House of Commons
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 11 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, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
1. Whether he has made an assessment of the effects of reductions in local authority funding for libraries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The provision of library services is the responsibility of local authorities but my Department keeps in close touch with them. Indeed, my officials have met representatives from seven local authorities to discuss their proposals.
Kate Green
Trafford council is withdrawing its mobile library service and axing 15 library staff, and it wants volunteers to run Old Trafford library in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that the expertise of professionally qualified library staff is important in getting people reading and improving literacy and English language skills, particularly in the most disadvantaged communities?
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I are privileged to represent Oxford constituencies, and Oxford county council is managing to keep all 43 public libraries open notwithstanding a difficult financial settlement. Is not the reasonable inference that some local authorities have elected to make deep cuts in front-line services simply to make a political point and that it is perfectly possible, if local authorities put their minds to it, to keep libraries open?
Mr Vaizey
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Local authorities have challenging decisions to make, and my approach is to give them the space and time to make those difficult proposals. Local authorities are going about their provision differently but all have a strong commitment to their library service, and the Government are also strongly committed through maintaining the statutory duty.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that some very hard-pressed local authorities up and down our land have already put libraries in children’s centres to dual use? Now that the opening hours of those Sure Start children’s centres are being cut back, people are losing their libraries as well. Will he talk to other Ministers about this matter?
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Will the Minister accept an invitation to come to the brand-new Canada Water library, which was designed and planned by a Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition administration but continued and opened under a Labour administration? Both groupings running the council have agreed that there will be no closures across the borough and have sustained services. Will he come and see what can be done when the will is there?
Mr Vaizey
I would be delighted to visit that library, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting what cross-party consensus on libraries can achieve. It is worth reminding the House that although we tend to focus on library closures, it is also worth focusing on the fact that more than 40 libraries are opening or being refurbished across the country.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Libraries are places of great benefit to our country, educationally, culturally and economically, but Government cuts to local authority budgets have placed 600 of them at risk of closure. If they close, they will be lost to our communities forever. What does the Minister believe are his full responsibilities when it comes to protecting Britain’s libraries?
Mr Vaizey
I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the award of his MBE for his distinguished military service.
My responsibility for library services extends to England, as it is a devolved matter in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have a responsibility to superintend the library service, and local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service. Unlike the previous Government, we are not putting that statutory duty under review.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to increase the participation of women in sport.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Sport England is investing £480 million in 46 national governing bodies between 2009 and 2013 to grow and sustain participation. This approach is entirely inclusive and encourages opportunities for everybody to participate in sport regardless of their gender. Sport England also funds the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation to provide specialist advice and support to national governing bodies.
Tracey Crouch
I congratulate the Minister on all that he and his Department are doing to increase participation levels, but does he agree that while women’s sport accounts for only 5% of all sports coverage, the profile of sports women will remain so low that not only will talented athletes not make it on to award lists, such as the BBC sport’s personality of the year, but many of our best role models will be totally anonymous, thus making it harder to inspire and encourage women and girls to participate in sport and physical activity?
Hugh Robertson
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. One of the encouraging things is the opportunity that next year’s London 2012 Olympics presents to showcase the talent that exists among women, as well as male athletes.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
But is not school sport the bedrock of participation, and should it not be a priority? If so, why have the Minister’s Government cut spending on school sports by 64%? Is that not sending the message that school sport no longer matters?
Hugh Robertson
The first point is that, as the right hon. and learned Lady should know, this Department is not responsible for school sport, which is funded by the Department for Education. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has championed personally is a school games competition that is intended to drive up participation across both genders.
Ms Harman
The Minister talks about driving up participation, but will he tell us how he will monitor how much sport young people are doing in schools when he has scrapped the school sports survey? As his Government have cut the school sports partnership, it is even more important that we know what the effect on participation in sport is. [Interruption.] Is it not remarkable that Ministers are sitting there saying, “It’s nothing to do with us”? They really should be making an impact on Ministers in other Departments to ensure that they support school sport across the whole of Government.
Hugh Robertson
I am afraid the right hon. and learned Lady is mistaken. The policy responsibility for school sport lies with the Department for Education, and she should know that all too well. This Department is playing its part by introducing a new school games competition. That has been extraordinarily successful, with 11,000 schools now signed up. We will also produce a new measure for those aged 16 to 24—precisely the point at which we take responsibility for young people—among whom participation has been falling year on year for most of the last 10 years.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the potential role of supporters in football governance. [R]
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The Government’s response to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s football governance inquiry sets out a number of recommendations for increasing supporter representation and ownership at football clubs. In their response, the Government have challenged the football authorities to determine the best way of achieving the right changes, and we will be a key partner in those discussions.
Tom Greatrex
I thank the Minister for that reply and declare my interest as the founder of the Fulham Supporters Trust, notwithstanding our result last night, which demonstrates that we are not the only people who have had a bad week in Europe. I am sure that he will be aware of the proposals published by Supporters Direct on football club licensing. Will he encourage the football authorities to engage with Supporters Direct, in line with his comments about the inquiry by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and his Government’s response to it, to ensure that supporters have a role in football governance in the future?
Hugh Robertson
Yes, I will certainly do that. I am delighted that the premier league still funds Supporters Direct after the events of last year. The football governance reform strategy is about getting the key parts of the front end of the process right—the reform of the Football Association board, the link between the board and the council, and the new licensing system. As part of that licensing system, we expect those concerns to be addressed.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I do not know whether the Minister is familiar with that great football club AFC Bournemouth, which is due to enter the premier league in the next decade. Until that happens, Bournemouth, along with other non-premier league clubs, continues to struggle financially. What more can be done to encourage a greater distribution of wealth in English football?
Hugh Robertson
The distribution of, broadly, the broadcast moneys that go into the premier league and football league is, of course, a matter for those leagues. However, we expect the governance of football to allow for a proper distribution of those moneys. I think everybody across the House is agreed that there is a considerable distance to go before that is achieved, but I hope that it will be as part of this process.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Football Association on football governance.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The Secretary of State and I continue to meet the Football Association, the Premier League and the Football League collectively to hear their progress on the reforms that the Government have called for in their response to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport’s football governance inquiry. The football authorities have until the end of February to come forward with their proposals.
John Mann
The Football Association is significantly more enlightened than either UEFA or FIFA when it comes to tackling racism in football. Would the Minister be prepared to meet the all-party group on anti-Semitism and community groups such as Community Security Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and Searchlight to listen to our concerns about what more the Government, the FA and UEFA can do to tackle the potential for racism at the Euro 2012 championship?
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Will the football governance report that the Minister talks about include football agents, because those parasites took £210 million out of the game in the last three years from the premiership alone? Just imagine how that money could be spent within the game, including on football in schools, if it was used properly instead of lining the pockets of these spivs.
Hugh Robertson
Off the top of my head, I cannot remember whether the Select Committee report includes a specific element on agents. As part of the new licensing fee, however, that is exactly one of the issues that we would expect to see addressed.
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
5. What plans he has to support the tourism industry in 2012.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Next year represents the biggest opportunity in our lifetime to profile the British tourism industry, and we have announced the biggest ever international and domestic tourism marketing campaign designed to attract an extra 4.5 million visitors to the UK in the years that follow the Olympics.
Esther McVey
Continuing the sporting tourism theme, next year the Royal Liverpool golf club will welcome the women’s open golf championships with the first ever women’s day, so we will be developing tourism through our exceptional golf facilities while also ensuring youth engagement and celebrating women’s success. I would like to extend an invitation to one of the Ministers to come along.
Mr Hunt
I congratulate the Royal Liverpool golf club, and I would be delighted to attend—diary permitting. I agree with my hon. Friend that sport is a massive driver for tourism. Two million people come to this country every year to watch or play sport. I hope that sport in Liverpool will be helped by this week’s announcement of a new local TV station for Liverpool, on which I am sure my hon. Friend will be an early honoured guest.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
What is the Secretary of State doing to support the tourism industry to attract more people to smaller conurbations like Halton, which has the excellent Norton Priory museum and the Catalyst science centre, which is currently struggling. What is he doing to attract more people to the, shall we say, less obvious tourist areas?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is part of our commitment—and, indeed, his party’s commitment—to make sure that next year benefits the whole country and not just big cities like London. We have announced that next year we will have the biggest ever campaign to boost the domestic tourism industry, including a nationwide promotion of a 20.12% discount for hotel rooms booked in 2012. I urge him to encourage hotels and attractions in Halton to take part in that promotion, which is a big way to get people to take a holiday at home, as there is so much to see here next year.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I thank Ministers for their visits to Dover to promote the castle, the white cliffs and the fine view we have of France. Should it not be a particular priority that we promote tourism in our coastal towns?
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Many tourists visiting this country earlier this month would have been horrified when they turned on their television sets in their hotel room only to find a highly paid public presenter advocate that British citizens should be taken out and shot in front their families. What does that say about the future of Britain and what kind of message does it send to the rest of the world?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
6. What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of rural broadband; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Eight local authorities have moved to the procurement stage for the roll-out of rural broadband. I will write to all local authorities this week to tell them that as a condition of receiving public funding for their rural broadband programmes, we will need them to move to procurement by the middle of next year and to have signed a contract for the roll-out of broadband by the end of next year in order to make sure that we have the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015.
Julian Smith
North Yorkshire is making good progress in its procurement process, but EU procurement rules make it very slow, which is frustrating for many businesses and constituents. What message would my right hon. Friend give them? Will he commit to coming and launching the north Yorkshire pilot once the procurement process is complete?
Mr Hunt
I would love to, as I recognise that north Yorkshire has gone further faster than many parts of the country and the £18 million grant that it received has helped that. We have tried to make the European regional development fund rules simpler to enable local authorities to tap into them for their rural broadband programmes. I would certainly be happy to help my hon. Friend and every local authority speed up the process of getting these contracts signed.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I urge the Secretary of State to look very closely at his definition of rural? Many areas that look urban, such as former mining constituencies, actually feel very rural in relation to broadband because businesses still need fast broadband but, because of the contention rate, find it very difficult to get a decent service.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is right. Let me reassure him that our commitment is to 90% coverage of superfast broadband for the whole country. We talk about rural broadband because that is where there are particular challenges, but we are not forgetting semi-rural areas. We want it to apply to the whole country and, indeed, we want our cities to go even further with a faster broadband offering, as announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I commend the Minister on this initiative but, as he explained, it still leaves perhaps one in 10 households and premises without the prospect of faster broadband. What consideration has he given to the contribution that could be made by innovative wireless technologies, such as the WiBE—or wireless broadband extender—designed by the British business Deltenna in Chippenham, to improving broadband using mobile spectrum networks in rural areas?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Wireless and mobile solutions will be very important in dealing with that final 10%. We are strongly encouraging local authorities, as part of their broadband plans, to come up with a way of reaching that 10%, even if it is not the same mechanism by which we reach the 90%. The kind of technologies he talks about might well have an important role to play.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the system for granting work permits and visas to foreign professional musicians performing at concerts in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I have had no such meetings but the arts sector, my officials and the UK Border Agency meet every quarter as part of the arts and entertainment taskforce to have such discussions.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister might be aware that on 6 December some Congolese musicians who had been working with Damon Albarn and Oxfam on a project were refused entry to the UK to perform at Rough Trade Records. I appreciate that there was some confusion about the type of visas they needed to apply for and about the process, but can anything be done to make it easier? It is a valuable, worthwhile project, and it is a shame that they were not able to perform.
Mr Vaizey
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her question and for the good work she does to highlight the issues for musicians coming into the UK and for British musicians who wish to travel abroad. My understanding is that those musicians applied for a tourism visa when they should have applied for an entertainment visa, which applies even if someone is performing pro bono. I would happily take any recommendation she has to improve the website and pass it on to colleagues at the Home Office. I shall also ensure that it is discussed at the next arts and entertainment taskforce.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the UK Border Agency in processing 95% of all non-settlement applications within three weeks, while acknowledging that many applications are dealt with far faster than that?
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
9. What plans his Department has to increase participation in sport.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
Sport England is investing £480 million in 46 national governing bodies between 2009 and 2013 to grow and sustain participation. In addition, we have introduced the new Places People Play lottery-funded legacy programme and will be launching a new sports participation strategy aimed at 16 to 25-year-olds in the new year, to ensure we create a real lasting sports legacy after London’s games.
Damian Collins
Sportsmen and women need to have confidence in the governing bodies of the competitions they play in. Will the Minister send a message to FIFA that following the resignation of Mr Havelange from the International Olympic Committee, Sepp Blatter can and must allow the publication of the Zug court report into the $100 million bribery case involving FIFA officials and International Sport and Leisure—that is, ISL?
Hugh Robertson
I shall certainly do that, but I should warn my hon. Friend that I am not sure that FIFA pays a great deal of attention to what we say any more.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister knows that one of the main reasons we won the Olympics was our promise on the participation rates, but the target of involving 2 million more people in sport and physical activity has been dropped. I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but further to his earlier answer on school sport, what discussions has he had with the Department for Education about the cuts in school sports and school sports co-ordinators?
Hugh Robertson
No one who is involved in sport wants to see money go out of sport, but the question completely overlooks the economic backdrop that sits behind that. If Opposition Front Benchers are seriously going to say that the level of funding that has been invested in school sport against an economic backdrop in which £120 million is paid out in debt interest payments every day can be maintained, they should tell us what else in sport should be cut instead. I have not heard a single constructive suggestion of that sort.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Minister welcome the National Football League’s efforts to increase the amount of American football played in this country—not at the taxpayer’s expense? Also, what position in an American football team would he play?
Hugh Robertson
I think I should honestly say that that is slightly outside my area of competence, but I would of course welcome any efforts in that regard, particularly efforts better to educate Ministers.
Mr Speaker
The fact that something is outside the area of competence of a Minister has never stopped a Minister before, but there we go.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The person who launched the school games was the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport—it was not the Department for Education. Ministers have been using the figure that one in five children are involved in inter-school competitive sport, and they will know that that figure comes from the PE and sport survey that is carried out in schools every year. That figure is measured on the basis of children taking part in nine competitive sport events against other schools in a school year. We know from what the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said in a Westminster Hall debate that that is not an ambitious target. How is the Minister going to measure the impact of the school games on increasing participation in competitive sport? Is the benchmark nine times in a school year or more?
Hugh Robertson
Let me answer this in two parts. First, a number of schools want to sign up, and I am delighted to say that we have got 11,000 schools signed up, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would welcome. On the part of the equation for which this Department is responsible—the cadre of people from 16 to 25—we will make an announcement in the new year.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I recently visited the Desborough indoor bowling club, which has benefited from an investment via the landfill tax, and I was pleased to see a large, enthusiastic and mainly retired membership. At the other end of the age spectrum, what can the Department do to encourage the participation of retired people in sport?
Hugh Robertson
The next round of whole sport plans will have a concentration of young people, particularly those aged between 16 and 25, but that is not exclusive. I probably ought to be slightly careful about how I say this but for sports such as bowls, which might appeal more to those at the other end of the spectrum, it would be entirely within the remit of the new whole sport plans for the bowls governing body to put in a plan that drives up participation at that level.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
10. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on communities of the closure of local libraries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is very important that local authorities take into account the needs of their local communities when assessing their comprehensive library provision. That is why I have written to all local authorities to remind them of that.
Chris Evans
What message does the Minister have for Caerphilly borough council, which wants to close Aberbargoed library in the face of opposition from residents and local councillors who want to save that vital community resource?
Mr Vaizey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the duty to superintend the library service is devolved to the Welsh Government. What I would say to Caerphilly borough council, which I believe is led by Plaid Cymru although there is no overall control, is that I am delighted it is investing in its library service and that it has opened or refurbished six of its libraries.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Hunmanby library will stay open if volunteers man it, but will the Minister intervene to assist with at least a part-time library presence from North Yorkshire county council to enable it to put a business plan in place in the interim?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
11. What assessment he has made of the potential legacy of the London 2012 Olympics for children and young people.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
There is a cross-party commitment to use the games next year to have a lasting sporting legacy for young people. That will partly be through the school games, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics has talked about, as well as through the extraordinary sports facilities that will be built next year and a new youth sport strategy that is designed to boost participation among young people, which we will be announcing in the new year.
Julie Hilling
I saw first hand the real difference that a school sports partnership was making to the participation rates and, indeed, the performance of young people in Bolton West. Now that it has gone, how will the Secretary of State ensure that my constituents benefit from the Olympics?
Mr Hunt
Some school sports partnerships did an excellent job but, overall, participation among young people fell under the last Government—it has fallen from 58% to 54% over the last four years, three of which were under the last Government. That is why we are looking at the whole business of how we reduce the drop-out rate among people leaving school, so that we can have more people who have sport as a habit for life, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
12. What recent discussions he has had with the organising committee for the 2014 Commonwealth games on disabled sports.
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
The sports programme for the 2014 games is being determined by the Glasgow organising committee in consultation with the Commonwealth Games Federation and the International Paralympic Committee.
Jonathan Edwards
My constituent Jemma Morris is an aspiring paralympian in archery, and the county of Carmarthenshire has high hopes that Jemma will fly the flag for Wales next autumn. She will reach her sporting prime in the Commonwealth games in 2014; however, there will be no archery competitions for disabled sportspeople. Will the Minister raise the issue with the Commonwealth Games Federation so that disabled archers are able to showcase their skills on the global stage?
Hugh Robertson
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is in the GB squad, but I visited the paralympic archery squad at Lilleshall last year, so I may have met her. The position with the paralympic mix in the Commonwealth games is that four sports are necessarily included, and the local organising committee is allowed to select another four. I suspect the problem may be that Glasgow has not selected archery. Clearly, since this is a devolved issue, my remit over the Glasgow organising committee is limited, but I will certainly raise the issue when I next see the Commonwealth Games Federation.
Mr Speaker
Well, the inquisitive appetite of colleagues in respect of substantive questions appears to have been exhausted. I call Mrs Sharon Hodgson. She is not here. We move on to topical questions.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
This week we announced the first cities that will be getting licences for local TV. They are Belfast, Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Grimsby, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Preston, Southampton and Swansea. We hope to award a further 40 licences in the following year.
Kate Green
Ministers are aware of the considerable concern that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ treatment of VAT on five-a-side league football is causing businesses such as the Trafford soccer dome in my constituency. What steps can Ministers take to support this popular sport and ensure that it continues to thrive?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is from a constituency with fantastic sporting traditions. We want to do everything we can to get more young people playing sport next year of all years. If she supplies us with more details, we will happily make representations to the Treasury, although it is a very difficult climate in which to get concessions on things such as VAT.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
T2. Two of my constituents, Audrey Cole and Colin Maddever, live in Doddy Cross, where there is no broadband. Superfast broadband is being rolled out across Cornwall, but these constituents still have to use expensive dial-up, which is frustratingly slow, blocks their incoming calls and increases costs. Furthermore, there are many farmers in that area who have to file their VAT returns online but find that they are unable to do so. What message of help does the Minister have for the 33% of people in South East Cornwall who have no broadband access at the moment?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point very powerfully. There are still 250,000 homes in this country with no broadband access at all. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we deal with that problem by the end of this Parliament, which is why we have announced very ambitious plans. Cornwall, like the rest of the country, is being asked to submit a broadband plan that deals with all the broadband “not spots” as well as providing superfast broadband to 90% of its residents. I hope very much that at the next election my hon. Friend will be able to go back to her constituents and say that the problem has finally been addressed.
Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Today the Indian Olympic Association meets to condemn Dow Chemical’s controversial sponsorship of the 2012 Olympic stadium wrap. Will the Secretary of State join me in reaffirming the Indian Olympic Association’s view that a boycott of the Olympics would merely make Indian athletes the innocent victims of the ongoing controversy caused by the continued debate about liability for the Bhopal gas disaster and ensuing contamination? However, have the Government carried out a risk assessment of Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of the 2012 stadium? If not, will he commit to doing so and sharing the results so that an agreed course of action on a cross-party basis can be taken to mitigate any assessed risk of the sponsorship?
Mr Hunt
Of course I welcome what the Indian Olympic Association has said about a boycott. As the right hon. Lady will know, boycotts are illegal under the Olympic charter. With the greatest respect to her, because of the enormous role she has played in the 2012 project, she is a member of the Olympic board and shares some responsibility for all the decisions that have been made. We look to her to play a constructive role in resolving this difficult situation, not exacerbating it.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
T3. Two weeks ago Transparency International cut its ties with FIFA. The corruption watchdog objected to the lack of independence in FIFA’s new outside governance committee and to the fact that its remit will not extend to allegations of past wrongdoing. What pressure will the Minister and the Football Association exert so that we can shine a light on the serious allegations of systemic corruption at FIFA both past and present?
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
We will do everything we can, both internationally through our European counterparts and elsewhere, to ensure that FIFA becomes what we all want it to be: a properly transparent and accountable body that is capable of fulfilling the remit it is supposed to have to govern the global game.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T7. It is some time since John Robb of Louder than War approached me about the problems musicians have when trying to get visas to tour the United States, and we brought a delegation to see the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has responsibility for culture. Will he update the House on the progress being made in talking to the Americans about this and, in particular, whether we can persuade them to look at reciprocal arrangements and adopt measures similar to those that we have here whereby organisers of big events can help to facilitate the visa process?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
Officials from my Department have had constructive discussions with the United States embassy, which has taken on board our points, and those discussions continue. Obviously the US will continue to want to implement its regulations, but it has heard the hon. Lady’s concerns via my officials and we are continuing a constructive dialogue with the US.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
T4. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement of local television and the greater media diversity that it will bring and note with interest the impressive list of cities involved. Crawley finds itself on the cusp of two television regions, so may I put in a bid for it to be considered as a future centre for local television?
Mr Hunt
I am sure that Crawley would be an excellent place for a local television station and that my hon. Friend would make a very good contribution to it when it happens. Our plans for superfast broadband, which we talked about earlier, mean that it will be possible to launch a local television station in Crawley with no transmission costs by the end of this Parliament, so I hope that he encourages local media groups in his constituency to take advantage of it.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Further to the Secretary of State’s earlier answer to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) on tourism, has he made any regional assessment of the number of visitors likely to visit the UK regions as a result of inward tourism for the London Olympics and the jubilee celebrations next year? In particular, has he had any discussion with the Welsh Assembly on how we can attract additional visitors to my area?
Mr Hunt
Because of the way the 2012 project has been constructed, with the progress of the torch relay across the whole country, including it spending a significant amount of time in Wales, and because of the cultural Olympiad, which is happening across the whole country, we are absolutely determined that next year will be a bumper year for tourism in all parts of the country. We have a big domestic tourism marketing campaign, which is fully supported by Visit Wales, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will encourage businesses in his constituency, which has some particularly beautiful scenery, to take part in that promotion to encourage more people to have a holiday at home next year.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T5. In my constituency, we are busy pioneering the “Stroud Special” train, which is designed to take up the slack on the route from London and to encourage people to come and benefit from Stroud’s hugely impressive environment, pubs and all the rest. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a good initiative, which certainly justifies infrastructure expenditure?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (John Penrose)
Of course, we encourage any organisation—any local tourism body—to lay on the kind of facilities and product offerings that my hon. Friend describes. It is absolutely essential that we secure better local marketing and ownership of the local tourism visiting experience, and I am glad to hear that Stroud is leading the way.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Radio 1 programme “Introducing…in Scotland” has helped launch the careers of fantastic Scottish artists such as Paolo Nutini, Calvin Harris and Frightened Rabbit, yet it is threatened with cancellation. Campaigners are coming to London on Monday to deliver a petition to Radio 1, and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) has kindly agreed to meet them, but does he agree that it is exactly the kind of programme that we need in order to introduce new British music talent to the British public?
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
T6. Many constituents have contacted me with their concerns about the increase in spending on the Olympics opening ceremony. Will the Minister take this chance just to explain the extra value that we will receive for that money?
Mr Hunt
With pleasure. We expect that 4 billion of the world’s 7 billion people will watch the opening ceremony, which will be the biggest single opportunity in our lifetime to showcase this country, its history, its culture and its tourism to the whole world. I want it to be of great benefit in places such as the Peak district and my hon. Friend’s constituency, and that is why I went to the east midlands and had a very positive session with the local tourism industry on how it can harness the amazing opportunities that we will have next year.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
When Lord Coe decided that Dow Chemical was a suitable ethical partner for the Olympics, was he aware that earlier this year, in May, it had been blacklisted by the Indian Ministry of Agriculture for five years for bribing officials to get the chemical Dursban fast-tracked before the growing season—a chemical that has been banned in the United States for some years because of its health risk to human beings?
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
T8. The Olympics are a real opportunity to boost tourism in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend say some more about his plans to spread the benefits of tourism to, in particular, the north-west of England?
Mr Hunt
That is why next year we will have the biggest ever marketing campaign to encourage people to take a holiday at home. It is designed to encourage the whole UK not to take for granted what we have on our doorstep. I know that my hon. Friend has great local stories, such as the Pendle witches, which he would like the whole country to find out more about, and next year is the moment to do so.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
What discussions has the Olympics Minister had about the security implications of the cuts to police funding and the changes to control orders, which will allow very dangerous people back into the capital in the months leading up to the games?
Hugh Robertson
We have had extensive consultations with the Metropolitan police and all the security agencies about security for London 2012. The Metropolitan police assistant commissioner with responsibility for that area, Chris Allison, gave a presentation to the organising committee before the passage of the recent London Olympic and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill, and the Met has raised no such concerns.
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
May I thank the ministerial team and the Opposition parties for their support for my Live Music Bill, which passed through its entire Committee stage yesterday? There are, however, fears among some residents associations that it will reduce protections against noise and antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case and that, although we wish to see an explosion of live music in small venues, we want to continue to protect residents who live close to pubs and clubs?
John Penrose
May I join everybody in the House in congratulating my right hon. Friend and, indeed, his compatriot Lord Clement-Jones at the other end of the corridor, who have been instrumental in guiding the Bill through both Houses so far? I can reassure him, as he said, that protections for local residents and local residents groups will be maintained as they are.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
If it is right to cut the school sports budget by £162 million, a 60% cut, why is it right to double the budget for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympics from £40 million to £80 million?
Hugh Robertson
In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. The two figures are in no way comparable. The amount of money that goes into school sport—[Interruption.] I have to say to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that even she might have worked out that £160 million each year is a great deal more than £40 million once.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the House wants to hear the question from Dr Thérèse Coffey.
Dr Coffey
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow is the deadline for schools to register for the Get Set network, part of the Olympic legacy that can cover every school in our land. Will the Minister encourage children, parents and teachers to ensure that their schools are registered and take full advantage of the values and benefits on offer?
Hugh Robertson
I most certainly will. More than 20,000 schools up and down the country have now signed up to the Get Set programme, and I absolutely encourage every school across the country to do likewise. It is also great news that another 11,000 schools have signed up to the school games project, and I encourage many more to do that.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
1. What recent assessment he has made of the Government’s e-petitions website.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
Since the launch of the site, more than 3.2 million signatures have been submitted. The signatures and the debates that have stemmed from them have shown that we are indeed building a successful bridge between people and Parliament. Last Wednesday, I gave evidence to the Procedure Committee on the e-petitions system. I look forward to reading the views of the Committee when it publishes its report.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the Leader of the House for that answer. Will he outline how the Government are taking account of views in forming policy from the e-petitions, particularly given the excellent news in the autumn statement following the fantastic campaign run by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on fair fuel prices?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Six petitions have gone through the 100,000 threshold, of which four have been debated. The Hillsborough debate, one of the best that we have had this Parliament, obliged the Government to clarify their policy on the documents that they held. My hon. Friend referred to the autumn statement following shortly on from the debate on fuel, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). We have also had two debates on extradition and the Government have undertaken to have a look at their policy on extradition.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I joined the Leader of the House in giving evidence to the Procedure Committee investigation into e-petitions and their short-term future. The Committee will shortly produce a report on the future of e-petitions. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that any short-term proposals for e-petitions will not be imposed on the House without a debate and vote, to avoid the problems that we had in introducing e-petitions in the first place?
Sir George Young
It was a pleasure to give joint evidence to the Procedure Committee last week with the hon. Lady. The Government would not want to impose any new arrangements on the House without going through the usual process of consultation. I await with interest, as I am sure she does, the outcome of the Committee’s deliberations, when we will see its proposals about how we handle e-petitions in future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, will know that the big green bag on the back of your Chair is for citizens of this country to petition their Parliament to do something. Given that precedent, should not the e-petitions initiative be to Parliament, and not to the Government?
Sir George Young
That question was put to me by the Procedure Committee last week; my hon. Friend might like to read the response that I gave. The coalition Government made a commitment to introducing an e-petitions system. At the moment, it is run by the Government and the moment a petition reaches 100,000 signatures, I transfer it to the Backbench Business Committee, which considers whether the petition should have an opportunity for debate. That can take place only if the petition is then sponsored by a Member of Parliament. We have a system unlike the previous one, which ended at No. 10 and went nowhere. The system that we now have ensures that the petition does reach Parliament once it has gone through the threshold.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
2. What representations he has received on whether correspondence between hon. Members and their constituents is subject to parliamentary privilege.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has received no representations other than in the course of the Westminster Hall debate on the Bill of Rights, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), to which I responded. As I said then, although Members’ correspondence may be subject to qualified privilege for the purposes of the law of defamation, the House has never sought to assert that such correspondence is a proceeding in Parliament. Therefore it is not protected under article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware of the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Defamation Bill that correspondence between Members and their constituents should clearly be the subject of qualified privilege. It is critical that our constituents can correspond with us freely and frankly. I hope, therefore, that he can assure the House that the Government will bring forward legislation in that regard.
Mr Heath
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The Government will examine that recommendation in making their response to the Joint Committee, of which he was a distinguished Member. I hope to update the House shortly on our related work on the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I rather agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) about parliamentary privilege and Members’ correspondence. In the wider context, the concept of parliamentary privilege is in a bit of a mess. We are relying on rather antiquated concepts at the moment. In the light of what has happened this year, when I believe that many witnesses, in giving evidence to two Select Committee, have lied to Parliament, I suggest that we now need a criminal offence of parliamentary perjury for when people lie to Parliament.
Mr Heath
The courts have always recognised the right of each House of Parliament to regulate its own affairs. I accept that there are legitimate questions about the House’s enforcement powers and the punishments available to it. It is right to look afresh at whether the powers of each House are appropriate. That is part of the work that we are doing to bring forward a draft Bill on parliamentary privilege. If the hon. Gentleman is a little patient, he will see shortly that we are considering that matter.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Further to an answer that I received in September, in which the House of Commons Commission said that it costs the public purse a further £1.5 million for us to come back for the two-week September sitting, is it not time that we looked carefully at the programme of sittings of the House so that we are not constrained—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Lady. I am sure that her question is of great importance to her and possibly to others, but it suffers from the disadvantage of bearing absolutely no relation to the question on the Order Paper.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
3. How many hours of business he plans to allocate to (a) general debates on subjects determined by the Government and (b) Back-Bench or private Members’ business in January and February 2012.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will announce the business for January and February 2012 in the usual way, during business questions on a Thursday.
John Mann
It is obvious to all of us that this coalition has run out of steam when it comes to legislation and everything else. Given that many Back Benchers on both sides of the House have good and sensible proposals for legislation, why does the Leader of the House, instead of bed blocking debating time, not give us the opportunity in January and February to bring forward that legislation?
Mr Heath
What a load of nonsense. I am afraid that I do not agree. Over the past two weeks, the House has had the opportunity to debate important and topical issues, including the economy, Europe and immigration. This afternoon, thanks to the Government’s establishment of the Backbench Business Committee, the House will debate financial education in schools, an issue that has received more than 100,000 signatures on the Government’s e-petition website. I believe that this Government have placed Parliament back at the centre of our national life.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Speaker. Again, September sittings will cost £1.5 million. Is it not time that the House moved its sittings so as not to cost the public purse an extra £1.5 million?
Mr Heath
There is a slight sense of déjà vu about that question. This is matter that the hon. Lady ought to put to the Procedure Committee, which is currently looking at the calendar of the House of Commons. She will be able to present her case to that Committee, and we look forward to its report in due course.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Despite this being the longest Session in post-war history, the Government’s legislative programme is a shambles. While we twiddle our thumbs in the Commons, the Lords are taking apart the Government’s ill-conceived, badly drafted and mean-spirited welfare reforms. Just yesterday, the Government’s policy of imposing a bedroom tax was defeated by an all-party alliance that included a former Conservative Secretary of State for Social Security. Is it not time that this Government listened to reason, dropped the more punitive parts of the Welfare Reform Bill and instead built a genuine consensus to make real progress on welfare reform?
Mr Heath
I make no apology for Bills receiving proper scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, and we are committed to that. When legislation is receiving that scrutiny in the other place, it is right for us to wait until it has finished its deliberations, listen to what it has to say and then, in due course, address it in debate in the normal way.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
4. What plans he has for future pre-legislative scrutiny of Government bills.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The Government recognise the value that pre-legislative scrutiny can add and are committed to seeing more measures published in draft. This week the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), published for pre-legislative scrutiny draft measures on the recall of MPs. In addition, so far this Session we have published draft measures on Lords reform, financial services, defamation, the detention of terrorist suspects, individual electoral registration and electoral administration, civil aviation and a groceries code adjudicator. The Government expect to publish further measures in draft this Session, including on parliamentary privilege.
Diana Johnson
As my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) have indicated, the Government’s legislative programme has ground to a halt. Would it not be sensible for us to spend some time scrutinising the draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extensions) Bills now, rather than wait and debate them in a hurry when we are faced with an emergency?
Mr Speaker
Expecting patience from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might be a triumph of optimism over reality, but I leave that question for the House to consider.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
6. How many apprentices are employed in the House of Commons service.
John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)
There are currently no apprentices employed by the House service, although two are employed by Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology as software developer apprentices. The last group of three apprentices in the Parliamentary Estates Directorate completed their training in 2010 and have subsequently been appointed to permanent posts. Catering and Retail Services has offered a two-year apprentice chef scheme, but there have so far been no successful applicants. The House service is keen to employ more apprentices and continues to take steps to do so.
Robert Halfon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he take further steps to work with the charity New Deal of the Mind and support and encourage other MPs to employ apprentices in their own offices?
John Thurso
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. Employment by MPs is not a matter for the Commission, of course, but certainly the House will do everything it can to assist in such efforts. I am sure that as he has put the matter on the record, colleagues will be aware of his very sensible suggestion.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
7. Whether he has considered bringing forward proposals for the Third Reading of a Bill in the House of Commons to be taken after its consideration by the House of Lords.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Any Bill first published in this House must currently pass through all its stages, including Third Reading, before it is sent to the House of Lords. We are aware of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), but the Government have no plans at present to bring forward proposals to change the current arrangements.
Dr Huppert
Currently, Members in this House are forced to decide on a Bill when it is not in its final form, and in many cases Government amendments have been promised that we have yet to see. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that the primacy of this House would be strengthened if our Third Readings always happened last, and will he consider how that could be brought about?
Mr Heath
I understand the principle behind my hon. Friend’s question. No Bill can become law until this House has agreed to all its provisions, including any amendments proposed by the House of Lords to a Bill first published in this House. I am not sure that I immediately see the value that would be added by a further general debate on a Bill, but I advise my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that if they wish to pursue the matter, it should perhaps be considered by the Procedure Committee and by the other House.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
8. What progress he has made on implementing the coalition agreement commitments on parliamentary reform.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
Since taking office, this Government have made substantial progress on implementing the coalition’s commitments on parliamentary reform, which have helped to make the House more effective, transparent and accountable. Measures have included establishing the Backbench Business Committee, launching the e-petitions system and transferring responsibility for Members’ pay and pensions out of our hands and into those of the independent regulator.
Working with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), we have also piloted a public reading stage for the Protection of Freedoms Bill, published proposals to allow the recall of Members of Parliament and started work to establish a commission on the West Lothian question. We will also shortly bring forward proposals on how we will proceed with the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.
Harriett Baldwin
There certainly has been a great deal of parliamentary reform. One commitment in the coalition agreement was to establish the West Lothian commission. A written ministerial statement on 8 September said that that would happen in the weeks following October, but certainly by the end of the year, so exactly when will we get that commission?
Mr Heath
I should first congratulate the hon. Lady, who since her election has demonstrated her commitment to this issue, not least during the passage of her private Member’s Bill, the Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill. As she correctly says, the coalition programme for government set out our commitment to establishing a commission to consider the West Lothian question, and my hon. Friend the Minister who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform updated the House in a written statement in September. The Government intend to publish the make-up and terms of reference of the commission shortly.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Deputy Leader of the House obviously could not list all the Government’s parliamentary reform achievements because that would take up a great deal of parliamentary time. One that he missed was the commitment to introduce a Business of the House Committee. When will that happen, and what process will the House undertake to scrutinise it? Will he define “shortly” if he uses that word in his response?
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Time simply does not permit us to set out all the important reforms that this Government have introduced to the House, and there is much still to be done. One of those things is the establishment of the House Business Committee. We are clearly committed to doing that during the third year of this Parliament, and are happy to ensure that that is the case. We are looking forward to introducing proposals after we have listened to those on both sides of the House who have an interest in the matter.
Petition
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I have the pleasure and honour of presenting to the House the petition of Ian Coleman and ex-service personnel in Blackpool on the subject of war memorials. It incorporates more than 3,000 signatures, which Mr Coleman and his colleagues in Blackpool have collected.
The petition states:
The Petition of Ian Coleman and ex-service personnel in Blackpool,
Declares that the nation’s war memorials and their surroundings should be treated as special places and respected in a manner which befits those whose lives they commemorate.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure the protection of war memorials via a more rigid enforcement of existing laws or by bringing forward new legislation to ensure that war memorials are adequately protected.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000992]
Business of the House
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week and a bit of next year?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)
The business for the week commencing 19 December will be:
Monday 19 December—General debate on apprenticeships.
Tuesday 20 December—Pre-recess Adjournment debate. The format has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.
Colleagues will also wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on 20 December.
The business for the week commencing 9 January will include:
Monday 9 January—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 10 January—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
Wednesday 11 January—Opposition day [un-allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 12 January—Motion relating to a statutory code of practice for pub companies, followed by motion relating to parliamentary representation.
The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 12 January will be:
Thursday 12 January—Debate on the Home Affairs Committee report on “The Landscape of Policing”.
May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and all right hon. and hon. Members a very happy Christmas and new year, and thank all those who have kept the House running smoothly during the year, including the Clerks, the Officers and staff of the House, the Doorkeepers and the cleaners? A merry Christmas to all with peace and good will.
Ms Eagle
Many of us are incredibly relieved that we have finally spotted a Government Bill arriving in the House, even if we have to wait until next year to see it. May I take this opportunity—the last business questions before Christmas—to echo the Leader of the House’s Christmas wishes? I wish you, Mr Speaker, your Deputies, the staff of the House, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the House, and all Members and their staff a very happy Christmas and contented new year.
The House rises on Tuesday. The Government will no doubt be tempted to slip out as much bad news as they can in the last hours when they think that no one is looking. With 27 written ministerial statements on today’s Order Paper alone, can the Leader of the House assure me that any announcement of significance will be made as an oral statement to this House?
Last week, I said that the Prime Minister was isolated in Europe, but I did not know then quite how alone he would end up. Last Friday, the Deputy Prime Minister was apparently firmly behind the Prime Minister’s premature use of the veto at the European Council, saying that he was fully signed up to it. A few hours later, as his own party erupted in outrage, he let it be known that he was “bitterly disappointed” by it. He claimed that he told the Prime Minister that his actions were bad for Britain.
As the Prime Minister came to the House to make a statement, his Deputy got into a gigantic sulk, went to the gym and then straight on to Sky News to moan about his own Government before drowning his sorrows at the Ministry of Sound. The Business Secretary was apparently furious with the situation. The Scottish Secretary has publicly denounced the Prime Minister’s use of the veto and the Energy Secretary has claimed on the Floor of the House that in Europe
“if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol 537, c. 574.]
On Tuesday, all Liberal Democrat Ministers and Whips, including the Deputy Leader of the House, and five members of the Cabinet refused to support a motion congratulating their own Prime Minister. The Ministerial Code says:
“The principle of Collective Responsibility…requires that Ministers should be able to express their views frankly in the expectation that they can argue freely in private while maintaining a united front when decisions have been reached.”
What a joke. Is it not the case that in this Government, the Liberal Democrats have got it completely the wrong way round? They argue in public, but in private they will not stand up to the Tories no matter how much the Prime Minister humiliates them. Will the Leader of the House now confirm that the Prime Minister does not need to get a doormat for Christmas because he already has one?
While the Deputy Prime Minister hosts a European re-engagement event for business, the Prime Minister is busy fomenting opposition to the deal to appease his Eurosceptic Back Benchers. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Prime Minister is going to amend the Ministerial Code so that it more accurately reflects the cynically choreographed “licensed dissent” which is becoming more obvious by the day?
Unemployment has risen this week to well over 2.5 million, which is the highest level for 17 years and includes more than 1 million young people, who are now in the growing dole queue. The Employment Secretary spent yesterday saying that the figures had stabilised, but the Prime Minister told his party last night that
“2012 will be the worst since the 1980s”
On Tuesday, the Justice Secretary admitted that Britain was facing
“a long period of youth unemployment.”
Will the Leader of the House tell us why the Government have resigned themselves to a long period of high youth unemployment and a wasted generation? Instead of planning for this, would the Government not be better doing everything they can to stop it by adopting Labour’s five-point plan for jobs and growth, which would give 1 million unemployed young people some hope for an otherwise bleak 2012? Should not the voters of Feltham and Heston reject this do-nothing Tory pessimism and vote for Labour’s excellent candidate in today’s by-election?
As Christmas approaches, many of us are racking our brains to think of appropriate gifts for friends and family, but with the Cabinet it is very simple: flip flops for the Deputy Prime Minister; a shredder to be shared between the Business Secretary and the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office; and an espresso machine for the Justice Secretary so that he does not doze off in the Chamber again.
I was having trouble thinking of ideas for the Prime Minister until I discovered the Eton college online gift shop, where I found a very appropriate gift for him: “decision dice”. For those who are not familiar with the finer gifts available from the Eton college catalogue, the dice are described as:
“The ideal gift for the indecisive or those who just can't make up their minds.”
They are presented in a stylish chrome box engraved with the college coat of arms. For just £14.75, the dice are the ideal present for a Prime Minister whose U-turns this year have included: the sale of England’s forests; cuts to school sports; anonymity for those accused of rape; and the scrapping of the office of the chief coroner.
I know that the Leader of the House with his usual gallantry will be trying to think of a gift for me. May I tell him that all I want from him for Christmas is the date of the Queen’s Speech?
Sir George Young
I am not sure that there was a lot there about the business of the House, but let us have a go.
The hon. Member for Wallasey welcomed—I think—the announcement that a Bill would be given its Second Reading after the recess. I remind her that the House is not simply a legislation factory. We are not going to make the mistake that the last Government made of imposing too many ill-considered, ill-drafted Bills on the House. The Chamber has other things to do: the Chamber is here to hold the Government to account, to debate matters of national interest, and to represent the views of Members’ constituents, and we are determined that it should have adequate time in which to do those things.
The hon. Lady spoke of written statements being rushed out before the recess. It was precisely in order to avoid making the mistakes made by the last Government and to avoid a last-minute rush that 27 written statements were issued today, days before the House rises.
As for our being isolated in Europe, on my way to the House I just happened to see a headline in The Independent which read “EU 26 fight to stop pact unravelling”.
In response to the hon. Lady’s lengthy thesis on relationships, I simply make the point that the relationship between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister is stronger than the relationship between Tony Blair and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who were members of the same party. [Interruption.] Several autobiographies chronicle the weak relationship between Tony Blair and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The unemployment position has indeed stabilised, as the hon. Lady will see if she reads what was said in the House yesterday by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). It can be found in column 844 of Hansard. My right hon. Friend told us that in the last month employment had risen by 38,000 and unemployment by 16,000, that the youth unemployment figure had remained static, that the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count had risen by 3,000, and that the number of people who had stopped claiming incapacity benefit and income support as a result of the Government’s welfare reforms was 10,000. The figures cover only one month, but they do show some signs of stabilisation in the market.
The hon. Lady referred to today’s by-election. I hope that voters in Feltham will use it as an opportunity to reveal whether or not they approve of the stand taken by the Prime Minister last week, and I hope that, if they endorse it, they will go out and vote for the Conservative candidate.
The hon. Lady said that her Christmas wish was to know the date of the Queen’s Speech. I admire her bravery, because it was not until 5.30 pm on Tuesday this week that the House was informed of the business for the following day, Wednesday, when the Opposition held a one-day debate. The Opposition give the House less than a day’s notice, and the hon. Lady wants me to give the House months’ notice of the date of the Queen’s Speech.
Observing who is sitting next to the hon. Lady, let me end on this note. Like the leader of her party, the shadow Leader of the House has a sibling who is also a Member of Parliament, and whom I welcome to the Front Bench. According to an interview with the shadow Leader of the House and her sister, published earlier this year,
“they haven’t had a… row in decades.”
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) said
“we do know how to be with each other. It doesn't mean you can’t disagree, but you know—you’re sisters”.
Given that admirable expression of family affection, I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wallasey might be able to give the leader of her party some advice on how to manage relationships.
Mr Speaker
Following those stellar performances from the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House, may I gently remind colleagues that we are focusing on the business of the House for next week and the beginning of 2012?
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on the activities of parking enforcement companies—particularly Citywatch and Securak—which could be likened to demanding money with menaces, racketeering and extortion? May I make a final plea on behalf of a constituent? Toyin Lawal’s car was pinched by Citywatch from a car park that it was not even licensed to patrol, and it wants eight grand to give it back to her. I want the police to go round and get her car back off these criminals.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend’s constituent is fortunate to have such a proactive Member of Parliament championing her interests in the House. He might know that legislation has now gone through making it illegal to clamp cars on private space. I think that it comes into effect in March next year.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
There is only one full year before the Government have to introduce proposals on the establishment of a House business committee. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider early next year establishing a time-limited Select Committee like the Wright Committee, on which he and I served, to consider proposals for what such a House business committee would look like? It could inform the Government and the House on how to move forward.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who reminds the House of the commitment in the coalition agreement to establish such a Committee by the third year. She has proposed one way of implementing that commitment. There might be other ways, but I can assure her that I am actively considering how we deliver on that commitment, and at the appropriate time I would very much like to involve her in those discussions.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Christmas is a time when we think about the most vulnerable not only in the United Kingdom but abroad. Although Syria is not Libya, does my right hon. Friend agree that we need an urgent debate to discuss Syria and to ensure the end of the killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I cannot promise a debate before the House rises, although there is the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate on Tuesday. I shall pass on his concerns, however, which are widely shared on both sides of the House. We have made clear our view that the President should step aside in the light of what is going on and allow a democratic Government to take over. I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate before the House rises on the importance of buying goods made in the United Kingdom? There are about 10 days of shopping before Christmas and we have a £30 billion trade deficit with China. I have conducted an experiment that shows that it is possible to buy presents made only in the United Kingdom, or, at a push, Britain and Europe. May we have a campaign and debate to get people to buy things made here, because it provides employment for young people and creates jobs?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has already launched such a campaign with his questions. I hope that all those tuned in will do what they can to promote jobs and prosperity by, where possible, buying goods made in the UK. On the trade deficit with China, he will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and many Cabinet members have made repeated visits to China to promote inward investment and to help companies based in this country to win export orders from China, so we hope to make progress in reducing the trade deficit between the two countries.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
May we have a debate on the Portas report into our towns and cities, particularly recommendation 9, which states that in-town car-parking charges are too high, act as a deterrent to in-town shopping and should be abolished? Unless that debate is soon, will he circulate that recommendation to all Labour-led local authorities so that they know that their anti-car policies are putting local shops out of business?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who might have seen the written ministerial statement accompanying the publication of the Portas review earlier this week. There were several recommendations, some of which were aimed at local authorities, particularly the one to which he referred, and others of which were aimed at the Government. The Government will respond in the spring to the recommendations, and in the meantime I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware of my right hon. Friend’s strong views about the disincentive effect that high parking charges can have on the prosperity of high street shops.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2527, standing in my name and those of several other hon. Members, which expresses revulsion at the murder by Israeli soldiers of a peaceful demonstrator, Mustafa Tamimi, at whose head they fired point-blank a tear gas canister, and following which they manhandled his grieving sister?
[That this House expresses its revulsion at the deliberate killing by Israeli soldiers of Mustafa Tamimi, aged 28 years, while the Palestinian was taking part in a peaceful demonstration at Nabi Saleh on Friday 9 December 2011; notes that an Israeli soldier specifically and deliberately aimed a gas canister at Mustafa Tamimi's head, which hit him point-blank inflicting horrific injuries; further notes that these Israeli soldiers blocked access to an ambulance, pushed around Mustafa Tamimi's sister, who was deeply distressed by her brother's appalling injuries, and laughed and gloated at her; and calls for international action, rather than mild remonstrances, to prevent further Israeli murder of innocent Palestinians.]
Is he aware that at the funeral, Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and sewage through hoses at mourners? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to tell the Israelis that they have to stop this sadistic thuggery, which no doubt they will resume again tomorrow?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for raising that issue. He may know that there was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on Government policy on Israel, which would have been an appropriate opportunity to raise the matter. Given that he might have been unable to be there, I shall of course pass on his concern to the Foreign Secretary and ask him whether, if appropriate, representations might be made to the Israeli ambassador.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
This House welcomed the Arab spring. May we have a debate in the new year on the Arab winter? I am referring to the Bedouin of Palestine-Israel, 30,000 of whom, or thereabouts, face the prospect of being removed in the new year from lands that they have occupied from before the formation of the state of Israel. This is ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Let us debate the Arab winter.
Sir George Young
The answer I give my hon. Friend may be the same as the one I have just given to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman). There was an opportunity to raise the issue in the House of Commons yesterday, in Westminster Hall. We have arranged fairly regular debates on north Africa, the middle east and Afghanistan. I hope that there will be other opportunities in the new year to have similar debates, which will provide my hon. Friend with a platform to raise the legitimate concerns that he has just brought to the attention of the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May we debate the Russian winter? I am not referring to the weather; I am referring to last week’s elections, which were profoundly corrupt. All who went to witness the elections say that there was massive vote-rigging. In Chechnya, for instance, 95% of the vote came in for Mr Putin’s party, despite the fact that everybody noticed massive vote-rigging. May I also suggest gently to the right hon. Gentleman that he take this matter up with his colleagues? There are Members of this House who sit on the Council of Europe in the same grouping as members of Mr Putin’s party, and there is no reason why we should hide from the fact that there has been corruption in Russia. We need to ensure proper democracy.
Sir George Young
The hon. Gentleman will have seen the protests in Russia over the weekend about the conduct of the election. I am not sure whether this gives him any satisfaction, but I understand that President Putin has ordered a review of how the elections were conducted, although one should perhaps not set too much store by that. I shall draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to the concern—I suspect shared by those on both sides of the House—about the conduct of the elections and, again, see whether appropriate representations might be made to the Russian ambassador.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency have very much welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement of the £20 billion national loan guarantee scheme to get cheaper loans to businesses. That is particularly important in parts of the country such as Cornwall, where there are many seasonal businesses involved in, for example, tourism. May we have a debate on this excellent new scheme and find out more?
Sir George Young
I hope all of us can remind businesses in our constituencies that £20 billion, which is a huge sum of money, is available through the national loan guarantee scheme. These are loans that the Government will stand behind; therefore, the banks can offer them at a lower rate of interest to companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We all have a role to play in promoting the scheme and in enabling businesses to take advantage of it and go ahead with investment projects that they might otherwise have been unable to afford.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Westminster city council’s proposed new evening and weekend parking charges have aroused universal condemnation, with genuine fears about the impact on job losses in the west end economy. The Secretary of State for Transport has gone on record as saying that she believes that such charges are a fund-raising measure, in which case they would be ultra vires. May we have an urgent debate, not only about the impact of such parking charges on the west end economy, but about the extent to which some local authorities are using parking charges to plug the black hole in their finances?
Sir George Young
I am a strong believer in local democracy, and I believe that it is for Westminster city council to take decisions about the appropriate level of parking charges. I am sure that the hon. Lady will make her own representations to the city council, although I would be surprised if it did anything that was ultra vires. However, at the end of the day, this is a matter for Westminster city council, not the Government.
Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the regulation of service charges for residents of private retirement accommodation who are on fixed incomes, such as those of Wright Court in Nantwich, in my constituency? Often they are not properly consulted by the providers of such accommodation about either the services that they require or the services that they can afford.
Sir George Young
As a former Housing Minister, I am aware of the problems facing many leaseholders, who find themselves confronted with service charges that they believe to be unreasonable. There are a number of protections in legislation, but my hon. Friend may know that there is also the Leasehold Advisory Service—which I set up when I was Housing Minister—a specialist body sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government that can perhaps advise his constituents in dealing with the challenges that face them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May we have a debate about the impact of the disastrous consequences of the Prime Minister’s decision to isolate the UK from the rest of Europe on the ambitions of the devolved nations? The Leader of the House and other hon. Members refer to “separatists”, but are not the only real separatists in this House the little Englander separatists on the Conservative Back Benches?
Sir George Young
I think that that charge might be made against the hon. Gentleman. One might think that his was a separatist party, if I might say so. However, we had such a debate on Tuesday, on an Opposition motion, when he would have had the opportunity to raise the matter, although as I said a moment ago, it is by no means clear that we are isolated in Europe.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Last Monday the Design Commission launched a report called “Restarting Britain”, which is about the importance of design in the UK. Given the importance of design in securing growth, particularly in partnership with manufacturing, will the Leader of the House give some Government time for a debate on design and its importance for our economy?
Sir George Young
As my hon. Friend may know from the Localism Act 2011, design is one of the key issues that we think should be taken into account, and I thank him for his well designed question. I cannot promise an early debate on the issue, but when the House returns, he might like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall or see whether the Backbench Business Committee can allocate a debate on this important issue.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a debate on the behaviour of the energy companies? My constituent Mrs Larkin, from Hyde, has seen her monthly tariff rise from £65 to £79—an increase of more than a fifth—despite having always been in credit, and the energy company will not take any lesser amount as a more reasonable compromise. Given these times that we are in, when living standards are being squeezed, surely the energy companies should be behaving more responsibly.
Sir George Young
One of the initiatives that the Government took a few weeks ago with the energy companies was to make it easier for consumers to shop around and get a better supplier. That is an option that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent may like to reflect on. In the meantime, however, I will pass on his concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and see whether he can play any role in resolving the issue that he has raised.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we please have a statement updating the House on when the driving test centre in Bury is likely to reopen? The centre was damaged owing to the ingress of water last Christmas. In the summer, driving instructors and their pupils, who were being greatly inconvenienced by the closure, were told that the centre would be reopened this year, but it is clear that this will not now happen.
Sir George Young
I understand that the delay was caused by structural issues that came to light at a late stage. Work is expected to commence in January, and I understand that it is hoped that testing at the Bury driving centre will resume in February 2012.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the Leader of the House seems to have some time to play with, may we have a debate in Government time on the landscape for Government support for carbon capture and storage? The inability of the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Energy Secretary to make clear how much of the £1 billion previously allocated will now be available following the announcement in the autumn statement is causing uncertainty in the industry. We need to get ahead with this if we are to maximise the export potential of that crucial industry.
Sir George Young
This issue was raised at Energy and Climate Change questions relatively recently, when it was confirmed that the £1 billion is still available for suitable schemes.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
May I reiterate the call for a debate on the Portas report? In my constituency of Aberconwy, the town of Llandudno is still doing comparatively well, as the main retail centre for north Wales, but other towns, such as Llanrwst and Penmaenmawr, are seeing a decline in the retail sector, which might be combated by adopting some of the proposals in the Portas report.
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who adds weight to the representations made a few moments ago for a debate on that important report, which is also something that the Backbench Business Committee might like to consider if representations are made. The report was published alongside our own research and showed that some high streets are weathering the downturn—he referred to one in his constituency—whereas others have seen 40% less retail spending. We will respond to the recommendations in due course—probably in the spring—but in the meantime, I agree that the House might like to debate the issue.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his assiduous answering of my questions over 2011. I want to ask him for one more urgent debate or urgent statement on behalf of my constituent Sheila Wither, who is disabled and has to pay £1.20 for a return journey on Ring and Ride, whereas the able-bodied over-60s can travel free by bus. Centro has consulted, but Sheila tells me that she agreed to the slight charge only because she feared losing the service. The Department for Transport cannot intervene. Will the Leader of the House do the right thing so that people with disabilities can travel free, just like their able-bodied counterparts?
Sir George Young
I am flattered by the hon. Lady’s confidence that the Leader of the House can succeed where the Department for Transport has apparently failed. I will, of course, make appropriate inquiries to see whether we can help the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May we please have an early debate on value for money in the Metropolitan police? It has emerged that for its most senior staff alone—those on salaries of between £80,000 and £260,000—the Metropolitan police has paid just under £70,000 for private health insurance. It is hard to justify that money, which could be spent on providing constables to fight crime on the front line.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend will know that the ultimate decision rests with the Metropolitan Police Authority, but I agree with my hon. Friend’s message that, at a time of downward pressure on public expenditure and the need to preserve resources for the front line, this issue should perhaps be given careful scrutiny before it is decided to carry on with it.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive? A recent report highlighted that approximately 1,500 people die in work-related accidents every year but that the Health and Safety Executive investigates only one in 19 cases. Will the Leader of the House seek clarification of those figures and, if they are correct, what more will the Government do to protect people at their workplace?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to a quite impressive statistic on the numbers investigated and the total numbers reported. I will raise the matter with the appropriate Secretary of State and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Most of my constituents in Dover and Deal work in small and medium-sized enterprises. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how to help SMEs expand and on what the Government are doing for those enterprises to encourage more jobs and money?
Sir George Young
There was an opportunity in the debate on the autumn statement to put in the shop window some of the schemes that the Government have initiated. I remind my hon. Friend of the £1 billion business finance partnership for investing in exactly the type of businesses to which he refers, but through non-bank channels. That might be an appropriate avenue for my hon. Friend to explore for directing funds to mid-sized businesses in his constituency. The process of allocating those funds will begin early in the new year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Now that the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill has been scrutinised by both the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is it not time that it was brought before the House so that this measure, which is very popular with the public, can become law?
Sir George Young
As the hon. Lady rightly says, this Bill has had consideration in draft and it was a popular measure welcomed on both sides of the House. There will be a second Session of this Parliament, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill is a strong candidate for consideration as part of it.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
May we have a debate early next year on social care and paying for the costs of care homes? We have been promised a White Paper in the spring, but it appears that this is going to be no more than a progress report and will not contain substantive policy decisions. It is sometimes argued that it is difficult to establish cross-party agreement on this issue, but if we were to have a debate, we could see whether there was cross-party agreement on the funding of social care and the cost of care homes. As co-chair of the all-party group on carers, I very much hope that this issue can be resolved before I leave Parliament. At the present rate of progress, however, I will be contesting further elections in Banbury before this matter is resolved.
Sir George Young
Regardless of whether the problem is solved, I hope my hon. Friend will continue to fight a large number of elections in Banbury. He will know that one of the first actions we took was to establish the Dilnot commission, which reported in July. There is a commitment to publish a White Paper in the spring, which will outline the Government’s response to the important issues. There have been a number of debates on this important subject, but I would welcome a further one. We inherited a situation in which there were lots of White Papers but no action was taken during 13 years.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Can we have a statement from the Leader of the House—or whoever he delegates it to—on how we can hold the Government to account over participation in school sport? We put questions to the Secretary of State at DCMS Question Time this morning, but he refused to answer any about how we are going to monitor participation at school age. The Secretary of State has put £11 million into school games: it was announced by him and it is on his Department’s website, so it is not unreasonable to expect answers to DCMS questions about it. Will the Leader of the House make a statement on who is going to be accountable for answering questions on this subject in future?
