of local health care needs, and, importantly, the perspective of the patient and family carers. Clinical commissioning at its best is a collaboration of professionals. The NHS commissioning board and clinical commissioning groups will be required to obtain clinical advice from a broad range of professionals with expertise in the
“prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness”—
and in the—
“protection or improvement of public health”.
There is a real pull in the framework that we are putting in place to make sure that that happens. As well as promoting effective clinical leadership and multi-professional collaboration around specific conditions and pathways, we expect doctors, nurses and other professionals to come together in clinical senates to give expert advice from a variety of health and social care perspectives.
NICE has rightly been alluded to a lot. The Government intend to build on its strong track record by re-establishing it as a statutory body. It will continue to play a key role in the NHS through the production of robust, evidence-based advice and quality standards. I will address the issue of quality standards specifically. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked about surgical interventions in the context of the work being done to produce quality standards covering epilepsy services. They have already been commissioned by NICE and will cover children and adults separately. I will pass on the point that was made about the need to address issues of transition, so that that is not overlooked in producing two separate quality standards. In the children’s quality standard, there is a specific need to address access to surgical interventions, and it will be addressed.
HealthWatch has its part to play, and will better enable people to help shape health and social care services, at both a local and national level, by providing a strong forum where the views and experiences of patients, carers and the public can influence the commissioning process and improve the quality of health and social care services. There must be a clearer split of responsibility—a sense of joined-up access across the care pathway to deliver a less fragmented and more person-centred approach to planning. We accept that care and support for those with long-term conditions is a particular area where we do not get it right often enough. Not only are patients confused but their care and quality of life are compromised, and it leads to inefficiencies and duplications in the system.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked me specifically about prisoner health. One of the opportunities that arises from the establishment of the NHS Commissioning Board is that it will be the commissioner of prisoner health. With it leading on such work, we are in a much better place to assure ourselves that the NICE guidance on prisoner health and epilepsy is properly and consistently applied throughout the prison estate. I shall certainly pass on any further information that I can to the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Abbott
I have listened with great attention to the Minister and, naturally enough, he has started with generalities, but the nature of Westminster Hall debates lies in the opportunity for Members to get replies to specifics, so I have three questions arising from the speeches today. First, do the Government intend to appoint a national clinical director for epilepsy? The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) asked specifically about people being able to talk about sudden unexpected death within a couple of weeks of diagnosis, but am I to take it that the Minister has no means to direct that and will leave it to commissioning groups to decide what is appropriate? Finally, are the Government prepared to commit to the explicit inclusion of epilepsy mortality in the outcomes frameworks?
Paul Burstow
The hon. Lady needs to be patient, because I still have quite a lot of sheets of paper and quite a lot of answers to give. Before I took her intervention, I had answered a specific question on prisoner health from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak. I am trying my best to cover the ground.
I will deal with the national clinical director proposition. As part of the transition—the hon. Lady alluded to this—from a command-and-control system in which the NHS is directed from the Department of Health to a model in which the service is at arm’s length and directed through goals and objectives set to a mandate, the NHS commissioning board will be where national clinical directors sit. The national commissioning board will make the decisions on the precise configuration of those appointments. Clearly, that will be modelled on the approach taken on an outcomes framework, so that there is proper coverage of all its domains. That is as much as I can say today, and perhaps we need to have a further debate, but if she wants more information, I will happily write to her with more detail. I cannot say today, however, that there will be a DH-appointed epilepsy national clinical director, because that is the old world and we are moving to a new world, whether we agree about that or not, and in that new world the responsibility for making choices about the appointment of national clinical directors will sit with the NHS commissioning board. That is as clear an answer as I can give to her question. I will answer the others as we move on.
Assessment of need was mentioned in the debate and goes to the heart of a challenge for the charities. My experience over the past 12 months of talking to many non-governmental organisations that advocate on behalf of patient groups is that some see huge opportunities in reorganising themselves to get much closer to the new commissioners and to those who will shape priorities for local services at a local level, and they are looking to organise themselves accordingly. Others are finding it more difficult to think through how to organise themselves to do that, and are therefore looking to how they can use the old levers, encouraging the Department of Health to proceed through central fiat and direction. My job is to say that that is not how it will work and, if they expect that that is how things will happen, they will be sadly disappointed. The Department and I as a Minister are only too pleased to work with organisations to ensure that they can realise and exploit the full potential of the new arrangements such as the health and wellbeing boards, the clinical commissioning groups and their duty to engage with their public, their patients and carers. Organisations, including some of the epilepsy charities, need to think that through carefully.
Health and wellbeing boards will be the local system leaders and will drive joined-up health and social care services. They have a key role, with joint strategic needs assessment and joint health and well-being strategies, in which they understand the population need and future population need, and that in turn drives commissioning for populations and outcomes. Simply said, to ensure that those joint strategic needs assessments are rich and informed, charities in the sector have a part to play in the conversation, to ensure that their input is not lost. NICE clinical guidance and quality standards play their part as well.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked about research. Who could disagree—I certainly do not—that the case for more research is strong? Again, however, directing more research through ministerial instruction is not how we should proceed. That might get more research but it does not guarantee quality, which is why we have for a long time had the Medical Research Council leading, with independent peer review as the process for allocating research resources. As in many other spheres, the key is to ensure the crucial infrastructure to support quality bids in the first place—the better the quality, the better the chances of an increase in the resources. We saw that with dementia; the Government had a priority to invest more but did not achieve that simply by putting up a quantum and stating that “This is what we must now spend.” Simply, it is about putting in place the steps to ensure quality research bids in the first place.
The information revolution is another important part of delivering the agenda. Today’s challenge in providing high-quality care services cannot be met without effective use of information. At present, many people who use our health and care services do not get the information that they need and expect as part of the care process, which we have heard described graphically. We sometimes fail to meet the information needs of our clinicians and care professionals, so information is critical to our ambition to put people in the driving seat of their services and their care. Through the work of the NHS Future Forum so far, we are examining how to ensure that the information strategy that will be published fully reflects the various concerns expressed.
The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington asked a specific question about whether the information provided in Scotland and Wales is available. The answer is yes. There are comprehensive information sources available on NHS Choices, including a guide to epilepsy that contains information about SUDEP and minimising risk. The use of things such as NHS information prescriptions and, as we develop more of them, tools to help patients and clinicians make decisions are ways of further strengthening that important notion of “no decision about me without me”.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) talked about his constituents Gwyn and Gill Thomas, the tragic death of their daughter from SUDEP and how they felt bewildered and, I suspect, outraged that they did not get information on which they could have acted at the time. That has spurred them on, and we can probably find echoes of that in every constituency surgery throughout the country—people motivated by personal experience to ensure that it happens to no one else. The hon. Gentleman’s example of the case of Christina and the lack of knowledge of risk underscored the as-ever exceptional contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys to today’s debate. By talking about his own experience, he illuminates a much wider and more important picture about the frailty of human beings and their reluctance sometimes, even when professionally trained, to engage in the conversation that they are paid to have, which ultimately is a conversation about life or death. We know that NICE has set out clear guidance on care planning and case management, which provides good evidence of how they can make a difference.
The guidance also talks about the role of epilepsy nurses, and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington asked how the Department helps with their availability. One of the ways we help is by ensuring that good tools are available for local business cases to be put to commissioners locally. We do not mandate from the centre a certain number of such members of staff, but we make it clear through the regulatory framework and other ways that the skill and staff mix of organisations has to be appropriate to the services that they are providing. There is as well a strong economic case for epilepsy nurses to be commissioned, because of how they can have that honest conversation with the individual concerned.
Another way we can play our part at national level in raising the profile of these issues and making commissioners think through how they commission services effectively is through the development of outcome strategies. We have outcome strategies for respiratory and mental health conditions, and I recently announced the Government’s intention to develop a cross-Government outcome strategy for long-term conditions. The purpose of the strategy is to take a life-course approach. It will draw on the Government’s approach in developing our mental health strategy. Shaping it will involve a wide range of stakeholders beyond the Government.
The hon. Lady rightly rehearsed the Prime Minister’s enduring interest in these issues, which spans the whole health sphere. That is why he continues to pursue and to follow closely the key work of Health Ministers in taking forward the legislation to reform the NHS. I will inquire about the correspondence and find out what has happened about that.
Reference was made to the Joint Epilepsy Council and its activities. I applaud its work, but I must make it clear that the future of our public services is in a local rather than a national context. For the NHS, it is not about running commissioning services for specific conditions from the Department of Health; it is about local clinical commissioning groups working locally with patient groups and others better to understand local needs and to ensure that they structure services with those in mind.
Steve McCabe
I accept the case that the Minister is trying to make for the new commissioning arrangements, but, like many of us, charities and help groups that work with epilepsy are not entirely clear about how the new arrangements will work. Does he have any plans to meet the epilepsy groups so that he can better explain his ambitions and how those groups will be able to play a central role in the new world that he envisages?
Paul Burstow
It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to intervene, because it allows me to answer his final question. The Department continues to work with the charities and to discuss their concerns, and I am happy to arrange a meeting to have such discussions.
Paul Burstow
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman while the hon. Lady frames her questions—she clearly has one or two—and I will then give way to her.
Paul Flynn
I have listened with great attention to the Minister. I am aware of his record in opposition as a doughty campaigner for many causes. The Government are obsessed with change and upheaval in health service structures. Can he provide some practical assurance that by the end of their term of office, if they go to 2015, there will be fewer sudden unexpected epilepsy deaths?
Paul Burstow
I have referred to the focus on outcomes and the establishment of an outcomes approach not just to commissioning services, but to how we measure the performance of services. That provides hope of an improvement. The issue is not just a high-level one. I have not talked about specific statistics today, but sitting behind each and every indicator in the outcomes framework for the NHS are hard metrics that are being used to identify variations between parts of the country. We have seen in other services—for example, cancer services—how powerful the publication of atlas data, which shows performance in different localities, is at challenging clinical teams and challenging commissioners to commission differently and better. I genuinely believe that that approach and the focus on outcomes and data are key drivers to improving future performance.
Ms Abbott
I have listened with great care to the Minister, who has been at pains to outline that we are moving from a world of command and control health provision to a world in which individual clinical commissioning groups will make decisions for their locality. Should the groups that are lobbying on epilepsy take from this debate a message that the days of lobbying at national level are effectively over, and that they must mobilise themselves to lobby commissioning group by commissioning group?
Paul Burstow
They must certainly be prepared to engage a lot more at local level. That is an important part of commissioning to fit the needs of postcodes rather than by prescribing from the centre and having postcode lotteries. It is not possible from so far away to be clear about the specific needs of a population. That is why the change is so important. However, the Department of Health expects and Ministers want to have a relationship with those organisations, because they can inform the shape of the mandate that the Secretary of State will set for the NHS. They can inform the way in which NHS outcomes framework, the adult social care outcomes framework and the public health outcomes framework operate, and their priorities. There will still be a rich conversation at national level about action, but there will be an even richer conversation about outcomes, performance and commissioning, which need to be local.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak for calling this debate and his perseverance in applying for it. He has rightly rehearsed a matter that has been neglected for too long. I believe that the Government’s changes, particularly our focus on outcomes and greater respect for clinical judgment at local level, will deliver improvements in services and quality of life, and indeed will save lives through improved commissioning at local level.
HGV Wheels (Safety)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Scott. I am not sure whether I have served under your chairmanship before, but I look forward to it.
I regret having had to apply for this debate, and believe that the exchange that will take place over the next half hour could just as easily have taken place in the Minister’s office. Indeed, such an exchange might have benefited from a more informal setting, and we could have heard from industry experts who would have had much to offer.
I applied for this debate because I received a letter from the Minister on 11 November. The letter, which was dated 9 November, stated:
“Unfortunately, I am sorry to say that due to pressures on my diary I will not be available in the near future to meet with you.”
I was surprised to receive such a letter from the Minister, because I have always found him approachable and responsive, particularly on the important issue of HGV wheel safety. I know that he takes his responsibilities seriously, so I was extremely disappointed.
I was also shocked to receive such a letter because it was written on 9 November, less than a week after the tragic crash on the M5 in which seven people lost their lives and in which I know the Minister took a close personal interest. That the Minister should send such a letter at a time when the issue of road safety was so high in his mind and in that of the public and Parliament, and refuse to meet me and those expressing concern about the issue, was disappointing and shocking. We are, however, having our meeting in the Chamber this morning, and Hansard will write the report rather than someone from the Minister’s private office.
I first raised the issue of HGV wheel safety in June 2010 in a letter to the then Secretary of State. It followed my visit to Motor Wheel Service, a company based in my constituency that is the largest distributor of HGV wheels in the United Kingdom and across Europe. I remain grateful to the managing director of MWS, John Ellis, and to Matthew Wells who kept me briefed on issues that have concerned them for a considerable time. He also ensured that I was briefed for today’s debate, and both he and John Ellis remain vigilant and active across the industry on issues of wheel safety.
On 9 November last year—just over a year ago—we had a constructive meeting with the Minister in his office at which he willingly agreed to review the data available in his Department concerning accidents, failures and defects involving HGV wheels. We parted company after that meeting on agreeable and friendly terms, and we returned to the issue on 29 March this year in the first Westminster Hall debate on HGV wheel safety at which I made two suggestions to the Minister. My first suggestion was that he should consider holding a year-long trial in one region of the country, so that enhanced testing of HGVs could take place with particular emphasis on wheel safety. The Minister listened carefully, attentively and thoughtfully to my comments, but the answer was no at the end of the debate.
The Minister was slightly more encouraging about my second suggestion, which was that he should identify a senior official in his Department to be a point of contact between the Department and the wheel supply industry. If people in the industry had specific concerns or evidence about faulty wheels, they could report it to that named individual, who could then investigate and produce any necessary report. That would be an inexpensive way of dealing with any concerns raised, and it would help the Minister to separate speculation from facts—I accept that there may be speculation in this area, and it is important to establish the facts precisely. If only a few faults were discovered through such a reporting mechanism, confidence would be maintained and that would be good. If, however, faults were discovered, the Minister and representatives from the industry could sit down together and work out an appropriate way to ensure proper checks and reports on wheel safety.
Following that debate, there was a bit of a delay before the Minister got back to me, although he did reply in a letter dated 3 June. He thanked me for my e-mails of 15 April, 10 May and 27 May, in which I asked for further information, and crucially he confirmed that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has a specific team, the vehicle safety branch, that is responsible for HGV wheel safety. He also gave me the name and contact details of the head of the vehicle safety branch, who was clearly the senior official I hoped would be nominated. So far, so good. However, the Minister went on:
“The vehicle safety branch looks at issues of design or construction…and will request the manufacturer, producer or supplier to start an inquiry if there is evidence that a design and construction defect exists.”
That rather limited approach adopted by the Minister caused me some concern, so I sought clarification. The Minister wrote back to confirm that the vehicle safety branch
“will not investigate faults that have arisen due to the use of the product, for example poor maintenance or accident damage.”
The quality of wheel design and construction was never a problem for me or those in the industry who raised the issue. The United Kingdom has a high standard of HGV wheel manufacturing, and it is no surprise that few faults have been reported. My concern, which I raised in the earlier debate and raise again today, is the 10,000 second-hand HGV wheels that enter the UK market every year. The Minister has never disputed that figure, and the industry certainly believes it to be true. Some of those second-hand wheels may be damaged as a result of various incidents, and I will come on to that point in a moment. My principal concern, however, is the 10,000 second-hand wheels that enter circulation every year in the UK.
An HGV wheel can be damaged in several ways. Dents and cracks can be caused by over-tightening the wheel nuts or by any collisions in which the vehicle has been involved—road traffic accidents are an obvious example, but vehicles can also hit kerbs or potholes, which is sadly becoming more frequent given the condition of some of our roads. Damage can also be caused by rust, general wear and tear due to the weather, road surface conditions or age, or if the wrong tyre is fitted to a wheel. There are, therefore, various ways in which wheels can be damaged, and 10,000 second-hand wheels are in circulation and not being properly checked. That is my central concern.
Clearly, there is a lack of confidence across the wheel-supply industry concerning the checks carried out by VOSA. The VOSA inspection manual, which covers inspections carried out as part of an MOT and more random roadside checks, indicates that an inspector should look for missing wheel nuts and ensure that the wheel is appropriate for the load being carried. It is, however, of concern to me and the industry that insufficient emphasis and detail has been placed on the search for cracks and other damage.
You and I, Mr Scott, can only imagine the damage that would be caused by a 45-tonne truck travelling at 55 mph should there be a major tyre blow-out. It could cause a catastrophe, which is why we have a stringent system for checking and monitoring the tyres on all vehicles—cars as well as HGVs. Catastrophic wheel failure would produce exactly the same impact as a tyre blow-out, yet the Government seem unmoved by the concerns being raised by me and the industry.
Where is the evidence? As I have made clear, part of the problem is that the evidence is not being gathered as systematically as it should be. That is why I suggested in the first Westminster Hall debate both a year-long pilot project in one region of the country where more stringent tests could be carried out and a named official to be the point of contact between the Department for Transport and the industry.
Today, I shall give the Minister three recent examples that should concern him. The first is the evidence that I saw with my own eyes on a recent visit to MWS in my constituency. I do not pretend to be an expert on wheel safety, but it seemed to me, as I examined with my own eyes the wheel that was shown to me, that there was clearly a crack in the wheel. As an amateur—a non-professional—I would certainly want and expect a wheel damaged in that way to be thoroughly checked and examined. I sent a photograph of that wheel to the Minister. In the rather short reply in which he refused to meet me, he did not refer to that evidence, although he might want to comment on it today. I hope that he will recognise that if a wheel is damaged and is in the hands of people who are less reputable than the company in my constituency, it could be attached to a lorry in a hazardous way that could cause a catastrophe.
The second piece of evidence is an October 2011 press report in Truckstop News. It raises concerns that the Minister must respond to this morning. The headline was “Killer Wheels”. The article stated that
“wheel manufacturer Alcoa has warned there are fake wheels on the market that are failing early. Cracked wheels were sent to Alcoa’s distribution network by end users trying to have them replaced under the Alcoa wheel five-year warranty agreement. Alcoa says the imitation wheels are a good copy, making it difficult to see the difference between these and the genuine article. The manufacturer wants to ensure customers are not fooled and end up with worthless and potentially dangerous forgeries.”
Counterfeit items across the whole of society can cause great damage. That is the case whether it is counterfeit cigarettes damaging people’s health or counterfeit wheels. If counterfeit wheels were fitted to a lorry, they could have catastrophic results if they failed, and they almost certainly would fail if they were not built to stringent design and manufacture standards. I would like to know what the Minister makes of the report to which I have referred. If he has not had a chance to see it yet, he should check it and come back to me and others with his observations.
My third piece of evidence is an ITV news report from last Friday, which the Minister may have seen. The report was on the impact of potholes and said that there is an average of 15 potholes in every neighbourhood. I do not know about your constituency, Mr Scott, but that figure seems on the low side to me. Anyway, that is what the report said. The camera crew went to a tyre fitter in Gateshead, who showed them the impact on a wheel of a major tyre blow-out that had resulted from a collision. As viewers saw the picture of the wheel and compared it with how a wheel should be, coming from the manufacturer, they could certainly see the difference. They could see very clearly the damage that had been done. Again, I refer the Minister to that evidence, if he has not yet had the chance to see it.
The Minister has a choice this morning. He can tell me once again that the failure rate is 0.0006% and that if anyone supplies defective or faulty items to be fitted to a vehicle, they can be prosecuted; or he can take a rather more engaging approach—as I hope he will, even at this stage—and meet me and representatives of the industry to consider the need for more rigorous checks. The Minister may have gathered from the fact that he is here this morning—I am grateful to him for being here—that I am certainly not going away on this issue. There have recently been a number of presentations on the issue to important industry bodies. ATS Euromaster has had a presentation, as have the National Tyre Distributors Association, the Northwest Automotive Alliance and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I can tell the Minister that further discussions are planned with those bodies about these concerns, which I can attest are growing concerns in the industry.
Indeed, such is the level of anxiety in the industry that when the Minister wrote to me to say that he was not prepared to go beyond the very limited offer that he had made, the industry was prepared to put in place its own reporting mechanism, so that it could say to companies throughout the wheel supply industry that if they had evidence of any wheel failure, they could report it through a specially designed industry reporting system and it could be passed on to the Department for Transport. That was the request that I made of the Minister: given that the industry was prepared to put in place its own self-reporting system, could we have a meeting to discuss how best to make the arrangements for that industry reporting structure to link to his Department? He has made it clear up to now that he is not engaging with the industry in relation to that question, but I urge him to reconsider that position and to be prepared to have a meeting or at the very least to be prepared to talk to the industry about its own ideas for self-reporting and how that could be linked to and engage properly with officials in his Department. As I have said, I hope that the Minister will reconsider. I am pleased to see him in his place today and I look forward very much to listening to what he has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship on this important day, Mr Scott. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) on securing the debate, although I am slightly disappointed by his saying that I have not engaged. We had the previous debate in this Chamber, but before the debate we had meetings in my office; I think that that is engagement. I have said throughout that as the Minister—the right hon. Gentleman used to be a Minister himself—I have to have an evidence base to go forward. In the letter to him, I was trying to be as honest as possible: I did not have a slot in my diary between now and Christmas, and that is why I said that at this stage I cannot see him; I could have given him a date after Christmas, but I thought that such a long delay would have been an insult to him. However, like any other colleague, he can stop me at any time and I will engage at any time. My officials are also engaging.
It is important to talk about who is representing whom in the very important UK logistics industry. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, whose representatives I meet very regularly and with whom I have a very good rapport, have not raised this issue with me once. I was at a major haulier’s yesterday—in fact, I was going along the A13 in Essex in a 38-tonne articulated truck. I make those visits so that I can engage with the industry. I was feeling slightly jealous yesterday because I have only a class 2 licence, not a class 1. I have been very close to this issue for most of my career, especially when I had a licence in operation myself.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am going to quote the 0.0006% figure. I will answer the specific points he raised, but if anything has changed the position since the previous Adjournment debate—if more evidence has emerged—of course we will look at it and at the specific details to which we have alluded.
The right hon. Gentleman sent me a photograph of a damaged wheel. One of the facts I wanted to ascertain was when that vehicle was last tested, because the crack should and would have been brought up in the test. It is illegal to have that sort of damage on a vehicle, as he knows, and it is illegal to run the vehicle with it. The operator’s licence would be affected should they run a damaged vehicle; it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 as well as under the operator’s licence. However, the crack would have been picked up at the annual check. Unlike cars—we are to review the situation of cars in relation to MOTs—lorries are checked annually from when they are new.
I would like to know, and I would have hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might have told me because he was using this as evidence today, what vehicle the wheel came off and when the vehicle last had a check. It could have been the case that the damaged wheel on that vehicle was picked up and then removed, as we would all expect—so that it was not on the road at all.
Killer wheels are an interesting topic. The question of copies or snides has been around for a long time, particularly regarding aluminium wheels on cars. The failure rate for aluminium wheels, if they are not constructed right, has worried me for many years. The focus is often on design rather than function—people want them to look flash. That is something that we are looking at robustly, but legislation already exists to make sure that that sort of thing does not happen again. If the manufacturers are picking up copies being brought into the country, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will work with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on that.
The ITV report on potholes was interesting, because there are myriad reasons why a wheel could fail. Those who follow Formula 1 will know that during the race before last, a wheel failed on the first corner; there was an instantaneous puncture. Central Government have invested a huge amount of money in repairing potholes, which is why the number of potholes is as low as the report suggested. The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until later today for further announcements on road infrastructure. It is absolutely right to say that failures take place when vehicles hit potholes or hit the kerb. I had a failure in an aluminium wheel when I attempted a U-turn, misjudged it and caught the wheel wrongly on the kerb. Not only did the tyre give way but the aluminium wheel broke.
Paul Goggins
During the first five minutes of the Minister’s speech he has not even glanced at his folder, which demonstrates both his enthusiasm for road safety and the fact that he is completely on top of his brief. He has responded to the three pieces of evidence that I gave him without looking at a note, so he clearly has the information at his fingertips.
If the hon. Gentleman had written to me on 9 November to say that he was dealing with a lot of pressing matters and would not be able to meet me until the new year, I would have understood and accepted that. I would have done so reluctantly, because before Christmas would have been better, but if he makes that offer again this morning I will be happy to accept.
Mike Penning
I apologise for the fact that I am not reading the speech that was written for me—I rarely do—but I hope that I am on top of my brief. Road safety is paramount for me, especially as I come from a fire service background. While I was in the fire service, I attended road traffic collisions regularly as the driver of a rescue vehicle. I never once encountered an incident in which the wheel had failed, although there were lots of other problems, particularly on some older cars where the hub structure had failed. In the evidence that we have looked at, which I will not read out, there were 23 failures over a 15-year period, but such problems were often due partly to accidents where wheels had been struck and damaged.
I will write to the right hon. Gentleman in the very near future and offer him a slot after Christmas. I think that something positive has come out not only of today’s debate but of my saying no the last time we met in this Chamber, because the trade associations have stepped up to the plate. Rather than Ministers telling people what to do, the right approach is often for the industry to realise that it has a responsibility as well and that reform is needed.
There might be a certain amount of semantics on the part of both myself and the right hon. Gentleman about the wording of the letter and who the official responsible for these issues is, but the simple answer is that the buck stops with me. If the trade associations want to present evidence to me, rather than an official within VOSA, they can do so and I will be more than happy to provide that point of contact. This is not only about the manufacturer; if the failure rates are increasing, and that is what this is all about—I am not disputing that one way or the other because, frankly, we do not know, and there is no point disputing something that is not disputable—do I still want there to be a second-hand market? I do, because that is important for people who cannot afford to buy brand-new wheels every time, but those wheels must be safe. The operators have a responsibility to make sure that that happens, and I do not want to take that responsibility away from them.
When I was in that truck yesterday, I felt comfortable not because it was brand spanking new—it was not; it was about 18 months old—but because of the robustness of the legislation governing VOSA and its testing regimes. I have been at the side of many a road with the new VOSA testing and enforcement officers, and I know how remarkable the current equipment is. We can estimate the weight on an axle while the vehicle is travelling at 56 mph down the motorway; we can pull it over and put it on a weighbridge, and we know accurately what the result will be. When inspections take place, on overseas vehicles as well as our own, checks on wheels and brakes are carried out, there and then, to the best of the officers’ ability. Obviously, most of the weigh stations do not have a pit facility.
If the right hon. Gentleman—let me call him my right hon. Friend—has called this debate as a direct reaction to my letter, he should have pulled me over in the Tea Room, where I would have addressed the matter straight away and we would have had a meeting after Christmas. He will understand, because he was a Minister himself, why I do not like making appointments way into the future. Events take over and I might not even be at the Department any more; someone else may be doing this job if we go too far past Christmas, or even before Christmas.
Paul Goggins
I sincerely hope that the Minister is still in his position in the new year, not only because he has now promised me a meeting, but because he is clearly on top of his brief and doing a good job. I commend him for that. He has mentioned twice that I was a Minister, which I was for seven years, and I never, ever refused a meeting with a Member of Parliament. The message that I am sending to the Minister and the Government is that when Members of Parliament are pursuing issues that concern them and their constituents and they want to meet Ministers, it should be an absolute given that those meetings take place. Of course Ministers are always busy, but their busy diaries must not get in the way of their fundamental accountability to MPs and to Parliament.
Mike Penning
I have a reputation in the House for being approachable, and this is the first time that I have ever been reprimanded by a senior Member. My letter was written in the best possible faith; a series of events to do with lots of things, which I will not go into now, meant that I could not guarantee a slot that I would be able to hold on to. The worst thing in the world is to make an appointment and cancel it, but that is what tends to happen. When I was in opposition, promises were made to me and they were not kept. If I make a promise, wherever possible and subject to business, I keep it, so the right hon. Gentleman and I will meet. I hope that the trade associations will do what they said they will do—that they will get the submissions together and come as a united body to present their evidence. That will allow me to go away and ask why we have certain failure rates coming from all the different expert bodies mentioned in the speech that I have not used, and to compare that with what is happening on the front line.
Whatever happens, I will not increase the burden on businesses. I think that the haulage industry, with the margins that it works on, is already heavily burdened, and I am trying to take some of that burden away. Road safety is paramount for me, but operators have responsibilities, which they must never forget.
Girls (Educational Development)
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Main, in this important debate on the development of confidence for girls in school and the importance of role models to the future career paths of young girls. The debate is important to every schoolgirl in the country. The outcome and agreed actions need to take effect to ensure that girls achieve their full potential. As Mrs Robinson, the headmistress of West Kirby grammar school, has said, we have to encourage girls to have a can-do attitude from as young as possible, perhaps from year 7. Many schoolgirls lack confidence in themselves and their ability, and while boys think that they can, girls think that they cannot.
I have worked in the area for the past decade with schoolgirls, women-in-business organisations and through academic study and research. Today, I hope to bring to the debate not only my experiences, but those of my colleagues, renowned academics, Girlguiding UK, which, with more than 500,000 members aged four to 25, is the biggest voluntary girls’ organisation in the country, teaching professionals and business women who mentor other business women and schoolgirls. I will also talk about the findings from a recent Ofsted report titled, “Girls’ careers aspirations”.
My personal journey resulted in my writing a careers guide for girls called, “If Chloe Can”. The book was written to help provide an array of role models for girls, showing them examples of inspiring women from different backgrounds who all excelled in their careers. The book has now become a play to inspire girls and to show them what they are capable of achieving with hard work and determination. The play is now being done with the National Youth Theatre, which found a young writer, Karla Crome. She is only 23 and was delighted to write the play, which helped her along her playwriting path. There is also a group of young female actresses, who are also gaining experience to help launch their careers. All that is consistent with the theme of building confidence through doing and achieving in a supportive environment, while being helped by role models.
The female role models who took part in the play and the career book totalled some 100 women, who are some of the most successful women in the UK and the world.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we, as Members of Parliament, also have a great deal to offer as role models? I am mentoring six young girls in Redditch, and I learn a great deal more from them than they learn from me.
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend has an excellent point. As female MPs, we are role models. To become an MP, someone has to be one in 100,000 people, and there are so few of us here, which relates to the cycle of learning that she has discussed. Knowledge from one generation can be passed to the next.
I was impressed by how openly and honestly the 100 successful women that I have mentioned talked about confidence, the need to develop it and how important it was for them in achieving in life. They compared confidence to a muscle that needed to be worked out through repetition of small, ever-increasing achievements. From those accomplishments, they developed a mental power—a power based on ability, achievement and a track record, further enabling them to strive for success.
Confidence can be difficult to describe. Helen Fraser, chief executive of the Girls’ Day School Trust groups of schools, past managing director of Penguin Books and two-time winner of “Publisher of the Year”, explained it as follows:
“There are many interrelated aspects to confidence, but there are two I would highlight as particularly important for girls, and which schools can help girls develop. The first is having the confidence to take risks, to ‘feel the fear and do it anyway’. Schools can nurture this by encouraging girls to take small risks—to stand up in front of a crowd and make a speech”—
like I am doing today—
to direct and produce plays, to take part in debates, to take on challenges like the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. These kinds of experiences make girls much more confident about risk, and risk is absolutely essential in working life.”
Esther McVey
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant).
Pauline Latham
My hon. Friend says that confidence can be difficult to describe, but we know exactly what it is when we see it. Does she agree that girls often do much better in a single-sex environment in schools, even if it is only in a single-sex class in a co-educational comprehensive? They are not having to live up to a stereotype in front of their colleagues and friends, the boys—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions should be short.
Pauline Latham
Thank you, Mrs Main. Does my hon. Friend agree that girls do much better if they are not threatened by apparently more confident boys?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend raises a point about girls being taught in a single-sex environment. Obviously, parents know best whether they want their children to be taught in single-sex environments. Whether there is stereotyping, whether girls are living up to stereotypes and whether they have the ability to speak freely within their peer groups can affect their confidence.
Mrs Grant
Although academic subjects are important, does my hon. Friend agree that confidence-building subjects such as music, drama, the arts, sports and reading out loud in class are also important? Some children may not flower academically at a particular moment, and those subjects can boost their self-confidence and self-esteem.
Esther McVey
I totally concur. That is what Helen Fraser was talking about—little bits that people can do to build up confidence. As we know, some of us flourish and blossom at different times in life. Therefore, someone has to feel confident in what they have done when they do it.
The second aspect that Helen Fraser raised is
“the confidence to be yourself, not to feel you have to conform to everyone’s expectations. This includes the confidence to stand up for yourself, to disagree with the group consensus if you believe they’re wrong and you’re right. Even if it is just speaking up at a meeting, or daring to have an opinion that isn’t the same as everyone else’s, it’s important to have the confidence that your…opinions and beliefs matter just as much as any other woman’s or man’s.”
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
An interesting thing that I found in business clubs, particularly in girls-only schools, is that when girls set up and run companies—the companies are sort of junior social enterprises—it builds their confidence and helps them break out from ordinary school. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
Esther McVey
I will indeed. I will talk about work experience and employing other styles of developing confidence later on. My hon. Friend has certainly touched on an important subject.
The aspects that I have talked about make up confidence. They are important throughout life, and girls lack them. Quantitative studies over many years have shown that levels of self-confidence in girls and young women are much lower than those in boys—Hisrich and Bowen in 1986, Hollenstead and Wilt in 2000 and Kickul, Wilson, Marlino and Barbosa in 2008. Such issues need to be addressed, because they have lifelong implications.
Today’s debate centres on the key ingredients that assist in life fulfilment and in achieving personal potential, which need to be nurtured especially in girls far more than boys. Broadbridge noted that a lack of confidence resulted in girls being far more critical of themselves and their abilities. That can become self-doubt later in life, preventing them from applying for promotion and bringing attention to their own achievements, as Singh, Vinnicombe, James said in 2006.
That stands the test from a recruitment point of view. Having conducted informal quantitative studies, recruiters will say that they can probably check a woman’s CV in 20 minutes, because a woman usually underestimates her ability, whereas they might need up to two hours to check a bloke’s CV, because he is convinced that he can do something, even if he has not necessarily done it yet.
In Carol Gilligan’s book, “In A Different Voice”, she explained how male and female traits develop differently from birth through parental guidance. Boys strive to be independent by, for example, playing competitive games, whereas girls stay close to their mother and their games are dominated by “sharing” and “playing together”. That means that men can put “winning” ahead of relationships and that women value co-operation and do not like the quest for victory, if it threatens the harmony of a group. The academic Albert Bandura noted that
“confidence in our ability to perform”
is developed in four key ways—social persuasions, mastery of experience, modelling and judgment of our own psychological state. Social persuasions and stereotyping, as identified by Bandura, are a huge concern when considering girls in school.
Girlguiding UK’s 2009 girls’ attitudes survey showed that girls aspire, stereotypically, to female careers. Hairdressing was the No.1 choice for under-16s; teaching was the No.1 choice for 16 to 21-year-olds; and only 1% of those surveyed said that they wanted to work in science or engineering. In the same survey in 2011, when the girls were asked why so many of them aspired to be hairdressers and so few to be engineers, more than half those surveyed—57%—said that hairdressing is what girls are interested in, while they veer away from engineering because of a lack of interest, as expressed by 51%, and a significant lack of female role models, as expressed by 60%. It was also perceived that girls “don’t do that sort of job”, as expressed by 47%, and that they did not know enough about it anyway, as expressed by 43%.
As demonstrated by those figures, there is a confidence issue when we explore areas of work that are outside the stereotypical areas of female work, which often limits the job prospects, wages and promotion of women. In turn, that often leaves women in much more vulnerable jobs later in life, such as “the five Cs”—cleaning, catering, caring, cashiering and clerical work. The widening of girls’ horizons from a young age is vital, especially as there is a constant battle with the daily barrage of media sexualisation and stereotyping of girls. Studies over the past 30 years—from McArthur and Resko, to Manstead and McCulloch, to Hyde—have constantly found that, overall, men and women in the media and advertisements differed in terms of credibility, with men being portrayed as authorities and women as users, and women in terms of relationships and men as independent. Given the daily amount of television alone that we consume—on average, four hours a day—and how highly we regard TV as our major source of entertainment and our most important news medium, we can realise how important that constant barrage of TV images is when it comes to fixing our views and adding to existing stereotypes.
Many girls tend to be seen, and see themselves, as the nurturers, which is reflected in their choice of occupation. The recent Ofsted report, “Girls’ Aspirations”, showed that the sort of fixed views exhibited by girls in the Girlguiding UK report are being maintained, because girls are sticking to strict, old-fashioned stereotyping. The Ofsted report also found a lack of knowledge among girls about what careers are available and about progression and promotion in careers in general, which highlights concerns about the careers system and careers advice.
What are the Government doing? They have taken some important steps. I welcome the introduction of the E-bac, or English baccalaureate, which is one of the Government’s most recent initiatives. It is a new performance measure for schools and is designed to give children a more rounded education, encouraging more students to take traditional academic subjects, including English, maths, history, geography, the sciences and a language. It was reported in August that the E-bac is steering twice as many pupils in England’s secondary schools towards core academic subjects. A Government-commissioned survey showed that 33% of pupils will take E-bac subjects in 2012 and 47% in 2013 compared with only 22% in 2010.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Further to the point made in an earlier intervention, will the hon. Lady tell us what the impact of the introduction of the E-bac has been on the study of music?
Esther McVey
I must admit that I do not know what the impact of the E-bac has been on the study of music, but hopefully the Minister can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.
I am working with the 30% Club, which is a group of women aiming to increase the percentage of women on top company boards to 30%. One member of the 30% Club, Katushka Giltsoff, a partner at the Miles Partnership, said that knowledge is key and that the most important thing that girls can do is study serious, mainstream subjects and obtain an all-round education, so that they can do what is best for them later in life. It is also important that we do not limit girls’ choice of subject early on, because limiting subject choice early on ultimately limits career choice later.
Where could we be doing more? We need to ensure that girls have a better understanding about career choice and its impact on their long-term earnings. We also need to develop better and more carefully planned opportunities for girls to meet female professionals who are working in non-stereotypical roles, so that they gain a better understanding of what a job entails and how they can follow a career path. That process could even be extended so that female professionals could act as mentors to guide girls into careers that they are interested in. Everywoman has begun the Modern Muse project, which tries to link business women with schoolgirls. Claire Young of Girls Out Loud is piloting Big Sister. That project is very much like the American model of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, which bring mentors and business professionals into schools so that children can have a selection of role models. Similarly, Etta Cohen, who is the founder of the biggest women’s network in the north-west and an ex-teacher herself, has said that schools and teachers in particular have a big role to play in getting real role models into schools and in getting schools to engage more closely with the business world. The Government could address that issue by preparing more girls to become women entrepreneurs, which we know is important. At the moment, 150,000 fewer women than men are setting up in business. If we had 150,000 more women in business, they would be fulfilling their potential and paying into the economy. Moderate estimates are that they would pay in £9 billion, but it could be as much as £30 billion.
There are various routes to follow. The other thing that the Government are doing, and need to do, is link up what is already out there. We should not reinvent the wheel but encourage organisations to do more together, whether that involves MerseySTEM promoting the study of science to girls, the Chemical Industries Association and the Royal Society of Chemistry encouraging girls to study chemistry or—if I can mention it again—the National Youth Theatre producing the play based on my book, which will be seen by 1,000 schoolgirls at a time. All those organisations can give girls an array of role models.
All this activity is vital for future generations of girls, and we are looking at this issue at a very important time. Lots of changes are going on, but the progress of girls has not improved in the past 30 years. The progress of girls has been glacial, and whatever has happened in the past 30 years has not helped girls. That is why today I have specifically cited academic studies from the past 30 years, as well as very practical studies and reports by business groups. I have done so to say, “We must do more.” The help and support is out there, and I know, from working within our Government, that we have a will to improve things.
I have a question for the Minister, who I know has done so much to change the landscape of apprenticeships and expand their availability and take-up by both companies and individuals. I hope that he can shine his spotlight on this area and achieve similarly successful results. To do so, he must encourage confidence-building measures for girls, through the types of activities that I have discussed, beginning with girls in year 7 or younger, and he must actively encourage girls in the pursuit of the Duke of Edinburgh award in performance, arts and music.