Sir George Young
That sounds a little like unfinished business from the question and answer session that we have just had. I caught the end of DCMS questions and I thought that my right hon. and hon. Friends were answering questions with their usual competence and accuracy. I will, however, draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see whether there is anything he wishes to add to what he said a few moments ago.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
A very important matter for many Members is the law criminalising assisted suicide. Bearing in mind the expectation of a campaign to try to change this law, will my right hon. Friend ensure that Members have an opportunity to express their views on this issue early in the new year?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I think that this issue was debated during proceedings on a private Member’s Bill during the last Parliament, although I am not sure whether we have had a debate on it in this Parliament. It sounds to me an admirable subject for a debate on which strong views are held on both sides. I suggest that my hon. Friend presents himself to the Backbench Business Committee to put in a bid. I think he will find support on both sides of the House in seeking consideration of that important matter.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Can we have a debate about how commitments made on the Floor of the House by the Prime Minister to Back Benchers are adhered to by Ministers? On 7 November, I asked the Prime Minister:
“If the eurozone continues to fail to deal with the crisis, what actions will the Prime Minister take to protect the interests of the UK?”
At the end of his answer, he said:
“If he wants to discuss privately with a Treasury Minister the elements of any plan, he is at liberty to do so.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 39-40.]
I took up that invitation and wrote to the Chancellor on 8 November, but I have had no reply, even though we are about to go into recess and this is a very important matter. I am concerned about whether this is going to be a broken promise by the Prime Minister—or, worse still, that it means that the Government have no plan to deal with the eurozone crisis.
Sir George Young
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Monday and answered questions for almost two hours. There was adequate opportunity for the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, others to press him on the matter. The Prime Minister answered questions on Monday, and I cannot believe that there is any uncertainty left about where the Government stand on this matter.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
This week I attended the screening of “The Iron Lady” and was disturbed by the way in which the film portrayed its subject. Can we therefore have a debate on respect, good manners and good taste, as I found the film—although brilliantly acted—to be disrespectful to a Member of this Parliament?
Sir George Young
Unlike my hon. Friend, I have not had the benefit of seeing the film, although I know a number of hon. Members saw it earlier this week. There were conflicting views about it. Some found it to be a good film; others, obviously like my hon. Friend, found bits of it to be distasteful. I would welcome a debate, but I think Ministers should be cautious about expressing views that might be seen to be a form of censorship of films produced by independent producers.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Nagoya protocol on access and benefit sharing was designed to take millions of people in the world out of poverty and to release new medicines and products on to the market for the benefit of humanity. The Government signed that protocol at the convention on biodiversity at Nagoya in 2010, but it has yet to be ratified. Will the Leader of the House look into this as a matter of urgency, as ratification is vital if we are to get the protocol into force?
Sir George Young
I am very happy to raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at DEFRA and to get a response to the hon. Gentleman before the House rises.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Metal theft is a scourge across the entire country and yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) and I met the Minister responsible at the Home Office, Lord Henley, and found much agreement with the provisions in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), which has widespread cross-party support. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary for a statement on this subject as a matter of urgency when the House returns in January?
Sir George Young
I think I am right in saying that there was an exchange on metal theft during Home Office questions on Monday. I can confirm that we are considering a range of measures, which include banning cash payments, supporting scrap metal dealers in identifying stolen metal and seeing how we can make it more difficult to steal such types of metals. We are also working with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Transport police have set up a new unit, but I will pass on my hon. Friend’s suggestion that we reconsider the private Member’s Bill to see whether we can make swift progress.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House explain to me why the House is returning on Tuesday 10 January? It seems to me that Monday 9 January is the day that we should come back.
Sir George Young
The House agreed to come back on 10 January in a motion that was put to the House last month. That date has been agreed. The House will still be sitting more days than in the first two years of the preceding Parliament, so there can be no suggestion that we are slacking.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With over 90% of its shop units occupied and 100% of the units in the Newlands shopping centre full for Christmas, Kettering’s town centre is weathering the economic storm better than most. May I join the calls for a debate in Government time on the Portas report into Britain’s high streets before the Government publish their response, so that the Government can be informed of Members’ views and opinions?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing a suggestion that was made earlier, and I am pleased to hear about the prosperity of the shopping centre in Kettering. He is a member of the Backbench Business Committee and is probably better placed than I am to organise a debate on high street shops between now and the time when the Government respond. I hope he will therefore look sympathetically on colleagues who come to him with such a request, in view of the statement he has just made.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Can we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week on an important issue? The Government have refused until now to say who would take over if the Prime Minister were incapacitated, and after last week’s performance some of us would be very worried if it were the Deputy Prime Minister, in case he was in a sulk. Will the Leader of the House tell us who would take over? Would it be the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary or perhaps Mrs Bone?
Sir George Young
I think Mrs Bone might be towards the bottom of the list of possible successors, admirable though her qualities of leadership might be. My hon. Friend has asked me this question before and I refer him to the answer I gave on that earlier occasion.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Given the media headlines yesterday on young people’s unemployment, it is easy to forget that young people aged 18 to 24 have experienced high unemployment as a percentage of the population since 2006—for many years now. It is obviously a structural issue, so may we have a debate on how we can help young people’s aspirations? I hope that we could debate in a non-partisan way measures such as those incorporated into the youth contract and take into account the cross-party report on the future jobs fund published by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions.
Sir George Young
Some of those issues were touched on in yesterday’s debate. We all have a role to play in tackling youth unemployment in our constituencies by drawing to the attention of potential employers that element of the youth contract that gives employers a subsidy of £2,250 a year, to cover the national insurance contributions, if they employ somebody aged between 18 and 24 who is on the Work programme. We can all publicise that scheme and encourage employers to take advantage of it, thereby playing a role in reducing youth unemployment in our constituencies.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
In December 2005, the then Government applied the influence referred to by the shadow Leader of the House to negotiate away £7 billion-worth of 1984 EU rebate in return for some illusory promises on common agricultural policy reform. Six years on, would it be appropriate to have a short debate on which of those promises resulted in action? I suggest that it need only be a short debate, since there has been very little action.
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend reminds the House that the previous Government surrendered a very valuable rebate some time ago. We want a substantial reduction in the size of the CAP, with a higher proportion of CAP funds for the cost-effective delivery of public goods, and we want a fair deal for our farmers and for taxpayers within a smaller budget. We hope to continue to deliver environmental public goods through an ambitious agri-environment programme. We will press on with our agenda of getting a square deal for this country in CAP reform.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given recent revelations about exam boards and in the light of information that I have obtained that shows that exam boards have been allowed to increase their charges to maintained schools by more than 10% a year for each of the past five years, may we have a debate about what has gone wrong with the exam board system? May we also have an investigation into who knew what and when, and who is responsible for denigrating our exam system that badly?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There is concern, particularly in the light of recent reports, about what is happening. I think that I am right to say that today one of the Select Committees is taking evidence on that very subject, and we await its report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has asked Ofqual to investigate some of the allegations and to report back. It is crucial that we restore the credibility of the exam system and that is what my right hon. Friend wants to do.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
In the Harrogate district, there are nearly 8,000 small businesses employing about 70,000 people. Please may we have a debate on small businesses and the measures the Government are taking to support them? In particular, I am thinking about the cut in small business corporation tax and the extension of the rate relief holiday. I have started businesses and worked in small businesses and I know that those measures will be very helpful. May we please treat this as a matter of urgency, because small businesses are the engines of growth in our economy and we must do all we can to help them thrive?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of some of the initiatives that the Government have taken to help small businesses. He could also have referred to the changes we have made to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trust regimes to increase the flow of capital. We have also launched the new seed enterprise investment schemes to encourage investment in start-up companies. As I said a moment ago, we all have a role to play in drawing to the attention of employers in our constituencies the measures the Government are taking to tackle unemployment and promote prosperity in the areas we represent.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Last Friday, I visited the Alternative school in Barnoldswick and met head teacher Kirsty-Anne Pugh and the staff there. The school provides education for a number of young people who, for one reason or another, have not succeeded in mainstream education, and I feel that it has real potential to apply in future to become a free school. May we therefore have a debate on free schools and how they are fostering diversity, fairness and aspiration in our education system?
Sir George Young
I would welcome such a debate and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Half of the first 24 free schools are located in the most deprived 30% of areas in the country. I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about that school wanting to become an academy, and I welcome that, but he also reminds the House of the potential of our education reforms to help not just children in mainstream schools but those in special schools, who need every single piece of help they can get.
Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)
At this time of year, I know that the thoughts of the entire House will be with British armed forces serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. I was one of a number of MPs who recently visited Camp Bastion, and it is certainly at the forefront of my mind. In the light of that and as a gesture of seasonal good will, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a debate in this House to update us on operations in Afghanistan and the welfare of British troops?
Sir George Young
My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House in reminding us of the sacrifice that our armed forces have made and the fact they will continue to work over Christmas. May I suggest that she comes to the House on Monday for Defence questions, where she might have the opportunity to convey directly to Defence Ministers her appreciation of the armed forces and to get an authoritative response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
In my role as chair of the enterprise zone group and from talking to businesses in tourism, engineering and energy across Great Yarmouth, I can see clearly that among SMEs and individuals there is a real aspiration for growth and development in their businesses—it is almost tangible. Bearing that in mind, as well as projects such as the seed enterprise investment scheme and others that have been mentioned today, may I echo colleagues’ and hon. Friends’ earlier words about the importance of a debate in Government time on business and what the Government are doing further to highlight the great opportunities for businesses in our country?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting some of the initiatives we have already taken to help small businesses, and I was interested to hear about his experience. I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I am sure that when the House returns it will want to debate the economy, giving him a platform to talk about the schemes that have already been introduced and the further steps he would encourage the Government to take in order to make more progress in his constituency.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I wrote in June to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), because Network Rail was missing eight out of 10 of its targets. In November, the Office of Rail Regulation said that its projections showed that Network Rail would fail to meet many of the targets that had been reset for it. The latest report from the ORR said:
“Train performance continued to deteriorate”.
That is having a massive impact on my commuters, as 60% of delays have been attributed to it. When can we have a statement? Network Rail is being monitored still for failing so many targets. May we have an urgent statement on its performance in the new year?
Sir George Young
I am sorry to hear about the problems that my hon. Friend’s constituents face because of the failures of Network Rail, which has a somewhat unique governance structure that makes it difficult to hold it to account. I will share her concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My hon. Friend will know that additional funds were announced in the autumn statement to help railway infrastructure. I hope that some of that might filter through to her constituency and reduce some of the problems she has mentioned.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
May we have a debate on Saif Gaddafi and the London School of Economics given that the university refused to divulge information as to the circumstances in which he was awarded his PhD, despite freedom of information requests? Will the Leader of the House speak to the Minister with responsibility for higher education and urge him to call on the LSE to publish what really went on in this disgraceful episode of taking blood money for PhDs?
Sir George Young
I understand my hon. Friend’s deep concern, but I am not sure that I can comment on individual information requests. I do not know whether he has approached the Information Commissioner’s Office. He has a right of complaint to that office and from there to the first-tier tribunal. In general, when a request is made for the release of the personal information of others under the Freedom of Information Act, such information can be released only if that would be in compliance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act. We are looking at the FOI Act as part of post-legislative scrutiny and I can only suggest that my hon. Friend pursues the avenues I have just touched on.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House and reciprocate his good wishes to me. I take this opportunity to express good wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy new year to all colleagues and to all who serve the House.
Backbench Business
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Standards Act 2009
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Backbench Business Committee has recommended that the second of our two debates should last for at least three hours, which means that this first debate should finish no later than 3 pm. It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that I have selected the amendment to the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb).
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the recommendations of the First Report from the Members’ Expenses Committee on the Operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, HC 1484.
It is a pleasure to open the debate. I do not intend to detain the House for too long, as there has been a lot of debate on this subject. I welcome this opportunity from the Backbench Business Committee to present the findings of our very thorough and carefully conducted review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The Committee on Members’ Expenses was tasked with reviewing the operation of the Act to work out what were its aims—what was intended by Parliament—and whether those aims were being fulfilled, and to make any recommendations that were felt necessary.
I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to debate this issue and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support and input during the process of constructing the report. I thank in particular my fellow members on the Committee. We worked very hard in very busy circumstances to try to put together a report that truly reflected the evidence we received. Hon. Members will be aware that in many cases when one is on a Committee one has to pull back one’s personal preferences to ensure that what is delivered is fair and balanced and truly reflects the evidence and information provided. I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for making it possible to bring these issues to the House in a non-confrontational environment in which we can talk about matters that relate to the House and, primarily, to Back Benchers. This is a good forum in which to do that.
The party leaders and the House in general deserve some recognition for the initiation and passing of the Parliamentary Standards Act in 2009 and the amending Act in 2010. The House clearly decided to get rid of the old discredited system, to have independent regulation of Members’ expenses and to have that level of remuneration set independently. It also decided clearly that it wanted there to be more accountability for that body and these things than there had been in the past. I thank in particular the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for stating very clearly what the intentions of the Act were prior to its enactment in 2009. I thank also the shadow Leader of the House at that time, the current Leader of the House and the former shadow Leader of the House in the current Parliament for being entirely consistent in their presentation of the aims and objectives behind the legislation and for being persistent in trying to ensure that those aims and objectives were met.
Contrary to most media reports, the review that I present on behalf of the Committee is not particularly controversial. It is completely in keeping with the aims of the Act, as they were laid out. There are seven fairly clear aims about, for example, value for money, accountability, not deterring Members from making claims, being open about what is going on—the transparency side of things—and not creating a system that is unfair for Members who do not have independent means or who do not have families. We were very mindful of those objectives when we conducted the review and I highly recommend that hon. Members read the first section of the report, which runs through the history of payments to MPs. That section also runs through each of the Act’s aims and analyses the extent to which they are currently being met.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend has thanked various people. Will he accept my thanks and those of many colleagues for all the work he has put into this report? This is an extremely controversial matter and he has shown great leadership and sacrifice in doing all he has done.
Adam Afriyie
I thank my hon. Friend. If I could, I would probably flush up at this moment, but luckily hon. Members would not know if I had.
The objective of the review and its recommendations was to make sure that the aims of the Act, on which the majority of the House agreed, were being met in reality. Let me dispel a couple of the misleading ideas that are bouncing around about the report before I go through its recommendations so that the House is fully aware of what we might be accepting or putting over to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority a bit later.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on the hard work that he and his Committee have done over the past few weeks. During the expenses scandal, issues that came up included not only the misappropriation of public funds by a minority of Members in the House but the cost of politics. Could my hon. Friend set out whether his recommendations would drive up or drive down the cost of politics?
Adam Afriyie
That is one of the key issues that we looked at. If Members go through the recommendations—I will run through a few of them in a moment—they will find that their primary motivation is to find ways of reducing the costs of bureaucracy for the taxpayer and to achieve better value for money. At the moment, there is a huge burden on Members because of the unnecessarily long time that it takes to navigate the expenses system, and that places a cost burden on our constituents—the taxpayers. It also takes Members, and their staff, away from serving their constituents and performing the functions that they were elected to perform. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) hit the nail on the head with his remarks, because at the forefront of our minds was the question, “What recommendations can we make that will reduce the overall costs and ensure that the system is still accountable?”
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I want to put on record my appreciation of the front-line staff of IPSA, who have to work a system that is not fit for purpose. In addition to there being costs to Members of Parliament and their staff, the National Audit Office believes that in 38% of cases the cost of processing a claim is higher than the amount for which the claim is being made. Will my hon. Friend confirm that?
Adam Afriyie
That is a fascinating statistic. We had a session in which we looked in particular at value for money, and that message came through loud and clear. Anyone in the House with a background in business or in a medium-sized organisation that runs an expenses system will recognise that something needs to be looked at if the cost of processing a large minority of the claims is higher than the value of the claims themselves. Some of the recommendations are very much directed at helping IPSA to move to a system that is less expensive to operate and in which taxpayers’ resources are being spent as they would wish: on activities such as supporting democracy and ensuring that constituents are serviced, rather than supporting unnecessary bureaucracy.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
What would the hon. Gentleman say to the argument that the public might well see it as rather self-serving of MPs if his cost-saving proposals had the effect of there being less scrutiny of the money that they spend? Would not the public, in the wake of the scandal, be particularly concerned about that?
Adam Afriyie
That is absolutely right. The right hon. Gentleman could have been a member of the Committee, because that was exactly the attitude adopted by every member throughout. We asked ourselves, “Can we, with our recommendations, improve the transparency and the accountability to the public beyond what is being offered under the current regime?” That was exactly the direction of travel and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have a good look through the 19 recommendations, because he will see that we seek to address that issue.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
As a member of the Committee, I add my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for all the work that he has done. Does he agree that it is unfortunate that some of the media reporting has perhaps given the impression that the Committee was making recommendations for something that would be less transparent, when nothing could be further from the truth? We want to see more transparency, better value for the taxpayer and independence in setting pay, allowances and expenses for MPs.
Adam Afriyie
The hon. Lady makes the point very well. Those who actually read the report will see that that is exactly what we were attempting to achieve. I think that we achieve it elegantly in our recommendations to IPSA on how to improve the way it operates, and we achieve it in quite a moderate fashion in the recommendations that the Government may want to take up in the months and years to come.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) about anything that we say here not being derogatory about IPSA staff, who face the same problems we do. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) to the answers in annex 1, which show that four out of five MPs think that IPSA is not effective in helping us to do our job. I tried to ring IPSA this morning, because I see that 99 times out of 100 it answers the phone within 60 seconds. I started calling at 9 o’clock; it is now half-past 12. That is three and a half hours. It is a bit like the train operating company that said, “No trains this morning were late because we didn’t run any.” IPSA will not answer the phone before 1 o’clock, and then we discover that the person we want is at lunch. If the amendment is carried—I am not sure whether it should be—will my hon. Friend try to persuade IPSA to pay attention to the detail of the report? Does IPSA have to be the only public service that for half the day is not available to somebody who wants to ring it?
Adam Afriyie
That is another point very well made. I hope that the direction of travel in the recommendations will precipitate such an outcome when IPSA reflects on them.
I draw everyone’s attention to the survey in annex 1, on page 66, which contains some telling statistics. We conducted a brief survey towards the end of the inquiry to ensure that we were picking up contemporary, rather than historical, points of view of Members of Parliament. There are some striking figures. For example, 81% of MPs do not believe that the board of IPSA has been effective in supporting MPs in conducting their duties. Even if the intention was to be supportive, it is quite telling that over 80% of MPs do not think that it is. Another fascinating statistic is that 93% of MPs are subsidising their work here. That is a contemporary figure from two or three weeks ago.
Bob Russell
Does my hon. Friend know of any other profession or occupation—perhaps the world of journalism? —where 93% of the work force are subsidising the work that they do?
Adam Afriyie
It is incredibly unlikely. As I say, 93% are subsidising their work to some degree—some, about one in 10, to the tune of over £10,000 a year. One of the main reasons cited, by 83% of MPs, is that they are trying to protect their reputation. The bi-monthly publication cycle allows for misleading comparisons. The report calls for more transparency—perhaps we could publish in real time. However, the misleading bi-monthly publication routine means that MPs are trying to protect their reputation, which is the thing most valuable to them. Let us not think that that is a selfish act; it is an act that works to protect our democracy. If individual MPs are constantly being lambasted in their local media for making legitimate claims but having false comparisons made, that undermines democracy overall and harms the reputation of Parliament. That is why one of our recommendations is that IPSA should become a lot more transparent in its publications.
We make a recommendation about annual publications. At the moment, it is incredibly difficult for the public to see what is going on. They have to print out one page and then another, and try to compare them. That does not work, so we recommend that the annual publication is searchable and easily accessible to the public so that they can make sensible comparisons from year to year, rather than misleading ones drawn from the bi-monthly publications.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
There are many helpful suggestions in the report, not only on how IPSA can pursue matters in a most cost-effective way but particularly on the issue of transparency, which is crucial. I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about real-time publication and making it easier for the public to search. I am also delighted to see that the Committee has recommended to IPSA that the underlying receipts should also be published so that anybody can see all the evidence, obviously with credit card details redacted for security. That is essential.
Adam Afriyie
I thank the hon. Lady. The whole thrust of the report was to make sure that there is value for money for the taxpayer and that transparency is enhanced and improved. However, our primary aim, which we reaffirm in recommendation 1, is that we want the independent determination of the payments system for MPs’ costs and independent regulation to continue, and to continue to be robust. Let me dispel myth No. 1. Nothing in the recommendations seeks to undermine the independence of IPSA and the power of the regulatory function performed by that outside body. That was paramount in what we were doing. The Act was right in that intention, and it should remain, which is why we reaffirmed it in recommendation 1.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us very much admire the hon. Gentleman’s work in this field. We all feel very exposed. We all have an individual relationship with IPSA. Being able to share in a debate such as this is very useful, but I constantly feel that we need a parliamentary association that can act for Members of Parliament across the Benches when these very important issues about how we best fulfil our functions come up.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I chair the liaison committee with IPSA, which includes Members from all parties, and know that it can be a deeply frustrating experience. We do our best, but one of the problems we have had is trying to convince IPSA that its primary motivation must be to allow MPs to do their job and have a system that is not bureaucratic, does not allow fraud or error and, above all, saves taxpayers’ money. That is why a central recommendation of the report is that there should be an independent cost-benefit analysis of whether a flat-rate, taxable allowance, so that there could be no fraud, error or detailed administrative costs, would save taxpayers’ money.
Adam Afriyie
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work on the Committee. I think that together we came to a very moderate view that we hope will, if the recommendations are accepted, move the whole thing forward.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the key message that must come out of today’s debate and go to the Front Bench as well as to IPSA is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) has just said, that IPSA’s primary duty must be to ensure that we can do our job, and the plain fact is that many of us find it has become an obstacle to our doing that? That is why the legislation needs to be changed. Does he also agree that it is extremely important that these recommendations are not kicked into the long grass, and does he share my hope that Front Benchers will do nothing to obstruct this early implementation, which is clearly sensible?
Adam Afriyie
That is another point well made. I will tackle the point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) first and then move on to deal with that made by my hon. Friend.
If we think about the rest of society and the work we do as MPs—this is not a sob story, but I am sure that it will be reported as such—we will realise that every other body has a pressure group, a trade association, a trade union or a communications or public relations company working for them. We want our great British democracy to be an icon of honesty, transparency and straightforwardness around the world, so it is curious that Parliament appears to be the only organisation that does not have a similar function. IPSA, which is a small organisation, has two or three people dealing with its communications, but in Parliament there is no one to give the other side of the story. That is not a recommendation of the report, but simply my own observation to back up what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Sheerman
The trouble is that the three main parties in the House tend to be represented by the Whips, whose view of what goes on here is very different to that of most Back Benchers, so the call that I would like the hon. Gentleman to make for a parliamentary association might be what we need.
Adam Afriyie
The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. It is not in the report, but I accept it.
To return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie)—[Interruption.] Have I just promoted him?
Adam Afriyie
Indeed he should.
The report contains two pretty uncontroversial recommendations, and again this brings me to the second misrepresentation. The first recommendation, which is for the Government, is that the primary duty of the independent regulator and its administration should be to support MPs to perform their duties cost-effectively and efficiently. The Committee on Standards in Public Life and the constitutional historians we spoke to recommended that, as virtually every body in the world has that kind of line in their legislation. There is no time limit on that, so we recommend that the Government should at some point get around to doing that, and I urge them to do so.
IPSA is unique in being both the regulator and administrator of an expenses system. The second recommendation is that the law should be updated to enable the separation of those two functions. We are not saying that the administration function should definitely come to the House of Commons. We say nothing of the sort. We are not going to recreate the old Fees Office, which would be absolute madness, so that will not happen. However, we should be able to separate those two functions within the legislation, and I urge the Government—there is no need to answer this now—to make headway and look at how we might facilitate that while ensuring that the regulatory role is entirely independent of the House.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
As a member of the Committee, I would like to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend for his patience in trying to reconcile the views of the Committee. On the point he is making, in addition to the separation of IPSA’s regulatory and administrative functions, was not another stark factor presented to the Committee the extraordinarily expensive way IPSA administered a relatively small number of transactions and the fact that many other organisations, whether inside the House of Commons or elsewhere, could do that for much better value for money for the taxpayer?
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) was incredibly helpful during the Committee’s deliberations, for which I thank him. We all have strong views on these matters, some of which will be very different, so I thank him in particular because we all moderated our views somewhat to look at the evidence and see where it pointed us. We came to a good conclusion on how the system can be become more efficient. I should also point out that there have been arguments from the press again, and unfortunately from elsewhere, suggesting that somehow the report wants the House to regain control of expenses. That is utter nonsense. There is nothing in the report that seeks to do that. If there is any lack of clarity, I am happy to tidy it up or answer any questions. All the recommendations, other than 2 and 3, are for IPSA. It has the power to accept or reject them. We hope that it will accept them, but it has the power. There is nothing in the report that alters the relationship. If anything, one or two of the recommendations seek to increase the distance between Parliament and the regulator and urge IPSA to be more transparent.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I have a fairly straightforward question. Does the hon. Gentleman expect Sir Ian Kennedy and IPSA to respond publicly to the Committee’s recommendations?
Adam Afriyie
The amendment to the motion makes that point and proposes that IPSA should address the report in its annual review, and I have no objection to that and hope that it will respond. It seems to have indicated that it will respond at some point, which would be great. The House will await that response and then take a view on it, but it is for IPSA to decide whether to implement these cost-effective measures or reject them.
Alison Seabeck
Is not part of the problem, and part of the frustration that Members of the House feel with IPSA, the fact that we do not get responses from it? I have written to Sir Ian Kennedy on a number of occasions but have yet to receive a reply signed by him. I would like a public reassurance from IPSA that it will respond thoughtfully to the recommendations of what is an excellent piece of work by the Committee.
Adam Afriyie
Again, that is a perfect observation. In the survey that was conducted, MPs were asked on how many occasions in the last six months IPSA lost paperwork that they had submitted in support of a claim. Some 62% of MPs replied the IPSA had lost paperwork. In response to a question on the consistency of advice, the majority of MPs said that advice has been inconsistent. We updated the survey specifically to ensure that we were talking not about the history of the organisation and what happened when it was set up, but about the current reality for Members trying to get on with their work. What the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said is reflected in the information and evidence within the report.
I will focus on two recommendations for the moment before concluding my remarks. I just wanted to dispel many of the myths that have been knocking about.
We recommend that IPSA should move as far as possible to a system of direct payments. There are lots of reports in the media about MPs and whether they are pocketing money, but, as we know, certainly since the beginning of the new Parliament, that has not been the case. Even IPSA would agree, because it has robust systems, but the Committee says, “Why keep paying money to MPs, who then have to pay it to their member of staff who bought a toner cartridge three months earlier?” Many payments could be made directly to suppliers, so that the money does not go via MPs. They are not MPs’ expenses, they are the costs of running an office, and I cannot imagine that anyone in the country buys their own office furniture and then reclaims the costs.
Bob Russell
“Expenses” is the wrong word; those costs are allowances for us to do our job. My staff salaries are not my expenses.
Adam Afriyie
That point is reflected in recommendation 8, in which the Committee states that there should be a “clear distinction” between those costs that are commonly associated with an MP personally, and those costs that clearly relate to running an office and paying staff. They do not come anywhere near an MP; they are merely the cost of providing a service to the public.
Jo Swinson
The hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the separation of the administration and regulation of expenses are interesting and helpful, and I understand why those roles should be separate, but some media coverage might have been generated in part by the recommendation stating:
“The best arrangement would be for that separate body”—
the administration—
“to be within the House of Commons Service”.
Some Members, and certainly I, feel that that is absolutely the last place to which the administration of expenses should go. A separate accounting firm might be able to administer them more cost-effectively, but please let us not return them to the House authorities.
Adam Afriyie
I thank the hon. Lady for her view, and I can understand the shudder that would go up the spine if it looked as though we were making such a recommendation, but we are not. The Committee’s opinion is that the House is probably the best place for such an administrative role, because the IT systems and infrastructure are already in place, but that is not our recommendation. It would be misleading to suggest that we recommend the return of such administration to the House; we simply say that we think that that is the best way. All that is needed is to enable the separation of the two roles.
If Members are concerned about that idea, I challenge them to find any other body in the world which is both regulator and administrator. IPSA is unique: we would never allow such an arrangement in any other walk of life, and it is certainly unique when it comes to Parliaments and payments to Members.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
May I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his excellent work in this regard but, at the same time, strengthen and support what the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has said? Among the general public, the thinking is that expenses are taxi fares and the rest, but they do not understand—understandably so—that expenses include the salaries that we pay our staff, without whose work we could hardly carry out our duties as Members. The sooner this silly and unnecessary term “expenses” is changed to a relevant one, the better we will be.
Adam Afriyie
That point is echoed and very well made as a recommendation in the report. IPSA is taking some steps in that direction, and I hope that the report encourages it to move more quickly.
Let us remember that all the changes we made in 2009 were about improving the public’s confidence in this institution, but that cannot happen if the way information is published misleads people into believing something different. I am concerned in particular about the new intake of MPs, and at some point I will ask IPSA, “How many members of the new intake do we honestly think have been terribly devious and tried to cheat their expenses?” I think that the answer is zero. The robust systems in place indicate as much, but every eight weeks Members are lambasted in their local press for claiming something, so something is wrong with the way information is presented, and that is what the report tries to tackle.
Daniel Kawczynski
I very much hope that as part of my hon. Friend’s recommendations to IPSA he challenges it also to interact with our suppliers to lower the costs that we pay to some of them, such as Cellhire, which I personally think are extortionate. I very much hope also that IPSA will use bulk purchasing contracts in future to drive down our costs.
Adam Afriyie
The report also makes that recommendation, urging IPSA to continue in that direction and, as far as possible, like most other organisations, to do some central purchasing and secure some wholesale agreements, as it has with rail travel. It is stepping slowly in that direction, but we urge it to move a lot more quickly, so that our time and that of our staff can be spent on constituents rather than on unnecessary bureaucracy.
It is very hard to see anything controversial in our report; it is incredibly moderate, calm and analytical. It also asks that IPSA be more transparent and explain to the public—on its website, or in a letter to us—its existing system of supplements for London, for the outer London area and for mileage; explain its rationale for those items, which it has introduced, because the public need to know why it has done so; and then to show very clearly the methodology behind the calculation that enables it to arrive at its figures for those supplements. That would be a very useful exercise, because then people might see how the numbers are calculated and where they come from.
In the second part of recommendation 17, we say that if the system that IPSA has already introduced to London and the outer London area were rolled out—so we are not making a decision on it, but saying, “if it were rolled out”—let us ask a third party, not us or IPSA, to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it saves taxpayers money and provides them with value for money. Even if it does, and it may not, that is not good enough, however, so we recommend that a third party evaluate whether the system continues to meet the aims of the 2009 Act. Again, that is pretty uncontroversial: we simply, and perfectly reasonably, ask for information, and for an analysis and evaluation to be undertaken.
Recommendation 17(c) may have caused a little concern. During my discussions with the Leader of the House and others, there was some concern that it implies that Members should take control of the expenses system again and “decide” what IPSA does. May I just be absolutely clear, however, and ask Front Benchers to reflect on the fact that, if that were the argument, I have made it clear—including in the amendment that I attempted to table—that that is definitely not the intention? If a word is slightly out of place, I would just say that the report is not legislation but merely a set of recommendations, and I apologise on behalf of the Committee.
The recommendation states that, once the cost-benefit analysis has been completed and we are able to work out whether the taxpayer would get better value while accountability, transparency and everything else are maintained, the House should express its opinion, which I imagine would be in the form of a motion or an early-day motion, stating: “In the opinion of this House, we think this piece of work is jolly good and IPSA should think about it.” We would not be overruling IPSA—nothing of the sort; it would be another recommendation in a report, and that would be it.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Will my hon. Friend explain recommendation 18, which states that MPs should have no increase in pay during a Parliament? I agree with that, but should it not read as IPSA setting, in advance of an election, what the pay will be?
When I searched for best matches for IPSA telephone operating hours, the search engine recommended that I go to the International Professional Surrogates Association, which deals with problems of “physical and emotional intimacy”. That is the problem we have with IPSA.
Adam Afriyie
I suspect that we have some of those problems in the House as well.
On recommendation 18, in the Welsh Assembly and many others throughout the world a figure is set for the duration of a Parliament. We now have fixed-term Parliaments for five years, but the Committee felt that, even if we did not, it would be far better to select a figure that remained the same for the entire Parliament. Then we would not have the constant moving around and unnecessary changes that we currently experience. The situation seems to work very well in Wales with the Welsh Assembly and elsewhere, so we recommend not that IPSA introduce the proposal, but that it look at it, so that we do not have stories every three months about another change—another shift in the level—and whether a figure relates to RPI or to CPI. Let us forget all that and just have a fixed figure that runs for a Parliament.
Mr Andrew Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. I take him back to recommendation 17(c), which states:
“In not more than six months’ time, the House should have the opportunity to consider the merits of that cost-benefit analysis and evaluation”—
which the hon. Gentleman referred to—
“and to make a decision on whether there should or should not be a system of regional supplements instead of the existing travel and accommodation provisions.”
Does he accept that that is wrongly worded and inconsistent with what he has said? I, for one, would find it unacceptable because it compromises the independence of IPSA.
Adam Afriyie
We can quibble about one word in a report that is 100 pages long. I am telling hon. Members on behalf of the Committee that that was not the intention. The intention was simply to express a view about whether that was something that we would like to see. Basically, it would be like another recommendation to IPSA.
I hope that there is not going to be some massive argument about the issue; I have just made it absolutely clear to the House what was intended. By the way, I have also put the matter in writing to Front Benchers. Furthermore, I have now stated that I imagine that there would be a statement or early-day motion that said, “The House’s opinion is that we like it or do not like it.” The issue is for IPSA, not the House, to decide. We are looking for demons where they do not necessarily exist.
Mr Leigh
The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) can be reassured because the House cannot order IPSA to do anything, except by an Act of Parliament. We could pass any motion we liked to express an opinion, but that could not force IPSA to do anything. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the House making a decision, but it is making a decision to express a point of view, and IPSA is independent.
Adam Afriyie
I draw hon. Members’ eyes back to the first recommendation—the first thing that we are insisting on is that that independence should remain. That is what this whole thing was about. We were not tackling that in any way, other than to say that in some ways that independence should possibly even be enhanced through a separation of the administration and regulatory functions, so that IPSA would be in an even more powerful position to do the regulation, audit and checking, rather than doing the administration.
Adam Afriyie
I will give way twice more, and then I will definitely stop. I give way first to my hon. Friend.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily powerful and well reasoned case. But is it not a fact that a vote on his motion would simply say that the House approves of the recommendations? It could not force the Government or IPSA to do anything. May I suggest that a lot of misinformation is being given out by the usual channels?
Jim Sheridan
Are there any recommendations in the report about the principles afforded to IPSA? Is it subject to the same transparency and accountability in terms of salaries, bonuses and hours of work, so that we can see exactly what it is doing?
Adam Afriyie
We did not make any recommendations in that field; I simply observe that, given how things are worded, IPSA should be equally transparent. We ask it to tell us what it is doing, explain its logic and show its calculations so that the public can make a judgment on whether that is the right way to do things. Point taken.
I shall conclude my remarks, as I have gone on a fair bit longer than I intended. I have seen the amendment to the motion. I was a touch surprised that it should have come from a member of the Committee, given that we had not spoken about it beforehand, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for all his work on the Committee; he made a great contribution and we reached a moderate set of proposals.
My own feeling is that we have presented the recommendations to the House, and IPSA can see them now. The Government may want to consider a few things in the medium term about these minor, non-controversial legislative changes. If the amendment to the motion is agreed to, I would not be happy about that but ultimately I would not think it was the end of the world.
I know from some of the feedback that I have had in the past few days that Front Benchers have been quite disoriented in their vehemence; I am quite surprised about some of the stories in the newspapers. I just ask Front Benchers to take the issue in a reasoned, calm fashion. Let us not be combative. They have heard my view on the amendment. Let us get on with this gently, without fear or favour, in the interests of taxpayers, transparency and making this place work. Above all, we need to ensure that we do not get a two-tier Parliament in which those with independent means enjoy an easy ride relative to those who need to claim because they cannot afford to subsidise themselves.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As almost all of us are recipients of expenses, I assume that it is appropriate to make a declaration of interest at the outset.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)
You make a profit, do you?
Mr Raynsford
I assure my hon. Friend that I do not make a profit.
I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) not only for his introductory remarks, which have given a good and fair outline of the Committee’s report, but for all his work, not just as Chair of the Committee but prior to its establishment, in ensuring that this important issue is looked at in a clear and dispassionate way. I believe that, under his chairmanship, the Committee achieved that objective. It looked carefully, rigorously and dispassionately at the evidence and has come forward with recommendations that I believe are sound and sensible and should be taken up.
However, a few key messages need emphasising. The first is that, contrary to what has been suggested by some commentators, who have rushed into print to condemn the report, the Committee was adamant—no pun intended—in its support for the retention of independent regulation of MPs’ expenses. As the surveys conducted by the National Audit Office earlier this year and the Committee itself more recently have demonstrated, there is a very wide degree of support among MPs generally for the principle of independent regulation. Some 77% of MPs who responded to the latest survey agreed that independent regulation was important for restoring public confidence.
Having said that, the way in which the independent regulator has operated the system since May 2010 has been fraught with problems. Those problems provided a huge amount of evidence to the Committee in the course of its considerations. They are all documented in the report and its annexe. The process for making claims, considering them and paying expenses has proved slow and cumbersome. Many MPs have been left substantially out of pocket because of the time lag between expenditure and reimbursement. The system is far from cost-effective. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) highlighted, the NAO concluded last summer that 38% of claims at that time involved processing costs higher than the amount being claimed.
The system also imposes heavy burdens on MPs’ staff, thus diverting them away from their primary responsibility of looking after the interests of constituents. It also, of course, imposes burdens on MPs themselves. There is a great deal of evidence that MPs are not able to perform other functions because of the time that they have to spend on cumbersome bureaucratic processes. There is also evidence that MPs are deterred from making claims because of time-consuming and tortuous processes and the lack of clear advice from IPSA on what claims may be appropriate. There is also the fear of being subject to media and public criticism, either for claiming too much, or—paradoxically—for claiming too little; we all know of examples of minor items that Members feel would be held up to ridicule if a claim were seen to have been made for them.
Both the NAO report last summer and the Committee’s report, published now, demonstrate a very high level of dissatisfaction on the part of MPs about the working of the system as currently operated—not, I stress, about the concept of independent regulation, but about the system as it is currently operating.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On dissatisfaction, I should say that the public interest is illustrated in paragraph 80, page 27, which points out that the cost of IPSA is £6.4 million. If we allowed £400,000 for processing payroll, that would leave costs of £6 million for other expenses of £19.5 million. I cannot believe that the House would allow that to happen in any other part of the public sector.
Mr Raynsford
I was going to come to this point later, but I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman's view that the system is cumbersome and slow, and is not cost-effective. It is costing the country a great deal more than is necessary for a safe, rigorous and transparent system for overseeing MPs’ expenses claims.
Michael Connarty
On whether the system, which is costing that amount of money, is effective, IPSA cannot process a direct debit. It cannot process a BACS payment. The Scottish Parliament, when I shared an office with an MSP, used to process direct debits and send me a bill for half because we did not have the capacity to do that either in the Fees Office or in IPSA. It seems that for £6 million we get a system that does not work.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes a telling point and countless examples have been brought to those of us who served on the Committee of ways in which the current system imposes unreasonable costs and burdens and is inefficient. Our objective as a Committee was to come forward with proposals that would be practical and sensible and could be implemented to achieve a better system of independently regulated expenses. That is the nub of what the Committee is proposing. As the report emphasises, the improvement of the process should deliver savings in expenditure because the current system costs more than is required to run an independently regulated, transparent and cost-effective system. Indeed, as the Chair of the Committee made clear, it is hard to find examples anywhere else in the world of a system where the regulator is also the payment agency—where the two roles, administration and regulation, are combined. There are unfortunately inherent inefficiencies in the way in which that is being done, which need to be addressed to create a fair but also more cost-effective system.
Therefore, it is sad, but not entirely unpredictable, that much of the media reaction to the publication of the report and today’s debate is to interpret them as an attempt to turn the clock back to the bad old days. May I say openly, as an MP who has not been subject to personal criticism for his expense claims over the years, that I have no wish whatever to revert to the old system, which was open to abuse and has rightly been replaced by one of independent regulation? All MPs suffered reputational damage as a result of the exposure of the abuses that some perpetrated under the old system. The restoration of public confidence is vital and that is what should be at the forefront of our minds. That is why we must stick with a system of independent regulation, but it is also why we should not stay silent now about the failings of the administration of the existing system.
The worry is that, because MPs are naturally worried about reputational damage in a climate where some of the media have used this as an opportunity in the last day or two to raise lurid headlines of “Back to the bad old days”, and “Greedy MPs want more money”, genuine concerns about the inefficiencies and unsatisfactory features of the current system will not be addressed. MPs find it easier and safer not to put their heads above the parapet and risk being attacked by the media for supporting sensible recommendations that will improve the system.
Alison Seabeck
I also declare an interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the taxpayer will not thank us in the long term if we kick the issue into the long grass and allow the additional costs that IPSA is racking up in processing our claims to continue ad infinitum? Something does really need to be done.
Mr Raynsford
I agree wholeheartedly. We have a responsibility to speak out openly and properly about the failings of the existing system, while at the same time making clear our commitment to a framework of independently regulated expenses that guarantee transparency, probity and all the objectives that were rightly emphasised in the preparation of the 2009 legislation.
The report proposes exactly that. First, any fair-minded commentator reading the report will see that it clearly is not arguing for a return to the old discredited system of self-regulation; that is not anywhere in the report. It is utter nonsense for some media commentators to imply that that is the objective. Secondly, it is not a case of “greedy” MPs arguing for more money. As any fair-minded observer of the report will see, it focuses on ways in which savings can be made and argues that we should be operating a system that gives better value for money to the taxpayer. Indeed, as the report highlights, the criticisms have been overwhelmingly about the processes operated by IPSA, rather than the amounts of money involved. Thirdly, the report does not argue for flat-rate allowances, although it has been misrepresented as doing so. I will come back to that issue in a moment because it is controversial, but it is important to put on the record that it is not the Committee’s recommendation that there should be flat-rate allowances, other than those that already exist. There are flat-rate allowances in the existing system that apply to London MPs and those living in the area around outer London.
Bob Russell
I am sure the media have not deliberately gone out of their way to misrepresent the report and thus mislead readers. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the TaxPayers Alliance had not read the report when it made its comments? Clearly, as has been pointed out, the report would not impose an additional cost on the public purse; in fact it talks about greater efficiency and saving money for the public purse. Perhaps those at the TaxPayers Alliance are the people who are at fault and not the national media.
Mr Raynsford
I note, but I cannot say I am persuaded by, the hon. Gentleman’s touching faith in the integrity and probity of journalists, not all of whose expense claims would survive the slightest degree of the scrutiny that they advocate in the case of MPs. However, I agree that there are some forces outside this place that are only too keen to rush to judgment. They do not make a proper considered appraisal of the evidence in the report, or weigh up the merits and arguments and debate those rationally, but rush into caricature and vitriolic attacks on MPs because they have an agenda, which I do not wish to elaborate on further today.
The report proposes, first, separation of the regulation of the expenses system, which should remain in independent hands, from the administration, which as we have heard repeatedly and saw in the evidence submitted to the Committee, could be handled in a far more cost-effective way. The report does not propose a return to the Fees Office but it does suggest having a cost-effective administrative body appointed to run the process of handling claims and making payments, subject to the independent regulator's overall remit. That kind of structure applies almost universally in comparable organisations. It does not require a return to administration in this House. It could be done entirely independently. The case for separating the regulatory function from the administrative function was made forcefully by a large number of extremely experienced people who gave evidence to our Committee, many of whom said that the present arrangement was indefensible and not cost-effective.
Secondly, the report recommends the extension of direct payments to cut down on bureaucracy and costs without any risk of MPs gaining a financial advantage. That must be common sense. The report also proposes more extensive central procurement of equipment and supplies to save public money—again, a recommendation that should command widespread support. It proposes the annual publication of claims, backed up by receipts that have been redacted to remove personal details. That of course goes far further than the current system, which does not involve the publication of receipts, so the suggestion that we are trying to get away from transparency in making that recommendation is curious.
The framework proposed in the report would be more transparent than the current arrangements. At the same time, it would reduce the scope for potentially misleading indications of MPs’ expenses, which is the product of bi-monthly publication. That can result in some MPs who have particular surges, peaks or troughs in expenditure looking as though, in any one set of published figures, they are spending much more than their neighbours. Therefore, a simple, more accurate and fully transparent annualised publication system, together with a move towards real-time publication, as is proposed, must make sense.
The report recommends strongly the clear separation of expenses, which are items such as travel, subsistence and accommodation costs, from office expenditure. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and many others have made the point that such expenditure, bizarrely and uniquely to Members of Parliament, is treated as an expense. Where else would the costs necessary to carry out one’s job, such as for one’s desk, staff, office supplies, printers and so forth, be treated as an expense? Those are not, in normal parlance, an expense, but necessary costs of carrying out our functions. They should be identified separately so that we no longer see the highly misleading figures that are produced by some journalists to imply that MPs benefit from expenses of £120,000 a year, when that is a reflection of the costs of running their office and of their staffing. Those costs should not be subsumed by, or confused with, expenses.
Mr Winnick
Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), I intervened when the Chair of the Select Committee was speaking. What is IPSA’s response to that point? Does it accept that it is farcical to describe staff salaries and office accommodation as expenses?
Mr Raynsford
If my hon. Friend reads the transcripts of the evidence, he will see that the Committee took evidence from Sir Ian Kennedy in two sessions. He will have to draw his own conclusions from the views set forward by Sir Ian Kennedy. I have to say that we did not feel that there was a meeting of minds that would suggest the likelihood of a smooth and easy transition from the current arrangements to ones that would work properly and effectively, and in a way that guaranteed the public confidence in Parliament that we all want to see.
The report recommends the establishment of a liaison group between IPSA and representatives of MPs’ staff. I found it extraordinary that no such group exists, but that probably explains why IPSA, in some of its evidence to us and in some of its responses to MPs, appears to be surprisingly ignorant of the practical implications for the staff in this place of operating the systems that it has set up. The establishment of a liaison framework between IPSA and MPs’ staff, who do the bulk of the work in making claims and processing applications, is surely commonsensical and ought to be done.
I cannot see how the many pragmatic and sensible reform proposals in the report merit the intemperate language that has been heaped on them by some media commentators. However, let me in conclusion focus on two recommendations that might appear to be more controversial. The first is the proposal to amend the legislation to make it clear that the independent regulator should, in line with the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life,
“support MPs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently in carrying out their parliamentary functions”.
The way in which that recommendation was transposed into legislation allowed a loss of clarity.
Adam Afriyie
It struck us in the evidence sessions that even the chairman of IPSA acknowledged that he did not quite have the mandate to justify supporting MPs in the way that he wanted, because the legislation says that he must “have regard to” the principle of supporting MPs cost-effectively and efficiently, rather than it being a primary duty. It is clear from all the observations and evidence that there can be no other primary duty for such a body than to support MPs cost-effectively and efficiently in doing the duties that their constituents expect.
Mr Raynsford
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. It is clear from the evidence that there is a lack of clarity in the legislation, and that needs to be resolved. It cannot be satisfactory for the chairman of IPSA to talk in fairly broad terms about balancing a number of different considerations, some of which are in legislation and some of which are not. That gives no clarity about what the role and responsibility of the independent regulator should be.
There is a persuasive case for making this change. This is not MPs arguing for support, which some journalists have interpreted it to be. It is not us saying that we need customer care, as has been suggested. This is about clarity in the role of IPSA and in the balance that needs to be struck in its work between ensuring that MPs have the support necessary to carry out their functions properly, in a cost-effective and transparent way, and ensuring that all the other objectives that we want are satisfied. The lack of clarity needs to go. The arguments are set out very persuasively in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the report, and I commend them to right hon. and hon. Members.
The second recommendation that might be seen as controversial is in respect of flat-rate allowances. The first thing that I should say is that it is sometimes ignored that there are existing flat-rate allowances. As a London Member, I obviously receive one such allowance. Members from outer London and the immediate surrounding areas are also eligible for an additional allowance. Those elements exist at the moment.
It was put to the Committee that there might be a case for extending that principle of allowances to cut out much of the considerable cost involved in checking and processing individual claims for travel and accommodation costs. I can see an argument for that, but I am not wholly persuaded that it should be done. I do believe, and I think that the Committee believes, that it is right for the idea to be evaluated independently. That is why the recommendation in the report states clearly that there should be an independent evaluation of it.
Cathy Jamieson
Like my right hon. Friend and as a member of the Committee, I was not persuaded that we should move to that system. However, does he agree that if it is not evaluated and analysed independently, we will continue to have these arguments and the debate will continue in the media? We therefore need to consider it in more detail.
Mr Raynsford
My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. I hope that all Members, including those who are nervous about possible media criticism of any steps that we take in this matter, accept that there is a world of difference between a recommendation to introduce such a fairly fundamental change to the way in which expenses are paid and a recommendation that the likely costs, benefits and adverse consequences of it should be evaluated independently. That is the nub of the Committee’s recommendation.
I accept entirely the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor that there might be ambivalence about the recommendation that the House should have an opportunity to debate this matter. The point has been made forcefully that whatever the House decides, it will be for IPSA, ultimately, to determine whether any such recommendations should be supported. That, to my mind, means that the motion is acceptable. I would prefer it to the amendment, which has the whiff of the long grass about it. I am only sorry that a member of the Committee who signed up to the report as written and as presented to the House has moved an amendment that goes in a slightly different direction. I believe that the report stands. I accept entirely the ambiguity in the role of the decision by the House. I support very much the hon. Member for Windsor in his view that the House should consider the recommendation, but that ultimately it will be for IPSA to determine whether it should be applied as the basis for an expenses scheme.
In conclusion, I believe that this is a sensible, pragmatic and important report that deserves serious consideration. It should not either proceed to the long grass or continue to be the subject of vilification from certain quarters where it is seen as simply a rerun of the debates of two or three years ago, when completely unacceptable malpractice under the old system was exposed. That has passed, and we are in a different era. The principle of independent regulation is accepted and the new system is in place. It is not working as well as it should, for reasons that have been outlined, and it is right that we should be serious about finding ways of improving it. We need to ensure that we have a system for MPs to be able to carry out their functions, responsibilities and duties in a proper way and to be reimbursed for expenditure that they have of necessity to incur to perform those duties.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to end and add
“thanks the Members’ Expenses Committee for its First Report on the Operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, HC 1484; and refers it to IPSA to be considered as part of its Annual Review.”.
It is not often that I rise in the House as the villain of the piece, and that was certainly not my intention. If I have in any way shown a lack of courtesy towards my Committee Chairman, I want to apologise in front of the House. There is not another Member who is more courteous to other Members, and his chairmanship of the Members’ Expenses Committee was a model of courtesy. I apologise if my e-mail of this morning was slightly too late in arriving at his desk.
I want to make it clear that I signed up to the report and support it, and that I have been astounded by the vilification in the press of the modest proposals made in it. However, it is important to point out that there are recommendations in it that need to be taken seriously and taken forward. During the course of yesterday, it became increasingly apparent that there was a real likelihood that a vote would be called on today’s motion, and that it might be defeated.
Bob Russell
Would my hon. Friend like to inform the House whence that information came?
Guto Bebb
I am grateful. It came from various colleagues, and indeed from some Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who despite the fact that there is a one-line Whip are staying around today. That might indicate why I had my concerns.
The report is an important piece of work and contains proposals to better the situation. Crucially, and in contrast with the media comments on it, a large part of the Committee’s work examined not the unfairness of IPSA towards Members—we have spoken at length about that in the Chamber—but how it has discriminated against our staff. That issue has been ignored time and time again when we have discussed how IPSA operates. It has created real barriers to promotion for staff members, and they have found themselves worse off for child care. There are serious proposals on that in the report, which IPSA should take into account.
It is frankly astounding that IPSA has not formally spoken to any organisation responsible for our members of staff. There are recommendations in the report that it should be allowed to think carefully about and take forward. I would not want to end up with the report being rejected by the House, allowing IPSA to ignore its responsibility to consider those recommendations seriously.
Before becoming a Member of the House, I ran a small business for 17 years, so I believe in a pragmatic approach to what can be done. There are 19 recommendations in the report, and I stand by them, although I would say that we need to explain recommendation 3 in detail. I take full responsibility for the wording of it, because I was a member of the Committee, but it has allowed the media to attack us on the basis that we want to bring the expenses system back in-house. A Committee of Members came up with that wording, and I am as responsible as anybody else.
We need to consider carefully whether the administration and governance of the system can be split, and whether better value for money can be achieved by allowing IPSA to subcontract the work of administering it. The media’s conclusion from looking carefully at the wording of recommendation 3 has been unfortunate—I do not believe the conclusion that has been drawn was the intention behind the report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) have made perfectly clear, that was not the report’s purpose. If there were transcripts of our discussions in Committee, they would make that apparent.
Adam Afriyie
I respect the work that my hon. Friend has done with the Committee. I have already pointed out my slight frustration and disappointment with the fact that we have not spoken—there would have been other ways of achieving his goal, but his actions ruled them out.
I simply observe that the report is not a legal document. It is not a Bill or a piece of legislation but a general set of recommendations for small changes to legislation that are not that controversial. The absolute precision of the wording—one word here or there—does not make any difference. The report does not commit anybody to doing anything with such precision.
Guto Bebb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and accept his comments, but that has not been my argument. My argument is that Members need to have a great deal of confidence in IPSA to believe that it would not see a rejection of the report by the House as an excuse not to take its recommendations seriously.
Mr Andrew Smith
To clarify what the hon. Gentleman’s amendment means, is not the crucial difference that the original motion would have the House approving the recommendations in the report, whereas agreeing to the amendment would mean that the House was not approving them but simply passing them to IPSA for consideration? I might be able to live with the amendment, but I would not have been able to vote for the motion; indeed, I would have voted against it.
Guto Bebb
I am grateful for the intervention and delighted that the amendment will make it easier for Members to ensure that IPSA examines the issues in the report. I joined the Committee with a great deal of reservation, because as a newly elected Member the last thing I wanted was to be vilified as being part of an attempt to make MPs’ lives easier.
Mr Bone
I entirely understand the position of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), but I really do not understand that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). He voted for the report in December and supported it, so how can he move an amendment that would prevent the House from voting on it? It is very bizarre.
Guto Bebb
I have attempted to explain my reasoning. I believe that there are several recommendations in the report that should be taken forward, but I have clearly stated my concern and suspicion that if the House divided on the motion, the report would be rejected. That would be a great shame.
Bob Russell
Pursuant to my previous point and the one made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I am not sure whether the Committee had 12 members, but of the Members who were prevailed upon to sign the amendment, only one is in the Chamber. Can my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) tell me who leaned on him to table the amendment? He had sufficient time to find people to sign the amendment, but no time to discuss it with the Chair of his Committee, which produced a report that he had previously approved.
Mr Bone
My hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous in giving way. Will he tell the House when the wording of the amendment came into his mind? It is great that Back Benchers are moving amendments, but did he have a little help? Did anybody perhaps give him a draft of the amendment?
Guto Bebb
Again, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. In reality, when Members table amendments they do so in their own name and stand by them, so the implication of his comments does him a disservice.
I shall refrain from speaking about the report in general, because I agree with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made. There is a lot to be commended in it, and it contains 19 recommendations that can stand up to scrutiny, but it appears that three of them create a problem. I would rather IPSA considered them, and implemented 15 or 16 of them for the next financial year, than not consider them at all. That implementation would make a difference not just to Members but to our staff. More importantly, it would create more transparency and better value for money, and it would result in our constituents looking upon the House with more confidence. We would once again have proved that we are not looking to feather our own beds or change the situation in our interests. We are looking to change the situation in a way that is practical, effective and deliverable. In my view, delivering some of the recommendations soon is better than taking the view that we have to ensure that all of them are delivered now.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I am grateful to be called at this stage of the debate, but it is worth saying at the start that because the report was published only on Monday, the Government have not had the opportunity formally to respond to the Committee and to set out our views. I thought it would be helpful for the debate and the House if I were able to do so at a relatively early stage of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) referred to the press coverage, but I can assure him that the Government are not responsible for that. We have said publicly that most of the recommendations of his report relate to the expenses scheme, and are therefore for IPSA to consider, and suggested that it might want to do so as part of its annual review. We have said that we will look carefully at the section of the report that is directed at the Government, that we are totally committed to an independent and transparent expenses system, and that we could not accept any recommendations that would be incompatible with that. I leave Members to judge, but I do not consider that to be particularly harsh. It is a perfectly calm and balanced response to the report.
Mr Harper
May I make a little progress, because I need to set out the Government’s concerns about the report? [Interruption.] I will come to that.
The problem is that the motion asks the House—I will come to the amendment in a minute—to approve all the recommendations in the report. It is perfectly true that the Committee’s report in itself has no effect, but Parliament and the House of Commons are being asked to approve every single recommendation. It is therefore necessary to look at what they are and at whether they are acceptable.
It would have been more helpful if the Government had had a little more time, but the motion was tabled for debate today. Between noon on Monday and today, we have had to study the report and the recommendations that are directed at the Government. Because I need to be able to set out our position to the House, we have had to take a view on them, and I will do so.
Bob Russell
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is a Minister for whom I have the utmost respect, and I would hate his future prospects to be diminished in the eyes of the House if he aligned himself with the amendment. Does he agree that what he has just said sounds remarkably like the wording of the amendment? Is that a coincidence, or was some pressure brought to bear on the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who moved the amendment?
Mr Harper
I have not commented on the amendment yet. It is a fact that most of the report’s recommendations are for IPSA to consider. One or two are for the Government to consider, and I shall set out our view on them because the House has been asked to take a view.
It is probably appropriate at this point to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. Not only has he chaired the Committee very well, but he has taken a great deal of interest in this issue since the debate earlier this year and the House’s decision to set up the Committee and give it the mandate that it has. I also thank all members of the Committee, some of whom are present, for their work. They have carried out a great deal of research, taken a great deal of evidence and put a great deal of work into their conclusions.
The Government are unable to support the motion. It is helpful for the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has moved the amendment, because I fear that otherwise, I would have urged my hon. Friends, and indeed every Member of the House, to vote down the motion, because there are flaws in some of the recommendations and it would not have been appropriate. The amendment enables the report to go to IPSA for its consideration. Indeed, IPSA has said that it is very pleased to consider the report as part of its annual review.
Cathy Jamieson
Before the Minister moves on, will the Minister explain to the House exactly which recommendations he feels are flawed and why?
Mr Harper
I will. In summary, the recommendations that trespass on IPSA’s independence are recommendations 2, 3, and 17(c). It is worth drawing the House’s attention to one other thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) made it clear that they did not in any way want to trespass on IPSA’s independence, but however frustrating we find an independent regulator, we cannot give it instructions—
Mr Harper
Hang on. Let me finish this point and I will give way. Paragraph 204 of the report acknowledges that some of the Committee’s “recommendations require legislative changes” but also states that other recommendations do not require legislation
“but could be brought about in that way if IPSA does not act.”
The report also says that the Committee believes that legislation should be introduced to implement its recommendations if
“IPSA’s Board has not implemented”
them.
Mr Harper
I have said that I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention if I am allowed to finish my point.
We cannot have an independent regulator and expenses system, and then say that if it does not follow the views and advice that we give it, we will legislate to implement them. Those things are not compatible. In paragraph 205 of the report, the Committee states:
“We urge the Government and Parliament to have the courage to reform the system of payments…by implementing our recommendations.”
From the way I read that—I am happy to be put straight by hon. Members—it seems that there is a conflict between the recommendations in the report and an independent system. It says to IPSA, “If you don’t do them, we will legislate to do them anyway,” which trespasses on the independent system.
Adam Afriyie
I shall be polite in this intervention, but frankly, my hon. Friend has had to work very hard to find a tiny little thing to object to, but it does not say what he is suggesting. Nowhere in the report does it say that we should not have independent regulation and nobody is saying that—the first recommendation is that independent regulation should be reinforced.
Paragraph 204 merely states the obvious. In a parliamentary democracy, Parliament ultimately has the power to do anything. It does not recommend that the Government make legislation. Only recommendations 2 and 3 recommend change. Paragraph 204 is not a recommendation but an observational statement. The Minister could dig out a sentence from any report to try to make a point that simply is not there.
Mr Harper
I want time to set out our recommendations, but the report states:
“Some of our recommendations require legislative changes; others are not dependent on legislation, but could be brought about in that way if IPSA does not act.”
If the Committee had stopped there, my hon. Friend’s point would have had some force, but it did not. The report goes on to say:
“We believe that step should be taken”—
meaning that legislation should be introduced—if IPSA
“has not implemented the recommendations of this report by 1 April 2012.”
Mr Andrew Smith
I strongly support the line of argument that the Minister is advancing. Quite apart from the unacceptable proposals within the recommendations—the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) tries to belittle them, but they are there, they mean what they say, and the House is being invited to approve them—is it not crucial that this House does not give the impression that it is seeking to use its legislative power to lean on IPSA? That would be wrong, and we must make that clear.
Mr Harper
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point, which is an important one.
The House set up a proper way in which to express its views when it legislated to create IPSA—statutory consultees include Members. IPSA also has an annual review, as the amendment makes clear. The proper thing to do is to state our views through that. IPSA has published a document in which it acknowledges quite a number of the concerns that Members have raised today and in the report, including, for example, those on staffing. IPSA has made dealing with staffing one of its focuses. It seems to me that Members need to respond to IPSA. The consultation stage is open until 20 January. I urge every Member of the House who has a concern about how the system works to take full advantage of that opportunity and to feed their views back to IPSA.
Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I am not following the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that the 2009 Act, alone among every Act over the past 100 years, is the one piece of legislation that is so perfectly crafted that it will never require any amendment ever again? Unlike any Criminal Justice Bill or any other Bill that has been introduced by the previous Government, this particular Act is sacrosanct. It has been set in stone and must never, ever be considered for amendment. Is that really the Government’s position?
Mr Harper
No, it is not the Government’s position and it is not what I said. If we were simply transmitting this report to IPSA, I would have no problem with it; the report has a number of sensible recommendations. However, if we were considering the motion, which asks this House to approve every single one of the recommendations in this report, I would have a problem and I would be urging members of the House to vote against it. What this says is that if IPSA has not implemented all the recommendations, the Committee thinks that legislation should be brought in to implement them. I am simply saying that that is not appropriate if we are going to have independent regulation.
Adam Afriyie
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). The point is that this is not a recommendation of this report. It is merely an observation that members of the Committee have made. If the Minister goes through the 200 or 300 pages of the report, he will find plenty of other observations that people have made. This is not a recommendation, so the Minister is working a little bit too hard on an argument that does not really exist.
Mr Harper
It is one of the conclusions of the report. I will now move on to the three recommendations. Most of the recommendations in the report are for IPSA to consider. As Members on both sides of the House have said, many of the recommendations are very sensible and I hope that IPSA looks at them and takes them into account. In response to the report, IPSA has said that in some areas, it and the Members’ Expenses Committee are in agreement. Indeed, it has already introduced some of the suggestions that the Committee has made. IPSA has gone on to say, and has confirmed, that it will consider the recommendations of the Committee as it carries out its annual review of the scheme, which is very welcome.
Bob Russell
Is the Minister saying that IPSA has already responded to the report?
Mr Harper
Yes, IPSA put out a press notice, which is on its website for everyone to see. It has confirmed—[Interruption.] Will the hon. Gentleman let me answer his first intervention? IPSA has confirmed publicly that it will look at this report and consider the recommendations of the Committee. Indeed, it has said that it is in agreement with the Committee in a number of areas, which is a constructive response. It has learned from some of its previous responses, and is indicating that it wants to work with Members. It recognises that there are issues with the way in which the scheme works and it wants to improve it.
Bob Russell
I understood the Minister to say that the Government had not had time to consider this report, yet IPSA has had time to consider it.
Mr Harper
No, IPSA has not considered the report. IPSA has said that it will consider the Committee’s recommendations, as it considers the annual review of the scheme. As I have said, the Government have had to consider the report because the House is being invited today to decide whether to approve it. I simply said at the beginning of my remarks that the Government would have welcomed having had more than three days in which to do so, and that would have done justice to the report. Many Members said that they wanted a careful and thoughtful review, so I am gently suggesting that giving the Government three days was perhaps not entirely helpful in achieving that objective.
The Government’s interest in IPSA concerns equipping it with its statutory framework. IPSA is accountable to the House and the Speaker’s Committee, which was set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The Government are primarily concerned about recommendations 2 and 3, which are for the Government. I will say something about recommendation 17, which deals with the decision that the House would be invited to take.
Recommendation 2—the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich addressed this point—states:
“The Act should be amended in accordance with the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation to provide that IPSA’s primary duty is ‘to support MPs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently in carrying out their parliamentary functions.’ It would continue to be IPSA’s role to determine what assistance for MPs was necessary.”
It seems that there are two schools of thought about what that recommendation means. It is either a modest change that is meant to correct the emphasis of the legislation—
Mr Harper
I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding to that. Or it is a substantial change that would alter significantly the way in which IPSA functions.
If it is a modest change, it is unnecessary and would have no practical implication. Hon. Members will be aware that one amendment made to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 was the insertion of section 3A. That section sets out the general duties of IPSA, which are twofold. One is that IPSA must, in carrying out its functions, have regard to the principle that it should act in a way that is efficient, cost-effective and transparent, when it is running its systems and setting them up. The second duty is that in carrying out its functions, IPSA must have regard to the principle that Members of the House of Commons should be supported in carrying out their parliamentary functions efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. Although the duty to have regard to the principle that we should be supported to do our jobs comes second in order, it is none the less just as much a legal duty as the first; it is not an optional extra that IPSA can put to one side. That is why the change of emphasis would be unnecessary and would simply have no practical effect in how it operates.
Mr Raynsford
Does the Minister accept the point that is articulated in paragraphs 8 to 13 of the report? There is ambiguity, which was reflected in Sir Ian Kennedy’s response in trying to define the primary principles that should guide IPSA. That lack of clarity is not helpful. There is a need for a change. I am talking not about fundamental changes in the principles, but about a clarification, so that there is no longer any ambiguity.
Mr Harper
That was a helpful intervention. Let me pick it up as I move on to my second thought on this matter. If recommendation 2 is going to make a significant difference, and is not a modest change, it is misplaced. IPSA has a number of objectives that must be balanced. The Committee recognises that itself. Paragraph 97 of the report states:
“Restoring public confidence in MPs and Parliament was the fundamental purpose of the 2009 Act and the establishment of IPSA. It was so basic that it did not need to be explicitly referred to in the legislation.”
It is quite clear that IPSA has a number of things that it is trying to achieve. Yes, it wants to support Members of Parliament to do their jobs efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. Indeed, it has a legal duty to do so. It is also interested in both restoring—there is some evidence that there has been progress in that direction—and maintaining public confidence in MPs—[Interruption.] A comment has been made from a sedentary position. I am not going to repeat it for the benefit of the House. I am afraid that I am simply reading out what the Committee said in its report. Let me repeat paragraph 97 for the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell):
““Restoring public confidence in MPs and Parliament was the fundamental purpose of the 2009 Act and the establishment of IPSA. It was so basic that it did not need to be explicitly referred to in the legislation.”
Those are not my words—
Adam Afriyie
What is clear from the statement in the report, and clear overall, is that the purpose of creating the legislation was to improve the public standing of Parliament, but the primary duty of the body administering and regulating must be to support. The CSPL said that there cannot be any other primary purpose than to support Members in performing their functions. The Minister is slightly confusing the two issues—one is the purpose of creating legislation and the other is a primary duty provided to IPSA, rather than a statement that it must have regard to something, which it may or may not decide that it wishes to.
Mr Harper
I do not think that the two are mutually exclusive. Indeed, I would argue that if Members are to be able to carry out their parliamentary functions efficiently, there must be public confidence in them. If the public lose confidence in us and in this institution, we shall be in deep trouble.
Alison Seabeck
The Minister is making an important point, but it is slightly at odds with his suggestion at the beginning of his speech that we were becoming frustrated with IPSA’s status as an independent body. I do not think that we find independent scrutiny at all frustrating. Will the Minister correct his earlier statement? It was a bit misleading and, as I have said, it is contradicted by what he is saying now.
Mr Harper
The Committee has done an excellent job in putting together what I acknowledge to be some very good recommendations, and I hope that the House will send those recommendations to IPSA. IPSA has said that it will look at them, and that is absolutely fine. However, we must accept that, if IPSA is indeed independent, and if it considers those recommendations and decides not to implement them, we must live with its decision. It seems to me that if we say, as the report says in paragraph 204, that if it does not implement them by next April we will pass primary legislation to make it do so, we shall no longer have an independent regulator for our expenses system. I think that I speak not just for the Government but for most Members when I say that we cannot start telling IPSA what to do.
Mr Raynsford
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is being very generous. May I return him to the question that I asked earlier about the lack of clarity? When giving evidence to the Committee, Sir Ian Kennedy was asked to define the basic principles that guided IPSA. He was reminded that some were contained in legislation, and that some nine or 10 others were listed in a document that he had submitted. He gave us the slightly odd response that all of them were fundamental, which—as I pointed out to him—implied a lack of clarity in regard to what really were the fundamental principles. Will the Minister please accept that, given that the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life was not transcribed into legislation in precisely those terms, there is genuine uncertainty about what should be IPSA’s dominant objectives?
Mr Harper
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I have made it clear that IPSA has a legal duty to carry out its work and to ensure that we are “efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently” supported in the carrying out of our functions. However, IPSA must balance that duty with a range of other duties, one of which is restoring and maintaining public confidence. It will not be possible for it to have a sole objective.
Mr Andrew Smith
In common-sense terms, does it not come down to the question of whether IPSA is seen as working for us—which should not be the case—or as working for the British public? Yes, it has a responsibility to ensure that we do our job in an accountable and transparent way and so forth, but ultimately, if public confidence is to be restored, it must be seen to be working for the public and not for Members of Parliament.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman has put it very well. I cannot really add anything to what he has said.
A number of Members talked about costs and how efficiently IPSA did its job. I should emphasise that IPSA itself has a legal duty to be efficient and cost-effective. The National Audit Office’s report, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, noted that IPSA had significantly reduced its cost per claim, observing:
“This is impressive by the end of its first year of operation”.
The report went on to say, however, that
“IPSA is dealing with a much higher number of claims”
than were made in other UK legislatures in the UK,
“and should therefore be able to be the most efficient in the future.”
Given that, as I said, IPSA itself has a legal duty to be efficient and cost-effective, I think that it will be mindful of the thorough work done by the National Audit Office and the important recommendations that it has made.
I shall read out recommendation 3 so that Members can be clear about what it says:
“IPSA’s current administrative role should be carried out by a separate body, so that IPSA is not regulating itself, and the Act should be amended to permit this. The best arrangement would be for that separate body to be within the House of Commons Service, both because such a body would avoid imposing undue burdens on MPs and because it would benefit from the economies of scale of being part of a larger organisation in areas such as human resources and IT. Independent regulation by IPSA and transparency would ensure that it did not replicate the deficiencies of the old expenses system.”
I entirely accept that the Committee’s intention is not—here I paraphrase a media report—to go back to the old Fees Office, but it did not exactly go out of its way to make it difficult for the media to draw that conclusion, and I think it would be difficult for the House to agree to a recommendation that contains such a reference.
Another point requires clarification. IPSA’s administrative role falls into two categories: deciding whether claims should be allowed—what is called in the legislation “determining” claims—and paying those allowed claims. IPSA already has the power to contract out the payment of those claims, which is set out explicitly in the legislation. It can also contract out the payment of our salaries and the administration of our pensions, now that it is responsible for those. Under the legislation, however, it must retain direct control of the scheme for our expenses and decisions on the claims.
I believe that the deciding of claims should remain with IPSA, and the best way of explaining why I believe that is to quote paragraph 74 of the report, which quotes the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
“The CSPL noted in 2009 that both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales”—
the way in which the Scottish Parliament carried out its work was referred to in our debate in May, and has also been touched on today—
“had felt able to retain self-regulation by adding safeguards, but noted that ‘the difference is that neither ... has suffered a crisis of trust remotely comparable to that which has affected Westminster.’”
I think that, for that reason, the determination of our claims should remain with IPSA. The payment can already be contracted out if IPSA considers that to be more cost-effective and sensible. Other Members have said that we should not return to the old Fees Office approach, and I accept that the Committee did not mean to suggest that we should, although some may have interpreted its observations in that way.
Words mean what they say, and we must judge them on that basis. The House is being asked to approve these words in paragraph 17(c):
“In not more than six months’ time, the House should have the opportunity to consider the merits of the cost-benefit analysis and evaluation”—
as proposed in recommendation 17(b)—
“and to make a decision on whether there should or should not be a system of regional supplements instead of the existing travel and accommodation provisions.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said that what was meant was that the House should simply express a view—nothing stronger than that—but I am afraid that that is not what the report says. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) spotted that point and drew it to the attention of the House, and I think that it raises a fundamental issue.
Adam Afriyie
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but both I and other members of the Committee have made it absolutely clear that nothing in that recommendation suggests that IPSA would be bound by it. He will know that earlier in the week when we were discussing these matters, I tried to table an amendment to change the motion to make that clear, but it was firmly turned down. I can only suspect that the aim is to engineer a difference. Furthermore, primary legislation would be required to enable this place to force IPSA to do anything, and that is not what the recommendation suggests. I realise that the Minister will persist in his noble attempt to make this a bigger point than it is, and I respect that, but I think that we need to be clear about it.
Mr Harper
I know that my hon. Friend has set out clearly what he intended by the report, but his motion asks the House to approve the words in the recommendation, and those words mean what they mean—they ask the House “to make a decision”. Although he said that only primary legislation could bind the House, his Committee wrote, in paragraph 204, that if IPSA did not implement the recommendations, primary legislation should be used. The Committee has set out its view clearly. It might not have meant to say that, but it did say it.
Adam Afriyie
I will leave the Minister alone from hereon in because the point has been well made. Let us be clear: in paragraph 204 the Committee merely states, “We believe”. It is not a recommendation. He is working hard and doing a good job at creating the sense that this is legislation that is going through when it clearly is not. I commend him on his efforts, therefore, but the House should be clear on that point.
Mr Harper
I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that we have explained the matter enough to the House. I have set out my view of what the Committee report states, and he has set out his. The House will be asked shortly to take a view on that, and I am happy for it to do so.
The creation of IPSA was an essential step in cleaning up politics by bringing to an end the discredited system of self-regulation. IPSA has handled expenses for some time now, and the House recently resolved to commence IPSA’s powers to determine our pay and pensions. Those powers had been on the statute book since the previous Parliament, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House commenced those powers after consulting Members from across the House. I mention that because the Leader of the House said, in moving that motion, that under the relevant legislation MPs would not vote on their pay again, and his opposite number, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), confirmed that the principle of independent determination was right. During those debates, several Members on both sides of the House were very firm in their view that the House should never again vote on our pay, pensions or expenses, and I think that recommendation 17(c) is incompatible with that, which is why the Government cannot accept it.
Mr Tom Harris
I apologise to the Minister for intervening now, but it took me some time to find the reference to his previous point about recommendation 17(c). He seems to be saying that he opposes the recommendation because it advocates a particular allowance system in six months. Actually, he seems to oppose it because it recommends that in six months
“the House should have the opportunity to consider the merits”
of the recommendation
“and to make a decision”.
Surely he is not saying that the House should be denied an opportunity to consider whether this is acceptable. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. A lot of private conversations are going on in the Chamber. It is very distracting, particularly for those who wish to take part in the debate. If people want to have private discussions, perhaps they should leave the Chamber, so that the Minister can be heard.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If the recommendation simply stated that the House should have a general chat about the proposals, that would be one thing, but it specifically states that the House should be asked to make a decision on whether to change the system of allowances. If we have an independent system, we can write to IPSA asking for something different—for example, a different system of payments or a cost-benefit analysis. That is one thing. We could make those recommendations to IPSA, which could then consider them and, as an independent body, make a decision. If we decide, however, that the House can decide to change the system of allowances, we do not have an independent system any more. Members cannot have it both ways. I listened to the previous debates, and Members on both sides made it clear that we did not want to vote on our pay, pension or expenses. That is where we want to be and it is where we want to stay.
I shall conclude my remarks so that others can speak. [Interruption.] I have been generous and taken many interventions. The Government believe that recommendations 2, 3 and 17(c) are unacceptable. I therefore urge the House to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, but if it does not, I urge it to vote against the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Many of us remember only too well the collective trauma experienced by the House during the previous Parliament over expenses. It is worth remembering that the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), had support from both sides of the House when he introduced plans for an external and independent body to have responsibility for Members’ allowances. It was rightly seen that a system of self-regulation had been thoroughly discredited and that a fundamentally different approach was required—one that could command public confidence and one that meant establishing a body that was truly independent of Parliament. That body was the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
Today, the Opposition still strongly support that approach and are firmly behind the principles that underlie IPSA’s operation, but it is fair to say that because Parliament moved swiftly to address the wholly understandable public concerns about the House’s expenses regime, after IPSA was established there were a number of shortcomings in the administration of the new system. I am encouraged that IPSA has listened and that significant improvements have been made and are still being made. For instance, the system for the submission of duplicate documents relating to Members’ accommodation has been simplified and Members’ mileage claims are now much more straightforward. These are just two examples of how things have gradually improved over the past 12 months.
That is not to say that the process of improvement should come to an end. On the contrary, we need to consider carefully two reports that highlight the fact that ISPA can and should make further improvements. The first report is that from the National Audit Office, published in July. It suggested that IPSA ought to consider a number of points. For example, it stated that IPSA needed to consider how it could improve relations with MPs and provide reassurance that it was truly committed to doing all it could to facilitate our work as MPs. Similarly, it suggested that IPSA ought to consider the introduction of centralised procurement contracts. It was argued that such contracts would allow more progress to be made in achieving IPSA’s goal of a cost-effective scheme. Other points in that report are also worthy of consideration.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for robustly supporting the coalition position in this debate, which I, too, endorse. However, does not his point about the National Audit Office go to the crux of the dilemma? There are many different views on what a good system would be. My personal preference would be for local supplies, rather than national supplies, to boost local economies; the National Audit Office, backed by some, is suggesting something centralised and national. Does that not go to the crux of the matter, and is that not precisely why IPSA should remain independent?
Mr David
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which underlines the point that IPSA should always effectively be independent of Parliament, as he says. The only point I would make—and which the National Audit Office has also made—is about the general principle of collective procurement, which could be done more effectively to save taxpayers’ money. IPSA has made advances in ensuring a cost-effective scheme, but more can be done, and this is a clear example.
The second report that we are discussing today is that from the Committee on Members’ Expenses. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and his Committee for their assiduous work. Their report is reasonable in tone and contains a raft of practical proposals to improve IPSA’s performance. However, I have some reservations about aspects of the report. For example, I am somewhat concerned about the recommendation that a separate body be established within the House of Commons service. That body, the report says, would be independently regulated by IPSA, and
“transparency would ensure that it did not replicate the deficiencies of the old expenses system.”
I welcome those words of reassurance, which are honestly expressed, but I am not convinced that we should run the risk of creating a perception that MPs could once again exercise influence over their expenses. For me, independence means independence, full stop.
Adam Afriyie
I do not think there is any disagreement, actually. The recommendation is merely that the legislation should enable the separation of those functions, because IPSA is unique in the entire world in its existing set-up. The Committee goes on to suggest what we think might be the best way to work more cost-effectively, but that is not the recommendation. The recommendation is merely that the legislation should enable a separation to take place, just to tidy things up a little.
Mr David
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it still worries me that we are talking about at least an aspect of IPSA’s work coming in-house, to this place. Indeed, recommendation 3 says clearly:
“The best arrangement would be for that separate body to be within the House of Commons Service”.
However, if that body is in the House of Commons service, it is under the control of Members of Parliament, and I do not think that is desirable, nor is it something that would be easily understood by the general public.
That said, the report makes a number of good practical suggestions. For example, it is suggested that IPSA should extend its use of direct payments to cover as near to 100% of transactions as possible. That is to be welcomed. It is proposed that Members’ office and staff budgets should be merged, which would also be welcome. The report proposes that IPSA should make it easier for MPs to find out online how much of each budget has been spent. That would be a step forward. It is also suggested that IPSA should always ensure that MPs’ staff should have their expenses reimbursed directly and that this reimbursement should be made promptly. We would all endorse that. Those are just some of the practical and positive suggestions that are well worth active consideration and, I hope, implementation.
There are many policies and proposals in the report that I believe require careful deliberation. However, because of that, I am of the view that simply approving all the recommendations in their entirety might not be the best approach. That is why I have sympathy with the amendment, tabled by Government Back Benchers, which asks that the report be considered by IPSA as part of its annual review. I also hope that the Government will not merely wrap the report in warm words, but ensure that active consideration is given to those proposals that relate directly to the Government—in particular, recommendation 2—or the duties of IPSA.
I believe that the House has begun the process of restoring the reputation of Members of Parliament in the eyes of the public. However, to be honest, we still have a long way to go. That is why I believe that IPSA’s independence must be unequivocally maintained and that this House should not have any determining influence over any aspect of its expenses regime.
Bob Russell
Would the hon. Gentleman like to follow that argument through? Had it not been for the determination of the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) in getting the House to agree that this Committee should be established in the first place—we should remember that the Front Benchers did not want this Committee to exist—we would not be having this debate now and we would not have been able to discuss the important points to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has alluded, including allowing Members to make progress and enhancing public confidence. It is not thanks to Front Benchers, but thanks to the House collectively—and the hon. Member for Windsor particularly—that we are having this debate and that this Committee was set up in the first place.
Mr David
I certainly endorse that point. The House has been mature in its approach to the issue and, as I made clear at the start, I genuinely commend the work carried out by this Committee. I would make the point, however, that for the next stage, it is not for us to accept everything before us on a blanket basis; we should pass matters on for further in-depth scrutiny and appropriate implementation. That is my important point.
I come back to the central issue of the independence of IPSA. That is a cardinal principle, and I would not want any message to go out from this House, either deliberately or inadvertently, that undermines that independence. That is important both for the practical implementation of expenses and for public perception. The standing of Members of Parliament is, I believe, something that we are all genuinely concerned about.
Finally, we all recognise that the system needs to be improved and made more effective. That is why Labour Members and I personally welcome this report from the Committee on Members’ Expenses and why I shall support the amendment.
Adam Afriyie
I have enjoyed hearing the constructive contributions to the debate. One thing that has been emphasised over and over again is that nobody wants to undermine the regulation of payments to Members and that everybody would like greater transparency, greater efficiency and greater value for money for the taxpayer.
The amended motion would not be my preferred route, but it would not prevent other actions from being taken by the Government as they revisit some of these issues. On balance, I shall not object to the amendment. I hope that we can therefore move swiftly on the next business.
Amendment agreed to.
Main question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House thanks the Members’ Expenses Committee for its First Report on the Operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, HC 1484; and refers it to IPSA to be considered as part of its Annual Review.
Financial Education
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that young people today grow up in an increasingly complex financial world requiring them to make difficult decisions for the future, often without the necessary level of financial literacy; believes that financial education will help address the national problem of irresponsible borrowing and personal insolvency and that teaching people about budgeting and personal finance will help equip the workforce with the necessary skills to succeed in business and drive forward economic growth; further believes that the country has a duty to equip its young people properly through education to make informed financial decisions; and calls on the Government to consider the provision of financial education as part of the current curriculum review.
First, I would like to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this excellent opportunity to raise the profile of our ongoing campaign calling for greater provision of financial education and to make it compulsory in the national curriculum. I also extend my thanks to Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, whose e-petition secured the magic trigger of 100,000 signatories. It is only the fourth to have done so.
A number of people have asked me why this subject caught the public’s imagination. A couple of recent studies perhaps explain that. It was found that 94% of people agree that financial education is important; that 69% of parents feel that their children will get into debt; that fewer than a quarter of parents feel confident in educating their own children in money matters; and that 72% of parents do not believe that enough has been done to educate young children.
I am personally passionate about this subject because I believe society is changing. Here are some examples. This year was the first in which debit card usage exceeded cash usage. Only a few generations ago, people were paid weekly in cash. They often ran out of money, so were effectively forced to try to manage money in a controlled manner. Nowadays it is easy for the money to come in and flow out very quickly. We are seeing a greater prevalence of direct debits and standing orders, so if people get themselves into financial difficulty—the majority because of an unforeseen change of circumstances, such as the loss of a job, a bereavement or a family breakdown—they think that they will apply the financial brakes and not go out that weekend for a meal or to the cinema and that they will not spend any money, but the direct debits and standing orders are still flowing out of the account. People quickly become overwhelmed.
We are seeing ever more complicated marketing messages from different sectors, which are often misleading.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on tabling this motion, which I strongly support. Does he agree that one of the big problems is that a lot of people, faced with the marketing to which he refers, simply do not understand the rate of interest they are being charged? That underlines the importance of basic mathematics in the curriculum alongside the financial education that he is rightly advocating.
Justin Tomlinson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on with that point and I am just about to come on to it.
We have already had a number of debates in this Chamber on debt management companies, doorstep lending and payday loans. In fact, on annual percentage rates, we have already seen worrying evidence that consumers often think the higher the APR, the better. When people take out loans, they are not necessarily taking them out for a simple 12-month period. Most people could probably calculate 10% on a £100 loan, but it becomes complicated. Sometimes, the high-interest rate loans can be better than what people think is a safe bet. A good example of that is someone who wishes to borrow £100 for two days. They can borrow it from one of those well-known payday lenders who charge 4,635% plus £5.50 for the product fee, or they can go into their unauthorised overdraft facility at their local bank, which will charge them an understandable flat fee of £10 a day and a £2.50 fee for the privilege of using their debit card. Nearly everybody would accept the bank’s offer, because it is understandable.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I feel obliged to intervene, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is not here, but how many people does the hon. Gentleman believe sit and make the calculation when they are working out whether to take a loan from Wonga? How many of them does he think roll over their loans at the end of the borrowing term?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and that is exactly the point. It is so complicated. In my example, the bank was not the right option, but on many other occasions, it would be the other way around. The majority of consumers cannot calculate the interest rates to make those informed decisions. The market benefits from that and targets its marketing to take advantage of the situation.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s motion and I congratulate him on tabling it. Does he agree that the fundamental problem is not so much financial literacy and numeracy skills, although they are important, but that basic literacy and numeracy need to be improved, as evidenced by the unsatisfactory key stage 2 results that we saw in May?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I agree with him 100%. My speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) will cover those exact points.
To conclude this part of my speech, consumers too often take advantage of what they see as instant pain-free solutions without understanding the implications of what they are taking on.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from payday loans, does he not agree that anybody who finds themselves even contemplating taking one out—I accept his point that there are different ways of calculating the best way out of a situation—needs to address their whole financial position? It tends to be indicative of a problem, although I would not necessarily say that it was systemic. Once someone starts robbing from next week, they will be short then and it will go on and on. They need at that very moment to get the most careful and wise advice on their personal finances.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Let me be clear. Everyone has individual circumstances, priorities and challenges, and what one member of the public thinks is the right thing to do might be different to what the next person thinks. For me, the driving force is the idea that we have a duty to equip people to make informed decisions so that they can understand the implications of what they are doing and therefore do the very best according to their own priorities and circumstances. As we find in our debates, however, all too often people are not in a position to do that. MPs often end up referring to our casework because time and again we see people who have made wrong decisions not necessarily through any fault of their own, but because they did not have the skills to make the right decisions. Indeed, Citizens Advice has highlighted that 60% of its work is finance-related.
We have a competitive market and the Government have been encouraging people to take advantage of competition within the energy market. We say to people, “Go and shop around and look at energy tariffs,” but the market is incredibly complex and people need to be clued up if they are to be savvy consumers. I recently attempted to look at energy tariffs, but they are not all like for like, so consumers need a good level of skills to unravel that complicated market and seek out the best deal.
Another reason why I am passionate about this subject is that my generation could be pretty rubbish at handling money. We could go to university, drum up huge amounts of debt, including expensive debt on credit cards, and then secure our first graduate jobs—in my time that was relatively easy to do—get on to the housing ladder with a 100% or 100%-plus mortgage and watch house prices increase. When we had learned the error of our ways, we could reconsolidate our mortgage, pay off all our expensive debts and carry on, but that option will not be available to the next generation. As things stand, it is very difficult to get into the housing market and there is no guarantee that house prices will rise so that one could take advantage of that should one get on to the housing ladder. It is harder for young people to get credit and harder for people to correct any mistakes they may have made.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend, who is a near neighbour, and all the MPs involved in this issue—this is the House of Commons working at its best. Does he agree that this is a big issue for women and girls, who are often the particular target of very expensive consumer demands, such as, “You must have this big handbag,” or “You must buy these incredible clothes”? I think we do our young women and girls a real disservice in this area. Not only do we not educate them about finance but we encourage them to borrow and spend as much as possible.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. This is part of the problem. We want people to be equipped to make informed choices and also to be savvy consumers who understand how to get the best for their money.
I want to say a little about how we got to today’s debate. Just over a year ago, I innocently asked a parliamentary question calling for greater financial education within our schools. I was then contacted by the national charity, the Personal Finance Education Group, which told me when we met that it had been campaigning on this subject for 10 years. Its representatives said, “That was a very good question. Would you like another 30 to ask?” for which I was very grateful. I submitted those questions, which made me look very intelligent. I was then contacted by Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert.com, who said, “Can I come and meet you? I’m very impressed by the 31 questions you’ve now asked on this subject. You sound very knowledgeable and I’d like to get behind you.” We decided between us that I alone could not champion this cause and that we should launch an all-party parliamentary group. Following a little gentle persuasion from the 6 million subscribers to MoneySavingExpert.com, MPs keenly queued into a very busy Jubilee room. We clocked up a staggering 225 Members from different parties, making us the largest such group.
At that point, we were tempted to go and knock on the Minister’s door, offer him a cup of tea and some biscuits and talk about how overwhelmingly we were supported by people, but we knew that the Minister is often contacted by people championing worthy causes. I have called for basic cookery and life-saving skills to be taught in schools so I have been guilty of making lots of requests of the national curriculum. We thought that instead we would be patient and launch a constructive and positive eight-month inquiry so that when we met the Minister and said, “This is our worthy cause,” we would have answers to all the questions that could be raised.
The inquiry was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole who, despite having been called a supply teacher by the Prime Minister, has an extensive knowledge of a variety of roles within schools. We conducted a significant amount of research. More than 900 teachers responded, telling us what is happening, and what they think could and should happen. More than 50 relevant organisations met us, face to face, in oral sessions. We set ourselves up as a mini-Select Committee. We heard from organisations from the banking sector, financial institutions, teachers unions, financial education providers, the Financial Services Authority and the Money Advice Service. We heard from mathematicians so intelligent that the lights in the room started to flicker. We are extremely grateful for the support given by Carol Vorderman, who had previously been commissioned by the Conservative party when it was in opposition to look into mathematics standards. She was ably supported by Roger Porkess and Stella Dudzic, who wrote the mathematical example questions in our report.
We met representatives of the personal, social and health education sector, and we also talked to young people themselves because if we championed this cause but young people did not wish to engage, it would be a flawed campaign. We were overwhelmed by their support. In particular, I thank Katie Emms and Alex Harman, who took part in the oral sessions, but who on Monday, promoting our launch, got banned by Twitter for tweeting rather too enthusiastically about how good our 52-page report is.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Has the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to look at the evidence presented to the Education Bill Committee at the end of the last Parliament? An attempt to get PSHE, including economic education, on to a statutory footing in the national curriculum was debated at length, but unfortunately his party prevented that from going through in the wash-up. A lot of very good evidence was presented to that Committee.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That was part of the evidence that we considered, but that was a rather simplistic description of what happened in the wash-up. That was not a stand-alone issue, and we referred to that in the report.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
We did indeed look at that issue but was it not the case that we were not convinced from the start about simply putting financial education into PSHE? We wanted to discuss examinations and mathematics and all the rest of it, which is why we have come up with a solution that I think is much better than that offered before the election.
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely. It was important to include that as part of the evidence, but as we are about to set out in our recommendations, it was not the conclusion that we came to.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his work and on the report that he has produced. Does he not accept that if his Front-Bench colleagues had not taken that position, compulsory financial education would have been delivered through PSHE in secondary schools since last September?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. We are trying to reach consensus on the very best way to deliver that education. We considered that approach as part of our report and concluded that it was not the right way to go. I am about to set out what we feel should be done. I am aware that a number of other Members will also go into detail to explain why we came to that conclusion.
I am going to whizz over the key recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole will explain the mechanics behind them because he chaired the inquiry. We believe that the Government should promote the provision of high-quality financial education in schools in England. They should do that by acting on, or supporting, the following recommendations. I hope that the Minister’s pen is poised.
With regard to national provision, personal financial education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum. Resources produced by outside organisations and visits of providers to schools should be available and accessible if considered helpful by teachers and quality-marked by a trusted body. There are many and varied examples of volunteers and financial institutions that already go into schools to do a good job. There is also evidence that some people felt that that was sometimes a marketing exercise.
It was also clear that provision was very patchy. We saw lots of evidence that if a school governor happened to have a connection to a particular financial institution, their school was more likely to have that opportunity than others. That said, those institutions can play an important role as long as the teachers lead. For example, a PE teacher providing a wide variety of sports may be particularly competent in football and rugby, but if his students want to take part in, say, trampolining, he may invite the local trampolining club to come in and give a lesson. That should be under the control of the teacher and be quality-marked so that we can be sure that it is not a marketing exercise.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that such lessons should be teacher-led. I had the pleasure of seeing a teacher-led money management workshop run by the charity Credit Action at St. Joseph’s college in my constituency a week or so ago. The year 8 group were really engaged. I could see that there was strong merit in the approach that was being taken in that lesson. I am delighted to support my hon. Friend and congratulate him on all the hard work he is doing.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. A number of members of the all-party group, including several who took part in the inquiry, visited local schools to see at first hand the enjoyment and fulfilment of young children who had such an opportunity. If we ask them whether they are interested in mobile phone contracts, the cost of driving lessons or the fact that ultimately they will have access to credit cards and loans, we see that they are enthused by money and buy into financial education.
The report recommends that:
“Primary teachers should build upon their teaching of basic money and mathematics skills from an early age across the curriculum in preparation for secondary education.”
On that point, I welcome the Minister’s decision to restrict the use of calculators in primary schools, because it is clear that the ability to do mental arithmetic makes a huge difference when it come to providing the building blocks of the good mathematical skills that are essential to become an informed and savvy consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) championed that in a Westminster Hall debate in which I had the pleasure of offering my support. I know from my experience of learning maths in school, and being reasonably savvy when it comes to financial matters, that such skills are built on the ability to do mental arithmetic.
The report continues:
“We welcome the Government’s current proposal to increase the minimum requirement of mathematics GCSE to grade B for primary school teachers and encourage that it should be adopted. It would be advantageous to use the opportunity of training days to refresh the mathematics skills of primary school teachers, although we respect the right of the schools to provide training in a way they feel is appropriate.”
On secondary schools, the report recommends:
“Personal finance education should be taught cross-curricular in mathematics and Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education with the financial numeracy aspect of personal finance education situated in mathematics and subjective aspects taught in PSHE education. It should be packaged in an obvious and clear way to young people.”
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on all the work he has done on this subject. Does he agree that financial education needs to be embedded in mathematics rigorously and that it should be seen as one of the forms of applied mathematics in the way that mechanics has been historically? We should see finance as another means of doing that as well. Does he agree that it is particularly concerning that girls perform worse in GCSE maths than boys, despite the fact that they do much better in other subjects?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I could not agree more. That point is right behind our findings. I will set out the split that explains that. The report states:
“Personal finance elements of maths should be clearly highlighted to emphasise how they relate to real life decisions. If viable, the Government should implement the Smith Report and Maths Review’s recommendation for the twin GCSEs: ‘Application of Mathematics’ and ‘Methods in Mathematics’ to improve financial numeracy and ensure it is examined.”
Crucially, we saw that in the evidence on the factual side, such as calculating the cost of a loan. We set out some examples in the report that covered the cost of standard loans, calculating exchange rates, credit cards, savings, taxation, compound interest rates and APR, which was referred to earlier. Those are factual questions with factual answers that are right or wrong and should be properly examined. We think that that would drive up standards.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
May I say what a fantastic job my hon. Friend and the all-party parliamentary group are doing? Does he agree that these issues also come up with pensions? One of the great concerns with auto-enrolment is that people who have not previously saved will need to understand the products, so this sort of education will be very valuable.
Justin Tomlinson
That came through in the evidence. If we go into primary schools and start talking about pensions, we might not necessary engage, but one thing leads to another, and if young people have the basic skills, they can go on to use them later in life.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
When I was going around the country earlier this year doing some work for the Government, I talked with young people not about pensions, but about paying for life after leaving school at 16. The overwhelming message I heard was that they wanted financial education not for the long or even medium term, but for dealing with their questions on where to study, how much it will cost, about apprenticeships and what the impact on the family income of those choices will be. That is really urgent, really important and universally supported.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and echo those comments. We have seen that response as we have made our visits.
Personal, social and health education should be clearly defined as four separate strands, one of which should be personal finance. By reworking the PSHE syllabus, more focused training and assessment can be developed, and individuals would have an opportunity to learn about the implications of their decisions.
Earlier, I pointed out that we are all individuals, with our own individual challenges, priorities and things that we consider important, so there is not necessarily a right answer in this area of education. I shall use yet another example from Martin Lewis to illustrate that point. An individual has been unable for 12 months to find a job; they have been offered a job in a neighbouring town but with only a three-month guaranteed contract; and the only way in which they can get to the town is if they take out an expensive car loan. Does that individual take out the loan? There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. Are they confident that they will be so good in their job that they will last beyond three months? That is probably the determining factor, but such examples offer young people the opportunity to talk through the day-to-day, real-life challenges that they may face when they enter the big, bad world.
Kevin Brennan
The first key recommendation of the hon. Gentleman’s committee is that personal finance education should be part of every school’s curriculum. Is he including academies and free schools?
Justin Tomlinson
That is exactly the sort of question that, in setting out the mechanics of the recommendations, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole will cover—if the shadow Minister could just be ever so slightly patient.
We also call for a school co-ordinator or champion to be appointed to each school, preferably from the senior leadership team. They should be given responsibility for ensuring that outcomes are achieved in maths and PSHE; for ensuring that there is a clear link between the elements of personal finance taught in mathematics and PSHE; and for sourcing resources. We make it clear that such education should be cross-curriculum, so there should be a point of contact who can champion it.
Dr Murrison
Teachers will argue that there is huge pressure on the curriculum, and I have a lot of sympathy with that, so how much time will it be necessary to carve out of an already pressurised curriculum to deal with the issue? I assume my hon. Friend is suggesting that primary children should be taught not about gilts and derivatives but about fairly basic stuff, so how much time will be required to bring them up to the acceptable level of numeracy which he envisages?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. We considered a stand-alone subject and, in our utopian world, we would have loved to see a stand-alone financial education qualification, module or however it might have been, but we recognised that greater freedoms have been given to schools, so we thought it best to build such education, in the most relevant and rigorous way, into the subjects currently on offer.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that such education is about understanding mathematical concepts in a practical way, so it does not need to displace any part of the curriculum? If one is looking at the cost of leasing the car, at whether to place a spread bet or whatever other type of bet, or at anything else, one needs to understand percentages, multiplication and all those things. They are lifetime examples that should be taken into the classroom.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that, because it answers in part an earlier intervention.
Mrs Chapman
The hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) mentions spread betting, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are not suggesting teaching primary school children gambling?
Justin Tomlinson
I am sure that was not the thrust of the earlier intervention.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. One intervention at a time. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?
Tessa Munt
I accept absolutely the point about not teaching primary school children spread betting, but young constituents of mine have made appalling errors due to the betting that is available online, and I complain constantly that on mainstream television there are 31 hours and 55 minutes of online betting shows late at night. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless one understands the implications of what one is doing, one is in deep trouble?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank hon. Members for their interventions; I shall try to give one response to the three of them. In secondary schools, anything to do with betting or credit cards could be relevant. It is very important, however, that we as a society do not necessarily judge what is right and wrong for individuals. However, the PSHE side of things offers an opportunity to discuss the implications.
How much time should be spent on such education? I am conscious that I was called to speak ahead of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. I do not want to steal all his best lines, and he is keen to set that issue out in detail. However, in summary, I emphasise again that in primary schools the priority is to provide the building blocks for secondary schools, and that is very much on the mental arithmetic side—perhaps just an introduction to the concept of money.
In secondary schools, as has been pointed out, financial education should be integral. In many ways, some of that work already takes place. For example, we already expect students to do calculations in mathematics; we would like those calculations to be applied to real-life situations. Rather than asking what is 10% of 100, it might be better to ask how much a loan of £100 at 10% interest would cost someone. That is the same calculation, but the point is brought home.
There is another element to that. I am very supportive of mathematics; I studied it at A-level and I am a great believer that our success as a nation relies on our encouraging more young people to take up mathematics. One of the biggest challenges is that young people are put off the subject because they think that it is a lot harder than it really is, because they do not apply it to everyday life. When we ask young people whether when they look at different tariffs on mobile phone contracts they realise that they are carrying out a mathematical calculation, they find that they are interested in the subject. Such approaches can be used as an opportunity and a hook to encourage more people to go on to do the further maths that this country so needs.
In conclusion, I have been absolutely bombarded with statistics from supportive organisations; I met more than 100 of them before we even started looking into producing our report. They have been helpful with statistics. The one that stands out more than any other is that 91% of people who have got themselves into financial difficulty feel that if they had been better informed, they might well have taken a different path. Hindsight is wonderful. We all think, “If only I had done that”. But I certainly think that the principle of that statistic is right; so many people who get themselves into difficulty could have done otherwise. We have an absolute duty to equip the next generation of consumers to make informed decisions. Driving up standards in mathematics and PSHE goes hand in hand with our campaign for compulsory financial education. I urge the Government to embrace our positive and constructive report as part of the national curriculum review.
Diana Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) who is due to speak in a moment, but I would like to raise an important matter with you. Written ministerial statement No. 11, which relates to the Olympics, security and the Ministry of Defence, is supposed to have been published this morning. It is still not with the House. During Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions this morning, Members were given an opportunity to ask questions about the Olympics. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), I am concerned that the media are trailing several stories about warships and several thousand military personnel being in east London during the Olympic games. Could you use your offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see whether the statement could be made available forthwith?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. Notice was given this morning of a ministerial statement on this matter. I have made inquiries and it still has not arrived. I notice that the Leader of the House and Deputy Leader of the House are in the Chamber. I am sure that they have taken note of the comments that the hon. Lady has made. Perhaps they could make inquiries about this matter. Let us return to the debate. I call Jenny Chapman.
Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) on the work that they put into the report. However, before this turns into a complete love-in in which we all congratulate each other on our efforts, I should observe that I see financial education as being about 20% of the solution to the problem with debt in this country. We also need to look carefully and quite quickly at regulating certain parts of the industry, especially payday loans and the high-cost lending sector. I would also like to improve advice services and secure advice services that are under threat at the moment. I would look at advertising, too. I think that it is at the root of some of the severe problems that people get themselves into with debt. On loans, some very dodgy products are made to look commonplace, and young people are encouraged to take out short-term loans for things such as going to a music festival, which sends completely the wrong message. We need to do something about that fairly urgently.
As a nation, many of us lack the knowledge we need to properly manage our finances. About two thirds of people in the UK say that they feel too confused to make the right choices about their money and more than a third say that they do not have the right skills to properly manage their cash. Only 36% of people understand that the term APR relates to payments. Within families, about 19% of parents have never discussed how to spend money with their teenagers and 32% have yet to discuss how to budget or even describe what one is. Research has shown that 43% of parents do not know what basic financial terms such as APR or PPI mean. On Tuesday, I was in a financial education class in a women’s prison and I was quite impressed by how well informed some of the inmates were, but there was quite a long discussion about PPI, which seems to be a huge issue on which many people feel they have been misled. They say they would have benefited from clear information at a young age.
Frighteningly, about three quarters of us say that a lack of basic financial understanding is to blame for our debts. The gaps in our national financial knowledge are worrying but are made all the more troubling in these times of austerity. The citizens advice bureau in my constituency tells me that in the past 12 months it has dealt with just under £9.5 million of debt. Between 2004 and 2010, individual insolvency levels rose sharply. Apparently, in the 12 months ending in quarter 3 of 2011, about one in 361 people became insolvent, which is significantly higher than the annual average of one in 1,655.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, even more people coming to her surgery with financial issues than previously? Is she as worried as I am that they are coming to us at a time when even less independent financial advice is available for them to access?
Mrs Chapman
My hon. Friend makes a good point. She tempts me to break a promise that I made to myself when I came into the debate not to have a rant about the economy and make a wider political point, because I thought that that probably would not be what this occasion demanded. However, she makes that point for me and I thank her for it.
Education is the armour against being misled and I believe that advertising is misleading us. I refer the House to my ten-minute rule Bill of about a year ago, which I am sure all hon. Members have followed closely, which would curb some of the advertising on financial products. Financial education provides protection against some of the most traumatic circumstances a person can find themselves in, from paying an additional fee on an unauthorised overdraft because one is not aware of how the charges work, to losing one’s home or having one’s belongings repossessed and being declared bankrupt. Many of us have been able to learn from our mistakes because either the economy has been in a good state or we have been able to rely on family or friends. We have been lucky but young people now, as the hon. Member for North Swindon said, are in danger of financial mismanagement having a much longer-term effect on their lives. On finishing education, young people immediately face tough monetary decisions. At 17, they are already in debt and tied into contracts that they did not fully understand for things such as mobile phones. I take the slack given to me by the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) who made a good point about gambling. If that is an issue at primary level, which I had not appreciated, it is right that that be included in the curriculum. Therefore, we need to be properly prepared to deal with these decisions. Put simply, an informed borrower is a safer borrower.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but does she not agree that if we have a problem with children under the age of 11 gambling, the most important place to start is not the curriculum, but access to online gambling?
Mrs Chapman
I agree completely. That goes back to the first point that I made about financial education being one of four strands of the solution, the others being debt advice, advertising and regulation. The hon. Gentleman is right to point that out.
In schools across England, the provision of personal financial education is ad hoc. We saw some good examples when writing this report. I took it upon myself to visit schools in my constituency and I was impressed with what I found. There is little teacher training on personal financial education and there is therefore limited subject knowledge and confidence among some teaching staff. It is stating the obvious to say that schools face significant barriers to teaching financial education, such as curriculum time, the absence of a statutory mandate and the lack of awareness of suitable resources.
Elizabeth Truss
Does the hon. Lady agree that the current requirement of a grade C in mathematics to teach in primary schools may need to be amended? Is she concerned, as I am, that we have the smallest proportion of students studying maths from 16 to 18 of any country in the OECD? We therefore do not necessarily have people moving through the system with the right mathematical understanding.
Mrs Chapman
I agree with that to a point. I have A-level maths and I am very glad that I studied that. One does not have to be a maths expert to deliver good financial education, but one does need to have confidence in the subject, have a good grasp of the knowledge and be a good teacher. A good teacher who can get the ideas across can probably teach the things that we discuss in the report quite well.
Lyn Brown
Given that I could not tempt my hon. Friend to have a rant on the economy, perhaps I can tempt her one more time to deviate on to the Government’s record on this matter. In November 2011, applications for training courses for secondary maths teachers fell by more than a quarter on last year. Is she as concerned as I am about the implications of that?
Mrs Chapman
I am very concerned about that. I am not only concerned about mathematics. My region has seen a drop of about 20% in higher education applications. We are assured that there will be a last-minute surge in applications. If that is not the case, I fear that we will face a serious problem.
Oliver Heald
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is also an important issue about an entrepreneurial society? If we do not have enough basic financial information and knowledge in our community, it is a brake on innovation and entrepreneurialism. It also means that people who do set up a business often cannot prepare a decent business case and that their business does not sustain itself. That is important to our economy, as are the matters that she is raising.
Mrs Chapman
I do agree with that. There are plenty of examples of entrepreneurs who have done incredibly well with little formal education. I do not know this for sure, but I do not think I am pushing the boat out too much to suggest that Duncan Bannatyne, who has his head office in my constituency, does not have a maths degree. Such exceptions aside, most people would benefit from having this sort of knowledge. I think that it would assist in the way that the hon. Gentleman indicates.
I will conclude because much of what I was going to say has already been said, and probably much more eloquently, by the hon. Member for North Swindon. [Interruption.] I was not expecting a response to that. On the advice of teachers, the all-party group on financial education for young people felt that it was necessary to have a champion for personal finance in each school. I had my doubts about that when the report was drafted, because I was not sure that schools would welcome having that burden loaded on to them. However, it was pointed out to me that teachers had argued strongly for that recommendation to be included. With that in mind, I am happy to support it.
The all-party group also believes that the subject should be examined, and I agree. Ofsted has stated that courses leading to formal accreditation have inspired
“a more coherent curriculum and sharper focus on the learning outcomes students were expected to achieve”.
As one head teacher has explained:
“Unless you test it, it will not happen”.
The introduction of dual mathematics GCSEs would promote the right objective and ensure that the subject is properly examined and taught.
I urge the House to examine the matter closely, take it seriously and include it in what I hope will be a package of measures that will help address the serious problem that we have not just with the lack of financial education but with debt more broadly. I hope that we will consider matters such as advertising, the provision of advice and the regulation of the high-cost lending market.
I wish to conclude with a lovely quotation that I have found, which I could not help but try to give at some point. Benjamin Franklin said:
“An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”
I think that is quite a nice way to end.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) raised a point of order a short time ago about the availability of a written ministerial statement from the Ministry of Defence about the London 2012 Olympics. I have since had the opportunity to look into its whereabouts. It was, in fact, issued just after 1.30 pm today, but for some reason the IT did not allow it to get through to the Vote Office. That has now been corrected, and it is now available in the Vote Office. I hope that if the hon. Lady goes to either the Vote Office or the Library, she will get a copy, but I have a further copy here if she would like it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for that. I am sure that he agrees that, notice having been given by a Department of a written ministerial statement, it should have been here a considerable time before 1.30 pm. However, we are grateful to him for his prompt action and for the fact that Members will now be able to look at the statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
May I start by apologising for having been a couple of minutes late to the debate?
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman). She is right that an investment in knowledge pays the best interest—certainly better than the interest that some of my retired constituents are receiving on their bank balances at the moment. She made an important point, and I hope that the national curriculum review will ensure that our new national curriculum increases the amount of knowledge that children receive.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) not only on his balanced and passionate speech but on his leadership, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), of the all-party group on financial education for young people. I thank the all-party group for its report on financial education in the curriculum. Both have been powerful advocates of the cause, and together with Martin Lewis have managed a powerful and effective campaign. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole later if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Martin Lewis is an energetic and highly effective campaigner for financial education in schools, the result of which has been an e-petition with more than 100,000 signatures. From meeting Martin Lewis recently, it is clear to me how passionately he believes in the importance of financial education for young people to help them deal with the complexities and dangers of money and debt management. I know that the all-party group has also been well supported by the Personal Finance Education Group, which has worked for a number of years to promote and develop finance education in schools.
The Government are currently conducting two reviews—that of the national curriculum, which of course includes the core subject of mathematics, which is a cause about which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) is passionate, and that of personal, social, health and economic education, which includes financial capability. The all-party group’s report provides important insights and recommendations to both reviews, and the Government are grateful to it for its thorough and high-quality report. We will examine it very carefully indeed.
I know that we all agree about the importance of good-quality personal finance education and the critical role played by a sound grasp of basic mathematical skills. Support from the finance industry and a range of good resources play their part in supporting schools to teach pupils how to manage their money well.
It is true that young people are growing up in a materialistic world for which they are often not fully prepared. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, the “Got to have it now” culture means that young people have high aspirations for branded or designer goods, often without the means to pay for them. They have unrealistic expectations about the lifestyle that they can afford, which are fuelled by the glittering trappings of celebrity.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon made the important point that our generation—I like to associate myself with his generation—was cushioned from its financial mistakes by rising house prices, which provided equity to pay off consumer debts. That is not available to the current generation.
We all have a job to do in moving young people’s aspirations away from that empty and often destructive perception of what success means. Our determination to raise academic standards in all schools and for all young people, regardless of their background, is about high achievement and stretching aspirations. Developing children’s intellectual capabilities and interests is a direct antidote to materialism. Alongside that, young people must acquire a sense of responsibility. They need to contribute to society as responsible citizens and not take wild risks. They need to learn to live within their means.
Kevin Brennan
I understand why the Minister will not today give us the conclusions of the curriculum review that is under way, but does the first key recommendation of the report—that personal financial education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum, which I take to mean all taxpayer-funded schools, including free schools and academies—fall within the terms or the remit of the curriculum review and the review of PSHE?
Mr Gibb
We made it very clear when we announced the review of PSHE education in schools that it is not possible for PSHE to become a statutory element of the national curriculum. However, it is in the remit of the review to recommend that elements of PSHE should be compulsory if it believes that strongly.
Kevin Brennan
Just to be clear, does that include making those elements compulsory in free schools and academies?
Mr Gibb
The national curriculum applies only to maintained schools. The rules that apply to academies go through their funding agreements. The review will consider that issue. The extent to which those elements will apply to academies depends on the funding agreements, which maintains the approach to academies taken by the previous Government.
Tessa Munt
Might one solution be to ensure that young people, as they pass through the curriculum stages from primary through to university education, have some form of examination—a module could be included in the examination process—that allows them to show some level of expertise in such life skills, which they will need to take forward? I have a passion for middle schools, so I suggest that that should happen when children are aged from nine to 13. In that way, whatever course they choose after the age of 13, be it vocational or academic, they will at least have proven that they have those life skills.
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Those are the kind of issues that the PSHE review will consider. We want to ensure that the quality of PSHE teaching in our schools improves. That is the key driver of the review.
The hon. Member for Darlington quoted Benjamin Franklin, but I shall quote Mr Micawber from Dickens’s “David Copperfield”:
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Those aphorisms are as true today as they were in the nineteenth century. Borrowing more than one can afford to repay is one of the most serious social problems facing the UK today. British consumers are considerably more indebted than those in continental Europe. Between 1999 and 2007, household debt increased by 125% while household income increased by only 40%. The Office for National Statistics estimates that around 10% of all households have problem arrears and are unable to make minimum payments in one or more of their financial commitments. The Government are serious about taking action to help people to manage their debts.
We want to ensure that individuals facing financial difficulty can get advice early rather than waiting until their problems become more difficult to resolve. The new Money Advice Service has a statutory function to enhance people’s understanding and knowledge of financial matters and their ability to manage their own financial affairs. It provides free and impartial information and advice. Those consumers who find themselves in high levels of debt will continue to need specialist debt advice, and the Money Advice Service, with its consumer financial education remit and national reach, is well placed to take a role in the co-ordination of debt advice services as part of its existing services.
I have another quote; this time it is from Shakespeare. As Polonius advised his son—
Kevin Brennan
It is good advice from Polonius, but we must remember that he is widely regarded as an old hypocrite. Perhaps he is not the best person to quote. He was a silly old fool.
Kevin Brennan
Perhaps Iago might be more appropriate.
“Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing;
‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
Mr Gibb
Very good indeed. The green-eyed monster is there as well. The hon. Gentleman also makes the case for rote learning of English literature. That is missing from our schools. The more poems we can recite in our early years, the better. The hon. Gentleman must have learned that passage many years ago.
To be successful and to achieve aspirations, young people need to be able to stand on their own two feet. They must organise themselves, prioritise, manage money and work independently. That needs to start from an early age. Primary schools must lay the foundations by raising standards of arithmetic and securing a confident progression on to secondary schools. I am also mindful of the many reports of young people leaving school without the most basic knowledge of mathematics. We are committed to improving attainment levels in maths and to ensuring that all children leave primary school fluent and confident in arithmetic. We are studying evidence on the most effective ways of teaching arithmetic in primary schools and we have read the reports and listened to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk.
In the current secondary mathematics curriculum, pupils must achieve fluency and confidence in a range of mathematical techniques and processes that can be applied in a wide range of circumstances, including managing money. The kinds of calculations that people should be able to do are set out in the report “Financial Education and the Curriculum” by the all-party parliamentary group. There is a suggested example of a GCSE question. It asks what Sophie should do with £4,300 that was left to her by her grandfather. She has a choice of two accounts. The first pays 3.1% on a monthly basis and the second pays 3.25% annually. The formula on page 41 is “AER=100[(1 + r/100n)n - 1]”. If one can master that, one knows all one needs to know about how to calculate compound interest.
Young people need to be confident and competent consumers. They need to be able to work out when a supermarket deal is not what it seems. For example, when supermarkets offer a deal on buying two small packs of something, they need to work out whether it is really cheaper per litre or per kilogram than buying one larger pack. In fact, I have found in some supermarkets that it is more expensive to buy one larger pack than to buy two smaller ones.
The Government are currently reviewing the national curriculum, including the curriculum for maths. The all-party report on financial education and the curriculum will feed into the review, and the review will ultimately ensure that the GCSE reflects its conclusions. We will consult widely on the number of maths GCSEs in the light of the review, and will consider evidence from the pilot of the pair of maths GCSEs referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk. Application of mathematics and methods in mathematics will also inform decisions. We will look carefully at the evaluation of the pilot.
Kevin Brennan
What have not been mentioned so far, but have been endorsed by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), are the qualifications in personal finance offered by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Has the Minister had a chance to examine them and form a view on how suitable they are for pupils?
Mr Gibb
We will examine them as part of the curriculum review, but our first priority is to establish what knowledge children need. That will then feed into the qualifications. We have also benefited from Alison Wolf’s review of qualifications in schools. A process is under way to ensure that every qualification offered by schools is of sufficient size and quality, and commands respect in the real world among employers and further and higher education institutions. Those are the factors that will determine whether a qualification continues to be recognised in performance tables.
Simon Hughes
The Minister rightly concentrates mostly on primary and secondary schools, for which he is directly responsible, but does he accept that it is also important for young people to receive financial education elsewhere, for instance through the youth services? After all, they spend much more time outside school than at school. Will there be, as it were, a draft proposal for consultation after the Government have formed a view but before they finalise their proposals? I realise that this is controversial, but it seems to me that it would be wise for the Government to say “This is our thinking now that we have taken all the evidence, but before we form a final view there will be a debate in the House and a short time in which the public can respond.”