I welcome the Government’s national citizenship service, which was piloted in the summer. On Wirral, it brought children together from all kinds of backgrounds and at the end of the two-week project the children said it had pushed them, allowed them to engage in activities that they had never done before, including team play, and built their confidence. They said that it had been life-changing and transformational. If we could build on that success in one way or another and encourage more children, particularly girls, to participate in those projects in their summer holidays, it would be a giant step forward.
The Government should develop work experience links during summer holidays. I wonder whether the Government’s plans, for 5,000 women mentors over the next three years to inspire female entrepreneurs, could be extended into schools to help with initiatives such as Modern Muse and Big Sister. As John Asgian, a teacher at St George’s school in Maida Vale, puts it:
“Self-confidence is a function of self-identity. It is not always about ‘feeling good about yourself’, it is about doing well for yourself and doing good for others.”
If we want a generation who are doing well for themselves and good for others, it is time we helped them build the ability to do it, and we can do just that by building self-confidence for girls.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Government are right to put so much emphasis on qualifications and on raising school standards. Every time our excellent Secretary of State for Education gets up and raises the flag for higher standards in schools, I want to cheer him, and as a parent I harass my children regularly, with mixed results, but I must confess that there is perhaps one thing more important than qualifications and that is, of course, confidence. If you have confidence and qualifications you are king and are likely to become a Member of Parliament—
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Could you not say “you”? I have masses of confidence and qualifications, but I am sure that the hon. Lady is not referring to me. I have noticed other hon. Members doing the same. I do not wish to stop the flow of the debate, but if speakers could not refer to me, I would be grateful.
Amber Rudd
Of course, Mrs Main. I will adhere to that, confidently. With qualifications and confidence—king. Without qualifications—trouble, absolutely. But anyone who is brimming with confidence can get on and make the right choices.
It is very important that, along with studying for their qualifications, young people learn confidence at school, but why is it particularly necessary for girls? We so often see girls outperforming boys in qualifications, so why is it that when I go, as I often do, to the mixed schools, particularly the secondaries, in my constituency and get up and talk to the pupils, I get many questions, but very rarely from the young women? They seem to think that they have to sit quietly, and that worries me. It worries me that the next generation of young women are not confident enough in the classroom, and that will have an impact on their future lives. We know what low confidence is about; it is about low self-esteem, and in areas of high deprivation, such as the ones I have in Hastings, we are more likely to get the low self-esteem that goes with lower family expectations and unwise choices.
The topic I want to address today is teenage pregnancy. The UK has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Europe and the developed world, and one of the highest in the whole world. The previous Government made strong efforts to tackle the problem. In 1999 they put together a 10-year strategy to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, and a lot of money was spent on it. The different impacts and influences on the young women making the choices were analysed, and we found out a lot about the effects of welfare, of access to employment and housing, and of confidence, but unfortunately the strategy did not have a tremendous impact. Over those 10 years, the number of teen pregnancies fell by only 13%; the goal had been 50%. Any decrease is of course good, because having such high levels is an unacceptable way for communities to operate, but we could do more, by boosting confidence in schools. We must have a platform that addresses how we can influence young women so that they make smart choices.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of influencing young women to make smart choices is to show them role models? All too often the role models in the media are about make-up and singing as career success. Does she agree that a great advantage of the initiative taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) is that it shows young women that there is a huge multiplicity of female role models out there who can inspire them?
Amber Rudd
I agree. It is incredibly important that young women realise that there are other women out there who can help them to make smart choices. We need to reduce the impact of all the advertising and television that seems to suggest to them that celebrity and early parenthood are a way forward. It is well known that these young women sometimes make what we call a choice to go ahead and have a baby at a young age. They think it is a smart choice—they see the welfare benefits—but in the vast majority of cases it is not a smart choice, and it has unhealthy outcomes for the young woman and the baby.
In schools, we can do two things. We can raise educational standards, of course. In some cases, it is hardly fair to say that young women with no qualifications make choices. They do not make choices, because they are left with no qualifications. Having qualifications is incredibly important, and I hope that this Government raise standards. We also need to help young women with their self-esteem, so that they have, quite simply, the confidence to make choices—to say “No” when they want to, and to ask for birth control so that they do not end up having babies quite so young.
Last week I saw Hilary Pannack of Straight Talking, a leading UK charity, which was set up in 1998 to combat the high levels of teenage pregnancy. The charity does an extraordinary thing, delivering peer-to-peer education in schools. It employs young mothers who have had babies as teenagers to go into schools and make clear the sort of life that lies ahead. They do not say, “This is a disastrous thing to do,” because no life is a disastrous thing, but they do explain the hardships of young motherhood and the lack of choice about their own lives. The organisation is very successful. It told me that it tries to explain why not to get pregnant:
“The approach is centred on the belief that young people might know how not to get pregnant”—
this is not pure sex education; they understand the facts—
“but they also need to know why not to get pregnant.”
My experience of talking to young women in Hastings is that that would be a very useful guide.
Coming back to the impact of deprivation, in 2007-09 the teenage conception rate in Hastings was, unfortunately —
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I am trying to give some latitude to the Member, but somewhat tangentially some of her comments range rather wide of the debate on confidence. If she could keep bringing her comments back to confidence, I should be grateful.
Amber Rudd
Okay. I am interested in talking about this topic because confidence is probably the single most important element in a young woman’s life choices. One of the most destructive factors is a young woman not having the confidence to be able to make the choice to get her qualifications and develop her career, and instead making what is effectively a choice to have a baby very young. That is why this is absolutely about confidence. It is about having the ability to make that choice.
I encourage the Department for Education to engage with the charity Straight Talking so that we have more representations from women who have been in that situation and can deliver peer-to-peer advice in schools, so that young women can focus on that choice. I welcome the fact that the Department is consulting on the subject--if any Members would like to input into it, the consultation closes on 30 November. If we are going to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy, which is a casualty of lack of confidence, addressing confidence is absolutely paramount.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
For 14 years before becoming an MP, I was a primary schoolteacher. I ended up as deputy head of the primary school that I went to when I was three—Billy Backwater, perhaps, and some might say that I have swapped one set of bells and playground humour for another. While I was a teacher, I taught eight, nine and 10-year-olds. The young girls had confidence, dynamism and enthusiasm—I could see it in their body language, their movement, their facial expressions and how they interacted with boys, teachers and each other. Something happens around the age of 13 or 14 that turns girls from dynamic people to not-so-dynamic ones who adopt the role of second-class people in school.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on securing this debate on a subject that is rarely debated. The briefing pack from the House of Commons Library concentrates on jobs and not on the essence of the debate, which, as you have said, Mrs Main, is girls’ confidence.
The hon. Member for Wirral West mentioned many research documents and books. I draw hon. Members’ attention to Mary Pipher’s book “Reviving Ophelia”. Ophelia, as hon. Members will know, determined her own value by how she was perceived by her father and Hamlet, and ended up dying, drowned in a beautiful dress that made her look ever so pretty but dragged her down and kept her underwater, surrounded by flowers.
At the crucial age of 13 and 14, in early adolescence and puberty, the battle for self is won or lost. Much is made of qualifications such as GCSEs and A-levels, but only 18% of a person’s success, measured over a lifetime, is down to qualifications. We focus attention and funnel billions of pounds of funding into education, but is that the wisest use of our public funds? Are there other ways we could try? Could we divert some of it into confidence-building measures such as mentors and role models?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
If what the hon. Gentleman says about early puberty and age 13 and 14 is correct, should we not concentrate all our efforts on that age group? If we have to take resources away, we should take them and concentrate them on that age group, in order to give them the confidence to shoot through and go on to do GCSEs, A-levels and so on.
Chris Ruane
I agree that it is a crucial age, but as another hon. Member mentioned in an intervention, the most crucial age is probably nought to three, when children are dressed up in pink or blue and told to be active or passive. For me, though the thrust of this debate is that 13 and 14 are a critical age.
Other factors that determine success are emotional intelligence and confidence. Luck, as everyone within this room will know, provides a great deal, as do social connections and networks. Some people are well connected—I would say that most of us here are—but in places such as the constituency of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), a seaside constituency like my own, social networks and networking opportunities for jobs, placements and internships are minimal.
During the period when girls are aged 13 to 14, smartness is seen as a liability. There is pressure to be popular rather than honest with themselves, and young girls are taught to be feminine rather than a whole person, as that might be slightly unfeminine—“She’s a bit tomboyish. She’s a bit too big for her boots. Get down.” Many young girls spend more time on make-up than on developing value systems. We could do a lot to teach young girls to develop their own value systems.
I mentioned the education budget, but there are also consequences for the health budget. Mental illness among children is running at 25%, and obesity in young children at 29%. We are following the American model, although we are 10 years behind, so we have a lot worse to look forward to. Binge drinking is on the rise, and smoking has decreased in virtually every sector of society save for one group: 15-year-old white working-class girls. What is going on? Why is that group the worst affected? Incidences of bulimia, anorexia nervosa, loneliness and self-harm are on the increase and need to be tackled. Not only do they have an economic consequence, they have a human consequence. Girls’ complicated lives are often reduced to one thing by the media: weight. “If you’re thin, you’re okay. If you’re not, you’re not okay.”
Mary Pipher’s book outlines some practical tools, one of which involves centring oneself on a regular basis. We are all on the hedonic treadmill. As MPs, we get up at 6 or 7 o’clock in the morning and get home at 11 o’clock at night; often, we find little time for our spouses, parents and children. We are not alone; other people out there are in the same position. We pass on those values to our children, and they do not have time to reflect. Reflection and centring are key, especially for young girls, but perhaps for all of us here.
Mary Pipher says that a distinction should be made between thinking and feeling. Girls should not just follow their emotions; they should slow down and think. Is that feeling intelligent? They should check with reality. Girls need to develop personal value systems, which she describes as a north star, by asking, “Who am I? What is important to me?” and holding it up so that when advertisers try to throw them this way or that, they say, “No, I’m going that way. I’m following my star.”
Mary Pipher says that we should take time for the important decisions in life. Teenage pregnancy has been mentioned. Deciding who their first boyfriend will be is a big step for girls, as is how that relationship unfolds. Who are their friends? Are they the right friends and not just the popular ones? Do they have the right values that fit with a girl’s own personal values? Mary Pipher also says that young girls, like all of us, should try to manage pain. Pain can be a good thing if we handle it right: if we feel under threat and get on top of that threat, we become stronger people; if we fold under it, we become weaker. It is a dangerous game. Pain is all around, and to overcome that pain, proper support is needed, as is time to talk with family, friends, trusted mentors and role models. Organisation of a young person’s life is also important. We should help them manage their busy schedules and be there when they need help.
Other hon. Members mentioned providing the right activities, although it sounds a bit old-fashioned, a bit big society and a bit like the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron)—perish the thought. The right activities, such as exercise, reading, hobbies and meditation are all old-fashioned but good stuff, as opposed to the wrong activities, which are thrown at kids in every advert. We witness something like 1,400 adverts a day. They are full of promotions of drinking, eating and overeating, sex, drugs and smoking. The advertising industry is a multi-billion-pound industry that tells us to consume, consume, consume and not to bear in mind its effect on individuals and families.
Developing the right activities is important. As was mentioned, we need to recognise, record and celebrate successes, whether in sports or other activities. That becomes a virtuous circle, as a girl gains confidence in one activity such as singing or dancing and becomes a bigger person for it. Again, it is big society-ish, but we need to develop altruism and volunteering to get away from the self-absorption forced on us by the media, and to use skills such as humour and to develop a thick skin against our peers when they say, “Your values are wrong and ours are right.”
In his book “Affluenza”, Oliver James calculates the amount spent on advertising in America to be 2% of GDP. In the UK, it is 1.5%, and it is 1% in mainland Europe. The purpose of advertisers is to sow discontent and make people think that their life is not quite right, but that it would be right if they had this or that. Some of us can say, “No, I don’t want that,” but young girls are especially vulnerable to advertising and that state of permanent dissatisfaction. Advertising comes through the TV, the radio and, increasingly, through the internet. It comes especially through girls’ magazines, which have been described as the work of the devil. Considering the values that they communicate to young girls, should such magazines be regulated? I know that we are not in favour of press censorship, but let us at least have an assessment of the harm that they are doing to young women.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will bring the word “confidence” into his discussion of all these activities.
Chris Ruane
With respect, Mrs Main, every single point I have made is about confidence. This is about someone creating their own value system rather than having the media’s values rammed down their throat, and it is about developing as a person with individual confidence. Another way people can combat such pressure and develop confidence is to check the messages that enter their ears and eyes daily. Hon. Members may laugh at the concept of media studies, but when we became a literate society 600 years ago, literacy flourished and people studied it. Now we are in the age of the moving image, but we do not study the moving image. It is pooh-poohed, because the owners of the media do not want us to understand it or to appreciate the control that they have over our lives.
Bob Stewart
I am overawed by them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned literacy. I also have two sons, and I have found that the daughters spend so much time reading compared with the boys. That is absolutely fabulous, and we should use it somehow to develop confidence among our children.
Chris Ruane
In conclusion—I realise that others want to speak—there is a number of positive actions I hope the Minister will take. Much of the research that was done for Mary Pipher is American, and although there is a direct correlation with this country, we need British research to find out what is going on in our society. We must not leave such research on dusty shelves, but use it to create practical activities in the classroom and in the home for young women. We need a curriculum that includes properly structured confidence building, which is measured over time to ensure continual improvement. Dare I say it, we may even need regulation. I know that the Government are loth to regulate, but we need an assessment of the damage advertising causes to specific groups, especially young, vulnerable women and children, and if regulation is needed, we should implement it.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Main, for allowing me to take part in this incredibly valuable debate.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) for the huge contribution she has made to tackling the lack of confidence among girls by securing this debate and by working over many years to bring this issue to the public consciousness. It must have taken some confidence to stand up today and speak about this issue, because confidence among young women seems for some to be a marginal issue that is worthy of comment but always plays second fiddle to the goals of academic success, sporting achievement and extra-curricular excellence in schools. I believe, however, that the most important thing we can take from today’s debate is the understanding that confidence is absolutely pivotal to a girl’s success. That confidence and self-belief, which eludes so many girls in our schools, is the foundation of their achievement throughout life.
At senior levels across the sectors women remain a rare breed. FTSE 100 boards are plagued by a chronic under-representation of women, and only one of the 12 Supreme Court judges is female. However, the commendable aim of getting more women on the boards of top companies or to the heights of the professions is entirely alien to many girls in my constituency. The worlds of business, law or science are a million miles away from where some of the young women in Gosport believe they can take their lives, because of their persistent lack of confidence and aspiration. One teacher told me quite bluntly that many girls will get pregnant because they see having a baby as the one thing they are capable of achieving. As a primary school teacher, she sees first hand that from a tragically young age girls allow themselves to be shouted down by boys in class, as they mimic the lack of confidence, attainment and ambition they see in their own mothers and other female role models.
As children grow, so does the gender gap. National statistics show that girls are more than capable of outperforming boys throughout school. I could mention as anecdotal evidence the fact that, on the school run on Monday morning, my nine-year-old son bemoaned the fact that the two most brilliant children in his class were both girls and asked at what age girls stop being better than boys at everything. Despite the statistics, however, many girls are falling behind in the most deprived areas of Gosport. A teacher told me about one girl whose ability in maths far outstretched what she was actually achieving. At a certain point the girl started to believe that doing well in maths or in science was in some way not cool or attractive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West mentioned a survey by Girlguiding UK, which found that being a hairdresser or beautician is the top career goal for many secondary school girls. Although, God knows, I appreciate the work of beauticians and hairdressers as much as the next woman, more work is needed to ensure that careers advice and work experience opportunities highlight the hugely diverse avenues that are open to women.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
I apologise for not being here earlier for the debate; I was detained in the main Chamber. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an opportunity to advance the possibility of careers in science and engineering, and to show how attractive they can be for girls and how much opportunity there is?
Caroline Dinenage
That is absolutely correct. Raising aspiration for girls is about not only showing them opportunities but convincing them that those opportunities are within their reach. More than half the girls questioned eschewed science and engineering, because they believed that careers in them would be too difficult. From a very early age, our schools must convince girls of the simple truth that they are capable of achieving a great deal. One pioneering primary school in my constituency has launched a children’s university, which runs every Friday. The children’s university empowers kids as young as five to chose their own courses in subjects as diverse as microbiology, woodwork and Spanish. For a girl who has never seen a woman in her family go to university, or indeed even hold down a job, the impact is immense. The role that our schools play—through careers advice, the introduction of positive role models or innovative projects such as the children’s university—is central to raising the confidence and aspiration of girls.
Finally, we must accept that promoting confidence in young women requires a holistic approach. Other Members have said that eating disorders, mental health issues and self-harming all greatly undermine what girls can, and believe they can, achieve. We need to encourage more joined-up thinking between schools, training providers, and other youth and health services, rather than just seeing academic failings in isolation. Nurturing confidence in young women will ultimately rest on seeing the whole person; it will involve seeing the lack of ambition they experience at home, the insecurities that are re-confirmed by their peers and the emotional challenges that young girls will always endure. Only then can we ensure that young women will reach the great heights that we know they are capable of in their chosen career.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and other hon. Friends who have spoken thus far. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on securing the debate. I went to an all-girls school, and I look forward to going back shortly to do its prize-giving. I have a suspicion that confidence will be a key part of any speech I make, so this debate will be not only important but incredibly timely. For that, I thank my hon. Friend.
Everyone has approached the debate so far from completely different directions, which is interesting. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) mentioned the importance of literacy and education, which is telling when we look at other countries across the world that ban women from reading books because the regimes are frightened of the information and education that women can gain from them.
Chris Ruane
One quote, which I did not use before, is: “The less a woman has in her head, the easier she is to carry.” What does the hon. Lady think of that?
Tracey Crouch
It is interesting how in the past certain comedians have mocked women’s education, to try to belittle women. Some dictatorships have banned women from being educated, which makes the point.
In my short remarks I want to mention the importance of sport and physical activity in building girls’ confidence. I am interested and active in sport, and am pleased to say I have just been appointed parliamentary ambassador to Us Girls, a lottery-funded project within 50 areas of high disadvantage, spread throughout England. It is tied in with the hugely successful StreetGames. I am also the manager of a girls football team in Chatham. I have been with the girls since they were nine and 10 years old, and now they are 13 and 14—the key age group we have been talking about this afternoon. They have gone from timid little girls to strong, confident and often cheeky teenagers. It has been very interesting to see them grow up, and I am proud to have played a small part in their lives thus far.
I am pleased to be involved in youth sport, not least because a quick search on the internet shows that there has been much scientific research into how sport can help to build confidence in girls. In addition, it has been proved that girls who do sports do better in school, because exercise improves learning, memory and concentration. It can also help to reduce stress and make people feel a lot happier, not just about their physical self but about their mental ability. What is fantastic about some of the recent initiatives to get youngsters—boys and girls—active in sport is the fact that there has been much more innovative thinking about the type of sport or physical activity that is offered. In my day—without meaning to sound as if I am 100 years old—the only opportunities for sport we had were netball and hockey in the winter and athletics and tennis in the summer. We were very lucky to have the playing fields so we could do those activities, but not everyone wanted to do competitive team or field sports. Now there is much more to do, ranging from dance and trampolining to Zumba, which is apparently the latest craze.
Kevin Brennan
I am not an expert on Zumba, I am afraid, so it was not on that matter.
The hon. Lady is making an interesting point about choice and diversity for girls in PE and games in school, and physical activities. In her role as an ambassador will she emphasise that to Ministers, too? An emphasis on competitive sports between schools is right, but for some girls the physical activities that will get them to participate, and increase their confidence, are not necessarily the traditional games she mentioned.
Tracey Crouch
I agree. Competitive sport is important as it builds team spirit and confidence in many different ways, but other sports build personal confidence. I am thinking of dance and the advent of “Strictly Come Dancing”, which has inspired many more young people to get involved and interested in dance. We should try to maintain as much variety as possible in the range of sports available to young girls.
Esther McVey
That reminds me of Debbie Moore, the first lady to set up a public limited company. She did not like sport, but wanted physical exercise, team play, confidence building and to go before an audience, and dance was how she found those things. That is not sport, but the encouragement of other active pursuits.
Tracey Crouch
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and have been careful not to talk just about sport, because physical activity is incredibly important.
Getting people involved in sport or physical activity is one thing; keeping them involved as they get older is a very different problem, and all clubs or organisations involved in providing sports opportunities are finding it difficult. In my field, football, girls drop out more as they get older. The Football Association and other organisations that are looking at sport for women are trying to deal with that. Interestingly, when girls start to drop out of sport their confidence often drops, partly because when they are participating they become more confident about their weight and body shape, so it follows that they get less confident if they drop out.
Access is one way of keeping girls involved, and that is a debate for another day, but confidence can be instilled by others, which is why media portrayal and positive role models are important factors. So far, every Member has mentioned those two elements. I hope that I am a positive role model for my girls football team and indeed for local schoolgirls, who may or may not be interested in politics, but see a female politician in the local area. There are only three female MPs in Kent, and I think it is important for me to go out to schools in my area. We have a few single-sex schools in Medway, and I visit them to show them that women locally can achieve.
I am merely one woman in their lives, and television and local newspapers are often shaping influences. The shape, size and style of women on our TV screens or in magazines is often commented on. I applauded loudly when in the current series of “The X Factor” talented but not stereotypically size 8 beauty-queen participants were put through to the later stages. From an early age girls see what happens, and they go from wanting to be the Disney Princess to wanting to be a slimline pop star. The irony is that often the bigger girls are better singers. What we do to encourage diversity of representation in the sector is important.
Chris Ruane
Will the hon. Lady congratulate Sami, from Rhyl, my home town, who, when pressured by the judges to lose weight, said, “No, I am happy the way I am”?
Tracey Crouch
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know it was Sami I was thinking of when I wrote those words earlier. I thought she was a fantastic singer and that it was an inspiration to everyone watching to see someone of a bigger size be talented, and have the confidence to go up on stage and sing well.
It is a shame we do not see as much coverage of female as of male sporting heroes on our televisions. I hope that that will be addressed during the Olympics next year, and that serious consideration will be given to how to achieve balance in broadcasts and writing. The lack of women on the shortlist for BBC sports personality of the year is in the news today. Some superb sportsmen are on the list, and I would not want any woman to be included on it for anything other than merit and excellence, but it might be easier for females to be considered if they had a higher profile in the coverage in the first place.
I am proud to have co-signed with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), earlier in the year, a letter to Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, which helped to secure coverage of the women’s football World cup quarter final on terrestrial TV. It was an important step forward in achieving wider interest in women’s football, but it is now time we looked at how broadcasters cover women’s sport in general. At the moment coverage is dominated by men’s sport. I do not suggest it should be 50:50, but I would like a bit more coverage, especially at peak times.
We have some brilliant sportswomen at the moment, and I will quickly plug Kat Driscoll, from Chatham, who has just secured her place in team GB, for trampolining. I cannot think of anything more inspiring for girls from Chatham than to see someone who grew up in the same street or went to the same schools as they did representing their country. Girls who play sports learn to set goals and develop discipline. Often they learn about teamwork. Those skills are good not just for sports but for life. We heard earlier, from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West, that confidence is hard to define. However, participation in sport and physical activity develops friendships and relationships and a passion for something that can stay with people for life, building the strength of mind and body that perhaps encapsulates what confidence should be about. I hope that the legacy of the Olympics and future sporting events will be to identify female role models, inspire greater participation in various sports and, ultimately, build confidence in girls, which in turn will stand the next generation of women in good stead.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on securing the debate. It has been excellent, ranging far and wide on the issue of confidence and in particular on the confidence of girls in education.
As someone with two older sisters and a teenage daughter, I am aware of the importance of the subject and, particularly as the father of a teenage daughter, of many of the issues that hon. Members have discussed in relation to the way in which girls grow up and develop, what happens to their confidence over that time and the impact of culture, the media, school, education and friends on confidence, self-image and self-awareness. In fact, I had a conversation with my daughter about this debate when I found out about it.
Kevin Brennan
She would be quite capable of doing so, having recently got through to the next stage of a debating competition with her school. Members may be interested to know, however, that she is not particularly interested in following me into politics—I think that she has higher ambitions than that.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Wirral West highlighted the work that she has done on the subject. I commend her for her work with girls to try to build their confidence and make sure that they have opportunities. She spoke about the National Youth Theatre project in which she is involved with her book and her work with Girlguiding UK, an excellent organisation with which I had many dealings as a Minister in the old Department for Children, Schools and Families. Girlguiding UK is a superb organisation that does great work with young women and girls, and it is also extremely progressive and forward looking. I commend some of its publications to hon. Members, if they have not had the chance to look at them and see the work that it is doing with young women. It is a modern organisation doing a great deal of good work, and the hon. Lady gave an extremely thoughtful and thoroughly researched speech on the subject.
The hon. Lady then talked about the English baccalaureate and the role that it might play in building confidence, but that is one point on which my opinion might differ from hers. The reason why I intervened on her on the matter of music—another hon. Member said that it is a subject that can give confidence to young people and to girls in particular—is that, when I asked the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who has responsibility for schools, a question recently, I was unable to ascertain an answer from him about the survey to which the hon. Lady has referred as to what has happened to those subjects not included in the E-bac.
Esther McVey
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point—we have all said that music, drama and sport are vital in developing confidence—but my point was about the ability of a person to have confidence and choice in their career later in life, so that they have the skeleton of a very good, sound education that does not limit them later. That is what we found to be the case for so many girls who limited their choices and future avenues early on.
Kevin Brennan
That is a valid point. I completely accept that it is important that, when it comes to those crucial points in school when choices are made, young people and young girls in particular are aware of the choices that they are making and given good advice and mentoring about their consequences. My personal view is that the English baccalaureate does not serve that purpose particularly well and that it demonstrates that more young people are choosing the subjects that the Government want them to choose at a particular level. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy that that will happen when schools are told that that is how they will be measured. Inevitably, they will then change their timetables and resources in order for that to happen. My point is that that does not necessarily deal with the issue of having the confidence to take those subjects in the first place. I am concerned that we still do not know, because the Government did not ask the question thoroughly in the survey, what impact that has had on the other subjects that are outwith the English baccalaureate, such as religious education and music and drama, both of which have been referred to as confidence-building subjects.
The hon. Lady was followed by the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who made some important points about confidence in relation to teenage pregnancy and the rates of teenage pregnancy in this country. She is absolutely right. Teenage pregnancy fell by about 13% during the period in which the previous Government were in office, but the figure is still far too high in this country. All hon. Members want to figure out the best way to tackle that, because it is far too high. There are sometimes differences of opinion on the best way to approach the matter in relation to sex and relationship education and other such issues, but I have no doubt that the hon. Lady is absolutely right that building girls’ confidence and self-esteem is key to lowering that all-too-high statistic.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the issue of self-image, weight and obesity. I commend to hon. Members, if they have an opportunity to read it, the Foresight report, which was produced during the previous Government’s time in office, although it is not a political report. It centres on obesity and was published about four years ago. It is a key document to understanding the subject and its importance, particularly in relation to some of the issues under discussion.
The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) was also very thoughtful and well researched. He made the point, which I think all of us strongly recognise, about the confidence that young girls have at about the age of 10. I have always thought that if someone wants to find common sense on legs, they should talk to a 10-year-old girl and they will get the common-sense answer to any question on any subject. Something happens, however, during the course of secondary education, puberty and the teenage years, and, often, girls who were tremendously confident, articulate and able to speak up for themselves, and who had ambitious ideas about what they wanted to do for their future, become withdrawn all of a sudden.
I was a secondary school teacher for 10 years from the mid-’80s to the mid-’90s, teaching children between the ages of 11 and 18, and I saw that for myself when I observed their progress during that period. I was lucky enough to be a form tutor for one form group for seven years, so I saw the boys and girls who stayed for each of those years grow up during that time. It can be depressing to see what can happen to young girls in particular at the crucial age mentioned by my hon. Friend, although I did everything that I could as their teacher and form tutor to try to instil in them the kind of confidence that they should have had. My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of networks and the frightening statistic that the only group in which smoking is increasing in the country is 15-year-old, white, working-class girls.
My hon. Friend was followed by the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who spoke with a great deal of passion and commitment about the importance of science and engineering, and about encouraging girls to take up those subjects and to have the confidence to do so. I listened recently, while driving, to Jocelyn Bell on Radio 4. She was, of course, denied the Nobel prize for science. Many people think that that would not have happened to a man if he had discovered the pulsar, but because she was a relatively junior scientist at the time she never got the recognition, through the Nobel prize, for her achievement. She still went on to be an extremely distinguished scientist, but her description of the sexism that she faced as a young scientist working in the scientific community was disturbing. That was back in the 1960s, which is quite a long time ago, but there remains a certain attitude towards girls and science that we need to make sure is overcome.
The hon. Lady was followed by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who spoke about the importance of sport and physical activities in instilling confidence in girls. When I was a Minister with responsibility for school sport, I was fortunate enough to work with Dame Kelly Holmes and Baroness Sue Campbell on this subject. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I had the wonderful experience of witnessing my daughter’s one and only brief experience on the hockey field at the age of 11, but then, somehow or other, she disengaged from sport and physical activity, so I think that the hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to do more to encourage a wider range of activities for girls.
I want to mention one sporting heroine of mine, Nicole Cooke from south Wales, who won the gold medal for Great Britain in the cycling road race at Beijing. She won the world championship in the same year, which is something no other cyclist has ever achieved. If she were a man, I am sure that the recognition would have been absolutely enormous. It is a shame that there is not a female sports person on the sports personality of the year shortlist this year, as the hon. Lady has rightly said.
As I have said, I was a school teacher for 10 years until 1995 and became an MP in 2001. There is rightly a focus on standards and on the need for high achievement in the curriculum. However, I am absolutely convinced that we should not lose sight of some of the things that I fear might be regarded in some quarters of Government as the softer, wishy-washy liberal aspects of our discussion today. For example, one of the things that I was responsible for when I was a Minister was the social and emotional aspects of the learning programme in school. That dealt head-on with the problem that some children, particularly girls, were sometimes coming to school with a lot of baggage—emotional baggage rather than the bag in which they carried their school books—because of the nature of modern society, which some hon. Members have described today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has said, girls can come under pressure in the home, from the media or from the pace of modern life. As was mentioned earlier, the social and emotional aspects of learning programmes and subjects such as dance, drama and sport, or extra-curricular subjects such as debating, group work or the Duke of Edinburgh award can build self-esteem, confidence, resilience and the ability to take risks.
As the hon. Member for Wirral West has rightly said, those things are extremely important. I sometimes fear—it is entirely possible that when we were in government, we gave this message as well—that, in our desire rightly to say, “We want to raise standards. We want academic standards to improve. We want this to be the country that is the best place to go to school in the world and that has the highest academic achievements,” we lose sight of the importance of some of the social and emotional aspects of learning. Such subjects actually promote better academic achievement. Anyone who has worked in education will know that children who are well-balanced, well-rounded and emotionally stable will do better in the classroom.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. I am sure that the Minister would like to have a few minutes to respond to this important debate.
Chris Ruane
I do not give credit to the Prime Minister for many things, but he is introducing the index of well-being, which is being dealt with by the Office for National Statistics. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the work that is being done by the Government to measure well-being as well as academic standards?
Kevin Brennan
It is important to measure well-being, because welfare in the economic sense is not entirely related to the level of gross domestic product. There is nothing particularly new in that concept, but it is important to have a measure of well-being. It is also important for there to be such a measure in schools. That is the point I am making. If we are going to have such a measure for society as a whole, let us make sure we have it for schools, too.
Many books have been mentioned today. Hon. Members may have read the interesting book, “Grit: the skills for success and how they are grown”, by Yvonne Roberts, which talks about how to build social intelligence, emotional resilience, enterprise and discipline skills in girls and the importance of social and emotional intelligence. It also mentions how crucial reinforcement, mentoring and building resilience are. Some of the work done on that in schools by organisations such as the Young Foundation is extremely valuable and important.
Today’s debate has been extremely informative and of a very high standard. The subject is probably not highly politically controversial, but it has provided a useful opportunity to explore what the Government are doing to try to instil greater confidence among young women and girls in our schools and colleges.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), has said, this has been an interesting and important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on securing it.
I do not have daughters; I have two young sons. However, women have been very important to me throughout my life. My mother was a woman and, curiously, my wife is, too. Therefore, what I learned literally from the cradle is that women—mothers—shape our character and form our ambitions. We gain the confidence that has been described by so many of the speakers in this debate—it was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)—very early in our lives. Governments, schools and others can do much—I will talk a bit about what we are trying to do—but, in the end, the familiar influences, particularly maternal influences, are critical to subsequent progress.
I learned from my mother and my father, who were both wonderfully archetypically male and female. I think of my mother and I think of her softness and the smell of talcum powder; I think of my father and I think of how bristly he was and how he smelled of tobacco and work. They were certainly both archetypically male and female and were both wonderfully demonstrative and loving. They gave me the feeling that I was the most special little boy in the world—a feeling that has never left me, by the way. I feel that now, at this very moment, so my ambitions were reinforced by not only their direct support but the sentiments that they instilled in me.
I entirely appreciate the points that have been repeatedly made in this debate. As the shadow Minister has said, they have been made on the basis of good information and a shared determination across the Chamber. I entirely recognise that the challenges people face as they turn their own ambitions into reality are affected by many influences. In the short time left, I will try to deal with some of those influences, some of which are benevolent and some of which are malevolent, as the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd said.
The hon. Gentleman made a wonderful contribution that underpinned the fact that this debate is as much about values and attitudes as it is about education. I reassure the shadow Minister that we understand—at least, I understand—that education is more than utilitarian. It is about values and attitudes, and ethos and sentiments. Although the work done by parents in instilling both ambition and the capacity to realise ambition in children is critical, the work done by our schools matters so much, too. Indeed, it matters more for those children who are not as fortunate as I was in having a stable, loving and supportive family.
In respect of girls and women, we need to go the extra mile. We need to take further steps to ensure that they are able to fulfil their potential. In the brief time available, I will talk about some of the steps that the Government are taking, but before I do so I will just say a word about Plato because I know that hon. Members would be disappointed if I did not. Some 2,500 years ago, Plato said:
“Nothing could be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half.”
How interesting that the classical world understood what so often in the modern world we forget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West, who initiated the debate, has not forgotten because she has dedicated a great deal of her considerable skill and energy to the promotion of the interests of young women. I pay tribute to the work she has done. I was pleased to be able to support it in a room close to here, when she was able to launch her magazine, Chloe Can, which is aimed at young women. She was able to articulate some of the points that she has made today at greater length then. The work we do to establish role models in these terms is important, and my hon. Friend is indeed a role model for young women whose interests she has championed with such vehemence and to such effect.
We have learned much—I defer to the two former teachers who have spoken—about what characterises good schools in this respect. Schools with little or no gender gap in achievement tend to be characterised by a positive learning ethos—we have heard about that today, have we not?—high expectations of all pupils, high quality teaching and learning, good management and close tracking of individual pupil’s achievement. Teachers know all their pupils well and plan their resources and teaching accordingly, rather than conforming to preconceived views about what those pupils might achieve, whether that relates to gender or any other particular characteristic.
We can do three things in particular to support teachers in their efforts to fuel social mobility and achievement. The first concerns advice and guidance. It is very important that young people get the right quality advice and guidance. In truth, one of the principal inhibitors to social mobility is this: I suspect that our children will become socially mobile because of us. Our children will benefit from the fact that we, in the Chamber, are reasonably well informed about the opportunities that might exist, be they boys or girls, and will impart an understanding of how to turn those ambitions into opportunity. That is not true for all young people, however. The advice and guidance that we can provide through the new national careers service will, to some extent, ameliorate the disadvantages of many young people who do not have either advice from a family or social networks.
Kevin Brennan
Is the Minister concerned, in the light of the debate, that the lack of face-to-face guidance in the careers service will be a hindrance to girls gaining confidence and being able to make the right choices?
Mr Hayes
It is important to appreciate the value of face-to-face guidance. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Education Bill establishes the new statutory duty on schools to secure independent, impartial advice and guidance. When it was debated in the House, we agreed, in the statutory guidance accompanying the Bill, to ensure that face-to-face guidance was available in particular to people with the greatest disadvantage, those special needs and learning difficulties. We also said that schools should make the most appropriate provision for their pupils. I emphasise that it is vital that that should include a range of provision, and that that provision should be linked to the quality standards that are being developed by the profession itself.
As well as changing the law, we have worked with the careers profession to establish a new set of qualifications, with appropriate training and accreditation. That means that we will re-professionalise the careers service after the disappointing years—I put that as mildly as I can—of Connexions. We are on the cusp of a new dawn for careers advice and guidance, with a professionalised service, a new set of standards, a new statutory duty and the launch of the national service co-located in Jobcentre Plus, colleges, community organisations, charities and voluntary organisations. I do not say that the task will be straightforward, but it is a worthwhile journey. The destination to which we are heading will be altogether better than the place we have been for the past several years. That advice and guidance will assist young women, in particular, to fulfil their potential in the way I have described and, as a result of this debate, will re-emphasise the significance of opportunities for girls and young women in the establishment of the national careers service this spring.
The second issue I wanted to speak about was apprenticeships. I made a point—the hon. Member for Cardiff West knows this subject well too—when I became the Minister of challenging the National Apprenticeship Service on the under-representation of particular groups. The obvious example in relation to this debate is women in some of what might be called the traditional apprenticeship frameworks: engineering, construction and so on.
Esther McVey
I conducted some surveys and analysis on that, which was very interesting. For young girls who took science apprenticeships, it fitted in far better with their family life because they could achieve a job and status far more quickly than the slow process of going through university. It fitted in much better with the cycle of a woman’s life and child-bearing age.
Mr Hayes
How interesting. I defer to the greater expertise of my hon. Friend, but what I have done is ask the National Apprenticeship Service to run a series of pilots, building competencies and understanding on how we can make the apprenticeship system more accessible to those who are currently poorly represented. That is not to say that women are poorly represented in apprenticeships per se. More than half of all apprenticeships are taken up by women, but they tend to be in areas such as care and retail. The effect of that, because of the wage rates in those sectors, is to exaggerate the difference in wage-earning potential among successful apprenticeships between men and women. I have asked the NAS to work on a series of pilots. Bradford college is prioritising action to increase female representation in the energy sector. Essex county council is focused on women in engineering and on acting as the prime contractor for a regional provider network. West Notts college, whose representatives I met recently, is also looking at increasing female representation in engineering. There are a number of others, but I want to give the Chamber merely a flavour of what we are trying to do.
The third issue I wanted to speak about is women and science, technology, engineering and maths. Basically, not enough girls study STEM after the age of 16, as has been mentioned a number of times, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. There are several things that we can do. The Department for Education has worked closely with the Institute of Physics. Its stimulating physics network incorporates many of the recommendations of the Girls into Physics report, which the hon. Lady will know about. The STEM ambassador scheme, co-ordinated by STEMNET, is arranging for working scientists and engineers to visit schools to support teachers, and engage and enthuse pupils to continue studying science. The hon. Lady will know that a large proportion of the STEM ambassadors are women. We want to focus that energy on what we can do to encourage more girls to study STEM subjects. By making different choices early, they cut off some of the routes that might be available to them later. So much of this is about early intervention and changing perceptions about what choices can be taken to facilitate subsequent progress. I will happily give way before I come on to my exciting conclusion.
Esther McVey
Will the Minister congratulate the new president of the Royal Society of Chemistry? For the first time in 300 years, it has a female president. In the next year, she will try to increase the number of female teachers becoming ambassadors and the number of girls taking chemistry.
Mr Hayes
I not only add my voice to that congratulation, I suggest that we invite her here to a tea party with the hon. Lady and myself, which, needless to say, she will be funding.
This debate has brought to the attention of the House the important subject of opportunities for girls and women. I do not take the orthodox view, by the way, that men and women are more alike than is often supposed. I think that they are rather less alike—my life has taught me that. However, that does not mean that the opportunities available to them should not be just as demanding, just as exciting and just as exhilarating. We should work tirelessly to create those opportunities in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West has done for so long, beyond old frontiers to new horizons.
I learned at my mother’s knee first, and I learn from my wife every day, as Yeats said:
“That Solomon grew wise
While talking with his queens”.
In that spirit, I assure the Chamber, and all those who have contributed to this important debate, that the Government will go the further mile that I described at the outset to achieve the ambitions of my hon. Friend, which reflect the ambitions of so many girls and young women.