Mr Gibb
My right hon. Friend has made a legitimate point, with which I agree. Our intention is to consult widely on the curriculum review. There is an important set of decisions to be made. We have received nearly 6,000 responses to the call for evidence, and we will report on them shortly. The draft programmes of study will be published during the next year and beyond, and there will be wide consultation on them. Even before they have been published, there will be a great deal of consultation with stakeholders and subject specialists. We want to establish a consensus in the country about what we want children to be taught. However, we must slim down the curriculum and differentiate it from the school curriculum in order to identify a body of knowledge that we want all children to have acquired. How it is taught is a matter for teachers, and will depend on their professionalism.
Financial education is also an important strand of personal, social, health and economic education. We know from the Ofted report “PSHE in Schools”, which was published in July 2010, that provision for financial education is patchy. Some schools have not yet got to grips with the economic well-being and financial capability strand of PSHE, which was introduced in secondary schools in 2008. The aim of the review is to determine how we can help schools to improve the quality of PSHE teaching, while giving teachers enough flexibility to enable them to judge for themselves how best to deliver PSHE. We have finished collecting evidence, and will publish proposals for public consultation next year. The financial education curriculum report will play an important part in helping us to draw conclusions for the purpose of the PSHE review.
Good-quality teaching is also fundamental. If we want an education system that ranks with the best in the world, we need to attract the best people and give them outstanding training. There is strong evidence that links teacher quality, above all other factors, with pupils’ attainment. Our plans for initial teacher training show the Government’s commitment to recruiting the very best graduates into teaching, securing better value for money from ITT and reforming training. There is a focus, then, on the most important elements of being a teacher.
In 2012-13, we will prioritise places on primary ITT courses offering a specialism in mathematics and science, and in 2013-14 we expect to adjust financial incentives to favour trainees on specialist primary courses with a good A-level in mathematics, science or language over those on generalist courses. For serving teachers, the mathematics specialist teacher programme aims to improve the practice of primary maths teaching by improving mathematical subject knowledge and pedagogical approach and by developing teachers’ expertise to provide effective professional development. More than 3,200 teachers are currently on that programme.
The all-party group’s report on financial education and the curriculum is an important report. It is grounded in solid research and data, with practical solutions and a commitment to ensuring that young people receive the education that they need to become confident consumers. Much can be achieved by supporting finance education, working with those in the finance sector, finance education experts and schools. There is huge enthusiasm among teachers and young people, and we will give careful consideration to the report and all its recommendations.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I first apologise to House as I may need to leave before the debate’s conclusion, depending on how long we run on for?
I congratulate the all-party group on financial education for young people on producing its report, and I pay tribute to the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) for the work that they put into it. [Interruption.] Did I miss somebody out? I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). Does anyone else want a mention while I am on my feet? I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the report. It is very thorough and much work went into taking the evidence. It is of the standard of a Select Committee report—perhaps even better than some Select Committee reports.
I also congratulate Members on getting Martin Lewis to help with the report, although it sounded as though that was not too difficult for the hon. Member for North Swindon, and on getting 100,000 people to petition for today’s debate. More broadly, I pay tribute to the role that Martin Lewis has played in improving public awareness of finance issues through his website and other media. When I was a Minister with responsibility for consumer issues, he was very supportive of a reform that I introduced and from which I hope some Members here might have benefited. I refer to the measure on 0% credit card offers under which repayments by consumers henceforth went on the most expensive debt first—exactly the opposite of what used to happen, when credit card companies would pay off the 0% debt first and leave people with a very high rate of interest on any remaining balances. That is the kind of understanding that consumers need to have when taking up so-called 0% credit card offers, including on arrangement fees.
Knowing how to manage money and be a savvy consumer are vital life skills in an increasingly complex world, but why do more young people not start learning this at school? That is the question at the heart of today’s report. As a former head of economics in a Cardiff comprehensive school, I am well aware that this issue has been on the agenda for many decades. I can remember some of the earlier initiatives on improving financial education in schools, including the early days of school banks, when young people were encouraged to make deposits in the school bank, often supported by the local branch of their bank or building society.
Education is about giving young people the skills and knowledge that they need to get on in life, which is why every child should learn not only the three R’s at school but about pensions, saving, borrowing and mortgages. As the report shows, despite many of these initiatives down the years, the provision of financial education across the country is still extremely patchy, as the Minister acknowledged when he referred to the Ofsted report. That is why we would have had compulsory financial education in every school last September, through personal, social and health education, under plans that the previous Government set in train in the then Department for Children, Schools and Families before the last general election, again with the help and support of Martin Lewis from MoneySavingExpert.com.
We said that financial education should be a compulsory part of the curriculum, as part of PSHE, with improved training and tools to give teachers the confidence to teach it. The law to make that happen was going through Parliament when the general election was called last year. However, as we heard earlier, those on the Conservative Front Bench, including the current Schools Minister, refused to support it—probably for other reasons, to do with their objection to the sex education provision in PHSE—and so the plans were scrapped.
There have been 18 months in which no progress has been made, which is why the report is so welcome. It gives us an opportunity to try to find a way forward, and perhaps a cross-party consensus, on a vital issue for the long-term good of our country. I am therefore pleased that the e-petition calling for financial education to become a compulsory part of the curriculum has been a success and that it has sparked today’s debate. The report is also timely, as there is a review of the curriculum under way, as the Minister said, which gives the Government a perfect opportunity to listen to the thousands of people who are backing the campaign. As I said, every child should learn how to manage their money. It will set them up for the rest of their lives, and financial education lessons might also enable them to teach their parents a thing or two.
Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)—who is on the Front Bench, in the Whips’ corner—sent me an e-mail yesterday after we talked about this issue. Hon. Members will be aware that the Prime Minister praised her yesterday for her work with citizens advice bureaux. She said:
“One of the side effects of the project I managed delivering to schools/colleges was a rise in demand for debt advice from the parents…They talked to their children and realised there was a problem.”
She continued:
“There has to be sufficient quality free debt advice available to cope with this demand in the local area—and the signposting needs to be sensitive and appropriate too. Teachers need to think about how they would deal with the issue—perhaps a session from the local CAB?”
To which she adds:
“if it’s still around that is!"
This is therefore a timely moment for a debate on financial education, with the review of the curriculum under way. We in the Opposition will be looking carefully at what the Government come up with when they conclude their review.
However, I think there is a paradox and perhaps some confusion at the centre of the Government about the curriculum. As I understand it, the Schools Minister and the Secretary of State are driven in their review of the curriculum in part by a desire to give more freedom to teachers, head teachers and schools to teach as they think appropriate for their local communities, with more autonomy for schools and head teachers. However, at the same time, Ministers—driven perhaps by the desire to generate the right kind of headlines—continually demand a specific approach to teaching all sorts of subjects, including history, as favoured by the Schools Minister and the Secretary of State. At the same time, there is a big push, backed by money, for more and more schools to convert to academy status or become free schools, thereby no longer being required to teach the national curriculum. On the one hand, therefore, the Government’s policy seems to be to exempt most schools over time—if their current plans continue—from teaching the national curriculum, while on the other hand they are revising the national curriculum to ensure that schools teach more closely what they want them to teach. At some point, some genius in the Department for Education will have to square that circle and explain how those two things will be delivered.
It is paradoxical, and perhaps even absurd, that if the Government get their way, we will have a national curriculum that the vast majority of schools will not have to teach. It will not matter what anyone recommends in a report should be made compulsory: it will not be deliverable unless there is some stick in the system. The Government cannot decentralise and at the same time dictate from the top, because ultimately the whole project will collapse in on itself.
Elizabeth Truss
Is it not about leadership, as the reality is that many academies and, indeed, private schools follow or tack along with the national curriculum? It is the role of the Education Secretary and the Department to indicate what kind of things students should know when they leave school.
Kevin Brennan
I am sure the hon. Lady is right; she thinks deeply about these subjects and makes intelligent contributions. The report, however, states:
“Personal finance education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum.”
If that is going to be delivered, there must be some transmission mechanism. I am afraid that history teaches us, and future events will teach us, that exhortations from Secretaries of State—no matter how talented or eloquent they be—are not sufficient to make things a reality on the ground. As I say, there has to be a mechanism to make it happen.
In thinking about this issue, the Minister will need to clarify what the role of the national curriculum will be in a schools landscape where most institutions will not be required to follow it. How will that fit in with the original vision of a national curriculum to be taught by all schools across the country, as introduced by Kenneth Baker, now Lord Baker, who was the Secretary of State when I was a teacher back in the 1980s? How can the Minister ensure adequate teaching of financial education if most schools will ultimately be free to follow their own path?
Damian Hinds
The shadow Minister says that a transmission mechanism is required. Does he agree with me that if practical maths were made part of the GCSE syllabus for each of the main awarding bodies, such a transmission mechanism would exist?
Kevin Brennan
That is for 14 to 16-year-olds. If GCSE maths is taken between the ages of 14 and 16, young people would indeed receive some of this provision. The hon. Gentleman is correct about that, but the report goes much further in its recommendations for making financial education compulsory across all ages in the curriculum.
Kevin Brennan
I will give way again in a moment if the hon. Gentleman is dead keen. All right; I will carry on.
The Government are correct in their desire for people to take responsibility for their finances in order to reduce unaffordable debt, but they have to get the ball rolling, which means that they need to find some way of getting this going in our schools.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we might want to teach many subjects as part of the curriculum, unless we specify them there is always the risk that they will not be taught? Practical maths has been mentioned, but different parts of the subject might be taught. Some subjects— I would include emergency life support skills among them—are so important that we must specify that they have to be taught.
Kevin Brennan
I have sympathy with the Minister over the difficulty created by having more and more subjects shoved and squashed into the curriculum. Education Ministers of all parties will know that it is a difficult task as they come under pressure to include all sorts of subjects in the curriculum. My point is that we need to be absolutely clear what we are talking about. If the Government accept the report, they will have to go a lot further than simply including some practical questions in GCSE maths papers. What my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said is absolutely correct.
There are examples of good practice out there. I shall not go into them in too much detail, but some schools around the country could link up with local credit unions. This has not been mentioned much in the debate, but it is a great way to encourage responsible saving in community-based organisations and to teach young people about the responsible use of money and about saving.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend touches on the matter of teaching. Does he agree that, as statistics from the Graduate Teaching Training Registry obtained by The Times Educational Supplement show, from November 2011 overall applications for training courses for secondary maths teaching fell by more than a quarter? Bearing in mind that the teaching of personal financial education is going to require an element of teaching maths, does he agree that the Government should encourage more teachers to apply to teach the subject?
Kevin Brennan
We have heard about those worrying statistics in the course of our deliberations, but my hon. Friend is absolutely correct to emphasise their importance and the need for urgent action by the Government.
We need to get to a point at which all children realise that by saving now they can be prepared for the future, but that is only possible if they get the right sort of financial education. In particular, we should not let children from neighbourhoods of lower socio-economic class suffer because their schools do not offer good financial education. The hon. Member for North Swindon quite correctly said that with the huge increases in tuition fees that young people going to university are facing, there is even more need to give serious thought to what will happen when our children go to university and have to deal with the debts they will incur as a result. In fact, Martin Lewis himself said that
“in the 20 years since student loans came in, we’ve educated our youth into debt when they go to university, but never about debt.”
It is extremely important that we do that.
Tessa Munt
Was it not also the case that Martin Lewis had a very robust session on the “Politics Show” about a month ago when he explained quite clearly that young people should not be afraid of going to university because under the current regime it is cheaper? If they understood the fact that the threshold was £21,000, not the £15,000 it was under the previous Government, the 9% calculation would allow them to be a lot wealthier under the new system than they would have been under the old.
Kevin Brennan
I am not sure they are going to be a lot wealthier, quite frankly, but it is absolutely right that the reality of the Government’s proposals should be explained and that there should not be scaremongering. I think we would absolutely agree about that. I agree that it is important that young people should consider applying to university because, ultimately, it is quite clear that that benefits them in the long term. We should be absolutely clear about it. Yes, the changes have reduced the payments but ultimately the fees being paid are much higher. The hon. Lady must accept that the reality is that the overall debt that they are incurring has increased greatly as a result of her party’s collaboration in the changes to student finance since the general election.
I want to make a couple more points before I conclude. The Consumer Financial Education Body previously funded the Personal Finance Education Group’s budget, but that has fallen by 80% since the spring and the staff has been cut since the CFEB became the Money Advice Service. So far, as I understand it, the MAS has declined to state how much of its £44 million budget was spent on school budgets. I think we would all welcome some clarity on that.
The survey from the all-party group found that in England the provision of personal finance education is ad hoc, with only 45% of teachers reporting that they have ever taught the subject. New research by HSBC has shown that 5.1 million savers under 25 do not know the interest rates on their savings account. If they had received good financial education while growing up, they would be more aware of interest rates. Furthermore, the survey found that a high percentage of people across all age groups had no saving goals.
We need greater financial education and this is a very good and thorough report from the all-party group, but we need the Government to show that they are genuinely committed to ensuring that every child is entitled to a good finance education. I think that is the ambition of the hon. Members who compiled the report we are considering today.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and I am pleased to see that so many Members have attended, particularly on the Government side of the Chamber, and especially on a day on which there is a one-line Whip and, apparently, a by-election. It is good to have so many people here to debate this important issue. I am also pleased to follow both the Minister and the shadow Minister. I thank the Minister, in particular, for his warm words about our report and for the assurances he has given us about the role it will play in the curriculum review. I also thank the shadow Minister for his warm words, although I think he was trying to push at the edges of political point-scoring—
Andrew Percy
Alas, perhaps it is. I must say, however, that I will not be able to match the exchange of Shakespearian quotes between the two Front Benchers—
Andrew Percy
I am certainly not, as my hon. Friend interjects, the bard from Brigg. It is not going to happen, alas.
To return to the report, I thank the Minister for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) shortly before its publication. The Minister will recall that I said that if the Government did not take it seriously, I might well end up dousing myself in petrol and setting myself on fire, but I will not have to make that protest any more, not least because I cannot afford the petrol at the current prices and because we have had a positive response.
I thank all my friends on both sides of the House who sat on our inquiry. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), as well as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon. It was a thoroughly valuable experience and I think we all enjoyed taking part in a cross-party inquiry on such an important issue. Because we conducted it in the way we did, on Select Committee terms and by hearing evidence, I think we all felt that the hours we spent doing that were probably some of our most valuable since getting elected. One can wonder whether a lot that goes on in here is having any impact or making any difference, particularly in some people’s cases, but on this issue we all felt that the experience was valuable and that we were engaged in something important.
Some hon. Members will have read our report, which is very comprehensive. I am not allowed to use props so I shall not hold it up. As can be seen from the executive summary, we have recommended that this subject should form part of the national curriculum. We want it to be compulsory across schools, and I shall say something about the mechanics of that in a moment. It is important to get some statistics into the debate about why this is so important. As people who have read our executive summary will have seen, it states that, according to a learndirect study:
“Two-thirds of people in the UK feel too confused to make the right choices about their money and more than a third say they don’t have the right skills to properly manage their cash.”
Sadly, we have seen higher and higher levels of insolvency in recent years, and we know that personal debt levels have exploded in the past 10 or 15 years.
I am not part of the generation about whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon spoke. I am part of the generation after, having got on the housing market only last year but with considerable debts, which I have spoken about before. I am not one of those who will see the big increases in house prices that will take care of all those nasty credit card debts.
Let me explain why I got involved in all this. It has been a good partnership with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon because he is extremely financially competent, as anyone who knows him will know. Having shared a flat with him, along with another of our hon. Friends, I can certainly attest to his competency in all things financial—and perhaps to his being frugal as well. I am the antithesis of that, having made some incredibly bad financial decisions when I left school and went to university, including getting on the conveyor belt of credit card debt while at university and getting student loans even though that was the year before tuition fees came in. So I left university with an awful lot of debt and then did two years of postgraduate study, which I funded myself, which meant getting into even more debt. I am still paying off those debts today, and I do not mind the education side of them—it is all those other lifestyle debts that one builds up on credit cards that I am still lumbered with to this day.
It has been good to have a partnership of two people with different experiences of managing their debt looking at this issue. I was proud to be in the top set of my comprehensive school in Hull. I was quite bright and managed to get a GCSE in maths at grade C although I have always struggled with maths. I got good A-levels, a degree and postgraduate qualifications but I am still completely and utterly incapable of working out interest payments, APR and all the rest of it. I could not tell you what I pay in mortgage interest, Mr Deputy Speaker—I just pay up every month. I suppose I am an example of the people we have talked about and at whom the report is aimed. This is not moralising about debt. We have been very clear: this is not about saying that people should not get into debt or about educating people never to get into debt; it is about providing people with appropriate skills.
Kevin Brennan
Is the hon. Gentleman at all worried that he has put his name to a report that includes a recommendation that would bar him from teaching in a primary school?
Andrew Percy
I understand that that would not be applied retrospectively—and a very sound recommendation it is on those terms. I shall come on to that in a moment, because I taught in a primary school the year before I was elected, and I had to teach maths. That experience has led me to the conclusion that we should absolutely ensure that primary school teachers have better maths qualifications. Although I did not do them a disservice, the children I taught would have benefited from being taught by somebody who had not struggled with maths as I did. I managed to scrape a GCSE C grade. That is why we have supported the minimum grade of B for primary school teachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon outlined most of our recommendations and stole quite a lot of my speech in the process. He also talked about the inquiry process and stole my three bullet points on that too. I have been left with something to say, however. It is important to remind ourselves why this subject is so important. A lot of the research that we looked at in preparing the report was quite frightening. The situation out there is even worse than I expected. Research by EdComs in June 2009 found that by the time children reach the age of 17, more than half of them are or have already been in debt. A YouGov survey in 2008 found that 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds were already in debt. As we have heard, with tuition fees and the way life is today, that figure will not go down any time soon.
A survey by M&S Money found that some 14 to 18-year-olds are given no help with basic money matters by their parents. Indeed, 19% of parents have never discussed with teenagers how to spend money, and 32% have yet to discuss how to budget or even describe what a budget is. Most telling of all is the report compiled in March this year by Credit Action which found that a lack of financial education has cost Brits nearly £250 million in bank charges and penalties alone. I know that we are all grateful to Martin Lewis for helping us to get our money back in those matters.
The lack of financial education is a growing problem. We seem to be sending young people out into the world, which is increasingly financially complex, without providing them with the skills they need. I support the Government’s drive to reduce burdens on schools, to slim down the curriculum and to mandate less to schools, but in that process we must never allow ourselves to scale down to the extent that we remove the basic capabilities that we expect our young people to have when they leave school. Our view is that the financial education component should be a key measure.
I listened to the shadow Minister’s comments about PSHE. We gave some consideration to that. One of the big fights in our inquiry, not only between panel members but between those who gave evidence to us, was about whether financial education should just sit in PSHE. As a former practitioner who was expected to deliver PSHE, I felt strongly that it was not suitable, not least because it is not examined. As the hon. Gentleman, as a former teacher, will know, and indeed as head teachers told us during the inquiry, if a subject is not examined, schools do not necessarily accord it the importance they should.
For three years, I taught in a very difficult school in Hull, in one of the most deprived catchments in the country. I had to deliver PSHE, but we had so many other pressures on us to raise standards, such as working with grade C-D borderline kids so that in the next year’s league tables we would do a little better and would not be picked out by the local media as the worst-performing school. In better-performing—dare I say it?—more middle-class schools, teachers may be able to indulge themselves a little more in developing the PSHE curriculum because they do not have quite the same pressures on them. However, I am afraid that in a lot of schools, despite the professionalism of teachers, the subject often takes a back seat. When the Arun Youth Council and My Money Young Advisers came to give evidence, I asked one young person, “What do you think of PSHE?” His response was, “Well, it’s a bit of a doss.” Sadly, that is the situation in a lot of schools. Some fantastic work is being done across the country in PSHE, and we were provided with evidence of that and told about it by other young people. Although PSHE is important and must be part of the solution, we concluded that financial education had to be examined so that schools place the necessary emphasis on it.
We made it clear that there should be a financial education element within maths that can be clearly defined and packaged to young people. It is not simply a case of putting in a few questions that look like they are about financial education, as the shadow Minister said. It is about packaging a lot of the education and skills that are already there and saying clearly to young people, “This is financial education, and this is why we are doing it.” We can also help to improve the importance placed on PSHE, which is already taught in schools, because it will be used to support the drive for standards in mathematics. I think that that provides a real opportunity to raise the profile and importance of PSHE across the country.
I will give a couple of examples from our report to demonstrate this. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon said, we did not want to come up with a wishy-washy report that said it would be easy to have financial education, knock on the Minister’s door and have him say, “Thank you very much. It looks lovely, but I am afraid that it’s not going to happen.” Therefore, we have tried to work in the direction of Government policy and to provide practical solutions.
Members who have looked at the report will have seen that on page 38 we demonstrate clearly where in the maths curriculum the financial education elements can fit nicely—we are grateful for the help we had from mathematicians. Those have been split into three headings: money and transactions; risk and reward; and financial landscape. The money and transactions elements includes being able to do compound interest calculations with a calculator or spreadsheet, to set up a spreadsheet to do calculations involving percentages and to use foreign exchange rate information to make calculations. For financial landscape, the competencies include the ability to do reverse percentage calculations and to work out an inflation rate for a given time period, which is very important and something we hear a lot about. That involves real maths skills, not wishy-washy stuff at all.
That can be supported over in the PSHE curriculum by talking to young people about the products that they might have to make choices about. For example, we can talk to them about managing money, budgeting, the subjective issues of risk and reward and what is right for them in particular situations. That is not something we felt could fit easily into one or other area, which is why the solution we have come up with is deliverable within the current curriculum without putting extra pressures on schools.
One of the recommendations that has been referred to is that of having a co-ordinator on this in schools, and that should be someone from the senior leadership team within the school. That is important, because one of the big drivers when I first started teaching in the early 2000s was the drive towards more cross-curricular working, and it happened for a bit and then we lost focus on it. Having someone at a sufficiently senior level within the school to drive that cross-curricular agenda and link the two subjects is important, and the educational professionals who came to speak to us were very supportive of that approach.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the leadership coming from within schools, but does he agree that there might also be a role for the private sector and financial institutions to lend their support to make pragmatic advice available?
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend must have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because that is exactly the point I was about to move on to. I will be brief, because I know that other Members wish to speak. We took a lot of evidence from financial institutions and banks, and one of the challenges we set out for them in the report relates to training. It would be pointless if I went in to deliver financial education to any of my pupils, because I am not financially competent, so there is an issue of training. But we have identified that role as one that financial institutions could work on more closely. They do a lot already, and anybody who knows Barclays will have seen its money skills programme. I visited Barclays in my constituency recently, and through the fantastic Sobriety Project it was doing some excellent work with Goole high school students who are at risk of exclusion and with vulnerable young people in the town.
Nationwide has a programme, and so does Capital One. I do not want to risk missing out any institutions, but many are already engaged in financial education, so we have set them the challenge of coming together, getting their resources kitemarked and perhaps being co-ordinated by a charity. Financial institutions have a real role to play in supporting such education in the curriculum, and in helping to develop the training to which my hon. Friend refers.
I am aware that many other Members wish to speak, but I shall just mention a couple of other organisations that support our proposal, as they should be read into the record if nothing else. First, and most importantly, there is one in my constituency. After the report came out, I was inundated with e-mails from various organisations, one of which I received from one of the two credit unions in my constituency, Hull and East Yorkshire Credit Union, to which I think the shadow Minister referred. It informs me that it would very much like to support our campaign on financial education, because it is very much in line with the ethics and objects of its movement.
Nationwide contacted us to say that
“the report looks very comprehensive and is something Nationwide very much welcomes.”
The Money Advice Service issued a statement to
“welcome the APPG on Financial Education & Young People’s report on Financial Education and the Curriculum.”
We were congratulated by the Scout Association, which also has an interest in the area, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
“call on MPs to back the introduction of mandatory financial education during Thursday’s debate.”
So there is a lot of support from a range of institutions and organisations.
Finally, I emphasise again that our proposal is not about watering down the curriculum, nor is it a wishy-washy thing with which to moralise about debt. It is about real maths skills; about using real-life experiences such as phone contracts, student tuition fees, mortgages or whatever to support the drive for standards, about which we are all passionate and we know the Minister is absolutely passionate; and it is about ensuring that young people enter this complex financial world with the skills to make better decisions than I, and many other people who have gone before them, have made.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not want to introduce a time limit, but I am very concerned about the amount of time being taken. At this rate, we are not going to get everybody in, so we need a little discipline, because the winding-up speeches will have to start at about quarter to 6. We should bear in mind that, if people are going to speak for 19 minutes each, other people will not get in, and I want to ensure that everybody gets in, so self-discipline will be very helpful if we are to look after each other.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can promise that I will not take too long over my speech.
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) on the all-party group and all Members who have contributed to the report.
I was lucky enough to be involved with a financial education project for 10 years when I worked for Citizens Advice in St Helens, and we started from a very low base, with schools that had never before thought of having such a project. We also worked with tenants’ and residents’ groups and with a wide range of organisations, and I was fortunate to employ a passionate member of staff who gained the first-ever teaching qualification in financial education. That was vital in moving our project forward into schools, because we found that teachers were not confident about teaching the subject. They understood that it needed to be taught, but they did not have the confidence to include it in the curriculum.
I therefore totally support the idea of a financial education champion in schools, because in our work we found that the maths department was not always the one that came forward. In one school in which we worked, the drama department was keen on the idea, and an excellent play, which I think is on a website somewhere, was written about the three little pigs living in their houses. We also offered qualifications, including the ASDAN qualification and open college network qualifications, so schools and organisations involved in the Work programme, with which we also worked, could offer qualifications to young people. That was important in making teachers realise that financial education was an actual subject. It was not an add-on; it was an important part of the curriculum.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) mentioned, there was an unexpected side-effect; we had not anticipated the rise in the number of parents coming to us with their debt problems. Students would go home and say, “Today I learned all about annual percentage rates. Let’s have a look at our household finances as an example.” The parents would sit there and think, “We’re beginning to hit a problem here. We are noticing that we cannot pay all our bills and that we’re borrowing on one credit card to pay off another.”
There absolutely needs to be a referral mechanism for advice about debt. It has to be sensitive and local. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, it could be the local citizens advice bureau. We were fortunate; somebody from the CAB delivered the financial education classes and they could talk to the parents and refer them to a specialist money adviser.
The only thing that I would like to take issue with is the part of the motion that mentions “irresponsible” debt. I can honestly say that in 24 years of working for a citizens advice bureau, I never saw anyone who had aimed to get into debt. Debt was often caused by irresponsible lending; innumerable people came to us with debt, cut up their credit cards, sent them back and were immediately sent a new credit card. Now, obviously, there is also the rise of the payday lenders, who will roll over debts when people say that they cannot pay them. I really feel that there needs to be regulation on that.
Most people take out loans intending to pay them back, whatever the level of interest. However, anyone’s circumstances can change. One of the most distressing cases that I ever saw involved somebody whose child was born with a disability. They had taken out an awful lot of loans to pay for the conversion of their property and were relying on the disability benefits for the child, who died unexpectedly. They were left with a mountain of debt. That was responsible, not irresponsible, borrowing. We need to look at the causes of debt. I agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole—we should not be moralising. Debt happens. It could happen to any of us. If a person walks down the street and gets hit by a car, they are likely to end up not being able to pay their bills.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman), who is no longer in her place, that education is only 25% of the solution. Debt advice has to be available and there has to be regulation on the advertising by payday lenders and debt management companies, which offer to get people out of debt but often push them further into it, to make sure that they do not make a bad problem even worse.
Lyn Brown
May I ask my hon. Friend the question that I asked our hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman)? Does she, like me, see more such cases in her surgery week by week? Are there fewer people offering good-quality and independent advice who we can refer constituents to? Is that not the biggest problem that many of our people face at the moment?
Yvonne Fovargue
I completely agree. I am extremely concerned for the future, when the transition fund ends. To be honest, I do not know where the advice agencies are transitioning to—some are transitioning to oblivion. There is also the ending of legal aid for debt. The Minister mentioned the importance of early advice. Much of the funding for early advice is going, because legal aid funding is now for advice only at the point of eviction, which is absolutely not cost-effective.
Yes, I totally support the idea of compulsory financial education in school, but it has to be part of a package. Part of the package should be to ensure that people do not get into debt with payday lenders, do not go to the fee-charging debt management agencies but do have access to early advice to help them when they realise that they are getting into debt. They need to be able to realise when the debt is becoming a problem.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been in another debate in another place, so forgive me for intervening, but when I was Chair of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, we did a lot of work on the issue. We found that many financial institutions put money into CABs. Would my hon. Friend encourage the private sector to carry on with that? There are many demands on its time, but Nationwide particularly was putting money straight into the CAB.
Yvonne Fovargue
I would certainly encourage that, but I would like to see a more strategic approach to debt. I would hope that the Money Advice Service provides that. However, it would have to have the money to be able to provide such a service. There is no use having a strategy but no money to give to the organisation. It is no use putting money into debt advice if the generalist advice to support it is not there. The agency depends on all levels of funding and a lot of it is going.
I support the motion and hope that we can look at a package of measures to tackle the rising problem of debt and personal insolvency.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I add my congratulations to subscribers to MoneySavingExpert.com on petitioning us for this debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) not just on securing the debate but on his work in steering the all-party group on financial education for young people, on which I am pleased to serve as vice-chair. The group's report is a credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has led the inquiry.
I have been leading a strand of the group looking at financial education in further education, so my remarks will draw on the relevant insights of that inquiry, which will issue its full report in the new year. I have been joined in that inquiry by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and I extend my thanks and appreciation for his involvement and expertise and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who also participated in our inquiry.
Like all hon. Members, I am particularly fortunate when my own constituents contribute to my work, and it would be appropriate to make particular mention of two who have been in touch with me about the issue: Caroline Stephens and Trisha Snowling. Caroline is a maths and personal finance teacher who has campaigned tirelessly to promote the cause, not just through her work but by writing to councillors and MPs to alert them to current developments from a practitioner's point of view. Trisha has a breadth of experience in financial careers and has been an articulate correspondent on the issue in recent months. She summarised to me neatly the consequences of a lack of financial literacy for people's ability to spot a bad deal in later life:
“They don’t bother to read the small print on a finance agreement—why would they? It’ll be in a language they didn’t study at school.”
Our inquiry set out to look at the response to the issue in further education to identify what distinguishes the experience in that sector from that in schools. Since there had been little assessment or co-ordination of colleges' approach to personal financial education, the group began by conducting a nationwide survey of current practice in colleges. An overwhelming majority of survey respondents—nearly 97%—thought that financial education should also be provided in further education institutions and 84% of responding colleges believed that students’ inability to manage their finances was a cause of failure to complete their courses, which should worry all of us who want young people to have the best possible chance to equip themselves for working life.
We supplemented the survey with oral evidence sessions to test those initial findings against the experience and expertise of college principals, student service managers and students themselves. An oral evidence session a fortnight ago bore out many of the survey’s emerging conclusions about students’ financial awareness. We welcomed an impressive group of students from two colleges in London to hear their perspective on both the financial education they had received so far and their attitudes to money more generally. The students we met were of course those who have really engaged with this learning opportunity. However, I was most struck by the fact that, although they understood about saving, they themselves identified that they did not know much about borrowing or debt. They also emphasised the importance of their family background and home environment, not necessarily to the specifics that they had learned, but to their underlying attitudes to money and their confidence in dealing with it.
A dominant theme of the inquiry’s evidence so far is that there is good financial education provision in a number of colleges around the country, but that it does not reach anything like the majority of students, even in the colleges that are leading the way. The reduction of entitlement funding, which some colleges were using to deliver their personal financial education through tutorial time, has had an effect on the sector’s ability to deliver such education. However, the evidence that we have received suggests that provision was sporadic even before that funding change. It seems that some colleges may have considered that modest provision within tutorial time as sufficient.
We heard some compelling accounts of quite sophisticated offers of financial education from City college Norwich and New college Swindon. However, even such colleges that are heavily geared towards financial literacy and business education are enticing only some of their students to take up their financial education offer.
What we have seen so far is that financial education is most effectively delivered when it falls naturally within a student’s chosen core curriculum. In further education, there is a wide array of opportunities to provide that. Where that is not the case, there are many challenges in achieving the required coverage of financial education in a student’s programme.
Mr Sheerman
I am impressed by what the hon. Gentleman is saying about his research. Has there been any indication of what are the most successful online tools? Just as the Government are keen on using online facilities for careers education, does he think that that would be a good way to learn about debt and credit?
Duncan Hames
We were made aware of online resources that students could use to supplement lectures that were available as part of their further education college’s provision. I think that it was at New college Swindon where students could register for an additional qualification to supplement the choices that they were already making and their normal lectures, which was largely learned independently and had testing arrangements which allowed them to study at their own pace. I offer that as one example in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
The inquiry’s forthcoming written report will go into greater detail about the nature of the challenges that we saw in further education and the means that we suggest to address them.
I will end with a few remarks about what the inquiry has told us about financial education in schools. The evidence shows that further education as a sector is defined by choice and provision for a diverse range of student needs, from basic literacy and numeracy to running a business or preparing to attend university. That means that the starting position of college students reveals the results of their previous education, which might not have equipped them with the capability to deal with the challenges that students increasingly face, including their financial responsibilities.
I therefore argue that financial education in schools needs to lay a universal foundation or baseline in financial literacy for every student. Students who go on to further education will be able to build on that by using qualification-based study, which further education colleges are in a good position to deliver in a wide range of curriculum choices. That would allow those who have benefited from financial education in the school curriculum to progress later in their education. It would also limit the extent to which further education colleges have to, in the words of one witness, “play catch-up” and help students to retread what they missed in their school years.
I know that time is short, so I will conclude by encouraging Members to look out for the APPG’s second report in the new year and by urging them to support the motion.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who is doing a lot of work on the further education part of the all-party group’s inquiry. I have had the pleasure of being in a couple of his inquiry sessions. I extend my appreciation also to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who has done a fantastic job of chairing the evidence sessions that have resulted in the group’s report, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who has done a really outstanding job in putting the group together. As we have heard, it has had record membership right from the start. It would be wrong of me to start my speech without also expressing my appreciation of Martin Lewis, whom I met when he first came before the Treasury Committee. He was not only an extraordinarily fine witness but quite an inspirational one.
I come to the subject from the point of view of being a member of the Treasury Committee. The House has heard a lot from teachers and from Members with constituency experience, but I consider the matter with regard to how we run the economy of our country and deal with the crisis that faces us.
When we as a society send children to school, we do our very best to equip them to face life and give them the best opportunity possible to have a successful life and career. We teach them basic subjects such as maths, reading and writing, computer skills, sex and relationships education and how to be good citizens. That is all extremely good and important, but we signally fail to equip people to be financially literate. The evidence of that is all around us. We are one of the most personally indebted nations on the planet, with a staggering £1.5 trillion of personal debt. That is about £25,000 for every man, woman and child. To put that into the context of more meaningful numbers, this country has about 10% or 11% of the population of the EU, yet we have 50% of the personal debt. That is quite a frightening statistic.
As constituency MPs, we see on an all too frequent basis people coming to us with financial problems and, as we have heard, Citizens Advice is seeing a ballooning of debt problems. We are in the midst of a financial crisis, and the banks are accused on a daily basis of causing it. They are quite rightly accused of making irresponsible loans to customers in the housing market, yet we all too frequently gloss over the elephant in the room. For a bank to make an irresponsible loan, it needs an irresponsible consumer to take on that debt. Our response to that situation is to increase the regulation of the financial system, and in so doing increase the cost of financial services to consumers.
It is absolutely right that we examine the regulatory system carefully and do our very best to ensure that we neither have a repeat of the financial crisis nor walk into the next, as yet unidentified, financial crisis. However, part of the solution to the current problems has to be greater financial literacy. We would not have irresponsible borrowers taking out irresponsible loans if they knew what they were doing.
Another topic that we have heard about this afternoon is payday loans. We know that as many as 3 million people will take advantage of that service in the next year, and in some cases they will pay annual percentage rates in the thousands. Yet someone could easily pay a higher rate of interest on a small, unauthorised overdraft, by the time the cost of the levy from the bank, the interest and the penalty charge has been taken into account. However, our response is to consider harder regulation of payday loans. Surely the answer is greater financial literacy, so that an individual is less likely to need any sort of loan.
Kevin Brennan
Would not another possible answer be regulating unauthorised bank overdrafts with more rigour?
Mark Garnier
I want to get away from the need to regulate everything. We need to ensure that people are in a stronger position to manage their own money and accounts properly, so that they do not get into that problem in the first place. If they did get in trouble, they would be in a far better position to evaluate the best solution.
Kevin Brennan
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point of view on deregulation, but does he not see the paradox in supporting the all-party group’s report, whose first key recommendation is that personal financial education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum, while also supporting the deregulation of the schools system, which would ensure that schools did not have to teach anything of that kind compulsorily?
Mark Garnier
That is a neatly and well made point, but the hon. Gentleman will remember my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) making the point that, by having financial education in the curriculum, we would not just provide for directly funded schools but provide a lead for other schools to follow. That is an incredibly important point.
The Money Advice Service is part of the solution. It announced earlier this week the start of a new strategic oversight function for financial education. I shall quote from its press release, because it is always very good to hear such excellent civil service-speak. It says that the review is
“to inform and improve the provision of financial education for young people in the UK. Firstly, mapping the range of education initiatives funded by the financial services industry, to create a single view of the landscape; secondly, commissioning new research into education and behaviour change - to both identify global best-practice in the field of financial education; and examine whether successful types of intervention in other fields, for example health or drug education, can be applied to the area of money.”
That sounds fantastic, but there is a simple solution, which we keep repeating: we should put financial education on the curriculum in schools. We should get the Money Advice Service to concentrate on those adults who have not had the chance to get a financial education so far, and who are in desperate need of it to help them to deal with the problems that they face as a result of being financially illiterate.
As part of the all-party group inquiry team, I heard a great deal of interesting comment. I think I went to almost every single meeting, although I might have missed a couple. As we have heard, help is out there. Financial institutions go into schools to assist with financial education, but many teachers feel intimidated by the subject, presumably because they in turn did not receive a financial education. We have also heard that provision is sporadic: sometimes financial education is very good, but sometimes there is none at all. One member of the Arun youth council said that his school spent more time teaching him how to put on condoms than they spent teaching him about money. It was a thin day for bananas that day at his school.
The question is: how do we get financial education into the curriculum and where do we put it? Of course, there is a maths element—frankly, financial education is the type of thing that could enhance maths teaching. Teaching a child about compound rates of interest is not an exciting subject, but teaching a child that buying a pair of football boots for £125 on a credit card with an APR of 26% and paying that over six months will cost him a lot more than if he paid cash gives that child both a good example of how maths works and a lesson in financial facts.
If I were Martin Lewis, I would be able to work out in my head what that compound rate of interest would mean, but I was an investment banker and I am afraid I am completely unqualified to do so, as I would be if I were a footballer. However, to limit financial education to maths would be a huge mistake. Although maths can handle the quantitative side of things, it can do nothing about the qualitative side. We need people to make solid, judgment-based decisions. Maths will give people the skill to answer the question of whether they can afford something, but the question of whether they should buy something is just as relevant.
If I live in the centre of a city, the question of whether I should buy a car is a relatively simple one—there is plenty of public transport so I might not use it, parking might be a problem and so on. However, for an unemployed person living in the country with just a few hundred pounds to their name, the question of whether they should spend their last savings on a car so that they can find a job and make themselves more employable or keep the money to live on is much more difficult to answer. Many people are simply not equipped to make such a subjective evaluation.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Three constituents have written to me to congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues on the work they have done on this matter. They said how important their work is and hope that it results in some improvement.
Mark Garnier
I am incredibly grateful for that intervention and thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed.
To continue my point, if we equip the next generation to answer the supplementary question to the one I just described—should I set up a business with my last few hundred quid?—we will begin not only to address the financial independence of our citizens, but to find the key to unlocking economic growth in future.
The fact that we are questioning whether financial education should be on the curriculum is a mistake. I fail to understand why it has not been on the curriculum for years. As we have discussed, the APPG has just published its report. The Minister has shown great interest in it and has read through it. We will keep pressing to ensure not only that he reads it again and again, but that he initiates its recommendations.
I shall conclude by mentioning the work of organisations such as PFEG, which we talked about earlier. Its work is incredibly important—it does a valuable job promoting financial education and co-ordinating the efforts of the financial services industry to get expertise into schools—but we must recognise its efforts by delivering the ultimate goal: a curriculum-based financial education which addresses not just maths and the quantitative elements of money management, but the qualitative and judgment-based elements of financial literacy.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister if it turns out to be necessary for me to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate.
It is almost a year to the day since I spoke in this Chamber about the need for better financial education in schools. I talked about the patchy or non-existent current provision in so many schools and about the sad results of the lack of financial capability, which I witnessed over many years in my community law firm. It was apparent not only in the levels of debt but in the breakdown of relationships and health. There is a huge cost to society of providing debt advice—essential though it is. Currently, citizens advice bureaux receive around £27 million, much of which is for debt advice.
The main thrust of my argument then was that better financial education is necessary because prevention is better than cure. Shortly after I spoke, the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people was founded. I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues who have served on the parliamentary inquiry into the need for better financial education for young people in schools when I say that it has been a real privilege to serve on that inquiry. It has been one of the most fulfilling roles that I have undertaken in my short time in this House. I pay tribute to the chairman of the group, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), and to the chairman of the inquiry, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for their vigour in leading this work and for the fact that this week, a substantial report on financial education and the curriculum has been published. I have to say also that they have stolen all of my good lines.
During the course of the inquiry, we took evidence from dozens of witnesses. I pay particular tribute to two witnesses from my constituency. David Black, who has recently retired, was head teacher of Alsager high school. He has spent years co-ordinating volunteer educators who advise young people in schools in Cheshire and train teachers to deliver financial education under the banner of “debt cred”. Will Spendilow of New Life church, Congleton, was one of those volunteer educators. Last year in Cheshire, 7,000 pupils benefited from this “debt cred” advice. Those pupils are fortunate, but what of the many across the country who receive no such advice? Even more worrying is the fact that many teachers do not feel up to the task of teaching financial education.
Our inquiry found that the whole area of financial capability urgently needs addressing. Some 70% of 18 to 25-year-olds are in debt. People in their 20s are the least capable age group in making ends meet, choosing financial products and balancing a budget. This lack of financial capability has cost Britain nearly £250 million in bank charges and penalties alone, and 71% of people say that a lack of basic financial understanding is to blame for debt.
While young people are faced with a financial world of baffling complexity, they are vigorously targeted at an early age by retailers and lenders and assaulted by a consumer culture that raises for them unrealistic lifestyle expectations. Our report found that two thirds of people in the UK feel too confused to make the right choices about their money and more than a third say that they do not have the right skills to manage cash.
In the 12 months to the third quarter of 2011, approximately one in 361 people became insolvent, which is significantly higher than the annual average of one in 1,655 people over the past 25 years. It was clear to us that without fundamental changes to the way in which individuals manage their money, the problem would continue to grow. Financial education is a long-term investment and a solution to what is now a widespread national problem. Teaching people about budgeting in their personal lives is also an essential basic component to equip the work force with the necessary skills to succeed in business and drive forward economic growth.
Where will young people improve their financial literacy, the costs of which are clearly set out in our report, if not in school? It is not from their parents; our inquiry found that a third of teenagers’ parents had never talked to their children about budgeting. They will not learn it from the banks; the era of the trusted family bank manager who knew people and took a personal interest in their financial welfare has long gone, although many banks do provide support for financial education in schools, which is valuable. It would be wrong to rely on voluntary organisations to give advice, although many do provide excellent advice; Christians against Poverty, which was originally founded to help those in debt, has now moved into the proactive area of providing courses on personal financial management, and I commend it for that. However, such organisations should not be relied on to provide financial education, particularly in schools. That void makes it essential for financial education to be taught in schools to all young people before they enter the world of work and are faced with some of the financial challenges to which I have referred.
Let me now comment on the recommendations. The first is that personal financial education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum, and that it should be assessed. David Black, whom I mentioned earlier, has said:
“Unless you test, it will not happen.”
I recall an amusing exchange at one of the inquiry’s evidence sessions. I said, “As a mother of two teenagers, I know that nothing focuses a pupil’s mind like an exam.” One witness responded, “And nothing focuses a teacher’s mind like an exam.” We also found that in 20 countries across the globe financial education is already compulsory, and has been for many years. It would be interesting to see whether they share our nation’s debt problems.
Kevin Brennan
The report says, and the hon. Lady has just said as well, that personal financial education should be a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum. Does the hon. Lady mean that the Government should make it a compulsory part of every school’s curriculum, or was that merely an exhortation that she thinks should be out there in the ether?
Fiona Bruce
I believe that it is such an important issue that space should be made for it in both the PSHE and the maths curriculums. Another of the recommendations makes that very suggestion: that financial education should be cross-curricular, overlapping with maths and PSHE. Pupils made it clear to us that they enjoyed financial education. One said:
“I thought it was really interesting because, personally, I learnt a lot and a lot of my peers said they learnt lots too.”
We all know that we learn more when we enjoy a subject, and it seems that including financial education in the maths curriculum could well aid maths learning overall, which would be an important added-value benefit.
Again and again, teachers told the inquiry of their sense of inadequacy when it came to teaching financial education. It was almost a refrain. They talked of significant barriers to teaching it well, particularly their own lack of confidence in their knowledge of the subject, as well as a lack of awareness of suitable resources. One of the most important recommendations in the report is to establish a quality kite mark from a trusted body, which would assure teachers that if the subject took up valuable curriculum time, that time—if Members will pardon the pun—would be well spent.
The last recommendation that I would like to mention—by no means the least important—is that there should be a financial education champion in every school. Another head teacher giving evidence to the inquiry said:
“if you asked me for the number one thing, and that is to have a senior member of staff responsible for it as the champion, who has enough resources or enough clout to draw people to work at it. Then you will find it will come together.”
It is vital to ensure that members of the next generation are better equipped than those of the present generation to make informed financial decisions, for the sake of their well-being and that of our whole society. That applies to a host of areas: mental and physical health, relationships and family life, career prospects and entrepreneurialism. I believe that, over time, investment in financial education will reap exponential benefits for our society, and I urge the Minister to give constructive support to the recommendations in the report that was published this week. Let us work towards prevention rather than cure.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I am delighted to follow my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).
Like many others who have spoken, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and his colleagues not only on securing the debate, but on their continual hard work, the pressure that they have put on the Government, and the publicity that they have secured—including the use of Martin Lewis to press home the importance of the issue. The launch of the all-party group on financial education for young people attracted more than 200 Members of Parliament, and it is now the largest of the all-party groups. I congratulate it on its report on financial education, which was released this week and which deals comprehensively with the subject.
I do not wish to be labelled a grumpy old man—I am sure, though, that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) will soon label me one—but I must refer back to when I was a lad.
Andrew Bingham
Yes, it was.
I remember my late father taking me to Williams and Glyn’s bank to open my first bank account and my walking out proudly with my Williams and Glyn’s plastic piggy bank, which I suspect I still have somewhere and is probably worth a lot on eBay. They say that servicemen can always remember their Army number; I can still remember my bank account number from that day.
When I came of age, there were few temptations for somebody my age to acquire extra funds or credit. In those days, it was the bank or it was nothing. Credit cards were unavailable without a parent or guardian to guarantee it and wages were paid in cash. Consequently, we lived in a pay-as-you-go world—to coin a modern-day phrase. We were not educated in financial matters in school in the 1970s, because there was not the multitude of financial opportunities—and, indeed, pitfalls—available to young people today.
When I refer to young people, I do not refer exclusively to school leavers but to those who left school a few years ago, have built up savings and are now plunging into the world of credit or embarking on the next stage of their life—getting their first mortgage or signing a tenancy agreement—and who require financial knowledge to navigate these potentially treacherous waters.
When people turn on the television today, read the newspaper, surf the internet or look at magazines, they are bombarded with adverts offering them cheap money, easy money and, in some cases, apparently free money. In fact, some claim that it is possible to borrow enough money to get completely out of debt. When we pick up the Sunday newspapers, out drop a multitude of pieces of paper, one of which is usually advertising cheap money.
Borrowing money is inevitable, and we all have to borrow at some point in our lives, whether for a mortgage or whatever, but it is important to do it prudently—a word from the past—and sensibly. To do that, people need to understand what these companies are offering, to read beyond the quick, snappy headline and to make an informed decision. To do all that, they need to understand finance, the methods by which it can be obtained, the cost of that finance, the conditions attached and, more importantly, the short and long-term consequences of failure to adhere to those conditions.
Not only must young people contend with this wealth of advertising and pressure, but they live in a very different world from that of their predecessors in my generation and that of many in the House. As has been alluded to, they have phone contracts, credit cards, payday loans, tuition fees, store cards—the list goes on and on. These are all things that are part of modern-day life but which were either unheard of or unavailable in days gone by. Added to that, there are many alluring ways of paying for luxury goods—televisions, holidays and so on—that appear to be completely free of any credit charge yet are full of pitfalls buried in the small print.
How many people realise, when they buy a television on a buy now, pay later deal, that if they miss the payment date, they are automatically locked into a three-year finance agreement potentially on an annual percentage rate that can be more than 20% and perhaps as much as 30%? Indeed, how many actually understand what APR really is?
And how many people understand the pitfalls when they get older and decide to buy a car? A car might be advertised with low monthly payments—“You can have this car for £159 a month”, the advert might read. However, it might not explain until the small print that at the end of the term the person will not own the car, because a significant final amount will still be outstanding—balloon payments, they are sometimes called—and that, if unpaid, they will have to give the car back and have nothing to show for it.
We live in a world where peer pressure exerts a huge influence, especially on young people, to have the latest mobile phone, trainers or designer clothing. It matters very much to young people and it drives their shopping habits. When that is coupled with the myriad easy ways to pay, we have a cocktail of debt and ensuing misery.
Financial education will not stop that—after all, people will always want to buy goods; the economy depends on it—but I believe that financial education will do several things. First, it will enable people to tell whether a deal is as good as it seems. There is an old adage: “If it looks too good to be true, then it usually is.” Financial education will enable young people to ascertain whether a deal is good or not, and see what the total potential cost is of the iconic item that they feel desperate to own. Being armed with that knowledge might not prevent them from buying that item, but they will I hope make a rational, informed decision and ask themselves whether they need it and whether they can really afford it. In the long term, that will spare people much misery, as well as the further consequences that excessive debt can have for people personally and for their families. As was said earlier—by an hon. Gentleman who is no longer in his place—that knowledge will also enable people to make decisions about savings. This is not all about debt: it is about savings, investments and pensions. On the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, we are looking at auto-enrolment and how to judge one pension against another. That is another story, but having informed financial knowledge and advice could help people to make better decisions about such matters.
Several years ago I produced an e-book, which was designed to plug into a computer. It was called “Living On Your Own” and was aimed at students leaving home to go to university and living away from their families for the first time. It dealt with all the issues that many of us take for granted: council tax, rent, utility bills, registering with a local GP and so on. It even had some easy-cook, healthy recipes. The book also contained an interactive budget planner, in which students could enter all their incomings and outgoings, and which gave a figure for how much money they had left at the end of the week or month. If they were overdrawn, the figure went red. We gave the e-book away to students—I think we gave away 200—and those who got back to me said that the most useful thing in it was the budget planner, because it showed them in simple, stark terms whether they were living within their means or beyond them.
There is a further implication of our young people not having the level of financial literacy they need when they leave education. Those young people are the next generation of our wealth generators, entrepreneurs and business builders. They are the people we will look to in five, 10 or even 20 years to build businesses, create jobs and grow the economy. We cannot expect them to be able to do that successfully if we do not give them the tools they need while they are being educated. Anyone who goes to the bank for an overdraft or business loan has to have a business plan and know how best to make the money work so that their business can survive. If we do not get this right, we will not have those people and we will pay the price later.
When I was at school, we did subjects such as metalwork and woodwork. I can turn on a lathe and wooden lathe—
Andrew Bingham
It is not a question of showing off: my hon. Friend never saw the results. In fact, my mother still has the table lamp that I made at school in woodwork to this very day—
Andrew Bingham
I didn’t do the electrics; I left that to my dad.
Schools have moved on. They now teach subjects such as IT, media, technology—
Andrew Bingham
I wouldn’t go that far.
Education moves to fit the world it provides for. I fully support today’s motion, as education needs to move again to suit the financial jungle that is the world in which we operate today.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), and all hon. Friends and colleagues who have contributed to this excellent report. I am pleased to hear the Minister’s clear statement that the report will feed into the curriculum review. Like many Members, I have come across some terrible cases of constituents who have found themselves in dire financial trouble as a result of not having the tools to understand financial matters. It is tragic that such situations arise as often as they do, and with the growing complexity of the financial marketplace, combined with the growing ease with which people can access it, the case for the Government addressing financial education is stronger than ever.
It is welcome that the coalition Government are in the process of undertaking a curriculum review. I support the clarity of vision with which Ministers have carried through this and the many other vital reforms of our education system. I understand the Secretary of State’s desire to simplify and slim down the core curriculum to focus on the essential subjects that will enable us to compete in the 21st century, and to ensure that it is uncluttered, with a strong emphasis on numeracy and literacy. However, like many other colleagues, I believe that personal financial education is one of the elements that are vital to our ability to compete in this century and protect the life chances of our constituents.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) neatly set out, financial education also has enormous relevance to the national scene today. Today’s debate and the excellent report of the all-party group on financial education for young people provide valuable tools for dealing with that problem, both nationally and locally, in all our constituencies. We need financial education that gives people a clear understanding of budgeting, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) pointed out, and of the costs and uses of debt.
We should not see financial education as an entirely negative problem; it should also provide an opportunity. More financially educated students today will be better placed to be the next generation of business people and entrepreneurs tomorrow. Businesses are crying out for greater financial skills, and by providing better financial education we can meet that need and provide those skills. A higher degree of financial literacy among the public will also mean people are better able to see and understand the problem of balancing budgets at the town hall and in Whitehall, and the costs of long-term debt. Vitally, it means that fewer people will get into financial difficulties in the first place, which bring such huge financial and social costs to themselves and their families.
One of the many constituents who urged me to take part in this debate wrote to me to say that financial education was
“a hugely important concept. Unfortunately I got myself into some financial difficulties in my early 20s and for the last 5 years I have had to work 2 jobs in order to repay the debt. I have very little spare time and am unable to afford holidays or luxuries that others take for granted. I still have debt to pay off but I now ensure that I keep myself educated financially to make sure that I am getting the best financial products for my needs. I have learnt the hard way, but if this education was provided in schools, I feel fewer people would end up in the situation I found myself.”
That provides a perfect illustration of why this debate is so important, but why is it so important right now?
We face a crisis of debt and, as Martin Lewis has pointed out, we live in a time when the stigma of debt has somehow been diminished. We also live in a world where we are all increasingly bombarded by offers of credit, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak neatly pointed out. I do not know whether I am the only Member who regularly receives calls on my House of Commons office telephone carrying recorded messages offering me cheap debt deals or spurious payment protection insurance compensation. [Interruption.] I see from the reaction of some hon. Members that I am not the only one. I hope that this is not a comment on my own financial circumstances.
Not only by telephone marketing, but through the internet and increasingly through mobile phone apps, credit is more available and more heavily marketed than ever before. In some respects, this need not be a bad thing—credit can help people to manage their finances, and legal credit at reasonable rates is infinitely preferable to the alternative of loan sharks and doorstep lenders. However, the constant bombardment becomes a real problem when people lack the tools to understand concepts such as APR—annual percentage rate—or to develop a proper understanding of the real costs of the debt they are being offered. It is a shocking fact that only one in three adults in the UK knows what APR stands for, let along what it means financially.
It is particularly concerning that many of these credit services are heavily targeted at students who are managing their finances for the first time—perhaps without the benefit of the useful book of guidance produced by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak—and the level of financial knowledge among many university students does not seem to be as high as we would hope. The surveys showing that only 36% of adults knew the definition of APR showed that this fell to less than 31% for people under 30, and I have heard from student representatives a number of worrying stories of students actually boasting about the level of APR they were paying on a loan, believing that a higher APR meant a better loan. As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) pointed out, there is strong demand for students to be better informed on these issues.
We have debated the issue of high-cost credit separately, and I continue to believe that there is a need for some sort of system of flexible caps and that there is potential for a levy on high-cost lenders to help to finance the cost of debt advice and financial education. I am hopeful that the Government’s research into this area will produce both those results. However, in a world where such credit is as prevalent as it has become and when students are having to take on more long-term, low-cost debt as part of the process of getting higher education, it is clear there is a demand for them to be better prepared to understand and manage it.
All these reasons point to the urgency of including personal financial education in the curriculum, but they do not dictate how it should be included. There is not necessarily any contradiction between the Government’s desire for a simple curriculum that focuses on the basics and the inclusion of this basic tool for life in the curriculum. In my view, and in the view of the all-party group report, there is no need for a new subject to be added or for time to be set apart in the timetable. Rather, the provision of better financial education can be included in the teaching of maths and PSHE.
Indeed, as Carol Vorderman has pointed out, making maths more relevant and giving it a firmer basis in the real world might help to deal with some of the stigma that many students attach to it. I well remember as a teenage pupil being profoundly uninterested in algebra and trigonometry, but waking up and paying attention when maths touched on the finances of a business or the cost of a shopping trip. I suspect many pupils feel the same. We paid even more attention when people from outside school came in to talk about what they did, so I welcome the report’s recommendations about bringing in more outside experience.
We should not pretend that that would be a wholly new approach. Many of the best teachers, schools and colleges already employ such an approach to make their lessons relevant and engage their pupils. Tudor Grange academy in Worcester has forged strong links with local businesses, such as Worcester Bosch, and the Worcester college of technology has seen several hundred students take money management programmes as additional elements of their studies, showing that students want more financial education even when it is treated as an extra.
Many organisations, from banks and accountancy firms to the citizens advice bureaux, small businesses and entrepreneurs, already engage with schools to talk about the importance of financial knowledge, planning and budgeting. The Institute of Chartered Accountants runs a competition on financial knowledge for schools in Worcestershire. The best examples from among our schools, which include many schools in Worcestershire, would probably need to see no change if financial education were to be introduced as a statutory part of the curriculum, but the inclusion would make a real difference to the overall picture, allow better co-ordination and support those who are leading the way.
The inclusion of financial education in the curriculum would send a signal to all head teachers and all schools that it should be a core part of the teaching of maths and PSHE. It is one of the basic skills with which pupils need to emerge and from which they will benefit hugely. As the all-party group’s report clearly shows, the greatest reason for teachers saying that they do not currently provide financial education is the pressure on curriculum time. Giving it a place in the curriculum would therefore remove the greatest single bar to its successful delivery. I do not believe that would be onerous in any way and when I have discussed it with local heads, as I did at a recent meeting with a group of Worcester primary heads, I have received unanimous support for its inclusion.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak and that we are all anxious to get away today, so I will conclude by saying that financial education should be brought into the statutory curriculum as soon as possible. As a proud English member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I am pleased to see that Wales, like Scotland, has already taken that step. I believe this is an excellent example of how the UK Government can show their support for the respect agenda, respecting the devolved Assemblies and the students, teachers and heads who all tell us the benefits of financial education.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is nice to speak at this point in the debate, when everybody has said everything.
May I begin my adding my plaudits to those already heaped on my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson)? I was a mere foot soldier in their regiment as they steamrollered this through and I must say what an efficient manner—[Interruption.] I was sometimes cannon fodder, yes.
If I were a little younger, I could have had when I was at university the e-book that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) had and it might have saved me from being part of that generation that got one credit card to pay off another before I realised that I was not gaining very much by it.
I cannot remember ever being taught financial education at any time in my history at school. People from the Post Office came in once in the 1950s and I think I still have a Post Office account with 10 shillings in. If anyone finds the book, I would be grateful for that. I spent 27 years as a teacher in secondary education and I never saw financial education taught; indeed, one of the surveys in the report shows that 45% of teachers have never seen it taught in school. The only time I touched on it—it is a pity the shadow Minister is not here—was when I taught American history in the 1920s and 1930s, with the Wall street crash, the depression, and banking and shares. I was going to say to the shadow Minister that it takes a good history teacher to teach decent economics.
In my constituency, I came across a scheme run by two guys from Fleetwood, Paul Freeman and Martin Hull. They are community support officers and they noticed that in the areas where there were problems, kids did not understand the idea of saving. This goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said: they wanted instant money. A scheme was developed in conjunction with a primary school and pupils were rewarded with school pounds, but the school had to take part in various business exercises to earn the prizes that the kids had to save up for. The scheme has been developed through other schools and it is now working with a primary school outside my constituency, with the involvement of a secondary school in my constituency, Rossall school—I mention it for a reason—whose lower sixth has already set up its own businesses and it is running them as a practical demonstration. Rossall school is a public school and the primary school that it is helping is a state school. The example is double edged: the private sector is helping the state sector and we have the involvement of one of those schools about which the shadow Minister kept talking. They do not use the national curriculum but, because they are good schools, they are already way down the line in financial education.
One thing that we in the all-party group have been trying to do is help state schools to catch up. Having said that, none of us underestimates the problem and I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity in taking our proposals on board. Perhaps this debate is timely, given that a review of the national curriculum is coming forward, but none of us who has been a teacher underestimates what we are asking teachers to do. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and others have said that we need confident teachers with really good back-up to do this.
Fiona Bruce
Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to consider including this subject as an element of teacher training in colleges?
Eric Ollerenshaw
I think we need to deal with this in all kinds of ways.
On the remarks we have heard about maths teachers and the lack of maths, if we want this kind of revolution to begin, teachers need to be utterly behind it—not just theoretically but practically, and with that confidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole has said, we had a debate in the all-party group about personal, social and health education and maths. I still warm to the applied maths idea, partly because I would have been like my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I scraped through maths because I had to, but then forgot most of it, as was obvious in my subsequent financial career. So I veer more towards the latter approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole commented on how PSHE is regarded in some schools.
There is also the issue of back-up and time. The Personal Finance Education Group has given us a lot of support. Given the financial support that it has had from some banks, perhaps it would be apposite for the Minister to challenge the banking and financial institutions of this country, which have suffered somewhat in the public’s estimation, to provide the back-up that is needed to deliver financial education in a substantial way. I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said about training and suggest that financial support could involve the provision of money to release teachers to train or to provide materials for schools. We are asking for a huge turnaround in schools if such education is to be provided properly and is not just to be drip-fed, with some good schools doing it but more schools just paying lip service and trying to get by. Is this subject as fundamental as hon. Members from all parties have said it is? I am not underestimating its importance.
Time is running out and all my best lines have been taken my hon. Friends who have expressed the points far better than I could have. I think the hon. Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) ended on a quote and I should like to end on a quote from an article in The Independent today by Andreas Whittam Smith, who said that
“the real explanation of the fall of RBS was the incompetence of the British ruling and managerial classes…without having the foggiest idea of how business worked.”
I am not suggesting that if we carry out these recommendations, we will end boom and bust tomorrow, but it might be a start.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) has just said, it is difficult to think of anything original to say at this stage of the proceedings, so I shall be mercifully brief. I must start with the obligatory fawning to my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for the genuinely outstanding work they have done on the all-party group. The way that group has grown is not just impressive but phenomenal. In double-quick time it has brought to the British Parliament an issue that matters so much and about which so many people are genuinely bothered. The report and the depth of the analysis and work the group has done are already helping to stimulate debate here and more widely—and will do so further.
Today’s debate is not about approving every line in the report. I would have loved to remind the shadow Minister, if he were here, that the motion does not say that there should be compulsory financial education in free schools and academies or that it should be part of the national curriculum in primary schools. The key phrase in the motion is:
“That this House…believes that the country has a duty to equip its young people properly through education to make informed financial decisions”.
I could not agree more.
I shall not go into examples of the problems that we have all seen when people have come into our surgeries or when we have met people. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has mentioned that some people, astonishingly, think that a high APR must be better than a low APR because it is a bigger number. These things would be funny if they were not so tragic. When we hear about them, our natural reaction is to say, “If we get them young and educate them, we will sort out all these problems.” There is, of course, as it says in the motion, a great advantage to equipping people with the capability to make smart financial decisions. There can also be a more immediate benefit, to which the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) alluded. If teachers get kids to bring in material—junk mail—that they have received at home, and they discuss it, messages can then get back to home, so there will be a beneficial impact even in the shorter term.
Even better than telling, of course, is doing, through schemes such as junior savers clubs. I was a member of the Abbey National junior savers. It used to have gold, silver and bronze; I only ever made bronze, but there you are. We have savings clubs in schools, and I pay tribute to credit unions in particular, although others do this as well, which run schemes in schools, often with parent volunteers and schoolchildren helping to manage them. That is another great way to pick up experience.
I have an issue with PSHE, however. It sometimes feels as though the answer to any social problem in this country is another module in PSHE. That is true whether the problem is that people are too fat or that people are too thin, or whether it is teenage pregnancy. Whatever it might be, we do it in PSHE. There are limitations to PSHE. When one mentions it to teachers, their response is not one that can be written down because it is just a groan. As a general rule, teachers do not like doing PSHE lessons. Although the report of the all-party group says “only 45%” of teachers in the survey had taught personal financial education, I have to say that that struck me as an extraordinarily large number. Almost half the teaching population has taken on the teaching of that subject. I think it unlikely that they are all experts in that area.
In PSHE in general, and this applies also to financial education, there is naturally a reliance on off-the-shelf—or more likely, these days, off-the-net—lesson plans and on input from third parties. Although I accept that the banks and building societies who take part do so with responsibility and do not use it as a way to ram home their brands, there is an element of indirect marketing. It certainly gets the message out there that there is a massive range of financial products, including ones that can get people into debt.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend’s points are exactly those that we identified during the inquiry and support the argument for putting financial education into PSHE to support maths and raise the profile of PSHE. He is quite right: a lot of the stuff that is used is photocopied hand-outs. That is not teaching a subject properly. If we link PSHE with maths, we can raise its profile and the standards of the teaching and lesson plans.
Damian Hinds
I recognise the point, and the report stimulates such debates, but I do not agree.
People mean different things when they talk about financial education. There is a whole continuum. If we talk about pure financial education, as opposed to a mathematical way of approaching it, there are two key dangers. The first I call the redundancy danger, and the second is the ubiquity danger. None of us did financial education at school, and although some people have great financial problems, not everybody does, and it is perfectly possible for somebody to get through life without the benefit of that education. Had we done financial education, we would have learned about cheques, clearing houses and endowment mortgages, and, spreading it out to the wider economy, the public sector borrowing requirement and sterling M3. None of that would be of particular relevance today. We would not have learned about debit cards and payday loans because, to all intents and purposes, they did not exist at that time. There is a real danger that although we think we are equipping people with skills, by focusing too much on financial services, as opposed to the underpinning principles, that education may become redundant.
Andrew Percy
It is true that the world does not stand still, but does my hon. Friend agree that if we give young people the ability to understand what is available now, we give them the skills to be able to understand products as they develop and move on into the future?
Damian Hinds
I cannot do geometry in a written speech without slides. I would be more tempted to go for the underlying principles, which could enable people to understand the things that used to be there and the things that will be there tomorrow.
The second danger is ubiquity. Already, on the television and the internet, when kids are at home or out, everywhere there are messages about debt. There is a danger that introducing discussion of specific financial services too early in schools might contribute to that feeling by normalising and legitimising the idea that everyone uses such products.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, the key things are the tools, and I think that we agree on that but perhaps differ on how best to use them. To my mind, the key tools and principles that help inform financial decisions are mathematics, but not mathematics on its own. There is also a big element of personal responsibility, common sense and some of the maxims to which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) referred. Make no mistake: young people do not learn common sense, wisdom and personal responsibility simply by turning up to PSHE. It is a much wider issue. I would welcome more emphasis on practical mathematics at GCSE, especially at foundation level, although it applies to both levels.
I am pleased to say that I have an original point to make. We also now have an opportunity post-16, because raising the participation age to 18 means that more young people who have perhaps not passed GCSE maths could, if we are to follow the guidance in the Wolf report, be encouraged to keep up maths and English. We need new, innovative, creative and engaging ways of taking on maths, and this would certainly be one of those. I thought that the sample questions that my hon. Friends who constructed the report included in it illustrated very well the practical ways we could use the maths curriculum.
The introduction of these concepts into mathematics is no panacea. The hon. Member for Makerfield and I agree on many things related to debt and personal finance, but I completely disagreed with her today when she implied that there was no element of personal irresponsibility in being over-indebted. There are of course times when it is purely a matter of a change in circumstances and completely unpredictable, but there is also a major issue of responsibility. She was right to say that there are broader concerns about regulation and too-easy access to credit that we must also address. The reason we need to address those concerns, even if we did financial education perfectly, is that in that market, alarmingly, the basic laws of economics, such as the way competition works and the assumption that consumers will be rational, frequently do not apply.
I congratulate the members of the all-party group again on the report that stimulated the debate. My view is that I would say no to adding more to PSHE and specifying exactly how these things should be done at a younger and younger age, but I would say yes on the need to refocus GCSE maths and to find new and creative ways to teach practical maths at 16-plus. I would also say yes to not being afraid to say that people must take responsibility, which is also a good thing to teach in school.
Justin Tomlinson
I will give a brief conclusion to what has been an extremely positive debate. I thank all Members who contributed from both sides of the House for taking the time to set out their support for our ongoing campaign. I hope that the 100,000 people who took the time to sign Martin Lewis’s e-petition will feel that Parliament has served them well today. We have shown one of the better sides of Parliament, as we have taken a tangible issue that the public are interested in and tried to set out a way of dealing with it. I thank all the members of the all-party parliamentary group and the supporters, particularly the individuals and organisations—over 1,000 of them—who contributed to our comprehensive report. We deliberately took our time and were patient so that we could deliver something that was thorough and that set out constructively and comprehensively our case as part of the national curriculum review. I am grateful that the Minister and shadow Minister acknowledged that our delivery of the campaign is an example that others should follow. Interestingly, this is not just a pie-in-the-sky request. We look at our international neighbours and find that many states in America, and Australia, New Zealand and Canada, are leading the way in financial education.
As part of the national curriculum review, I hope that today we have taken a very good opportunity to set out our positive case, so that we might deliver on our duty to equip the next generation of consumers with the ability to make informed decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that young people today grow up in an increasingly complex financial world requiring them to make difficult decisions for the future, often without the necessary level of financial literacy; believes that financial education will help address the national problem of irresponsible borrowing and personal insolvency and that teaching people about budgeting and personal finance will help equip the workforce with the necessary skills to succeed in business and drive forward economic growth; further believes that the country has a duty to equip its young people properly through education to make informed financial decisions; and calls on the Government to consider the provision of financial education as part of the current curriculum review.
Protection of War Memorials
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I have the pleasure and honour of presenting to the House the petition of Ian Coleman and ex-service personnel in Blackpool on the subject of war memorials. It incorporates more than 3,000 signatures, which Mr Coleman and his colleagues in Blackpool have collected.
The petition states:
The Petition of Ian Coleman and ex-service personnel in Blackpool,
Declares that the nation’s war memorials and their surroundings should be treated as special places and respected in a manner which befits those whose lives they commemorate.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure the protection of war memorials via a more rigid enforcement of existing laws or by bringing forward new legislation to ensure that war memorials are adequately protected.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P000992]
Health Services (Disabled Children)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity today to raise directly with the Minister, who I recall from previous debates has a significant interest in the area, a number of concerns about services for children with disabilities.
Earlier this afternoon, I hosted a function for the Council for Disabled Children, at which its young ambassadors presented a film that they had made. Their message was, “Young, disabled and in control”. They wanted to be seen as individuals, to be listened to and to have their views and needs taken on board. The function made me reflect on what I had written in my speech, because we should remember that I am talking about lots of precious individuals. It sounds generic, but, when one has the great honour and privilege of meeting amazing young people who are achieving so much, one realises that there is so much more that we as individuals can do for them. Indeed, one of them referred to the use of personal budgets, and as we bring health and social care together that will all become part of the same discussion.
Throughout my long political career locally and nationally, I have been very much aware that families with disabled children face constant battles to secure support, help and access to services. Not so long ago, I was supporting a family to make sure that they were supplied with sufficient and adequate incontinence pads for their growing child, and I asked myself, “Hasn’t anything changed over the years?” There have always been issues when services such as education and health have been brought together, with cross-service battles over who picks up the bill, rather than people putting the needs of the child first.
Given the coalition’s proposed policy changes, there are some potentially amazing opportunities—specifically within the Health and Social Care Bill, and in the delivery of the single assessment process, the education, health and care plan and the local offer, which are proposed in the “Support and aspiration” Green Paper. But we need to grasp those opportunities and address the issues that are seen as threats, and in that respect I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurances today.
Disabled children and those with complex health needs are disproportionate users of health services, but they face long-standing barriers to accessing both universal and specialist health services. The evidence from professionals, the voluntary sector and families with disabled children is clear: if local areas are not required to have a clear focus on child health, disabled children are not given the requisite priority by local decision makers. As a mother of a child with complex health needs put it:
“What’s so sad is that years have been lost because there doesn’t seem to be any clinical leadership for services for disabled children or even children in this area. And there haven’t been any targets that they need to reach so they are not interested. They’re only interested in targets and services for adults.”
Sir Ian Kennedy’s recent report “Getting it right for children and young people” stated:
“Those caring for children ‘are not the biggest players in the clinical system’ and are not well placed within professional hierarchies. They often lose out to other, more powerful, professional and patients’ groups in the contest for resources and the attention of senior management.”
The Health and Social Care Bill represents an ideal opportunity to address these issues. However, it does not include measures to ensure that the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, clinical networks and senates, health and wellbeing boards, clinical commissioning groups, HealthWatch or monitoring bodies will prioritise child health. There is a concern that that will perpetuate a system that is designed for adult health and social care but does not work for children’s services.
Campaigners feel that the Health and Social Care Bill has not indicated how health services for disabled children will be configured within the new system and wish to make sure that there is no confusion on the ground as primary care trusts close and health and wellbeing boards and clinical commissioning groups are set up.
I am aware that some issues should be resolved as part of the Department for Education’s “Support and aspiration” Green Paper pathfinder programme. But there are concerns that that is a long-term agenda that will not produce results for at least 18 months. In the meantime, there is already widespread confusion about how health service reform will affect disabled children. There has also been no demonstrable evidence that health and wellbeing board early implementers and clinical commissioning group pathfinders have been asked to link their work with the “Support and aspiration” Green Paper pathfinders.
There are particular concerns that the overarching proposals set out in the “Support and aspiration” Green Paper will not be deliverable unless the structures set up by the Health and Social Care Bill provide clarity on commissioning structures and accountability for child health. For example, the Green Paper proposes an education, health and care plan for disabled children and an overarching “local offer”, but the Health and Social Care Bill does not require health and wellbeing boards to include that in their local strategies.
I know that there are many concerns about the fact that although there is currently a statutory duty to provide education services identified in a statement, there is not the same statutory duty for the provision of health services. It is always difficult when professionals from two different cultures and backgrounds are asked to work together, but a number of issues could be resolved earlier. The Bill also does not provide a platform for education providers to take part in local decision making at health and wellbeing board level, which will make integrated commissioning more difficult. I would be really grateful for the Minister’s views on that.
The current scrutiny on the health service created by the Health and Social Care Bill represents a unique opportunity to address long-standing problems with the services used by disabled children. Families with disabled children describe these barriers in the latest report from Every Disabled Child Matters and The Children’s Trust, Tadworth entitled “Disabled Children and Health Reform”. They include delays in getting equipment—wheelchairs, for example.
This afternoon I met Becky, who is at university. She drives her own car and has a specially adapted wheelchair that comes apart. She puts all the wheelchair’s parts into her Mini. It is amazing how she has been able to use her skills and aptitude and access a university education, but the NHS could not provide that specialist wheelchair for her. That makes us think that we need to do more for so many children.
I have already mentioned the restrictions on vital support; it is just dreadful when a family contacts you to say that they cannot get large enough, or enough, nappies for children with continence issues. There are disputes over who funds the service, poorly co-ordinated appointments, poor communication across the system and a cliff edge in support at transition to adult services.
Some parents are quoted in the “Disabled Children and Health Reform” report. On the complexity of the health service, one said:
“I’ve had really good experience of Health and individual Paediatricians…The problems arise from the complexity of the system and the different services your child needs”.
There is always so much praise for the individuals who are doing the work, but it is about pulling it all together and the structures. On the delays to getting vital equipment, another parent said:
“My daughter has a helmet and boots supplied by the Child Development Centre. She’s outgrown the helmet now and it took them two months just to make an appointment to measure her head. In the meantime, she’s confined to her wheelchair. They said they had the money to do it, but didn’t have the means to order it.”
We know about the disputes over who funds the service. A parent said:
“Sometimes the local authority says, ‘Well, that’s a Health issue and so the PCT should pay.’ Then the PCT turns round and says, ‘No, actually that’s an Education issue.’ It feels like we’re having to fight and it wastes valuable time because we have to wait for the local authority and the PCT to meet somewhere in the middle about something which could be helping and making a difference now.”
Another parent commented:
“What’s so sad is the years that have been lost because there doesn’t seem to be any clinical leadership for services for disabled children or even children”.
There is a lack of targets and a focus on adults.
Then there are the problems with transition between child and adult health services, on which one parent said:
“My daughter’s been seen by 2 consultants at least twice a year for the last 17 years so it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that she’s going to need continued monitoring and support from Health as she moves into adult services. But the divide between health services for children and adults is significant. Many of the professionals we have come to rely on shake their heads about it…but there’s nothing they can actually do beyond offering to attend a meeting with us where they can hand over to someone who works for adult services.”
In the past few years, we have spoken a great deal in the House about the transitional period. We are aware of the issue but we must keep working at it.
The Health and Social Care Bill does not provide any clarity on how the reformed system will affect the child health system. Child health services operate on a separate system to that of adults, with separate structures and relevant partners—for example, education providers. Consequently, child health requires specific attention within the reform process, which the current legislation does not appear to provide.
The Every Disabled Child Matters campaign is very concerned that, unless specific attention is given to the health processes and professionals who work within child health, the modernisation of the NHS will perpetuate a system that fails children, particularly disabled children and those with complex and/or palliative care needs. The campaign believes that there is a clear choice: act now and use the opportunity of reform to create a system that works for disabled children, or proceed with reform concentrating solely on adult services and leave families with disabled children still struggling to fill the gaps.
The EDCM campaign asks for national leadership. It would like the Secretary of State to be required to set priorities for child health as part of his mandate to the NHS Commissioning Board. As a matter of urgency, it would like the Department of Health to set out a clear vision for the way in which the reformed system will meet the needs of disabled children and children with complex health needs. On commissioning, it would like an overarching clinical network for disabled children's health to be created in order to address long-standing issues, including barriers to commissioning specialist health care services. It would like health and wellbeing board early implementers to be asked to test and report on integrated working for the delivery of services for disabled children which includes all relevant partners. It would also like careful consideration to be given to the impact of current reforms on the commissioning of specialist health services for children and young people with high-cost, low-incidence conditions. The campaign would like information and support to be provided to disabled children and young people and their families to ensure that they understand the way in which the changing health system will affect them.
The report poses 10 key questions, which I would like to pose to the Minister. What role will the NHS Commissioning Board play in improving the national delivery of health services for disabled children? Where will the responsibility lie for designing care pathways and shaping local services for disabled children within the modernised system? How will clinical networks and senates support clinical commissioning groups to deliver high quality universal and specialist health care for disabled children? What practical steps are being taken to ensure that the experiences and interests of disabled people and families with disabled children are represented as an integral part of patient involvement at every level of the reformed NHS? How will the success of the modernised NHS in meeting the needs of disabled children be monitored in local areas and how should that information be published? How will health and wellbeing boards work with local HealthWatch and clinical commissioning groups to achieve integrated care for families with disabled children who use health, social care and education services? How should awareness of the particular needs of disabled children be built into the work force development programme being developed by health education England? How will the modernisation of the NHS work with pathfinders of the “Support and aspiration” Green Paper, particularly in the development of a single education, health and care plan and a local offer? What plans are being made to improve the collection of information about disabled children? Finally, how will families seek redress if the package of care for their disabled child is not delivered or integrated with other care, or if the quality of the health care they receive is poor? There are so many questions. We should try to provide answers and to improve the legislation that is going through Parliament, or at least the guidance that will go alongside it.
In the rest of my time, I would like to touch on two areas. Of course, one could talk about every possible condition and make lots of points, but I will touch on two areas that have been on my agenda over the past five years or so. The House has debated the provision of mental health services for children, with particular reference to autism. There has been improved provision of child and adolescent mental health services over recent years, but I believe that the gap between needs and provision remains. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the future provision of these vital services. So often, as we know, mental health services have been a Cinderella service. If we can intervene early with children, we can save a great deal of money, pain and anguish later on.
Specifically on autism, what steps will the Government take to ensure that child and adolescent mental health services staff are trained in autism and that specialist support is available? On a previous occasion, the House has discussed the problem that even when parents have accessed CAMHS, they have not had satisfactory outcomes because of the lack of training.
I would also like to touch on speech, language and communication needs. To return to my starting point, the lack of joint working between education and health has, over the years, been apparent in speech and language therapy and in the battles over who pays. Will the Minister comment on the importance of integrated commissioning for speech, language and communication services, not just within the health sector, but between health and education commissioners? What role will health and wellbeing boards play in ensuring that there is effective and co-ordinated commissioning of children’s services? Will the Minister confirm whether health and wellbeing boards will be encouraged to consider the use of pooled budgets and joint commissioning arrangements for speech therapy services for children?
As an aside, I would like to mention some adult speech therapy that I have seen. I was privileged to visit Poole hospital following the lobbying by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in Parliament. A display had been set up for me and patients had been invited in to cover all the aspects of speech therapy for adults in the health sector. I would like to tell the Minister and place on the record how impressive that was.
Returning to the subject of children’s services, there is so much that could be said, but I have one overriding question for the Minister. Will she and the Secretary of State do everything they can to improve the provision of services for children with disabilities and special needs, and to ensure that the new structures deliver what is needed so greatly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing a debate on this extremely important issue. I know that, like many Members, she has shown a very strong personal interest in it. I share that interest, and I thank her for acknowledging that. I hope that what I say today will reassure her that we are doing what we can to improve the availability and quality of health care for all children and young people, including those with disabilities.
I cannot answer all the questions that the hon. Lady asked. Interestingly, from listening to her questions we could hear the complexity of the current system. I share her sadness about the years that have been lost to many children, and I am sure we also share sadness about the terrible struggle and battle that a lot of parents of disabled children have faced. The debate provides an opportunity for us to put on record our tribute to those parents, who struggle in unbelievable circumstances and feel unsupported. I cannot quantify the traumatic nature of what they have to face, not only in dealing with a child with disabilities but in getting everything they can for them.
I do not think I will be saying anything very controversial by acknowledging that the NHS, as it currently works, does not get everything right for children and young people. The hon. Lady referred to Sir Ian Kennedy’s report “Getting it right for children and young people”, which made it clear that the quality of health care for children was very variable and that the outcomes for too many children were poor compared with those in other countries.
We have 12 million children and young people in England, which is a fifth of the total population, and the number of them with disabilities is high. For example, some 108,000 have been diagnosed as having an autistic spectrum disorder, and some 70,000 would benefit from mobility support, including wheelchairs. Their well-being, as with all children and young people, must always be at the top of our list. We must pay particular attention to services that help the most vulnerable children or those with the greatest needs. They are our future, and the NHS needs to do better for them.
I am particularly pleased that the hon. Lady mentioned children who are on the autistic spectrum. There is no doubt that those children and young people in particular, like adults with autism, often fall through the net. Child and adolescent mental health services do not necessarily fill the gap.
The Department of Health has simple but ambitious goals. It may be stating the obvious to say that they include the right start to life in the foundation years, improved support for mental health and well-being, more co-operative and joined-up services for children with disabilities, and improved health in adolescence. Those ambitions lie behind the health reforms that the coalition Government are proposing. We are moving towards a service in which the use of evidence-based treatment is adopted consistently and to the best effect; in which promoting good health is of equal importance to caring for the sick; and in which children, young people and their families are always involved in decisions about their care. “No decision about me without me” applies as much to children as to anybody else, and I think we often underestimate the ability of young people and even quite young children to be involved in decisions about their care. We also a want a service in which commissioning is underpinned by informed and expert knowledge. I believe that it is in commissioning services that we have often got things wrong.
As the hon. Lady will know, those ambitions are supported by measures such as the increase in health visitors by 4,200 and the expansion by 50% of the family nurse partnership programme. Health visitors and family nurses play a vital role in identifying, intervening in and sorting out babies’ and children’s problems early. We frequently hear about the need for early diagnosis so that we can have early intervention and support, which prevents problems later on. That includes children with disability and other special care needs.
I would also like children’s health to be built in throughout the new system, so that everything we do is geared towards supporting children. We have made our intention clear to put in place a system that achieves better outcomes for everyone, and one that delivers services for individuals, not organisations. We often end up believing that we need to get the processes right and the arguments on that continue without our seeing the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
Of course, not just the NHS has a role to play in the health of children with disabilities. Schools, children’s centres and wider children’s services all have a part to play. That is why we are putting in place a system of health and wellbeing boards in each local area, the job of which will be to achieve a truly jointly owned assessment of local need, which leads to a joint health and well-being strategy and commissioning decisions that span the NHS and local government. Joint leadership and joint responsibility is for the whole population, including disabled children. Local authorities have a key role to play.
I should take this opportunity to commend the work of Disability Challengers in my area, which is well supported by people locally and offers an invaluable service to parents. It is those sort of initiatives and third sector organisations that we can bring together to make joint leadership and joint responsibility actually work. We always talk about integration—we have been talking about it for years—but now we need to make it happen. We need to stop that fragmentation of services. We need to stop arguing about who will pay for what and ensure that people get what they need.
The hon. Lady and others have concerns about the priorities that general practitioners will give to children and young people when commissioning services, but in fact it is estimated that about 40% of the average GP’s work load is to do with children and young people. Nobody is in a better position to understand children’s needs. On top of that, the clinical commissioning groups will have access to advice from people with a broad range of professional expertise, including those who work particularly closely with children, such as paediatricians, nurses, other clinical professionals, and health and wellbeing boards, the membership of which will include, for example, directors of children’s services in the local authority.
The hon. Lady mentioned speech and language therapy, which is much talked about. Its critical role in meeting many children’s needs is much underestimated. The allied health professionals, which we often miss off our list after we have mentioned nurses and doctors, are critical in ensuring that those children get what they need.
To ensure that that happens, the NHS Commissioning Board will be accountable to Ministers for improving health care provision for children and young people. They will be judged on their delivery of improved outcomes. The NHS outcomes framework and the public health outcomes framework include measurable outcomes to demonstrate improvement in critical areas relating to children and young people. As the data get better and more meaningful—it is important to say that the data must be meaningful—we will refine the outcomes that the NHS needs to deliver, along with our understanding of the outcomes that are important to disabled children, young people and their families. That will be an evolving work in progress, but the focus on outcomes is important.
One important matter—the hon. Lady will be interested in this—is how the integrated care pathway can be used to provide children with disabilities, long-term conditions or complex needs with the best opportunities to make progress and live life more independently. A number of activities are under way at the moment to ensure that that happens. The learning network for health and wellbeing board early implementer programme includes a learning set on effective joint working to improve those outcomes for children and young people. That work is just getting under way—it was launched only about three weeks ago—but there is incredible energy and enthusiasm to develop and share innovative ways in which to change things for the better. One of the priorities for the network is tackling health inequalities and increasing access for those groups that traditionally have had difficulty in securing the provision that they need. I refer here to the group of children that we are talking about.
Similarly, there is a small group of early implementing clinical commissioning groups that are focusing on children and young people’s issues. With my colleagues in the Department for Education, we have set up 20 pathfinder groups, including 31 local authorities and primary care trust clusters, to test the ambition of the Government’s Green Paper to support children with special educational needs. They will test improvements to the current system, including the new single assessment process with a single education, health and care plan, along with the option of a personal budget. Things happen incredibly slowly in Government and it is very frustrating for the people who are in receipt of services. It is important that we use this opportunity to capture the enthusiasm and energy and to use the reforms that we are making to get this right once and for all. The lessons that we learn from those early implementers will be crucial. They will help inform more effective commissioning and service provision. Where these effective integrated care packages and personal budgets are available, the impacts are very dramatic.
I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the fact that we are committed to children with disabilities. I have a personal interest in the matter, and we want to ensure that the NHS plays its full part. It sounds a cliché to say that the NHS works in partnership with local authorities and schools to improve the lives of children and young people, but I mean it from the bottom of my heart. We have to ensure that partnership becomes a reality.
I pay tribute to organisations such as Every Disabled Child Matters. My noble Friend Earl Howe has answered a letter to that organisation quite recently. We are talking about special children with very special needs and some very special parents. We must ensure that those needs are met and that the terrible battle that the parents and young people face is halted and they get what they need to live those independent lives. There can be no better words to end this debate on than these: young, disabled and in control.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicholas Soames
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Order of Battle is of the fleet.
[Official Report, 15 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 1300-01W.]
Letter of correction from Peter Luff:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 15 September 2011. The original answer included an error which failed to take account of the recent decommissioning of a Type 42 Destroyer on 30 June 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Peter Luff
As at 7 September 2011, the Order of Battle for the fleet was as follows:
Number | |
|---|---|
Landing Platform Helicopter | 12 |
Landing Platform Dock | 2 |
T45 | 3 |
T42 | 4 |
T23 | 13 |
Hunt Class MCV | 8 |
Sandown Class MCV | 7 |
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels | 3 |
Helicopter Offshore Patrol Vessels | 1 |
P2000 Patrol Boats | 18 |
Ocean Survey Vessels | 1 |
Coastal Survey Vessels | 3 |
Antarctic Patrol Ship | 1 |
Ships Submersible Ballistic Nuclear | 4 |
Ship Submersible Nuclear | 7 |
Assault Helicopters—Sea King Mk4 | 3 Sqns |
Search and Rescue—Sea King Mk5 | 2 Sqns |
Airbourne Surveillance and Control—Sea King Mk7 | 3 Sqns |
Anti Submarine and Anti Surface: | |
Merlin Mk1 Lynx | 4 Sqns |
Mk3 and Mk8 | 3 Sqns |
Battlefield Helicopters—Lynx Mk9 | 1 Sqn |
Elementary Flying | 3 Sqns |
Beechcraft King Air 350ER Avenger | 1 Sqn |
1 HMS Illustrious is now operating in the Landing Platform Helicopter role, as well as HMS Ocean. |
For the Royal Fleet Auxiliary:
Number | |
|---|---|
Fleet Tankers | 2 |
Support Tankers | 1 |
Small Fleet Tankers | 2 |
Fleet Replenishment Ships | 3 |
Landing Ship Dock | 3 |
Aviation Training Ship | 1 |
Forward Repair Ship | 1 |
The correct answer should have been:
Peter Luff
As at 7 September 2011, the Order of Battle for the fleet was as follows:
Number | |
|---|---|
Landing Platform Helicopter | 12 |
Landing Platform Dock | 2 |
T45 | 3 |
T42 | 3 |
T23 | 13 |
Hunt Class MCV | 8 |
Sandown Class MCV | 7 |
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels | 3 |
Helicopter Offshore Patrol Vessels | 1 |
P2000 Patrol Boats | 18 |
Ocean Survey Vessels | 1 |
Coastal Survey Vessels | 3 |
Antarctic Patrol Ship | 1 |
Ships Submersible Ballistic Nuclear | 4 |
Ship Submersible Nuclear | 7 |
Assault Helicopters—Sea King Mk4 | 3 Sqns |
Search and Rescue—Sea King Mk5 | 2 Sqns |
Airbourne Surveillance and Control—Sea King Mk7 | 3 Sqns |
Anti Submarine and Anti Surface: | |
Merlin Mk1 Lynx | 4 Sqns |
Mk3 and Mk8 | 3 Sqns |
Battlefield Helicopters—Lynx Mk9 | 1 Sqn |
Elementary Flying | 3 Sqns |
Beechcraft King Air 350ER Avenger | 1 Sqn |
1 HMS Illustrious is now operating in the Landing Platform Helicopter role, as well as HMS Ocean. |
For the Royal Fleet Auxiliary:
Number | |
|---|---|
Fleet Tankers | 2 |
Support Tankers | 1 |
Small Fleet Tankers | 2 |
Fleet Replenishment Ships | 3 |
Landing Ship Dock | 3 |
Aviation Training Ship | 1 |
Forward Repair Ship | 1 |
Warships
Mr Redwood
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many warships are available for active service in the Navy.
[Official Report, 2 November 2011, Vol. 534, c. 660W.]
Letter of correction from Peter Luff:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) on 2 November 2011. The original answer included an error which failed to take account of the recent decommissioning of a Type 42 Destroyer on 30 June 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Peter Luff
Details of the number of Royal Navy warships available, in various states of readiness, for active service are provided in the following table:
Number | |
|---|---|
Landing Platform Helicopter | 12 |
Landing Platform Dock | 2 |
Type 45 Destroyer | 3 |
Type 42 Destroyer | 4 |
Type 23 Frigate | 13 |
Hunt Class Mine Counter Measures Vessel | 8 |
Sandown Class Mine Counter Measures Vessel | 7 |
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels | 3 |
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (Helicopter) | 1 |
P2000 Patrol Boats | 18 |
Ocean Survey Vessels | 1 |
Coastal Survey Vessels | 3 |
Ice Patrol Ship | 1 |
Ships Submersible Ballistic Nuclear | 4 |
Ship Submersible Nuclear | 7 |
1 HMS Illustrious is now operating in the Landing Platform Helicopter role, as well as HMS Ocean. |
The correct answer should have been:
Peter Luff
Details of the number of Royal Navy warships available, in various states of readiness, for active service are provided in the following table:
Number | |
|---|---|
Landing Platform Helicopter | 12 |
Landing Platform Dock | 2 |
Type 45 Destroyer | 3 |
Type 42 Destroyer | 3 |
Type 23 Frigate | 13 |
Hunt Class Mine Counter Measures Vessel | 8 |
Sandown Class Mine Counter Measures Vessel | 7 |
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels | 3 |
River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (Helicopter) | 1 |
P2000 Patrol Boats | 18 |
Ocean Survey Vessels | 1 |
Coastal Survey Vessels | 3 |
Ice Patrol Ship | 1 |
Ships Submersible Ballistic Nuclear | 4 |
Ship Submersible Nuclear | 7 |
1 HMS Illustrious is now operating in the Landing Platform Helicopter role, as well as HMS Ocean. |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which flag or flags are routinely displayed outside each of his Department's overseas (a) posts and (b) residences.
[Official Report, 7 December 2011, Vol. 537, c. 307-8W.]
Letter of correction from Henry Bellingham:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on 7 December 2011.
The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Bellingham
The information requested is as follows:
(a) The general rule is that the relevant flag—as follows—should be flown at post on all working days during office hours, depending on which country the posts are located in and the type:
Diplomatic flag—this is the Union flag with the Royal Arms in the centre surrounded by a green garland.
Consular flag—this is the Union flag with the St Edward's Crown in the centre on a white disc . It is only flown at consular posts in foreign countries.
Union flag—this is flown in Commonwealth countries.
European flag—the display of the European flag is a courtesy rather than a requirement. On Europe day (9 May), posts in EU and EU-applicant countries should display the European flag. Other posts may also display the flag on Europe day where this is normal local practice. UKREP Brussels displays the European flag at all times. All posts may display the flag at other times where this is normal local practice.
In all cases, the European flag is displayed alongside, not instead of, the British Diplomatic, Consular or in Commonwealth countries the Union flag, with the British flag having precedence.
Overseas Territories—The personal flag of an Officer Administering the Government (OAG) in an Overseas Territory is the Union flag, superimposed in the centre with the approved arms or badge of the Territory on a white disc surrounded by a green garland. It is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is in residence: if he/she is not, the flag is flown wherever he/she is in the Territory.
The Union flag is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is not in residence. It is also flown there if he/she has placed the residence entirely at the disposal of an important visitor, e.g. a member of the royal family.
UK national flags—three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own national flags: the St Andrew's, St David's, and St George's flags. (Northern Ireland is currently without a national flag, pending a new design.) These flags may be flown on the appropriate national day. Posts also have discretion to fly them when special circumstances/events dictate, e.g. the visit of a Minister from a devolved Administration.
London 2012—The International Olympic Committee and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games gave permission for posts overseas to fly the London 2012 host country flag on key dates in 2012 and for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has supported. The dates in question are as follows:
9 January 2012: 200 days to go—Olympics
11 February 2012: 200 days to go—Paralympics
18 April 2012: 100 days to go—Olympics
10 May 2012: Lighting of the Olympic flame
17 May 2012: Handover of the Olympic flame
18 May 2012: Arrival in the UK of the Olympic flame
21 May 2012: 100 days to go—Paralympics
27 July to 12 August 2012 inclusive: Olympic Games
29 August to 9 September 2012 inclusive: Paralympic Games.
Posts are only permitted to fly the 2012 flag on those agreed dates above, but can display it in their reception areas at other times. Again the British Diplomatic, Consular or the Union flag, will take precedence.
(b) The general rule for flying the relevant flags listed above at Residencies is that they should be flown on the following British anniversaries, during the visit of one of Her Majesty's ships or on days of local celebration or mourning.
British Anniversaries:
20 January: birthday of HRH the Countess of Wessex
6 February: Her Majesty's Accession
19 February: birthday of HRH the Duke of York
1 March: St David's day
10 March: birthday of HRH the Earl of Wessex
17 March: St Patrick's day
March (second Monday): Commonwealth day
21 April: birthday of Her Majesty
23 April: St George's day
9 May: Europe day1
2 June: Coronation day
10 June: birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh
June (second Saturday): official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday
17 July: birthday of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall
15 August: birthday of HRH the Princess Royal
November (second Sunday):Remembrance day
14 November: birthday of HRH the Prince of Wales
20 November: Her Majesty's wedding anniversary
30 November: St Andrew's day.
1 The Union flag should fly alongside the European flag. On Government buildings that only have one flagpole, the Union flag should take precedence.
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Bellingham
The information requested is as follows:
(a) The general rule is that the relevant flag—as follows—should be flown at post on all working days during office hours, depending on which country the posts are located in and the type:
Diplomatic flag—this is the Union flag with the Royal Arms in the centre surrounded by a green garland.
Consular flag—this is the Union flag with the St Edward's Crown in the centre on a white disc . It is only flown at consular posts in foreign countries.
Union flag—this is flown in Commonwealth countries.
European flag—the display of the European flag is a courtesy rather than a requirement. On Europe day (9 May), posts in EU and EU-applicant countries should display the European flag. Other posts may also display the flag on Europe day where this is normal local practice. UKREP Brussels displays the European flag at all times. All posts may display the flag at other times where this is normal local practice.
In all cases, the European flag is displayed alongside, not instead of, the British Diplomatic, Consular or in Commonwealth countries the Union flag, with the British flag having precedence.
Overseas Territories—The personal flag of an Officer Administering the Government (OAG) in an Overseas Territory is the Union flag, superimposed in the centre with the approved arms or badge of the Territory on a white disc surrounded by a green garland. It is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is in residence: if he/she is not, the flag is flown wherever he/she is in the Territory.
The Union flag is flown from sunrise to sunset at Government House when the OAG is not in residence. It is also flown there if he/she has placed the residence entirely at the disposal of an important visitor, e.g. a member of the royal family.
UK national flags—three of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom have their own national flags: the St Andrew's, Y Ddraig Goch “The Red Dragon”, and St George's Cross flags. (Northern Ireland is currently without a national flag, pending a new design.) These flags may be flown on the appropriate national day. Posts also have discretion to fly them when special circumstances/events dictate, e.g. the visit of a Minister from a devolved Administration.
London 2012—The International Olympic Committee and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games gave permission for posts overseas to fly the London 2012 host country flag on key dates in 2012 and for the duration of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), has supported. The dates in question are as follows:
9 January 2012: 200 days to go—Olympics
11 February 2012: 200 days to go—Paralympics
18 April 2012: 100 days to go—Olympics
10 May 2012: Lighting of the Olympic flame
17 May 2012: Handover of the Olympic flame
18 May 2012: Arrival in the UK of the Olympic flame
21 May 2012: 100 days to go—Paralympics
27 July to 12 August 2012 inclusive: Olympic Games
29 August to 9 September 2012 inclusive: Paralympic Games.
Posts are only permitted to fly the 2012 flag on those agreed dates above, but can display it in their reception areas at other times. Again the British Diplomatic, Consular or the Union flag, will take precedence.
(b) The general rule for flying the relevant flags listed above at Residencies is that they should be flown on the following British anniversaries, during the visit of one of Her Majesty's ships or on days of local celebration or mourning.
British Anniversaries:
20 January: birthday of HRH the Countess of Wessex
6 February: Her Majesty's Accession
19 February: birthday of HRH the Duke of York
1 March: St David's day
10 March: birthday of HRH the Earl of Wessex
17 March: St Patrick's day
March (second Monday): Commonwealth day
21 April: birthday of Her Majesty
23 April: St George's day
9 May: Europe day1
2 June: Coronation day
10 June: birthday of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh
June (second Saturday): official celebration of Her Majesty's birthday
17 July: birthday of HRH the Duchess of Cornwall
15 August: birthday of HRH the Princess Royal
November (second Sunday):Remembrance day
14 November: birthday of HRH the Prince of Wales
20 November: Her Majesty's wedding anniversary
30 November: St Andrew's day.
1 The Union flag should fly alongside the European flag. On Government buildings that only have one flagpole, the Union flag should take precedence.
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 11 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
Remploy
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Before we start the debate, there is clearly a great deal of interest, so I remind Members about discipline. Interventions are welcome and important to facilitate debate, but please make them interventions, not small speeches. My colleague, Mr Benton, will take over from me later. He and I have decided that we should allow the last three quarters of an hour for the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister to reply, and for the sponsor of this debate, Mrs Clwyd, to intervene at the end should she wish to summarise the debate, as this is a Backbench Business Committee-sponsored discussion.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I am pleased to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. You are my constituency neighbour and a friend, and you have similar problems in Merthyr Tydfil to ours in Cynon Valley. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us three hours before Christmas, which is important in case the Government come out with a statement early in the new year.
In a petition handed in to No. 10 last month, more than 100,000 people told the Government that they want them to stop the closure of Remploy factories and the privatisation of Remploy employment services. As most people know, Remploy has a long and proud history as the largest and oldest employer of disabled people in the United Kingdom. It was set up in 1946 by the Attlee Labour Government to provide returning brave servicemen with dignified work. Indeed, the name Remploy means “re-employ”.
The first factory was opened in Bridgend, south Wales, and Remploy quickly developed into the biggest and most important employer of disabled people in the UK. Over the following decades, it established a network of factories across the UK making a wide variety of products, such as school furniture, motor components and chemical, biological and nuclear protection suits for the police and military, as well as a variety of health products. Remploy currently employs more than 2,500 disabled people in its 54 factories.
Many Remploy employees now face the loss of their jobs if the Government fully accept the recommendations of the Sayce report, the Government-commissioned review of specialist disability employment programmes. The report was followed by a three-month consultation, to which many of us contributed and which came to an end in October. The Government—I am looking at the Minister—have already stated that they are
“minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce review on Remploy”,
which recommends that Remploy leave Government support and that factories close.
The closure of 54 factories could mean that 2,500 disabled people will lose their jobs. Those people are frightened and worried about their future employment prospects, given the current level of unemployment. Remploy factories and workplaces provide stable and dignified places of employment. The system has provided a remarkably robust presence over the past 65 years, and I am convinced that it has a viable future based on a decentralised procurement system.
The vast majority of factories are in areas of previous heavy industry, such as my constituency, which is in a former coal mining area. On my first visit to Remploy, when I was first elected in 1984, I visited the Remploy factory in Aberdare and watched with amazement the skill and the love with which people worked. Those people were hand-stitching huge boots for disabled people, although that particular business has long since been lost. Cynon Valley, despite its proud industrial past—I am sure that we will hear the same thing from many colleagues here—is marked by unemployment rates almost double the UK average.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for initiating this debate, which is of importance to many of us, as she can see. In addition to the obvious problem of unemployment, which she is discussing, does she agree that even where jobs exist, it is difficult for people with disabilities to get to them, because public transport is often not accessible to them? Does she therefore agree that Ministers must address many things before they can even begin to think about asking people to find alternative employment?
Ann Clwyd
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point, which I will discuss later. In Cynon Valley, 2,275 people are looking for work at the moment, a rate of 8.3% unemployment. All areas in Cynon Valley have the same problem of high unemployment, in addition to the multitude of factors, as my hon. Friend has said, that are stacked against a disabled person looking for a job in the area where they live or even in a neighbouring area. Disabled people should, of course, be supported in whatever work they choose, but there is no real choice if unemployment is high and if there is little or no employment elsewhere. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the jobless of south Wales to get on the bus to Cardiff to find work—we all remember his comments. As you know very well, Mr Havard, he made those comments in Merthyr Tydfil, a town with five jobseekers for every advertised job. That is no help to a jobseeker in my constituency, where there are 21 jobseekers for every advertised job.
The Sayce report recommends that funding for Remploy should instead be channelled into expanding the Access to Work programme. Again, I note that the Secretary of State suggested that people in Merthyr Tydfil were unaware that they could make a one-hour bus journey to Cardiff for work. For many of us, that echoes Lord Tebbit’s comments about getting on your bike. The Secretary of State’s comment was of exactly the same order, and many people felt that it was a disgusting insult to the unemployed in the area. People are well aware that they can get a bus, but there is no point getting a bus to Cardiff when there are many people out of work in Cardiff who are also looking for a job.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she accept that it is different for people with disabilities who are made redundant? A man in my constituency has a facial disfigurement so bad that he could not use public transport, go into a restaurant or do the normal things that other people do. Remploy was the only place that he had and the only thing that kept him sane. He is now locked in his bedroom with the curtains closed, more or less, and has nowhere to go.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. Is her experience similar to mine? I visited the Remploy factory in my constituency twice and spoke to the people working there. They had enormous pride in the work that they were doing. When I discussed with them how they felt about going into the open market and working in another environment, their answer was categorically, “No. We like working in this particular environment. It’s safe, they understand our needs and it’s more comfortable for us.”
Ann Clwyd
I cannot emphasise enough the pride that people who work in Remploy factories have in their work. They do not want to sit there doing nothing—they want to work—but one of the problems with procurement, or the lack of it, is that too many of them are sitting, waiting for work that has not come. Members may have seen the recent lists of those local authorities that are procuring work through Remploy factories and those that are not. Some local authorities in this country are not getting any work done by the Remploy factories in their area, which is a tragedy.
In a period in which unemployment is rising, it is pie in the sky and cruelly misleading to suggest that expanding the Access to Work programme will result in more work for disabled people. In my area, people would like any opportunity to work, but it is particularly difficult for disabled people and always has been. I remember when the disablement resettlement officers tried to get work for disabled people and how difficult it was for them in a very different environment from the one we are in now.
Remploy is at a crossroads. All 54 Remploy factories are under threat of closure when the current public funding ends in April 2013. The threat is compounded by the factories being deliberately run at 50% of their capacity. It is crucial that, instead of deliberately running down the factories in order to, in my opinion, justify closure, an alternative Government strategy is devised to maintain funding and enable individual factories to secure work.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
In the House a couple of months ago, I asked the Minister a similar question about the factories. An allegation has been made that, although the performance of the factories varies from place to place, some are actually turning work away, perhaps in order to create the self-fulfilling prophecy of being financially inviable. The Minister said that she had not heard that that is the case, but has my right hon. Friend heard that it is? Since that exchange in the House, the allegation has continued to be made. When we talk about viability, it is important to establish whether that is what has been happening.
Ann Clwyd
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. I received a letter about half an hour ago from my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), who would have liked to have been present but could not make it. He wants me to mention the Cleator Moor factory in his constituency and says that it has operated very successfully for many years and currently has a large order book. Some factories, therefore, have large order books and are, in fact, turning work away.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for calling for this very important debate. The Bridgend factory is in a similar position. It has a long-standing relationship with Ford and is currently bidding for a new contract with it, but it is in the difficult position of not knowing what its future holds and whether it will in fact be there and be able to fulfil that contract, if it is awarded to it. It then faces the problem of whether it will be allowed, if successful, to recruit more disabled people to work at the factory. That insecurity is affecting the whole of the work force.
Ann Clwyd
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Uncertainty is having a very bad effect, both on the morale of the people who work in the factory and on that of their relatives. Everybody will want to make points about their particular areas and factories. Before I take another intervention, I want to mention the last round of redundancies in the Aberdare Remploy factory in 2008. Of the 18 disabled employees who took voluntary redundancy, only one person ever returned to work, although many others would have liked to have had a job and were able to have one had one been available.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
I call Mr Bryant. It would help me if only one Member stood up at a time.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is my constituency neighbour, because uncertainty is even affecting those Remploy offices, such as that in Porth in Rhondda, that have a very strong record and a very strong order book. It seems a dereliction of duty if the very strong parts of the business end up being undermined just because clarity is not provided.
Ann Clwyd
I could not agree more. I have two quotes, the first of which is from the general secretary of Unite:
“This report spells the death knell of Remploy factories—it is a blueprint to run-down and close the factories. The government needs to commit itself to making substantial pump-priming available to guarantee that the plants become successful as businesses in their own right—they won’t succeed without such cash.
The prospect for those who will have to battle it out for mainstream jobs is grim—it is a major blow for them. What will happen is that disabled people will be at the back of the employment queue and when they do succeed in finding work, too often, they are bullied and forced out of work. It is a vicious revolving door.”
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
In Aberdeen, we have a factory that struggled for a number of years, but in the past two years or 18 months it has turned itself around and is now going great guns, with new orders and new businesses. In fact, it has managed to rent out some of the factory to other businesses and social enterprises, so things are really looking up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a supreme irony that, at the very point at which the Aberdeen factory looks, for the first time in many years, to have a successful future, it should be undermined by a decision taken by the Government?
Mark Hendrick
The factory in Preston recycles computer equipment—if any business is sustainable in the foreseeable future, it is the recycling of computer equipment. The factory is running at only half its actual capacity, which makes me think, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) has said, that there is work out there, but the factory is just not receiving it. That fact of the matter is that, when I have spoken to the workers, they have said that they feel that they are being condemned to a life of unemployment. The chances of getting work are negligible, and this signals the death knell for what has been recognised as a very important company since the war.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Following on from what has already been said, I have visited the Remploy factory in my constituency so many times that I am almost on first-name terms with most of the work force, which has, unfortunately, shrunk from about 100 to perhaps 50. The management, the trade unions and the work force have made it clear that, if the factory closes, it is highly unlikely that the majority of the work force will find alternative employment. Is that also the situation in my right hon. Friend’s constituency?
Ann Clwyd
I suspect that the situation is exactly the same in all our constituencies.
The GMB union, which also represents Remploy employees, argues that the voluntary redundancy scheme is not the answer
“to the real problems facing factory based supported employment in Remploy.”
It argues that the structure of Remploy is
“top heavy with senior managers and millions of pounds can be saved”
by reducing the numbers of managers and associated costs, such as their bonuses.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is touching on the balance of posts within Remploy and whether the organisation is top heavy, and I share those concerns. Does she also share my concern that, if people are cast adrift—that is how families in my constituency feel about potentially not being able to go to Remploy—there will be the considerable additional costs, both to local authorities and the Government, of those people not being available and in work? Is she aware of any cost-benefit analysis that is being done by the Government to look at that impact?
Ann Clwyd
Again, many years ago when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I wrote a report for that Parliament on the social consequences of unemployment. I have been trying to dig out that particular report from the terrible filing system of my office, because, as I remember, the conclusions are absolutely as apt today as they were then. Nothing has changed in about 25 years. The conclusions will be exactly the same.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Penzance Remploy factory in my constituency was one of those that managed to survive the closure programme under the previous Government. It has, indeed, been very offended by some of the remarks in the Sayce report about what goes on in the factory. On Remploy potentially having top-heavy management, it is very telling that many of the successful contracts that have been carried out by the textile factory at Penzance have, in fact, been won by the disabled people themselves. That is very telling and shows that those disabled people have demonstrated a great deal of dynamism and ability at the factory level.
Ann Clwyd
That is a very important point, because the quality of the work produced is also excellent. A focus on procurement is therefore key to the future development of the Remploy factories.
The unions argue that Remploy’s capacity has been driven down through bad management, making it possible for the Government to claim that Remploy is not working. If orders are gained through effective procurement policies, which they are in some areas, the unions argue that factories can work at full capacity and that they can be viable. Surely, the future of Remploy can be secured by enabling each individual factory to procure work and to work with other Remploy factories, if needs be.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, when I visited the Swansea factory in the spring, it was running under-capacity. I therefore visited the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority, the local authority, the university and the health authority. That factory is now running at full capacity with much higher margins. Does that not illustrate that there is a strategic problem and that there is an over-centralisation of UK management instead of sales teams being devolved to enable local factories to pick up orders from large clients based locally?
Ann Clwyd
I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. He wrote a very good article in the Western Mail last week on Remploy. I commend that article to my hon. Friends.
Remploy in Aberdare has failed to provide sufficient support to the factory since its so-called reprieve in 2008. Despite assurances, Remploy management have never made a concerted effort to make the Aberdare factory viable. There is a team of national sales staff—this picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies)—but they are all based in England and have generated little or no new work for the Aberdare factory. It is that model of procurement that urgently needs to change.
Across Remploy as a whole, major savings could be made by dealing with the over-staffing of management and senior management, the majority of whom are able-bodied. Savings could also be made by cutting the use of expensive outside consultants. The Sayce report suggested that Remploy factories could be taken over by worker co-operatives or mutuals. I hope that that is not just a cynical attempt by the Government to wash their hands of the Remploy factories. If there were an attempt to push a new model on Remploy without prior consultation or consent, it would obviously reflect very badly on the Government and be viewed as heavy-handed and top-down. Despite being among society’s most vulnerable people, disabled people should be treated like anybody else with dignity and respect.
Before the summer holidays, when I went to see the Secretary of State—the Minister was there as well—about my own factory, I questioned the quality of the information being provided by Remploy senior management, including to the Government. That was confirmed by a comment made during our meeting. It was said that my factory in Aberdare was part of the furniture business. I said, “Well, that’s news to me.” When I went to the factory a few days later, the people there confirmed that they do not make furniture—they make window boxes. I suppose that window boxes are furniture to some people, but they are not normally considered to be furniture.
The Aberdare factory still manufactures some items for the health care business. That was one of the main things it did that was taken away from it some years ago as a result of some fatuous reasoning. The manufacture of those items was transferred to Chesterfield. I have no objection to people in Chesterfield having a job, but not at the expense of my own factory. As I have said, we still manufacture some items for the health care business, including a subcontracted footwear contract from the Chesterfield factory. That seems to be a rather ridiculous situation that is like a sort of yo-yo approach. There is also a bra pocketing service and the manufacture of lumber supports. So the factory was not making furniture, and I question some of the things that are said to happen in certain places.
Finally, according to the economists, we know that unemployment is on course to hit 3 million for the first time in 20 years. It is clear that wide-ranging job cuts in the public sector are simply not being absorbed by the private sector. Those jobs are just not there in the private sector. It is the hallmark of a civilised society that it ensures that its most vulnerable people are protected. Those people should not be left to compete in a savage labour market, where hundreds of thousands more people will lose their jobs in the coming months. It will be hard enough for the able-bodied, but please let us safeguard Remploy and all who work within it.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Order. Before we begin the rest of the debate, a number of hon. Members clearly wish to speak—about a dozen Members have indicated to me that they wish to contribute. I remind colleagues about the time available for the discussion, even if we try to squeeze in the reply period. A bit of internal discipline from colleagues would be extremely helpful. Thank you. I call Mr Stephen Lloyd.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for securing the debate. It is interesting to note that when I saw the subject, I had a couple of conflicting thoughts. One thought was, “Stephen, if you speak in this, you can pretty much guarantee that it will be you against the massed ranks. Do you really want to do that considering that you have been an MP for a mere year and a half?” The other thought was, “You should contribute because you really believe that what you have to say is right.” I am glad to say that, in my judgment, I chose the latter.
It is a privilege to speak in this very important debate. I have been involved with the issue, on and off, for nigh on 19 years. I would like to tell the Chamber a little bit about Liz Sayce, who wrote the report. In the field of disability, Liz Sayce is held in tremendous respect and regard by both disabled and non-disabled disability consultants. I hope that even if the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley disagrees fundamentally with the review, she agrees that Liz Sayce knows of what she speaks with regard to disability. I have had the privilege of knowing her for many years.
I am fully aware that this is a debate against the closure of Remploy factories, but I want to take the opportunity to make the case for something I feel profoundly exercised about: supporting disabled people to realise their employment potential. An outsider might think that the Sayce review is solely about closing Remploy factories. In my judgment, it is not about that. It is about the future of disability employment support and making sure that the money is used where it makes a real difference to as many disabled people as possible. It is also about disabled people’s employment aspirations as well as, crucially, society’s attitude towards disabled people.
There is a story to be celebrated, which is that disabled people’s employment levels have risen significantly in recent years, especially among disabled graduates. I remember, years ago, campaigning for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when John Major was Prime Minister. Compared with where we were 15 years ago, where we are today might as well be a completely different planet. Disabled people have higher aspirations, are increasingly breaking through the job market, and are rightly becoming ever more visible in public life. The increase in support for disabled people, and new employment rights and changed attitudes towards disabled people have certainly helped.
Since 1994, Access to Work has helped tens of thousands of disabled people to get a job or stay in a job, despite its being called Whitehall’s best secret. At this juncture, I pay tribute—so that it will be in Hansard—to the enormous investment that the Labour Government put into Access to Work. Many years ago, I remember meeting the then Minister with responsibility for disability, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge); another former Minister is in the Chamber today—the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who I knew in my previous life. They put tremendous investment into Access to Work, for which I have always been very grateful.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 secured rights for disabled people to be free of discrimination. Those rights have been strengthened, most recently through the Equality Act 2010. Furthermore, the UN disability rights convention, signed and ratified by the UK Government, explicitly recognises the right of disabled people to work in open employment. Earlier this month, an organisation I know very well, the Employers’ Forum on Disability, celebrated 20 years of achievement and very hard work on behalf of disabled people. It supports its members, companies and organisations large and small to become disability confident, thus making it easier to recruit and retain disabled employees, and to serve disabled customers properly. Its members, and many other employers, are committed to breaking down barriers, because they recognise that it benefits them to tap into that huge pool of talent. They know that employees—disabled and non-disabled—function better in an environment where everybody is treated with respect, and where they get the support they need.
The EFD, and other organisations, know it is not the disability, but the person that matters—otherwise known as the social model of disability. My very good colleague, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, has, like me, been campaigning for the social model for a long time. When I first started doing so with other disabled people, we were seen as if we were talking double Dutch. There is much greater understanding of the social model of disability today.
Despite that progress, 50% of disabled adults of working age remain unable to access paid work. This is 2011. What a shocking waste of talent and experience. The figure is probably even higher for certain disabilities, such as profoundly deaf British sign language users, and those with mental health issues and other specific disabilities.