Park Homes
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
As a new Member of Parliament in 2010, I did not expect park homes to feature large on my radar. I freely admit that I did not know a great deal about them and that, although I knew that a significant number of park homes were dotted around my constituency, there are more than 200 spread over seven sites. To some colleagues, especially those from the south-west, that will seem a tiny number, but in Romsey and Southampton North it represents a significant and at times vulnerable minority.
I pay particular tribute to my constituent, Tim Deacon, a member of the park homes residents association, who has made it his mission over the past 18 months to inform me of the issues facing park home residents. He has endeavoured to educate me and, along with many of his fellow residents—in particular, with another whom I will mention later—he has highlighted their issues and encouraged me to apply for the debate.
I am conscious of the fact that the subject affects a lot of hon. Members, many of whom will have far greater expertise than I do. I congratulate the mobile homes all-party parliamentary group on its hard work in drawing attention to the issue and on seeking resolutions to the problems of park home owners. I am also aware that this is only a 30-minute debate, which is a disappointment to some and will not allow all of those Members who have an interest to take part.
Many owners of park home sites are fair and upright, especially the deputy leader of my local authority in Test valley, who owns a site in Ampfield. Unfortunately, however, others are not.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. There are many good park home owners throughout the country, including in my constituency. Does she agree that they have nothing to fear from a fit and proper person test?
Caroline Nokes
I entirely concur with my hon. Friend: good park home site owners have absolutely nothing to fear from a fit and proper person test. I certainly did not wish to criticise those who treat their residents fairly and with respect; it is the others on whom I wish to focus and about whom something needs to be done.
Last November’s mass lobby of Parliament brought several of my constituents to Westminster and they outlined in detail their prime concern—that they could not sell their homes freely, without the consent of the park owner.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Before she continues with specific details, will she agree that the unscrupulous practice of park owners vetoing sales so that they can, in effect, buy the properties at a knock-down rate and sell them on, while getting a commission of up to 10% on top, ought to be stamped out in any way possible?
Caroline Nokes
That is exactly what I was about to come to—namely, park home owners not being able to sell their homes without the consent of the park owner. In the intervening 12 months there has been progress, not least by the all-party parliamentary group and, earlier this month, when the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) asked the Prime Minister an important question about the actions of unscrupulous park owners. However, I and many of the hon. Members present at the debate today believe that action must be not only robust but swift. Many park home owners are elderly, and they fear that they are running out of time.
I am extremely impressed by the phenomenal work of Sonia McColl, the leader of the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign, who has campaigned tirelessly for the rights of park home owners and worked unceasingly to collect and collate the national statistics on park homes, which the campaign presented to the Prime Minister in October. The statistics are sobering: 63% of residents reported living under unacceptable conditions, with 48% living under the regime of an unscrupulous park owner.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) has already said, that there are a number of good park owners, such as in Great Yarmouth? An important feature of the problem is that the bad park owners give the entire industry a bad reputation, while negatively affecting the good park owners who deserve the credibility that they should have for providing a good environment in which people live.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The good park home site owners are unfairly gaining a poor reputation because of their less scrupulous counterparts, many of whom are reported to be not only dishonest in their dealings with park home owners but aggressive and abusive. It is sad that only a third of residents felt that their park owner was good. That clearly needs to change.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I represent an area containing a significant number of park home owners, with some 300 in one location. They are a very active group, with an active residents association, and have worked with elected representatives to help effect legislative change in Northern Ireland. Is the hon. Lady aware of that and, if not, perhaps the Minister will examine and investigate it to help in today’s study of the subject?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. One of our problems is the lack of a level playing field or of consistency in the different parts of the UK, which can lead to a measure of resentment when some residents see other parts of the UK treated differently from them.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Was my hon. Friend struck at the meeting of the all-party group by the relatively small number of names cropping up all over the country? The thickest file in my constituency filing cabinet is that for Beechdown Park, with its unresolved problems of water leaks and water meters. An owner has not only failed to deal with the leaks but collected money by holding people to ransom—holding up the sale of their properties unless they hand over money. We discovered that he has not passed any of the money to South West Water and has run up colossal bills. My constituents’ appliances have not been working, thanks to Mr Small, which I am sure is a familiar name.
Caroline Nokes
As I said, I attended the mass rally last November and listened to many of the stories from around the country, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the same small number of names occur time and again at various locations—always, sadly, involving the same story and modus operandi.
Time is pressing and the issue is not new, although I am new to it. Media reports can be found going back 20 or 30 years, commenting on the difficulties of park home residents when selling their properties or gaining reasonable access to services without being charged over the odds for them. The single biggest issue, however, is the blocking of sales by site owners. If park owners refuse to approve a sale, the home owner is left in an almost impossible position. There are reports of owners of properties worth £100,000 having to sell to the park owner for as little as £5,000 as all other sales have been blocked. The home owner currently has recourse to a residential property tribunal but that not only costs the owner about £150 but has limited powers of enforcement and places no binding conditions on the park owner. The situation is being addressed by the Government, and I am eager to hear what assurance the Minister can give that it is subject to a rigorous timetable.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I am interested to hear what the timetable is from the Minister. The problem has been going on for a number of years, as my hon. Friend said, and has been raised a great deal since the 2010 election. We have waited some time now to hear what the Government are proposing for a licensing regime. We understand the Government’s reluctance to legislate on everything, but it is unacceptable that vulnerable residents, often in park homes, are left less protected than people in registered social landlord accommodation or in other social housing. Does she agree?
Caroline Nokes
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. It is not right that park home residents are left more vulnerable and exposed than those in many other types of property tenure. It is important not to forget that park homes can provide an important element of reasonably priced accommodation—I will not refer to affordable housing, using the technical term that we all understand from various connections with our local authorities, but to less expensive housing. Such housing is almost inevitably a choice for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including the elderly, those who want to downsize, and those who find housing in other parts of our constituencies too expensive.
A further injustice facing park home owners is that of landlords imposing administrative charges for the supply of services such as water and sewerage. Those charges should be reasonable and not out of the ordinary for residents, but many find they are charged fees that are well over the odds, in addition to site owners taking advantage of a monopoly in supplying canisters of liquefied petroleum gas for heating and cooking. Some residents were subjected to dreadful intimidation and harassment when they challenged the prices, and had no choice but to pay up to heat their homes.
I have heard many horror stories of unscrupulous park owners overcharging for basic services. Some major LPG providers do very good deals with park owners and provide the canisters at a significantly cheaper cost than for those living in bricks and mortar houses. However, dishonest landlords often use that loophole to charge park home residents exorbitant sums to heat their homes. Residents are at liberty to buy gas canisters elsewhere without the risk of being overcharged, but the recurring theme is that many of them are elderly and more vulnerable, so they are less able to travel and to haul the heavy canisters into their car, if they have one, let alone to offload them at the other end and to install them safely.
One of my constituents, who sadly has specifically asked not to be named, contacted me to explain that he is fully reliant on purchasing gas canisters from his landlord at a significant mark-up. He thinks his lack of mobility and his vulnerability are being exploited so that the site owner can make a profit. Needless to say, he feels cheated, but helpless to do anything about it.
Consumer law provides protection for park home residents, and I encourage them to refer such incidents to Consumer Direct, which will invariably take them up with trading standards officers on their behalf, and ensure that they are reported. However, yet again, vulnerable and elderly residents need to know that they can go to Consumer Direct and have the case taken up on their behalf.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is making the case exceedingly well. The mainly elderly, vulnerable residents are often terrified of reporting some of the incidents that happen. More and more evidence, beyond anecdotal, is emerging, but I suggest that it is still the tip of the iceberg. Consumer Focus is doing a survey, and I believe that it will provide the Government with the ammunition to introduce strong legislation as soon as possible. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to take back that message today? We must have not only proposals but time for legislation.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and she is right. We must have legislation, and we must have it soon. During a conversation with Consumer Direct earlier today, it told me that it is making progress in taking on cases. As my hon. Friend said, the problem is not just anecdotal because there is now evidence. It is crucial that we have time to legislate so that these poor, vulnerable residents receive the action and outcome that they have sought for so many years.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Park home residents are also dealt a harsh hand by park owners in their electricity supply. An electricity supply in my constituency breaches the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002, but the problem is that compliance rests with the Department for Energy and Climate Change, whereas the safety issues rest with the health and safety boards. A further complication in the Welsh context is that other aspects of park homes legislation are devolved to the Welsh Assembly, making it difficult for residents to know who to go to with their complaints.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is complexity in knowing who residents should go to with their complaints. There is no consistency throughout the United Kingdom, and that is what people are calling for.
My constituent, Tim Deacon, like many other park home residents, has been party to establishing a park home residents association. Such groups must meet several requirements to qualify as a residents association, the last of which is to obtain the park owner’s acknowledgement. Even when park home residents have completed all the required steps, park owners may refuse to acknowledge a residents association and thereby deprive the residents of the rights that becoming an association provides. A last resort is recourse to the county court, but many residents are scared or do not have the will, the energy or the know-how to do that.
In an era of localism, when the Government are seeking to disseminate power downwards, I hope that they will look favourably on the growth of residents associations on park home sites. Such associations can seek to resolve issues locally without having to turn to the courts. However, the situation at the moment leaves too much power in park owners’ hands, limiting accountability and the community’s ability to exert sufficient pressure on their landlord.
Statistics published by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign show that the majority of park home owners are in their 70s or older. It is clear that unscrupulous park owners are taking advantage of elderly and vulnerable people, many of whom in my constituency live on their own. I thought it would be interesting to see exactly how many of the 200-plus park homes in my constituency are occupied by single people, and it transpires that it is the vast majority of them. The electoral roll shows that 250 residents in 212 park homes are registered to vote. That clearly shows that those people are mainly not living as couples or families. Sadly, in many cases, they are living alone, and my argument is that that increases their vulnerability, and susceptibility to feeling intimidated by unscrupulous park owners. It is vital that the Government establish robust measures to protect residents because current legislation is clearly failing them.
I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on how his Department is addressing the problem of sale blocking—a prime concern of park home residents in my constituency—and preventing unscrupulous park owners from wielding disproportionate power over this part of the property market. That would be unacceptable in an ordinary residential community. I would welcome steps being taken urgently to prevent overcharging for basic services such as electricity and water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) made a valid point about different parts of the electricity market having responsibility for safety, and it is truly terrifying that some park home residents may be receiving an electricity supply that is less safe than we would want. It is important for the establishment of residents associations to be made as simple as possible, and to ensure that they receive proper recognition. I welcome the Department’s consultation on this important issue, and hope that the timetable for action is suitably short. As I have said, many park home residents are elderly and feel that they have been waiting far too long.
I fully acknowledge that there are many honest and excellent park owners, and I emphasise that, as my hon. Friend said, those who are not acting responsibly are giving the others a bad name. It is wrong that all should be tarred with the same brush. But some people live in parks where that is not the situation and where an unscrupulous landlord seeks to exploit the vulnerability of park home residents, to take a percentage of the proceeds of any sale, or to block a sale. Those people deserve greater rights, and a future free from exploitation and abuse from dishonest landlords. I hope that the Minister will outline at least a partial timetable to assure us that any proposed legislation will be forthcoming as soon as possible, and that he will tell us what action the Government are taking. I know that they are taking action, but it is important to understand it clearly so that we can give our constituents some reassurance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Stunell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on bringing this important subject to the attention of the House this afternoon, and I commend the many Members who have contributed to the debate. I hope that it is not out of place if I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has played an active part in the all-party group and has met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government to talk about these matters.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North that a park home is an affordable choice for many people. She described it as less expensive housing, which is how estate agents describe it. It is an economical and very successful choice for many people, and there are 85,000 such households in England. Fortunately, only a minority of households and site owners give rise to the anxieties that we have heard about today. Many sites are properly managed and maintained, and decent, honest and professional site owners deliver a good service for people on their sites. Unfortunately, the good work is masked by the unacceptable conduct of others. If one reads the debates held in this House, one would get the impression that this form of tenure and these sites are collectively completely unacceptable. I do not think that it is right for us to leave that impression unchallenged.
Rogue site owners certainly cause misery to communities by not maintaining their sites properly. We have heard reports about the bullying of residents and unreasonable and sometimes unlawful interference when residents try to exercise their statutory rights, and we have heard about problems when residents want to sell their homes. The park homes sector needs to be cleaned up. There is no place for such behaviour. It is not right for the sector or the residents, and it is certainly not right for a minority of site owners to exploit the situation that they find themselves in. The Government share the concerns that have been reflected in previous debates and in the work of the all-party group.
Sale blocking, to which several Members have referred, leads to the unjust enrichment of site owners. That is not an acceptable practice, and the Government are committed to eradicating it. We propose to introduce sanctions for those who continue, without good reason, to try to prevent residents from selling their homes in the open market to people who meet the appropriate rules. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government proposes to consult on a range of measures that will prevent such practice. We are also committed to improving residents’ rights more generally and to closing loopholes in the legislation that allow unscrupulous site owners to exploit residents or deny them their rights.
We are also determined that local authorities should be adequately resourced and have appropriate powers to allow them to protect the health and safety of residents through robust and enforceable site licensing.
Steve Brine
While the Minister is on his list of things that he is determined to make happen, may I make a plea that he works with his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change? Now that we have established that the green deal is applicable to park home owners, will he work with his colleagues in DECC to make sure that park home owners—and indeed many other home owners—many of whom are trapped in fuel poverty, are aware of the green deal and are in a position to take advantage of it? It could revolutionise their fuel poverty.
Andrew Stunell
I will certainly undertake to write to my hon. Friend and other Members when I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleagues in DECC. Members will be aware that the Energy Act 2011 has now passed into law and the green deal is due to start next autumn. Some of the necessary statutory instruments to support that are currently under consideration. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government will be publishing the consultation early in the new year. I hope that it will provide a timetable and framework for the debate. Following that, we will bring forward the necessary legislative measures at the earliest opportunity.
On the calls for a fit and proper test for site owners, the Government are not convinced that the protection of park home residents requires a complex and costly national licensing system. We have to strike a careful balance that protects the vulnerable and targets the worst in the most effective way. That is what our consultation seeks to achieve, and I look forward to Members’ responses when that consultation is published.
We have already begun the process of enabling residents to enforce their rights and to challenge unreasonable behaviour through the residential property tribunal. Since it started dealing with park home issues in May, it has received 31 applications up to the end of October and it has determined 13 of them. Not everyone will be satisfied with the outcomes of those cases, because in judicial proceedings there will always be a winner and a loser. However, the number of applications shows that residents have been empowered to challenge unreasonableness on the part of site owners, something that few were prepared to do previously through the regular courts. I am certainly not suggesting that the residential property tribunal is the solution to all the disputes, but it is a first positive step, and, I hope, an earnest of our good intentions.
Several Members have raised the issue of service charges for gas, electricity, water and sewerage. It is important to put on the record that existing rules already strongly limit the powers of site owners to impose unreasonable charges. They are not allowed to charge an illegal rate of VAT or to control the service supply. I want to make it clear that if site owners provide services, they will be entitled to recover the cost from residents under the agreement. Sometimes that cost will be recoverable only through the pitch fee. In that case, any charges will be limited to the retail prices index at the next rent review, regardless of the actual charges that the site owner has incurred. For that reason, pitch agreements will often contain a provision permitting the site owner to levy a separate charge for the provision of services. It is important for Members to be aware that the charges are governed by orders made by Ofwat and Ofgem respectively. Under the rules, a site owner cannot charge residents more than the cost he incurs in purchasing water, electricity or gas from the supplier.
In some cases, the site owner can charge a reasonable administration charge. How that recharge is calculated and apportioned between the homes has to be fair and transparent, and residents are entitled to see the bills on which the recharge is based. It is also important to be aware that the site owner can recharge only for the supply to the home and the pitch and cannot include any amount relating to his own supply—for instance, for street lighting or heating of offices or communal buildings. VAT is payable by the home owner at the 5% domestic rate for electricity and gas, not the 20% business rate, even if the supply to the site owner is commercially rated. Water, of course, is zero-rated.
If a resident believes that they have been overcharged for the resale of the services, they can recover the charges in the small claims court. Administration charges on top of the actual cost of energy are also strictly limited. In the case of water, administration charges cannot exceed 1.5p per day for non-metered supplies and 2.5p per day for a metered supply. That effectively means that £5 or £10 per year is the maximum administration charge. I hope that all those measures give some comfort to Members that home owners have some protection. Our next step following the consultation will be to bring forward, when parliamentary time allows, the legislative measures needed to tackle the abuses that have been so eloquently set out today.
HIV
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I am grateful to have secured this debate during the week in which world AIDS day is marked. The HIV virus was discovered 30 years ago, since when it has claimed the lives of more than 30 million people throughout the world, including 20,000 in the UK. Over the past 20 years, we have seen remarkable progress in the medication available to people living with HIV, including today’s welcome approval of a drug that will provide triple antiretroviral therapy in a single tablet taken once a day. That does not, however, diminish the fact that there is still no vaccine or cure for HIV, and more efforts must be made to prevent the transmission of the virus.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor as chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS, the late David Cairns. One year ago in this Chamber, he spoke on this topic with eloquence and passion, and he consistently spoke out against the stigma and discrimination faced by people living with HIV both in the UK and overseas. I am glad that his work continues in the all-party group and through the David Cairns Foundation set up in his name, which was launched last week.
The House of Lords Committee on HIV and AIDS, led by the vice-chair of the all-party group and former Health Minister, Lord Fowler, recently published a report on HIV in the UK. Lord Fowler has done much to champion the cause over his long and distinguished career, and I believe that many owe their lives to the work he carried out as HIV began to take hold in the United Kingdom. The needle exchange programme that he introduced is a good example of that work, and it changed the course of the epidemic, particularly in Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland. In September this year, the Committee concluded that the Government’s current policies on tackling HIV in the UK are “woefully inadequate.” I will focus on some of the report’s recommendations, and I look forward to the Minister setting out the Government’s response to that report.
I will start with some startling headline figures. Some 30 years after the virus was discovered, almost 100,000 people in the UK live with HIV. Newly diagnosed cases of HIV among young people have risen by 48% over the past decade, and it is estimated that about a quarter of those living with HIV in the UK do not know that they have the virus. Half of all cases of HIV in the UK are diagnosed late, meaning a greater cost to public health and the public purse. HIV is spreading for many reasons, but principally because of high levels of undiagnosed HIV, too few people with HIV receiving stable treatment, persistent risk-taking behaviour, and a lack of HIV awareness. That is set against a dangerous backdrop of inconsistent sex and relationships education in our schools and beyond.
Early diagnosis of HIV for one person can obviously translate into prevention of the disease for their future sexual partners. People diagnosed with HIV are far less likely to pass the virus to others, as they can take steps to prevent transmission such as using a condom. Once diagnosed, people can receive HIV treatment that dramatically reduces levels of the virus in the body, so that the risk of transmission can be reduced to almost zero. This year I was surprised by the results of a remarkable clinical trial in South Africa that proved that putting people on medication for HIV can reduce the risk of transmission by an enormous 96%. That has extraordinary ramifications for efforts to tackle the HIV epidemic around the world and makes the need for the early diagnosis of HIV all the more pressing.
It is estimated that 51% of all people with HIV in the UK have undetectable levels of the virus. That is great news, although the UK should aim to increase that percentage to at least 65% over the next four years.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree with the recent remarks made by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who said that an “AIDS-free generation” should be a policy priority for all Governments, including that of the UK?
Pamela Nash
I completely agree with the Secretary of State’s remarks. I raised the issue during Deputy Prime Minister’s questions last week. I hope that the coalition will take that aim on board and that it will be raised by the Prime Minister. The all-party group on HIV and AIDS is a member of the “Halve It” coalition that campaigns for levels of late-diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV to be halved in five years through more testing. That will help to stop the spread of HIV, improve health outcomes for those living with the virus, and in the long term save the Government money.
Patients and doctors have a large role to play. A study of people of sub-Saharan African origin in the UK who were diagnosed late with HIV found that three quarters had visited a doctor in the year preceding their diagnosis. Doctors and patients must be more aware of the primary infection symptoms of HIV. Incentivising HIV testing, particularly in areas with a high prevalence of HIV, is vital to ensure that people are diagnosed in time. One powerful incentive would be to ensure the inclusion of the late HIV diagnosis indicator in the Government’s revised public health outcomes framework. We have heard several times that a decision on that will be made later in the year. Will the Minister assure hon. Members that that indicator will be included, or at least say when the Department will reach a final decision?
As I understand it, the Department is investigating the possibility of legalising home-testing kits. I look forward to the outcome of that investigation. It is clear from the House of Lords report that home-testing kits ordered from overseas, usually over the internet, are already in use in the UK. If legalised, that practice could be regulated and allow people to test themselves securely and safely in their own home, again producing savings for public health and the public purse.
How else can we prevent the transmission of the HIV virus? The House of Lords report stated:
“More resources must be provided at national and local levels… The current levels of investment in national HIV prevention programmes are insufficient to provide the level of intervention required.”
Hon. Members may be surprised to learn that the Department of Health currently spends just £2.9 million a year on two national HIV prevention programmes for gay men and black Africans. That compares with an enormous £762 million spent on treatment. Preventing one infection avoids lifetime treatment costs for HIV of between £280,000 and £360,000, but as local service cuts kick in throughout the country, HIV prevention programmes are being reduced.
Under the new NHS structure, local HIV prevention work, campaigns and testing will be commissioned by local authorities, leading—we hope—to additional national campaigns, but I am concerned about the possible fragmentation and subsequent prioritisation of prevention work between HIV treatment that is commissioned nationally by the commissioning board, prevention and testing work commissioned by local authorities, and national campaigns overseen by Public Health England. Within local authorities, HIV prevention work is likely to face strong competition for funding within constrained budgets. A fragmented health care system will not deliver the results that we desperately need, or enable us to make headway against the rising tide of new HIV infections. We do not want a postcode lottery, or for sexual health services to be sidelined because of local sensitivities.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. In my north Wales constituency there is an HIV respite centre, which is extremely well supported by the local community. The problem that the centre has is that many of the people who take advantage of the respite care are coming in from north-west England and are therefore not funded by the local health authority in Wales—health is devolved. A centre that is able to serve people from north-west England therefore finds it very difficult to secure funding, because it is based in Wales, but its patients are from England. Is that the type of postcode lottery problem that the all-party group could deal with?
Pamela Nash
We can certainly campaign on the matter. I will be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber. He makes a very important point: this issue is not just about the NHS and the Health and Social Care Bill in England, but about achieving agreements with the other Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom to ensure nationwide consistency in the treatment and support for people living with HIV.
I shall now discuss public awareness in the UK. Twenty-five years ago, Lord Fowler led huge public health campaigns about the virus. Leaflets were sent to every household in the country and there were very visible television campaigns. However, public awareness of HIV has undoubtedly fallen during the past 10 years. For my generation, it is just not a priority any more. Despite the very high increase in the number of young women contracting HIV, when I speak to my friends about this issue I find they rarely regard themselves as at risk.
Unbelievably, earlier this year, an Ipsos MORI poll found that one in five people do not realise that HIV is transmitted through sex without a condom between a man and a woman, and the same proportion do not know that HIV is passed on through sex without a condom between two men.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is a shame that it is only a half-hour debate, because the last time that we debated the issue, we had an hour and a half, I think, and even that was too brief. The figures that she is giving now are shocking, certainly for my generation, who are getting older now. I remember the HIV debate and campaign that she refers to and how phenomenally successful it was and how aware we all were of the dangers. Something needs to be done so that the younger generation realise the very severe dangers of having sex without protection.
Pamela Nash
The all-party group has consistently campaigned for the Government to put more funding into another national 1980s-style campaign. I hope that today’s debate and the events taking place throughout the week will get the message across to the Government that it is necessary to have that style of campaign again.
An increasing proportion of adults—about 10% at the moment—incorrectly believe that HIV can be transmitted through impossible routes, such as kissing and spitting. That is not helped by scaremongering media reporting. There was recently a report in Edinburgh about a couple who, when being arrested by the police, had bitten a police officer. Both members of the couple were HIV-positive, and that was the primary headline in the Scottish media, much to my disappointment. Misinformation fuels stigma and discrimination, which are still a daily reality for many people living with HIV.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The hon. Lady has rightly referred to the importance of people being tested, but she has also referred to stigma. Does she agree that unless we overcome the stigma surrounding simply having been tested for HIV and for AIDS and not having the disease—the stigma that still exists in society about going for those tests—that will decrease the number of people who come forward to submit themselves for testing and take care of their health as they should?
Pamela Nash
Yes, that is a crucial point. I hope that any future public campaign would incorporate looking at the stigma about the virus. Unfortunately, in the meantime, it persists. That is why I would also push for the home testing kits to become available, but that is not the ultimate solution.
In a recent study in east London, one in three people living with HIV said that they had been victims of discrimination, but most alarmingly the study showed that half of all that discrimination was in the health care system. The Department of Health must take a lead on tackling stigma and develop training resources for its staff that are aimed at stopping such discrimination. Those resources must be used by all current and new NHS and professional bodies.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there are 16 minutes of this interesting debate left. Members who make interventions should do so briefly.
Pamela Nash
Since I took on the role of chair of the all-party group, I have been extremely surprised by the high levels of inaccurate and sensationalist reporting in the UK’s press on HIV. That reflects a wider lack of public awareness.
The lack of basic information fuels prejudice and leads to the exploitation of people, as was tragically illustrated in recent weeks by the frightening cases of HIV-positive patients being told by evangelical pastors that they could be cured of HIV through the power of prayer alone and that they should stop taking their antiretroviral drugs. The BBC has reported at least three deaths resulting in London, which I am sure the Minister will agree is a grave tragedy on her own doorstep. I am aware that the Department already funds work through its partners to raise awareness among religious communities, but in light of the shocking revelations and the relatively small budget that is allocated to HIV prevention in the UK, does the Minister think that that is enough? Is the Department planning to do more to tackle that issue?
The Government must take a lead in acting to improve the understanding of HIV. It is vital that all young people learn about HIV in school, and HIV must be included in local and national sexual health promotion campaigns and information. Such measures will help not only to tackle HIV stigma, but to enable people to protect themselves and others to improve public health.
HIV treatment services in the UK are generally of a high calibre, but access to other elements of care, such as primary care services, social care and psychological support, can vary widely. Unfortunately, time and time again, individuals living with HIV have contacted the all-party group to tell us that the social impacts of HIV on their lives are much greater than the health impacts. Generic services are often ill-prepared to meet the specific needs of people living with HIV. Individuals can be apprehensive about accessing services because of concerns about confidentiality or lack of expertise. Numerous clinical guidelines relate to care and support for people with HIV, but there is no coherent and authoritative guidance that integrates clinical, social and psychological care and covers the different stages and eventualities of the condition. Integrated guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence or a national care pathway would help to make the responsibilities of different bodies and professionals clearer and make service provision more consistent and cost-effective.
The House of Lords’ report recommended that NICE develop treatment and care standards for HIV patients, and the Government’s response acknowledged that they should consider the value that NICE could add in developing standards for HIV. The Government also cited the British HIV Association’s clinical guidelines, but the guidelines do not address the need to co-ordinate specialist HIV services with other services. We in the all-party group urge the Government to act on the Lords’ Committee’s recommendations.
People with HIV live with a fluctuating, long-term condition. However, like many other people with long-term conditions, with the right support, people with HIV can play a full and productive part in society. Social care services are being cut across many local authorities and are often limited to the most severely disabled people. It is not acceptable to limit social care only to the most acute cases. Social care has a vital preventive function, particularly in treating fluctuating conditions such as HIV. Social care can also play a crucial role in dealing with the new phenomenon of the increasing number of older people who are living with HIV.
It is clear that the Government understand the value of HIV social care. That is shown by the inclusion of a specific funding line for HIV/AIDS support in the formula grant. However, local authorities are no longer required to report on the spending of that grant to the Department of Health and we have heard of several cases—for example, in Hertfordshire and Leicestershire—where money for HIV/AIDS support has been siphoned off into other areas of spending. Once that expertise in HIV/AIDS support has been lost, it will be difficult to recover. The Government must ensure that the performance of HIV social care is effectively and consistently measured, and that the needs of people living with HIV are reflected in the social care outcomes framework. It is also clear that NICE must prioritise a social care quality standard for HIV.
To conclude, I am proud that the UK has nobly led the international community during the last 30 years in the response to AIDS, advocating universal access to HIV treatment throughout the world for all those who need it. It is my great hope that that leadership role will continue to be performed by the current Government, particularly at a time when we have such an incredible opportunity to improve the quality of life for those living with HIV, to make a dramatic impact on the number of new infections and to stamp out this epidemic for good.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Thank you very much, Mrs Main, for calling me to respond to the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time.
I want to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) on securing today’s debate. She rightly started her remarks by referring to the issue of stigma, and it has been raised by other speakers. I also want to pay tribute to the significant contribution that has been made to fighting HIV/AIDS by my noble Friend Lord Fowler. Political leadership is not often spoken of these days, but it was precisely that leadership from Lord Fowler that made the progress in the UK against HIV/AIDS so remarkable. However, the issue of HIV has been dogged over the years by stigma, and it is disappointing for people as old as me to realise that stigma is still alive and well in our communities and even in some aspects of the delivery of services.
HIV remains a serious global issue that must always be at the top of our priorities, particularly now, of course, as we approach world AIDS day in a couple of days’ time. I also congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment this year as chair of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS. I know the work of the group well. It deservedly has an excellent reputation within Parliament and it tirelessly works to raise awareness of HIV, both globally and within the UK. As is the case with many of the things that she mentioned, that work needs to continue.
World AIDS day provides an excellent opportunity to reflect on the progress that has been made and on the continuing challenges that we face. There is much to celebrate. Globally, new HIV infections have fallen by 21% since 1997 and new infections have stabilised in many regions, including sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and south and south-east Asia. Nearly 7 million people are on anti-retroviral treatments, which is an increase of more than tenfold in the past five years. However, nearly 8 million people still need treatment and are not receiving it. I have responsibility in the UK for global health matters, and I have taken the opportunity to speak to the South African Health Minister.
Thanks to effective treatment, in developed countries such as the UK people who are diagnosed early with HIV can expect to live to a near normal life expectancy. As the Health Protection Agency says in its annual report, which was published today, in 2010 87% of people who were diagnosed with HIV were accessing treatment services within a month of being diagnosed and 85% were reporting an undetectable viral load within 12 months of starting treatment. That is excellent; it is not the end of the story, but it is a good start. However, the challenges remain at home and overseas. There are 34 million people living with HIV globally. The title of the recent report by the House of Lords Select Committee on HIV and AIDS in the UK says it all, really—there is still “no vaccine, no cure”. That report comes many years after Lord Fowler led the national response to HIV and AIDS in the UK, and I remember that time well.
In October, we published the Government’s response to the report from the House of Lords Select Committee, and we made it clear that we agree with many of the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee’s report will be critical in helping to inform the Department of Health’s sexual health policy framework, which we will publish next year. It will be a vital source of information and current evidence.
Hon. Members and hon. Friends have rightly mentioned the challenges presented by late and undiagnosed HIV. In the UK, there are an estimated 91,500 people living with HIV, of whom around 25% are undiagnosed, which means that those people cannot benefit from treatment and, of course, they risk transmitting the virus to others. Late diagnosis is the most significant cause of HIV-related death in the UK and we cannot say that often enough. The 25% of people with HIV who are undiagnosed are more likely to die than the other 75% of people with HIV who have been diagnosed, and we all need to do absolutely everything we can to promote the benefits and the uptake of HIV testing. I will come on to some of the specific issues that the hon. Lady raised in that regard.
The Department of Health is considering the findings of the final report by the HPA, “Time to test for HIV”, in developing the new sexual health policy framework. That HPA report presented the findings of eight pilot projects that were funded by the Department, which assessed the feasibility and acceptability of routinely offering HIV testing in general practices and some hospital settings. It showed that testing was acceptable to most patients, and I am really pleased to see that some of the pilots have led to changes in local practice in high-prevalence areas, which is quite a significant step.
We are also funding the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health to help it to develop ways of getting GPs and primary care staff to offer HIV tests more routinely. Both the Terrence Higgins Trust and the African Health Policy Network actively promote HIV testing as part of the national HIV prevention programmes. Also, we have asked the UK National Screening Committee to provide evidence-based views on increasing routine HIV testing. As the hon. Lady rightly commented, we are reviewing our policy on the ban on HIV home-testing kits and we will ensure that we consult on any proposals to remove the current ban.
We are considering the consultation responses to the public health outcomes framework, which include a proposal for an indicator on late HIV diagnosis, and we will publish that framework very soon. We want to get it right, as it will be an important driver of what happens locally.
I am aware that some primary care trusts are already funding new HIV testing initiatives in both primary and secondary care, in line with guidelines from NICE and the British HIV Association. However, more work is needed to capture data through the HPA’s current HIV monitoring and surveillance programme.
Twenty-five years have passed since the first Government AIDS awareness campaigns in the UK, and who can forget those iconic TV adverts? At that time, we did not really know much about the virus and how it would evolve, and we certainly did not know very much about people’s sexual habits. As I say, I remember that period well and I want to pay particular tribute to the gay community and the terribly responsible attitude that it took to this issue at that time.
As our understanding of the virus has increased, our approach to it has changed. Our national prevention programmes focus on men who have had sex with men and people from sub-Saharan Africa, because they are the groups in the UK who are most at risk of developing HIV; the risks they face are significantly greater than those faced by other groups in the UK. We have invested £2.9 million in programmes of HIV prevention for those communities, delivered by the Terrence Higgins Trust and the African Health Policy Network, but of course that is only a fraction of the sum that is spent. A great deal more money goes in locally.
The programmes by the Terrence Higgins Trust and the African Health Policy Network both use evidence and a range of approaches to support responsible sexual behaviour and to reduce risk-taking behaviour. For example, to promote HIV testing they use social media and the internet, and for African communities they work with faith leaders. It is quite an uphill struggle in some areas to promote awareness, to reduce stigma and to encourage people to come forward.
Finally, it is vital that the public health system is versatile and sufficiently proactive to deal with HIV. Our modernisation of the NHS and the priority that we attach to public health provide an opportunity to reinvigorate HIV prevention and improve outcomes for those with HIV.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we need to bring everything together. What we do not want, although we sometimes have it, is fragmentation of services, not only for services dealing with prevention and diagnosis of HIV but, as she mentioned, for services dealing with the social and psychological impacts of HIV. Health and well-being boards and the joint strategic needs assessment will be critical. For the first time, ring-fenced public health funding is central to the NHS and to public health, and it will allow us to plan spending on prevention. In today’s restrictive financial climate, the fact that we will have a ring-fenced public health budget will be critical.
There is still a great deal of work to do, and everyone, in this House and outside, must work together to keep HIV at the very top of our list of priorities, because only by doing that can we improve the lives of people living with HIV. The hon. Lady is right to mention that young people’s awareness has slipped. Their awareness of the dangers they face and of the part they can play in ensuring that they maintain their sexual health is not as great as it should be. They need the skills to make some very difficult choices.
I finish by congratulating the hon. Lady on securing the debate. I am very keen to work with the all-party group to ensure that we get this right, and that the sexual health strategy reflects all the work that needs to be done to ensure that we decrease the level of late diagnosis of HIV, raise awareness and reduce stigma.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Employer Asset-backed Pension Contributions
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
The Government announced at Budget 2011 that they would consult on changing the tax rules in relation to employer asset-backed contributions to registered pension schemes. These contributions involve an employer making a series of payments guaranteed with security over the assets from which the payments derive. The joint HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and HM Treasury consultation took place between May and August, and sought views on options to ensure that excessive tax relief would not arise from the way in which some of these pension contributions were structured.
Following the consultation, the Government have today published legislation that will be introduced in the Finance Bill 2012 to change the tax rules for giving relief to employers in relation to asset-backed pension contribution arrangements.
The Government are keen to continue to allow the use of asset-backed contributions, given the flexibility they can offer to employers and their pension schemes in managing pension deficits, while protecting the Exchequer from tax risks.
The changes announced will therefore ensure that the amount of tax relief received by an employer making these contributions accurately reflects, but does not exceed, the amount of payments received by the pension scheme. This means that employers will not gain unintended, excessive tax relief.
Because of a significant risk to tax revenue, this legislation will have effect from 29 November 2011.
The Government’s response to the consultation has been published alongside the legislation and tax information and impact note. These are available from the Budget 2011 pages of the HMRC website and the Finance Bill 2012 pages of the HM Treasury website.
ECOFIN
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 30 November 2011. The following items are on the agenda:
Annual Growth Survey
The Commission will present the Annual Growth Survey (published 23 November) for information. The Government support the document's strong positive messages on both fiscal consolidation and the need for ambitious structural reforms. However, the Government recall that member states and the EU have a shared responsibility for implementing structural reforms in support of growth. The Government also consider that tax policy is a matter for individual member states to decide, and does not consider that tax co-ordination in the EU is a priority for stimulating growth.
Second economic governance package
The Commission is expected to present three elements of a new package: a proposal for a regulation on enhanced surveillance of euro area member states that are either experiencing severe financial disturbance or requesting financial assistance; a further proposal for a regulation for enhanced budgetary co-ordination and surveillance of euro area member states, especially those that are already the subject of action under the excessive deficit procedure set out in the treaty; and a green paper setting out three options for the issuance of “stability” bonds in the euro area, which is intended to launch a public consultation on this subject. The Government are considering the proposals and options.
Economic and financial impact of EU legislation
The Council will discuss draft conclusions on the presidency’s proposal that ECOFIN should assess the impact of new EU legislation on growth and jobs. The Government support this objective.
Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the 2010 EU Budget
The European Court of Auditors will present its report. It will be examined early in 2012, in advance of an ECOFIN vote on a recommendation for the European Parliament to grant discharge of the EU’s accounts for 2010. The Government consider that the failure to achieve a positive statement of assurance on the majority of payments from the EU budget year after year is unacceptable, and undermines confidence in the implementation of EU expenditure.
EU Statistics
Ministers will discuss draft conclusions on proposals to strengthen statistical governance. The Government support the general principles underlying these proposals; however, they will seek to work with other member states to ensure that national specificities are properly taken into account as the legislation passes through Council.
Council will also seek agreement on nominations to the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board.
Code of Conduct (business taxation)
ECOFIN will adopt conclusions on the work of the code of conduct group over the last six months. The code of conduct is an EU-level political agreement between member states to work co-operatively to identify and eliminate harmful business tax measures in the EU and prevent the introduction of new ones. The code group’s report is a standing ECOFIN agenda item at the end of each presidency.
Economic situation, including banking package
Ministers will discuss the economic situation. In particular, they will focus on the appropriateness of an EU-level co-ordinated approach to bank funding guarantees, as agreed at the European Council on 26 October. The European Commission currently sets a range of minimum criteria and guarantee fees under the state aid framework and the Commission is expected to present options for further co-ordination of bank funding guarantees provided by national Governments.
The Government believe decisive action is needed to bring stability to the markets and provide the basis for long-term debt sustainability. The Government support the principle of co-ordinated bank funding guarantee schemes, conditional on maintaining national control over the provision of these guarantees. However, the Government would not support any proposals that expose the UK to the liabilities of banks elsewhere in the EU.
Nomination procedure for the EIB President
Ministers will discuss the nomination procedure for the EIB president. Philippe Maystadt, the current EIB president, was appointed in January 2000. It is permissible for him to be re-appointed when his current term ends in December 2011. Other candidates are standing.
Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
I am delighted to make this statement together with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the importance of rail freight and the need for a network of strategic rail freight interchanges to support growth and create employment.
The UK logistics industry makes a significant contribution to the national economy, generating around £110 billion annually and employing more than 2 million people. The rail network transports over 100 million tonnes of goods per year. It is of strategic importance—rail freight delivers over a quarter of the containerised food, clothes and white goods, and delivers nearly all the coal for the nation’s electricity generation. Rail freight has expanded by 60% over the last decade, and is expected to grow by a further 30% up to 2019.
Over recent years, rail freight has started to play an increasingly significant role in logistics and has become an important driver of economic growth. Given the right conditions, the Government believe that rail freight could make an even stronger contribution to the country’s economic recovery.
The Government support the transfer of freight from road to rail, where it is practical and economic to do so and fully recognise that rail freight can generate valuable benefits for society where it provides an alternative to road haulage. Rail can deliver goods quickly, efficiently and reliably and help reduce both congestion on our roads and levels of carbon emissions. To secure this longer-term growth and modal shift, rail needs to be able to compete effectively with the use of road by heavy goods vehicles, and it is significant that in recent years our major retailers have been keen to choose rail over road for the long distance carriage of goods to market.