Dame Anne Begg
I call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we have served on the Select Committee together. During the recent visit of the Committee to the Port Talbot-Neath Remploy, we met a group of pupils and a teacher from a local special school who were getting work experience in that factory—the only place where those youngsters could possibly get any kind of work experience. In the Aberdeen factory, the Remploy employment service is now in the factory, and the factory provides work experience places for people with disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a role for the factories to help to support disabled people in obtaining experience that they can then use to access open employment, or other employment opportunities?
Stephen Lloyd
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I agree entirely. Later on in my speech, I have a cunning plan about how Remploy could be better used, and that was a very good example.
There is a real need to step up the level of support available to disabled people, as well as tackling outdated and ignorant attitudes among career advisers and employers. I heard a good example only a couple of weeks ago. One of my constituents complained to me about the cost of fitting
“all these wheelchair ramps into shops.”
I agreed wholeheartedly on the proviso that rather than spending all that money providing, say, escalators for non-disabled people to use at underground stations, why do we not just chuck a rope over the edge so that they can climb up? I think I lost that chap’s vote, but there you go.
How best can we support disabled people into sustainable employment? That is the $64,000 question. The Sayce review makes a recommendation on how the coalition Government can use the £330 million budget for specialist disability employment support to help more disabled people into employment, and to help more effectively disabled people already in employment. This is the key: employment and retained employment. Currently, that budget is spent on Remploy, Access to Work and residential training colleges. To my mind, after years of studying these things, there are three key issues at stake: how our resources can be best used to help as many people as possible in the most effective way; whether disabled people should be supported in open employment or whether there is a place for sheltered employment; and how the future of current Remploy workers can best be protected.
On the first point, I offer some facts. We are spending five times as much on a Remploy worker as on a disabled person in open employment, yet with the right support, disabled people can have real careers—I know many disabled people who do—alongside their non-disabled peers in the open workplace. They are similarly skilled, similarly unskilled, similarly bright, and similarly less so. In fact, they are pretty similar to all of us here, but with different needs.
Mrs Moon
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that currently spending on a Remploy worker is five times more than on a worker in an ordinary job. Does he not agree that part of the problem has always been the high level of expenditure on consultants, the high level of over-management, and the high cost to each individual Remploy factory for central services? It is the management structure of Remploy, not the workers, that makes Remploy more expensive. Let us remember that and stop criticising the workers and start criticising the management structure and framework.
Stephen Lloyd
What is so hilarious is that I have been doing that for a long time. That point was being made years ago, when the previous Government were in charge. Yes, there is a grain of truth in it—of course there is. Remploy is top-heavy and sclerotic, but that is ancient history. I remember exactly the same argument when Labour was in charge. There is an issue and I will come to it later. We need to be smarter in the way we use Remploy, but that particular tack is so ancient, that if it was on the floor it would curl over and die.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Another point that has not been made so far is that disabled people and disabled workers are not a homogeneous group, and disabilities vary enormously. One can see people with mild disabilities in open employment, and they may not require much subsidy, but those with more serious disabilities need protected workshops, such as those at Remploy.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that incredibly important point. The variability of the support that disabled people need is absolutely vast—it is like a length of string. Let me give an example. I missed a vote a few months after I was elected, because I did not hear the Division bell, which is not surprising, because I am half deaf. What was the solution? I made an adjustment in my office in Norman Shaw North, and I now have a flashing light there; it is not complicated, but there are some advantages. Of course, a lot of us in this Chamber sometimes appreciate it if we do not hear the Division bell, but that is by the bye.
However, that is a good example of what we are talking about. My disability is pretty minor—I have been hard of hearing ever since I got measles when I was six or seven years old—and one can accommodate it quite easily. However, someone with, say, profound mobility problems will need more support than someone like me, and someone with severe mental health issues will need even more support. I therefore entirely agree that this is not black and white, and it is not easy to pigeonhole people. If Access to Work is done properly, however, and there are other supporting mechanisms, it can be very effective, even for people with a profound disability, as I will explain a bit later.
Remploy employs 2,800 people, whereas Access to Work currently supports 37,000 and could support 70,000 if the budget were used better. Furthermore—this is unpopular but important—there are few new entrants to Remploy factories, as more and more disabled people are supported in moving to open employment. Given what the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley said, I am absolutely certain that some of the factories in the group are, despicably, not taking on some of the disabled people they should be; I cannot prove that, but I am sure she is right. However, one of the main reasons they are not taking on as many disabled people as they used to is that more and more of those who want to work are getting support to help them move into open employment.
Geraint Davies
Swansea Remploy, which I mentioned, is very productive and effective, but the voluntary redundancy scheme there and elsewhere was in danger of taking key people out of the production chain. Currently, Remploy’s management has imposed a virtual employment freeze; the factory is, for instance, looking for a design technician, which is holding back orders. In other words, the Government and Remploy’s management are preventing Remploy from succeeding, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am not sure it is true. That is the same situation as we had years ago—it really is. These things have not come out of the woodwork under this Government.
Geraint Davies
I got that information first hand on a visit to Remploy in Swansea last week. It has a showroom and it is getting new people in ordering things, but it faces production constraints because it cannot recruit the right people. It wants to recruit more people and to be more successful, but it is being held back.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. As I will explain later, the Remploy model needs changing. Remploy’s corporate size is a disadvantage and makes it very sclerotic, so it cannot move swiftly to adapt to circumstances. The Government need to be more creative about how Remploy factories and branches within the corporate body act. I do not deny what the hon. Gentleman says—indeed, I am sure it is true—but I guarantee that it could have been said 10 years ago. I absolutely promise that, because I know the subject.
Mark Hendrick
The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that he feels that what has been said about the Remploy management is a specific criticism of this Government, but the management was equally inefficient and incompetent under the Labour Government. The issue is that some people are so profoundly disabled that they will never find mainstream employment, while there is a possibility that the majority he is talking about will get employment through Access to Work, even though that is extremely unlikely given the current level of unemployment.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I disagree. We are in a different place from where we were a few years ago. Things will be challenging, and I wish the heck we were not in the economic mess we are in. However, I know from experience that people with certain disabilities would never have been employed 10 years ago, yet some of them are being employed now. None the less, I appreciate that things are challenging.
The reality is that, whether we like it or not, the global economy has restricted the market for Remploy factories, as the National Audit Office identified as early as 2005. As I said, Remploy’s overall corporate business model makes it impossible to generate a workable profit even from the parts of the business that are viable. I therefore accept that Remploy’s model is sclerotic, and it needs to be changed if Remploy is to have any success in the future. I will move on, because a lot of people want to speak.
We must be flexible. The economic climate dictates that, but it is also the right way for disabled people. We all know that we are living in incredibly difficult times, which is why it is even more important that disabled people receive individualised support to get jobs and stay in work. Access to Work is a shining example. Today, every Access to Work recipient brings in, on average, £1.48 for every £1 spent—a real success story.
We can take the steps necessary to prevent upwards of 300,000 people from losing their jobs each year for reasons of disability. Many could keep their employment if they got the right support and if Access to Work were promoted to them better via employers and health professionals.
Making Access to Work available to people taking up internships, apprenticeships and work experience could help to address the scandalously low employment rates among young disabled people, who are twice as likely as non-disabled young people to be not in education, employment or training. At present, they cannot even get their first chance of work, because Access to Work does not cover internships, work experience and apprenticeships. I am convinced they must be given that opportunity.
The reality is that there are many things we can still do, even in hard times, to increase equality. I would go so far as to say that it is even more important in difficult times to push, promote and advocate the case for disability equality. Let me take this opportunity to ask the Minister directly—no, we did not agree this beforehand, believe you me—whether the Government will commit to a clear action plan to improve and promote Access to Work in line with the recommendations of the Sayce review.
The second issue is whether disabled people should be supported in open employment—this is important—or whether there is a place for sheltered employment. Having disabled people living, studying and working alongside non-disabled people is vital to achieving a more cohesive society. Therefore, it concerns me that this might be a debate over whether we should have sheltered or open employment, when it is more than that: it is about equality of access, as well as equality of opportunity; it is about giving more disabled people the tools and the power to run their own lives. For sure, there was a place for sheltered employment after world war two, when disabled people were routinely segregated, and sheltered employment was one of the few means for disabled people to earn an income, but that was almost 70 years ago.
It is worth bearing in mind the goal of Remploy’s founder, the extraordinary George Tomlinson MP.
Kelvin Hopkins
The hon. Gentleman is talking about when Remploy was first established in the 1940s. During the war, everybody was employed, and there was also full employment for a period after the war. If Remploy was necessary then, it is surely even more necessary when we have high unemployment, as we have now.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. George Tomlinson’s goal was to help disabled people to secure open employment and to lead full lives, and the Remploy factories existed as a short-term solution for rehabilitation and learning new skills. Tomlinson never intended them to be places where disabled people stayed for long. As Andrew Lee, chief executive of People First, who happens to have a learning disability, has said:
“People with learning difficulties want the chance to have the same job opportunities as everyone else. Organisations such as Remploy that segregate disabled people will not provide the opportunities to work that disabled people want for the 21st Century.”
Surely, therefore, in this modern world, there is something wrong—we are back to Remploy—when workers are mostly disabled, but managers are mostly non-disabled. Many disabled people successfully run their own businesses, employing disabled and non-disabled people, so can it be right that we support in 2011—solidify, even—such an old-fashioned, paternalist attitude towards people with disabilities?
Andrew George
I respect the bravery of the case that my hon. Friend is making, although I have not necessarily come to the same conclusions. Recommendation 5 of the Sayce report emphasises choice for disabled people. One choice should surely be the stepping-stone of sheltered workshops. The problem with the recommendation is that, if the funding follows the disabled person, the money will not be in place to provide either the certainty or the capital investment to ensure that sheltered workshops will continue to exist, to provide that choice.
Stephen Lloyd
My understanding is that if the money follows the person—if, hypothetically, 15 people work in a workshop and the money follows them—that will be inclusive within the budget. I would be willing to check that. The key, for me, is that it is time finally to address the low expectations that some disabled people have, as well as to challenge stigma that comes from outside. That is why it is so important that disabled people should become more visible in open employment. We are in a completely different place from where we were 15 years ago, and I want to go five times further again.
Sayce identifies confident, well-informed disabled people as one of the key enablers to a successful disability employment support programme. Disabled people must therefore have access to the right support mechanisms and adjustments, as well as peer advice and mentoring. Often, where one disabled person has paved the way, others will follow. We have seen that many times. At Radar’s MP disability dialogue parliamentary reception a few months ago, a deaf man came up to me after I had spoken and said that seeing a hard-of-hearing MP inspired him. It gave him the confidence and belief that, one day, he could also become an MP, if he chose. His choice, his belief and his life: that is what it is all about.
I profoundly believe that we all deserve those things. It is our right, whatever challenges we face, to aspire to be whatever we want to be, as long as society provides the right support to level the playing field—not to be given an unfair advantage, but just to be given the chance. I am convinced that there is an enormous well of disabled talent, which we must unlock. One of my reasons for coming into politics was to help to unlock that talent and to play a role, however small, in the mother of Parliaments, in making that difference.
Perhaps I can give hon. Members an idea of the size of the pool of talent: despite the good work that the previous Government did, shockingly, in 2011, more than 3 million disabled people are out of work— 3 million, for pity’s sake. That is an absolute scandal. If the whole budget for disability employment programmes were spent on evidence-based programmes such as Access to Work, many more disabled individuals would get the support that they need. We cannot just keep accepting the status quo.
If the budget were used better, we could double the number of people getting Access to Work to 70,000. Crucially, that would also send a clear message that the nation was no longer prepared to allow such waste and was determined to do what it takes to change a deplorable status quo. In the process, I am certain that a doubling in numbers could be the catalyst to a transformation in the area of disability. Bluntly, although I am sure that the Minister will not thank me for increasing her budget exponentially, I will not be satisfied until 1 million additional disabled people get into jobs through Access to Work. I leave the Minister to work out the sums. In the process, the Exchequer’s tax receipts would go through the roof.
Thirdly, and equally importantly, how can the future of current Remploy workers best be protected? Again I will give some facts. There may be reasons for them, whether or not they are appropriate, but they are facts. About half of Remploy workers at any given time have no work. They are being paid for doing nothing. Is not it much more fulfilling for someone to be paid for what they do, rather than because they are a disabled person in a Remploy factory?
I do not know whether anyone here has ever been in receipt of paternalistic charity, but I would lay odds that it is not a good feeling. I remember years ago a close friend of mine, who is a wheelchair user, explained to me that if he was insulted by, say, an idiotic and ignorant member of the public, he would feel anger. It was not something he enjoyed, but at least, as he explained, anger is empowering. He felt in charge, and that he was fighting his corner. What crucified him was when he was patronised—when a waiter in a restaurant perhaps talked to his wife about what he wanted to eat, rather than directly to him. What did he feel then? He felt shame, because that is what human beings feel when they are routinely talked down to. Although my friend knew that it was the non-disabled person who was at fault and who was ignorant, he still felt the shame. I ask hon. Members what they would rather feel: shame, or anger? I know my answer.
The subsidy could be better used to transform Remploy factories into individual viable businesses and to support more Remploy workers into open employment. The money freed up could then be used for more individualised support for disabled people. It is true that past transitions, under previous Governments, have utterly failed some Remploy employees because of insufficient individual planning and support, so it is vital that we learn from those mistakes and do things properly this time.
I urge the Minister to ensure that disabled individuals working in Remploy factories are fully involved and to offer them personalised support, not only with employment but also with family and community life. I call on the Minister to do things right this time, if we go down that road. If the Government do that, I believe that tremendous good will come from the Sayce review, and serious life-changing work will be done on cutting that grotesque figure of 3 million disabled people not in employment. Let us grasp the nettle and begin the journey. Let us make that difference, so that disabled people can be what I know they are—the equal of any of us in the Chamber today.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Order. Before further debate, hon. Members can, clearly, look at the clock and do the mathematics as well as me. It was important to balance debate, and Mr Lloyd took several interventions. However, I ask the hon. Members on my list who want to speak to plan for about five minutes, including interventions.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Strongly as I feel about the issue, Mr Havard, I shall bear your advice in mind. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on obtaining this important and timely debate. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to meet a short time ago to talk about the factory in my constituency, which I appreciated.
I want to make the general point that it would be completely wrong and inaccurate to portray people who want to defend Remploy and keep Remploy factories open as opposing change and modernisation. I speak for myself, but I am confident that no one taking part in the debate, from whatever side, wants an old-fashioned model of factory life for any disabled person. There is no conflict between wanting to keep Remploy factories open and wanting Remploy employment services to do well. For those who can get into mainstream employment, that is great. I want the organisation to work well, but it is not for everybody. It is not an either/or question, but a both/and question. That is an important point.
The Wythenshawe factory in my constituency does print work and fulfilment work. I pay tribute to the manager, Mike Tarry, his predecessor, Alan Reeves, and Brian Anderson, the trade union rep there for many years. I worked closely with all of them. Altogether, there are 21 staff, 19 of whom are disabled. Their employment is life-changing for them and their families—we should not forget their families. That those people can go out and get a full-time job takes pressure off the family and gives parents a real sense of pride in their adult children, seeing what they can do in the world of work.
Four years ago, when the Wythenshawe factory was on a list, facing closure, I pulled together a support and action group including local housing trusts, the local hospital, Manchester airport and a number of private companies in my constituency such as Authentic Food Co., Virgin and Select Service Partner—serious organisations. We came together for two things: first, to save the factory, which, thankfully, we managed to do; and, secondly, not simply to congratulate ourselves on a successful campaign but to work with the factory to build up more sales and business. Based on that experience of the past four years, I want to make three points to the Minister, which I hope that she will bear in mind, along with the many others that will be made.
First—this has already been touched on—local factories must be given more autonomy and control over their budgets and business plans. There is no contradiction in making that argument and saying that we need Remploy to remain in place. The Wythenshawe factory contributes £135,000 to the central coffers of Remploy. It is particularly galling that the £3,700 a month rate relief from Manchester city council goes not to the factory but to the central coffers of Remploy, which simply cannot be right. The manager, Mike Tarry, has already demonstrated over recent months the kind of savings that he can make and the efficiencies that he can drive. If he had more control over the whole of his budget, he would drive efficiencies that, frankly, the centre of Remploy has failed to do.
Secondly, every Remploy factory should be a flagship in its own community, which is certainly the ambition in Wythenshawe. The ambition of the manager and staff is that every year 50 people will get work experience in the factory, so people can work there not full-time or for ever but in the short term on the road back to mainstream employment. People can use the experience of the factory in a variety of ways. The factory is about not only the long-term employment of 21 disabled people but all the other opportunities. My constituency has double the national average for people on incapacity benefit, and we need opportunities for disabled people to get back into work more than most. The idea of closing a factory as a way of getting more disabled people into work is ridiculous.
Finally, we, as Members of Parliament, all have a responsibility to promote our local Remploy factories. Let me give a couple of figures: this year, the Wythenshawe print factory will achieve its highest level of sales ever, £460,000; next year, sales are already predicted to be in excess of £600,000, including substantial contracts with JCB and the City Facilities Management part of Asda, which provides the in-house cleaning and so on for all its stores. Those are substantial contracts for the factory, and the trajectory of sales is upwards all the time. We work with the local authorities, other businesses, the hospital and the airport and airport companies to promote the business, so we are on the way. As has been said, however, the current uncertainty is making it difficult for the manger to get out there and to make sales, because people keep saying to him, “Aren’t you closing? What’s the point of doing business with you if you are facing closure?” So £600,000 sales have been predicted for next year, and if the factory can get sales up to £1 million a year, it will be self-sustaining and not need a penny from anyone.
I have a challenge for the Minister: locally, we are prepared to keep working to ensure that sales go up, but £250,000 of print from central Government would secure the future of the factory. Out of the millions of pounds that central Government must spend on print, that kind of figure must be possible. I openly admit that, when I was in government, we should have done more of that, but we did not. It now falls to this Minister to do more: £250,000 of print from central Government to the Wythenshawe factory would secure its long-term future without a penny of help or support from anywhere else. Then, perhaps, we can talk about different models of ownership, management and all the rest of it, but let us do so once we have the factory on a self-sustaining footing.
The idea that we should close factories to get more disabled people into work is preposterous. It is time for the Minister to be clear that that should not happen and that we should use the factories that we have as a basis for building a progressive and better future for disabled people in work.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on obtaining this timely debate, which has given hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on employment for disabled people and on how it affects their constituencies. The right hon. Lady reminisced about her time in the European Parliament, and I delivered a few leaflets for her in her election campaign, although by the time she stood for Westminster, in a by-election a few years later, I was on the other side. If I say that I am on her side today, it is to support the spirit of her argument.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), because he showed considerable courage to speak from his personal experience and from his experience of working with disabled people throughout the country as well as in his constituency. This afternoon, his contribution achieved something that is rarely seen in the House, because, to an extent, he changed the mood of the debate. He might not have carried everyone with his full argument, but he changed the mood.
I recently visited the Remploy factory in Baglan and was amazed to see the good work going on and the excellent materials being turned out. It is a furniture part of Remploy, and it produces laboratory equipment and equipment for schools, the Ministry of Defence and a number of other public sector bodies. I met representatives from the factory today, and I was told that they have a good order book and are putting on an extra shift. In its new way, Remploy can not only deal with employing people with disability but play an important part in the local economy.
I do not have a Remploy factory in my constituency, because, sadly, it was closed by the previous Government. I have seen a BBC press report that said that it is not closing but merging with the operation in Baglan, but I can tell the Chamber that it did not feel like that in Ystradgynlais when it was closed. A lot of people in my constituency still feel bitter, because many felt that they could not travel down to Baglan, took the redundancy and have not been able to find employment since. A number transferred to Baglan, and I met them when I visited. They are gainfully employed and enjoying that experience. Indeed, their families have written to me to say how desperate it would be for them if they did not have that opportunity in future.
My visit to the Remploy factory in Baglan was an extraordinarily positive experience on a number of levels. The operation is outward rather than inward looking, and it engages with the community. Many of the employees are taking training opportunities in local colleges, but the factory is also providing work experience for pupils with disability, so they can see what opportunities might be available to them not only in that factory but in the broader working market. It would be a real sadness if the facility closed down. It would be a loss not only for the people employed there, but for other people, who see it as an example of how disabled people can come into the workplace.
None of us disagrees with the argument that people with disabilities should have access to the broader market labour market. In more benign employment times, when employers came to me to say that they were short of people to work in their facility, factory, restaurant and so on, I have encouraged them to take a wider approach to labour recruitment and to recruit people whom they may not have believed could play a part in their business because of their disability or other needs. Those employers were rewarded with a talented, skilful and loyal work force as a result of broadening their recruitment process. There is a role for workplaces such as those provided by Remploy, and I shall be very disappointed if the Government cannot see that as part of providing work experience for people with disabilities.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting this important issue for debate today and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and other colleagues on their powerful advocacy in support of Remploy. I apologise, Mr Havard, for having to leave early this afternoon, because I have a long-standing appointment.
Remploy workers have my wholehearted support. I know from the packed lobby of Remploy staff in Parliament in October that there is backing for them throughout the country, and I congratulate the GMB and Unite on their sustained and high-profile campaign on their behalf. Workers at the lobby were rightly furious about the prospect of losing their jobs.
The Abertillery Remploy factory in my constituency was opened in 1949, and in 1955 one of my illustrious predecessors, Rev. Llewellyn Williams, called on Ministers to ensure that it operated at full capacity, which was then 100 workers. Today, it has just 21 workers. Abertillery Remploy manufactures upholstery for wheelchairs, and it does a good job, but it needs more contracts and a management that properly sell the skills of its first-class work force.
The world has changed much since the 1950s, and the drive for full equality for disabled people is to be supported. In her review, Liz Sayce said that she wanted employment support that would meet the future aspirations of disabled people in the context of a changing economy and the big changes in the way we all work. I wholeheartedly agree with her top-level analysis, which must be right. Others today have outlined the Sayce review recommendations, and there have been some good proposals, such as giving Remploy factories the opportunity to put forward plans to form new businesses or to retain existing ones. It is important that those ideas are independently evaluated.
Sayce also said that non-viable factories should close and that Government funding should end. However, is that really the most sensible strategy in the current economic climate and when there are few new jobs in the south Wales valleys? Recently in my home town of Tredegar in Blaenau Gwent, which is one valley over from Abertillery Remploy, 250 people applied for 25 jobs in a new Tesco store that is about to open.
Sheffield Hallam university has recently reported on the impact of incapacity benefit reforms in different parts of the UK. Its report estimates that by 2014 the reforms will cut incapacity claimant numbers by nearly 1 million, 800,000 of which will be existing incapacity claimants who will lose their entitlement. As many hon. Members are aware, people on incapacity benefits are not evenly spread throughout the UK. There are large variations from just 2.3% of the work force in Wokingham to 13.9% in Blaenau Gwent in the south-east Wales valleys. Wales, the north-west, the north-east and Scotland are the areas that will feel the greatest impact of incapacity benefit reforms. They are areas where deprivation is high, and economies are weak. I am fearful that Remploy closures in places such as Abertillery will lead to its workers moving not to private sector jobs with the appropriate support, but to joining the dole queue alongside former incapacity benefit claimants. That is the reality of what will happen in many parts of the country
The GMB has told us that the majority of Remploy workers who lost their jobs in 2008 are still unemployed, so if the factory closures go ahead by April 2013, the prospect for current Remploy workers is bleak. The Government continue to axe jobs, and their plans for growth are weak. If recovery is choked off, thousands of Remploy workers will be put on the dole alongside other workers so, as hon. Members have said, it is likely that they will claim benefits instead of paying taxes. That forecast is troubling. However, I believe that Remploy can have a future, but only if it is allowed to modernise with Government support. If we can offer Remploy more public contracts, we should do so. Above all, the Government should get back round the negotiating table with Remploy workers and trade unions.
As others have said, the Government should explore the use of Article 19 of the EU directive on public sector procurement, which specifies the right of public bodies to reserve some contracts for supported businesses such as Remploy, and I encourage other bodies involved in public procurement to utilise that directive. I have been told that in Blaenau Gwent the local council is doing what it can to boost public procurement and that it wants a meeting with Remploy management and the unions in the new year. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall draw my comments to a close. In a nutshell, it pays to care and to keep Remploy workers in work and off welfare. I hope the Government will listen today and do everything that they can to secure Remploy employment in the future.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the debate. It is extremely important at this time. I place on record my congratulations and thanks to the trade union consortium that has done everything it can with the work force at Remploy to try to ensure that there will be employment in future, and hopefully at Remploy factories. Trade unions are often vilified in the House for many things, but that is a great example of fine trade unionism.
In his lengthy contribution, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned George Tomlinson, who was the Member of Parliament for Bolton and set up Remploy shortly after the second world war to look after people who had been disabled in the war. The hon. Gentleman was very selective in his quotations from Mr Tomlinson all those years ago, and I shall be equally selective. He wanted factories that would enable disabled people to live full and ordinary lives. He also wanted secure, open employment. I believe that his objectives all those years ago were the same as the objectives now. Nothing has changed. That is all that disabled people want. They are not asking for the world.
Under the Sayce report, 54 factories nationally are facing closure, and that is an issue for the Government. I hope that debates such as this will convince them that that it is not the right thing to do. Since 2008, there have been between 3,750 and 4,000 voluntary redundancies in Remploy factories. During the same period, there was a huge increase in senior management and a huge decrease—about 50%—in the number of disabled people who were allowed to have employment in Remploy.
I want to mention the Ashington factory in my constituency, but in view of what you said, Mr Havard, I will be as brief as I can. Many people have rightly mentioned their own constituencies, sticking up for their constituents. The Ashington factory makes commercial and garden furniture. As has been mentioned, initiatives are being driven by the workers, who do the printing, produce their own catalogues and deliver leaflets where they can, while senior management at regional level—not local level—are doing absolutely nothing to ensure that people in the Remploy factories are at full production. So credit where credit is due to those individuals. All they want to do is work in the factory, but they see senior managers preventing them from doing so. It is a deliberate ploy. We are seeing it in other industries where people are basically strangulated and starved of work, which makes them look inefficient. It is not inefficiency; it is bad management.
The local team was fantastic. I also visited Newcastle Remploy in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon). I met every worker and spoke to each individual, and everyone was fantastic. I had a great time. I got a great letter from them—I will not read it out. It was inspiring to be in the Remploy factory speaking to the individuals. Many of them have given a lifetime’s service: 20, 25 or 30 years are not uncommon. They feel as though Remploy is in their blood. They feel they have given a lifetime to Remploy, so they do not want to be kicked in the teeth by the closure of the factory. Remploy has given them self-esteem and, of course, the independence that everybody wants.
I learned that the Ashington factory was bringing in young people from Cleaswell Hill special school in my constituency. They have severe learning disabilities, but it was agreed that for the first time in their lives, those young people could experience employment at Remploy in Ashington. It was a fantastic idea to bring those kids in. I spoke to them on a different occasion; many of them would not even respond when I first spoke to them. They had a tremendous experience. It was the first time that they had had the opportunity of any employment at all, albeit on a trial basis. I hope that Remploy will consider such schemes on a national basis so that we can look after the people who need that sort of work. We want to see such schemes extended. That is what Remploy is for: to look after people who have problems and who might not get work in mainstream employment.
The Sayce report will mean the closure of 54 factories. Up to 3,000 more disabled people will be on the dole, lacking opportunities. In Ashington, 33 or 34 people are applying for every single job. Where will that leave disabled people if they are made unemployed? They will have no chance of any employment whatever. We need to make sure that we look at that. The Remploy trade union consortium’s survey shows that there is very little chance of work. If we look at the survey from 2008 to the present, how many people have been re-employed? It is absolutely alarming. There are 2.65 million unemployed people at present. What will happen in future?
We must listen to the voice of carers and parents of the sons and daughters who have had opportunities in Remploy factories. They are pleading with the Government to keep the Remploy factories open. That will give individuals income, independence, self-respect and self-esteem. It also means that they are not benefit-reliant and are not classed as scroungers.
Evidence shows that unemployment leads to severe depression in many cases. I could go on, but I see Mr Havard is shaking his head, so I will finish by simply saying that there is a case of serious mismanagement in Remploy. The answer is to ensure that management are accountable. They should stop paying themselves average bonuses of £4,600 every year. They should stop taking money from individual factories to pay for grand offices up and down the country. They should invest the money in the work force at Remploy. Many things can be done to ensure that we continue to look after the people at Remploy. It is often said that a society can be judged by the way it looks after its most vulnerable people. We must look after the most vulnerable and keep the plants open.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) said that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) changed the tone of the debate. He did, because he made me bloody—sorry; pardon me, Chair—furious about the discussion. I have worked on this issue since I served on the first Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People when I worked for the TUC in the 1980s. That committee tackled discrimination against people with disabilities. I have met Remploy workers since that time. I have met no Remploy worker who is ashamed of working for Remploy and who feels that he or she is receiving charity. I have met no Remploy worker who has lower ambitions than anyone else in the rest of society. Most of the workers I have met are proud of working for the company, proud of earning a living and proud of supporting their families. It is a disgrace to try to depict them in any other way, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne implied.
The debate around supported employment that I have been involved in over the past 30 years is based on two issues. One concerns the integrationist debate. When I served on CORAD, I was a forceful integrationist, both in terms of employment and education. I was concerned about separate provision. Over time, one becomes a pragmatist. In reality, without the Remploy factories, as we have seen from the redundancies, large numbers of people would be unemployed. The redundancies prove that point: 80% of the 3,000 who have been made redundant in the past three years are now unemployed. They did not find alternative employment, despite all the commitments to identify alternative employment, training and support. As far as I am concerned, there will always be a role for supported employment in some form.
The second issue concerns how we sustain such employment and asks whether supported employment should stand on its own feet, be profit-making and require no support from the state. That will never do. It will always require, at some stage, a subsidy through direct income from the state or through public procurement. That is the reality. Otherwise, it means putting 2,500 people on the dole. Members here today have made very explicit what will happen in their constituencies. With 2.5 million people on the dole, those people will never see work in the lost decade that we face. We must face up to that.
[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]
Where do we go from here? We simply listen to the workers themselves. It is no use saying that these are hoary old arguments of a decade ago. They are old arguments, because no one listened then about the appalling management that was going on. There have been 40 consultants crawling over the business during the past few years. We think that anything between £5 million and £15 million has been used to employ consultants to come up with ideas, but no one has listened to the workers. Phil Davies and Les Woodward have done a fantastic job on behalf of the GMB, as has Jennie Formby on behalf of Unite. They have worked with Remploy workers to bring forward their alternative strategy, which identified a range of issues that Members have raised this afternoon: cut management costs, increase localised marketing, end centralisation, get consultants off people’s backs and let Remploy members make their companies as profitable as they possibly can. That is all they are asking for; it is called worker involvement and worker control. The Government say they may look at mutualisation and co-operatives. I quite like the idea of a co-operative approach, but I do not want it to be used as an excuse for cutting people adrift from public subsidy or the commitment of existing European legislation to encourage public procurement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has demonstrated what can be done at local level by touring public agencies and ensuring that contracts are won. It is that simple; it is about listening to Remploy workers, and not patronising them but working with them and getting off their backs.
I am fearful. This debate is not about the theories behind integration and separation; it is a fight for 54 factories that are about to close unless we have a change of attitude from the Government. The Government response to the Sayce report was to go at that report, which effectively means cutting those factories adrift, and if they cannot stand on their own two feet, they wither on the vine. That is the reality of this debate.
I conclude with a quote from a Remploy worker—such quotes are moving statements from people and human lives that have been put at risk. Kevin Davies has cerebral palsy and has worked at a production plant in Baglan for 21 years. He says:
“I have a role to play and I enjoy being here…I am working with nice people and there is an end product to my work. It has given me a quality of life and independence…Without Remploy I would be stuck in the house. Without it, where would I be?”
He would be unemployed and stuck at home like many of our constituents who are experiencing unemployment as a result of the redundancies so far. This is a fight for those factories, and if the workers want to fight with whatever means possible—industrial action; occupation—and we cannot persuade the Government to reconsider, I will be joining them.
Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)
I will begin by agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins): we are not against change or improvement, but we are against destruction, which is the big danger in this case.
On 1 December, I visited the Remploy e-cycle factory based at the Heywood distribution park, to which it moved from Radcliffe in Bury a couple of years ago. I was invited to celebrate the international day of disabled people and disabled workers and to present certificates to some long-serving employees. I was presented with a baton by the staff, which states:
“Help relay the message. Thousands of disabled people across the country are aiming high, achieving more and fulfilling their ambitions!”
That is the logo on the baton, which I intend to present to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) who is present in the Chamber today.
That was my second visit to the factory and it was intended to mark the achievements of disabled people in my constituency. The aim was to raise awareness about disability and to promote the fundamental rights of disabled people, so that they can be fully integrated into mainstream workplaces. That must happen, however, only when they feel ready for such as move and through their own choice.
There are 386 Remploy employees working in different factories in the north-west, and they do a fantastic job. The Heywood factory in my constituency repairs, cleans and recycles computers and laptops. E-cycle works closely with some Departments—I think that the Department for Work and Pensions is its largest customer, but there are others—and also with Manchester city council and Bury council, as well as a number of major private sector companies to which it provides electronic waste solutions and IT recycling. May I suggest to the Minister that more Departments provide work for and become customers of Remploy? Such a move would both support the system and be cost-effective.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2007, he initiated the modernisation programme, which we are not against, as I have said, and he provided £555 million to sustain it. When the present Government came to power, they invited the chief executive of Radar, Liz Sayce, to assess the situation. I have great respect for Radar and have worked with it on many issues. In this instance, however, I am concerned about the proposals to make the system more independent from the Government. That is similar to what is happening in the public sector across the board and seems to illustrate what the Government are planning in public sector service provision. The trade unions are unhappy with the Sayce report. They see it as a break-up of Remploy that could mean wholesale devastation in the system.
The Disability Alliance supports the Sayce report, which it sees as a way to introduce and integrate skilled disabled people into the workplace and the community, and I accept that. My experience of visiting a local factory, however, demonstrated to me that the present system offers a comfort zone to some vulnerable individuals and groups and that those people work confidently and feel comfortable in such a system. My local factory provides a highly-skilled service and runs a complex system. E-cycling is difficult. Cleaning laptops and refurbishing computers for industry, not only for the UK but for export, is a complex matter.
In my view, the changes envisaged by Sayce are premature and wrong, and they are happening when, as hon. Members have said, unemployment is increasing. Unemployment among disabled people is also rising, and now is the time for consolidation and support for the existing system, albeit an improved existing system.
The Remploy system need strengthening, and as I have already said, it would be good if more Departments, public sector organisations and local authorities put work the way of Remploy. It is important to retain the dignity of every Remploy employee, and to continue supporting them in the workplace. Unemployment is at its highest level for many years, and Remploy factories are threatened with closure at this sensitive time.
I have a personal interest in disability as I have two grandsons who are wheelchair bound. I want a system that will be there to support them when they reach working age and help them through life—that is not asking an awful lot.
I will conclude by stressing that the high level of support among Members who have Remploy factories in their constituencies and want to see Remploy remain sustainable has been illustrated by some of the strongly worded early-day motions that have been placed in the Table Office over the past few months. I think that Remploy management and the trade unions should be better consulted on the entire issue, because we are about to lose a very worthwhile service.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak. I have already said that active intervention locally can make a difference, and in my discussions with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the university and the health authority, we transformed the sales of the Swansea factory, quadrupled turnover and increased gross margins by tenfold. That is a case for more localised management and sales support and for removing the cap on overall marketing expenditure, which is less than 1% of turnover. All marketing literature must be checked by civil servants who have no idea about local needs.
My second point is about subsidies. The Sayce report states that the average subsidy is £23,000, but averages can be misleading. We all know that the cost of someone being unemployed is normally about £10,000 in benefits and lost tax. In the case of many of the people who work for Remploy, it would be much more because of the health on-costs. That needs to be properly evaluated financially.
Remploy works across a diverse range of markets. There is a case for focusing on whether there are greater growth opportunities and for examining the different business cases, rather than saying that it is a case of either closing all the factories or keeping them all and having no change. I do not think that anyone is arguing for no change.
There is a case for focusing on people with severe disabilities. Obviously, those with particularly severe disabilities need particular subsidies and support if they have virtually no chance of securing other forms of employment. There is a case for considering specific labour markets. In areas with very high unemployment, it is clear that those people will not get a job. There is a case for considering public procurement, as has been said.
It is also important to consider the specialist opportunities in relation to Remploy. For instance, Swansea Remploy is a specialist provider for young offender institutions in Scotland. It makes furniture that young offenders cannot destroy. They cannot break those things; there are no screws that they can pull out. It also provides furniture for mental institutions so that the residents cannot self-harm. The value is in tailor-made, focused transactions, where delivery is within budget and within the time frame. As I have already mentioned, it is important to ensure that key players and key skills are there to make the factories succeed.
People have mentioned that the factories provide an opportunity for training. Training is vital in manufacturing if we are to get back into growth and stop focusing completely on cuts. Clearly, if we just sell off the factories, we will see a fire sale of capital assets and the loss of the skills for ever. That is not sound financial management.
My basic theme is this. Let us focus on what works and make it work better. Let us accept that people with disabilities of varying sorts need subsidies. No one is saying that they can go off and succeed without any support. Let us use the levers at our disposal to make that work and stop just thinking about how we go about closing down 54 factories and making 2,500 people redundant. Those people are valuable assets in society, in our economy and in our future. Let us keep them doing that.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this Back-Bench debate, because for many months workers in the 54 Remploy factories across the country have been waiting for the Government’s decision about their jobs. Given the massive unemployment figures announced this week, I can only imagine that the anxiety felt by those workers has been heightened.
I am proud to say that my own union, the GMB, has been supporting the workers at Remploy and last month handed in a 100,000-name petition at 10 Downing street. Quite rightly, it called on the Government to save Remploy. There is clearly a place for trade unionism in modern Britain when workers face such an unfair fight.
I am speaking in the debate because one of the 54 factories, Remploy Newcastle, is in my constituency, at Benton Square industrial estate in Palmersville, and it has been on that site for the past 32 years. There are 57 full-time employees at the site; 55 of them have disabilities. Those workers produce bedroom furniture, bed bases and mattresses, and assemble and pack cable glands for CMP Products—a locally based company. In recent years, the factory has also provided very successful work placements for more than 100 trainees. In total, 90% of the work undertaken at Remploy Newcastle is for north-east companies. That factory is therefore very much part of our local economy.
Given the threat of the workers at Palmersville losing their jobs, through no fault of their own, I am sure that hon. Members will be able to understand why they are frustrated about the unnecessary redecoration of their factory and the change in Remploy colours, which has resulted in all signage and stationery being changed at the cost of thousands of pounds. They know that they have fantastic skills, including in upholstery, joinery and commercial sewing, but those skills are being wasted as they see their work being deliberately dried up. They and their unions are rightly angry that, during the past five years, more than £15 million has been spent across Remploy on consultants.
On behalf of the Remploy workers and the unions that support them, I ask the Minister to continue to fund Remploy, but instead of taking heed of the recommendations in the Sayce report, which makes no case for the future of Remploy, she should consider the alternative strategy set out by the consortium of trade unions. That strategy makes sense. It sets out a complete review of the whole structure of Remploy, which would result in a much more efficient, sustainable organisation.
Does the Minister really want to be responsible for ruining the livelihoods of so many disabled employees? Does she really want to risk her reputation by making her final decision based on the evidence of a report that many consider to be flawed? Does she have the courage to examine a real viable alternative that will not only save jobs, but create a more efficient organisation and support many local economies across the UK? Will she consider the alternative strategy set out by the consortium of trade unions?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. The hon. Members who are here have displayed a great deal of passion. Much of that passion is due to the fact that we have constituents who work in Remploy factories and that those factories are in our constituencies. When there was a proposal to close Wrexham Remploy, which I know very well, in 2007—a similar situation to that described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins)—I learned how strongly the work force felt about working in a factory with their colleagues in Wrexham. I also discovered how powerful the support in the Wrexham community is for the factory. A local councillor, David Bithell, led a campaign to keep the factory open, and for a number of weeks in Wrexham town centre a great deal of support was expressed from within the community.
Like my right hon. Friend, we took forward a campaign to get more work for the Wrexham factory, which involved more orders for the furniture being manufactured there. I am pleased to say that that approach has borne fruit, and only yesterday Wrexham council made the decision to take forward the purchase of furniture and equipment from the local Remploy factory. I cannot understand for the life of me why that has not been happening for the past 60 years, and it must be the model that we follow in the future. I am very pleased to see the Minister nodding her head in that respect, because the problem with the Sayce report is that it proposes a model that will take that opportunity away.
None of us wants a situation in which people are forced to work in Remploy factories, a situation in which we create ghettos for disabled people. We want choice for those people. My concern about the Sayce report is its implicit and explicit statements that the opportunity to work in individual factories, supported by the local community, will be taken away. There is a very superficial nod in the report to the possibility of individual factories remaining open. The report talks about how local factories will have the opportunity to survive in the private sector. Let me tell the Minister that many businesses are having a great deal of difficulty surviving in the private sector at present. Local Remploy factories are not being given the information to enable them to prepare to build up a meaningful business case for their own future.
I wrote to the Minister when I saw the proposal in the Sayce report and asked her for the details of the income and expenditure for the Wrexham Remploy factory, which is pretty basic in preparing a business plan, but she refused to give that to me. She said:
“Remploy operations continue as normal and it is therefore not appropriate at this stage to make available commercially confidential information on factory operations.”
How on earth can Remploy factories that are facing closure prepare for the future and try to put together meaningful business cases, when the Government, who propose to close them, will not give them the information that they need to take forward business plans? Will the Minister please start to recognise that the people who work in those factories and the communities around those factories feel passionately about them? Will she start to be serious about supporting the factories?
Individuals deserve a choice, but the Sayce report will take that away. The report suggests that there is no future for Remploy factories across Britain, but that is entirely the wrong decision. Will the Minister please ensure that she does not become known as the Minister who destroyed Remploy?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on forcefully making the case to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this debate. The debate has been extremely well attended, particularly by the Opposition, considering the many other distractions on a Thursday afternoon, including an important by-election.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for his fantastic work with the Fforestfach factory. He brushes over it lightly, but the work of going out to get all the public procurement, simply from a meeting back in March and in just three months over the summer, to change the situation of having virtually nothing in the order books to having those books absolutely full and going out to big purchasers, such as the national health service and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that there is work for that factory, shows what can be done.
I endorse the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who said that there is no divide between the factories and other schemes to help people get into work, and we need both mechanisms. In theory, nothing stops a worker in a Remploy factory from finding a job elsewhere, but the reality is defined by the shocking unemployment figures—an increase was announced yesterday, and further increases are predicted in the new year. Many Remploy factories are situated in unemployment hot spots. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who was present earlier, 20 people are chasing every single vacancy, and I know that many hon. Members have similar situations in their constituencies.
Remploy workers find themselves competing with a whole range of people who have been made redundant from public sector jobs and private sector companies that rely on securing sales contracts, which have been drastically cut, with the public sector. Many in the private sector are not surviving the economic disasters that we are encountering at the moment. All those people are looking for jobs, and people from Remploy factories find themselves in a difficult position, particularly if a large number of them are made unemployed at the same time. I am not patronising Remploy workers, because the same would be true if any other factory in my constituency were to close. If a large number of people with similar skills enter the jobs market together, they will have many difficulties in finding employment.
The key is economic growth. We are currently looking for mechanisms to create more jobs in the private sector, but we have seen little in the way of strategy from this Government. We have not seen an upsurge in the private sector, which is not creating jobs in the way it was supposed to. There do not seem to be any Government strategies for doing so. Where we have Remploy factories, infrastructure, machinery, products and some markets, why are we throwing all that away? It is nonsense. Every individual factory needs to be looked at carefully, and strategies need to be developed for each factory to maximise its potential, so that its products can be marketed properly.
Marketing seems to be key. If the marketing strategy is put right, as seems to be the case in Wythenshawe, Aberdeen and Swansea West, the purchases will come in and the order books will fill up. If we can do that, we can make the factories as viable as possible, and we can help to create jobs. If we do not do that, the on-costs and health costs of people being unemployed will be enormous.
We would do a much better job if we made the factories as viable as possible, while keeping the Government support at a sensible pace. We cannot turn the factories around overnight, but we can make them more economically independent and viable over a period. We would always welcome a mix of workers with disabilities and workers who do not have disabilities. That would bring people together, and we would like to see that mix, which is already happening in many factories. We want viable places, and we want the products that are made to be sold.
That brings me on to public procurement. Assembly Members have a policy by which they purchase their furniture from Remploy factories. I have purchased furniture from Remploy factories for my office. We need much greater awareness. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) asked why it has not happened before. Well, it used to happen, when there was a greater coming together of public purchasing. For example, local authorities once purchased everything for their schools together, before they began to have local management of schools and began to buy their own things in different ways. We need to return to the same sort of consortium purchasing, where we look at what is available or to make what is available more obvious. I have learned, even in this afternoon’s debate, of some products I did not know Remploy was involved in producing. There is a lack of awareness, because an awful lot of people just do not know what can be purchased.
Dame Anne Begg
When my Select Committee visited the Neath Port Talbot factory, we discovered that it had had full order books, because it had won a contract for Building Schools for the Future, which was, of course, cancelled by this Government. It was beginning to struggle a bit.
Nia Griffith
Absolutely. Remploy factories, just as many other private firms, have suffered considerably in the cuts to the construction programmes and Building Schools for the Future, which have kept much of the private sector going when the construction sector has been in absolutely dire times since 2008. That is an important point.
We need to look at public procurement policies thoroughly. We must encourage every single sector in public procurement to look at the whole range of products available from Remploy and conduct specific marketing on that. I am absolutely convinced that we can make the factories more viable by doing so.
Currently, we need continued support and an individual assessment of each factory to ensure that everything is being done to make each factory the best and most viable business possible. We also need a determined public procurement policy to save our Remploy factories.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I add my congratulations to those who have secured today’s debate.
This is a vital time for those facing threats to their supported employment, and indeed to their welfare, well-being, health and self-esteem. I shall curtail my comments because I endorse many of the points that have been made about procurement and management.
Why on earth should we abandon an existing state-funded model purely for ideological reasons when in many factories real dividends are patently being achieved? With modernisation, a lot more could be achieved. In Leven, Fife, in my constituency, Remploy marine division makes high-quality lifejackets and sells them at home and in international markets. It is highly competitive, and its order book is full. Yes, the company receives a Government subsidy for each employee, but as I said, Remploy is highly competitive. Its employees use their initiative and enterprise, and they are well-trained. Remploy remains in the vanguard in the development of a specialist, niche market. The subsidy is really an investment in people, ensuring meaningful work for disabled people in a sheltered environment. It provides decently paid work for thousands of people up and down the country who would find it immensely challenging to find employment elsewhere.
I wrote to the Minister about the Leven factory and asked what the difference would be between having its 29 employees in supported work and paying them unemployment and disability benefits. I find it incredible that she could not tell me. To proceed to factory closure without doing comprehensive homework is, at best, cavalier and I suggest that it is, to a degree, irresponsible, even in relation to that small factory.
The closure of a factory in an area where there is 18% unemployment would not only devastate a viable business but an integrated and mutually supportive community. Let us make no mistake: although the factory requires Government investment in people and in the narrowest definition it may not be financially profitable, in the widest terms its dividends to the community make it a profit-making enterprise. That is the case with many other Remploy factories too.
This Government say that they believe in choice, and the importance of choice is substantiated by a very articulate young man who works at Remploy in Leven. I make no apology for quoting from a letter that he sent to me and indeed to the Minister:
“Work is seen as being hugely positive for a person, for their social status, their relationships - both in professional and personal terms - and their health and well-being, and also their monetary income. My engagement at Remploy was a deliberate choice - there were other options open to me. My experience at Remploy has facilitated independent living - and I have gained at Remploy things that cannot be bought with wages - but rather earned through my daily relationships at work. I refer to dignity, self-belief, respect, routine and structure - and the qualities that engender self-reliance and unique identity - an identity that is not defined by my condition. They ingrain me with a sense that I am a fully functioning member of society - and it is this human capacity - and the potential removal of high quality work, for ideological reasons, that lies at the heart of the matter.”
That young man is highly critical of Liz Sayce’s branding of Remploy jobs as non-roles and subsequently non-jobs, and her descriptions of Remploy factories as “ghettos”. I challenge the Minister, following her visits to Leven and elsewhere, to dissociate herself from those alleged remarks.
The Minister’s central theme is that resources should be focused on disabled people themselves, rather than on institutions. “Institutions” can be considered in this context as a pejorative term and the description of Remploy factories as “ghettos” is offensive. Remploy factories, which are work organisations where individuals can grow and flourish, must be part of a mixed model of provision to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of disabled people in our society.
Finally, given the arguments that have been put forward today, I would like an assurance from the Minister that the current Remploy model, with modernisation, will remain part of any future planning for supported employment. I am sure that the quality of output, the sense of pride in a job well done and the business and community spirit witnessed by the Minister in Leven is replicated in many Remploy factories throughout the country. The existing model, with modernisation, makes perfect sense as an option for supported employment. The way that we treat disabled people is a benchmark of a civilised society. I urge the Minister to treat Remploy employees with the dignity, respect and priority that they so richly deserve. They want to continue playing their part in contributing to the economy and wider society, with all the dividends that that brings. If a disabled community in the Remploy factory in Leven can make high-quality life-saving buoyancy jackets that are competitive internationally, surely it is not beyond the wit of Government not only to keep the factory afloat but to strengthen its business stream and extend a further lifeline to its employees.
Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Benton, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship. I also particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for leading the debate today, and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it. If there is one thing that all of us have learned over many years, it is that Remploy and its future are of abiding interest to many Members from all parts of the House.
I also want to act slightly at odds with normal parliamentary procedure—since we are not in the main Chamber, I think that I can probably get away with it, subject to your ruling, Mr Benton—by thanking those disabled people from Remploy who have travelled to observe this debate, including members of the trade unions GMB, Unite and Community, who had not been mentioned before in the debate. It is an indication of how the staff at Remploy feel that they have made this journey at this point in the week and at this point in the day to hear this debate. Regardless of the views that have been expressed—there have been some differing views, including some subtly differing views—I hope that those staff will recognise that people in this place take Remploy and the issues affecting disabled people and the future of disabled people very seriously indeed.
I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for their contributions to the debate. I will come back to the points made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne shortly. I am also grateful for the interventions that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). I realise that I have missed out my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in my list, but I remember his very powerful contribution to the debate.
For very personal and obvious reasons, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), because he and I had many a long conversation about the Remploy factory in his constituency and the model that it provided; I will discuss that model later. He illustrated today that, where we can galvanise a community and put in energy and commitment, we can make a Remploy factory work. Indeed, that comment was echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who highlighted that where local leadership is shown, we can make a difference.
Paul Goggins
I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people when we were in government and I thank her for the encouragement that she gave to me in the days when we were trying to establish the support group for the Remploy factory in my constituency; she has just referred to the conversations that we had about that issue. Does she agree that, as one or two Members have already mentioned, a key group in any area is local councillors? Councillors are community champions who provide links to the local authority and, because of their experience, they can also help to scrutinise some of the development proposals. Indeed, will she join me in paying tribute to the councillors in my area and elsewhere who have done that?
Mrs McGuire
Yes, indeed. We can also look at some of the more successful examples of supported employment, including factories where disabled people work, that have had unstinting support from local authorities. Not all of those factories are Remploy factories. For example, the Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries factory in Glasgow has had enormous input and support from the local authority. It has supported the factory through thick and thin, and hopefully now through thick again, but obviously business conditions may change.
As I said earlier, I want to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I think that everybody who has spoken in the debate accepts—at least, I hope that can be said of everyone—that there is a change in expectation among most disabled people, and certainly among their spokespersons and the organisations that represent them, and that disabled people want to have a range of choice in employment. Disabled people want the same range of choice that non-disabled people have. Government support is crucial in helping to deliver on those aspirations. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a long and honourable history of working in the disability movement, that we cannot deliver on the aspirations for the majority if we trample over the expectations of the few. In many respects, that is the dilemma that we face in discussing the current issue.
I have heard today from many right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members about their own experience of the Remploy factory in their own constituencies. I share their admiration for those factories, because there is a Remploy factory in Stirling. I visited it on the international day of disabled people and took the baton from a young man who works there. As has been said of other Remploy factories, that company of people in that factory in Stirling recognise that Remploy is not only about a job but about a wider network of social support, economic support, health support and all the things that disabled people look for. Indeed, Liz Sayce, in her report, recognised the value of the Remploy environment, and I will read an extract from page 96:
“It was clear from this review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment and a reasonable income for those they employ. The factories have provided employment opportunities – sometimes for many years – to disabled individuals. They have also provided a sense of community for their employees. Some have pioneered learning and development, often led by Union Learner Representatives, through which individuals have (for instance) learnt to read for the first time, or worked towards qualifications. While some sheltered workshop environments pay staff less than the minimum wage, Remploy factories pay above the minimum wage and offer good terms and conditions.”
I am not going to run away from the fact that, like the Minister, I have wrestled with some of the issues about Remploy. I understand the tensions between wanting to open up everything to disabled people and the fact that some disabled people want to make a different choice, and we have to be careful about how we interpret the perceived settled will of disabled people. We also must recognise the legitimacy of a position that is not the mainstream view of the disability movement—to close sheltered factories—which is that factories should be maintained, to give disabled people a choice. That was always the position, and those of us parliamentarians who are veterans of the Remploy modernisation programme will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) made it very clear that there was still a place within our range of opportunities for supported factory employment.
I want to probe the current consultation with a series of questions to the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer, if not this afternoon, in the very near future. In opposition, the Government supported a five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? I suggest that the five-year plan effectively had only two years to run before there was a general election, so why did the Minister go for the current timetable? With the greatest respect to Liz Sayce, the five-year plan did not come out of a review, in a few short months, but was the result of extensive financial investigations, consultations with the disability lobby before a consultation document was published, and extensive and sometimes very robust discussions with the Remploy board and the trade unions, which some of us here will remember. We felt that there had to be a plan with a time frame that would allow Remploy to turn the business around.
We have heard today that some of the factories are being turned around, that order books are overcrowded and new businesses are coming in. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that there are still some issues about top-heavy management and decentralisation, and we had the five-year time frame so that the issues could be worked through, between the board and the trade unions, with the continued support of Government. I can say this only in the kindest fashion: the current situation has created uncertainty among workers, and indeed among management, about what will happen, and that is stymieing the development of Remploy the business. I have some sympathy with colleagues who suggest that there might be a bit of a withering-on-the-vine strategy behind that.
Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, what action did she take to involve the board of Remploy and its trade unions in discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions it raised about the company’s business practices? Did she take any opportunity to discuss some of the issues with the unions? I am not talking about post-consultation discussion, after the paper was published, but about developing the consultation in line with the people who have a strong input into the process. There is a feeling that the consultation is flawed, not least because the Minister perhaps did not appreciate all the implications of the phrase on page 18:
“Government is minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce Review”.
I do not understand how someone can put out a consultation and then say what they are minded to do before the results have come in.
When the modernisation statement was made to this House on 29 November 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made the following commitment:
“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]
What efforts have the Minister and her ministerial colleague made to fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Has she looked to ensure that her own Department has considered even more ways in which it could open up procurement opportunities for a business in which it has a significant investment? What discussions has she had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for individual local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19? If she is still “minded” after the consultation process closes, what responsibilities will the Government have towards Remploy?
Why is the current pension scheme issue raised in the consultation? Currently the DWP guarantees the company pension scheme, but would it still exist? How would it be managed, and would the DWP have a role in that management? Is the pension fund currently in surplus or deficit, and by how much? If it is in shortfall, what measures will be taken to deal with that? It looks as though the Minister has the figures to hand, but if she does not I would be pleased if she could advise us after the debate. What range of companies does she have in mind that might wish to buy all or some of the Remploy factories? Has she, or have her officials, had any communication with any such interested parties?
The Minister indicates in her consultation that staff might wish to consider acquiring the enterprise businesses, and that they could do so. The consultation also indicates that expert advice would be there to assist, but would any provision be made for a front-loaded capital investment on the part of Government? Would the DWP consider a legacy to those factories, given the deep and extended relationship between Government and Remploy? Those are all unanswered questions in a consultation.
Ian Lucas
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree that one great weakness of the Sayce report is its complete lack of detail about what alternative model for going forward would be available to individual plants and factories? We are in a state of uncertainty about those individual plants, and they have no real knowledge of what is proposed for their future if the proposals go ahead.
Mrs McGuire
My hon. Friend is correct. I do not blame Liz Sayce for that, as her report dealt with principles and the direction of travel, but we can criticise the consultation for lacking fundamental details on some of the questions affecting the disabled people who currently work for Remploy.
If the businesses are to be transferred, what provision will be made to safeguard terms and conditions? Will they be guaranteed under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006, or will people be sacked and rehired under inferior terms and conditions? Liz Sayce complimented Remploy on delivering good terms and conditions for its workers, but again, the consultation says nothing about that.
The consultation mentions a comprehensive package of support, which is one of the Sayce recommendations. What does the Minister have in mind? What kind of support will it be? How will it be delivered, and by whom? Has she factored the costs of that support into her budget for the winding-up of Remploy? What assessment has she made of the costs involved in selling off the factories and winding up Remploy enterprises, including all the calculations relating to redundancy payments, liabilities and creditors, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes? How do they relate to the current budget, and how much money will actually be transferred to other Government support programmes after all those issues are taken into account?
Dame Anne Begg
On the Government’s Work programme and their desire to get more disabled people into work, without the factories, there will be fewer opportunities for work experience to give people the skills, expertise and background that will allow them into open employment. We cannot do away with the factories if we are serious about getting people with severe disabilities into open employment. The only employers likely to be able to give them that experience are those such as Remploy factories.
Mrs McGuire
My hon. Friend makes an important point that has been echoed by other colleagues in this debate. The Remploy factories have changed how they operate, including working with local special needs schools. They open up opportunities. She will know that they are not a destination but a stepping stone to the world of work. Disabled people can work in a range of industries and with a range of skills. I support the opening up of opportunities, with the support of trade unions, workers and management, as part of modernisation. At a factory in Causewayhead in my constituency last week, I was told how many people were coming to the factory through the training annexe. Training opportunities were being opened up to a range of disabled and non-disabled people. She makes a good point.
I have left one important issue until the end. Why has the Minister decided effectively to renege on a deal made with people who decided to stay with Remploy under the modernisation programme? I refer her to page 19 of the consultation document, which says:
“The implication of the recommendations in the Sayce Report is that, if accepted”—
she has already said that she is minded to accept them—
“Remploy in its current form would not exist…The Government will therefore not be able to give undertakings that staff”,
who are covered by protection of their working conditions, salaries and pensions,
“will not be made compulsorily redundant as a result of such changes, including the modernisation group.”
Modernisation came about as the result of protracted and difficult discussions. I will be disappointed if the Minister and her Government run away from the decisions and agreements made and accepted by her party when they were in opposition to maintain terms and conditions even for those who chose not to or were not in a position to move into other full-time employment. That was our deal with people who had given a lifetime of service to Remploy. Frankly, if my interpretation of her consultation document is accurate, I am disappointed.
The Minister cannot distance herself from the economic situation in which we find ourselves, a situation underlined by yesterday’s unemployment figures. Does she accept that even if she is minded to make that decision, making it in the current economic environment looks almost like abandoning her duty of care to the disabled employees who have given many years of service to the company that she effectively owns?