However, this expansion in rail freight will be very difficult to deliver unless the industry is able to develop modern distribution centres linked into both the rail and trunk road system—“Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges”(SRFI)—in appropriate locations to serve our major conurbations. To date, this has proved extremely problematical, especially in the south-east where growing demand and increasing congestion on the road network are creating serious logistical challenges.
The Government believe that an expanded network of SRFIs, complemented by other freight interchanges and terminals, is needed to support longer-term development of efficient rail freight distribution logistics. While SRFIs operate to serve regional and cross-regional catchment areas, they are also key components in national and international networks. These networks are of strategic importance in facilitating links between UK regions and the European Union.
The Government are therefore taking measures to unblock the development of strategic rail freight interchanges and unlock the necessary private sector investment in such facilities. Pending the publication of the Department for Transport’s consultation document on the national networks national policy statement (NPS), a statement of current strategic rail freight interchange policy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on the Department’s website. It may be used by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) in its decision making on the development consent applications for SRFI infrastructure that fall within the definition of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) as defined in the Planning Act 2008.
In parallel, the Department has asked Network Rail to provide industry support to the development of a network of SRFIs, working collaboratively with the wider logistics industry to: speed up the delivery of SRFI sites to meet business demand; assist with funding mechanisms (potentially including Network Rail funding); and establish appropriate delivery vehicles for rail infrastructure elements of such proposals.
House of Lords
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arab Spring
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the implications of the Arab spring for religious minorities in the countries concerned.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, it is hard to generalise, given the differing circumstances in each country, but, that said, religious minorities have clearly suffered grievous oppression, often predating the so-called Arab spring, in Egypt, Iran, Iraq and, indeed, elsewhere. Egypt, in particular, has witnessed an upsurge in vicious sectarian violence and we continue to urge the Egyptian authorities to establish conditions in which all discrimination on the basis of religion is prevented. We deplore all discrimination against religious minorities and all constraints on their freedom to practise their faiths.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in these early days of the so-called Arab spring, the impact on religious minorities has so far been favourable for the Jewish and Christian communities in Tunisia, but, as he has already indicated, cause for deep concern in Egypt? Although the Baha’i community has so far been spared violence there, attacks against Coptic Christians have numbered more than 44 since 25 January, and a recent report by Amnesty International claims that discrimination and attacks against the Copts have actually increased since the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces took power. In addition to encouraging the Egyptian leadership to ensure religious freedom for all its religious minorities, will the Government call to account those who are perpetrating the violence?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right in pointing to the violence in Egypt, a matter that must concern all those who believe in freedom of religious worship. We continue to urge the Egyptian authorities on the prime importance of pluralist and non-sectarian policies. The Egyptians are moving towards bringing in a new unified law that will be even-handed between Copts and Muslims, or so we understand. They are also talking about an anti-discrimination law. Those who can be established as being guilty of some of these nastier events should certainly be brought before the courts, but that is a matter for the Egyptian legal authorities.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
How does the Minister respond to critics such as Ann Widdecombe, who say that there are double standards on the part of the Prime Minister in that, quite properly, we withdraw aid from Uganda because it discriminates against homosexuals but do not use our aid policy against countries that manifestly discriminate against Christians and other religious minorities?
Lord Howell of Guildford
It is not quite correct that the withdrawal of aid is geared to particular attitudes on policies in the way that the noble Lord describes. Support for Governments through aid is brought into question where they are upholding policies that we clearly regard as highly undesirable and objectionable. It does not mean to say that aid does not continue through non-governmental agencies and, as directly as we can organise it, to good development causes and projects—indeed, even in support of private sector operations. These things can be done without having to uphold the views of Governments. The noble Lord says that that is double standards, but in the real world one has to talk about selectivity and to make selections and choices. Some Governments are clearly ones whom we want to support; some are ones whom we would have great reluctance to do anything to enhance or entrench.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his insistence on the importance of constitutional guarantees and anti-discrimination measures, but does he recognise the importance—I think he has begun to go there—of remedying some of the institutional shortcomings that limit human development and social cohesion? I am aware of the high levels of economic disfranchisement among some of the religious minorities throughout the Middle East that risk inflaming and adding to the fuel of a volatile social mix in some of the poorest areas, particularly where religious communities live in close proximity to one another. How are such considerations informing government policy towards the region?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The right reverend Prelate is correct that a whole nexus of undesirable social customs and pressures creates the bad conditions in which this kind of discrimination can occur. Our policies, such as our Arab partnership policy, contain specific modules or elements that are designed, for instance, to support the rights and position of women, to promote family law in every possible way and to challenge some of the highly coercive and illiberal practices of the past. There are difficulties, as the right reverend Prelate will appreciate, but we must not go around intruding heavily on the practices of other countries. Why should we do that? However, we must certainly support and encourage the kinds of practices that bring equality and decent values to countries where, in the past, darker customs have prevailed.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, have the Government had any consultations with these Middle East Governments about reforming personal status laws so that the 14 million Christians who live in the Middle East might have access to divorce in civil courts if they wish to do so, rather than having to convert to Islam or other religions?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Those issues come into our fairly constant dialogue and exchanges with the countries of the Middle East as they go through reform processes at varying speeds and to varying degrees. That is the content of our exchanges in seeking to support and encourage the peaceful, democratic, liberalised development and opening up of these countries, which is directly in our own interest as a great trading nation as well.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful. Does the Minister agree that there are worrying parallels with the situation in Iraq and Palestine, where large numbers of Christian minorities from the ancient churches have had to flee? Has he seen the figures published by the Egyptian Union of Human Rights Organisations showing that over 100,000 Coptic Christians have left the country since March this year—I declare a non-financial interest as president of the UK Coptic Association—and in particular the quotation from its director that:
“Copts are not emigrating voluntarily, they are coerced into that by threats and intimidation of hard-line Salafists, and the lack of protection they are getting from the Egyptian regime”?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I have seen a range of figures, although whether I have seen the specific reports that the noble Lord refers to, I am not so sure. I am the first to agree that these are large and worrying figures. The noble Lord mentioned Iraq. Although I do not think the Arab spring has operated to the particular detriment of religious minorities there, there have been a number of targeted attacks on minority communities—Christian, Yazidi, Shabak and others. These are worrying matters and we are constantly raising them with the Baghdad Government. As for the Egyptian situation, I have already indicated our extreme concern and our continuing dialogue, and that will certainly continue.
Police: Custody
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheldon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been in police custody during the past 12 months, and how many of them were black or Asian.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the Government hold data only on those taken into police custody at the point of arrest. According to the latest statistics from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, of the nearly 1.4 million people arrested in 2009-10, 8 per cent identified themselves as black and 6 per cent identified themselves as Asian.
Lord Sheldon
The Guardian’s analysis of 1 million court records shows that black offenders are 44 per cent more likely than white offenders to be sent to prison for driving offences and Asian offenders are 41 per cent more likely than white offenders to be sent to prison for drug offences. Why should black and Asian offenders be so much more frequently imprisoned than white offenders?
Lord Henley
My Lords, one has to accept that the figures are not exactly proportionate; neither are the figures cited by the noble Lord. They are not proportionate to the population as a whole. Similarly, they would not be proportionate by age profile, gender or any other measure. Having said that, we are very keen that the criminal justice system should be neutral in these matters as far as possible, and I hope that it is. However, there is scope for others to undertake more in-depth analysis of why that should be. I cannot comment on the figures that the noble Lord has given me but, as I said, arrests are broadly, although not quite, proportionate. They are disproportionate in many other ways, depending on how one looks at them.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, at last week’s excellent Scarman lecture, the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted that there are more than 400 more young black British men in prison than at the Russell group universities. Does the Minister share my concern that, with the vast majority of young black people unemployed, this is an indictment of years of failure to tackle poor education, employment and opportunities for young black men in our society? What action is being taken to address this?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept my noble friend’s point and share her concerns on these matters. On policing, for which the Home Office is responsible, we are committed to delivering a police service that promotes equality, does not discriminate against anyone because of their race and is effective in rooting out and tackling racism. Where there are disproportionate numbers in one group as opposed to another, that invites further research. That is something we should do. However, at this stage I would not want to comment on why there are, as my noble friend puts it, more black people in prison than there are at the Russell group universities.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Would the Minister say that racism of any kind is unacceptable in our society, especially as far as the police are concerned? Would he distance the Government from the racism practised by certain sections of the police today?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not accept that the police act in a racist manner. I do accept that where one group is disproportionately involved in crime it deserves some degree of analysis and is something that we need to look at. However, I totally reject the noble Lord’s complaint about racism in the police force. That allegation has been made in the past. It is something that the police have addressed over the years and something that they have dealt with themselves.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is just as wrong to apprehend or arrest a person because of the colour of his skin as it is to exonerate somebody who is quite clearly guilty for the same reason?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I made clear, I do not believe that the police are guilty of racism. The police should, quite rightly, arrest those they think are committing offences and the criminal justice system should prosecute those people, irrespective of the colour of their skin, their gender or anything else.
Baroness Howells of St Davids
My Lords, since the closure of the CRE, what steps have been taken to assist the police in dealing with the institutional racism that was clearly declared in the Scarman report?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is referring to the Macpherson report, not the Scarman report. Allegations were made about institutional racism at that time. The police have addressed that matter and I do not believe that there is racism within the police service as a whole.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that confidence among ethnic minorities in the even-handedness of the police in keeping people in police custody would be greatly enhanced if we could improve our record of recruiting more black and Asian police officers?
Lord Henley
My Lords, again, that is something that I believe the police are managing to do in the 43 police forces up and down the country so that they better reflect the communities they serve. With the introduction of police commissioners, that, again, will be a matter that police forces will be able to continue to address in years to come.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is particular concern about deaths in police custody among members of black and minority ethnic communities. Often investigations fall to the IPCC to undertake. Can he tell me why, despite months of notice that a new chairman was required, the Government have yet to appoint a new chairman of the IPCC?
Lord Henley
My Lords, again, I note the concerns expressed by the noble Lord. I join him in agreeing that every death in police custody is a tragedy. If he looks at the figures that the IPCC published, he will find that the deaths in custody—sad though every single one of them was—are generally proportionate to the ethnic make-up of the detainees as a whole. As regards the appointment of a new chairman to the IPCC, I hope that we will be able to make an announcement shortly.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, the Minister has frequently referred to the need for more in-depth analysis and more research. However, we have had masses of it. The Runnymede Trust in the 1980s spelt out precisely this issue—the disproportionate amount of sentencing of people of Afro-Caribbean background. When on earth will the authorities take any action?
Lord Henley
My Lords, a great deal of research has been done. The noble Lord refers to research that was done as long ago as the 1980s. We are talking about the figures we have at the moment, which deserve further in-depth analysis. However, I do not think that the mere fact that there are disproportionate numbers being either arrested or charged necessarily amounts to racism. That is wrong. They are disproportionate in a whole host of other ways, whether by age, gender, socio-economic factors or whatever.
EU: Member States’ Budgets
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the proposal by the European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs that the European Commission should have the power to scrutinise member states’ budgets and impose such financial penalties as the Commission deems fit.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Government strongly support the recently agreed economic governance legislation to strengthen the stability and growth pact. This provides for stronger and more responsible economic governance across the European Union. Under the new legislation, a range of financial sanctions can be imposed by the Council within the euro area where member states are deemed not to have taken adequate action. Sanctions are set out under Article 136, which applies to the euro area only.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, the statement by Commissioner Olli Rehn applies not just to the eurozone but to the whole of the EU, including this country. Therefore, will the Minister confirm that today’s Autumn Statement by the Chancellor is nothing more than an aspiration—a wish list? Will he confirm to the House that this will have to be ticked off and agreed by the European Commission before it can take any effect?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, this country has always been party to the stability and growth pact, but as I am sure the noble Lord knows, under Protocol 15 the UK has an opt-out, which means that we have to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits but are not subject to any sanctions such as members of the euro area are. Furthermore, the UK secured particular treatment that ensures—has ensured and will ensure—that Parliament will always be allowed to scrutinise the UK’s budget ahead of the European Commission.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Is it not remarkable that the very same people in all parties who are always criticising the European Union for failing—lamentably, they would say—to ensure that people such as the Greeks, Portuguese, Irish and anybody you would like to mention are not meeting their commitments should now complain when we are tightening up the very scrutiny that they have been demanding? As the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, has said, this is not just the 17 but the 27.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am not going to say who should be complaining about what. All I would say is that the eurozone has got itself into a position where it really needs to get on and strengthen its own governance arrangements. We will do everything to encourage it to do that but we, as the UK, have a particular position that we will also protect to make sure that Parliament is able to scrutinise our budget first.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, given the UK opt-out, is it the case that the final part of the noble Lord’s initial Question is not correct as far as UK is concerned?
Lord Sassoon
No, my Lords. I believe that the whole of my Answer was completely correct.
Lord Sassoon
I beg my noble friend’s pardon. I think that a number of false premises were used to back up that supplementary question.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, if the eurozone decides to strengthen its fiscal rules, which many press upon it as being vital if they are to work, but there is no question of a change in the treaty, what would the Government do, because we clearly would not be involved?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, this is a fast-evolving set of proposals. Indeed, the euro area’s Finance Ministers are meeting later this afternoon. One of the issues on the table is that the Commission and the euro group are exploring the possibility of limited treaty changes, and Mr Van Rompuy is due to present the outcome of that work to the December European Council. When we see any proposals—if there are any—we will consider what we should do about them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, when looking at what is happening in Italy and Greece, is my noble friend not concerned that adding to a fiscal deficit problem a democratic deficit problem could result in considerable difficulties?
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, a few years ago was there not a proposal that the Commission be given a duty of auditing the national accounts of member states? That proposal was turned down at the time by the Council. Is it not the case that if it had not been turned down and had been accepted, we would have had an earlier insight into the problems of Greece, the Greeks would have been unable to falsify their accounts, and the grave problems we all now face might have been significantly reduced?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I very much doubt it. We are looking at the proposals for strengthening governance as they have been put on the table, and that is clearly what needs to be done. We should not rely on the auditors to sort out all our problems.
Lord Newby
My Lords, if the eurozone’s Finance Ministers decide that they want limited treaty changes, will the Minister be prepared to go slightly beyond his earlier answer and confirm that the UK Government will not stand in the way of any treaty changes to bring greater discipline within the eurozone, because it is clearly in our national interest as much as theirs that new rules are put in place?
Lord Sassoon
I am of course prepared to go a bit further in answer to my noble friend’s question. If such treaty changes are put forward, the Government will look to advance the UK’s national interest at that point, as appropriate. Above all, that means protecting and safeguarding our essential economic interests, and we will seek to do that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is it not grotesque that an organisation that has not had its accounts signed off by its own internal auditors for 17 years—there being no external auditor—should be handed these powers, given that if it had been a private company in this country the directors would have been in prison every year for the past 17 years?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I certainly agree that it is very unsatisfactory that for the 17th year in a row the Court of Auditors has not been able to give an unqualified statement of assurance.
Young People: NEET
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to reverse the increase in the number of 16 to 24 year-olds not in education, employment or training announced for the third quarter of this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, we have a coherent strategy to reduce the number of 16 to 24 year-olds not in education, employment or training. This includes measures to increase the participation age and a new youth contract worth nearly £1 billion. The contract will provide more intensive support for all 18 to 24-year-olds, and builds on support that is already available through Jobcentre Plus and the work programme.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that reply, but with a record 1.16 million young people not in education, employment or training, do the Government now acknowledge the folly of scrapping the future jobs fund, axing the educational maintenance allowance and trebling tuition fees at a time when the economy, through their own policies, was already slowing down? Despite the measures being announced today, is it not the truth that a generation of young people has been badly let down by a Government that is so out of touch that it did nothing for 18 months while youth unemployment continued to rise?
Lord Freud
I should like to pick up one aspect of that question, which is the nostalgia displayed for the future jobs fund. When you look at the results of the future jobs fund, you find that, two months after the period ended for a major cohort early on, about half of the people who took part were back on benefit. If you look at what happened under work experience, two months after the first cohort went through, roughly half of the people were off benefit—the same. The difference was that the future jobs fund cost £6,500 whereas the work experience cost £325—20 times cheaper. That is the difference of our activity in looking after youth. We are just as effective, but we are doing it cost-effectively.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I welcome the Government's expansion of apprenticeships, but it is wrong to assume that this on its own will lower unemployment. Currently, most apprenticeships go to young people already in jobs. Only if a job with an apprenticeship is offered to a young person currently on jobseeker’s allowance will unemployment fall. What steps are being taken to develop closer work between DWP and BIS to ensure that apprenticeships indeed go to unemployed young people?
Lord Freud
We are very concerned to have apprenticeships going to the people who need them most. Last week, we announced incentives for employers effectively to take an extra 20,000 people off JSA by giving incentives of £1,500 to do that. We are having a massive increase in apprenticeships. The starts have gone up to about 440,000 this year, which is up 50 per cent on the previous year.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, for many young people in this country, the only experience they have of full-time employment is looking for a job in the first place. When the Government's new unemployment scheme for young people is up and running, how many weeks will it take to place an unemployed youngster in work?
Lord Freud
We have a very elaborate structure to help youngsters back into the workplace. The most important element of that is the work programme, which is our new structural programme to help everyone back into work. Youngsters go into that after either nine months or, if they are regarded as particularly vulnerable, three months. That programme is designed to offer them individual support.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation we are in with young people out of work is far too serious for traditional remedies and that we need some way to acknowledge the structural unemployment? In the past seven years, youth unemployment has been at double the rate of the rest of the unemployment figure. Is it not possible that we need new ways—I mentioned yesterday a Minister solely responsible for youth unemployment, or even a cross-party grouping which could tackle this in a serious way?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are tackling this in a serious way. It is a very complicated issue, but the trick is to understand what has to be done to help youngsters. Only four things help youngsters: educational qualifications, apprenticeships, a job or work experience. We are trying to boost those elements massively in our youth contract.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the Minister will have heard it said this morning that applications from young people to be students at university next year have fallen by 16 per cent. He has just mentioned the importance of qualifications for young people. Can he tell us why he thinks those applications have fallen by 16 per cent?
Lord Freud
My Lords, one effect of increased fees at universities is that youngsters realise the relative attraction of apprenticeships.
Lord Freud
There has been a substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships with, as I said, 442,000 starting in 2010-11. We are putting a lot of money towards supporting them, and this is something that other advanced economies such as Germany have concentrated on. I, for one, welcome the rebalancing of our education and support systems in this country.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, given that I used to employ people, I think that I would feel more comfortable, as I hope the Minister would, about employing a person with a decent apprenticeship which has captured their imagination and given them educational attainments than somebody with a questionable degree from a less good and less vocationally related university, which may well be an inappropriate direction for their talents.
Lord Freud
My Lords, we have a real problem in our education system which we are aiming to correct. One of the most shocking things in the report on vocational qualifications from Professor Wolf was the number of youngsters whom we are failing with regard to vocational qualifications—350,000 16 to 18 year-olds a year. If we can get that sorted out and get those young people into good apprenticeships, we will have done a lot to solve the problem that we are all worried about.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Advertising and Trading) (England) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Garden of Frognal
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10 October be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 22 November.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Evidence base for the destruction, retention and use of fingerprints and DNA profiles
(1) Chapter 1 of Part 1 of this Act shall take effect following the completion of a report on the impact of its provisions by the Secretary of State.
(2) A report commissioned under subsection (1) shall include an evidence-based assessment of the risk of offending following an arrest which did not lead to a conviction.
(3) Evidence assessed under subsection (2) shall cover a period of at least 6 years.
(4) The Secretary of State must make the report, and the Government’s response to any recommendations made in that report, available to the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 7 and 8 standing in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe.
As all noble Lords will be aware, Chapter 1 of the Bill relates to the destruction, retention and use of fingerprints. For me, this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. As we agreed at Second Reading, there is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting people’s freedoms from police or government interference and protecting their freedom not to become victims of interference or violence from criminals or terrorists. These balances should be guided by evidence and by an assessment of risk and not by liberal or libertarian ideology. The changes proposed by the Government go too far in restricting the use of fingerprints and DNA profiles, and will make it harder for the police to solve and prevent serious crimes. It will also make their work more bureaucratic.
Amendment 1 would ensure that Chapter 1 took effect only after an evidence-based study had been completed analysing the risk of offending following an arrest which did not lead to a conviction of at least six years. The Minister may well tell me that such an evidence-based study would take too long. However, if such a study leads to saving lives, I for one strongly suggest that the time will be well spent. Why is this so important? It is important because the evidence base used by the Government to inform their decision to reduce the period of retention of DNA and fingerprint profiles is extremely weak. If we get this wrong, the implications for victims will be huge. There are countless examples of people who were arrested and not convicted but whose DNA retention was critical in catching them and convicting them of rape or murder at a later date. This is particularly important in relation to rape cases.
As the Minister will know, rape cases have not only a notoriously low conviction rate but a notoriously low charge rate. That is because the trauma for the victim is so great and because of problems with evidence. Many perpetrators of serious sexual crimes are not brought to justice for their first offence. In about 70 per cent of cases in which a rape suspect is arrested, there is no charge. According to Home Office papers, in cases where there is no charge, DNA will be kept in only very limited circumstances so that in many cases the DNA will be destroyed even though it might be critical in catching a repeat offender for a nasty and violent sexual offence.
The Minister will know that a considerable number of cases have been solved because of DNA. Kensley Larrier was arrested in 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. The case never reached court, but two years later he raped someone and was found because of a DNA match. Lee and Stephen Ainsby raped and kidnapped a 17 year-old girl in Barnsley. Lee Ainsby’s DNA was found years later in a case review. It had been taken because he had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Under the proposed system the DNA would not have been kept. Without that DNA those two men would still be free and justice for that young girl would not have been done. Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder in Birmingham in February 2005 but released without charge. In July 2005 he raped someone in Stafford and was identified only because the police had his DNA. The senior investigating officer for the case said:
“We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database—he didn’t even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either”.
Case after case would have been much harder for the police to solve under the new rules. The Minister may well cite the S and Marper decision by the ECHR that blanket retention and storage of DNA and fingerprints contravenes Article 8 of ECHR. My Government responded with an extensive evidence-led consultation. However, the ECHR decision also recognised the importance of the retention of DNA in fingerprint profiles for individuals who have been arrested and/or charged but not convicted. It is the state’s primary duty to protect citizens’ fundamental rights to life, liberty and security under Articles 2 and 5. The ECHR objection was based on the blanket and indiscriminate approach to retention. Therefore, the argument is about minimising risk to the public of individuals committing an offence in the future and balancing that risk management against considerations of privacy. Evidence-led risk analysis was done two years ago by the Home Office which concluded that the effective length of the retention of DNA profiles was six years for both those arrested and/or charged for a serious offence, and for a minor offence. Conservatives were so convinced by this evidence that they voted in favour of its conclusions on a six-year retention limit contained in the Crime and Security Act 2010 when the noble Lord and his party were in opposition.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
Was that not part of the wash-up process, and was it not an improvement on the existing regime when it could be kept indefinitely? We were bringing it down to six years.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, as I explained, because we looked at the evidence we did indeed bring it down to six years. If the noble Lord looked at that evidence it would show that six years is the appropriate amount of time for DNA evidence to be kept.
Following the election, based on no new evidence, the Government announced that they would legislate to adopt the protections of the Scottish model. It was based on no evidence but was simply a judgment of the appropriate balance. A review of the Scottish system by Professor Fraser one year after it was introduced assessed the success only of the current system and did not compare whether a longer retention period would be beneficial or whether retention for three years was detrimental to solving serious crimes. The Government persist in seeking to apply the Scottish model in England and Wales when all the evidence and strong police advice from both sides of the border is that Scotland should instead apply the model of England and Wales. Scotland’s rape conviction rate is less than half that of England and Wales. The DNA database in Scotland is far less effective in solving crime than that in England and Wales. In 2009-10 a DNA profile loaded on to the DNA database in England and Wales had an 18 per cent higher chance of finding a match than was the case in Scotland. That is evidence that our system in England and Wales is far preferable and much more efficient and effective than the system in Scotland.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. She mentioned 23,000 offences. Do they include minor offences?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I would like to be able to answer the noble Lord but I regret that I cannot. I will come back to him in writing.
The statistics and the lack of evidence for the Government’s proposals mean that Amendment 1 is essential.
I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Rosser. Persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying serious offence should have their DNA and fingerprints stored for six years. This replicates the provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed by Parliament but never brought into force. The six-year limit is based on Home Office analysis and reflects a proportionate response to the ECHR decision. As I mentioned earlier, the three-year figure comes from the Scottish model, which was based on no analysis of risk to public security. That is why Amendments 2 and 3 are essential. They will ensure a six-year rather than a three-year limit for the retention of DNA and fingerprints. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend. As noble Lords will know, I have some experience in dealing with crime from the years when I held office in government. Two things became very clear during that period. The first was the enormous value of DNA in solving serious crime. Time and time again, cases came before me involving DNA, including a number of cases that came from the so-called cold cases review, which involved investigating crimes from a number of years before. There were some remarkable discoveries—for example, the so-called Sheffield shoe rapist who was discovered, some 20 years after he had committed, I think, four rapes, two attempted rapes and probably many more, as a result of a match to DNA from his sister who had been arrested, I think, for a driving offence. That would never have come to light but for the cold cases review and if that DNA had not been retained. It is not simply a case of bringing those who deserve it to justice; it is also a question of protecting others from that person. Those who have been convicted, particularly of such serious offences, as a result of DNA are at least off the streets and therefore less likely to cause harm to women, in particular. That is the second point I want to underline.
My noble friend rightly made the point that there is no more important series of cases for DNA evidence than serious sexual crimes, rape and other offences against women. That is the second thing that I discovered in my time. These are difficult cases to deal with and to convict on, but they cause huge anxiety, shame and sorrow. The great tragedy is when they do not result in a satisfactory result. I am therefore extremely worried about the Government’s proposal to remove without a proper evidential base evidence that could be used in just such cases. In the light of what my noble friend said, this change should not take place until and unless there is clear, convincing evidence that it is not going to put more people at risk or leave more criminals on the streets. For that reason, I strongly support this amendment and the other two amendments in this group.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I want briefly to intervene because I feel quite strongly about this subject. I am not a lawyer, but I think I have my finger on the pulse of the people who were my constituents in Workington. The criminal justice system, even under my own Government, was often felt to be completely out of control in the sense that, as far as many people on the street are concerned, the legal system simply does not work in the United Kingdom. There is a total disconnect between the people who stand behind this initiative and the wider public in the United Kingdom. If you were to do an honest poll of people on the streets of Britain, not a poll simply of libertarian opinion, and ask them their view of DNA and its retention, particularly in the context of their lack of confidence in the criminal justice system, you would find overwhelming support for the retention of this material.
The Government have got the balance wrong. They have taken the libertarian position too far and, in the event that this becomes law, they are going to end up with a number of cases surfacing in the national media, particularly in the tabloids, that reveal that people had committed offences and had not been tracked down simply because DNA had not been retained as a result of this legislation. I object very strongly because I believe that the Government are making a major mistake.
From a Conservative position, the Government would do well to look among their own supporters. Among many of the Conservatives who I know and mix with, there is overwhelming support for DNA retention. Many Conservative supporters simply do not understand why the Government are going down this route. I do not know whether they are being driven by the libertarian agenda that is being pushed by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition—they may well be—but if they are, they should take stock of what they are doing because they are making a mistake and they are upsetting their own supporters, who feel as strongly as I do. The Minister will mix with people in the county of Cumbria, where he lives. If he discusses this with his colleagues in the county of Cumbria, he will find the same view: that we should retain this material as it is a way of safeguarding the future of the criminal justice system and making it more operationally effective.
Finally, this is only one of a number of initiatives that the Government are taking in this Bill. They are introducing what some believe to be a more liberal regime in the use of cameras and CCTV. Again, the public support those cameras. I understand that the Government were involved in a consultation exercise earlier this year. I have not seen the result of that consultation exercise, but what interests me is who was consulted. Was it the people on the street, who have strong attitudes on these matters and who invariably fail to respond to consultations, or was it again this libertarian opinion, which worries me when it manages to secure changes in legislation in the form that we see today?
Let me just say where I stand on DNA. I believe that there should be a national DNA bank, established initially on a voluntary basis, whereby we no longer stigmatise the retention of DNA. I believe that millions of people would provide their DNA if only to prove that that is the route we should be going down. Only at the end of a process of introducing voluntary DNA will we be prepared at some stage in the future to take the necessary initiative to store all people’s DNA compulsorily—but let us start with a voluntary basis. There might be some entrepreneur who is prepared to fund that kind of approach to the retention of DNA, but it is only by taking away the stigma that we release ourselves from the arguments that have led to this legislative change that we are confronted with today.
Lord Condon
My Lords, I also support Amendment 1, for the reasons set out so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I respect entirely the Government’s wish to revisit the balance and to ensure that there is public confidence in the retention of DNA. I have not been an overstrident defender of police powers or police databases for their own sake. However, this is one area where the Government are in danger of getting it wrong and coming down on the side of a change that will not be in the interests of the public.
It is now 12 years since I retired as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and there have been more advances in DNA science in those 12 years than in the whole history before that period. More and more cases can be reviewed in a cold case way, particularly in the area of sexual offences and violence, where the database has been invaluable in bringing to justice people who have been vicious assailants of both men and women.
If, as I suspect, the Government are not of a mind to give much way on this amendment, I hope the Minister will at least give us some reassurance on how the advances in science and DNA will not be neutralised by shedding DNA databases, which will be so valuable in looking back as well as forward.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I rise with diffidence to support my Government, because I think that the issues are extremely difficult and that one has to balance very unalike aspects of our society and culture. I was going to say, until the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said it for me, that the logical conclusion to question of the retention of DNA, fingerprints and so on would be for the whole population to be required to give its DNA, fingerprints and so on. That has a simplistic appeal to it. The argument against it, however, is rather the same as the argument against there being surveillance cameras on every corner, in every street and in every lane—the same as the argument against intrusive surveillance through telecommunications. After all, if one could tap any and every conversation all the time, one would no doubt have another huge reservoir of information wherewith to convict criminals.
Lord Soley
Perhaps I may intervene briefly in support of this proposed new clause and to add to what my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours have said. There is an additional argument. I agree entirely about the cold case and about a voluntary database. Indeed, in this House and prior to being in this House, I have said that we should have a voluntary database and that I should be delighted to be on it.
In a sense, my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is that the difference between this and cameras is that it is much harder to come up with ways in which a DNA database could be misused by the authorities or anyone else. There is a deterrent factor. The final and only different point that I want to make to those that have already been made is that we should not rule out the deterrent effect of a DNA database. If a person on that database has raped or killed, or has carried out a violent attack, their DNA will be on that database and they know it.
Put yourself in the mind of the victim for a while and think of their rights. Victims have rights, which it is important to respect. As a deterrent factor, a database of DNA is very useful. It also enables the person who is not guilty of an offence—there have been a number of those recently—to be ruled out at a much earlier stage. The gentleman in Bristol who was wrongly accused initially of a murder in Bristol last year would have been ruled out much more quickly had the DNA database with his DNA on it been available. It is important both as a deterrent to further violent crime and as a protection for those who are wrongly accused. Quite simply, never ever rule out the rights of the victims, which we are very fond of doing at times. In the House of Lords where we do not deal with these things directly on a constituency basis, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, you do not see the victim quite as starkly as you might. Those victims have rights, which we should defend and protect.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government considered an alternative way of reducing recourse to the DNA database that would, on the one hand, have restricted the police from searching the database except where there was a proposal to press charges for serious violence or a serious sexual offence, and on the other hand where the person arrested requests that the database should be searched for the purposes of exoneration.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am so glad that I prompted my noble friend Lord Phillips to speak before me because he put into words much better than I could have done things that I was trying to articulate in my own mind. He mentioned the possibility of a 100 per cent compulsory database, and I too had been working towards that as a question. I cannot, however, follow the suggestion of a voluntary database. I am not a psychologist and I cannot put myself into the mindset of an offender, but it is difficult to believe that a voluntary database would be any sort of deterrent at all.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. It would dilute the stigma.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about deterrence in the context of a voluntary database. I take the point about stigma, but only a little bit.
On the requirement for further evidence sought in the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has said, the science and the technology are both galloping forward very fast, and logically one could make an argument for continually looking for further evidence as the science goes forward and never coming to a conclusion. It is always possible to ask for more evidence, and we will hear from the Minister what evidence the Home Office has looked for. However, I would like to ask him in this context about the post-implementation review mentioned in the impact assessment. There are a number of boxes under that heading that are not completed. Perhaps he can tell the Committee something about the establishment of the criteria for the assessment under a post-implementation review, because that would be helpful.
I am not sure that the amendments in this group that seek to extend the period are entirely consistent. We are in Committee, so I understand that, but to seek to decide whether to increase or decrease the time period while at the same time calling for further evidence before implementing this part of the Bill does not quite seem to hang together. However, that is probably a picky and unworthy argument because, as my noble friend said, the noble Baroness has raised matters that are extremely important.
Lord Dear
My Lords, we have discussed the rapid advances in DNA technology, but a fact that noble Lords may wish to take note of is that we are literally on the brink of a breakthrough in DNA analysis whereby, although the same sample being tested in the laboratory does not produce a hit on the database, it will nevertheless produce a pretty good description of the person who has given the sample. That will move the debate into a whole new area. I say that to put the record straight on just how fast databases are moving forward.
There is no doubt that if legislated for as we are considering, DNA technology will undoubtedly bring some convictions from cold case reviews. Indeed, that has already been mentioned from the Cross Benches. However, I have to say that, as a proportion of the total number of cases dealt with and convictions brought each year, the number will be relatively very small. Undoubtedly these reviews will frequently focus on serious cases involving rape or violence where the victim has suffered enormous trauma.
Having concluded my brief opening remarks, I have little else to say other than that I support the stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. There has been far too much intervention in the privacy of the individual. We are currently reading in the newspapers about the conduct of the Leveson inquiry, which is yet another example of possible intervention in another sphere. That thrust of the interventionist state into our lives is something that this Bill seeks to reverse. Although this is an emotional issue, it raises great interest in the criminal justice system and in my former service, the police service. I shall make very few new friends in the service when I say that I believe that the safeguards proposed by the Government in trying to search for this balance are appropriate. I therefore support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said as well as the general thrust of this Bill.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of my noble friend Lord Dear and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Certain things can go wrong all too easily. DNA is not a straight yes/no; at the end of the day, if something is done in a laboratory, you are talking about an analogue match that is reduced to certain points. We have seen sometimes the misinterpretation of fingerprints. When a computer has reduced it to X points, it is not necessarily a true match. There have been miscarriages of justice as a result. People have refused to admit mistakes later because of the tendency of the system to try to cover up its mistakes for the greater good, in order not to discredit something that is widely accepted as evidence.
I am also worried that, if DNA exists and is associated with a case, you use it to try to prove some guilt. You do not know how it got there. I might have tried on a jersey in a department store and left a couple of hairs on it. It might later have been bought by someone else and the knife that went into the person might have carried one of my hairs inside the wound. With our DNA techniques, it could be deduced that I was the person who was at the place in question—you do not know
The trouble is that, because we have an adversarial system, we do not seek to find the truth in our courts; we see who has got the best lawyers to discredit the evidence on the other side. That can be dangerous sometimes with things such as DNA, which is fairly new. We have widely different quoted figures for what an exact match is and for the probability of a match that do not take into account laboratory accuracy. We need to think about exactly how accurate it really is. You also get criminal seeding of sites, which has been going on for a long time—taking ashtrays from pubs and leaving DNA evidence elsewhere to sow false things.
What worries me, finally, is what we saw happen with RIPA—that is, function creep. This will start off in the serious crime arena and then get extended, because it is an easy way to find who was where when or who handled what. We have to be very careful about making sure that that does not happen if we are going to retain DNA as evidence. That is why I approve of the Government’s stand and of what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said.
We seem to treat very lightly the fact that someone should be arrested. Actually, that goes on your record and it stays there even if you are never then prosecuted or a charge is not laid properly. The fact that you have been arrested will disbar you from all sorts of things. A simple example is the American visa waiver scheme. I am fairly certain that you cannot get a US visa waiver if you have been arrested. For some people, there is no smoke without fire. We have to be very careful before thinking that just an arrest is okay and that it is all forgotten in the wash—it is not.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven
My Lords, this is a difficult and sensitive issue, and I have great sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said a moment ago. When he was Attorney-General and I was Director of Public Prosecutions, we often saw the result of DNA evidence in successful prosecutions. Nobody for one moment would underestimate, in spite of what has been said recently, the importance and the potency of that evidence, particularly in cold-case reviews.
Nevertheless, I am driven to support the Government’s position on this amendment, largely because of the sentiment that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The rational and honest conclusion of the previous Government’s policy was a national DNA database. The policy was discriminatory in a sense that has not been addressed so far in this debate. Everybody knows that more young black men than young white men are arrested on the streets of our cities by proportion of population, and therefore more are swabbed. Therefore, a database that was growing as that one was, uncontrolled by any process of anti-discrimination, was inherently dangerous.
The safe process, if the Government had wanted to go down that road, as was once explained very eloquently by Lord Justice Sedley on the “Today” programme, was to institute a national DNA database. That was the logical and only fair extension of the previous Government’s policy. I cannot support the concept of a national DNA database. It seems an inherently totalitarian concept. The idea that newborn babies would be separated from their mothers in our hospitals to be swabbed before being returned for suckling, or however the process is conducted, seems deeply totalitarian and unacceptable.
The Scots have got it about right. These are questions of balance. Of course the position of victims is critical, but we also have to develop a system which achieves a balance between justice for victims and justice for defendants in a free society in which the Government play an appropriate and not overly intrusive role in people’s lives.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, before we go further with the fantasy of newborn babies being separated from their mothers to be swabbed, let us remember that all newborn babies have a pinprick test of their heels in order to get a blood sample for a Guthrie test to be sure that they do not suffer from a serious metabolic disorder—namely, PKU—and that these samples are retained. So a database, in that sense, exists. We should discuss the uses of databases rather than what exists or how samples are taken.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I start by picking up on the point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about Amendments 1, 7 and 8 not being consequential. I do not know what are the ultimate intentions of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I agree with my noble friend that Amendments 7 and 8 are not consequential on Amendment 1. Certainly if the noble Baroness was minded to divide the House on Amendment 1, I would not accept the consequences of the House’s decision as being binding on Amendments 7 and 8. However, I shall leave that to the noble Baroness when she gets to them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, made clear, Amendment 1 would delay the implementation of these provisions by several months. I remind the House that the provisions in Part 1, Chapter 1 of the Bill represent the response of the Government to the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the S and Marper case, to which the noble Baroness referred, which is already three years old. If the previous Government had implemented compliance legislation when they had the chance in 2009-10, we would not now have more than 1 million innocent people recorded on the DNA and fingerprint databases and we would not have had to legislate again on this subject in this Bill.
The previous Government’s proposals, to which the noble Baroness referred and which she obviously still supports, received at that time virtually no support at all beyond her own Front Bench. She has obviously since then dragged up a bit more support from her Back Benches. Our proposals, which very much adopt the Scottish model, have been welcomed by a wide variety of organisations such as Liberty, Justice, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and GeneWatch. They all gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place and welcomed the Government’s general approach in this area. The Scottish model has also found favour with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and with the Constitution Committee, which have both referred to it.
The noble Baroness referred to evidence from the 2009 analysis, which was based on only three years of evidence, as I understand it, extrapolated to a point where it was essentially of, it could be argued, no real value. I refer the noble Baroness to our analysis, which was published in September and used five years of evidence, looking crucially at the likelihood of conviction. Therefore, further analysis is unnecessary.
However, I can tell my noble friend Lady Hamwee that there will be a post-implementation review, as there always is, and if we failed to include something in our impact assessment again I can only say that Homer nodded on this occasion and that we will make sure that that does not happen in future. I believe that further analysis is unnecessary and our proposals to retain unconvicted persons’ DNA for only three years are correct, and then only in respect of serious offences.
The analysis has been looked at by many independent experts, who have considered it closely. For example, as my honourable friend the Minister for Crime and Security, James Brokenshire, said in Committee in the other place,
“the Information Commissioner states that he ‘does not consider that the evidence presented supports a general period of anything like six years’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 29/3/2011; col. 212.]
We have consistently supported the adoption of the protections of the Scottish model, and that was a central plank of our programme for government announced last May. We believe that our proposals represent an appropriate balance—and I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, for using the word balance—between the rights of those who have not been convicted by a court and the need to protect the public in some of the most difficult cases.
If the noble Baroness would like a little support from her own Back Benches, I can also refer her to the widely respected independent website Straight Statistics, whose board of directors is chaired by her noble friend Lord Lipsey. It has examined the research and reached the conclusion that:
“Despite the limitations of the analysis, acknowledged by its authors, it does suggest that the retention periods allowed under the 2001 and 2003 Acts were unduly long, as were those proposed in the 2010 Bill. The present bill, which is broadly similar to the law in Scotland, gets the balance more nearly right”.
The noble Baroness seemed to imply that we offered full support to the 2010 Bill. Again, I remind her, as I did in my intervention, that that Bill went through in the wash-up, very rapidly. Obviously, we offered it support in that six years was considered an improvement on the situation in the past, but we have not yet brought those provisions into effect and we have no intention of doing so. We think it better to bring forward these proposals, which are more likely to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgment.
Again, I refer the noble Baroness to comments made by the then Policing Minister, when the noble Baroness’s party was in government, who said to the Public Bill Committee on the Crime and Security Bill that,
“we have obviously considered the judgment”—
that is, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights—
“and how far we can push the boundary of the judgment in relation to our wish to have protection for the public”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Security Bill Committee, 26/1/2010; col. 71.]
In our judgment, we should be seeking a balance, rather than riding roughshod over the rights of the million or more innocent people whose DNA profile is on the database despite them never having been convicted of any crime.
I turn to Amendments 7 and 8, which deal with the period for which we seek to retain the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people, which was discussed at some length in another place. These amendments would replace the Government’s provisions, which meet our coalition commitment to adopt the protections of the Scottish model, with the core of the last Government’s Crime and Security Act, which was rushed through in the run-up to the election. The party opposite persists in its approach to keep the DNA and fingerprints of innocent people for many years, no matter what those people have been accused of and no matter how little evidence was ever uncovered.
The noble Baroness referred to some 23,000 offenders. I was never quite sure where they had come from and whether they were alleged rapists, alleged something else or just people who had been arrested. Similarly, at the Labour Party conference in September, the shadow Home Secretary said that this Government will,
“take 17,000 suspected rapists off”
the DNA database, which,
“will make it even harder to bring rapists to justice”.
Of course, we all believe that increasing the conviction rate for rape and other serious offences is important. But are those on the Front Bench really saying that, in order to increase that conviction rate, we need to keep the details of thousands of innocent people on the DNA database because some of them in the future may go on to commit serious crimes?
I say to the noble Baroness that the conclusions of the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, last year are far more important. She looked at the handling of rape by the police and by criminal justice and made some 23 recommendations in that area. While her terms of reference did not include the criminal law, her report recommended reassessing the essential elements of investigating rape cases, supporting victims to improve the handling of investigations and improving victim support, which would build stronger cases. Her recommendations on that occasion included ensuring that all police officers adopt ACPO’s Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Rape and adopting the protocol between the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and local authorities on exchange of information. I say to the Committee that these issues are more likely to be of assistance in increasing the conviction rate for rape than keeping 1 million—or whatever number we think it is—innocent people’s DNA on the national database.
In any event, the contention that every individual suspected of rape will instantly come off the database is just not true. Those charged with a qualifying offence, including rape, will have their DNA held for three years, and the police will be able to apply to the courts to extend that by a further two years. Those arrested for but not charged with a qualifying offence where the victim is vulnerable will also have their DNA held for three years, subject to the approval of the new independent commissioner. We have consistently taken the view, both during the passage of the Crime and Security Act and in advancing our proposals in this Bill, that the correct approach is to ensure that those convicted in the past of serious offences have their DNA added to the database, while those arrested for, but not convicted of, more minor offences should not have their biometrics held beyond the end of the investigation.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I wonder if the noble Lord would answer a question that was asked of me, and which came up in discussion when we were arguing about this the other evening. What is the difference between holding personal information in the form of a photograph—a simple photograph, such as a passport photograph—in a national database, as against holding DNA?
Lord Henley
I am trying to remember who it was, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, made the point that he found somewhat scary the idea that we should have a national database with everyone's DNA on it, which was being promoted by the noble Lord and others of his colleagues. I feel exactly the same as my noble friend and I hope that that is a suitable response to the noble Lord. As I said, the idea that you could hold all that information in the form of DNA is very different from holding photographs. The noble Lord is speaking from a sedentary position but, if I could continue to try to answer him, that is a great distinction from keeping a photograph. I find the idea scary; obviously, the noble Lord does not.
Lord Soley
If I might intervene, my noble friend is right. The database is holding our photographs from driving licences and passports. The noble Lord’s blood group, and mine, will be on the database too. It will virtually be a national one for the National Health Service. What we do with the data and how we control their use is what matters, but I ask the noble Lord to remember that he is talking about something here that may well prevent many people being killed or raped, or suffering serious abuse. There is not enough thinking here going on about the victims and potential victims.
Lord Henley
As I said, my Lords, there is a balance. What the noble Lord is advocating could also lead to a great many miscarriages of justice, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, pointed out. I appreciate that noble Lords opposite would like to bring in identity cards and a national database of the DNA of every person in the country. We do not go down that route; we feel that there should be an appropriate balance between what is kept and what is not. That is why I would reject the amendments.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
I would like to return to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, which is a serious one. The information that is retained from a genetic profile for the purposes of the forensic database is not revealing information, such as susceptibility to disease or other genetic factors. It is a selection of the DNA evidence that used to be referred to as “junk DNA”, which is not known to code for any personally sensitive feature of persons. In that respect it is what in other aspects of privacy legislation is called an identifier. That suggests that in some ways it is less personal than a photograph of someone’s face.
Lord Henley
Sorry, but I do not accept that. I refer the noble Baroness to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that we are in the early days of knowing what DNA can and might achieve in the future. We are offering a very large amount of information to be stored in that DNA. I find that idea scary. Obviously some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, do not; indeed, they positively welcome it. On this, there will have to be a philosophical divide between the noble Lord and myself.
For the reasons that I have given, I would certainly not support the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will feel able to withdraw it because I do not think it would command the support of the House.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but excellent debate. I do not really understand what the Minister is saying about the wash-up. He seems to imply that if a Bill is agreed to in the wash-up, it does not have as much authority as other Bills.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I was not saying that at all, though sometimes Bills are rushed through without quite the same scrutiny that they normally deserve. The noble Baroness was trying to imply that that Act had the full support of the Official Opposition. My point was that, yes, we signed up to it because it was an improvement on what was there before, but we still felt that it did not go far enough in that it left the term at six years. We are proposing something different: three years, with the possible extension of another two years.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I am grateful to the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, talked about the culture of society. He is right to do so. From our discussion today, it is clear that there is a fine line between the preservation of the freedom and privacy of individuals and the protection of citizens from crime and the delivery of justice, and there is a clear discrepancy in that balance. My Benches believe in protecting the freedom of citizens to be protected from crime and the freedom of victims of crime to see their assailants brought to justice. That is the side of that fine line that we fall on. That is the culture in which I wish to live. I wish people to be protected from crime and I wish assailants to be brought to justice so that the victims of crime have proper justice.
The noble Lords, Lord Dear and Lord Condon, spoke of advances in science, which are very important. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the very fact that there are such fantastic advances in science, and the fact that our country leads in DNA technology, should perhaps make us think that now is not a good time to reduce the length of time for which our DNA is kept precisely because science may enable us to make better use of those samples in the future.
My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Condon, talked about the value of DNA in solving serious crimes, including in the review of cold cases. I agree with them. The Minister spoke of the excellent report of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I certainly welcome all the recommendations that she made, which will make a difference to convictions for rape if they are implemented. However, those convictions will be added to if we are able to retain DNA; even more perpetrators will be brought to justice.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others are absolutely right when they talk about having their finger on the pulse. That is not to say that we as legislators should follow our citizens in every way; we have a duty to lead. However, in this instance the citizens of our country who believe that they gain better protection from the longer retention of DNA are absolutely right. That is certainly the case in the Forest of Dean, where I come from.
Yes, the Government certainly have an obligation to ensure that individuals are protected from unjustified interference, but they also have an obligation to protect people from crime and to deliver justice for the victims of horrific crimes. With their proposals in Chapter 1, the Government are abrogating their responsibility in these areas. The balance that we have all been talking about this afternoon is important and, in this instance, the Government have got the balance wrong.
I will withdraw my amendment but I will read the debate thoroughly in Hansard. I have to say that it is my intention to bring something back on Report. The noble Lord assumes that, were I to do so, I would not have the votes of the House behind me but we shall see. It is extremely important that the citizens of our country see that we take this issue seriously. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(c) any biographical information relating to the material referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 3. These are among a number of probing amendments that I tabled following receipt of a briefing from the Information Commissioner, which I am aware has been sent quite widely to your Lordships. Therefore, I hope I do not need to spend too long on any of the individual items. It seems that I need not consider with too much suspicion or cynicism whether the Information Commissioner might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I am very happy to rely on a briefing from him.
Amendments 2 and 3 would add references to biographical information relating to the material dealt with by Clause 1. The commissioner is concerned that, although there is provision to delete fingerprints and DNA profiles, allied biographical information that is held on the police national computer or the police national database is not referred to. Perhaps the Minister can help me with the basis of these amendments. Is the PNC record also deleted when the DNA profile is removed? At present, records held on the PNC are readily accessible. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, may tell me that I am wrong, but it has been suggested that because that information is there access is frequently used to run a name check on individuals who come into contact with the police. Noble Lords will understand the inaccurate assumptions that may be made as a result of this.
The fifth principle of data protection states:
“Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes”.
It seems to me that we should be looking at biographical information alongside the technical information. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
As my noble friend has explained, these amendments were tabled following receipt of a letter from the Information Commissioner, which I think a large number of us have seen. They seek to amend Clause 1 by extending the scope of the provisions for deleting fingerprints and DNA of those arrested but not charged or subsequently not convicted to all police records held on that individual. For ease, I shall refer to these records as “arrest-only records”. In our view there is no need to extend the scope of the clause to cover arrest-only records. What is retained on police records should continue to be an operational matter for chief police officers to decide.
As your Lordships may be aware, the Association of Chief Police Officers has already issued guidance to forces in the light of the Supreme Court judgment earlier this year in the case of GC & C v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. ACPO issued a letter on 16 June to chief officers which said that,
“if the biometric data is deleted or destroyed, then there is no need—and therefore no justification—for the retention of the arrest record on the Police National Computer. Therefore, if the biometric data is to be deleted or destroyed, then so must be the arrest record on the PNC”.
Therefore, in effect, ACPO has already put a deletion process into effect for arrest-only records held on the PNC. To go further and then delete all records from every other police database, whether national or local, would, in our view, be a step too far. On balance we think that the approach taken in the ACPO letter is the correct and appropriate one. It creates the correct balance—I apologise again for using the word “balance”—between civil liberties and public protection. It also creates consistency between the retention of arrest-only records on the PNC and the treatment of fingerprints and DNA profiles in the Bill.
We have to appreciate that, once the details are removed from the PNC, front-line operational officers will not be able to tell whether an individual has previously been arrested and not subsequently cautioned or convicted. They will not have access at that point to the police national database nor will they necessarily be able to check local records. That, we believe, provides the necessary safeguards for individuals. The fact that a person was arrested or went to trial is a matter of fact and keeping those details on databases that are not readily available to all police officers means that that information will not be visible to the officer making the stop.
Going further and deleting all arrest-only records from all databases means that the police would have no way of knowing that an individual had come to their attention before. It would also mean that the enhanced criminal record checks could not show details of those arrests where they are relevant to a particular application. Such an approach would significantly weaken the public protection afforded by the criminal record regime. I hesitate to refer to it, but it could result in another Huntley-type case where relevant information about previous suspicious behaviour is not disclosed. I accept that in that particular case the records were not effective in preventing what subsequently happened, but that does not alter the fact that the records were there to show a history of arrest linked to a certain type of offending.
I appreciate that at this stage they are probing amendments, but their effect would be that all police databases would be reduced simply to holding details of cautions and convictions. All other intelligence would be removed. In our view, that would hamper the ability of the police properly to protect the public, and for that reason I cannot support the amendments. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll
I am quite intrigued by this. The police have a policy in some cases of arrest first and ask questions later, particularly when householders are defending their property, and so on. These people will therefore effectively be regarded in perpetuity—or at least for as long as they live—as having behaved undesirably, even though they have never been in front of a judge or the courts and we should therefore deem them to be innocent. I am worried by the attitude that that should stay on file. I fully realise that we must watch out for cases such as that of Huntley, but they are surely dealt with by the other provisions, whereby you are allowed to retain the records in certain circumstances.
Lord Henley
My Lords, again I repeat the word “balance”. It is a question of balance as to what is appropriate. Again I stress that it is a matter of fact, referring to the noble Earl’s example, that that person has been arrested. He might not have been appropriately arrested and the noble Earl might feel that that should not have happened. However, the simple fact is that he was arrested and there are occasions when keeping that information may be of some use.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, like the noble Earl, I blinked at the words “a step too far” and I appreciate that the Minister went on to try to explain that. It would be only right to read his explanation in order to seek to understand it. However, I have more questions now than when I introduced these amendments.
I should also say that I have a little difficulty in relying on ACPO guidance, if I have correctly understood its status. There is no question about whether it is proper. However, it is one thing for a statute to allow something and for ACPO then to withdraw a little from it, but that is not as good as the statute being clear. I was also not sure how that lay with the Minister’s comment about this being an operational matter for the police. Having added to the list of questions in my head, I will of course withdraw the amendment. This issue may be something that I can discuss with the Minister between this stage and the next. A lot of complications and procedures are not evident in the Bill, which of course deals with just one aspect of the way that the police organise themselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 22. These amendments deal with two provisions about speculative searches. Clause 1, on the destruction of fingerprints and the DNA profile, and Clause 22, on the destruction of samples, state that they do not prevent a speculative search,
“within such time as may reasonably be required for the search if the responsible chief officer of police considers the search to be desirable”.
My amendments relate to the term “desirable” and propose wording taken from Clause 15, whereby, instead of when it is “desirable”, fingerprints and DNA can be kept when,
“necessary for the prevention or detection of crime, or the investigation of an offence”.
Without wanting unduly to hinder the police's discretion, it seems to me that those two provisions are very wide. The Explanatory Notes states that the material could be retained for a “short period”. I do not read that into the two clauses. Perhaps the Minister can help me with that and about what limitations there might be on this apparently wide provision. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I have some sympathy with what I think the noble Baroness is trying to get at with the amendments, certainly from my understanding of the letter from the Information Commissioner, but we believe that her amendments would both seriously undermine the effectiveness of the national DNA database and significantly increase the cost of the administration of the system at a time when police budgets are under significant pressure.
In terms of effectiveness, we are advised by the police service that the key point in the taking and retention cycle for DNA and fingerprints is the carrying out of a speculative search immediately following arrest and sampling. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with this process, it involves the comparison of the newly-taken DNA and fingerprints with material from previous crime scenes and with those whose biometrics are retained following conviction or, in the limited circumstances that we will be discussing shortly, from those suspected but not convicted of serious offences.
It is that speculative searching process which results in the identification of those who have already committed crimes, which I would hope that all of your Lordships would agree is a vital public protection measure. To give an example, a speculative search was undertaken on the DNA profile of Mark Dixie in June 2006, when he was arrested following a fight at the pub where he worked. He was not charged with that offence, but his DNA was matched to biological material left at the scene of the murder of Sally Anne Bowman the previous September. As a result, he was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Government consider that carrying out a speculative search in each case where DNA and fingerprints have been taken on arrest is vital to the effectiveness of the database in identifying such crimes and far outweighs any additional intrusion in Article 8 terms. Indeed, in its recent report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights commented at paragraph 45 of its report that,
“an additional final search before destruction is unlikely to pose such an additional interference to create a separate violation of Article 8 … which could not be justified”.
I appreciate that my noble friend does not want to stop such searches, merely to require the circumstances to be considered before a search is carried out. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it would add to the delay and cost of each arrest for such consideration to be given. There were nearly 1.4 million arrests for recordable offences in 2009-10, a figure I gave to the House earlier today at Question Time. Thus, the additional time required for police officers to consider whether searches were necessary would run to many thousands of hours and could well result in many thousands of additional hours spent in detention by those being investigated.
I can assure my noble friend that we considered this issue carefully in bringing forward our proposals and we consider that carrying out a speculative search in every case is an appropriate use of the DNA and fingerprints taken on arrest. For those reasons, I cannot support Amendments 4 and 22 and I therefore hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, indeed I shall do so. When the Minister said “cost”, I wrote the word “balance” because, as he said, it has come up in every line of every clause and on every page. I think I am left with understanding that the short period to which the Explanatory Notes refer—I appreciate that they are not binding—is the period for which the material is retained. The Minister is nodding at that. Having clarified that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) For the purpose of this section, an investigation is concluded when it is so certified by the responsible chief of police.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Clause 2(2) provides for the retention of certain material,
“until the conclusion of the investigation of the offence or”,
as the case may be, the conclusion of proceedings, where proceedings are taken. My amendment seeks to define what is meant by the conclusion of an investigation for the purposes of this clause.
“Conclusion of proceedings” seems to be relatively clear. Presumably one gets to the end of a case or the end of an appeal. Alternatively, when an appeal is not possible, I suppose there is always the possibility of a case being reopened by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but I shall not try to go there. However, we also ought to be clear about when an investigation is regarded as concluded. There has already been a good deal of reference today to cold cases. How cold does a case have to be before it is concluded? If it is cold but not solved, is it still unconcluded? I simply suggest, partly as a way of exploring this matter, that an investigation should be regarded as concluded when it is certified by the responsible chief of police. I beg to move.
Lord Dear
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I have to say from practical experience of commanding the largest force in the British Isles other than the Metropolitan Police—having previously headed the operations department of the Metropolitan Police—that in practical terms, forgetting the philosophical benefits or disbenefits of the amendment, it does not stack up.
There are thousands of offences on police books and well over half of them remain undetected. Therefore, seeking a certificate for every single one of them when one believed that an investigation was concluded would frankly be a bureaucratic nightmare. Quite apart from that, at the very serious end of offences it is not uncommon to have 50, 80 or 100 detectives and others working on an investigation. As the case winds on, that number will be run down until, months or even years later, you finish with perhaps five or six. There will come a point when everyone will know that the investigation has stopped because they will simply have run out of avenues to explore, but in my experience no chief officer would wish to say categorically, “It is finished”, because that would be slamming a door in the face of victims. We have already spoken in your Lordships’ House about the need to balance the rights and feelings of victims among other things, and that is absolutely right. I do not think that any chief officer of police would wish to say, “We have now certified that this is finished and as far as you, the victim, are concerned—or you, the general public, are concerned—we have now closed our books”, and I do not believe that the public would wish to hear it.
Therefore, with the greatest respect and although I understand where the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is coming from, on practical and philosophical grounds—and, if those fail, then certainly on grounds of sensibility to feelings—the amendment does not have my support.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, and for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I think that it demonstrates that there is potential confusion in this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness asked about cold cases. I understand the difficulty described by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in saying whether or not a case has been concluded. However, if in subsection (2) we are saying that,
“material may be retained until the conclusion”,
we need to be a little more specific. The noble Lord talked about the practicalities but also the philosophical nature of these issues. Philosophy is a great thing but when it comes to legislation perhaps it needs to be a little more specific.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment. It relates to the briefing from the Information Commissioner that was circulated prior to the Committee stage. He expressed some concern that the reference in Clause 2 to the conclusion of the investigation was too open-ended.
I am sure that we would all wish the police to be able to conclude every investigation swiftly with either a conviction or conclusion that no crime has been committed. But, we would all acknowledge that in reality that is not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has explained. There will often be cases when it is impossible to identify a suspect immediately and when evidence must be retained for a significant period in the hope of identifying a suspect in the future. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to cold cases. The case that comes to my mind is the one that has recently been reopened on the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Evidence, including biometric material, must be retained in these circumstances to enable comparison with the suspect and, for example, to ensure that the suspect’s legal team can examine and probe all the previous police lines of inquiry. If all evidence is not retained in such circumstances, the suspect identified later will be able to argue to the court that the destruction of such material would render it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. In such circumstances, even if Amendment 5 were to be made to the Bill, a chief officer would be unable to certify an investigation as complete, which is I think what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, was referring to. In addition, where it is possible for the police to conclude an investigation the introduction of such a certification requirement for all investigations would impose a new bureaucratic process on the police that would be both unnecessary and, when aggregated across the number of investigations conducted, costly. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, makes that quite clear.
For the reasons I have given, we are unable to accept Amendment 5, and I therefore ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing it.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I presume that the amendment relates to the previous paragraph in relation,
“to section 63D material taken … in connection with the investigation of an offence in which it is suspected that the person to whom the material relates has been involved”.
On my reading, there is an enormous safeguard in that once the police become convinced that the person has not been involved, the negative applies. The person’s DNA material is taken but if it is then established that that person was not connected to the offence at all, surely the ability to retain the material in those circumstances fails. Therefore you do not have an enormous amount of material being retained until the conclusion of the proceedings. Will the Minister clarify whether I am correct in my understanding that the police can retain that material until the conclusion of the proceedings but only if they remain convinced that that person is still suspected of being involved in the commission of the offence?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I might intervene briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, made some effective practical points against the amendment. However, I am afraid that I am one of those simple souls who find it easier to look at these matters in relation to an example rather than in a general academic sense. There is a clear-cut case in which some of these issues might have arisen: namely, that of the gentleman in Bristol who was arrested—I forget whether he was charged—for the murder of Miss Yeates. It is now universally agreed that this was a mistake. Somebody else has been convicted and sentenced.
I do not expect my noble friend to be able to answer this because it is a bit of a bouncer, and it applies to all the amendments that we have so far discussed. How would the Government's proposals for retention apply to that case, and what difference would the amendments that have so far been discussed make to the case? I do not know the answer and would have to speculate. I suggest that it might be sensible if the Minister wrote to me about this rather than attempting an answer off the cuff.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for her intervention. I am pleased to confirm that her analysis of the subsection preceding the one we are discussing is correct. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton. I will take his advice, consider his points and be sure to write to him. I have been given some comfort on the way in which we may be able to respond to his query by the intervention of my noble friend concerning the subsection preceding the one my noble friend Lady Hamwee seeks to amend.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, one always knows about one-third of the way into a sentence that a “but” is coming. I anticipated it when the noble Lord, Lord Dear, started to make his comments. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the application of these provisions. That is a safeguard, but it seems to me that it is more of an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, than it is to me.
Of course I understand the practical problems. I said a few minutes ago that all the amendments are probing. The problem often is that when one tables an amendment to probe, it is taken as if one means every word. I am looking for an answer to my underlying question and I am not sure that I have yet heard it. What worries me is that even on the fairly narrow track that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, identified, there is the possibility of driving a coach and horses through what we all think we are agreeing this afternoon. I do not seek to apply more bureaucracy, but I do seek clarity. I am not yet clear, but there are more stages and I will not make more of a nuisance of myself at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this group of amendments would remove, following a government amendment in the other place, the requirement to gain approval from the biometric commissioner to retain DNA and fingerprint profiles for three years for those arrested for, but not charged with, qualifying offences; remove the provision to allow the police to apply for a two-year extension in the case of persons arrested for, or charged with, a qualifying offence; and provide for persons over 18 arrested for or charged with a minor offence to have their DNA and fingerprints stored for six years, replicating the evidence-led provisions of the Crime and Security Act 2010.
On the retention of DNA for qualifying offences—serious offences—research by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, which was assessed in a Home Office report in 2009, showed that the seriousness of the initial offence for which the person was arrested does not necessarily predict the seriousness of subsequent offences with which they may be associated. As a result of the Government’s proposal on qualifying offences—I make no apology for returning to the figure—17,000 people arrested but not charged with rape will be removed from the database. It would be helpful to know the Government’s assessment of the impact of this development. In addition, as my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon said, rape has a low charge rate as well as a low conviction rate. Approximately 70 per cent of individuals arrested for rape are not charged, and we know the reasons why. It is often because of the impact of the trauma suffered by victims and problems over securing conclusive evidence.
As an example of the point that I am making, I repeat that Kensley Larrier was arrested in May 2002 for possession of an offensive weapon, which is not classified as a qualifying offence under this Bill. His DNA was taken at the time and retained, although the case never reached court. In July 2004, a rape was committed in the north of England, and DNA from that investigation was speculatively searched against the National DNA Database and matched against the acquittal sample. Larrier was convicted and jailed for five years and was entered on the sex offenders register for life, and that would not happen under this Bill. I repeat that the evidence from the Jill Dando institute shows that the seriousness of the initial offence for which the person was arrested does not necessarily predict the seriousness of subsequent offences.
The Government’s proposals in this Bill, with its references to qualifying offences, are forcing a false distinction in the risk of further offences on the basis of little or no evidence and are shifting the burden of risk assessment on to the police. The judgment of the balance between risk to the public and the right to privacy is the responsibility of the Government, who should not place added administrative burdens on the police. Since the Government have accepted the argument that in some cases there will be a strong enough risk to public safety to warrant retention beyond three years, the way to go about it is not to create a convoluted and bureaucratic system where the burden lies on the police to make that judgment.
With that in mind, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the thinking behind the Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material, because it would appear that the commissioner will be able to agree to the retention of DNA only for a person who has been arrested and not charged with a qualifying offence—that is, a serious offence—where the victim is vulnerable or where the person arrested knows the victim. The police will also have to show why they consider that the retention of the material is necessary to assist in the prevention or detection of a crime, which may be more easily said than done. If the person has committed a non-qualifying offence, as in the Kensley Larrier case, to which I referred, no application, as I understand it, can be made to the commissioner.
It is also far from clear that the Government’s intended definition of “vulnerable adult” will even cover many rape victims. In the light of the evidence on rape cases and of the findings of the Jill Dando institute, why are the Government having the additional hurdle of the commissioner at all and certainly with such restrictive powers in relation to the retention of DNA? Will the Minister say whether the powers that the Government intend to give the commissioner mean that we shall have a system similar to that in Scotland, or is the argument still being made that there are significant variations from that system?
In evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons earlier this year, the Association of Chief Police Officers said it had been in close contact with colleagues in Scotland on the National DNA Database Strategy Board, and they had indicated that the system proposed by the Government in this Bill had not led to any extensions and was quite complex to operate. Asked why it had not led to any applications for extensions, ACPO said that it thought it was because there were 6 million records on the National DNA Database; it had always argued that it was impossible to create a regime of individual intervention for a database of 6 million and it was necessary to make decisions based on automation, but that in effect the Scottish model had to rely on a judgment being made against an individual profile.
Lord Henley
My Lords, it seems that with this group of amendments the noble Lord first wishes to, in effect, remove the independent biometrics commissioner and then, as we discussed earlier, extend the period of DNA retention automatically to six years for virtually all offences. Amendments 6, 9 and 10 would leave the decision entirely in the hands of the police. Obviously I can see the attraction of effectively automating the process to reduce the administrative burden placed on the police in those cases. However, the Government consider this to be completely outweighed by the additional protection given to the arrested person by the safeguard of the commissioner’s consideration. We considered this issue very carefully in drawing up our proposals.
We accept that it is appropriate in limited circumstances to retain material where a person has been arrested for a qualifying offence but not subsequently charged, and those circumstances are set out in new Section 63G(2) and (3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which would be inserted by Clause 3 of this Bill. However, given that in such cases the charging standard has not been met, we believe that further safeguards are necessary, and the independent scrutiny of the commissioner provides that safeguard.
In support of his arguments, the noble Lord produced the case of Kensley Larrier, whose DNA, he claimed, was vital in getting him convicted of rape. My advice is that the DNA was not the key to his subsequent conviction for rape and on that occasion it was the complainant who took the police to the block of flats where he lived and described him in such detail that he could easily be identified. No doubt the noble Lord will say that that is just one example and will produce others, but it was not a very good example and it does not particularly support his case. Again, it is a question of finding the right balance.
I also remind your Lordships that the evidential charging standard is that there is a “realistic prospect of conviction”, which is defined in the Code for Crown Prosecutors as,
“an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law”,
that,
“is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged”.
Where the charging standard has not been met but the police believe there are valid reasons to retain the material, we believe that the process of applying to the commissioner, which we are determined to make as straightforward, simple and unbureaucratic as possible, provides an important safeguard.
As I have indicated, we believe that the police should be able to retain biometric material in limited circumstances. In this respect, therefore, the Bill goes beyond the Scottish system in allowing for the retention of material from persons who have been arrested but not charged, which is why we believe that there should be the safeguard that we have set out to form the biometric commissioner. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at Second Reading in another place:
“We must protect the most vulnerable in society, so when the victim of the alleged offence is under 18, vulnerable or in a close personal relationship with the arrested person … the police will apply to the commissioner for retention. I believe that these rules give the police the tools they need without putting the DNA of a large number of innocent people on the database”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 207.]
For that reason, I cannot offer a crumb of comfort to the noble Lord in his Amendments 6, 9 and 10.
Amendment 13 would provide for a six-year retention period in the case of a person arrested for or charged with, but not convicted of, a minor offence. Clause 4 delivers another of the key protections of the Scottish model. Read with Clause 1 it provides for the destruction of the DNA profiles and fingerprints of anyone who has been arrested for or charged with a recordable offence that is not a qualifying offence but who is not subsequently convicted. The Government’s view is that not retaining that material taken from those arrested for or charged with a minor offence but not subsequently convicted strikes the right balance between public protection and individual freedoms.
The European Court of Human Rights was clear on this point. A key passage of the Marper judgment, the case to which we referred earlier and which this Bill implements, stated that it was struck by the indiscriminate nature of the power of retention then in force, and highlighted the fact that,
“material may be retained irrespective of the gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected”.
Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, takes a contrary view. He says that we should retain as much of this DNA material as possible for as long as possible. Some of his noble friends, such as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Soley, want ultimately to have everyone’s DNA on the register. The party opposite says that retaining someone’s DNA profile on a database is not much of an intrusion. It compared it to keeping a photograph and said that it is not much of an intrusion compared with the risk of even one rape or serious assault left unsolved. I do not accept that.
We have argued consistently, both before the election and since, that the previous Government’s models went too far. We think that the Scottish model strikes a far better balance between the competing interests, as the Joint Committee concluded when it examined the previous Government’s proposals. As I made clear in the debate on the earlier amendment, I believe that a great many others support us on this issue.
As for the research conducted by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, the noble Lord should remember that its director later noted that it was incomplete and based on data to which it was not given direct access. In September 2009, Gloria Laycock, director at the institute, said of the research study:
“That was probably a mistake with hindsight. We should have just said ‘you might as well just stick your finger in the air and think of a number’”.
I took that from a briefing provided by Liberty, for which I am most grateful. The noble Lord also might have looked at that and might have found it of some use in his arguments. We are trying to find the right balance and we believe that we have. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response. It throws into sharp contrast the fundamental difference of view between this side and the Government over the length of time that DNA samples should be retained, and the types of cases for which they should be retained. I do not think the Minister has sought to argue that retaining them for the longer period of time, which is what we are advocating, would not lead to more people who have committed serious offences being apprehended. He gets around replying to that argument simply by talking of a so-called balance. On this side we have made it clear that we are in favour of a balance that seeks to apprehend those who have committed serious offences and one that reduces the number of people who are likely to be the victims of serious crime.
However, there is obviously a fundamental difference on this view, which was expressed by the Minister during our discussion on the previous amendment. I will withdraw this amendment for the moment, but we will consider whether to bring back a similar amendment on Report.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as we have already discussed, among other things Clause 3 sets out the rules governing the retention of the DNA profile of a person arrested for a serious offence but not charged with that offence. In such cases, the police can apply to the biometrics commissioner to retain the DNA in certain circumstances, including where the alleged victim of the offence is a vulnerable adult. The amendment seeks to replace the definition of “vulnerable adult” as used in this context.
Currently, Clause 3 defines a vulnerable adult by reference to Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. However, as we will come on to when we reach Part 5 of the Bill, Clauses 65 and 66 seek to amend the definition of a vulnerable adult in the 2006 Act to mean any person over the age of 18 in receipt of a regulated activity, for example health or personal care. The changes made by these clauses to the definitions of vulnerable adult and regulated activity put the emphasis on the activity and the person carrying out that activity. It no longer attempts to define vulnerability or label a person as a “vulnerable adult”. As a result, the definition is not particularly helpful in the context of Clause 3.
Amendment 11 therefore draws on the definition in Section 5(6) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which defines a vulnerable adult as,
“a person aged 16 or over whose ability to protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.
We believe that this definition is far more apposite for the purposes of Clause 3. The reason why the amendment inserts the definition in full in new Section 63G(10) of PACE rather than merely referring to the 2004 Act is that our definition refers to persons aged 18 or over, as the definitions in new Section 63G(2), as inserted by Clause 3, already include all those aged under 18.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this definition is sensible, and I commend it to the Committee.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, the government amendments brought in at the Report stage of this Bill in the House of Commons stipulate that DNA and fingerprint profiles from individuals arrested but not charged with a serious offence could be retained only with the permission of the biometrics commissioner on the condition that the alleged victim is aged under 18, a vulnerable adult, associated with the alleged perpetrator or necessary to assist in the prevention or detection of crime. The effect of that is that many individuals who are arrested for a serious offence will not have their DNA retained at all.
From the definition given in government Amendment 11, it looks as though the Government are setting a higher burden of proof and imposing a greater administrative burden on police, which will have a dissuasive effect on the retention of DNA for serious offences. A false distinction is potentially being made between the risk associated with those arrested and those arrested and charged. As we discussed earlier, rape cases have chronically low charge and conviction rates. The amendment could therefore have an impact on the safety of women. I listened to the reasons which the Minister gave for introducing the new definition, but it would appear to be tighter. I therefore seek an assurance from her that the new definition will include victims in women’s refuges and sheltered housing, and rape victims.
I do not fully understand the purpose behind the amendment, nor do I understand which individuals, if any, the Government wish to exclude through the definition. I do not understand why the definition that we already have cannot be used. I suggest that the definition of a “vulnerable adult” should be common to all legislation, because that is the proper way for us as legislators to act. It is both logical and makes sense to citizens who have to deal with the legislation. I am wholly in favour of common definitions. If we are talking about vulnerable adults in one Bill, we should have the same definition in another. I do not accept that the new definition as put forward by the Minister in this amendment is necessary or desirable.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I may build briefly on those comments because lurking in them was the question that I was going to ask. I suppose that I had better declare an interest, in that, whatever definition is used, I am a vulnerable old person, so it probably makes no difference to me.
The question is: does the Bill change the definition in the 2006 Act? On the basis of what the Minister was just saying, it leaves one definition in that Act and puts another in this Act. I think that it is very odd that we should have two definitions of vulnerable persons, whether adult, children or any other category of person. If a definition is right for one purpose, I cannot see why it is not right for another.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, let me try to explain a little further. We are trying to ensure that, when we refer to “vulnerable adult” in the context of those who are the victims of crime, we are clear about the people who have been affected by the crime against them. Later on in the Bill, in a different context, the term “vulnerable adult” is deployed differently, because it relates to regulated activity and what access a person might have in terms of the activity being carried out at that time. The amendment tries to make sure that, in this context, we define “vulnerable adult” as the person who is the victim, rather than trying to define it in terms of what activity might be used against them, which occurs later in the Bill. I might have to write further to the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may add that those seeking refuge from an abusive relationship would be covered by the third limb of new Section 63G(2); that is, by being associated with the suspect. However, given the nature of the questions that the noble Baroness has asked and the sensitivity of the topic—I would not want to give anybody the wrong impression about it—it would probably be best for me to come back to her in writing.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, before we go to a vote, I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing the amendment and bringing it back on Report. I do not wish to vote against it but I should like further confirmation that the people who should be covered by this definition of “vulnerable adult” are properly considered and covered by it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think, on reflection, that that would be the right course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 15, 16 and 17. These are identical amendments to Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7, which permit the continued retention of material in specified circumstances indefinitely, irrespective—at any rate in statutory terms—of any ongoing necessity for crime prevention and detection purposes.
I have referred before to the fifth principle of data protection, which I have quoted, and my amendments would permit retention for as long as is necessary for the prevention and detection of crime, investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution. That is the wording used in Clause 16, which I am not seeking to amend, and which the Information Commissioner has told us more closely accords with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.
I may be told that there is too much bureaucracy involved in this but it would be appropriate for the Committee to hear an explanation from the Minister as to why indefinite retention is allowed in the context of the generally wholly welcomed provisions limiting retention. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I hope to deal with this issue relatively briefly. My noble friend has got it right when she refers to additional bureaucracy. If we move from unconditional indefinite retention to a necessity test, as is suggested in her amendments, this would require the police to keep under continual review some 4.5 million or so convicted individuals whose DNA is retained on the national DNA database, as well as the 3 million or more whose fingerprints are held without a DNA profile. That would be a huge administrative exercise which the police would not be happy to take on.
My noble friend made a point about why we are retaining it indefinitely for certain people and not for others. Recently published research notes that, at least on average, conviction rates for individuals with no prior convictions will be lower than for individuals who are proven offenders. That is why we believe we are right in retaining material from the unconvicted only in certain specific circumstances, as we discussed earlier, while retaining the material from all those with convictions for recordable offences. Such retention is preventive, not punitive. It is done in respect of a group of individuals who pose a considerably higher risk of future offending—significantly higher than that of the general population—because of their past proven criminality.
I hope that with those assurances—that it is a group more likely to offend in future and that it would be a massive bureaucratic exercise for the police to undertake—my noble friend will accept that her amendments are unnecessary.
Baroness Hamwee
I am not sure about their not being necessary, but I can see they may be undesirable. I shall not comment on police happiness.
Lord Henley
It is not purely police happiness—it is also police cost. If my noble friend’s amendment were accepted, looking at 4.5 million entries on an annual basis would divert an awful lot of police man hours away from the job.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am being inappropriately flippant in a serious context. Perhaps I had better just beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Erroll
“Privacy Commissioner
(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Commissioner to be known as the Privacy Commissioner (referred to in this section as “the Commissioner”).
(2) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner to promote respect for individual privacy.
(3) The Commissioner shall have all the duties and functions set out in—
(a) section 51 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Data Protection Commissioner),(b) section 57 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Interception of Communications Commissioner),(c) section 91 of the Police Act 1997 and section 62 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Chief Surveillance Commissioner),(d) section 20 of this Act (Commissioner for the Retention and Use of Biometric Material),(e) section 34 of this Act (Surveillance Camera Commissioner).(4) The Commissioner shall have all the powers which attach to the offices set out in subsection (3).
(5) The Commissioner shall arrange for the dissemination in such form and manner as he considers appropriate of such information as it may appear to him expedient to give to the public about any matter within the scope of his functions under this Act, and may give advice to any person as to any of those matters.
(6) Any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to a person carrying out the duties and functions set out in subsection (3) shall be construed, in relation to any time after the commencement of this section, as a reference to the Commissioner.
(7) Any appointment made to any of the offices set out in subsection (3) is hereby terminated.”
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, this amendment probes an idea. I am afraid that it was borrowed from one proposed in another place and, although it is not perfect, it will do just to sound out the concept and idea. I think that that is very important.
I spoke along these lines a long time ago in a debate on the report of the Science and Technology Committee on personal internet security, on 10 October 2008 in col. 467, if anyone is interested enough to look it up. We are getting a plethora of commissioners, with five of them looking at different aspects of information privacy, so there is a huge opportunity for things to fall between the cracks when there is no overlap—or there is an overlap, and nobody knows whose jurisdiction it falls within. Every time we have another thing, we invent another commissioner, and that concerns me. We are not taking an overall overview approach to this issue. Also, as new things emerge, where do you fit them in? Which commissioner do you fit them with, or do you invent a new commissioner each time?