The Minister cannot hide behind the views of the disability lobby to justify her actions. Indeed, one leading disability organisation, Scope, while accepting the principle of closure, says on page 101 of the Sayce review:
“However, given the harsh economic climate, we recognise the need for transitional protection for the 3,000 employees currently located in the Remploy factories and suggest that full closure is deferred until the employment environment has recovered.”
Even one of the organisations supporting the direction of travel says that now is the wrong time to make that decision.
During the past two hours or so, the Minister has heard the passion and commitment expressed by hon. Members from all parties. I hope that she will seriously consider those points of view. I hope that her phrase that the Government are “minded to accept” was an unfortunate slip of the pen and that her mind is still open. Not only do disabled people fear unemployment, they experience fear every day due to negative media headlines about disabled people and their lives in the community. I think that she is an honourable lady, and I hope that as a result of this debate, she will take away some of the points made and see that there is a flexibility of approach and that nobody is tied to a model of Remploy that is stuck in the past. We want a network of supported factories in local communities and linking into local networks that deliver good-quality jobs and experiences for many young people for many years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton, and under that of Mr Havard, who is no longer in his seat. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this debate and right hon. and hon. Members on making a strong case on their constituents’ behalf for the importance of providing the appropriate support for disabled people to get into employment. I, too, note that many people in this room today other than right hon. and hon. Members have an interest in that.
It is also important to note how much time hon. Members have taken to come talk to me. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and for Cynon Valley have all taken a great deal of their own time to ensure that they put their views in a measured and sensible manner, and I thank them all.
It was interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who speaks for the Opposition. Having been in my place, she is right to say that we face a dilemma. She stated that she understands the tensions. I have no doubt that she does, having done this job before me, but what was not clear is exactly what the Opposition’s position is. She might feel that she has made her position clear, but it was not clear to me.
Mrs McGuire
I have made it clear that we expected the five-year plan that was in place to run its course. The problem is that it is the Minister who has to wrestle with the decisions, but I have made our position very clear.
Maria Miller
The right hon. Lady and I are, therefore, absolutely at one. This Government have made it clear that, despite the very difficult financial situation that we have inherited, we will continue to support the modernisation plan. We are in year four of that plan, and it is absolutely right that we should plan for the future. It would be wrong and a dereliction of our duties not to look to the future, particularly given the fact that the modernisation plan has, it pains me to say, struggled to be achieved.
The right hon. Lady and others have asked a lot of detailed questions. I want to answer as many of them as I can, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I keep interventions to a minimum. The first was the right hon. Lady’s question about whether we support the modernisation plan. The answer is absolutely. We are in year four of it. There is great concern about the failure to meet its targets, but we are continuing to make sure that the money is available and that we put in the required effort to see the plan continue.
I discussed both the modernisation plan and the Sayce report with the trade unions and the Remploy board at a recent meeting in Leicester, and my officials will have further meetings with the unions in, I think, the second week of January. The right hon. Lady should be reassured that we are trying to do the same thing as the previous Administration, which is to take something that was created in 1946 to rehabilitate ex-service personnel after the second world war and try to find a sensible and constructive way forward in these difficult times.
The right hon. Lady also talked about a number of issues in relation to terms and conditions for those in the Remploy plan who took redundancy. I am sure that she already knows this, but I wish to clarify that those terms and conditions were for the period of the plan.
The world has changed immeasurably over the 65 years since Remploy was established. Our responsibility as constituency Members of Parliament, Ministers and Opposition Members is to make sure that we look forward to the future and make sure that we have the right support available for disabled people to be able to reach their full potential in life. That is our responsibility and our Government’s focus.
In Britain, our manufacturing industry faces increasingly competitive markets from overseas. The overall development of Remploy over the years has not been focused on the business environment in which it operates. That is a plain fact. Some sectors, such as the automotive sector and CCTV, have been able to develop offerings of higher value-added products and services, but they are the exception, not the rule. The vast majority of the network continues to produce products that, as a nation, we are more used to seeing imported from overseas and, indeed, at lower costs.
Fifty-five per cent. of disabled people in this country work in offices, shops and public services, and—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has talked eloquently about this—increasingly want to be involved in all aspects of employment and be part of a national work force. When I talk to employers such as BT, Royal Mail and B&Q, I start to feel heartened about a change in attitude among employers towards employing disabled people. That is only a start, and there is still a great deal more to be done. I do not underestimate the challenges that we all face to overturn entrenched attitudes.
Jim Dobbin
It just so happens that, before I came to this debate, I attended a reception held by the Council for Disabled Children in the Jubilee Room next door. A young man spoke to me about the situation, and I told him about this debate. He told me that he had just lost his job. I asked him why, to which he replied, “Because I am disabled.” I asked him how he was disabled, and he said that he was deaf. He has tried and tried to get re-employed, but he has failed.
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The answer is that there is a great deal of legislation that would support that young man. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s advice to him was to seek legal redress, although the particular instances of the circumstances would need to be taken into consideration. Our responsibility is to plan for the future and for young men like that who want to be able to work in the same jobs as their peer group in a class, and to make sure that they have the ability to do that, not only through legislation, but through the attitudes of their employers.
Procurement has been mentioned a number of times. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley raised the issue right at the beginning of the debate. It has been suggested that an increase in procurement sales, particularly from local authorities, would resolve Remploy’s current problems. In its briefing for this debate, the GMB initially chose to criticise the support provided by local authorities for Remploy, but, for the record, I want to thank local authorities for their support for Remploy. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) has talked about his local authority’s work in that regard. Moreover, the local authorities in Blaenau Gwent, Swansea, Merthyr Tydfil and Newcastle already support Remploy. Indeed, my own county council in Hampshire also supports Remploy and is very proud to do so. It is important that we do not underestimate the existing support. We are most grateful and thankful for it.
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman will know that the consultation talks about freeing Remploy from the control of Government and making sure that successful organisations can continue to thrive.
To return to the specific point that Members have addressed at great length, there are examples of local authorities and Remploy working together, but the problems in the factories will not be addressed by that alone. Article 19, to which Members have referred, is clearly a way to help public bodies use supported businesses, but it does not address the issue of value of money that procurement officers always need to consider, nor does it guarantee that Remploy will be given work in competition with other supported businesses.
The issues currently faced by Remploy factories are not new, and concern over the increasing cost, low productivity and sustainable jobs for disabled people has been an issue since the 1990s. The operating loss for the factories has increased into tens of millions of pounds, and the steps taken under the modernisation plan, which was rightly introduced by the previous Administration, including closing and merging 29 sites, has simply not addressed the fundamental weakness in the business model.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned my comment that I was minded to accept the consultation’s proposals. I want to make it clear that I have not yet made a final decision about the consultation, but I am persuaded that there is a need for change and that the Sayce review suggests a persuasive model for such change.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Minister aware—I believe that she is—of the Blindcraft factory in Glasgow, which is a very successful supported employment workplace? Will she acknowledge that it is the business plan, not the business model, that is failing, as the management themselves acknowledged to her and me earlier this year?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. We have met on several occasions to discuss the issue. There are examples of areas where there can be success. Indeed, the hon. Member for Swansea West has walked the talk and made sure that the procurement issue has been uppermost in his local authority’s mind, and he has been very successful in that regard. There are opportunities for success, but the problem is that that success is not across the board.
I have already confirmed that the amount of money going into specialist disability employment is not the issue, because we have protected that pot of money. This is about ensuring that that money works hardest for disabled people. This is not about reducing funding; it is about using the money most effectively in whatever way that comes about. We have to consider those alternatives.
I have met Remploy trade union representatives on a number of occasions to discuss the matter. I have visited factories and listened to the views of employees, and I attended one of the consultation events in Reading in September. Let me restate that the Government’s commitment is to the five-year modernisation plan introduced in 2008. We are now in year four of that and those targets are not being met.
Last week, Remploy published independently audited annual reports and financial statements for 2010-11, which revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions spent £68.3 million supporting 2,200 disabled people in Remploy enterprise businesses at an annual cost of £25,000 per person. That is £5 million more than in 2009-10 and is more than 20% of the total budget available to help disabled people into work through the specialist employment budgets. We have to take a long hard look at the situation.
Geraint Davies
Does the Minister accept that there is a case for some job subsidy, even if it is as low as the amount that that person would otherwise be paid for unemployment benefit and health on-costs, or is she going to stick to her guns and say that there should be no subsidy and we should therefore make a loss to the Exchequer?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman asks a very detailed question. He knows that we have not yet made the decision about the way forward. A significant amount of money is available to support disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about the Access to Work programme, which he rightly said is exceptionally effective. The Sayce report clearly says that if decisions are made about the prioritisation of the available money, more money—significant amounts of money—could be yielded to support Access to Work. That could well be the sort of support that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Swansea West would want.
Maria Miller
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I make some progress? He and others have raised a lot of points, and I want to be able to deal with them.
The chairman’s annual report confirms that, last year, on average, half Remploy’s factory employees had little or no work to do and that the operating results for the factories have been significantly out of line with the modernisation plan. The perception that Remploy has turned work away is, I am afraid, simply unfounded. Some bids have been unsuccessful because they do not have the required capability or capacity in the factories, and sometimes Remploy has been outbid on price.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley talked about the order books being strong. The simple truth is that, even at full capacity, the factories are still making large losses, which demonstrates that the business model is wrong. That is why I asked Liz Sayce to review not only Remploy, but the specialist disability employment programmes that we have available.
The annual report also confirmed that Remploy employment services have been able to secure 20,000 job outcomes in the past year at a one-off unit cost of £3,300 per job. We should absolutely applaud that. Remploy employment services have been making great headway for many thousands of disabled people. I should like that to be recognised in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne talked about alternative support for disabled people, particularly Access to Work. I absolutely understand his support for that programme, which has great potential if we have the funding available to support it. We should all be pleased that there are opportunities in all our constituencies for Remploy employment services to help disabled people into employment through the work that it does with organisations such as Asda, BT, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco, McDonald’s, the Royal Mail and the NHS. That has been its achievement over the past 12 months; indeed, results of a similar magnitude are predicted for the next 12 months.
I shall talk briefly about some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) asked whether I would consider the consortium of trade unions plan. Absolutely. I will look at all the plans that have been put to us. I am particularly interested in the trade unions’ approach. The Secretary of State and I have made it very clear that we would be delighted for the trade unions to propose ways that they want to work with us to free the factories from Government control and to ensure that they can have a successful future. We will always be open to thoughts being given to us on that front.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) talked about the involvement of the workers in the Ashington factory in his constituency. It is absolutely to be commended that the workers in that factory are involved in building a success of the business. There are 27 people in the Ashington factory, but I remind him that there are more than 10,000 disabled people in his constituency. I want to ensure that more of those people get the sort of support that they need, so that we can ensure that they are not only in employment, but reaching their potential in life.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East raised a number of incredibly important points. He and I have had long and, for me, useful discussions about his experience in this area. His main point was the importance of ensuring more local control and autonomy for the factories. He is very much echoing the Sayce review in saying that, if we are to drive effectiveness and have a successful network of factories in the future, it might be useful to consider enabling people such as the manager whom he talked about to have more autonomy. Again, there are 19 people at the factory in his constituency, where more than 15,000 disabled people live. I want to ensure that more help is available for them to be able to succeed in their lives and secure jobs that they can do.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) talked about the fact that it pays to care. Again, he and I are as one on that. He talked about the importance of ensuring that people who are subject to changes in their jobs are looked after. For the record, some 1,809 redundancies were put in place by the previous Administration. The figures seem to have got jumbled up over time, so I thought it would be useful for hon. Members to have the facts. Some 1,611 of those people were disabled. Indeed, when we consider the facts and figures, we can see that just under 40% of those individuals took early retirement. Some 252 people took modernisation terms and continue to be in employment elsewhere. Of those people who took the support on offer, some 70% found work. The problem was that not enough people took that offer of support. That is the learning from the previous modernisation plans that were put in place.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was very critical of the previous Administration in his comments. I would not be so critical. I think that they were trying to do the right thing.
John McDonnell
Will the Minister be clear about the future before she finishes? She says that she accepts the Sayce report. The Sayce report says that Remploy enterprises will be given six months to prepare a business plan and then 24 months to implement it, by which time all subsidy will be withdrawn. So there will be no subsidy within two years of the implementation of a business plan. Is that what the Government are saying?
Maria Miller
No, that is not what the Government are saying. The Government are still consulting on the Sayce review, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I have said that we are minded to accept these things, and as we move forward, we might or might not accept proposals in that report. We may accept them piecemeal or in their entirety. That is yet to be decided, so he will have to bear with me—as I am sure that he is willing to do—for a little while longer, so that we go through the proper processes with all these things.
The hon. Member for Swansea West—I see that he is not in his place—talked about there perhaps being problems with recruitment. Yes, indeed, because of the austerity that we are under at the moment, controls on new Government recruitment are in place. Owing to its non-departmental public body status, Remploy is covered by those controls, but I absolutely assure hon. Members in the Chamber today that since the austerity measures came into force, Remploy has successfully applied for exemptions through this process, where requests have been approved, to ensure that we can continue commercial operations. There are absolute safeguards in place to ensure that the business can continue in the way that it needs to.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned expensive consultants. She and I have a joint dread of the idea of having expensive consultants in place. I assure her that since austerity measures have been introduced, Remploy has not used consultants. I cannot speak for the previous Administration, but that is something that we feel very strongly about.
The hon. Member for Wrexham talked about when financial information will be available. As I have already made clear, no decision has been made on the recommendations of the Sayce review to date, so it would not be appropriate or possible for me at this stage to release financial information on a decision that is yet to be taken. We have to ensure that we adhere to the right proprieties. He would expect us to do that as a Government, and I assure him that, as soon as decisions are made, the appropriate information will be forthcoming for anybody who is interested in that detail.
The Remploy pension scheme has been mentioned. To assure individuals who may be concerned about comments that have been made about that, the Government have promised to protect fully the accrued benefits of pension scheme members in the event that the pension scheme were to close following the implementation of the Sayce review recommendations. It is an unfortunate fact that we have identified a £104.6 million deficit in the valuation of the pension scheme, which we inherited. A deficit repayment plan has been put in place, which is important because we want to ensure that both employees and pension scheme trustees are confident in the propriety of the finances of the scheme. Payments of £7.4 million, £25.8 million and £21.5 million have already been made into the scheme, which shows the commitment that this Government have, in tough economic times, to ensuring that we stand by our obligations and our commitments to Remploy staff.
I want to ensure that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley who secured the debate has a few minutes at the end to sum up.
Maria Miller
That is extremely kind of the right hon. Lady. I have managed to race through most of the issues that I want to cover—I think that I have actually managed to cover almost everything raised by hon. Members.
Gemma Doyle
The Minister is drawing to a conclusion, but I do not think that she has mentioned the issue of bonuses, which we discussed earlier this year. She promised to look at the scandalous practice of management still collecting millions of pounds in bonuses. Has she decided to take action on that?
Maria Miller
The hon. Lady has raised the issue of bonuses before. I think I can remember either writing to her or perhaps replying in detail. It is vital that any business is run in a proper way. As an incoming Government, 18 months ago we took over a set of commitments that the previous Administration had put in place. That included many things including not only the modernisation plan, but the issue of bonuses for senior managers at Remploy. The performance incentive payments in the annual report—the statement made this year—relate back to 2009-10. The executive directors are contractually entitled to those payments, but, unfortunately, those contracts predate this Administration. The hon. Lady may know that there are legal issues that we have to be aware of. The Department has no power to limit bonuses, but from 2010-11 all Remploy’s executive team and senior managers have agreed to cap their bonuses in line with the senior civil service bonus cap. That was a particular request made by the Secretary of State, so that we can ensure that there is some—[Interruption.]
John McDonnell
Are they getting a bonus? Even though they are failing, are they getting a bonus?
Maria Miller
As the hon. Gentleman has just heard me say, his Government put those contracts in place. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Benton, I was not giving way.
Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)
Order. Either submit an intervention, or allow the Minister to answer.
Maria Miller
Thank you, Mr Benton. I was in the process of trying to answer that intervention. What is very clear is that there are legal issues. We are contractually obliged to pay those bonuses, and we have been advised that there is no alternative. The hon. Gentleman can take that up with his colleagues.
Stephen Lloyd
I thank the Minister for giving way. I very deliberately have not intervened, because the previous Chair was very kind and gave me a long time and people were very patient, but I am grinding my teeth a wee bit. Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been going on for years under both Governments and is incredibly intractable, which is why we are still here? The whole issue is a complete red herring. We have absolutely no choice, because we have to implement what the previous Government actually agreed.
Maria Miller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should not get away from the facts here. Disabled people listening to this debate expect us to show a way forward for the future. All the meetings that I have had with the leading disability organisations on this issue have made it clear that disabled young people, as was said in an earlier intervention, want to ensure that they have sustainable jobs in the future. Those disabled young people want to make sure that they learn the skills that will give them those sustainable jobs into the future, which is my priority. That is where I want to ensure the Government’s funding is being placed. We have made it clear that this money is ring-fenced, so it is secure. The issue is about getting the best outcomes for disabled people. Some hon. Members questioned whether this was the right way forward. I tell them first, second and third that we will make sure that the priority is the best outcome for disabled people. That is what comes first rather than vested interests or the history, because we have to look at the future.
Lindsay Roy
Will the Minister distance herself from the comment that Remploy factories were ghettos?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman is asking me to comment on something that I do not think I would ever say. [Interruption.] What I would say is that we have to listen to what disabled people want. Disabled people tell me that they want to live independent lives in communities like everybody else. To be able to do that, they want to have the jobs that everybody else would expect as well.
I fear that I will run out of time if I do not wind up my remarks quickly. In conclusion, getting this right is absolutely crucial for millions of people—millions of our constituents. It is only right that we take the time to consider the consultation representations before making any decisions. I have not yet made a decision about the future, and an announcement will be made as soon as is practically possible. Hon. Members can be sure that I will consider carefully not only the points that have been raised today, but the points that have been raised by hon. Members and right hon. Members in the many meetings that we have had in recent weeks. However, we need to look at the evidence. We need to be driven by that evidence and ensure that we are committed to the best decision for the future of disabled people. I recognise how vital it is to join up with work across Government to improve employment outcomes for disabled people. I have already answered one of the requests in the Sayce report to establish a cross-Government Committee that considers disabled people’s employment.
Maria Miller
The right hon. Lady makes a timely intervention. She will know that in her constituency 37 people are employed in a Remploy factory, and she has more than 13,000 disabled people in her constituency. My responsibility is to ensure that more of those 13,000 people get the support they need to get into work. We know that there are almost 700 vacancies in Jobcentre Plus in her area, and that Remploy employment services in Merthyr Tydfil has placed 254 disabled people into employment. In the Rhondda, that figure is 163 disabled people into employment; in Bridgend, it is 251.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU General Affairs Council (Pre-Council Statement)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The General Affairs Council will take place in Brussels on 16 December 2011. The agenda will cover structural and cohesion funds. I will represent the UK.
The substantive agenda item will be a policy debate on the structural and cohesion funds for 2014-20.The Polish presidency has tabled three questions for discussion: whether the common strategic framework should be approved by the Council and the European Parliament, or adopted solely by the European Commission; whether country-specific recommendations or national reform programmes should provide a linkage between EU2020 goals and the development needs of regions and member states; and whether funds should be ring-fenced for specific objectives. There will also be an informal lunch which will look at whether both negative and positive incentives are necessary to ensure that funds deliver on EU2020 objectives.
The Government’s objective for the Council will be to ensure the funds contribute to addressing the priority areas to support growth and are delivered in a way consistent with member state’s broader economic strategies.
NICs Holiday Factsheet
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
In line with my commitment during the passage of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2011, I am today placing in the Libraries of both Houses a report on the functioning of the NICs holiday scheme.
The report provides information on: the number of applications received, the number of businesses benefiting in 2010-11, the amount by which they benefited and the number of jobs supported through the NICs holiday. The information is presented by region and constituency where possible. To date, just over 10,000 applications have been made for the scheme.
The holiday was announced in the June 2010 Budget and is designed to encourage the creation of private sector jobs in regions reliant on public sector employment by reducing the cost to new business of employing staff. The holiday exempts qualifying new businesses in eligible regions from up to £5,000 of employer national insurance contributions for each of the first 10 employees hired in the first 12 months of business. This is part of a wider set of policies designed to help businesses and stimulate growth in the regions.
Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Mr David Anderson QC has completed his first annual report as independent reviewer of terrorist asset-freezing legislation. The report covers the first nine months’ operation of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 and will be laid before the House today.
The Government are grateful to Mr Anderson for his detailed report and will consider carefully his recommendations. The Government’s response to his report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses on or before 15 February 2012.
Public Bodies Reform
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The coalition Government made a commitment to review public bodies, with the aim of increasing accountability for actions carried out on behalf of the state. Royal Assent of the Public Bodies Act 2011 marks an important milestone in this process which will allow Departments to get on with the important task of delivering the reforms I announced on 14 October 2010. Today, I am placing in the Library of the House an updated list of proposals for the reform of public bodies and guidance to support the programme of orders that will follow Royal Assent of the Public Bodies Act 2011. Copies will also be available in the Vote Office.
This Government made a presumption that state activity, if needed at all, should be undertaken by bodies that are democratically accountable at either national or local level. A body should only exist as a quango if it meets one of three tests, to which all existing public bodies have been subjected. These tests are:
Does it perform a technical function?
Do its activities require political impartiality?
Does it need to act independently to establish facts?
Some14 months on from my original announcement, we have made strong progress. We now have a legislative mechanism in place to implement current and future proposals for reform. We have announced that cumulative reductions in administrative spending of £2.6 billion will flow from public bodies over the spending review period. Where legislation was not required we have already completed more than half of the abolitions proposed by the 2010 review, and we have already started the process of conducting regular, triennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies. These triennial reviews will ensure that never again will the quango state be allowed to spiral out of control.
Today I am able to confirm the 31 non-departmental public bodies that Departments have identified for reviews in the first year of the three-year review cycle:
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, Cabinet Office;
Committee for Standards in Public Life, Cabinet Office;
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills;
Industrial Development Advisory Board, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills;
Treasure Valuation Committee, Department for Culture, Media and Sport;
Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, Department for Culture, Media and Sport;
Independent Agricultural Appeals Panel, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
High Speed 2, Department for Transport;
Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, Department for Work and Pensions;
Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, Department of Energy and Climate Change;
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy and Climate Change;
Foreign Compensation Commission, Foreign and Commonwealth Office;
Advisory Committee on the Design of Coins, Medals and Decorations, HM Treasury;
Migration Advisory Committee, Home Office;
Technical Advisory Board, Home Office;
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, Ministry of Defence;
Central Advisory Committee on Pensions and Compensation, Ministry of Defence;
National Employer Advisory Board, Ministry of Defence; and
Legal Services Board, Ministry of Justice;
Triennial reviews will be based on the success of the methodology applied during the 2010 review of public bodies which looked at whether a function was required and, if it was, whether it should exist at arm’s length from Government. Quangos will be required to meet one or more of the three tests listed above.
Triennial reviews will build on this methodology by including a further stage to examine whether the body’s control and governance arrangements continue to meet the recognised principles of good corporate governance. As well as an opportunity for continuous improvement the reviews will help departments consider new and more innovative models for delivering services through public bodies.
Once the first tranche of reforms have been delivered, and the process of ongoing triennial reviews is firmly established, the UK public bodies landscape will look radically different and be substantially smaller. We will ultimately have reformed more than half of the 904 public bodies in scope of the 2010 review and the landscape will contain more than 250 fewer public bodies. The landscape will be more accountable, with Ministers taking strategic policy decisions and controlling core costs and releasing the front line to deliver services. Public bodies will no longer be seen as confusing, distant and impenetrable to the public, and Ministers will be clearly and transparently accountable for decisions that should be taken by elected representatives.
The landscape will be smaller, more efficient and will cost less, offering better value for money to the public. Our reforms will also help to realise a power shift away from Whitehall, placing control of the delivery of public services in the hands of people who use them, and contributing to important reforms in health, education and economic growth. Unlike previous attempts to reform the public bodies landscape, our reforms will ensure that public bodies will no longer operate long after their job is complete or continue in a form that is outdated or inefficient. I believe that these reforms will lead to a permanent, and long overdue, shift in the role of public bodies and much clearer lines of accountability.
Troubled Families
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The coalition Government are committed to turning around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in England by the end of this Parliament.
I am working with Cabinet colleagues and local areas to ensure that these families are supported into education and employment, that their crime and antisocial behaviour are tackled, and, that overall costs to the state are reduced. Louise Casey is leading this work for me, as head of a new troubled families team in my Department.
I can announce today that a total of £448 million will be made available from the existing budgets of six Departments to meet this commitment over the next three years. £420 million of this will fund action and interventions in areas across England by local authorities and their partner agencies, and £28 million will be used to boost the Department for Work and Pensions’ support for troubled families.
Central to the Government’s approach is for local agencies to be to able to clearly identify and focus on their priority families. I am therefore also sending out an estimate of the number of families that should be targeted in each local authority area. I will set clear expectations for results to be achieved with these families, and will use this funding to incentivise local authorities to ensure the lives of these families are turned around, and to give them and their children the opportunity to succeed.
Local authorities will work with their partner agencies to provide focused engagement with each family, and avoid the duplication of effort and resources that has been a feature of so much of the response to these families to date. Delivering this commitment will require the full co-operation of central Government and local government; public sector agencies and voluntary organisations—and the families themselves.
The Government will offer local authorities up to 40% of the cost of intervening in a troubled family, payable primarily on a payment-by-results basis when successful outcomes have been achieved. These successful outcomes will be simple and straightforward: ensuring children are attending school; criminal and antisocial behaviour is reduced, and adults in the family are on the path to employment.
The new programme will also fund an England-wide network of troubled family “trouble-shooters”, who will be appointed by local authorities. They will oversee the work undertaken in their area, such as ensuring families are getting appropriate support, and deploying sanctions where necessary.
This small group of families—representing less than 1% of the population—have a huge impact on the well-being of those around them, and cost the public purse an inordinate amount of money: an estimated £9 billion per year, of which £8 billion is taken up merely in reacting to problems as they arise. This is not a cost that we can afford to bear any longer—either financially or in wasted lives.
I am delighted to confirm the coalition’s commitment to this vital programme. I will report to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister regularly on the progress of Ms Casey’s team and our local partners.
Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics (Hugh Robertson)
A meeting of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council was held on 28-29 November. The UK was represented by the Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, Andy Lebrecht, for the culture and audio-visual section of the Council. The Scottish Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport, Shona Robison MSP, represented the UK for the sport section.
Culture and Audio-visual Section
The Council adopted a decision on the signing of the convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access. This convention is an instrument of the Council of Europe which entered into force in 2003 and its regulatory framework is almost identical to the one set out in Council directive 98/84/EC.
The aim of the two legal instruments is to establish legal protection against piracy of technological systems of pay-TV, video-on-demand, etc. They cover both TV and radio broadcasting services and also transmission by internet. After the signature of the convention, the Council will proceed with the proposal for a decision on concluding the convention, which will be sent to the European Parliament with the request for its consent.
Ministers considered that the ratification of the convention by the EU will contribute to raising its profile, encouraging ratification by other countries (only nine countries have so far ratified it, four of which are EU members), and thus extending the legal protection for paid services beyond the borders of the EU. A number of UK TV content providers have stressed the importance of being able to extend the number of countries which co-operate to enforce the legislation on conditional access and thereby to limit piracy in the pay-TV sector. The signing of the convention should support the growth of this important part of the UK digital economy.
The Commission entered two statements to the Council minutes, one regarding the legal base and EU exclusive competence to accede to the convention and another concerning the final clauses of the convention, in particular the voting of amendments and the acceptance of new contracting parties.
The UK supported the adoption of this Council decision but intervened to table a statement at the Council to record its view that, even in the absence of the citation of a legal base in treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Title V, the European Union’s competence to enter into the JHA obligations, which form a small part of the convention, derives from TFEU Title V and accordingly the UK will be bound by virtue of the fact that it has exercised its opt-in under Protocol No. 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU).
The Council adopted conclusions on the protection of children in the digital world. The conclusions underline the need to educate children as well as their parents and teachers about how to be safe online. Furthermore, the conclusions also call upon the audio-visual industry to design their services and products so that the protection of minors is fully taken into account. These conclusions were adopted without further discussion.
The Council adopted conclusions on cultural and creative competences and their role in building intellectual capital of Europe. The UK supported the adoption of these conclusions which address the development of synergies between culture and creativity on the one hand, and education, youth, research, business and innovation on the other.
There was a ministerial debate on the contribution of the cultural and creative sectors to growth and job creation, focusing in particular on the need for reliable and comparable statistics at European level to better inform policy making. There was universal acceptance of culture’s link to economic growth, as well as the strong need for data in this area. The UK outlined the importance of these sectors to our economy, including exports, and noted that this is an area where Europe has a clear comparative advantage. A number of delegations recalled that as well as economic growth, culture also has a vital role to play in developing social cohesion. A number of member states observed that this work could make a key contribution to the EU 2020 strategy. While there was widespread support for the Commission’s approach to improving data measurement, member states stressed that this should be done in a light-touch way by building as far as possible on existing data and mechanisms.
Under Any Other Business, the presidency provided information on the state of play concerning the procedural arrangements for the appointment of the European panel for the European Union action for the European Heritage Label (EEL). The panel will consist of 13 experts, responsible for selecting sites to be awarded the EHL and for their subsequent monitoring. Four of them are to be appointed by the Council for a three-year period. The Commission presented its recommendation on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation. The Commission also presented its proposal for the creative Europe programme which is a new support programme for the cultural and creative sectors, bringing together the current culture, MEDIA and MEDIA Mundus programmes. The Danish delegation outlined their priorities for their forthcoming presidency, in particular examining the new creative Europe programme, developing the cultural dialogue with third countries and promoting digitisation.
Sports Section
The Council adopted a resolution on the representation of the EU member states in the foundation board of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the co-ordination of the EU and its member states’ positions prior to WADA meetings. The resolution establishes the practical arrangements concerning the participation of the European Union and its member states in the work of WADA, namely the preparation, negotiation and adoption inter alia of rules, standards and guidelines by the agency. The UK’s concerns over the wording around the co-ordination process and the presentation of the EU position on anti-doping matters were taken into account during the negotiation of the text and the UK was therefore able to support the adoption of the resolution.
The Council adopted conclusions on the role of voluntary activities in sport in promoting active citizenship. The UK supported the adoption of these conclusions which seek to raise awareness of the value and importance of volunteering and improve conditions for the development of voluntary activities in sport.
The Council adopted conclusions on combating match fixing, aiming to foster close co-operation and information sharing between member states, the Commission, the sports world and gambling operators in order to counteract this dangerous trend. The UK supported these Council conclusions which recognise that match fixing is a threat to the very integrity of sport.
The Council held a policy debate on good governance in sport. Autonomy, transparency and responsibility were cited as key elements of good governance, though several member states noted that autonomy should not mean that sports organisations are exempt from law. A number of member states welcomed the contribution that the sub-programme for sport, in the Commission proposal for the “Erasmus for all” programme, will make to tackling match fixing and other threats to sport. The UK welcomed the work on good governance and the upcoming expert group which it will co-chair but stressed that good governance should not be dictated by Government.
Under Any Other Business, the Commission presented its proposal for the Erasmus for all programme, the new EU programme for education, training, youth and sport for the period 2014-2020. The UK presented a short promotional film on the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. The Danish delegation presented the incoming presidency’s priorities which include examining the sport section of the Erasmus for all programme, combating doping and match fixing, developing good governance issues and enhancing voluntary activities.
Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
As part of the Government’s commitment to conduct triennial reviews of their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), I am pleased to announce today the review of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest.
The Reviewing Committee (RCEWA) performs the very important role of advising on the principles which should govern the control of export of objects of cultural interest under the Export Control Act 2002 and on the operation of the export control system generally and advises the Secretary of State on all cases where refusal of an export licence for an object of cultural interest is suggested on grounds of national importance.
The triennial review will build on work undertaken by the Department during the review of public bodies, as part of the spending review and will collate and publish the evidence for the continuing need of the Reviewing Committee as an advisory NDPB.
The review of the RCEWA will be conducted by the Department with the support of a small review group made up of key stakeholders with a direct interest in the export licensing process. It will assess its effectiveness, accountability and efficiency. It will evidence the continuing need for its functions and examine and evaluate alternative delivery options.
The review will clarify the RCEWA’s responsibility for advising Ministers and will also clarify the roles and mechanisms for openness, transparency and accountability.
I will inform the House of the outcome of the review.
Treasure Valuation Committee
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
As part of the Government’s commitment to conduct triennial reviews of their non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), I am pleased to announce today the review of Treasure Valuation Committee.
The Treasure Valuation Committee provides the very important advisory role of recommending to the Secretary of State valuations for the treasure items brought before it and providing advice on the apportionment of any reward for the treasure item.
The triennial review will build on work undertaken by the Department during the review of public bodies, as part of the spending review and will collate and publish the evidence for the continuing need of the Treasure Valuation Committee as an advisory NDPB.
The review of the Treasure Valuation Committee will be conducted by the Department with the support of a review group made up of key stakeholders with a direct interest in the treasure valuation process. It will assess its effectiveness, accountability and efficiency. It will evidence the continuing need for individual functions and examine and evaluate a range of delivery options.
The review will clarify the Treasure Valuation Committee’s responsibility advising Ministers and will also clarify the roles and mechanisms for openness, transparency and accountability.
I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review.
Cyprus
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
In a written statement on 24 May 2011, Official Report, columns 49-50WS, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), informed the House that, further to the strategic defence and security review, a separate review of the British sovereign base areas in Cyprus would be undertaken.
The study has been completed. The Government accept its recommendations and confirms Her Majesty’s Government’s enduring commitment to the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. The key considerations in affirming this commitment were:
The sovereign base areas are in a region of geo-political importance and high priority for the United Kingdom’s long-term national security interests.
The sovereign base areas provide an adaptable and capable forward mounting base, the utility of which has been amply demonstrated: for example, the basing of RAF aircraft that participated in operations over Libya; the regular deployment of Cyprus-based military personnel to Afghanistan; and the key role played as a logistic hub for operations in Afghanistan.
In addition, the sovereign base areas are expected to make a significant contribution to logistic draw-down from Afghanistan, as well as to wider humanitarian and conflict prevention activities in the region. They also continue to provide excellent training opportunities in this important region.
The strategic defence and security review 2010 emphasised the fundamental importance of an “ability to remain adaptable for the future”. The sovereign base areas provide the United Kingdom with a unique contribution to our ability to achieve this goal.
Our military personnel, United Kingdom civilians and locally employed personnel in the sovereign base areas make a major contribution to the national security of the United Kingdom and will continue to do so in the future. In administering the sovereign base areas, the United Kingdom will continue to have as its main objectives—the effective use of the areas as military bases, maintenance of a constructive and co-operative relationship with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, and protection of the interests of those resident or working in the areas.
RAF Scampton
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I wish to inform the House of the latest position regarding the future basing requirements for the RAF aerobatic team (RAFAT) known as the Red Arrows and of the RAF’s air surveillance and control system (ASACS) units.
The previous Administration announced on 21 May 2008, Official Report, columns 23-24WS, that subject to trade union consultation, the RAFAT would in future operate from RAF Waddington, rather than RAF Scampton by 31 July 2011, although they would continue to use the dedicated airspace above RAF Scampton to enable training for their acrobatic displays.
The previous Administration announced on 28 October 2008, Official Report, columns 25-26WS, the relocation of two air surveillance and control system satellite units. Number 1 Air Control Centre at RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey and the Control and Reporting Centre at RAF Scampton, to RAF Coningsby by the end of 2014.
The strategic defence and security review (SDSR) considered a range of constraints on defence basing plans—the available estate, funding provision, plans already in train and the operational commitments of forces. In the light of the changes resulting from the SDSR, and against the background of the budgetary pressures defence faces, I have concluded that it makes sense to review the planned moves of the RAFAT and the control and reporting centre. In the meantime both units remain at RAF Scampton.
No 1 Air Control Centre has now merged and collocated with the Control and Reporting Centre at RAF Scampton and RAF Kirton-in-Lindsey will be closed by the end of March 2012, other than some service families accommodation and a combined mess for personnel at RAF Scampton.
The RAF will now consider future basing options for both the RAFAT and the ASACS units and make recommendations on options to deliver operational effectiveness and value for money. This will include recommendations on whether RAF Scampton should draw-down by 2014 as previously announced. This work is expected to complete in 2012 and I will report the outcome to Parliament at that time.
Service and civilian personnel at RAF Scampton will be briefed on the progress of this work; we will also engage with the trade union.
London 2012 Olympics
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government have agreed that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will support the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport by making a significant contribution to the security and safety of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics games. The safety and security operation for the games remains police-led. Work continues on the precise details and numbers of the defence contribution. However, the MOD now expects to provide up to 13,500 service personnel in London, on the Thames, in Weymouth and across the UK, delivering a range of military support to the police and other civil and Olympic authorities.
The MOD has been working very closely with the Metropolitan and Dorset police forces to scope the provision of specialist support to maritime security operations on the Thames and in Weymouth bay. It is currently planned for HMS Ocean to be based at Greenwich and HMS Bulwark in Weymouth bay, providing maritime command and control, accommodation, helicopter and small boat basing, and logistics supply.
We have been building on our existing arrangements to ensure that there will be an appropriate and scalable air security plan. A multi-layered plan has been developed and will include Typhoon aircraft, forward-based at RAF Northolt, helicopters operating from HMS Ocean and appropriate ground based air defence systems.
The MOD will increase the normal capacity of the armed forces in several specialist areas which are routinely provided to the civil authorities, in order to provide an enhanced level of capability and response, including explosive ordnance disposal, military working dogs and the capability to search vehicles and buildings.
In addition to this support to wider security activity, the armed forces will provide 3,500 personnel to support the venue security operation for the Olympic and Paralympic games, rising to 7,500 for the 17-day period of the Olympic games themselves. They will form part of a total venue guard-force of up to 23,700.
A further 1,000 strong military contingency force will be available to respond to Olympic-related civil emergencies. Military personnel will also provide command and control and logistics support for the range of military capabilities involved.
In providing this support. Defence will contribute up to 13,500 military personnel at times of peak demand. These numbers will be in addition to the ceremonial role which the armed forces will play during the Olympics, which will showcase our armed forces to the world. I am also pleased to note that a number of service personnel hope to compete on behalf of our nation.
This defence contribution is on a similar scale to that deployed at other recent Olympic games and will contribute to ensuring a safe, secure and enjoyable 2012 Olympics. Defence will continue to be able to support current and contingent operations during the games and my priority will remain the troops we have deployed on operations, including in Afghanistan, before, during and after the Olympics.
Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Review
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Ministry of Defence has concluded a review of the advisory bodies, the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees (formally established under a statutory instrument as the War Pensions Committees). This is in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s recent guidance on public bodies, which took effect from 1 April 2011. This review examined the Committees’ functions, as well as corporate governance procedures. The review concluded that the non-departmental public body model is the best way for them to deliver their functions, in a politically impartial way, in pursuing the interests of those who have served in the armed forces and their dependants.
The 13 Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees, covering Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the English regions, provide vital work by developing relationships and agreements with regional organisations to enhance the services delivered to ex-service personnel and their families, in particular those who are vulnerable. They also provide independent advice to both central and local government, health authorities and service providers in local communities. They give local support in promoting the armed forces’ covenant and have actively been involved in the development of local community covenants.
War Pensions Scheme Uprating 2012
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The new rates of war pensions and allowances proposed from April 2012 are set out in the following tables. The annual uprating of war pensions and allowances for 2012 will take place from the week beginning 9 April 2012. Rates for 2012 are increasing by 5.2% in line with the September 2011 consumer prices index.
(Weekly rates unless otherwise shown) | 2011 | 2012 |
|---|---|---|
war pensions | ||
Disablement Pension (100% rates) | ||
officer (£ per annum) | 8,323.00 | 8,756.00 |
other ranks (weekly amount) | 159.50 | 167.80 |
Age allowances payable from age 65 | ||
40%-50% | 10.70 | 11.25 |
over 50% but not over 70% | 16.40 | 17.25 |
over 70% but not over 90% | 23.35 | 24.55 |
over 90% | 32.80 | 34.50 |
Disablement gratuity (one-off payment) | ||
specified minor injury (min.) | 1,016.00 | 1,069.00 |
specified minor injury (max.) | 7,584.00 | 7,978.00 |
1 - 5% gratuity | 2,535.00 | 2,667.00 |
6 - 14%i gratuity | 5,638.00 | 5,931.00 |
15-19% gratuity | 9,860.00 | 10,373.00 |
supplementary allowances | ||
Unemployability allowance | ||
Personal | 98.55 | 103.65 |
adult dependency increase | 54.75 | 57.60 |
increase for first child | 12.75 | 13.40 |
increase for subsequent children | 14.95 | 15.75 |
Invalidity allowance | ||
higher rate | 19.55 | 20.55 |
middle rate | 12.60 | 13.30 |
lower rate | 6.30 | 6.65 |
Constant attendance allowance | ||
exceptional rate | 120.40 | 126.60 |
intermediate rate | 90.30 | 94.95 |
full day rate | 60.20 | 63.30 |
Part-day rate | 30.10 | 31.65 |
Comforts allowance | ||
higher rate | 25.90 | 27.20 |
lower rate | 12.95 | 13.60 |
Mobility supplement | 57.40 | 60.40 |
Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum) | 60.12 | 63.24 |
Therapeutic earnings limit (annual rate) | 4,940.00 | 5,070.00 |
Exceptionally severe disablement allowance | 60.20 | 63.30 |
Severe disablement occupational allowance | 30.10 | 31.65 |
Clothing allowance (£ per annum) | 205.00 | 216.00 |
Education allowance (£ per annum) (max) | 120.00 | 120.00 |
Widow(er)s benefits | ||
Widow(er)s’-other ranks (basic with children) (weekly amount) | 120.95 | 127.25 |
Widow(er)-Officer (basic with children) (£ per annum) | 6,432.00 | 6,766.00 |
Childless widow(er)s’ u-40 (other ranks) (weekly amount) | 28.97 | 30.48 |
(Officer highest rate both wars) (£ per annum) | 2,234.00 | 2,350.00 |
Supplementary Pension | 80.91 | 85.12 |
Age allowance | ||
(a) age 65 to 69 | 13.80 | 14.50 |
(b) age 70 to 79 | 26.50 | 27.90 |
(c) age 80 and over | 39.30 | 41.35 |
Children's allowance | ||
Increase for first child | 18.95 | 19.95 |
Increase for subsequent children | 21.25 | 22.35 |
Orphan’s pension | ||
Increase for first child | 21.65 | 22.80 |
Increase for subsequent children | 23.75 | 25.00 |
Unmarried dependant living as spouse (max) | 118.60 | 124.90 |
Rent allowance (maximum) | 45.60 | 47.95 |
Adult orphan’s pension (maximum) | 92.90 | 97.75 |
Young People in Education, Training and Work
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
The Departments for Education, for Work and Pensions and for Business, Innovation and Skills are today publishing “Building Engagement, Building Futures: Our Strategy to Maximise the Participation of 16-24 Year Olds in Education, Training and Work”. This fulfils the commitment made in “Opening Doors, Breaking Barriers”, the Government’s social mobility strategy published in April by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Increasing the participation of 16 to 24-year-olds in learning and work not only makes a lasting difference to their individual lives, but is central to our ambitions to improve social mobility and stimulate economic growth.
“Building Engagement, Building Futures” sets out how our radical reforms to schools, vocational education, skills and welfare provision will all make a significant difference to young people’s opportunities and support. The Government recognise that in some areas we need to go further, in particular to help the most vulnerable young people, who are at risk of long-term disengagement.
The strategy outlines our plans to support all young people to develop the skills, qualifications and experience they need—to succeed in their careers and make a positive contribution to our society and economy. It sets out how we will ensure that young people are in the best possible position to realise the opportunities available to them as the economy picks up. It builds on recent announcements that we will offer more apprenticeships for young people and provide additional support through the new youth contract, which includes at least 40,000 financial incentives for small businesses to take on a young apprentice.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the Minister with responsibility for employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning and I have worked together to develop this strategy, recognising the need for coherent policy approaches across education, training, skills and employment. This shared vision will help ensure that all services align in the best possible way to help every young person make progress towards adult life and successful careers.
Electricity Market Reforms
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)
I am today publishing a technical update to the electricity market reform White Paper “Planning our electric future: a white paper for secure, affordable and low-carbon electricity”1. The update complements the White Paper published in July 2011 and follows the release of the carbon plan on 1 December 2011, which set out the Government’s long-term plans for UK decarbonisation—making a transition to a low-carbon economy while maintaining energy security and minimising cost to consumers. Electricity market reform is a key tool for achieving this long-term carbon plan.
While the current electricity market has served us well, we face a number of unprecedented challenges. Around a fifth of existing generating capacity will close over the next decade and much of the replacement will be intermittent (such as wind) or inflexible (such as nuclear) generation, threatening our security of supply. At the same time electricity demand could as much as double by 2050, driven by greater electrification of transport, heating and industrial processes.
Our long-term vision for the market is one in which low-carbon generation can compete fairly on cost. This would mean a competitive, liquid market, cost-competitive technologies, and a credible carbon price. Electricity market reform is a set of arrangements to take us through this transition, addressing market failures to help low-carbon technologies compete fairly and to ensure a secure electricity supply.
The electricity market reform White Paper set out key measures to encourage investment in new generating and non-generation capacity (such as demand-side response and storage), reduce the impact on customer bills, and create a secure mix of electricity sources which meets increased demand. This includes supporting the introduction of renewables, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear to meet our low-carbon commitments. The White Paper marked the first stage of the reform process, with a commitment to provide a technical update around the turn of the year. Today I am publishing that update, which completes the strategic framework, setting out:
Our view that the system operator, part of National Grid, best meets the criteria for delivering the feed-in tariff with contracts for difference (FIT CfD) and the capacity mechanism;
Our decision to legislate for a capacity mechanism, in the form of a capacity market;
Detail on work to enable investment decisions for early projects; and
The next steps for the electricity market Reform programme.
The institutional framework is crucial to ensuring that electricity market reform has a robust, credit-worthy delivery model to drive enhanced investment into low-carbon generation and ensure security of supply while seeking to minimise the cost to consumers. The technical update outlines the institutional framework involving Government setting policy and objectives, the system operator administering the FIT CfD and CM, and Ofgem regulating the market. It includes our rationale for the system operator acting as the delivery organisation, its roles and responsibilities, relationship with Government; governance arrangements and principles for ensuring a credit-worthy structure for the FIT CfD and capacity mechanism contractual arrangements. This model best meets the criteria set out in the White Paper and builds on strong synergies between the system operator’s current role of system balancing and the delivery of the FIT CfD and capacity mechanism.
The provision of secure, reliable electricity for consumers is a key objective for Government. A capacity mechanism provides an insurance policy against the risk of a capacity shortfall. Current estimates suggest that a problem could emerge in the medium term—although accurate forecasting far ahead is difficult. That is why we need to put in place our insurance policy now; so we are covered against all possibilities and can respond as and when we need to.
Having considered the responses to our consultation on possible models of capacity mechanism, and undertaken subsequent analysis on the relative merits of the different options under consideration, the Government intend to legislate for the establishment of a capacity market. A capacity market ensures sufficient reliable capacity is available by providing incentives to invest in new capacity, including generation and non-generation approaches such as demand-side response, or for existing capacity to remain operational. We recognise that non-generation approaches could have advantages in terms of lower costs and reduced impact on carbon emissions. As well as allowing demand-side response and storage to compete on a fair and equivalent basis to generating in the capacity market, we are also assessing whether the right incentives are in place to support the efficient use of electricity, and whether further action is needed.
The technical update sets out our high-level decisions on the design of the capacity market. The detailed design of the mechanism will be developed with stakeholders’ engagement from next year. I am also publishing the capacity mechanism impact assessment today which outlines the full economic assessment of the policy options for a capacity mechanism. Our modelling indicates that the introduction of a capacity market should have a limited impact on average electricity bills and could lead to both a small reduction as a result of avoiding very high prices in scarcity periods and less volatile prices.
The White Paper set out the Government’s commitment to work actively with relevant parties to enable early investment decisions for low-carbon electricity generation to progress to timetable wherever possible, including those required ahead of implementation of the FIT CfD. I would encourage developers who meet the characteristics outlined within the technical update to contact DECC to initiate discussions. We are also providing further certainty for existing renewable generators by setting out in more detail the arrangements for renewables obligation certificates (ROCs) from 2027 onwards.
We have made rapid progress and are now moving to a stage of detailed policy design. Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders through a collaborative process to develop the detailed design of the mechanisms during 2012. To assist this process and maintain transparency a further update on emissions performance standards and feed in tariff with contracts for difference will be published early next year. We intend to legislate for electricity market reform in the second session of this Parliament, which begins in May 2012.
1 http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/white _papers/emr_wp_2011/emr_wp_2011.aspx.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council (Agenda)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Thursday 15 and Friday 16 December, in Brussels. I shall represent the UK on agriculture matters on Thursday and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) will be representing the United Kingdom on the fisheries items throughout the Council. Richard Lochhead MSP, Michelle O’Neill MLA and Alun Davies AM will also attend.
There are three fisheries and three agriculture items on the agenda. Discussions will take place on the following:
TACs and fishing quotas for 2012—The annual December negotiation package of fishing opportunities in the Atlantic and North sea for 2012.
TACs and quotas for fishing in the Black sea in 2012—Similar negotiations for stocks in the Black sea.
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund—The Commission will present the funding part of the CFP reform package which provides for a new instrument to replace the EFF and to integrate into it spending on the new EU integrated maritime policy.
CAP reform rural development proposal—A public debate focusing on the rural development proposal.
GM approvals—Council vote on approvals for use as food and feed of four GM varieties (three maize and one cotton).
Agricultural products promotions policy—Consideration of Council conclusions commenting on the green paper on promotion measures.
There are currently five points notified under any other business:
Commission presentation of a proposed regulation on sanctions against countries allowing non-sustainable fishing.
Cypriot item on aid for processed citrus fruit.
Protection of animals during transport—Commission report on implementation of the animal transport rules.
Codex Alimentarius—A presidency report back on the recent meeting of this UN body for international food standards.
Hungarian item on a technical aspect of the authorisation of GM products.
Finally, there is a ministerial lunch on Thursday 15 December to discuss certain aspects of rural development, including promoting innovation and risk management measures.
Independent Agricultural Appeals Panel
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)
A review of the independent agricultural appeals panel (IAAP) has been commissioned and will start work today. The IAAP is an advisory non-departmental public body, sponsored by DEFRA, which provides advice to Ministers on appeals made by claimants under the single payment scheme and other CAP schemes administrated by the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). This triennial review is part of a rolling programme of reviews that DEFRA is undertaking in line with Government’s commitment to reducing the number and cost of public bodies and ensuring accountability for public functions by examining all non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) at least once every three years.
The IAAP review is to be conducted in accord with Government guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies, and will consider the effectiveness of how the functions of IAAP are currently delivered, whether there is a need for the function and the advisory NDPB to continue, and if so, how the function might best be delivered in future. The review will be led by a member for the DEFRA senior civil service who is not involved with the day-to-day business of the IAAP or RPA.
The review will compliment ongoing work by RPA to improve its complaints and appeals procedures. Key stakeholders are being informed of the review and invited to submit views. Further information, including how to participate in the review are available on DEFRA’s website http://www.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/farm-manage /review-iaap.
An announcement will be made about the outcome of the review in due course.
Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Guidance
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to inform the House of the introduction of the Overseas Security and Justice Assistance (OSJA) guidance.
On 13 October, I announced in a statement to the House the conclusions of the Government’s review of policy and practice with regard to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression, in light of events in the middle east and north Africa. I also announced that the Government had considered how we could strengthen our decision making when we provide security and justice assistance overseas. I said that guidance on assessing the human rights implications of such assistance would be issued to all Government officials and that it would be published before the end of 2011. A copy of the “Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Human Rights Guidance” has now been deposited in the Library of the House.
The guidance is part of a package of improvements that responds to the lessons of this year, and our wider commitment to strengthen and uphold the record of the United Kingdom as a defender and promoter of human rights and democracy. This guidance will assist HMG staff who are called upon to advise on security and justice matters overseas. It will ensure greater consistency in the human rights approach to security and justice assistance overseas across HMG; it will assist in the identification and consideration of applicable legal obligations; and it will ensure that our security and justice activities, whilst meeting HMG’s national security priority, are also consistent with a foreign policy based on British values including human rights.
UK security and justice assistance to international partners to tackle threats such as terrorism, serious organised crime and conflict, and to support sustainable development, remains crucial to implementing our foreign policy and development priorities. As well as strengthening our relationships with other Governments and increasing our prospects for future cooperation with security institutions, this type of work can have a direct impact on our national interests. For example, the strategic defence and security review recommended that HMG increase efforts to tackle the terrorist threat at source, overseas. Our counter-terrorism programme aims to do just this by increasing the capacity of overseas authorities, such as the police, military and intelligence, to detect, investigate and disrupt terrorist threats.
At times, this will mean working with countries, institutions or units where we have concerns about their adherence to and respect for human rights and democracy. Often, it is these countries or institutions where security and justice assistance is most needed. While it is in our national interest to continue to provide such assistance, in doing so we must ensure that such assistance supports our values and is consistent with applicable domestic and international human rights obligations.
Today’s publication of the OSJA guidance is a reflection of our determination to ensure that when we provide assistance in these countries, we do so in a manner that promotes, rather than undermines, human rights and democracy.
Making these decisions is not always straightforward. While UK justice and security assistance can help achieve both security and human rights objectives in a given country, it can also present a variety of human rights risks. The OSJA guidance was produced in order to provide practical support to Government officials making these difficult decisions. It provides a clear framework to help officials identify the human rights risks, propose appropriate measures to mitigate these risks and produce a final assessment. It also sets out when the decision to provide assistance should be taken by senior personnel or Ministers. The guidance covers case specific assistance such as the deployment of specialist police officers to assist with an investigation, as well as broader capacity building assistance.
The OSJA guidance already applies to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and is currently being rolled out to other Government Departments. An internal review of the guidance will take place in April 2012.
The Government are committed to tackling issues related to security and human rights in an open and transparent way. This is why we published the Consolidated Guidance to Intelligence Officers and Security Personnel on the Detention and Interviewing of Detainees Overseas, and on the Passing and Receipt of Intelligence Related to Detainees. And it is why we have taken the decision to publish the “Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Guidance” today.
Tobacco Control Legislation
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The Government will publish a consultation on the packaging of tobacco products in spring 2012.
In March 2011 the Government published “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Tobacco Control Plan for England” which set out how our comprehensive, evidence-based programme of tobacco control will be delivered within the context of the new public health system over the next five years.
The tobacco control plan included a commitment to explore options to reduce the promotional impact of tobacco packaging and to publish a consultation paper.
The Government take very seriously the need to reduce the number of young people who take up smoking. Each year, in England alone, around 330,000 children under 16 first try smoking and the majority of smokers start smoking regularly before they are 18 years old.
I am pleased to confirm that this consultation will be carried out on a UK-wide basis. Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are also eager to gain a better understanding of whether the plain packaging of tobacco products could be effective in reducing the number of young people who take up smoking and in supporting adults who want to quit. Participating in this consultation will help them in making decisions about how they wish to take forward this matter in their own Administrations.
It is also important to create a supportive environment for adults who want to quit smoking. Most smokers report that it takes many attempts before they succeed in quitting. Removing sources of temptation that undermine quit attempts can be of great help.
The Government want to make it easier for people to make healthy choices. To do this, we need to understand whether there is evidence to demonstrate that the plain packaging of tobacco products would have an additional health benefit, over and above existing tobacco control initiatives. The Department of Health has, therefore, commissioned an independent academic review of the existing evidence relevant to the effects of tobacco packaging. This systematic evidence review will be peer reviewed and made available alongside the consultation.
Department of Health officials are also working with colleagues across Government to explore the implications and likely impacts of options for tobacco packaging.
This presents a complex series of issues and we will need to take all the relevant factors into account.
In view of these requirements, the consultation will not be available prior to the new year. The consultation will be published in spring 2012 and I would encourage all those with an interest to respond.
National Policing Improvement Agency
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
As part of the wider reform of policing, I wish to update the House on plans to phase out the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), to transfer its critical national functions and to establish a police professional body and a new IT company. I am also, today, placing in the Library a summary of the responses that were received in relation to Peter Neyroud’s report, “Review of Police Leadership and Training”.
I am committed to a methodical and careful phase-out of the NPIA in 2012. Good progress is being made. The NPIA’s headcount has reduced by 25%. The NPIA has announced its departure from its site at Harrogate. Some of NPIA’s procurement functions have already transferred to the Home Office, and important detailed work has been done to identify successor bodies for the NPIA’s critical national functions and services that are required to support an effective and modern police service.
In response to the policing leadership challenge set out by Peter Neyroud’s review (which I placed in the House Library in April 2011), I intend to create a new police professional body. This is a unique opportunity to further professionalise policing, creating a body that directly supports police officers at all ranks and civilian policing professionals. It will also create opportunities to open up the closed system of leadership within the police service, to harness greater diversity and experience at a senior level, and to equip the service with the skills it needs to deliver effective crime fighting in a changing, leaner and more accountable environment.
Peter Neyroud, in his review, outlined a policing professional body which held chartered status. This will be an issue for the professional body itself to pursue when it has developed a body of evidence demonstrating it reaches the rigorous criteria required.
Whilst the police professional body will focus on policing in England and Wales, it will be important that it takes into account, and works closely with, forces in Scotland and Northern Ireland, particularly on cross-border issues.
The police professional body will develop policing as a single profession; it will represent the entire service and will act only in the public interest. Chief constables also need to come together for discussion, focusing on key operational issues, when it is in the public interest for them to do so. I envisage a need for a chiefs’ council, and I am working with ACPO and key partners to consider the precise remit of the chiefs’ council and its relationship with the police professional body.
As announced in July, the Government also intend to establish an information and communications technology (ICT) company. The company will be responsible for the procurement, implementation and management of complex contracts for information technology, related business change and outsourcing services, supplying both national and local services for police. The company will be owned by police authorities and subsequently police and crime commissioners, with the police service as its customer. It will provide:
better value to forces for their ICT spend;
greater innovation in police ICT, so that operational officers have better systems;
freedom for chief constables to focus on fighting crime rather than managing ICT;
services and products that support forces and other customers in their drive for inter-operability.
We are discussing the key design elements of the new company with representatives of forces and authorities to ensure that it meets their needs first and foremost. It will operate in such a way that forces can more quickly, easily and efficiently collaborate and procure IT solutions which meet local requirements.
Turning to plans for other NPIA functions, not in scope for either the police professional body or the ICT company, I intend to:
transfer key national critical operational functions to the National Crime Agency (NCA), which naturally fit with its new national crime fighting remit. Those areas already identified include the Central Witness Bureau, Crime Operational Support, the National Missing Persons Bureau, the Serious Crime Analysis team, and the Specialist Operations centre. In the short term, these important functions will move to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, one of the major precursor bodies to the NCA;
transfer responsibility for the 101 non-emergency phone service, crime mapping, pathology services, forensic and other non-ICT procurement and the programme for implementing Schengen Information System (II) (SIS II), to the Home Office. These moves follow the non-ICT procurement transfers that were completed in October 2011;
hand over, to a lead force, the hosting of the new National Police Air Service;
end the work NPIA currently does advising on value for money by November 2012. In its place, police and crime commissioners will drive value for money in the police service, with further support where necessary.