The second challenge that I had was with the logical difficulty of a commissioner reporting back through the very person on whom he is reporting—because most of them, except for the Information Commissioner, report to the Secretary of State and on things that the Secretary of State’s department is doing. The Secretary of State has the right to edit the report before it goes public, in the public interest, which can mean almost anything. So I am challenged by that idea. The reason why I like the set-up for the Information Commissioner under the Data Protection Act is because that commissioner reports to Parliament and is appointed by Her Majesty using letters patent. Therefore, that commissioner reports directly to us. On the other hand, there is a challenge for the Information Commissioner as a single person. For example, when that commissioner had to criticise Parliament over expenses, I know that the previous Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, felt very exposed as a single person; some complaints were aimed very personally at him. So at that point, I thought that maybe we should have an authority—more of a group of people. So I would rather draw all these commissioners into one personal information protection authority, or PIPA, which would be answerable to Parliament, not through the Secretary of State. Philosophically, in a democracy, that would be a far better way in which to organise it all. Anything new could go into that; they could work out whose responsibility the different bits were. Some of them would have a very high security classification, as some of the aspects for the Surveillance Commissioner have to have.
I am promoting this, hoping that it will find favour, but as usual I expect that the Civil Service would prefer to retain control over their commissioners and the people reporting on them. I think that that is unfortunate. One reason for choosing PIPA is that you have to remember that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not sure whether I go down the route of paying the piper but the question of accountability, which this amendment raises, is immensely important. Parliament has decided over the years to agree the appointment of a number of commissioners to provide oversight. For that oversight to work in the best way, the line of accountability is one that one has to look at. I am not sure whether having a single commissioner is practicable, but the issue highlighted by this amendment is a very important one and I am glad that the noble Earl has brought it to the Committee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has explained, this proposed new clause seeks to combine a number of distinct statutory commissioners into a single privacy commissioner. As the noble Earl predicted, I am afraid that the Government are not persuaded that any benefits which may arise from such a merger would offset the disadvantages. Each of the five commissioners listed in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause requires a high degree of knowledge of relevant legislation and procedures to operate in specialist and technical areas.
Before I explain why the Government propose to set up the commissioners in this way, I will address the issue of accountability, as it is one that my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised as well. The noble Earl suggested that his privacy commissioner should be directly accountable to Parliament. The existing commissioners are independent officeholders and there is no question that they discharge their functions without fear or favour. If there were a question of a conflict of interest—I do not accept that there is—it would apply equally to a situation where the privacy commissioner would be directly accountable to Parliament. Parliament is subject to the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and thus to the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner, so a conflict of interest could equally arise if he reported directly to Parliament. The existing accountability arrangements work well and I see no reason to change them.
Going back to the five commissioners, there is no doubt that in some cases the work of the various commissioners can be related but, in each case, there remain specific and crucial differences where their work remains distinct. To roll up all of the functions of the various commissioners would be to risk watering down the skills and expertise that are brought to bear in each of the areas. Moreover, given the wide diversion of roles and responsibilities of the five commissioners listed in the proposed new clause, I am not convinced that it would be possible for a single individual to provide adequate oversight in any given area—a point which I think that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made.
If a privacy commissioner were to be appointed, I envisage that he or she would quickly need several deputy commissioners, or a large body of support staff, to oversee the specific areas currently overseen by separate individuals. This would create an unwieldy body which, in all probability, would have less influence and impact, compared with the existing commissioners operating in niche areas. We can take the Interception of Communications Commissioner as an example of the specialist knowledge required in this area. That commissioner provides oversight of the intelligence agencies and law enforcement authorities by keeping under review their use of interception powers and their powers to acquire communications data. The role is very specific and the commissioner’s powers to require disclosure by the intelligence agencies, and others, of highly classified information means that it is a highly sensitive post that could not be amalgamated with a range of other, unrelated commissioner functions.
That said, we fully accept that there is a need for these various officeholders to work closely together, and I assure your Lordships that this is already happening. The Public Bill Committee that considered this Bill in the other place heard testimony from the Information Commissioner and the interim CCTV regulator. Both commissioners were clear that where their functions touched on similar areas, they remain adept at establishing and maintaining effective working relationships, so that they can complement rather than duplicate the work of the other. I see no reason to doubt why this cannot continue to be the model in the future.
While there is certainly some common ground between the work of the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, there are also important differences. The Information Commissioner highlighted, in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee, that his consideration of CCTV is limited to the sphere of data protection and, as such, that his office is not concerned with the effective use of cameras. Indeed, the commissioner saw this separation of functions as advantageous, stating,
“if you are specifically identified as Mr Privacy and expected to come down on the privacy side all the time, it is difficult to make judgments about the release of official information”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 97.]
Furthermore, the noble Earl might remember—I know that he has a great deal of experience in this area—that public confidence in CCTV is driven by both the proportionality and the effectiveness of deployment. The public want, rightly, to see that when surveillance cameras are deployed they help to bring criminals to justice.
In that same evidence session, the deputy Information Commissioner stated that,
“if the cameras do not work, we are not concerned, because cameras that do not work cannot intrude on someone’s privacy and that is what our driver is”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 99.]
I would therefore be concerned about having all these functions under the umbrella of a privacy commissioner. It is important to note that the Information Commissioner plays a key role not only in making sure that personal data are properly protected but that information is freely available to the public in accordance with freedom of information legislation. A single privacy commissioner would undoubtedly tilt the overall balance of the role to the detriment of the Government’s objectives to promote openness and transparency.
In short, it is our view that the five commissioners that are the subject of the amendment all undertake sufficiently distinct roles to justify their separate identities. Where their roles interconnect, I am confident that they will, as now, work together effectively to ensure that they complement rather than duplicate each other’s work. We will of course keep the landscape of commissioners under review but, for the reasons that I have set out, I am not persuaded of the case for a single privacy commissioner. I hope that the noble Earl accepts these arguments and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, but I am grateful to him for putting it forward in order for us to discuss these matters.
The Earl of Erroll
I thank the Minister for that reply. In fact, what she described was rather what I ended up thinking. I have to admit that the amendment is defective in that it is not quite what I thought; it came quickly from someone else in order to solve the problem of putting something on paper. A single commissioner certainly could not do that job. I had envisaged someone at the top but then four or five departments underneath, some with much higher security ratings than others. It would just be a matter of co-ordination. From that point of view, I am glad to hear from the Minister that this is already happening with the collaboration between the commissioners on the ground. I hope that that will continue with the other commissioners if the structure stays separate. Bringing them together under a single overarching review may still possibly have advantages, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) For the purposes of this section, a person shall not be considered to have consented to the taking of section 63D material unless that person has been fully informed of its potential use and retention.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my amendment deals with informed consent. It would provide that a person is not considered to have consented to the taking of material without having been fully informed of its potential use and retention. I am hoping that the Minister will tell me that this is not necessary because that happens and will happen. If I am correct in that assumption, I look forward to hearing on what basis the information is given, but if I am not correct, I look forward to assurances regarding how that will be put in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I do not wish to return to our earlier discussion about the desirability of a voluntary or mandatory DNA database. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister, pursuant to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that citizens will still be able to give their DNA voluntarily should they so wish. I know that my right honourable friend David Blunkett did so to show that the DNA database was not something to be feared and that there was no stigma related to it. Listening to the debates in the Chamber this afternoon, I feel even more strongly about the retention of DNA now than I did before. I might well go along to a police station and voluntarily give my DNA.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, this is quite an important principle. I notice that when it comes to cautions and reprimands, particularly reprimands, the police certainly do not warn youngsters of the full implications of accepting one. They do not realise that it is a plea of guilt to a criminal offence, which will stay on their record for certain purposes throughout their life. In fact, I have discovered that even some solicitors in the county courts do not realise that. Therefore, it is important that the police have a duty to advise people properly of the full implications of these things, partly so that the police realise them as well. I support this amendment.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I start with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about her desire to give DNA voluntarily. I take note of that. There is nothing to stop her. I was going to suggest that a special database could be set up, possibly named after her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who seemed so keen on the idea. However, we will now have to call it the Baroness Royall database, and it can collect the DNA of all those members of the party opposite who want to hand it over voluntarily, and all those others who want to deal with the problem of stigma that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about earlier.
There is, however, a much more serious point here: the informed consent of individuals when they come to give their DNA. They might be doing so as part of some operation that the police are mounting where they deliberately want to exclude certain people from their investigations and, therefore, want to take fingerprints or DNA. It is right that we get the appropriate consent set out. That is why comprehensive guidance on the operation of these powers is set out in PACE Code of Practice D, which was revised in March this year to take account of the 2010 Act. It will need to be revised again once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Code D sets out the information that needs to be provided to a person before their fingerprints and/or DNA are taken. Annexe F of the code specifically sets out the requirements to be followed. Note for Guidance F1—to confuse noble Lords even further—underlines the importance of true informed consent. I shall read an extract from it to give assurance that appropriate guidance is offered. It will be revised in the appropriate manner after the passage of the Bill. It states:
“Fingerprints, footwear impressions and samples given voluntarily for the purposes of elimination play an important part in many police investigations. It is, therefore, important to make sure innocent volunteers are not deterred from participating and their consent to their fingerprints, footwear impressions and DNA being used for the purposes of a specific investigation is fully informed and voluntary. If the police or volunteer seek to have the fingerprints, footwear impressions or samples retained for use after the specific investigation ends, it is important the volunteer’s consent to this is also fully informed and voluntary”.
It is very important that the people covered by the new details in Clause 10, particularly new subsection (3), which refers to people who have,
“previously been convicted of a recordable offence”,
are properly informed, under the code of practice, of just what they are consenting to and for how long their DNA will be retained. Therefore, I think my noble friend will accept that her amendment is not necessary. We will make sure that the code of practice is revised in the appropriate manner and that will be done at an appropriate moment after the passage of the Bill. I hope therefore that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is very helpful. As the noble Earl has said, there are consequences of which not everyone is always aware. His point about the police understanding what they are doing is an important factor. I look forward to the script of the sitcom of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, turning up at a police station and saying, “Please will you take my DNA and record it”. I think that they might be a little baffled but no doubt she will take Hansard with her. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Destruction of copies of section 63D material under this section must be processed individually.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the destruction of material by way of batches, and what the material was which was to be destroyed, was dealt with in Committee in the Commons. Reading the debate of 5 April after I had received the Information Commissioner’s briefing, it seemed to me that the discussion slightly petered out. My Amendment 21, which would provide for copies to be processed individually, is tabled to enable the Minister to give assurances—no doubt he will seek to do so—that the deletion of all DNA profile information will be the norm and that retention will occur only in exceptional circumstances. I understand from the debate in the Commons that there are some practical issues around how destruction is dealt with. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee in regard to the subject of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend is again right when she says that there are some technical problems with this issue. I shall say a little about that in a moment once I have set out the position. It might help if I set out a little of the background in this area. Because of the way in which DNA samples have historically been processed in batches—typically of 96, I am told—it is impractical to delete all processing records held within a forensic science laboratory, as batches will inevitably contain a mixture of profiles from convicted and unconvicted individuals, and records must be retained for evidential purposes of convicted individuals, not least in the event of a subsequent appeal or referral to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Action is already under way, led by the National DNA Database Strategy Board and the Protection of Freedoms Bill Implementation Project Board, chaired by Chief Constable Chris Sims on behalf of ACPO, to address the potential for relinking records by removing any link between police barcode numbers and laboratory processing records. One forensic science provider already does this. The strategy board is already working with the laboratories to make this change by the middle of next year. This will break the link between the police and laboratory records and prevent any illicit relinking of names to profiles. The revised procedures will apply to both new and existing samples. From mid-2012, it will be impossible to carry out this relinking. Once the forensic science provider is informed that an individual’s DNA profile has been removed from the database, the link between the police barcode and the laboratory reference will be broken and restoration will not be possible.
None the less, we understand the concerns that have been expressed in this area, and my honourable friend the Minister for Crime and Security recently met representatives of the company which supplies the DNA profiling machines which produce these interim records. They are working on a proposal to enable the deletion of these records rather than merely breaking the links as I have described. If the cost of doing so is not wholly excessive, we will require the destruction of these records. I hope that my noble friend will bear with me for a while until those discussions have been completed and the company can tell us what will be physically possible and what will not be possible. In the mean time, I hope that she will be satisfied by the fact that we feel that we can break the link between the police barcode and the laboratory reference. Once we have broken that link, it will not be restored. Therefore, Amendment 21 will not be necessary.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is very helpful information and updating. I suppose the obvious question is whether the Minister is asking me to bear with him for a period which may be longer than that between Committee and Report stage. I do not know whether he has been informed of how long the investigations may take.
Lord Henley
I certainly cannot guarantee to do anything between Committee and Report and I doubt even necessarily between Committee and Third Reading. We will do what we can. If I can bring any further intelligence to the House in the Bill’s later stages, I will certainly do so. However, it would be wrong for me to give any assurances at this stage. The important thing to say is that we can at least break the link between the police barcode and the laboratory. Whether we can do something better will depend on what the company manufacturing these machines manages to do.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm that the anonymising of these profiles in the batches of innocent people’s material is compatible with our duties as outlined by the European Court in relation to the retention of innocent people’s material. When speaking to the people in charge of this procedure in various companies, will he bear in mind the fact that the Government might in the future legislate to prevent innocent people’s DNA being deleted from the database? If that should occur, what is the possibility of relinking people’s profiles with the police national computer? Is there any way in which their names, addresses and identifying details on the national computer can be got rid of to prevent that eventuality ever happening so that the samples remain completely anonymous and can never be reconnected to a name and address?
Lord Henley
I will have to take advice on this but my understanding is—I will write to my noble friend if I am wrong about this—that once we have broken the link between the police barcode and the samples, it is broken and cannot be repaired. However, if I am wrong on that, I will let my noble friend know. As regards whether we can get improvements made to the machines so that we can properly delete these things, that will have to wait on the discussions to which I referred earlier.
Baroness Doocey
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, in moving Amendment 23, I shall speak also to Amendment 41. Both amendments deal with the collection of DNA under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the governance surrounding the storage of that DNA. I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority.
Under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act, the police have considerable power and may act “whether or not” they have “grounds for suspecting”. They may also, under Schedule 7, take DNA and fingerprint samples from suspects, although the proportion of cases where this occurs is rather small. However, there remains a need for clarity and transparency in relation to this biometric information, its storage, and the governance surrounding it.
The Bill limits to six months the retention of DNA profiles taken as a result of Schedule 7 examinations. This is a great improvement on indefinite retention, but it is still contentious to retain such profiles at all, bearing in mind the nature of the power under which they were first obtained. The six-month period is recognition of the time required to obtain a DNA profile and carry out the necessary checks to identify whether or not an individual poses a threat and then for a national security determination application to be made, which, if approved, would allow for a further two-year retention but on a renewable basis.
Therefore, in theory, a DNA sample obtained from an individual who has never been convicted of a crime can be retained by the police indefinitely. Amendment 23 would redress this balance by ensuring that whenever DNA is taken, the same governance rules apply, whereby the data are not retained if the person is subsequently not arrested.
Amendment 41 deals with the governance of all databases where DNA material is held—not just the DNA database. The Bill would strengthen the oversight and governance of the National DNA Database, but these rules should apply also in respect of all databases, including the counterterrorism DNA database. This would be in line with the findings of the 2011 Annual report of The Ethics Group: National DNA Database, which concluded:
“All databases containing DNA information including the counter terrorism database held by the police service should be subject to a robust statutory governance framework, appropriate systems and controls, and should be transparent and only be used for statutory purposes”.
This was accepted by the National DNA Database Strategy Board.
The Bill limits to six months the retention of DNA profiles taken as a result of Schedule 7, but there must be clarity in terms of where such profiles and the physical samples are retained. The National DNA Database retains all profiles obtained as a result of individuals being arrested for a recordable offence. However, if only certain DNA profiles obtained from a Schedule 7 examination, which are not recordable, are retained on the separate counterterrorism DNA database, we need clarity about where the remaining profiles are retained and, more importantly, who has access to them. We cannot have a system where DNA profiles from individuals not convicted of any crime are not stored and managed with the same safeguards as DNA obtained from an individual as a result of an arrest.
There are certain elements of governance that need to be observed for the counterterrorism DNA databases, including scientific standards, ethical oversight and meeting the Data Protection Act requirements. Amendment 41 would ensure that suitable governance arrangements are in place for all DNA samples and profiles that are retained by the police. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
Perhaps I may make some observations on the amendment that are very much in the nature of trying to understand what it is intended to do, and I am sorry if I have misunderstood it.
As I read the Bill, there are two circumstances in which material that has been taken in relation to a person who has been detained under Schedule 7 may be retained. In one case, it is retained indefinitely in circumstances where that person has previously been convicted of a recordable offence, other than a single exempt conviction, or is so convicted before the end of a further period. Therefore, if a person has been convicted previously of a recordable offence, DNA or material taken under Schedule 7 may be retained indefinitely. There is a second circumstance in which the material can be retained for six months, which is where the person has no previous convictions or only a single exempt conviction.
I regret that I do not understand at the moment what the noble Baroness’s amendment would do. It would add the words,
“and subsequently arrested for an offence directly related to the reasons for detention”.
For example, if this was the case as regards a person who had previously been convicted of a recordable offence, one would somehow have to wait to see whether that person was subsequently arrested—and I do not know within what period that would apply—for an offence that would also have to qualify as being directly related to the reasons for detention. Only in those circumstances could the material be retained. I do not understand how anyone will know at any point whether that person is going to be subsequently arrested. Nor do I understand why they should be,
“arrested for an offence directly related to the reasons for detention”.
I have to some extent demonstrated my colours in relation to DNA but, at least in the case of a person who has previously been convicted of a recordable offence, I see no reason at all why the material should not be retained. I do not see why one should add a condition whereby somehow you are going to be able to discover subsequently that a person would be arrested for an offence and, furthermore, that that offence is directly related to the reasons for the original detention—whatever, with respect, that means.
At the moment, I do not understand the amendment and, for those reasons, I could not support it.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not know whether I can bring light to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, but I will see what I can manage. I will speak to my noble friend’s amendments and, because they have been grouped together, in due course speak to the government amendments in my name—Amendments 24 to 37.
My noble friend helpfully set out her views on the provisions in Schedule 1 in respect of the retention of material taken as a result of a Schedule 7 examination. Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is a national security border power that enables examining officers to stop, search and question a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, without reasonable suspicion that they are so concerned. Given that most major terrorist plots have involved individuals travelling across international borders to plan and prepare their attacks, it is only right that the police are given appropriate powers to examine persons, including through the taking and retention of biometric material—in this context, in order to identify and disrupt such individuals.
Imposing a requirement to arrest an individual for terrorism offences as a condition for retention and use of material taken under these powers, would fundamentally undermine their use as a means to identify those involved in terrorist activity and to gather intelligence. Such intelligence can provide vital contributions towards wider intelligence-based investigations in respect of national security. Terrorism investigations are, by their very nature, long and complex, and at the end of a Schedule 7 examination it may not be immediately apparent that an arrest is appropriate.
Attaching a requirement for arrest would furthermore offer no additional safeguards. The Bill already provides safeguards for material taken from a person detained under Schedule 7. There is a defined retention period of six months, which is considerably shorter than the three years’ retention period that applies where a person has been arrested for a terrorist offence under Section 41 of the 2000 Act. The new biometric commissioner will also have a general oversight role in respect of the retention and use of biometric material taken under Schedule 7.
I hope that that helps partially to explain matters to the noble and learned Lord and reassures my noble friend that the provisions in the Bill are transparent and will provide strong protection against unnecessary retention of material taken from individuals detained under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act.
Turning now to the governance arrangements for the DNA databases, the subject of Amendment 41, I think it is important to note that all DNA material retained by the police will as a result of the Bill be subject to comprehensive regulation, irrespective of the databases on which it is held. Indeed, although the overwhelming majority of DNA information retained by the police will continue to be held on the National DNA Database, where this is not the case, such material will be subject to the requirements of the regimes set out in the Bill, and covered by all the relevant safeguards.
Regarding the counterterrorism database, only DNA profiles obtained by the police in relation to national security—including counterterrorism investigations—will be held on the database. It has already, in effect, been placed on a statutory footing by virtue of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which provides for all material not otherwise subject to statutory restriction, and is already overseen by the National DNA Strategy Board in respect of compliance with agreed national standards and protocols.
The Forensic Science Regulator is also closely involved in ensuring that DNA analysis and validation meet acceptable standards, as he is with the National DNA Database. In addition, we should not forget the new biometrics commissioner’s general oversight function under Clause 20. If the commissioner had concerns about the governance arrangements, I am confident that he or she would not be reticent in bringing such concerns to the attention of the Home Secretary.
Perhaps I may briefly address the government amendments, starting with Amendments 24 to 28. These address three separate matters. First, Amendments 24 to 28 to Part 3 of Schedule 1 are intended to clarify the application and scope of the provisions for the retention and destruction of biometric material to which Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 applies. Section 18 mostly covers biometric material acquired covertly and material supplied by overseas authorities.
The Government are clear that material obtained under Section 18 of the 2008 Act should be subject to a clear and robust regime for the destruction and retention of such material. As such, we have proposed limiting retention to three years—on the basis of a national security determination extendable for renewable two-year periods—after which it must be destroyed.
However, the proposed destruction requirements in Section 18 are not expressly limited to material obtained from known persons. We are concerned that this will lead to anonymous material and, in particular, material taken from crime scenes, having to be destroyed at the three-year point. Indeed, as currently drafted the Bill requires just that. This unintended consequence would result in the destruction of material before the police were able to identify the individual to whom it belonged, complete an investigation of an offence—potentially compromising prosecutions in the process—or make a case for its retention on national security grounds. For these reasons, the amendments are designed to prevent the automatic and premature destruction after three years of anonymous and unidentified crime scene material obtained by the police.
We do not consider that anonymous material or material taken from a crime scene—where it is also anonymous—should be subject to the same destruction requirements as material obtained from known individuals. Rather, it should still be possible for the police and other law enforcement authorities to retain such material indefinitely. However, we recognise that not all crime scene material will be anonymous in nature and as such want to make clear that where there is provision for indefinite retention of unidentified material, once identified, such material will be subject to the same retention and destruction requirements of material where the identity of its owner is known on acquisition.
Amendment 26 will exclude from Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act material taken under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, as it will become shortly. This is consistent with the exclusion of other existing statutory regimes from the scope of Section 18 to avoid enacting overlapping and conflicting provisions. We consider that all these amendments enhance the provisions in Schedule 1 by making clear how they are intended to operate.
Amendment 29 would omit paragraphs 6(4) and 7 from Schedule 1 to the Bill. Those paragraphs, which contain provisions in respect of the retention and use of biometric material in Scotland for national security purposes have, in effect, been made redundant by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011, which itself gave effect to the changes that those provisions would have made. Simply put, the provisions are no longer needed and can therefore be removed from the Bill. There are three consequential amendments to Clause 113 and Schedule 10 which we will need to come back to later in the passage of the Bill.
Finally, Amendments 30 to 37 to Parts 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 extend the list of purposes to which material taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and held pursuant to a national security determination may be used. They further ensure that the order-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order applies in respect of provisions regarding a transferred matter where it is ancillary to an excepted or reserved matter.
Amendments 30 to 33 provide that the purposes for which material retained pursuant to a national security determination which was taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order may be used are the same as for the rest of the UK. That is, that such material can be used for the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or for identification purposes, in addition to that for national security and terrorist investigations.
Amendments 34 to 37 are technical amendments. They amend the Secretary of State’s order-making powers so that the Secretary of State is able to make provision in respect of transferred matters where such provision is ancillary to excepted or reserved matters.
I apologise for taking so much time on those government amendments, but I hope that my noble friend will be content with the explanation I have given of her Amendments 41 and 23. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment, and I will move mine in their proper place.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, forgive my intervening at this stage. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. From what I heard of his response, I think that I would agree with him that her amendments should not be pressed, but I imagine that they are probing amendments.
As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, I intend to bring forward amendments on Report relating both to a period during which evidence can be collected before the Government’s proposals were introduced and to the period for which DNA samples and fingerprints could be retained—for six years rather than three years. If my amendments are accepted, a consequential amendment will be required to subsection (6) proposed in government Amendment 28, but that is for a later stage. For the moment, I am content to accept the noble Lord’s amendments.
Baroness Doocey
I thank my noble friend for the clear way in which he addressed my concerns. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that as soon as he got to his feet, I thought to myself, “I hope I will never get to court and meet someone like him”, because I think I would just throw my hands up in horror and plead guilty, regardless of how innocent I was. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Henley
“(f) paragraphs 5 to 14 of Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.”
“(4) Section 18 material which is not a DNA sample may be retained indefinitely if—
(a) it is held by the law enforcement authority in a form which does not include information which identifies the person to whom the material relates, and(b) the law enforcement authority does not know, and has never known, the identity of the person to whom the material relates.(5) In a case where section 18 material is being retained by a law enforcement authority under subsection (4), if—
(a) the law enforcement authority comes to know the identity of the person to whom the material relates, and(b) the material relates to a person who has no previous convictions or only one exempt conviction,the material may be retained by the law enforcement authority until the end of the retention period specified in subsection (6).(6) The retention period is the period of 3 years beginning with the date on which the identity of the person to whom the material relates comes to be known by the law enforcement authority.”
“(c) for purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution, or(d) for purposes related to the identification of a deceased person or of the person to whom the material relates.”
“(6) In this paragraph—
(a) the reference to using material includes a reference to allowing any check to be made against it and to disclosing it to any person,(b) the reference to crime includes a reference to any conduct which—(i) constitutes one or more criminal offences (whether under the law of Northern Ireland or of any country or territory outside Northern Ireland), or(ii) is, or corresponds to, any conduct which, if it all took place in Northern Ireland, would constitute one or more criminal offences, and(c) the references to an investigation and to a prosecution include references, respectively, to any investigation outside Northern Ireland of any crime or suspected crime and to a prosecution brought in respect of any crime in a country or territory outside Northern Ireland.”
““offence”, in relation to any country or territory outside Northern Ireland, includes an act punishable under the law of that country or territory, however it is described.”
““excepted or reserved matter” have the meanings given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,”
(b) is not prohibited by sub-paragraph (5)(a),”
Baroness Doocey
“( ) The Commissioner must make a report to the Secretary of State about the impact of the retention periods for fingerprints and DNA profiles on the police service, in particular, the estimated cost of processing samples on an individual basis.
( ) Such a report must be made within six months of this section coming into force.”
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, the Bill will place a large administrative and financial burden on all police forces. I believe that we need to monitor the impact of this, particularly in the current climate, when police budgets are under threat and facing severe cuts.
Each DNA profile and sample will need to be processed individually to ensure that they are deleted within the correct time parameters. Furthermore, this process must take into account any subsequent reoffending by the individual, as well as an application for extended retention.
The Metropolitan Police estimates that implementing the Bill will entail a one-off cost of £2.5 million, with ongoing costs of nearly half a million pounds a year. That is a huge sum of money when you consider how tight budgets are going to be, and it could pay for 10 police officers per year. Amendment 39 would ensure that the impact on the police service of the retention periods for fingerprints and DNA profiles and, in particular, the estimated costs of processing samples on an individual basis were reported back to Parliament.
An operational risk is also inherent in the complexity of the retention regime. While the Bill will in theory put in place mechanisms to ensure that DNA data are deleted at the right time, no system is perfect. If, as could well occur with the volumes involved, the deletion process were out of sync and not carried out at the appropriate time, DNA profiles which should have been deleted could remain on the database. If these profiles were then to be matched with the DNA from a crime scene or the victim of a serious crime, this evidence could not be used, since by law the profile should not have been there in the first place as it should not have been retained.
That is what happened in two cases, both of which necessitated changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In both, a DNA match was obtained but their profiles should already have been deleted from the DNA database. In the first case, which concerned a rape, the judge refused to admit the evidence and the prosecution was abandoned, and in the other case a conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the DNA evidence should not have been admitted. The House of Lords subsequently ruled that it should be left to the discretion of the trial judge as to whether evidence in these circumstances should be admitted. We would not want history to repeat itself.
We therefore need some form of reassurance that we will not be put in the invidious position of perhaps identifying another rapist or a murderer but not being able to use the DNA match in evidence. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll
Does a case collapse just because one bit of evidence is not quite right? I cannot believe that that one bit of evidence would be the only thing to bring about a conviction, in which case why on earth do we let people off? That seems quite dotty to me, as a lay man, unless the whole thing hinged on that one bit of evidence, in which case there could be some ambiguity about it.
Lord Henley
I suppose that a case could collapse just because one bit of evidence fell apart, although in the main there would be other bits of evidence. However, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, is right to make that point.
My noble friend, in moving the amendment, is obviously concerned about the costs of the Bill to the police and what that might do in diverting resources away from front-line policing. That has also been a concern of mine, and it is why, for example, I resisted an amendment from my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggesting that we should be looking at all the entries on the database on an annual basis. That certainly would have had major cost implications.
The reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendment is to ask the commissioner to look at a number of issues, including the cost of implementing the Government’s proposals. I can see why she wants to do that—I understand that she is a member of the GLA—particularly in view of the costs for the Metropolitan Police Authority, which, by virtue of its size, will have the largest single bill for implementing the proposals set out in this chapter.
I have to say to my noble friend that the Government have been working very closely with ACPO, the National Policing Improvement Agency and private sector forensic science providers to keep the cost of our proposals as low as possible. We published a very full impact assessment of these proposals in February this year, setting out a transition cost of just over £10 million. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Hamwee had some criticisms of one part of the impact assessment, and I said that even Homer nods from time to time. I contrast that figure of £10 million with the previous Government’s impact assessment for, say, the provisions in the Crime and Security Act, which had an estimated transitional cost of over £50 million. Therefore, I think that the Committee will see that we have done much work in this area.
We are not convinced that the proposed post-implementation review by the new commissioner would add significantly to our understanding of this issue, and it would impose an additional bureaucratic burden not only on him but on hard-pressed police forces. I also say to my noble friend that I believe the commissioner’s first six months in office are going to be very busy indeed in terms of examining a number of applications for extended retention and setting out guidance under Clause 22 of the Bill, without giving the new officeholder the additional task of a financial review.
That said, Clause 20(6) confers on the commissioner a general function of keeping under review the retention and use of biometric material, so it would be within his remit to examine the impact of the retention periods provided for in the Bill without the constraints imposed by the amendment. I certainly reassure my noble friend that we take very seriously the issues highlighted by her amendment but we do not think that it is necessary.
My noble friend also touched on some of the issues relating to the batch processing of DNA samples, with which I think we dealt on an earlier amendment. Again, I reassure her that we think it will be physically impossible to relink anything held on a police file, including the original DNA sample barcode, with any information stored in a forensic laboratory. However, as I said, more work needs to be done in that area, and we will certainly do that in due course. I hope to be able to let the House know more about that at a later stage if at all possible.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will feel that there are sufficient protections in the Bill and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, before my noble friend responds, perhaps I may say to the Minister that he really should not take every question from me as being a criticism. Questions are sometimes completely straight questions.
Lord Henley
Of course questions from my noble friend are not criticisms. I hope that I answer them as well as I am able to do.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which goes some way to reassure me but I still have major concerns, particularly about the financial implications on the Met. I would like to address these and the other issues that I raised perhaps outside the Chamber. At this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have just realised that I am about to ask my noble friend a question—my other noble friend.
The amendment would provide that as well as publishing the governance rules of the board, the Secretary of State would publish rules governing its composition. My question is an entirely simple one and there is nothing to be read between the lines. What will be the composition of the board and how will it be brought into the public domain? My noble friend Lady Stowell may say that governance covers composition, but clearly the membership of the board is important. It needs to be appropriate to its functions and the interests reflected in the composition are clearly a matter of public importance and concern. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for this amendment and I hope that my response will provide the reassurance that she is looking for. This is another issue that was covered in the letter from the Information Commissioner sent to several noble Lords before our Committee stage.
The simplest thing for me to do in the first instance is refer to paragraph 130 on page 31 of the Explanatory Notes, which states:
“The principal members of the Board are the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities (in future, following the enactment of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, a representative of Police and Crime Commissioners) and the Home Office, but there is also an independent element to the Board from non-police bodies, such as the Information Commissioner and the National DNA Database Ethics Group”.
I am happy to put on the record that the governance rules set out in new Section 63AB(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as inserted by Clause 24, will include the full membership of the board and that members will continue to include an independent element in the form of representation from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the national DNA database ethics group. If any of your Lordships have any suggestions for others that might join the board to strengthen the independent element, I will be happy to receive them. Having heard my remarks, I hope that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that. It did not occur to me to look at the Explanatory Notes. My noble friend is quite right; I should have done so. Her emphasis on the independent element from non-police bodies is important. As she read out that list it sounded police-heavy. The police have to operate the system so I am not suggesting that they should not be properly represented but as the debates today and throughout the passage of this Bill amply illustrate—if we need that illustration—it is not only the police who have an interest in these provisions and in the operation of handling DNA material, which is the subject of these various clauses. I am not sure that I would feel that it is adequate that there is simply “an independent element” from the bodies referred to. I would like to see “an independent element”—period. There are plenty of organisations which call on the services of, if not the great and the good—they are not necessarily the best—those who are interested and willing to give the public service that is required for this sort of activity, using the wisdom and judgment obtained through public life, or simply through a period of years.
What can I refer to? We have just been abolishing them but standards committees in local government have used an independent element. I am sure that there are plenty of examples but they always escape you on these occasions. Perhaps I can take what my noble friend has said as something of an invitation to explore this a little after the Committee stage. To have elements from what might be regarded as the usual suspects—I do not say that pejoratively—may not serve the purpose as well as we could.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I just want to re-emphasise that I would be grateful to any of your Lordships who have any suggestions to add on the independent element of the board after today’s debate.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I would also say that it is not uncommon for there to be advertisements for applications using the Nolan principles for an independent element to boards such as this. Perhaps after this evening I shall try to come up with some other examples. I am grateful for that and I put on the record that I am grateful to the information commissioner for the thoughtful way in which he and his office have briefed your Lordships. I warn the government Front Bench that I have not read through to the end of his briefing so there will no doubt be more to come in future parts of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Before we agree this I wonder whether the Minister can give us advice on the costs of the collection of DNA and its retention. Will the Minister tell us the costs involved in the existing arrangements?
Lord Henley
I gave a figure earlier from the impact assessment that the costs on the police were some £10 million. I stick by that. If the noble Lord would like a copy of the impact assessment, I will make sure that he has it.
Lord Campbell-Savours
What is the actual cost of taking DNA from an individual person?
Lord Henley
I have not the first idea of the individual cost but I will take advice and write to the noble Lord.
“(2A) An offence is not committed under subsection (1) by a relevant person if—
(a) the vehicle is not registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994; or(b) the relevant person in question has reason to believe the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, but that the registration details are incorrect.(2B) An offence is not committed under subsection (1)(b) in cases where—
(a) the vehicle is parked in such a way that it—(i) prevents the parking of vehicles elsewhere on land under the same ownership or control as the land on which the vehicle is parked; or(ii) prevents or restricts the passage of other vehicles or of individuals on that land; or(b) the land on which the vehicle is parked is designated for parking by residents of specific dwellings or by their guests; or(c) the vehicle is a vehicle designated or adapted for towing by a mechanically propelled vehicle.(2C) The defences under subsection (2A) or (2B) are, in relation to a person who immobilised, moved or restricted the movement of the vehicle in question in the course of a business, only available if the person in question—
(a) was a member of a trade association accredited for the purpose of the subsection in question by the appropriate national authority; and(b) acted in compliance with any code of practice approved for the purpose of the subsection in question by the appropriate national authority.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, Amendment 42 addresses the law of unintended consequences. The situation is similar to that of the Dangerous Dogs Act. As of some rogue dog owners, we had the Dangerous Dogs Act, and now we have some rogue wheel clampers, we have clauses that will outlaw not the rogues but the clamps. In doing so, they will trespass on the rights of residents and private landowners.
It is funny—funny peculiar rather than funny ha-ha—that despite drunk drivers killing pedestrians and passengers, we refuse to outlaw drink driving and only outlaw excess-drink driving; and that despite guns killing people, we outlaw the unauthorised ownership of guns rather than the guns themselves. We are now going to have a situation where guns, if they are licensed, will be legal on your own premises, but wheel clamping will be a criminal offence.
What have we done with wheel clamping? Instead of cracking down on rogue clampers, the Government seek to ban all wheel clamping on private land, even when it is undoubtedly of value and properly controlled. It is this part of the Bill that I seek to amend—not to give free rein to clampers but to build in robust and comprehensive regulation to the industry.
I will give six reasons for the amendment. First, how big a problem is posed by rogue clampers? We have seen them on television, but that does not necessarily make it a problem. No one likes being clamped, but the main reason for being clamped is that one has parked without authority on someone else's land. Vehicle immobilisation is one side of the coin, but the obverse side is irresponsible and selfish parking. However, without any consultation on this issue, the Government announced a complete ban on all clamping on private property. They provided no evidence for how many people are affected by rogue clampers and are putting the rights of unlawfully parked motorists above the rights of landowners who are only trying to protect their private property.
The issue of cowboy clampers was largely dealt with in the Crime and Security Act 2010. Sections 42 and 44 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 introduced a series of regulations requiring wheel clamping companies to acquire licences and landowners to use only licensed companies, as well as an effective means of appeal for the motorist. However, the powers were never commenced and, strangely, the Government have set about reinventing the wheel.
How big a problem is it? Nick Clegg justified this part of the Bill by referring to his Your Freedom website on which 46,000 people left 14,000 ideas. Quite so—but I understand that only 24 of them wanted a ban on wheel clamping. Nevertheless, Mr Clegg suggested that those ideas led to this proposed ban on wheel clamping on private land.
Secondly, where does clamping work? Clamping or the mere threat of it probably deters more than 90 per cent of illegal parking on private land. The inconvenience of having a car clamped deters even the most persistent and selfish parker. This is fair when there are clear warning signs—and there are bound to be since the essence of effective clamping is not to clamp but to deter.
Thousands of residents will be badly affected by the Government's proposed ban. I remember when, on public rather than private land, I used to return late at night from a hospital where I worked to find that I could not park anywhere near my house, which was in the first non-parking controlled part of the street a couple of hundred yards from a Tube station and a famous music venue—the Forum, for noble Lords who know Kentish Town. Until we got residents’ parking, it was all but impossible to park within 10 or 15 minutes’ walk of my front door. It was a public road, but I fully understand what it must be like to come back to a block of flats like the one I used to live in near Highgate Tube and find that there is nowhere in the communal private parking area to leave one's car. I will quote a police spokesman from Gwent. He said:
“The concept of … legislation which removes the disincentive to behave irresponsibly is somewhat incongruous”.
What are the alternatives to which the rogues will turn if they cannot use wheel clamps? The Government want to deal with rogue clampers but have failed to add any provision to prevent such rogues moving from clamping to ticketing, where they will then be able to fleece the 40 per cent of drivers who pay their tickets. There is no requirement in the Bill for such operators to comply with any code of practice or provide an appeals service. Already, many rogue clampers have turned to ticketing as they do not need an SIA licence or to join an accredited trade association.
Julian Edwards, from Lancashire Trading Standards, said:
“Legal enforcement with the possibility of action through the courts”—
if there is just ticketing—
“can be far worse”—
than clamping—
“and ticketing companies are now ‘licking their lips in anticipation of a money bonanza’”.
Meanwhile, drivers could end up facing a bill for hundreds of pounds. What’s more, a ban will simply send a message to persistent fly-parkers that they have the freedom to flout private parking restrictions. This is a dangerous precedent to set with respect to private property, but those motorists who are pursued through the small claims court may find themselves wishing that they had been faced with a clamp on their car rather than a bailiff at their door.
Fourthly, who will suffer if all wheel clamping is outlawed? The effect of a blanket ban, no doubt unintended, would be myriad problems for motorists and property owners as it would leave some landowners with no redress against the rogue parker. People park on private land every day—at leisure centres, retail parks, local authority and other housing developments, parks, open spaces, hospitals, university campuses, school and church property, sheltered housing and railway stations. A ban on clamping and towing away would remove the right of the owner to protect their land. With a ban there would be nothing to stop selfish motorists parking across hospital ambulance bays, blocking emergency exits or wheelchair access ramps, or even parking on somebody's drive. Noble Lords can imagine if their private drive was near a pop festival, a railway station, a cinema or football ground and somebody left their car on it. On some housing estates, not just cars but trailers are left and the residents have no means of removing them from their parking areas.
The Reverend Adam Scott is a clergyman at St Michael and All Angels in south London, which is coterminous with a housing estate. He stated that the local amenity company serves thousands of people on the estate. It uses a reputable clamping firm, 70 per cent of whose work is for local authorities—but that 70 per cent is unaffected by the proposed ban. The Reverend Scott states:
“Our church halls are heavily used for a variety of community purposes including a nursery school, scouts and other youth activities, events for older people, blood donation and even as a polling station. We also have midweek services, weddings and funerals. Visitors to the church and halls are permitted to park and—with the current restrictions and clamping as a threat—there is usually space for their vehicles … Our concern is that this clause would lead to a war by motorists against residents and visitors to this and other estates”.
These residents want the House to appreciate that they are against rogue clampers extorting unreasonable sums from motorists, but want the ability to exercise proper stewardship of a community resource.
The chief executive of the Association of Residential Managing Agents, which represents firms managing leasehold blocks, said that a survey of his members found that 93 per cent believed that a total ban on wheel clamping was not the answer. He said that,
“the industry needs to be properly regulated to protect the interests of landowners, residents and motorists”.
Autumn Budget Forecast
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I refer the House to the autumn Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, copies of which have been made available in the Printed Paper Office and the text of which will be printed in full in the Official Report. I commend my right honourable friend’s Statement to the House.
The following Statement was made earlier in the House of Commons.
“Let me start by placing squarely before the House of Commons and the British public the economic situation facing our country. Much of Europe now appears to be heading into a recession caused by a chronic lack of confidence in the ability of countries to deal with their debt. We will do whatever it takes to protect Britain from this debt storm while doing all we can to build the foundations of future growth.
Today we set out how we will do that by demonstrating that the country has the will to live within its means and keep interest rates low; by acting to stimulate the supply of money and credit to ensure that those low interest rates are passed on to families and businesses; by matching our determination on the deficit with an active enterprise policy for business and lasting investment in our infrastructure and education so that Britain can pay its way in the future; and at every opportunity by helping families with the cost of living.
The central forecast that we publish today from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility does not predict a recession here in Britain, but it has unsurprisingly revised down its short-term growth prospects for our country, for Europe and for the world. It expects gross domestic product in Britain to grow this year by 0.9 per cent and by 0.7 per cent next year. It then forecasts 2.1 per cent growth in 2013, 2.7 per cent in 2014, followed by 3 per cent in 2015 and 3 per cent again in 2016.
The OBR is clear that this central forecast assumes that,
‘the euro area finds a way through the current crisis and that policymakers eventually find a solution that delivers sovereign debt sustainability’.
If they do not, the OBR warns that there could be a ‘much worse outcome’ for Britain. I believe that it is right. We hope that this can be averted, but if the rest of Europe heads into recession, it may prove hard to avoid one here in the UK.
We are now undertaking extensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis. Like the Bank of England and the OECD yesterday, the OBR cites the chilling effect of the current instability as one of the central reasons for the reduction in its growth forecast. I want to thank Robert Chote and his fellow committee members, Stephen Nickell and Graham Parker, and their team for the rigorous work that they have done. Their forecast today demonstrates beyond any doubt their independence. This is an important point for the House. If we accept their numbers, we must also pay heed to their analysis. In addition to the eurozone crisis, the OBR gives two further reasons for the weaker forecasts. The first is what it calls the ‘external inflation shock’—the result, in its words, of,
‘unexpected rises in energy prices and global agricultural commodity prices’.
The OBR’s analysis—independent—is that this explains the slowdown in growth in Britain over the past 18 months.
Secondly, the OBR today has shown new evidence that an even bigger component of the growth that preceded the financial crisis was an unsustainable boom, and that the bust was deeper and had an even greater impact on our economy than previously thought. The result of that analysis is that the OBR has significantly reduced its assumptions about spare capacity in our economy and the trend rate of growth. That increases the OBR’s estimate of the proportion of the deficit that is structural—in other words, the part of the deficit that does not disappear even when the economy recovers. Our debt challenge is therefore even greater than we thought, because the boom was even bigger and the bust even deeper, and the effects will last even longer. Britain has had the highest structural budget deficit of any major economy in the world and the highest deficit in the entire history of our country outside war—and the last Government left it to this Government to sort that mess out.
The OBR’s analysis feeds directly through to borrowing numbers that are falling, but not at the rate that had been forecast. In 2009-10, the last Government were borrowing £156 billion a year. During the first year of this Government, that fell to £137 billion. This year the OBR expects it to fall again, to £127 billion, then to £120 billion next year, followed by £100 billion in 2013-14, £79 billion in 2014-15, then £53 billion in 2015-16 and £24 billion a year by 2016-17. However, I can report that because of the lower market interest rates that we have secured for Britain, debt interest payments over the Parliament are forecast to be £22 billion less than predicted.
The House might also like to know, given the economic events described by the Office for Budget Responsibility, what would have happened to borrowing without the action that this Government have taken.
The Treasury today estimates that borrowing by 2014-15 would have been running at well over £100 billion a year more and that Britain would have borrowed an additional £100 billion in total over the period. If we had pursued that path, we would now be in the centre of the sovereign debt storm.
The crisis we see unfolding in Europe has not undermined the case for the difficult decisions we have taken; it has made that case stronger. We held our deficit-reduction Budget on our terms last year, not on the market’s terms this year, as so many others have been forced to. In that Budget we set out a tough fiscal mandate: that we would eliminate the current structural deficit over the five-year forecast horizon. We supplemented the mandate with a fixed debt target: that we would get national debt as a proportion of national income falling by 2015-16. To be cautious, I set plans to meet both those budget rules one year early. That headroom has now disappeared, but I am clear that our rules must be adhered to, and I am taking action to ensure that they are. As a result, the OBR’s central projection is that we will meet both the fiscal mandate and the debt target.
The current structural deficit is forecast to fall from 4.6 per cent of GDP this year to become a current structural surplus of 0.5 per cent in five years’ time, and the debt-to-GDP ratio, which is forecast to stand at 67 per cent this year, is now set to peak at 78 per cent in 2014-15 and to be falling by the end of the current Parliament. So borrowing is falling, and debt will come down. It is not happening as quickly as we wished, because of the damage done to our economy by the ongoing financial crisis, but we are set to meet our budget rules, and we are going to see Britain through the debt storm.
There is a suggestion from some in the House that if you spend more, you will borrow less. That is something-for-nothing economics, and the House should know the risks that we would be running. Last April, the absence of a credible deficit plan meant that our country’s credit rating was on negative outlook and our market interest rates were higher than Italy’s; 18 months later, we are the only major western country whose credit rating has improved. Italy’s interest rates are now 7.2 per cent, and what are ours? They are less than 2.5 per cent. Yesterday we were even borrowing money more cheaply than Germany. Those who would put all that at risk by deliberately adding to our deficit must explain this.
Just a 1 per cent rise in our market interest rates would add £10 billion to mortgage bills every year: 1 per cent would mean that the average family with a mortgage would have to pay £1,000 more; 1 per cent would increase the cost of business loans by £7 billion; 1 per cent would force taxpayers to find an extra £21 billion in debt interest payments, much of it going to our foreign creditors. In other words, 1 per cent dwarfs any extra Government spending or tax cut funded by borrowing that people propose today—and that is the cost of just a 1 per cent rise. Italy’s rates have gone up by almost 3 per cent in the last year alone. We will not take this risk with the solvency of the British economy and the security of British families.
The current environment requires us to take further action on debt to ensure that Britain continues to live within its means. This is what we propose to do. First, there is no need to adjust the overall totals set out in the spending review. Taken all together, the measures that I will set out today require no extra borrowing and provide no extra savings across the whole spending review period. Secondly, I am announcing significant savings in current spending to make the fiscal position more sustainable in the medium and long term; but in the short term—over the next three years—we will use these savings to fund capital investments in infrastructure, regional growth and education, as well as help for young people to find work. Every pound spent in this way will be paid for by a pound saved permanently. That includes savings from further restraint on public sector pay.
For some workforces the two-year pay freeze will be coming to an end next spring, and for most it will be coming to an end during 2013. In the current circumstances, the country cannot afford the 2 per cent rise assumed by some government departments thereafter, so instead we will set public sector pay awards at an average of 1 per cent for each of the two years after the pay freeze ends. Many people are helped by pay progression—the annual increases in salary grades to which many are entitled even when pay is frozen. That is one of the reasons why public sector pay has risen at twice the rate of private sector pay over the last four years. While I accept that a 1 per cent average rise is tough, it is also fair to those who work to pay the taxes that will fund it. I can also announce that we are asking the independent pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets, and we will ask them to report back by July next year. This is a significant step towards the creation of a more balanced economy in the regions of our country which does not squeeze out the private sector. Departmental budgets will be adjusted in line with the pay rises I have announced, with the exception of the NHS and school budgets, where the money saved will be retained in order to protect those budgets in real terms. This policy will save over £1 billion in current spending by 2014-15.
The deal we offer on public sector pensions is also fair to both taxpayers and public servants. The reforms are based on the independent report of John Hutton, a former Labour Pensions Secretary, and he says:
‘It is hard to imagine a better deal’,
than this. I would once again ask the unions why they are damaging our economy at a time like this and putting jobs at risk. I say call off the strikes tomorrow, come back to the table, complete the negotiations and let us agree generous pensions that are affordable to the taxpayer.
Let me turn to other areas of public spending, starting with overseas aid. This Government will stick by the commitments they have made to the poorest people in the world by increasing our international development budget—and the whole House should be proud of the help our country is providing to eradicate disease, save lives and educate children—but the spending plans of the Department for International Development meant that the UK was on course to exceed 0.7 per cent of national income in 2013. That I do not think can be justified and so we are adjusting those plans so we do not overshoot the target.
Turning to welfare payments, the annual increase in the basic state pension is protected by the triple lock introduced by this Government. This guarantees a rise either in line with earnings, prices or 2.5 per cent, whichever is greater. It means that the basic state pension will next April rise by £5.30 to £107.45—the largest ever cash rise in the basic state pension and a commitment of fairness to those who have worked hard all their lives. I wanted to make sure that poorer pensioners did not see a smaller rise in their income, so I can confirm today that we will also uprate the pension credit by £5.35 and pay for that with an increase in the threshold for the savings credit.
I also want to protect those who are not able to work because of their disabilities and those who, through no fault of their own, have lost jobs and are trying to find work, so I can confirm that we will uprate working-age benefits in line with September’s consumer prices index inflation number of 5.2 per cent. That will be a significant boost to the incomes of the poorest, especially when inflation is forecast to be considerably less than that by next April. We will also uprate with prices the disability elements of tax credits, and increase the child element of the child tax credit by £135 in line with inflation too. But we will not uprate the other elements of the working tax credit this coming year; and given the size of the uprating this year, we will no longer go ahead with the additional £110 rise in the child element, over and above inflation, that was planned. By April 2012, the child tax credit will have increased by £390 since the coalition came into power. The best way to support low-income working people is to take them out of tax altogether, and our increases in the income tax personal allowance this year and next will do that for over 1 million people.
Let me turn to future public spending. Today, I am setting expenditure totals for the two years following the end of the spending review period: 2015-16 and 2016-17. Total managed expenditure will fall during that period by 0.9 per cent a year in real terms— the same rate as set out for the existing period of the spending review, with a baseline that excludes the additional investments in infrastructure also announced today. These are large savings and we will set out in future how resources will be allocated between different areas of government.
I am also announcing a measure to control spending which is not for today or next year, or even for the next decade, but it directly addresses the long-term challenge Britain and so many other countries face with an ageing population. Our generation has been warned that the costs of providing decent state pensions are going to become more and more unaffordable unless we take further action.
Let us not leave it to our children to take emergency action to rescue the public finances; let us think ahead and take responsible, sensible steps now. Starting in 2026, we will increase the state pension age from 66 to 67, so that we can go on paying a decent pension to people who are living longer. Australia, America and Germany have all taken similar steps. This will not affect anyone within 14 years of receiving their state pension today. By saving a staggering £59 billion, it will mean a long-term future for the basic state pension.
We are showing a world that is sceptical that democratic western Governments can take tough decisions that Britain will pay its way in the world. That is the first thing that the Government can do in the current environment: keep our interest rates low and protect our country from the worst of the debt storm. But we need to make sure that those low interest rates are available to families and to businesses. It is monetary and credit policy that is, in a debt crisis, the principal and most powerful tool for stimulating demand.
Last month, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee decided to undertake further quantitative easing, and I have authorised an increase in the ceiling on its asset purchases to £275 billion. This will support demand across the economy, but we must do more to help those small businesses who cannot get access to credit at an affordable price.
We have already extended the last Government’s enterprise finance guarantee scheme, and we are today expanding it to include businesses with annual turnovers of up to £44 million and accrediting new lenders, such as Metro Bank. But this scheme is by itself not nearly ambitious enough and never will be within the constraints of state aid rules, so the Government are launching a major programme of credit easing to help small business. We have set a ceiling of £40 billion. At the same time, I have agreed with Mervyn King that we will reduce by £40 billion the asset purchase facility that the previous Government gave the Bank to buy business loans. Only a small proportion of the facility was ever used. I am publishing my exchange of letters with the governor today.
We are launching our national loan guarantee scheme. It will work on the simple principle that we use the hard-won low interest rates that the Government can borrow at to reduce the interest rates at which small businesses can borrow. We are using the credibility that we have earned in the international markets to help our domestic economy. New loans and overdrafts to businesses with a turnover of less than £50 million will be eligible for the scheme, so that it stays focused on smaller companies. We expect that it will lead to reductions of 1 percentage point in the rate of interest being charged to these companies, so a business facing a 7 per cent interest rate to get a £5 million loan could instead see its rate reduced to 6 per cent and its interest costs fall by up to £50,000.
We have developed with the Bank of England a mechanism to allocate funding to different banks based on how much they increase both net and gross lending to firms. There will be a clear audit trail to ensure the banks comply, for we will use the experience of the European Investment Bank’s loans for SMEs programme here in the UK to ensure that it works. We are getting state aid approval, so that the national loan guarantee scheme will be up and running in the next few months. Initially, £20 billion-worth of these guarantees will be available over the next two years. Alongside it, we are also launching a £1 billion business finance partnership. That is aimed at Britain’s mid-sized companies—a crucial part of our economy, neglected for too long and now identified by the CBI director-general and others as a future source of growth. The Government will invest in funds that lend directly to these businesses, in partnership with other investors such as pension funds and insurance companies. It will give these mid-cap companies a new source of investment outside the traditional banks.
If the business finance partnership takes off, I stand ready to increase its size; and we will develop further partnerships ideas and ideas for new bond issuance to help Britain’s small and medium-sized companies. No Government have attempted anything as ambitious as this before. We will not get every detail perfect first time round, but we do not want to make the best the enemy of the good. With the strain on the financial system increasing, the important thing is to get credit flowing to Britain’s small businesses.
The Government can use the low interest rates that we have secured to help young families, too, who want to buy a home but cannot afford the very large deposits that banks are now demanding. We will use mortgage indemnities to help 100,000 such families to buy newly built homes. We will also help construction firms that cannot get bank finance with a £400 million fund that will kick-start projects that already have planning permission; and we are going to reinvigorate the right to buy. This was one of the greatest social policies of all time. It brought home ownership within the reach of millions of aspiring families. It was slowly and stealthily strangled by the last Government, as discounts were cut and cut again. We will bring it back to life. Families in social housing will be able to buy their own homes at a discount of up to 50 per cent. We will use the receipts to build, for every home purchased, a new additional affordable home—so new homes for families who need them; new home ownership for families who aspire to it; and new jobs in the construction industry, so that we get Britain building. That is what our new right to buy will bring.
In the years leading up to the crash, our economy became dangerously overdependent on the success of a poorly regulated City of London. Meanwhile, employment by businesses in a region such as the West Midlands actually fell. By 2007, the previous Government were relying on finance for £1 in every £8 raised in taxation. That left Britain completely exposed when the banks failed, and I can confirm that, next month, we will publish our response to the report that we commissioned from John Vickers to protect taxpayers better.
It is this Government’s policy to ensure that we remain the home of global banks and that London is the world’s pre-eminent financial centre. That is why we will not agree to the introduction of an EU financial transaction tax. It is not a tax on bankers; it is a tax on people’s pensions. Instead, we have introduced a permanent bank levy to make sure that the banks pay their fair share. I have always said that we wished to raise £2.5 billion each and every year from this levy. To ensure we do that, I need to raise the rate of the levy to 0.088 per cent. That will be effective from l January next year. We will also take action to stop some large firms using complex asset-backed pension funding arrangements to claim double the amount of tax relief that was intended. This will save the Exchequer almost £500 million pounds a year.
Financial services will always be a very important industry for the UK, but we have to help other parts of the private sector in other parts of the country to grow. That means uncongested roads and railways for businesses to move products that cannot be reduced to a screen on a City trading floor. It means providing secure power sources at reasonable prices. It means creating new superfast digital networks for companies across our country. These do not exist today. If we look at what countries such as China or Brazil are building, we see why we risk falling behind the rest of the world. So today we are publishing the national infrastructure plan. For the first time, we are identifying over 500 infrastructure projects that we want to see built over the next decade and beyond: roads, railways, airport capacity, power stations, waste facilities and broadband networks. We are mobilising the finance needed to deliver them, too.
The savings that I have announced in the current Budget have enabled me today to fund, pound for pound, £5 billion of additional public spending on infrastructure over the next three years. New spending by Network Rail, guaranteed by the Government, will bring £1 billion more. We are committing a further £5 billion to future projects in the next spending period, so that the planning can start now. This is public money. By exploring guarantees and letting city mayors borrow against future tax receipts, we are looking for new ways to deploy it. But we need to put to work the many billions of pounds that British people save in British pension funds and get those savings invested in British projects. You could call it British savings for British jobs, Mr Speaker.
The Government have negotiated an agreement with two groups of British pension funds to unlock an additional £20 billion of private investment in modern infrastructure. We can today give the go-ahead around the country to 35 new road and rail schemes that support economic development. In the north-west, we will electrify the trans-Pennine express between Manchester and Leeds, build the Manchester Airport and Crewe link roads and work with Merseyside to turn the vision of the Atlantic gateway into reality.
In Yorkshire and Humber, there will be new stations and new tram capacity, and we will halve the tolls on the Humber Bridge. I want to pay tribute to my honourable friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and indeed other local MPs who have campaigned for years to make this happen. Under this Government it has.
In the north-east, we will bring forward investment on the Tyne and Wear Metro. In the Midlands, the A45, the A43, the A453, the Kettering bypass, the M1 and M6 will all be improved. In the south-west, the Bristol link road and the A380 bypass will go ahead. For families across the south-west facing the highest water charges in Britain, the Government will cut the household bills of all South West Water customers by £50 a year. In the east of England, we are going to make immediate improvements to the A14. In the south-east, we will build a new railway link between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford that will create 12,000 new jobs. We are going to start working on a new crossing of the lower Thames, and we will explore all the options for maintaining the UK’s aviation hub status, with the exception of a third runway at Heathrow.
Here in London, we will work with the mayor on options for other new river crossings, for example at Silvertown. We are going to support the extension of the Northern line to Battersea, which could bring 25,000 jobs to the area. Devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get their Barnett share, and we are working with them to improve the links between our nations, such as the M4 in south Wales and the overnight rail service to north of the border.
This all amounts to a huge commitment to overhauling the physical infrastructure of our nation. We will match it by overhauling the digital infrastructure, too. The Government are funding plans to bring superfast broadband to 90 per cent of homes and businesses across the country, and extend mobile phone coverage to 99 per cent of families. This will help to create a living, economically vibrant countryside.
Our great cities are at the heart of our regional economies, and we will help bring world-leading, superfast broadband and wi-fi connections to 10 of them, including the capitals of all four nations. We will go ahead with the 22 enterprise zones already announced, plus two further zones in Humber and Lancashire confirmed today. I can also confirm that capital allowances of 100 per cent will be available to encourage manufacturing and other industries into the zones in Liverpool, Sheffield, the Tees valley, Humber and the Black Country. Those allowances will also be available to the north-eastern enterprise zone, and we will consider extending to the port of Blyth to create new private sector jobs there, too. This Government’s new regional growth fund for England has already allocated £1.4 billion to 169 projects around the country. For every one pound we are putting in, we are attracting six pounds of private sector money alongside it. I am today putting a further £1 billion over this Parliament into the regional growth fund for England, with support as well for the devolved Administrations. If we do not get the private sector to take a greater share of economic activity in the regions, our economy will become more and more unbalanced, as it did over the last 10 years.
Government should not assume that this will happen by itself. We must help businesses to grow and succeed, and we can do that at a national level too, with our commitment, for example, to British science. At a time of difficult choices, we made ours last year when we committed to protect the science budget. Today we are confirming almost half a billion pounds for scientific projects, from supercomputing and satellite technology to a world-beating animal health laboratory, and Government can encourage many more of our small firms to export overseas for the first time. We are doubling to 50,000 the number of SMEs we are helping, and extending support to British mid-caps, who sometimes lack the overseas ambition of their German equivalents.
We will make it easier for UK-based firms to compete for Government procurement contracts and make new applications out of government data. We will provide funds for smaller technology firms in Britain that find it difficult to turn their innovations into commercial success. We have listened to the ideas from business groups about encouraging innovation in larger companies, and we will introduce a new ‘above the line’ research and development tax credit in 2013 that will increase its visibility and generosity.
We will give particular help to our energy-intensive industries. I have not shied away from supporting sensible steps to reduce this country’s dependency on volatile oil prices and reduce our carbon emissions. I am the Chancellor who funded the first ever green investment bank and introduced the carbon price floor. Our green deal will help people to insulate their home and cut their heating bills. I am worried about the combined impact of the green policies adopted not just in Britain but by the European Union on some of our heavy, energy-intensive industries. We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminium smelters and paper manufacturers. All we will be doing is exporting valuable jobs from this country, so we will help them with the costs of the EU trading scheme and the carbon price floor, increase their climate change levy relief and reduce the impact of the electricity market reforms on those businesses, too.
This amounts to a £250 million package over the Parliament, and it will keep industry and jobs here in Britain. It is a reminder to us all that we should not price British businesses out of the world economy. If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals, however worthy in their own right, not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.
Our planning reforms strike the right balance between protecting our countryside while permitting economic development that creates jobs, but we need to go further to remove the lengthy delays and high costs of the current system, with new time limits on applications and new responsibilities for statutory consultees. We will make sure that the gold-plating of EU rules on things such as habitats do not place ridiculous costs on British businesses. Planning laws need reform, and so too do employment rules. We know many firms are afraid to hire new staff because of their fear about the costs involved if it does not work out. We are already doubling the period before an employee can bring an unfair dismissal claim and introducing fees for tribunals. Now we will call for evidence on further reforms to make it easier to hire people, including changing the TUPE regulations; reducing delay and uncertainty in the collective redundancy process; and introducing the idea of compensated no-fault dismissal for businesses with fewer than 10 employees.
We will cut the burden of health and safety rules on small firms, because we have regard for the health and safety of the British economy too. This Government have introduced flexible working practices and we are committed to fair rights for employees. But what about the right to get a job in the first place or the right to work all hours running a small business and not be sued out of existence by the costs of an employment tribunal? It is no good endlessly comparing ourselves with other European countries. The entire European continent is pricing itself out of the world economy. The same is true of taxes on business. If we tax firms out of existence, or out of the country, there will not be any tax revenues for anyone. We have set as our ambition the goal of giving this country the most competitive tax regime in the G20. Our corporate tax rate has already fallen from 28 per cent to 26 per cent, and I can confirm that it will fall again next April to 25 per cent.
We are undertaking major simplification of the tax code for businesses and individuals, including, this autumn, consulting on ideas to merge the administration of income tax and national insurance. We are publishing next week rules on the taxation of foreign profits, so that multinationals stop leaving Britain, and instead start coming here, and we will end low-value consignment relief for goods from the Channel Islands, which has been used by large companies to undercut shops on our high streets. We have supported enterprise by increasing the generosity of the enterprise investment scheme. Today, we are extending this scheme specifically to help new start-up businesses to get the seed investment they need. Even at the best of times they can struggle to get finance, and in the current credit conditions that struggle too often ends in failure. From April 2012, anyone investing up to £100,000 in a qualifying new start-up business will be eligible for income tax relief of 50 per cent, regardless of the rate at which they pay tax, and to get people investing in start-up Britain in 2012, for one year only, we will also waive any tax on capital gains invested through the new scheme. We can afford this with a freeze on the general capital gains tax threshold for next year.
I also want to help existing small businesses which find the current economic conditions tough. Business rates are a disproportionately large part of their fixed costs. In the Budget, I provided a holiday on business rates for small firms until October next year. I am today extending that rate relief holiday until April 2013. Over half a million small firms, including one-third of all shops, will have reduced rate bills or no rate bills for the whole of this year and for the whole of the next financial year too. To help all businesses, including larger ones, with next year’s rise in business rates, I will allow them to defer 60 per cent of the increase in their bills to the two following years.
I also want to help any business seeking to employ a young person who is out of work. The OBR forecasts that unemployment will rise from 8.1 per cent this year to 8.7 per cent next year, before falling to 6.2 per cent by the end of the forecast. Youth unemployment has been rising for seven years and is now unacceptably high. It is little comfort that this problem is affecting all western nations today. The problem is, of course, primarily a lack of jobs. But it is made worse by a lack of skills. Too many children are leaving school after 11 years of compulsory education without the basics that they need for the world of work.
Our new youth contract addresses both problems with the offer of private sector work experience for every young person unemployed for three months. After five months, there will be weekly signing on. After nine months, we will help pay for a job or an apprenticeship in a private business. Some 200,000 people will be helped in this way but, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, this is a contract. Young people who do not engage with this offer will be considered for mandatory work activity, and those who drop out without good reason will lose their benefits.
If we are to tackle the economic performance of this country and tackle Britain’s decades-long problems with productivity, we have to transform our school system too, so that children leave school prepared for the world of work. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is doing more to make that happen than anyone who ever had his job before him. The previous Government took six years to create 200 academies. He has created 1,200 academies in just 18 months. Supporting his education reform is a central plank of my economic policy, so today, with the savings that we have made, I am providing an extra £1.2 billion—as part of the additional investment in infrastructure—to spend on our schools.
Half of that will go to help local authorities with the greatest basic need for school places. The other £600 million will go to support my right honourable friend’s reforms and will fund 100 additional free schools. These schools will include new maths free schools for 16 to 18 year-olds. This will give our most talented young mathematicians the chance to flourish. Like the new university technical colleges, these maths free schools are exactly what Britain needs to match our competitors and produce more of the engineering and science graduates so important for our long-term economic success.
To ensure that children born into the poorest families have a real chance to become one of those graduates, we will take further steps to improve early education. Last year, it was this coalition Government who not only expanded free nursery education for all three and four year-olds, but gave children from the poorest fifth of families a new right to 15 hours of free nursery care a week at the age of two. I can tell the House today that we can double the number of children who will receive this free nursery care: 40 per cent of two year- olds—260,000 children—from the most disadvantaged families will get this support in their early years.
On education and early-years learning, this is how we change the life chances of our least well-off and genuinely lift children out of poverty and that is how we build an economy ready to compete in the world. It will take time. The damage that we have to repair is great. People know how difficult things are and how little money there is, but where we can help with the rising cost of living, we will. I have already offered councils the resources for another year’s freeze in the council tax. That will help millions of families, but I want to do more.
Commuters often travel long distances to go to work and bring an income home. Train fares are expensive and they are set to go up well above inflation to pay for the much needed investment in the new rail and new trains that we need, but RPI plus 3 per cent is too much. The Government will fund a reduction in the increase to RPI plus 1 per cent. This will apply across national rail regulated fares, across the London Tube and on London buses. It will help the millions of people who use our trains.
Millions more use their cars to go to work, and pick up the children from school. It is not a luxury for most people; it is a necessity. In the Budget I cut fuel duty by 1p. The plan was for fuel duty to be 3p higher in January and 5p higher by August next year. That would be tough for working families at a time like this, so despite all the constraints that are upon us, we are able to cancel the fuel duty increase planned for January, and fuel duty from August will be only 3p higher than it is now. Taxes on petrol will be a full 10p lower than they would have been without our action in the Budget and this autumn. Families will save £144 on filling up the average family car by the end of next year. At this tough time, we are helping where we can.
All that we are doing today—sticking to our deficit plan to keep interest rates as low as possible, increasing the supply of credit to pass those low rates on to families and businesses, rebalancing our economy with an active enterprise policy and new infrastructure, and providing help with the cost of living on fuel duty and rail fares—all that takes Britain in the right direction. It cannot transform our economic situation overnight.
People in this country understand the problems that Britain faces. They can watch the news any night of the week and see for themselves the crisis in the eurozone and the scale of the debt burden that we carry. People know that promises of quick fixes and more spending that this country cannot afford at times like this are like the promises of a quack doctor selling a miracle cure. We do not offer that today.
What we offer is a Government who have a plan to deal with our nation’s debts to keep rates low; a Government determined to support businesses and support jobs; a Government committed to take Britain safely through the storm. Leadership for tough times—that is what we offer. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Myners
My Lords, the Minister must be delighted that he is the first Minister to be able to take advantage of this new procedural protocol so that he does not have to repeat the dire message that we received in the other place earlier today. Twelve months ago, when my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws introduced the debate on the Autumn Statement, he beguiled us with visions of sunlit uplands, growth, prosperity, low inflation and a resurgence in private investment. I fear that he would be deeply embarrassed and would squirm if he reread the words he used 12 months ago in the light of the Chancellor’s Statement today.
The Autumn Statement metamorphosed from a mid-year review of where we are with the economy into a Budget as it became clear that the growth and fiscal targets set by the Government are going to be missed by a country mile. The OBR has now reduced its forecast economic growth for this year, next year and the year after on no fewer than four occasions as a consequence of government policy.
Remember why we were invited to sign up to the agenda of unprecedented austerity. Cutting public expenditure, we were told, would free up resource for private sector expansion, the economy would spring back to life, unemployment would fall and inflation would subside. In fact, as we were told by the Chancellor today, what we are getting is lower growth and record unemployment: a 17-year peak for unemployment; a million young people out of work; female unemployment at the highest level since 1988; and the International Labour Organisation is forecasting that unemployment will increase by another 500,000 to 2.8 million. Inflation is way outside the target, more than double the rate of any of our major competitor countries. So much for the sunlit uplands that the Minister told us to expect 12 months ago.
The OBR tells us in paragraph 1.11 that the economy was in fact growing more strongly in 2009 and early 2010 than previous figures suggested. The policies pursued by my right honourable friend Mr Alistair Darling were working and government borrowing was coming down: it was £25 billion less in 2009-10 than forecast originally in the Budget for that year. The economy was growing, the deficit was falling, as we knew it had to do. We all know what has happened since: the economy has flatlined; growth has been lower than in any of the 27 EU countries over the last 12 months, except Cyprus, Portugal and Greece. The deficit is growing, not falling, and the Chancellor is now forecasting additional borrowings of £150 billion over the OBR fiscal period. Compared with the forecast he made 12 months ago, the borrowing figure has increased by £150 billion. This is the consequence of failure, not of success. We are having the pain but there is no sign of the gain.
There is no sign of a let-up: the OBR forecasts a surge in unemployment and makes two very vital points. First, the OBR now believes that the productive capacity in the economy has been permanently diminished and hence the structural element of the deficit is even higher. Secondly, the OBR and the Bank of England are unable to account for a marked decline in productivity. Yet the Government have no policies to address this decline in structural capacity and productivity. The Government and the Treasury in particular are suffering from collective cognitive dissonance. The Prime Minister told us a fortnight ago that getting the deficit down is,
“proving harder than anyone envisaged”.
Correct, Prime Minister, because the policies your Government are pursuing are actually causing the deficit to increase. The deficit is a consequence of lack of growth, not the cause.
The second area of cognitive dissonance relates to the sources of growth. Growth can be achieved from household consumption, but we know, and the OBR confirms, that that is falling as increased job uncertainty and a squeeze on real incomes—a squeeze that the OBR describes today as a post-war record—are having a severe impact on consumer confidence. The Government are clearly trying to take demand out of the economy. Large companies are sitting on cash and not investing because of the uncertainty. Small and medium-sized businesses cannot get credit to expand, and we are lecturing other countries to adopt the same austerity policies. From where is the demand going to come to increase economic growth? Is the Minister not familiar with John Maynard Keynes’s paradox of thrift? Where is the growth going to come from?
The third area of cognitive dissonance is along the lines of, “It’s all Europe’s fault”. Europe is no doubt very significant and we will be discussing this in Grand Committee on Thursday, but noble Lords should be clear that the economic slowdown in this country is primarily a result of a decline in domestic demand. In fact, the OBR and ONS data show that economic growth in the first nine months of this year, inasmuch as there has been any, has come from exports. Exports to Europe are up 17 per cent over the last nine months. It is domestic demand that is down; it is domestic demand that is forcing up the deficit and forcing up unemployment. Of course, as noble Lords will know, the flatlining of economic growth in the United Kingdom preceded the euro crisis by at least nine months.
This is the context, therefore, for an emergency Budget that has done nothing to add to aggregate demand and places a further squeeze on real incomes, particularly on those on middle incomes or those who are now increasingly fearful of losing employment.
I will look at a few items in the Chancellor’s Statement, and allow other Members of the House to bring up other issues. I shall start with credit easing. On the Andrew Marr programme on Sunday, the Chancellor said the Government would be lending to SMEs. Now it sounds as though it is more like an interest rate subsidy or that we will be lending to the banks to lend to SMEs. Can the Minister tell us when the policy changed? It cannot be that the Chancellor did not know his own policy, yet he very clearly said on the Andrew Marr programme that the Government would be lending to SMEs. Why did the policy change over a matter of three days? How will it work in practice? How much will it cost? Where do the skills lie in Government to evaluate risk?
It is clear that the Governor of the Bank of England wants nothing to do with credit easing. How will credit easing be co-ordinated with quantitative easing, and who will make the credit judgments? What assumptions have the Government made about the probability of default and loss in the event of default as a consequence of credit easing? There is absolutely nothing on this in the Chancellor’s autumn Statement. Has credit easing actually been approved by the Permanent Secretary? Does it pass the tests for value for money? How much will the banks benefit? My sneaking suspicion is that this is another back-hander to the banks, something that the banks will benefit from more than SMEs. We have the abject failure of Project Merlin as evidence of the ability of the banks to constantly outwit this Government.
Much was made in the leaks over the weekend about infrastructure expenditure: an extra £5 billion. I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth—this is a good move—but let us put it in context. This Government cut public expenditure investment by £50 billion a year ago. It is now increasing it by £5 billion over a four-year period: £1 billion per annum is going to be spent by the Government on additional infrastructure expenditure out of total government expenditure during that period of about £2.8 trillion. Mr Fallon said on “Newsnight” last night that pension fund participation in this programme was guaranteed. I invite the Minister to name some of the projects where agreements have been reached, to tell us what the pay arrangements are or the tolls that will be charged.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a statement issued by the National Association of Pension Funds this afternoon, which said,
“there are no plans or details on the table yet”.
Quite frankly, this does not cut the mustard. I remind the House that in this autumn Statement, the Government have said they will cut investment by public funds by the following amounts over the next four years: £2.4 billion, £3.2 billion, £2.5 billion, £2 billion, £2.4 billion and £4.1 billion. Those are the real numbers, not the figments of imagination that we got out of the proposals for infrastructure investment. Nor does the Treasury seem to have given any thought to how these funds would displace funds that otherwise would have been used to support new private sector investment.
I will also say a little about the bank levy. Project Merlin has clearly failed. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that lending to SMEs has contracted—not increased, contracted—by £5 billion over the last 12 months. Does the Minister agree with that number? What assumption have the Government made about how the bank levy will operate in the future? Will it be passed on to customers? Let us remember that the Government are not increasing the total tax paid by banks; they are merely adjusting the rate. This Government do not believe that the banks can pay any more tax but are planning to increase the tax on women and families by £1.3 billion a year through adjustments to the family tax credit. This is contemptible, verging on the wicked.
On spending cuts, the Chancellor says that he has been able to meet his moveable fiscal rules because he will cut spending by an additional £8.3 billion in 2015-16 and £15.1 billion in 2016-17. But other than the cut in the family tax credit, he says nothing about where these cuts will come from. Can the Minister tell us what will be cut?
In conclusion, plan A is no longer credible. It is no longer responsible, respectable or worthy of being taken seriously by anyone. These plans today have been hastily cobbled together. They do not come even close to passing the tests for a plan for growth. The Budget was described by the Chancellor as a march of the manufacturers. Today, we have had a march of the myth-makers. The Government have killed confidence in the economy. Labour’s five-point plan is practicable, fundable and implementable, and worthy of implementation compared with the dross that we have had in the autumn Statement today.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, was not all that fun? I really think that at least the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, studied the documents, to which we will come in a minute, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Myners. There is nothing of substance from the opposition Benches, so we have the noble Lord, Lord Myners, brought out of retirement to give us a bit of theatre to cheer up our early evening. But we really have got some serious things to talk about.
The Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor was made against a very difficult situation in the eurozone. The Government’s overriding priority is to demonstrate our commitment to live within this country’s means and to keep our interest rates low and stable. We have to ensure that we work to stimulate the supply of money and credit to make sure that those low interest rates are passed on to families and businesses. My right honourable friend’s Statement supports our business and invests in our infrastructure. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Myners, at least welcomes that increased investment in our infrastructure because that is what will lay the foundations for sustainable growth into the future.
If the noble Lord, Lord Myners, had spent time reading the documents today, he would understand some of the facts that have been laid out by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. Let me remind him and other noble Lords of some of that. First, yes, growth is lower. But why is growth lower? The OBR sets it out in forensic detail. First, it ascribes the lower growth to date as being substantially attributable to the higher inflation as a result of imports of commodities. Secondly, it highlights the current risks and the reasons for its reduction in the forecast growth as being principally as a result of difficulties in the eurozone. The noble Lord is shaking his head at those, but perhaps he will nod approvingly at this. Thirdly, he will have noticed when he talks about the structural deficit that the OBR’s analysis since it has re-looked at the numbers is that the so-called boom under Labour was even higher and more fictitious than before and that the structural deficit that it built up was even larger, which is why, additionally, we are not going to make up the structural shortfall that we need to make up.
Having said that, the OBR goes on to lay out its growth projections for the next few years. In terms of the top-line growth from 2012 through to 2016, those numbers in each year are forecast to be higher than the growth of the eurozone. So we should not talk down the prospects of the country. The noble Lord asked what the sources of that growth had been. If he had got as far as chart 1.4 in Autumn Statement 2011, which is not very far in, it shows exactly where the OBR expects the growth to come from. For example, it expects total investment to contribute four percentage points to growth between 2010 and 2016, while net trade will contribute two percentage points. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, shakes his head. Does he have better numbers? Does he not share the analysis of the OBR? Those are its numbers.
If the noble Lord was to look a bit further into the masterly document that the OBR has produced, its latest forecast for reduction in general government employment over the period 2011 to 2017 will be 710,000 jobs. It forecasts that in the same period the private sector will generate not 700,000 new jobs but 1.7 million new jobs. Again, I say to the noble Lord and others on the opposition Benches that the policies that this Government are driving through are those which will underpin sustained growth and, that the private sector is already delivering that growth.
On borrowing, we had all sorts of contradictory thoughts from the noble Lord. I am not sure whether he wants us to go faster or slower on the pace of balancing the budget. It was not at all clear to me. All I know is that, if we were sticking in the current environment to the previous Labour Government’s plans, borrowing in 2013-14 would not be the £79 billion which this Government will be borrowing, but £100 billion. To look at it another way, over the spending review period, under the plans of the previous Government, there would be an additional £100 billion of borrowing. That would not be just borrowing: it would be £100 billion of additional debt, with which a Labour Government would have wished to saddle this country.
As to credit easing, it will not be the Government who make the decision. Again, if the noble Lord had chosen to look at it, the banks will be taking those decisions.
The noble Lord also gets it wrong on the pension funds and infrastructure. The pension funds have come to us and have said that they wish to allocate something of the order of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent of their funds to infrastructure. They have asked us as the Government to facilitate that, which we are happy to do.
After all, this is the noble Lord who a few months ago—perhaps last month—was advising HSBC’s retail bank to move to Paris. This is a man who does not have the best interests of British banking or the British economy at heart.
Lord Sassoon
That was reported in the press. If the noble Lord would like to deny it, he is at liberty to do so.
Lord Myners
I think that that borders on an accusation of treachery and that the noble Lord owes me an apology. What I said was that it would not surprise me, in the circumstances, if the board of HSBC felt that it had to consider matters of location, which is exactly what it confirmed it was doing when it gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee. To suggest in some way that I am guilty of some form of treachery is a monstrous suggestion, which I hope that the Minister will withdraw.
Lord Sassoon
The noble Lord, Lord Myners, mentions treachery, which never passed my lips. He was reported as saying that he suggested that HSBC should be moving its retail bank to Paris. If in fact that was not the advice he was giving, I am very glad that he has now clarified that.
This Government are making sure that we deal with the legacy of our predecessors—of his Government —and return our economy to sustainable growth. That means sticking to our deficit plan to keep interest rates as low as possible, which is what was at the heart of my right honourable friend’s Statement this afternoon.
Lord Newby
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for not repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor in another place. This is a welcome change in your Lordships’ procedure. I wonder if I could ask him two questions about infrastructure.
We welcome the fact that the pension funds have said that they are prepared in principle to invest £20 billion in infrastructure, but as the noble Lord, Lord Myners, said, it is clear that there is a long way to go before those plans are concrete. Can the Minister tell us something about the timetable that the Government envisage before the first tranche of that £20 billion starts to flow into specific infrastructure projects? Clearly, time is of the essence on this.
Secondly, on infrastructure more generally, the Statement is silent on the question of social housing, which in my view is a very serious omission because we have a housing crisis. Not only is housing necessary in itself, it is also one of the quickest and easiest ways of creating employment up and down the country. Does the Government’s definition of infrastructure, particularly in relation to the pension fund money which may be coming in, extend to social housing and, more generally, what plans do the Government have on this front?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there is no one more grateful than me for not having to read out 45 minutes of Statement, however excellent it is, so I am glad of the change in the rules of the House.
The situation with the pension funds is that two groups of funds approached us to ask if we as the Government could facilitate their creation of a collective vehicle through which they might invest. We have signed a memorandum of understanding with the groups of pension funds, and we will work quickly to help them set up a vehicle that will then be in place for them. We will be reporting on progress certainly by the Budget next year. Of course, there is nothing to stop those pension funds from investing now, and indeed some of them do so through private sector vehicles.
Further, the UK pension funds are not the only bodies putting up their hands and recognising the attraction of this asset class. Noble Lords may have seen only yesterday an interesting article by the chairman of the Chinese sovereign wealth fund, the CIC, in the Financial Times, saying that it was looking to invest in this sector. The appetite for investment in UK infrastructure is very strong. The UK pension fund vehicle will be additive, and we welcome that.
The housing strategy was published on 21 November. The Government have a clear plan for supporting the housing market in order to achieve a more stable and sustainable position. Without going in detail through every element of what that strategy consists of, we are introducing the new build indemnity scheme to support builders and lenders in increasing the supply of new homes by increasing the supply of affordable mortgage finance. We are launching the new £400 million “Get Britain Building” investment fund. We are bringing more empty homes and buildings back into use. We are invigorating the right to buy, and for the first time within that, the receipts from additional right-to-buy sales will be used to support the funding of new affordable homes for rent on a one-for-one basis. We are supporting locally planned large-scale developments and we are consulting on various planning obligations. What was set out on 21 November is a substantial and important package for housing.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House the justification for reneging on the pledge to increase in real terms child tax credit, given that that increase was supposed to stop child poverty rising? Can he tell the House what the impact of that will be on the number of children living in poverty?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the original £110 rise over inflation was announced at a time when the expectation as regards inflation was significantly lower than has turned out to be the case. The inflation increase that will be made is much higher than intended. Inflation in all the independent forecasts is expected to come down significantly next year, so by April 2012 when the uprating comes in, the inflation expectations are going to be different. That is the basis for the change now. On the distributional effects, those have been set out in considerable detail in a document that was put up on the Treasury’s website this afternoon.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I welcome many of the comments made in the Budget Statement but there is one that I want to ask the Minister to clarify. He announced that he was asking the independent pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets. Can he explain what that means? How are the regions geographically defined? Further, if there were to be a reduction in public sector pay in some of the regions, would that lead on inevitably to reductions in benefits in those areas as well?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for drawing attention to this critical issue because it is potentially an important structural change in the economy. We want to make sure that in the labour markets in all the regions of the country there is no unfair competition or crowding out in any way of the ability of the private sector to hire people. Private sector pay has to be reflective of local market conditions where until now public sector pay has been set on a national basis. We have said that we will be asking the independent pay review bodies to consider how pay can be made more responsive to local labour market conditions, and they will report to us by July 2012.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I think that it is perhaps rather unfortunate that the Statement was not repeated today because it is very well worth repeating. It includes a remarkable number of individual proposals that are going to help the recovery without endangering the Chancellor’s overall objective of maintaining what I think has become known as plan A, which will result in the deficit being reduced. Is it not rather surprising that the shadow Chancellor in another place continues to say that the proposals of the Government are cutting too fast and too soon? We have seen how very difficult it is to make cuts quickly, and in fact that is one of the problems we have had to face.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Myners, saying just now that the Government’s proposals are not respectable, does my noble friend accept that the OECD—perhaps as respectable a body as one could possibly imagine—has warmly endorsed the overall drive of the Chancellor’s policy? Moreover, is it not clear, since we have the advantage of the IBR forecast taking into account what is in the autumn Statement rather than making a forecast based on not knowing what the effects of the Chancellor’s Statement would be, that what the Government have proposed in the autumn Statement will effectively bring matters back on course so that the plans that the Chancellor originally had will be fulfilled?
Having said that, there are some concerns about the situation with regard to monetary policy. Paragraph 3.53 in the forecast of the OBR is very strange. It is important that we should maintain growth in the money supply if we are to see recovery. Can my noble friend tell us what the situation is so far as the money supply is concerned?
Lord Sassoon
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Higgins. I wondered whether we would get through this debate without mention of the money supply, but he has not disappointed me. We have had it as well. I agree absolutely with his analysis of the situation. As the OECD said yesterday, the UK’s consolidation programme strikes the right balance between addressing fiscal sustainability and preserving growth. I can also confirm what my noble friend says. The OBR analysis shows that we are on track to meet the fiscal mandate set out by the Chancellor last year. In respect of monetary easing, I can only draw my noble friend’s attention to the stance taken by the Bank of England with an additional £75 billion of asset purchases, which it believes is necessary in order to ensure that there is no undershoot of inflation, and the package of credit easing measures. The noble Lord, Lord Myners, did not seem to want to see it this way, but that package has been designed to complement the monetary easing with which the Bank of England is driving ahead.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the economy has already suffered two major negative demand shocks, one from the Government’s excessively rapid fiscal retrenchment and the other from the crisis in the eurozone. Will the Government try to avoid creating a third substantial negative demand shock by allowing banks which have under Basel II to increase their capital in relation to risk assets to do so by the simple expedient of reducing their lending and their banking book? Will the Government take powers to ensure that this increase in capital is done exclusively as a result of rights issues, other capital issues or issues of synthetic capital such as contingent convertible bonds, or by increasing retention of earnings at the expense of dividends and bonuses? Does the Minister agree that, if that is not done, the Government will cause a devastating blow to the economy, which is already on the ropes from these other causes?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the first thing to remind the House of is that it was my right honourable friend the Chancellor who took the lead in ensuring that the Basel III reforms on capital were phased in over a period to 2019, which was accepted by the G20 precisely for the reasons that the noble Lord gives; that is, that we did not want to place more burdens on the credit situation in the short term. Similarly, the Vickers commission has recommended that certain of its reforms be on a similarly extended timetable for the same reason. As for today’s measures, the £20 billion of underpinning of the national loan guarantee scheme is directed at ensuring that the flow of credit to small and medium-sized businesses continues, as it must do as we go into the recovery phase of the economy.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Myners, referred to the march of the myth-makers. Does the Minister agree with me that perhaps the biggest myth was that we had done away with boom and bust? As a result of that, what we are paying in interest on our debt is more than what we are spending on education, and that is with interest rates at the low level that plan A had assumed. What does the Minister think will happen to those interest rates if we do not stick to plan A?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I dread to think what would happen to interest rates. The interest rates on our 10-year money have stayed rock solid. They are slightly down today, at below 2.3 per cent. Where is Italy? It is north of 7 per cent. Every 1 per cent increase in our interest rates would cost this country £21 billion or £22 billion. To look at it another way, by keeping our interest rates below the levels which were forecast by the OBR only in March this year at the time of the Budget, we have saved £21 billion or £22 billion on our interest bill, money that can be much better spent on our public services. I dread to think where we would be, but it would be in horrendous territory.
Lord Radice
I welcome the Government’s infrastructure schemes, but what impact will the measures announced in the Autumn Statement today have on output and jobs?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I can only refer again to the numbers in the OBR’s document. I do not want to detain the House by repeating them all, but they show the cumulative effect of all these measures, including the infrastructure measures. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to those measures because they are now more central. The economic infrastructure in particular has become central to the Government’s thinking and planning in a way that it has never been under previous Governments.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, there are some key measures in the Statement on which I congratulate the Government and which completely change the framework for both businesses and infrastructure to access financing. Over the long term, they will create the capacity for accelerated growth that we should all have seen more than a decade ago.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, micro-business is obviously the beginning of the business pipeline. The national loan guarantee scheme works through the banks, which pay no regard to micro-businesses. That does not seem to be a scheme that particularly helps them. They also seem to be too small for the business finance partnership. Will there be, or are there, mechanisms within credit easing to address that particular group of essential businesses?
Secondly, the Minister will guess that I am absolutely delighted that the Northern line will be financed against the community infrastructure levy and that similar powers may be given to various city mayors through tax increment financing mechanisms. Will he look at applying this far more widely, because many small infrastructure projects could come very quickly out of the pipeline, be well managed by local authorities working in co-ordination with each other and give us a much wider distribution of infrastructure as a spur to growth?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, on the first of the questions which my noble friend raises, money will indeed flow through the banks as a result of the guarantee scheme to micro-businesses, although I appreciate that it will always be tougher for them. It is worth noting that there will be banks coming into the credit easing framework that were not there previously—some of the new entrants into the market—so we are maximising the footprint through the banks. I draw attention to one of the other schemes that will be directly relevant to micro-businesses. The seed enterprise investment scheme and the related one-year CGT holiday are to encourage investment in new, early-stage companies. That will commence from April 2012, with a kick-starter of offering a CGT holiday.
On my noble friend’s second question, I well take the point about the importance of locally driven infrastructure schemes, which is why my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary announced the initial £500 million fund specifically for that purpose earlier in the autumn. Beyond that, the use of the CIL is being considered, but I would just caution that we need to think about the fiscal impact of widening that scheme.
Lord Wills
My Lords, since I came into this House some 18 months ago, one of the most notable features week after week has been the presence on the Bench to the right of the Minister of former Ministers who served with great distinction in previous Conservative Administrations, including three former Chancellors who served in the Treasury during the 1980s. Can the Minister shed any light on why not a single one of them is in their place today to support him in this most depressing Statement?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I take it as a sign of great confidence in the direction of policy of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer because former Chancellors are never shy of giving their advice. If they are not giving it today, I assume that they are satisfied.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is entirely right in what he has just said. Am I right in believing that the money that has been earmarked for HS2 is still there? If that is the case, could I suggest to him, bearing in mind the stimulating effect on the economy that infrastructure plans have wherever they take place, that it might be better to abandon that scheme and to use that money for reinstating more Beeching lines and other things, so that people all over the country have the benefit of the money that my right honourable friend the Chancellor has said they should have? Could we abandon that scheme in favour of others?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am delighted that not only can we continue with the HS2 scheme, although it does not impact in any material way on the current spending review period, but also that a number of other exciting rail projects have been announced or confirmed today; for example, the reopening of the Oxford-Bedford link as part of the overall possible link between Oxford and Cambridge, the electrification of the trans-Pennine line, and lots more that is going in rail infrastructure.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is being optimistic in thinking that she will achieve what she sets out to achieve in her amendment. Governments usually have their heads well sunk into the sand by the time legislation gets this far, particularly with the Daily Mail behind it. However, I hope she achieves success in making sure that this business is properly regulated.
As the noble Baroness said, the real problem was that motorists were being subjected to rogue clampers and treated in completely unacceptable ways. That situation might have been dealt with in other ways but it is now being dealt with in this way. There is nothing that I can see in the Bill at the moment that will save motorists from being done in by rogue ticketers. Indeed, the clampers will not have to change their tactics much because in Clause 54 there is a provision for movable barriers. All they will need is a gate across the entrance to a car park and they will have effectively immobilised a car and put it in exactly the same position as if there was a clamp on it.
There are also individual barriers on individual parking places—those little posts that have a key turned in the top—and so individual parking spaces may, under the provisions of Clause 54, continue to be subject to the kind of practice the Bill objects to—that is, the immobilisation of a car, subject to a stiff penalty, without any regard to the needs of the occupant, or of a blue badge holder and so on.
Not only is the Bill deficient in that it allows a slight change of tactics to continue the practices objected to but it opens the business of ticketing to a whole range of untrustworthy organisations. It does not take much to find someone who will sell you a book of 20 parking tickets. You then go and slap them on any car you like and if the motorist pays up you get a cheque back—very nice. This can be done under the guise of protecting your own property—which you might be—or you might do it randomly. There is no proper control over this.
The people doing this are, as the noble Baroness said, being given access to the DVLA database; they are entitled to know whose car it is. If the police are occasionally corruptible, what do we think of these people? If you want to know whose car is parked somewhere, you make sure that you make friends with the person who gives you the ticket that you stick on the car and they will drop you the name and address as if it was public property. We have to make sure that there are tight regulations under the Bill for anyone engaged in ticketing, and also on those who are allowed to continue operating fixed barrier car parks, whether of the conventional kind such as you might find under the National Theatre or others where you drop in coins as you exit. There needs to be proper regulation of those people to make sure that we do not get the cowboys back in another guise.
I believe that the Government intend to license the British Parking Association—it is a totally reputable body and I am quite happy that it should be in charge of the scheme—but any organisation such as that will find it difficult to discipline its members unless the Government insist that the scheme has teeth and take a supervisory role so that if they start falling down on the job they can be brought to book. The Government cannot dodge their responsibilities by saying that tickets are okay. Tickets can end up in large bills for people. If those sending out the tickets choose to employ bailiffs who are not shy of employing all the tricks of the trade, people can end up with bills approaching a couple of thousand quid—not legally, but none the less they do. Why should motorists be subject to that kind of harassment just because of a badly drafted Bill?
We need to sort out the business and to make sure that anyone benefiting from the structures in the Bill is reputable; that it is easy to obtain redress when things have gone wrong and that it is cost-free to obtain that redress. This Bill does not do that yet. I hope the noble Baroness will receive support from her Front Bench in pushing for changes, even if she cannot get all that she asks for.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, I start from the point of view that clamping must be stopped. I have concerns about some aspects of the Bill, including the role of the accredited trade association. In practice, as the noble Lord said, there is only one and, although it may be a perfectly reputable organisation, not all of its members live up to the expectations that one has of them. As has been said, it is very difficult to police a members’ organisation. There needs to be a further effort, via legislation, to raise standards in the industry and there need to be mechanisms that ensure standards are raised, such as a guaranteed right of appeal.
The code of conduct must include a provision on clear bay markings, lighting and adequate size of parking bays. There have been too many cases of people being fined exorbitant amounts of money because one wheel of their car protrudes into the neighbouring parking bay. Irritating as that may be to you and I when we go to the supermarket and it is the last available parking bay, it is nevertheless the case that at night in a dark car park, when the markings have long ago rubbed off, that can be—and is— exploited. There is plenty of evidence of that.
Penalty charges and tickets should be levied only by companies that adhere to the code of conduct, to which I have referred, and the charges must be reasonable. A good benchmark would be the charges levied by local authorities. They vary of course from area to area, but the joy of that as a measure is that it takes account of the local market in parking provision and enables variation from one part of the country to another. It gives a reasonable comparison.
I should like to ask the Minister about the experience in Scotland. I understand that wheel clamping is illegal in Scotland: has there been the explosion in unfair and extortionate ticketing that the noble Baroness fears? I do not recall reading or hearing about that problem but it would be useful to hear about the experience in Scotland.
On Amendment 42, I want to raise a couple of practical issues relating to this. First, proposed new subsection (2A) refers to an offence not being committed,
“if … the vehicle is not registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act”.
As I understand it, that means that it would be legal to wheel clamp foreign vehicles. I wonder where that places us in terms of EU law and international law and whether it is possible to discriminate against foreign vehicles in that way. I am not for one minute suggesting that it is desirable to do so and I do not know whether the noble Baroness intended that outcome but, as far as I can see, included in those vehicles that are not registered would be foreign vehicles. That could cause a problem.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on the Front Bench, because I told her that I would go away and stop being a nuisance. But before I decided to be a nuisance again, I established that it was not to her that I was going to be a nuisance but to my noble friend Lord Attlee.
I will not be that much of a nuisance, because having listened to the debates so far I found myself completely ambivalent about the merits of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, the words of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the cautionary remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I shall reflect on all that.
The point that interests me is on the appeals system. The noble Earl, who is answering this debate, presumably knows something about this from his transport connections. With appeals on ordinary parking offences we already have a pretty shambolic system. In London there are the London parking adjudicators; outside London there is another set of parking adjudicators, who are all part of the tribunal system, which is what I know something about. Outside London it depends on whether your council decides to opt in to decriminalise parking or pursue it in the ordinary, old-fashioned way through the magistrates’ courts. I do not think that the variation in the sort of justice depending on where you live is terribly sensible.
From reading the briefing that somebody—presumably the Government Whips’ Office—helpfully sent me, I have couple of questions. The briefing says:
“Government amendments to Schedule 4 have been tabled to make clear that notices to keepers and drivers must include relevant information about what impendent appeals/dispute resolution arrangements are available to them, in addition to any internal arrangements. We have also made a commitment not to commence the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 until the parking industry establishes an independent appeals body”.
I understand both those sentences on their own but I do not understand them taken together. Are we talking about an insistence that the industry must have a single approved appeals system, whether approved or not? Or are we saying that everybody who becomes eligible to benefit from Schedule 4 must have their own appeals system, and will that be approved or not? I simply do not know the answer to these questions. What I do know is that if there is to be a single approved appeals system that everybody has to join to get the benefits, that seems sensible. If there is to be an endless series of different appeals systems chosen by different providers, whether approved or not as providers or an appeals system, I do not think that is sensible. It puts me in mind of an absolutely daft proposal produced by another government department two or three years ago to have rival ombudsmen in a particular industry—I think that it was electricity or telecoms—chosen by the providers, not the customers. The worst providers would choose the least effective ombudsmen. This is just not a sensible way to run a railway. I would like to know the answer to my questions.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
I want briefly to support Amendment 42. I mentioned even more briefly at Second Reading that I am particularly keen on eradicating blue badge abuse. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for tabling the amendment, because it highlights where my concern most closely fits. I declare an interest, in that I have a blue badge. I support legal clamping but would like to stop illegal operators.
This is a personal view, but there are two groups of abusers. First, there are those people who steal or buy blue badges, which is an increasing market and can be very profitable. In some areas, it has been shown to have increased sevenfold to tenfold in recent years. Also in this group are those who borrow their grandmother's badge and see it as a right to use the family badge. The worst offenders are those who take grandma out and leave her in the car. We have laws for not leaving dogs in cars, but sadly not for grandmothers. When she was younger, my daughter and I used to play a game at the local shopping centre, which was “Count the grandma”.
In the second group, there are those who do not have a blue badge and who may be stopping for five minutes, while popping into a shop or picking up family, who blatantly abuse the system and stare out those who possess blue badges legally. Perhaps there is occasionally a good reason for stopping in those spaces, but I am passionate about blue badge abuse—not just for the abuse in itself but because I believe it shows a wider indication of attitude towards disabled people. I believe it is important to crack down on this. At a time when the media portrayal of disabled people is perhaps at its worst, the Glasgow Media Unit recently looked at some comparative data of media portrayal of disabled people from 2005-06 and 2010-11, which showed that the portrayal was significantly worse than at any time in the past 10 to 15 years. Recent articles have shown disabled people as benefit scroungers and workshy.
I spend a lot of time driving around the country and what I see, too often, is disabled people with hidden impairments being verbally abused because the system is not fully understood. It is only a few steps later that we see why some people think it perfectly acceptable to abuse the system rather than understand the reason for it. There is shocking abuse around the country. I see people who suddenly develop an incredible change of gait when they see me getting out of my car with my wheelchair, or whose limps mysteriously disappear as they walk around the corner. I do not mean to make light of this but it is really important.
It is not just about being close to the shops or the supermarkets—some supermarkets have tried very hard to combat this—but about being closer to work. It is about integrating disabled people in society and having a wide enough space to get a chair in and out of a car. It may be about getting your wheelchair and a child in and out of the car. I have lost count of the number of times I have had to give my car keys to complete strangers and ask them to pull my car out of a space, when someone has just parked across the yellow hash lines between spaces. Wherever I go, at any time of day or night and pretty much every day of the week, I see people abusing blue badge parking spaces. While I do not generally agree with increasing powers, I believe that we need to do more to protect disabled people who have parked legally. I believe in clamping for blue badge abuse, and perhaps we could do even more to protect parking for disabled people.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I have an interest to declare: by virtue of my profession, I am a manager of commercial property. I well remember, not very long ago, a tenant of one of my clients explaining, in the context of a rear service yard behind some shops, how perilous it would be for the continuation of that facility were she not able to involve a clamping firm to deal with serial offenders, because that is what we need. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for raising this because I was unable to be present for Second Reading of this important Bill and therefore this is the first occasion I have had to comment on this matter.
The Government’s intentions certainly need clarification here. The Minister’s clear statement at Second Reading about there being no option but to ban clampers overlooks the need, as other noble Lords have mentioned, to have a workable system to discourage the abuses. I will not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the number of apparently able-bodied people who I have seen leaping out of cars with blue badges, other than to draw the Committee’s attention to there being, I am told, quite a flourishing market in stolen and counterfeit blue badges themselves. Apart from that, we have a system where serial abusers of parking facilities are putting their cars where they should not and serial malefactors, in terms of clampers, follow on to make life disproportionately unpleasant for people who have sometimes inadvertently parked in the wrong place for a short period.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, our Amendment 43 in this group seeks to ban the use of fixed barriers by private parking operators unless they comply with new statutory rules on maximum parking charges and signage. The need for this amendment arises from the Government’s decision on Report in the Commons to introduce new subsection (3) into Clause 54, as has already been referred to, as a clarification in order to maintain the lawful use of fixed barriers in private car parks. However, the effect of that subsection appears to be also to reinstate mechanisms by which less principled operators will effectively be able to immobilise vehicles and prevent drivers from leaving without paying excessive or erroneous parking charges.
As Diana Johnson MP said during the debate in the other place,
“I am even more concerned that companies that wish to get round the law, operate in an intimidating way and issue excessive parking tickets will see this as an opportunity to go ahead. Under clause 54(3) putting down a barrier in effect immobilises a vehicle”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/11; col. 139.]
Subsection (3) risks creating a loophole that will see the return of the very same regime of rogue operators that the Bill is trying to eradicate. Our amendment seeks to ensure that only reputable operators are allowed to use the added measure of fixed barriers in order to ensure the on-the-spot payment of tickets. If not, they would have to pursue vehicle keepers through the DVLA as provided for by Schedule 4.
Reference has already been made to Schedule 4. Under it, landowners—that is, in this context, parking providers—may pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges through the DVLA, subject to certain conditions. Concerns have been expressed about that arrangement. Consumer groups, Citizens Advice and trading standards have pointed out that rogue ticketers, whose numbers may increase following any ban on clamping, will be able to access vehicle keepers’ highly sensitive information through the DVLA and pursue them for excessive or unfairly levied charges.
The present position is that existing regulations enable only those who provide parking in accordance with industry best practice to access details of vehicle keepers from the DVLA. Industry best practice is defined in the regulations as membership of an accredited trade association, of which the British Parking Association’s approved operator scheme is currently the only one. However, the concerns that have been expressed relate to the fact that adherence to best practice is equated with membership of the BPA. The BPA is a trade association and is not resourced or intended to enforce compliance. In addition, the BPA approved operator scheme is not independent since it is decided on by the membership—namely, the parking providers—and therefore does not guarantee fairness to consumers.
In her amendments, my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town has raised an important issue, which was referred to at Second Reading when reference was made to what would happen in the event of a total ban on clamping if people found their driveways being used if they happened, as has been said today, to live near a railway station, a football stadium or perhaps some other major leisure centre, where this is a hazard that at least some of them seem to face. It is not clear, if there is to be a complete ban on clamping, exactly what their redress would be. There certainly would not seem to be much point in calling the police, since even if they felt moved to act in relation to a car on someone’s driveway, it is highly unlikely that they would regard the issue as a particular priority. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss my noble friend’s amendments but will seek to address an answer to the issues and concerns that she has raised.
We have also heard concerns raised about the impact on disabled drivers. Does the minister believe that the Government’s proposals have an impact on disabled drivers? In written evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the British Parking Association said that it was particularly concerned that the equality impact assessment assumes that there will be no impact. We have certainly heard during today’s debate of circumstances that will have an adverse impact and which appear to arise directly from the provisions in the Government’s Bill. I hope that the Minister will give a straight answer on those concerns.
We would support the establishment of an independent appeals process, but it must apply across the whole sector, not just in relation to the BPA. I assume that the Minister would have no objections to that, but no doubt he will be stating his position shortly.
I conclude by saying that in this very interesting debate a significant number of concerns have been raised and there is a degree of consensus, though not complete, from all sides of the House about the concerns that need to be addressed. Because I accept that there are no easy answers, I invite the Minister to consider whether he might convene discussions outside the Chamber with the interested parties—those who have contributed to the debate today—to talk about those concerns and see if any consensus can be reached on progress that might be made in addressing them.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, her Amendment 42 seeks to introduce a number of exemptions to the ban on vehicle immobilisation and towing. The amendment would allow wheel clamping and towing to continue on private land where the vehicle was unregistered in the United Kingdom, causing an obstruction or parked in a residential estate where parking was permitted only for residents or their guests, or the vehicle was adapted for towing—in other words, it was a trailer or a caravan. I understand why she and others seek these amendments, but I personally have received complaints about the activities of rogue clamping companies.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that lengthy and interesting explanation. I shall follow his example and read it carefully in Hansard. I would certainly like to be included in any delegation which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, may choose to lead to the ministry. It seems to me that a number of points still require to be cleared up.
As regards this business of having a right to move a car that is causing an obstruction, that is pretty useless if you are immediately done for scratching its paintwork. How are you going to prove that you have done no damage? You will have to start off with a complete photographic survey. Then you will presumably have to pay a couple of hundred quid for a velvet-lined lorry to lift the thing up. The kit that is needed to move a car without damaging it is not the sort of kit that most people have. It does not seem to be a piece of law that will ever be beneficial to someone who has had his driveway blocked, to a hospital where people cannot gain access to where the ambulances come in, or wherever else it might be. They will not have the kit to take effective action because there will be too few occasions when this happens and there will be no private operators to respond.
I remain concerned about proposed subsection (3) and I do not think that its implications have been thought through. All you need is a chain on the ground attached to a post, and you could come along, stretch it out across the gateway to the park and padlock the other end. It is enough to immobilise a car. Or you could set out posts around the park and loop the chain around them. As the provision is currently phrased, it is an invitation to bad behaviour, although I understand why it is there and I do not want to inconvenience the ordinary municipal car park that has an up-and-down barrier, which is a sensible arrangement. However, we have to have a more rogue-proof provision. I look forward very much to the meeting.
Earl Attlee
Perhaps I may quickly respond to my noble friend. As regards large establishments such as hospitals, I imagine that they would use an accredited car park operator. As to the example of a discrete chain that you could suddenly pull up after the motorist has left, I remind my noble friend that the landholder would have to have good signage, otherwise he could fall foul of the offence of immobilising the vehicle.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Lucas and Lord Newton, for their contributions.
I am immensely disappointed because the response did not answer what for me are the two major issues—residential parking and disabled parking. The Minister has not responded at all on those matters. When talking to one of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, they said simply that it is illegal to park in a disabled space in Northern Ireland, and that the police enforce that law. I was also told what happened to other cars that park in disabled spaces—they were immobilised, albeit with a knife to the wheel, rather than by a wheel clamp. Nothing in the Bill will make it easier—in fact, it will be harder—to preserve the right of disabled people to park in disabled bays.
However, the real issue is that my amendments are not about car parks. There was the idea of having lighting, signage and so on, but I am talking about people’s own private car-parking spaces at a block of flats with perhaps five or 10 parking areas for those five or 10 flat owners. They do not want to put up CCTV, lights or signage. It is their private parking. That is the driver behind this issue, and I am afraid that none of the responses addresses such people’s needs. They do not want to issue tickets and go to the DVLA to find out who a car belongs to. They want to deter drivers from parking where they should not—whether that space is for a disabled vehicle or their own.
Earl Attlee
The noble Baroness gave an example of just a few parking slots in a housing estate, but does she agree that commonly available are small barriers or posts that you can put in place and would be very effective in stopping other motorists from effectively stealing the landholder’s parking slot?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I look forward to the Minister giving money to all those people to pay for them. They are actually rather expensive. Perhaps some of the rogues who do asphalting at the front of houses could install those posts at the same time. I do not think that the noble Earl heard my example of Mr and Mrs Hubbard, who are disabled. Where are they going to get the money to put up an extra block to stop people parking in front of their sheltered accommodation? Having to do that would be extraordinary.
I am very concerned about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the greater use of the DVLA database. There are great dangers in expecting more people to have to chase the owner, rather than, having clamped the car, getting people to come round and sort the situation out there and then. I thought that we wanted there to be less, rather than more, access to private data. That is also the case regarding CCTV. I had thought that part of the Bill provided for less CCTV. I happen to be in favour of CCTV—many women are—but the whole thrust of the Bill is for less of it. Now little blocks of flats with five residents are meant to put CCTV outside so that they can see who has been parking in the middle of the night. That is difficult to understand.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I understand that we take a different position on clamping, but the issues that I am raising are exactly the same: what do you do about a block of flats that is next to a charging car park—although it could be anywhere—when ordinary residents cannot get into their garage or to their front door?
If they are disabled, where they park, there may be a ramp; if they have to park somewhere else, there may be steps, so they cannot go there. There seems to be no consideration of the small residential group. The idea of moving the car was raised earlier. You have to break into it to move it, so presumably that will damage the car straightaway. If you have a driving licence only for a motorbike and not for a car, you might not be licensed to move it at all. I find the idea of breaking into someone's car to move it as hard to understand as the answer.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talked about serial offenders; this is a major problem. We are talking not about people who just overstay—they meant to move it but did not come back—but serial offenders who go into the car parking area, which is not a car park and where they should never have gone anyway, and leave the car there. I did not raise the issue of community facilities, such as churches, where it may be very difficult if you are going to a funeral or wedding and suddenly cannot drive in there. That was not the thrust of my amendments at all; I am interested in residential areas. Nevertheless, those points have not been answered.
The major points that I am interested in, particularly the blue badge system and disabled car parking areas, wherever they may be, or small residential areas, have not been answered. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this further and take up that offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Lord Lucas
I shall speak also to Amendment 54. It seems to me that if we are to allow private operators the privilege of ticketing, we ought to expect the highest standards of them in both their propriety and their behaviour towards the motorist. We ought to look to them for the sort of regime that we wish that we could have with many local authorities who currently enforce ticketing. There seems to me no reason why we should import the standards of bad behaviour of, say, Camden, into the private sector, granting the private sector privileges on the basis of the bad precedents of the bad end of the local authorities.
Amendment 54 sets out some of the things that I think we should ensure that private operators granted that privilege should do. First, they should take steps to establish a current residential address of the keeper of the vehicle. That is one of the major causes of distress in local authority parking enforcement. They send tickets to old addresses or to people who previously owned the vehicle, and the first thing that the real registered keeper at his real address knows is when the bailiffs turn up, because the bailiffs actually take the trouble to check addresses before they send people round. It costs about 50p a time to gain their address. That ought to be a duty on private operators granted those privileges.
We must have a maximum. My noble friend has said that there will be a maximum; I am content with that. A feature of some of the rogues has been excessive maxima. We must make sure that the terms of the contract do not act as an unreasonable disincentive to appeal. My noble friend is working out an appeals procedure. He will be aware that there is a considerable disincentive built into the local authority system at the moment. You lose your discount if you appeal, and if you lose your appeal, you therefore pay double. That is absolutely as far as it should go. There has to be some disincentive, or people will just appeal anyway, but there has to be a limit on the disincentive.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we have Amendment 53 in this group. I shall attempt to be reasonably brief as many of the points were made in the previous debate. However, to recap, it is under Schedule 4 that landowners—that is, parking providers—may pursue vehicle keepers for unpaid parking charges through the DVLA, subject to certain conditions. As I said earlier, some concerns have been expressed about this arrangement, not least by consumers’ groups and Citizens Advice. I think that the Minister will find, for instance, that Citizens Advice Scotland has some examples of the adverse impact of the scheme as it applies there and it can give information on that.
The question of access to information is potentially of some concern. In evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee last week, the Corporate Affairs Director of the DVLA said that if there were an allegation, for example, about damage or harm done through the use of a vehicle, the person alleging the harm would be given details of the keeper of the vehicle from whom they could make inquiries as to who was the operator of the vehicle at the time the alleged harm was done. When asked to whom this information would be given, the DVLA representative said that if they were in the private parking field, the companies would have to be members of the accredited trade association—that is, the British Parking Association’s approved operator scheme, which is the only approved operator scheme in the parking sector.
When it was then suggested that as long as an organisation joined the BPA, the DVLA would hand over information to it about the keeper of a vehicle, the DVLA said that it would, provided that it was convinced by the details of the request and the organisation was known to be a member of the approved operator scheme. However, as the Minister will know, recent media stories have claimed that the personal details of more than a million motorists were sold to private clamping companies by the DVLA in 2010, which suggests that maybe the safeguards against giving information to organisations or representatives of organisations who should not be entitled to know details of the keeper of a vehicle are not as strong as they should be.
Our amendment seeks to address the issue by requiring private parking providers to demonstrate adherence with industry best practice—that relates to all private parking providers—on issues such as signage display or maximum penalties to gain details of the vehicle keeper from the DVLA. The amendment also places a burden of responsibility on the DVLA to ensure that a keeper’s personal information is provided only to reputable parking providers by establishing a code of conduct on fair practice, including appropriate penalty charges and requirements for the display of notices in respect of parking of vehicles on the relevant land. I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the amendment which seeks to ensure that there is a code of practice and that it is an independent code of conduct that is operated and run not only in the interests of the parking providers but in the interests of those who use the parking facilities.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, all the amendments in this group seek to amend in their various ways the provisions on keeper liability in Schedule 4 to the Bill. Amendments 44 and 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, set out a further set of conditions that the creditor must comply with to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle. Unless the Committee appears to desire it, I do not propose to weary it by going through each one in detail, much as I would enjoy doing so.
Although the amendments are clearly well intentioned and designed to offer further safeguards to the motorist, I would hope to persuade my noble friend that they are in the most part either unnecessary or inappropriate. I say that because the amendments do not appear appropriate for trespass situations which the Bill also covers, and in relation to private car parks. The issues that the amendments address can be dealt with either through self-regulation within the industry, or they will be matters that may be considered by the independent appeals body that will be established before the provisions come into effect.
First and foremost, we do not consider that it is appropriate to add further conditions over and above those contained in the schedule for landowners who wish to take action against those who trespass on their property. In relation to non-trespass situations—private car parks—a number of the suggested conditions will be subject to the individual facts of a given case and would anyway be dealt with by the disputes arrangements, whether that was an internal scheme or through the independent appeals body. We have already made it clear that any notice to the driver or keeper of the vehicle intending to recover unpaid parking charges must set out what the appeals arrangements are. As such, we believe that the conditions that we have set out in the schedule adequately cover what would be expected of the creditor in seeking to recover unpaid parking charges. It will be more appropriate for the independent appeals body to hear disputes and review the evidence presented by either party rather than seeking to specify these matters in legislation beforehand.
In addition, consumer protection legislation already applies to parking contracts and there is the added safeguard that only those parking providers who are members of an accredited trade association will have access to DVLA vehicle keeper data and can therefore pursue keeper liability as part of their general enforcement arrangements. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked about the 1 million occasions when the DVLA data were accessed, an accredited trade association can get DVLA data. A high figure is representative of the high number of on-road offences in which keeper details were requested. It also covers private policing to, for example, supermarkets. The Government have made it clear to the parking industry that members of such accredited trade associations—in this case the British Parking Association’s Approved Operator Scheme—will need to sign up to a code of practice that will include an agreement to have disputes and complaints dealt with via an independent appeals body.
In a similar vein, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, seeks further regulation in the form of a statutory code of conduct covering penalty charges and signage. Any creditor would have to demonstrate that they had complied with the code before being able to obtain keeper details from the DVLA. Again, this is an overregulatory approach that would apply to all private land, including to trespass situations. It is both inappropriate and unnecessary. As I mentioned, members of the British Parking Association's approved operator scheme already operate under a code of practice that provides guidance on both penalty charges and signage. The Bill also contains reserve powers to prescribe signage if this proves necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched on Scotland and the experience of Citizens Advice. I will follow it up and if the noble Lord could assist me with further details, it would be much appreciated.
The purpose of Schedule 4 is simply to strengthen the arrangements for the enforcement of unpaid parking charges as an alternative to wheel clamping once the ban has come into force. Schedule 4 covers all land not subject to statutory control, from private car parks to the front driveways of private properties. It would be neither sensible nor appropriate in these circumstances to introduce wide-ranging regulation that would seriously impinge on the ability of smaller landowners to control parking on their land. The self-regulatory approach for larger operators as a condition of membership of a government-accredited trade association is the right approach for larger private car park operators and their agents.
I turn to the government amendments. As I indicated, we will not commence the keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4 until an independent appeals body is in place. Government Amendments 48, 50 and 52 reinforce this point. They clarify the conditions that must be met when issuing a ticket to a driver or vehicle keeper for an unpaid parking charge by requiring that the ticket must include details both of any arrangements offered internally by the company, and any arrangements available by independent adjudication or arbitration. This reinforces and strengthens the Government's commitment that Schedule 4 will not commence until an independent appeals service is in place.
I will deal briefly with government Amendments 56 and 57. They make a small change to Schedule 4 following representations from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. I declare a small interest as I attended its 2005 annual dinner and found myself sitting next to a lady who appeared to be the girl of my dreams. I am pleased to say that she is now the Countess Attlee. The schedule excludes vehicle hire firms from keeper liability provisions provided certain conditions are fulfilled when vehicles are hired out. The association pointed out that the definition of a hire agreement that refers to hire periods not exceeding six months does not reflect modern vehicle rental arrangements, in which longer periods of hire are commonplace. We accepted this point and amended the definition of a hire agreement so that it covers hire periods of any duration.
In summing up, I assure your Lordships and the Committee that the Government are fully committed to monitoring the effect of the ban on wheel clamping and the associated keeper liability provisions in Schedule 4. If there is evidence that we need to take further measures when the new arrangements are in place, we will of course consider this. We do not believe that there will be any need, but if evidence shows that problems exist, we will act. However, there have been no problems of note with rogue ticketing in Scotland, where wheel clamping has been banned since 1992. Given this assurance, I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will withdraw his amendment and that he and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will support the government amendments.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I assume the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will respond. However, in view of the momentous news that the noble Earl gave us, perhaps we on these Benches may offer our sincere congratulations on what clearly was a memorable occasion.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, there can be no more romantic venue at which to meet one’s wife. I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. To the extent that I have continuing questions, they will be swept up into the meeting already referred to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley
“( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(d) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the driver about the notice or any matter contained in it; and(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the driver to independent adjudication or arbitration.”
Lord Henley
“( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.”
Lord Henley
“( ) In sub-paragraph (2)(g) the reference to arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints includes—
(a) any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and(b) any arrangements under which disputes or complaints (however described) may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration.”
Lord Henley
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Bodies Bill [HL]
(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text