All other NPIA functions are the subject of further detailed analysis and consultation with the wider police service. I expect to be able to make an announcement about the future of the NPIA’s estate in the spring of 2012.
Of particular note will be reviews into the future viability of Bramshill House and the utilisation of Hendon Data Centre (HDC), which provides vital IT services at the very heart of policing. The HDC review will consider how services should be delivered in the future, by whom, and any transitional arrangements that will be necessary to ensure public safety is protected.
Fines, Confiscation Orders and Fixed Penalties
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) has prepared a trust statement providing an account of the collection of revenues which, by statute or convention, are due to be paid to HM Treasury. The statement includes the value of fines and confiscation orders imposed by the judiciary; fixed penalties imposed by the police; the value of collections; the balances paid over to third-parties including victims of crime, the Home Office and HM Treasury; and the balance of outstanding impositions.
Enforcement of all court impositions is a priority for this Government. The Ministry of Justice has been working closely with the Home Office, Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and others to improve enforcement through a range of current and planned measures. These include “Operation Crackdown”, a targeted blitz on persistent defaulters, telephone and text chasing, action to increasing deduction of court fines direct from salary and benefits, greater use of tracing tools like credit checks, and 24-hour telephone and internet payment facilities.
We are also exploring how we can reduce the level of “aged debt” on the Government’s books—including fines, compensation and costs orders which have been imposed but have yet to be successfully collected after a minimum of 12 months. In some cases, these date back a number of years—some as far as the early 1990s. We are piloting new approaches with three commercial suppliers to establish the collectability of financial penalties over a year old, testing a combination of techniques and innovation and providing evidence on which to develop a strategy to manage this debt in the future.
The statement shows that in 2010-11 over £497 million of cash was collected by HMCTS—an increase of £25 million on the previous year. The overall total of outstanding impositions increased from £1.5 billion to £1.9 billion. The principal driver for this has been an increase in the use of confiscation orders, which have been more aggressively imposed in the Crown Court over the last year to deprive criminals of assets—their use by the courts in 2010-11 rose by 158%, and accounts for £1.2 billion of the total. In some cases, such as joint criminal enterprise, two separate orders can be issued for the total sum—in one case two individuals are separately liable for the same sum of £92 million, a total order of £184 million.
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the direct collection of 16% of confiscation orders by value. Enforcing confiscation orders presents a challenge right across Government, as criminals use increasingly complex ways to mask or offshore their assets—it is estimated that over 60% of the total are “hidden” assets or held overseas. All agencies involved in confiscation orders are committed to improving enforcement performance.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) has today published a report on the trust statement, and provided a disclaimer with his certificate. This reflects the fact that the IT systems used in the enforcement of impositions are live “case management” systems, rather than accounting systems: they are fully effective in reporting the value of money owed to ensure targeted enforcement, but cannot be used for retrospective reporting of individual transactions for audit. The IT system was rolled out in 2007-8: the requirement to produce a trust statement first arose for 2010-11. We estimate that to implement a new accounting system for these purposes would cost at least £3 million, and would not present good value for public money. We are, however, taking steps to ensure that we are better able to evidence the robustness of the historical figures for audit purposes in future.
Public Bodies Reform
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
Today I have laid before Parliament a public consultation response document; “Response to Consultation on reforms proposed in the Public Bodies Bill—Reforming the public bodies of the Ministry of Justice”.
The response confirms the Ministry of Justice’s intentions in relation to the Department’s bodies included in the Public Bodies Bill, which received Royal Assent yesterday. Reform of these bodies through the powers provided in the Public Bodies Act 2011 will increase Government accountability, eliminate duplication of activity and discontinue activities that no longer need to take place.
The response confirms the Government’s intention to abolish the following bodies: the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council; Courts Boards; the Crown Court Rule Committee; HM Inspectorate of Courts Administration; the Magistrates’ Courts Rule Committee; and the Public Guardian Board. The Department will also use the powers in the Bill to merge four bodies or offices to create The National Archives as a legal entity to reflect current administrative arrangements. These bodies and offices are: the Public Record Office, HM Stationery Office, The Keeper of Public Records and the Advisory Council on Public Records.
I have decided that the Government should not pursue the abolition of the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and that the office of the chief coroner should be established but without the bespoke appeals system that would have been attached to that office. Amendments to that effect were made to the Public Bodies Bill on 23 November during Lords Consideration of Commons Amendments.
The Government continue to believe that there is a need for reform of youth justice in order to increase direct ministerial accountability for this important and distinct area of the justice system. The Ministry of Justice will shortly bring forward new proposals for youth justice reform. The Department will also announce in the new year further details of the timetable for the implementation of the office of the chief coroner.
Orders that give effect to the decisions set out in the response paper will be laid from early in 2012. As provided for in the Public Bodies Act 2011, all such orders will be subject to the enhanced affirmative parliamentary procedure.
Coroner Services (Charter)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
The Government are today publishing their response to the consultation on the charter for current coroner services.
The charter will help those who come into contact with coroner services in England and Wales by for the first time setting out the standards that bereaved family members and others can expect to receive. It also sets out what someone can do if they are unhappy with the level of service provided.
The charter forms an integral part of the Government’s plans for reform of the coroner system, and, alongside the appointment of a chief coroner and implementation of most of the provisions in part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, will help to ensure much more consistent standards of service between coroner areas.
The charter consultation closed on 5 September 2011. A total of 135 responses were received from a range of stakeholders including coroners, local authorities, voluntary organisations, medical professionals and members of the public. Our response document summarises the views of respondents, and shows where we will subsequently make revisions to the charter.
Overall, there was support for the charter to be published, as proposed, alongside the Ministry of Justice’s current “Guide to Coroners and Inquests”. This combined document will ensure that people can easily access one document setting out first the processes in a coroner inquiry (the guide) and secondly the standards that can be expected throughout (the charter).
Hard copies of the final version of the combined guide and charter booklet will be printed and distributed to all coroner jurisdictions in early 2012. The guide and the charter will then be updated as and when changes to the coroner system are introduced in the future.
The response paper is available online, at
http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/closed-with-response.htm.
EU Transport Council
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
I attended the second Transport Council of the Polish presidency in Brussels on 12 December.
The Council reached political agreement on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a single European railway area (Recast). At its First Reading of the proposal on 16 November the European Parliament made amendments which differed significantly from the Council’s general approach adopted at the June Transport Council. However, the political agreement text only incorporates those amendments that do not alter the general approach, and are acceptable to the UK. The Commission hopes a Second Reading deal can be struck with the European Parliament under the Danish presidency.
The Council agreed a partial general approach on a draft regulation amending Regulation 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport. This proposal would amend the specification for tachographs, which measure hours spent at the wheel by commercial lorry and bus drivers.
The Council also agreed a general approach on:
a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2008/106/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers to bring the extant directive into line with the latest International Maritime Organization rules; and
a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers (Recast). The amendments reflect changes to the international regime for tankers adopted at the International Maritime Organization between 2002 and 2009.
The Council noted a progress report on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network. This item generated substantial discussion. I intervened to acknowledge the importance of good cross-border infrastructure for the single market, but expressed concern about binding obligations proposed and the financial and administrative burdens they would place on member states at a time when fiscal constraints are substantial and also stressed the need for member states to retain their responsibility for planning decisions, processes and implementation. On the proposed increase to the TEN-T budget, I said budgetary restraint must be the priority.
Under Any Other Business, the Commission presented its new proposals on a “better airport package” which covers a recast of the slot allocation regulation, and revisions to the current directives on ground handling and noise which are intended to address issues of capacity, growth, environmental concerns and competitiveness. The proposals on ground handling and noise have been recast as (directly applicable) regulations.
The Commission reported on the European aviation safety management system and air cargo security action plan. I intervened in strong support of the European aviation safety management system and to request that the Commission report back on progress at a future Transport Council.
The Commission, at the request of Finland, reported on the current state of play with regards to the aviation EU emissions trading system (ETS). There had been three main developments since the June Transport Council: the US House of Representatives had approved a Bill that would prohibit US airlines from complying with ETS; there had been political messages against ETS emerging from the ICAO Council in November; and President Obama had specifically raised the issue at the EU/US summit on 28 November, noting the need to avoid confrontation. The Commission’s assessment was that while international opposition was strong, so was the EU response. The Commission acknowledged there still could be a challenge in ICAO under the Chicago convention, and that it was important to understand what forms retaliatory action could take. Following a legal challenge from the US Air Transport Association and three US airlines the European Court of Justice will deliver its judgment on the case on 21 December.
Antonio Tajani, Commissioner responsible for industry and entrepreneurship, updated Ministers on recent developments within the Galileo programme and indicated that since the successful launch of the first two satellites in October the system was now up and running with real momentum behind it. The Commission also presented its proposed regulation on Galileo governance and exploitation.
Before the Council, I met Ministers from Finland and Ireland, the German State Secretary, and the Northern Irish Transport Minister to discuss items on the Transport Council agenda, in particular TEN-T. In a separate discussion after Transport Council, I exchanged views on TEN-T and better regulation with the Siim Kallas, the Transport Commissioner.
The UK did not participate in the vote on one item on the A point list, namely article 81 based Council decision authorising the EU to accede to the 2002 protocol to the Athens convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. The UK has, however, subsequently notified its intention to opt in to the Council decision.
The Danish delegation presented the work programme of their forthcoming presidency of the EU. The incoming Danish presidency’s overarching aim in the transport sector will be “green growth” and they will take forward work on current Council dossiers. For example, they will be seeking to reach a Second Reading agreement with the European Parliament on the recast of the first railway package. They will also commence work on proposals included in the recently published Commission work programme, such as the airport package and the proposals on driving licences and the satellite navigation programmes, as well as on an expected proposal on enforcement of the maritime labour convention. Their main priorities are the TEN-T guidelines and the airport package, especially ground handling and noise reduction proposals.
Red Tape Challenge (Reform of Road Transport Regulations)
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
In May, my Department launched the road transportation theme of the red tape challenge—part of the Cabinet Office’s project to review all of the outstanding regulations currently on the statute book. Following a detailed process of challenge, stakeholder discussion and public feedback, I am now pleased to announce the results.
Within the road transport red tape challenge, my Department put forward every secondary regulation relating to road transportation for public discussion—415 in total. Some 376 of these are judged still to be live, and of these I propose to scrap, merge, simplify, amend or improve 142—well over a third. The detailed breakdown I propose is:
Keep as is | Improve | Scrap | Moved 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | 226 | 84 | 58 | 8 |
Percentage | 60.1% | 22.3% | 15.4% | 2.1% |
Number non-EU | 180 | 75 | 54 | 8 |
% non-EU | 55.9% | 23.6% | 18.0% | 2.5% |
1 Moved regulations will be finalised under a different section of the red tape challenge. |
Among the measures we are pursuing, we will be:
Scrapping the regulation requiring motorists to hold a paper counterpart to their driving licence by 2015—saving drivers up to £8 million;
Improving the regulation surrounding the notification process for vehicles that are not in use on the road (Statutory Off Road Notification or SORN). Once drivers have notified the DVLA that their vehicle is SORN, they will no longer have the burden of annual SORN renewal;
Only issuing hard-copies of V5C vehicle registration certificates for fleet operators when needed (with the potential to offer the same to private motorists);
Introducing a limited exemption from drivers’ hours rules so that those who also drive as Territorial Army reservists in their own time can continue to do so.
The Challenge has also considered various administrative measures that are not based in legislation and has examined pieces of primary legislation that can be amended or simplified.
Other proposals include:
Removing the need for an insurance certificate. The Department for Transport will work with the insurance industry on removing the need for motorists to have to hold an insurance certificate.
Abolishing the requirement for drivers to prove they have insurance when applying for tax, meaning 600,000 more people will be able to tax their car online. This has been made possible by new checks of existing databases for insurance under new continuous
insurance enforcement rules. (The DVLA’s records are now compared regularly with the motor insurance database (MID) to identify registered keepers of vehicles that appear to have no insurance).
We will look at experience in other countries on driver certificates of professional competence (CPC)—the qualification for professional bus, coach and lorry drivers. In particular, to see if we could remove the need for some sectors, such as farmers who drive stock to market, from needing a CPC.
Local authorities will now have to ensure business interests are properly considered as part of any future proposed workplace parking levy scheme. They must show they have properly and effectively consulted local businesses, have addressed any proper concerns raised and secured support from the local business community.
Abolishing the regulations on the treatment of lost property on buses. Bus companies currently have to wait 48 hours before they can throw away perishable items left on the bus.
The full list of 376 regulations, explaining what actions we are taking on each, is available on my Department’s website at
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/gov-20110520.
Overall, this represents an ambitious programme of deregulation, some elements of which will represent a major shift in the way my Department does business. I am pleased with the results of this section of the red tape challenge and the deregulatory mindset it has helped foster. I look forward to similar outcomes from the ongoing rail and maritime theme and next year’s examination of aviation red tape.
European Social Fund Support for Troubled Families
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)
I am pleased to announce today that the Government have put in place additional support in England for troubled families and where either no one is working or there is a history of worklessness across generations.
This support, which is funded through money received by DWP in England from the European social fund, will offer these families the opportunity to engage in work related activities, address issues which are preventing them from working and enhance their chances of returning to the labour market either directly or through the Work programme. This supports the wider cross-Government agenda on troubled families led by Louise Casey, to help turn around the lives of such families.
The provision will be employment focused and tackle barriers which prevent individual family members from returning to the labour market. The provider will take a whole family approach with support being tailored to meet individual needs. Local authorities in England have a key role identifying families who are ready for this specific support and have been working with the DWP providers to enable this to happen. This joint working and engagement will be ongoing.
Workplace Pension Reform
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that today we have achieved key milestones that will help secure a robust, efficient workplace pensions system for the 21st century.
First, we are publishing “Meeting future workplace pensions challenges: improving transfers and dealing with small pots” (Cm 8184). This paper sets out actions that the Government are taking to make sure people get the most out of the money they save:
We will abolish short service refunds for defined contribution occupational schemes. These rules jeopardise pension savings for low to median earners and will not be part of the automatic enrolment world. We expect this rule change to happen as soon as 2014, provided we are able to implement an accompanying solution for small pot transfers at the same time. A full impact assessment is being published alongside the paper to take account of this change.
Abolishing short service refunds will create more small pension pots for defined contribution (DC) occupational schemes, but this is part of a much wider problem. We anticipate that automatic enrolment and a highly mobile jobs market will lead to around 4.7 million additional small pension pots in our pension system by 2050. The burden of these small pots is compounded by the fact that systemic barriers, like cost and complexity, prevent people from moving and consolidating their pensions into one place.
So our paper seeks views and evidence from stakeholders on how we can reduce the number of small pots and improve transfers. We discuss possible solutions: ranging from minimal changes to the current system to an automatic transfer system where pension pots can be collected in one or more “aggregator” schemes or could follow people from job to job. We welcome feedback on these possible approaches.
Alongside this paper we are also publishing a consultation on the 2012-13 review and revision of the automatic enrolment thresholds. This consultation invites contributions to inform how we take this review forward for the first year of automatic enrolment live running. It is important that we get this review right—so that we target the correct group for automatic enrolment while carefully weighing the cost to business and the impact on the pension industry.
I would like to thank the pensions community for their input to this work so far. This collaboration needs to continue if we are to make automatic enrolment a success.
Copies of the paper will be available in the Vote office and Printed Paper office later today.
Copies of the consultation document and the impact assessment will be placed in the library.
These publications will be available later today on the Department’s website: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/ consultations/2011/
Grand Committee
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I apologise in advance for a singularly technical group of amendments, but they need to be explained, if only so that Hansard can show to those who are not here why they have been put forward. They are inescapably dry, not to say turgid. This group contains Amendments 116 to 119, which amend Clause 37, and Amendment 132 which, via the Bill, makes four amendments to Section 22 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Clause 37 incorporates new Section 23A into RIPA 2000, thus extending the cases when judicial approval has to be obtained for surveillance. It is a clause that is to be welcomed, as indeed is the Bill as a whole. Amendments 116 to 119 to new Section 23A are drafting ones, but having suffered from unnecessarily obscure wording during the original passage of RIPA, where I led for these Benches, it still remains one of the most complex statutes there is. I hope that the Committee will think that the amendments are worth while.
Amendments 117 and 118 delete what I think are superfluous phrases from Clause 37, the phrases being, “if any” in subsection (2) and “as the case may be”, which appears later in that subsection. Superfluity of language is to be avoided.
Amendments 116 to 119 to the same new clause rectify what seems to me to be a clear error of drafting. I may say that putting together this Bill must have taxed the drafting skills of parliamentary draftsmen to the limit, and one can hardly be surprised if there is the occasional wrinkle. Amendments 116 and 119 address a confusion repeated in new Section 23A. It distinguishes authorisations under Section 22(3), (3B) and (3F) of RIPA from notices required under Section 22(4) of RIPA. Broadly, authorisations allow surveillance to take place whether or not subject to judicial approval, whereas notices are mandatory and require postal or telecommunications operators to disclose data. Both authorisations and notices, which are distinguished throughout both RIPA and this Bill, can be renewed but they are renewable under different provisions in RIPA 2000 and in this Bill.
However, new Section 23A, set out in Clause 37 of the Bill, states in subsections (1) and (3) that the renewal of authorisations is derived from the same sections as the grant of the same. My Amendments 115 and 119 would rectify that by making it clear that renewals are made under subsections (5) and (6) of Section 23 of RIPA 2000. I am not now entirely sure, on rereading my amendments, that reference to Section 23(6) in Amendment 119 is appropriate, but the Minister will soon tell me. It is rather a lot to ask him to have a view on these arcane matters on the instant.
Amendment 122 contains four amendments to Section 22 of RIPA, which will be incorporated through this Bill. Subsection (1) of Section 22 of RIPA gives the context within which breaches of privacy so as to disclose communications data shall be permissible. At the moment, it says:
“This section applies where a person designated for the purposes of this Chapter believes that it is necessary on grounds falling within subsection (2) to obtain any communications data”.
Perhaps we tried when the Bill was passed to insert “reasonably” before “believes”. However, it is never too late and my first change to Section 22 would achieve just that. It seems obvious and follows the general tenor of this Bill that the belief of the designated person should be reasonably arrived at.
The third change in my Amendment 122 to subsection (5) of Section 22 again seems to me obvious: namely, that a lazy or perverse belief on the part of any official should not be sufficient to trigger the authorisations permissible under this important but necessary invasion of citizen privacy.
The second change of my four is to subsection (3) of Section 22 of RIPA 2000, which, as it stands, appears to allow a designated person in effect to delegate his or her power of authorisation to,
“persons holding offices, ranks or positions with the same relevant public authority as the designated person to engage in any conduct to which this Chapter applies”.
Unless my interpretation of this subsection in RIPA is misconceived, this less-than-clear wording would allow a designated person, whose designation has to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order under Section 25, to delegate under Section 22(3) to persons in the same public authority of any office, rank or position inferior to that of the person making the delegation. Again, in common sense, that cannot be right; hence my insertion of “comparable” so that the delegation by an official under Section 22(3) must be to a person of comparable rank or position.
Lastly—noble Lords will be glad to know that I am coming to the end of this exciting oration—the fourth amendment in my Amendment 122 harks back to the earlier ones in this group. It would change subsection (4)(b) of Section 23 of RIPA by removing “authorise or”, since those words relate to authorisations whereas subsection (4)(b) is exclusively concerned with notices, which, as I have explained, are not permissive but mandatory, and require—that is the relevant word—this or that from the postal or telecommunications operator to which the requirement is addressed.
I am sorry to have taxed the patience of the Committee with these somewhat obscure points but I believe that these amendments would improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My noble friend may not like this question, but we are all family here, are we not? I absolutely agree that one needs a good supply of hot towels when reading this Act. Almost the last point he made was about his Amendment 122, which draws attention to Section 22(3), granting authorisation “for persons holding”—he would like to say comparable—“offices”. I read that as meaning that if you are designated to grant authorisation, you can allow a colleague, whether or not of the same seniority, to engage in the conduct that is referred to in Section 21. What that seems to be doing is saying that the designated person is in a position to grant authorisation, but it is perfectly okay to grant it within his own authority and that the conduct referred to in Section 21 does not mean delegating or granting authorisation to a third party. I am sorry if I have added to the need for hot towels.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am not perfectly sure that I understood my noble friend’s point. I think she is talking about comparability.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Yes. The reason I think that Section 22(3) of RIPA is wrong is that it does not make any requirement, as I see it, as to the rank or the position of the person to whom any delegation is made by the person originally designated under very carefully confined powers. As my noble friend pointed out, the definition of a designated person involves the Secretary of State making the designation, but when in Section 22(3) a delegation is in effect made, there is no such requirement. Where it refers to the same relevant public authority, that is fine. The person to whom delegation is made has got to be someone else in the same relevant public authority, but there is no requirement as to what rank that person is.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my point was that I do not think this is about delegation of authority. I think it is about authorising the conduct which, were it to be proposed to be undertaken by someone in a different organisation, would require authorisation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my noble friend may be right. We disagree, as things stand, as to the meaning of Section 22(3) which, I think she will readily agree, is obscurely worded.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I well remember RIPA going through and your Lordships did not like it. As a result, very unusually, we tabled an amendment to the regulations that went through. This is symptomatic of some problems and an opportunity to tidy up some of these things. I remember that one of the key points that a lot of us did not like was the lack of external checks. There were too many internal authorisations allowing things to be done which could have some quite severe consequences on personal privacy of the citizens of this country. We should do what we can to tighten that up. I have to admit that I have not looked at any of this in detail, but I trust the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to have probably got this one right.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I think I can intervene now. I apologise if I digress to mention metal thefts, civil partnerships or intercepts as evidence, but even by a quarter past two it has already been something of a long day. My noble friend Lady Hamwee talked about the need for hot towels to understand what is going on behind some of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Phillips. I am grateful to discover that it will be hot towels only for my noble and Liberal friends, so I shall get on with an explanation of what I think my noble friend Lord Phillips is getting at in his amendments and what the Government’s response is. That should be useful to noble Lords. What I think these amendments laudably seek to do is provide a degree of clarity in what is obviously a complex area, but I hope I can persuade him that the existing drafting of Clause 37 and of Sections 22 and 23 of RIPA is appropriate.
Lord Henley
I was just about to get on to Amendments 116 and 119. I think my noble friend accidentally referred to Amendment 116 as Amendment 115. For the sake of the record, I will put that right.
It might help if I first explain the differences between authorisations and notices. Sections 22(3), (3B) and (3F) refer to authorisations. These allow a designated person in a public authority to authorise another person in that authority to take steps to obtain communications data. This will be relevant where the authority rather than the service provider needs to take those steps. Section 22(4) refers to notices. This relates to notices given to a service provider directly. In seeking to redraft subsections (1) and (3) of new Section 23A of RIPA, these amendments are no doubt designed to make it clear that the requirement for magistrate approval applies to the renewals of authorisation notices to obtain communications data as well as their original grant. This is fully the intent of the clause. However, we believe that the text as drafted is correct in law on this point. Section 22 of RIPA applies to renewal, not Section 23—as provided for by the proposed amendment. Where a designated person seeks to grant or renew an authorisation, they do so under Section 22. Section 23 does not provide a separate basis for renewal. It merely makes provision about the form of an authorisation or notice and its duration.
It is, of course, right that Sections 23(5) and (6) refer expressly to renewal but the effect of the provisions is to ensure two things. First, they will make it clear that, where a designated person for a public authority intends to renew an authorisation under Section 22, they can do so at any time before the expiry of the authorisation—which will last for one month. Secondly, it will mean that, where the authorisation is renewed, the requirements of Section 23 in relation to the form of that authorisation are complied with. Sections 23(5) and (6) do not provide a basis for renewal and the clause as currently drafted, which refers to the granting and renewing of an authorisation under Section 22, is correct.
Amendments 117 and 118 seek to omit the words in brackets in new Section 32A(2) of RIPA. On the proposed omission of “if any”, these words cater for the fact that a local authority application for a notice or authorisation to obtain communications data may be refused. This is not merely a rubber-stamping exercise. That is an important point and it is brought out expressly by the drafting of the clause. On the proposed omission of “as the case may be”, these words make it clear that the provisions apply both to notices and authorisations to obtain communications data. We hope that it is a helpful steer to the reader. RIPA has sometimes been accused of being complicated and impenetrable—my noble friend said something similar. The drafting provides clarity on that.
Finally, Amendment 122 seeks to amend Sections 22 and 23 of RIPA, which relate to obtaining and disclosing communications data and the form and duration of authorisations.
The addition of the word “reasonably” into subsections (1) and (5) of Section 22 is not required and could cause confusion elsewhere. Reasonableness is already implicit within RIPA because it is expressly inherent in the Article 8 test of necessity and proportionality. Making an explicit reference to reasonableness in the context of Section 22 would cast doubt as to the test to be applied elsewhere in RIPA, where there are similar formulations.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I let his officials have a copy of what I was going to say an hour or so in advance of this Committee so that it was not a complete surprise to them all. I shall need a little time to absorb the response. I have to be frank and say that on a number of issues, at first flush, I was not convinced. But the best way forward, if the Minister agrees, is that we have a conflab outside this Chamber on any points that have residual concern. I was not intending to divide the House at this stage in any event but no doubt he will afford me access to his Bill team so that we can sort anything out if it needs it.
Lord Henley
My Lords, it would be right that we should sit down and discuss this, and I would welcome a chance to arrange a meeting with my noble friend. It is technical and difficult stuff. My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to it as hot-towel-around-the-head stuff. I think it might be almost more cold-towel-and-a-lot-of-black-coffee stuff. But whatever happens, we have to discuss it and we will certainly try to do so.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful to the Minister, although I would prefer whisky. I certainly accept what he said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to an authorisation granted in contemplation of any surveillance undertaken in pursuance of Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Noise Act 1996 in respect of noise.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think I need to take my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury aside to explain that whisky may dull the pain but caffeine keeps one on the job better.
Baroness Hamwee
I do speak for myself. I hope Amendment 124, at any rate in the drafting, is a little more straightforward. I declare an interest as one of a number of vice presidents of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, from which this amendment comes. The amendment is concerned with environmental health and, in particular, with noise.
There has been, I understand, a long-running issue as to whether the investigation of noise nuisance requires covert surveillance. It is not the Home Office but in fact Defra which has mainly been concerned with this. Environmental health officers listen to noise in its context and record, one of the technical terms, anything listened to which brings—as I understand it since it is as the institute understands it—what it does within the meaning of Section 26(9) of RIPA. The Home Office takes the view that dealing with noise nuisance does not ordinarily require covert surveillance and so it is not caught by RIPA. Perhaps this amendment covers it if and when it does. Therefore this amendment is a probing one. The institute is generally in support of the need for judicial authorisation but so far as its work is concerned in this area there are some difficulties.
As this has been long running, it is able to anticipate the arguments that may be made against the need for such an amendment so I am going to start with the response and then its response to each of the Home Office’s likely responses. The first is that surveillance follows complaints so quickly that obtaining authorisation would not be reasonably practicable and that this excuses the need for authorisation. The institute says that the exception is when surveillance is undertaken as an “immediate response”, such as when a police officer sights a suspect in the street. There is always going to be a delay between the making of the noise complaint and its investigation. Secondly, if local authorities warn noise perpetrators that they may be monitored surveillance following that will not be covert and so will not be caught by RIPA.
Giving a warning causes delay. It rather undermines the duty on local authorities under the Environmental Protection Act to investigate complaints and quite obviously it would tend to be self-defeating. I dare say many noble Lords will have experienced complaint in different contexts to noise or what they may perceive as noise. I perceive muzak as noise. I have often asked for it to be turned down. It is turned down temporarily in a place of entertainment and up it goes again. Thirdly, if local authorities warn noise perpetrators that they may be monitored, again surveillance will not be covert and so not caught. I beg your pardon. I should have said that giving a warning takes the investigation out of RIPA and the measurement of sound pressure levels does not require authorisation. But there is no numerical standard for noise nuisance because environmental health officers have to judge the noise in context. Depending on what else is going on, the noise may or may not be intrusive, and for evidential purposes it is accepted practice to record it.
Fourthly, private information is unlikely to be obtained because perpetrators have no right of privacy to information that is audible outside the premises it is coming from. However, the institute draws attention to the definition in RIPA of “private information” by reference to its content as distinct from its audibility. Fifthly, surveillance carried out without authorisation is not necessarily unlawful. That is the case where there is an equivalent process of authorisation in another statute, but that does not apply in this case. Lastly, the whole thrust of this part of the Bill is the protection of magistrates’ approval against unjustified snooping by local authorities, and both I and the institute have sympathy with that. The Home Office has confirmed in Answer to a parliamentary Question in another place that there is no evidence to suggest that noise investigations are being carried out inappropriately by local authorities. We have read of instances where local authorities have rather overstepped the mark in their use of the powers, but this is not one of those examples.
In the hope that I have not taken too much of the Minister’s speech in anticipation of the answer, I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her introduction to the amendment, and indeed she has anticipated quite a lot of what I will say in response. None the less, there are some things that are worth emphasising, and I hope that in doing so I can give her some assurances. I certainly agree that noise nuisance is something that is clearly intolerable to the person experiencing it and that in many instances the noise under investigation may occur at night, so anyone who is subject to that kind of disturbance feels strongly about the situation they find themselves in and wants any action to deal with it to be rapid. However, Amendment 124 is unnecessary because the sort of noise we are talking about, that which causes disturbance and affects people’s lives, is not caught by RIPA.
Before I go on to cover some of the topics raised by my noble friend, let me say that Home Office officials have already met representatives of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and of Defra to discuss these points. We have said that we shall work with them on revising the RIPA code of practice on covert surveillance in order to make it clear that authorisation under RIPA is unlikely to be necessary for noise abatement reasons. Surveillance conducted and governed under RIPA relates to private information only. It requires that when public authorities obtain private information covertly, they do so only when it is necessary and proportionate, in line with our right to privacy. However, the privacy implications of someone making a loud noise will usually be such that RIPA is not engaged. Loud machinery, alarms or music, for instance, are not private information, and if the noise emanating from someone’s house because of, say, an argument is so loud that it can be heard in the street outside or the adjoining property, it is highly questionable whether the people concerned have a realistic expectation of privacy. If the noise involves violent or threatening behaviour, then it would always be appropriate to call for the police.
If the council’s policy is to serve an abatement notice warning that monitoring may be carried out, then that monitoring cannot be deemed to be covert in nature, which my noble friend has already anticipated. In these scenarios, a RIPA authorisation would not be required. This is made clear in the RIPA covert surveillance code of practice; that code has statutory force.
The only instance where a RIPA authorisation definitely would be required is where a local authority noise monitoring device was calibrated to boost the signal so as to record conversations which could not be heard outside the property with the naked ear. However, this would constitute intrusive surveillance and RIPA does not permit local authorities to do this. Most people would agree that this would be an unwarranted breach of someone’s privacy. I therefore maintain that local authority noise monitoring would not normally require to be authorised under RIPA; that this is already made clear in RIPA; and that it therefore would not be subject to prior magistrate approval. However, as I say, we are meeting with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and Defra to look at the code of practice. Before I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment, I wish to reinforce the Government’s view that noise disturbance of the kind she describes is an important matter. However, I do not think that her amendment is necessary.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I agree that very often in the sort of situation about which the noble Baroness and I are talking, any conversations which take place are not very edifying or instructive—“indiscreet” might be the term for them. I live fairly near a pub so that is why I make that comment. I have learnt a lot of bad language over the years as I have heard it in the very late hours.
I welcome what the noble Baroness says about the possible revision to the code of practice, but I am concerned that if the legislation requires authorisation the code of practice cannot undo that requirement. However, I will read what she has said and discuss it with the institute. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Matters subject to legal privilegeInvestigatory powers: legal privilege
(1) In section 5 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (interception with a warrant), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) But an interception warrant does not authorise conduct undertaken for the purpose of doing anything in relation to—
(a) a communication, insofar as the communication consists of matters subject to legal privilege;(b) communications data, insofar as the data relate to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege. (8) In subsection (7), “matters subject to legal privilege” means matters to which section 98(2), (3) or (4) of the Police Act 1997 applies, but does not include a communication made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the determination (on an application for an interception warrant or otherwise) of the question whether, in any case, a communication is made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(10) A code of practice issued under section 71 may in particular contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken pursuant to an interception warrant resulting in accidental acquisition of a communication, or communications data, falling within subsection (7);(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in acquisition of such a communication or data.”(2) In section 22 of that Act (obtaining and disclosing communications data), after subsection (9) insert—
“(10) An authorisation or notice under this section does not authorise or require anything to be done for the purpose of obtaining or disclosing communications data relating to the communication of matters subject to legal privilege.
(11) In subsection (10), “matters subject to legal privilege” means matters to which section 98(2), (3) or (4) of the Police Act 1997 applies, but does not include a communication made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the determination (on an application for an authorisation or otherwise) of the question whether, in any case, a communication is made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(13) A code of practice issued under section 71 may in particular contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of accidentally obtaining or disclosing communications data falling within subsection (10) in the course of anything done under this section;(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that anything done under this section has accidentally resulted in such data being obtained or disclosed.”(3) In section 27 of that Act (authorised surveillance and human intelligence sources), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) An authorisation under section 28 or 32 does not authorise surveillance for the purpose of obtaining information about—
(a) anything taking place on so much of any premises as is in use for the purpose of legal consultations, or(b) matters subject to legal privilege.(6) An authorisation under section 29 does not authorise any activities involving conduct of a covert human intelligence source, or the use of such a source, for the purpose of—
(a) obtaining matters subject to legal privilege,(b) providing access to any matters subject to legal privilege to another person, or(c) disclosing matters subject to legal privilege.(7) In subsection (5), “legal consultation” means—
(a) a consultation between a professional legal adviser and his client or any person representing his client, or(b) a consultation between a professional legal adviser or his client or any such representative and any other person made in connection with or in contemplation of legal proceedings and for the purpose of such proceedings,except in so far as the consultation consists of anything done with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.(8) In subsections (5) and (6), “matters subject to legal privilege” means matters to which section 98(2), (3) or (4) of the Police Act 1997 applies, but does not include anything done with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the determination (on an application for an authorisation or otherwise) of the question whether, for the purpose of subsection (7) or (8), anything is done with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
(10) A code of practice issued under section 71 may in particular contain provision about—
(a) the steps to be taken to minimise the risk of conduct undertaken in reliance on this Part accidentally resulting in information of a kind mentioned in subsection (5) being obtained or in any of the things mentioned in subsection (6)(a), (b) or (c) being done;(b) the steps to be taken if it appears that such conduct has accidentally resulted in such information being obtained or such things being done.””
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this amendment was suggested to me and drafted by the Bar Council. Although it looks long and a bit daunting, I hope the Committee will understand that the point which it addresses concerns a simple point of principle, and the practice of that principle. The principle is the need to protect legal professional privilege. The Bar Council is seriously concerned that RIPA violates legal professional privilege by permitting authorities secretly to obtain information about privileged communications, in particular private meetings and other communications between a lawyer and a client. I was pleased to be asked to table this amendment as I feel very strongly that a lawyer and his client should be able to speak freely, and that the lawyer should be able to take instructions without fear of them being listened to.
The right of someone in custody to a private consultation with a lawyer is expressly protected by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The importance of an accused person being able to confer with his lawyer in private has also been emphasised in numerous cases under the ECHR. Indeed, it has been said that it is a fundamental condition on which the administration of justice rests.
The need for reform of RIPA was revealed by a case in 2009, In Re McE, when the House of Lords held that Part II of RIPA permits the covert surveillance of meetings between defendants and their lawyers. Noble Lords will be aware of recent high-profile cases involving CHIS—covert human intelligence sources— that have emphasised the need for privilege to be protected expressly; for example, the case of the undercover police officers, PC Mark Kennedy and DC Jim Boyling, infiltrating protest groups pursuant to RIPA authorisations. The Government’s partial response to In Re McE was to make two orders and two codes of practice under powers contained in the Act, one relating to directed surveillance and the other to covert human intelligence sources, which altered the authorisation procedures, but these do not address the fundamental problem.
We have already referred to the complexity of RIPA. The new clause has been carefully drafted—I am happy to say not by me—to ensure that covert powers of investigation cannot be used to target legally privileged information, while at the same time ensuring that privilege is not abused for a criminal purpose and that the regime caters for a position where it turns out that the privileged material has been acquired accidentally. The provisions would prevent the targeting of legally privileged material. The draft clause uses the code of conduct as a vehicle for guidance on minimising the risk of accidentally obtaining privileged material.
What I understand is called in the trade the “iniquity exception” has been reduced in scope. The Police Act 1997 takes matters out of privilege if the item or communication is,
“in the possession of a person who is not entitled to possession of them”
or is held or made,
“with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose”.
The Bar Council points out that the first of these exceptions would be counterproductive but it has reduced the scope rather than simply taking out the exception, which would perpetuate the problem that it is seeking to deal with. The wording in subsection (6) of the draft clause defining what cannot be targeted by a CHIS is borrowed directly from one of the 2010 orders made following the case to which I referred.
The provision about surveillance is based on evidence from solicitors that legal consultation involving protests or other multiple-defendant situations often take place in private premises—noble Lords will remember that one of the recent examples was of protesters at a power station whose group had been infiltrated by a police officer—and this amendment covers premises in so far as they are used for legal consultations. The other of the 2010 orders to which I have referred makes specific provision for targeting any place in use for legal consultations—in other words, it limits the premises and therefore limits the scope of the order. The definition of legal consultations that has been used is, however, very similar to that used in the order that is already in force.
It is a long amendment but, as I say, at the heart of it is a simple but very important proposition. I beg to move.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I am in general sympathy with the objective behind this amendment but have some anxieties about the effect of subsections (9) and (12), which mirror one another in similar language. They seem to say that the question of whether a communication has been made with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose is to be determined in accordance with regulations or provisions made by the Secretary of State. Whether a particular communication is protected by privilege or that privilege is forfeited because the purpose of the communication was to further a criminal purpose is the sort of issue that could easily come up in legal proceedings before an ordinary court. On this notion that the Secretary of State could pre-empt that, I note the language,
“make provision for the determination (on an application for an”—
interception warrant, which I can understand—
“or otherwise)”.
That “or otherwise” seems to carry the power right through to legal proceedings where the question of privilege is an issue. I would like some elucidation on the intention behind these two subsections.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will be brief because the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has gone over the thinking and reasoning behind this amendment, which, as she said, emanated from the Bar Council. She referred to the House of Lords judgment which appeared to hold that RIPA permitted the covert surveillance of meetings between defendants and their lawyers even though no express provision in the Act authorises it and such actions were regarded as contrary to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The noble Baroness also referred to other developments, such as the undercover police officers who infiltrated protest groups and maintained their cover while fellow protestors were prosecuted and tried for offences. In one of those cases, I think I am right that significant non-disclosure of the officers’ role led to a number of overturned convictions and cases dropped against other campaigners. The Lord Chief Justice also expressed disquiet that an undercover police officer might have been party to legally privileged communications between the defendants and their lawyers. I suppose that the concerns of the Lord Chief Justice were confirmed in the case related to DC Boyling when it was revealed that he had indeed attended meetings with the defendant and his solicitor.
As the noble Baroness said, the Government made a partial response to the House of Lords judgment on the McE case by making two orders, one relating to direct surveillance and the other to covert human intelligence sources. Clearly, as the noble Baroness said, that has not addressed what the Bar Council regard as the fundamental problem. In making those comments, we want to hear the Government’s response to this amendment. Clearly, there are concerns—probably highly justifiable ones—about others having access to communications between a defendant and his lawyers. One suspects that it is perhaps a case of recent developments leading to RIPA being interpreted in a way that was probably not intended. We want to hear the Government’s response since they may well argue—we wish to hear the case—that the Bar Council amendment would not be appropriate. Equally, it might turn out that they will accept it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will endeavour to respond as comprehensively as I can to the issues raised in this short debate. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Bar Council but your Lordships will understand that no one can regard themselves as beyond the law or immune from investigation or prosecution. Nevertheless, RIPA recognises the special relationship between a lawyer and client, and puts in place special protections for any covert obtaining of material subject to legal and professional privilege.
RIPA already limits obtaining legally privileged material to intelligence and law enforcement agencies investigating serious crime or acting in the interests of national security. In each case, whether it is interception or surveillance, internal authorisation is by senior official—for instance, the director-general of the Security Service or a chief constable. In addition, and crucially, this is then subject to external independent approval, either by the Secretary of State or a surveillance commissioner, before any covert action can be taken.
The RIPA codes of practice, which have statutory force, provide further safeguards. The interception code makes it clear that where communications which include legally privileged communications have been intercepted and retained, or where the subject of the interception is to be a lawyer, the matter should be reported to the Interception of Communications Commissioner during his inspections and the material be made available to him, if requested.
In addition to safeguards governing the handling and retention of intercept material as provided for in Section 15 of the Act, caseworkers who examine intercepted communications should be alert to any intercept material which may be subject to legal privilege. Where there is doubt as to whether the communications are subject to legal privilege, advice should be sought from a legal adviser within the intercepting agency. Similar advice should also be sought where there is doubt over whether communications are not subject to legal privilege due to the “in furtherance of a criminal purpose” exception. The covert surveillance and covert human intelligence source codes make it clear that such independent external approvals will be granted only where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that make the authorisation necessary—for instance, where there is a threat to life or limb or to national security.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, have already made reference to the McE case. In 2009, the former Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House ruled in that case that RIPA could be used to authorise the covert surveillance of legally privileged consultations but that this needed to be subject to an enhanced approval process. The enhanced RIPA safeguards were tested in the case of RA v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland where the High Court of Northern Ireland ruled that the RIPA regime was lawful and provided sufficient safeguards against abuse. To be clear, those new safeguards have been tested in a court of law and were found to be robust.
In reference to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, about the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I will of course leave my noble friend to respond to him. Given these existing stringent limitations and safeguards on public authorities obtaining legally privileged material under RIPA, and the fact they have been tested in court, as I have said, and have been found to be robust, I would suggest to my noble friend that this amendment is unnecessary and I invite her to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this being Grand Committee, of course I will withdraw the amendment. The noble Baroness’s reference to the role of the commissioner and some other comments seem to be steps taken to deal with the issue after the horse has bolted. But I will read her comments carefully. The point that no one is immune from prosecution is not something with which I seek to argue. It is a parallel but different point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, make a very interesting point about regulations made by the Secretary of State. I did not mean to disclaim responsibility for drafting the amendment; I meant to give credit to others. But I did not draft it and I do not think that it would be right for me to attempt to respond in any detail at this point. The noble and learned Lord set me an interesting dilemma and I shall think about it after today’s Committee Sitting to consider how one might address it.
I do not believe that the Bar Council would have gone to the effort of dealing with a matter about which the current Lord Chief Justice has himself expressed disquiet had it felt that an amendment was not necessary, so I will be talking to the council between now and the next stage. Other noble Lords have asked if there might be a meeting to discuss a number of issues, and this is one that will be particularly amenable to some further discussion, if that is possible. I do want to imply anything as regards the noble Baroness, but for myself this is pretty much above my pay grade. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Clarification of unlawful interception under RIPA
(1) After section 2(7) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (meaning and location of “interception” etc) insert—
“(7A) The fact that the intended recipient has collected or otherwise accessed such stored communication, shall not affect the definition of communication in transmission under subsection (7).””
Lord Rosser
My Lords, this amendment is a response to calls from both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to clarify the law in respect of the illegal interception of voicemail messages. The amendment seeks to clarify the definition of interception in the context of Section 1 of RIPA to mean that those who access the voicemail of individuals without their knowledge or consent will be liable to prosecution, even if the intended recipient has already accessed the messages.
In his evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on 24 March this year, the then acting Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John Yates, stated that the reason he had initially advised the committee in September 2010 that only 10 to 12 victims could have cases brought for them in relation to alleged phone hacking was the,
“very prescriptive definition of Section 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act”,
which deals with the illegal interception of voicemail messages. Of course, we now know that there are potentially thousands of cases where voicemail messages have been accessed and listened to without authorisation. However, to prove the offence of interception under the section, Mr Yates maintained that the prosecution had to show that a voicemail message had been intercepted prior to it being listened to by the intended recipient. In response to the evidence given by Mr Yates, the Director of Public Prosecutions wrote to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in April of this year to clarify the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service on this issue. He told the committee that in 2006 in relation to the investigation of, I think, Messrs Goodman and Mulcaire, the CPS initially advised the Met that:
“The offences under Section 1 of RIPA would, as far as I can see, only relate to such messages that had not been previously accessed by the recipient. However, this area is very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this”.
Furthermore, the DPP stated that the view of the CPS at the time was that it regarded the question of whether or not the unauthorised accessing of a voicemail message after the recipient has collected the message is a RIPA offence as a difficult legal issue which had not been tested or authoritatively determined; that there were tenable arguments either way; that the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 2002 of NTL Group Limited versus Ipswich Crown Court pointed to a narrow view; and that it approached the prosecution on the basis that if the issue of interpretation arose, it could be preferable to proceed on a narrow interpretation, thereby avoiding the necessity of having a contested trial.
The letter from the DPP in April noted the following points. First, no concluded or definitive view was ever reached, and from the outset the head of the CPS special crime division indicated that the interpretation is,
“very much untested and further consideration will need to be given to this”.
Secondly, that,
“the prosecution was never required to, nor did it, articulate a definitive view of the law … in the case of Messers Goodman and Mulcaire”.
Thirdly, in his view,
“the legal advice given by the CPS to the Metropolitan Police on the interpretation of the relevant offences did not limit the scope and extent of the criminal investigation”.
That final point is based on the advice given by the CPS to the Met that the case could have been prosecuted under other offences, including the Computer Misuse Act. However, the Met was apparently reluctant to bring a prosecution under that Act. It has been suggested that that was for tactical reasons, but I do not know whether that was the case. Whatever the situation may be, it does not detract from the need to clarify the law on arguably the most relevant offence under RIPA. We believe that a clarification in the law is needed to make it clear that an offence of illegal interception of voicemail messages applies regardless of whether that message has been listened to by the intended recipient. Our amendment would provide that clarification and I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to provide such clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord, rightly, is looking for a degree of clarification, as suggested in his amendment. I do not think that we need clarification, and it might be helpful if I set out the case.
First, let me be clear that phone tapping or hacking is illegal. As the noble Lord made clear in his opening remarks, it remains illegal—I want to emphasise this—even if the intended recipient has access to that communication. I am aware of some of the concerns and the point was addressed directly by the DPP in the written evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in October last year. He stated that his advice to the police and the CPS would be to assume that,
“an offence may be committed if a communication is intercepted or looked into after it has been accessed by the intended recipient and for so long as the system in question is used to store the communication in a manner which enables the (intended) recipient to have subsequent, or even repeated, access to it”.
The recent Home Affairs Select Committee report, following its inquiry into unauthorised tapping or hacking of mobile communications, signified the particular importance of Section 2(7) of RIPA and that not enough attention had been paid to its significance. The committee did not recommend that Section 2(7) be amended. As Members of the Committee will be aware, we also have the Leveson inquiry, which is looking at a number of issues related to phone hacking. The first part of the inquiry, which is already under way, is focusing on the role and conduct of the press. The second part of the inquiry will examine the extent of unlawful or improper conduct at the News of the World and other newspapers and the way in which management failures have allowed it to happen. The original police investigation and its failings, the issue of corrupt payments to police officers, and the implications of all this for relations between police and the press will also be considered as part of the second part of that inquiry.
As the noble Lord will be aware, there are a number of other inquiries and investigations in hand and the police investigation into allegations of phone hacking continues, which I referred to in the Chamber only the other day in answering a Question. We believe it to be most appropriate, which I think the noble Lord would accept, to await the outcome of these various inquiries to know just what has happened, and so on, and to examine the conclusions before considering any changes to the law in this area. Further, we consider that the meaning of Section 2(7) is clear and that there are sufficient penalties in place to deal with offences of unauthorised interception. I refer the noble Lord back to the advice of the DPP to the CPS prosecutors. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that deals with his points and that it is probably best to wait for the outcome of all those reports before he, we or anyone goes further.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am not as convinced as he is that the present legislation is entirely clear because the events to which I referred would suggest that in certain fairly key quarters there appears to be some confusion over the current position. I do not mean confusion as far as the Minister is concerned, but I did refer to the police and the evidence that had been given. I am not entirely surprised that the Minister made reference to inquiries currently being undertaken. If I can take it from what he said, which I am sure I can, if those inquiries suggest that there is any lack of clarity in the present legal position, or even if the inquiry does not think there is a lack of clarity but nevertheless it would be helpful if the wording in the legislation were firmed up so that no one else could be in any doubt, that is the road that the Government will go down to end any confusion there might be on anyone’s part. On the basis that the Minister agrees that that will be the Government’s response—
Lord Henley
I do not know whether the noble Lord wants me to intervene to confirm that that is exactly the case. Obviously, we are awaiting the results of those inquiries, and it would be wrong for us to jump before that. Whatever they recommend will be something that the Government will have to consider with great care.
Lord Selsdon
“List of powers of entry
The Secretary of State shall ensure that the list of powers of entry in Schedule (Acts and secondary legislation containing powers of entry) is kept up to date and published.”
Lord Selsdon
I shall also speak to Amendments 131A, 132 and 136. I shall try not to bore the Committee as this has been a fairly tedious subject for me.
I joined your Lordships’ House in 1963 as an independent unionist Peer, which is now a defunct breed and was absorbed by the Conservative Party. I was told always that I should be as independent as I could. One of my specialist subjects was the fear of someone being able to go into people’s property without permission or without a court order. Over a period of five years I introduced five Bills despite considerable opposition from everybody, but later, with the help of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, Liberty and a few other bodies, including a Home Office Bill team, we managed to get something through the House. I had thought that as it had got through the House and it produced a schedule of those Bills that gave power of entry, it would be a relatively simple matter for the new Conservative Government to adopt it. They tacked the issue on to the freedom Bill rather at the last moment.
The modern Conservative Party, in its manifesto—Modern Conservativism: Our Quality of Life Agenda—which it passed to me before the election, said:
“A Conservative Government will cut back the intrusive powers of entry into homes. Public bodies (other than the police and emergency services) will require a magistrates’ warrant, and approval for such a warrant will be restricted to tackling serious criminal offences or protecting public safety. Labour plans to give bailiffs powers of forced entry into the home to collect civil debts will be revoked”.
I thought that I should go to see my noble friend Lord Henley with his new Bill team and it was an amazing repetition of what happens. I went to Room 5, which is just up the Corridor. The first time I went was to see the noble Lord, Lord West, with his officials. I sat in the same seat and they were very nice, smiled at me and said that it was not convenient to do anything about this at this time, as it was too complicated. I sat with my noble friend Lord Henley, with different officials, just a few days ago. I sat in the same seat and he said that the Government were not prepared to accept any amendments. It was an exact replica and I wondered why—was this because it was too complex or was there some other motive? I thought probably the motive was that they really did not want to be bothered with it. Frankly, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is an enormous great Bill in its own right. Why should they go back and bother on these issues?
However, these issues are important and with my first amendment you would have had a list in the Bill of the powers of entry. It took a very long time to get that list together—started mainly by Professor Richard Stone of Lincoln University, who produced the authoritative book on it. It was then added to, not by Ministers of whom I asked questions and questions because their answer was, “The information is not centrally available”—more or less they did not know. The Home Office, to give it its due, stepped in and together we managed to produce the schedule of more than 600 Acts with powers of entry that was published and put in the Bill. Amendment 131 says:
“The Secretary of State shall ensure that the list of powers of entry”,
in the schedule should be published and I thought it should be in the Bill.
The Minister said it was not a good idea. However, I thought it was a good idea that it should be published so I put that in here and I then tabled the full schedule. I had to snip out the ones I thought had gone—and this is a totally amateur activity but “amateur” means someone who loves his subject. I then thought if I produced this, it might help. The Minister said he did not want it in the Bill because every time one had to be amended it would need primary legislation. I said there was a way round it without doing too many Henry VII or Henry VIII powers or whatnot and my great supporting team in the Public Bill Office produced a very simple clause which is my other amendment—it says effectively you can amend by secondary legislation. Then I was told that they did not want to amend by secondary legislation either. They did not want to amend at all. I wondered what one could do so I introduced another amendment. I thought the Government themselves should publish a list and put it in the Bill—and I still believe that should be the case—not just leave it hidden away in some website that is extraordinarily difficult to access.
I then suggested to myself that maybe there was another way this could be done. I thought, “Let us go back to where we came in”. I asked every ministry what their powers of entry were. At Second Reading I told the noble Lord, Lord Bach—who was very kind and helpful—what his powers of entry were and I put them in the Library. However, a Back-Bencher is not allowed to put anything in the Library officially. Only Ministers can do that. I had prepared a 200-page document that takes in all the history of this. I am going to ask the Minister if he will put it in the Library. I lent it to the Home Office Bill team who read it and left no dirty fingerprints on it whatever, so it was obviously not very thoroughly read and I brought it back. In that is a complete schedule.
I thought that maybe we should return and say that as all these Acts, primary and secondary legislation, relate to ministries and as the ministries keep changing let us pass the responsibility back to the individual Minister to produce, regularly—I have said at the start of every parliamentary Session but it could be every week, every month or whenever—a schedule of all Acts and secondary legislation containing powers of entry for which his or her department has responsibility.
It is pretty difficult for the Home Office to put all these things together because things are happening often without its knowledge. It produced a really remarkable document available on its website that lists them all. However, householders and others ought to have the right to know if someone calls and says they have a right to come in under what right that is, hence the concept of a code of conduct, which I put in before. The Minister did not really want my code of conduct. All I was trying to do was to suggest things that should go into it.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford will mention that it was a long time ago but my great mentor when I arrived in the House of Lords was Lord Hailsham. He was the only one I met and he asked me, “Who are you and what are you doing here?” and actually gave me tea. One of his specialist subjects in those days was powers of entry. My noble friend will raise this later. It is built into me that I do not want to wear a pass or be forced to carry an identity card. I want to be who I am. Even when I went to have my biometric details done for the test identity card, it said, “Not known, not recognisable”. My fingerprints did not seem to work and I had a bit of fear.
I have introduced this amendment in the hope that the Minister will take some action. It would be nice if these Acts of Parliament were in the Bill. If that is not possible, maybe each of the departments could have an instruction to produce a schedule from time to time and provide a direct reference other than by e-mail. As a member of the Information Committee of your Lordships’ House, I can advise you that your Lordships are not terribly switched on. Many do not even have an e-mail address and probably only about 50 per cent could be determined to be electronically active.
Fortunately, I have here on my new trial iPad all 200 pages—I just pressed a button and was absolutely shattered. I recommend that all noble Lords should have such an opportunity. That is not corruption but just a simple statement. I ask the Minister to try to find a way. I am extremely grateful to the Labour Party. In Opposition, it accepted what I proposed, discussed it and was very constructive and sympathetic. We ended up with a piece of paper with a lot of things on it that made sense. The question is how you impart that information in the right way to the right people to provide them with protection. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his diligence and doggedness on this issue. I find it extremely useful to have a list of primary and secondary legislation and Acts which bear relation to powers of entry. Maybe it is because I am now freed of the shackles of power that I am rather attracted by the notion that a list should be published in a schedule so that people can clearly see it. My one difference with the noble Lord is on his Amendment 136, in which he suggests that the Secretary of State should have a power to amend the list by a negative resolution. While I trust Ministers and would not wish to cast any aspersions on them, some extremely important powers of entry and Acts of Parliament would be cited in the list. It would be proper for any Minister to have to come to the House and be accountable, so I would be in favour of an affirmative rather than negative resolution.
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selsdon came to the House in, I think, 1963, as a member of the Independent Unionist Peers. I came somewhat later in 1977, and also joined that group. I was obviously not independent enough as soon after that they were rechristened the Association of Conservative Peers. Obviously, I take note of and am interested in what my noble friend said on these matters. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I pay tribute to his diligence and doggedness in this matter over the last 48 years—or is it even longer than that? The noble Lord has battled with these matters for a long time.
I was also fascinated to hear what he said about placing things in the Library. That is something that I have said on a number of occasions. I never knew that it was purely the prerogative of Ministers. If that is what my noble friend said then that must be the case.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I have great admiration for what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has done. The number of powers of entry is truly amazing and overwhelming, but I think that we are skirting a much bigger issue, which is the question of the implementation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that covers the right to privacy. It is either beautifully observed or perhaps, I fear, widely neglected. I hope that we can take a more systematic view of when and under what circumstances powers of entry are justified. Listing them makes it very plain just how urgent the problem is, but I think that the remedies will have to be on a slightly different scale.
Lord Henley
My Lords, when I referred to the gateway that we talked about, I sought to say that what we are committed to do in the Home Office is to check any new powers as they come in from other departments to make sure that they can be justified before they are introduced. It is easy to introduce something without much further thought, but we are trying to create a form of approach that will allow for a greater degree of caution and care to be used before such powers are introduced.
Lord Selsdon
I am most grateful to the Minister, and maybe the time has come once again to offer the help of the private sector in solving the problem. My two extra amendments take into account the points he raised with me. The preparation of the list means not just the issuing of it but also its availability to people at the right time. I have arranged with Professor Richard Stone at the University of Lincoln, who is rewriting the powers of entry, search and seizure with the Oxford University Press, to co-operate fully, as we have before, with the Government. We might see whether we can arrange a powers-of-entry cloud. This would mean that it would be available on my iPad, on which even now I have the whole of the Home Office Bill along with the updates that the officials themselves have not yet had. I do not know why they use yellow on their website because it is not a good colour. If these things are readily available online and in the Library—
Lord Henley
Perhaps my noble friend will give way. He, like me, is wearing a yellow tie, and he is also wearing a yellow shirt. Perhaps it is a good coalition colour to be wearing on an occasion like this. No doubt the Home Office works in the same spirit.
Lord Selsdon
It was part of the coalition activities. This is an area that will not go away. What I am trying to say to the Minister and his team is that there are a lot of people out there who would be willing to help. There are methods of presentation and of access, but not least there is the interpretation. Although I will not read it out today, I refer noble Lords to Lord Hailsham—my noble friend Lord Marlesford may have mentioned that—because this issue was raised by Lord Hailsham 56 or more years ago. It is an important one. Of course I will not press the amendment now, but I will arrange to meet my noble friend and see what I can do to help him and his Bill team. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marlesford
“( ) A further safeguard shall be that, unless explicitly provided for in the statute providing for the power of entry, all powers of entry shall be exercised by agreement with the premises owner or by warrant.”
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, in moving Amendment 133 I shall speak also to Amendment 134. Amendment 133 requires that powers of entry to premises already enshrined in the law or which are part of future legislation should be exercised by agreement or by warrant. Amendment 134 would allow the authority using the powers of entry enshrined in law to do so without agreement or warrant if the authority can demonstrate that,
“the aim of the use of the power would be frustrated if a warrant or agreement were sought”.
I shall of course give examples of how this amendment would apply.
I shall start from the historical perspective. For many centuries the rights of owners and occupiers of property have been argued over, disputed, defended and invaded. This all starts with Roman law, pre-Norman law, the Magna Carta and the Great Charter of Liberties and the Petition of Right, 1628, and goes right up to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as the noble Baroness said.
Indeed, the protection of property rights, privacy and quiet enjoyment, whether of ownership, tenure or occupation, has come to be seen as an important aspect of a civilised and, ultimately, democratic society. It is therefore entirely appropriate that a Bill entitled Protection of Freedoms should have a part dealing with powers of entry. It does, indeed, form an ideal vehicle for us to discuss the ideas underlying my amendments, which do not in any way conflict with Clause 42 to which my noble friend the Minister has just referred.
We are all deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Selsdon for all the work that he has done on this matter over many years. He has gathered it all together in a most scholarly volume, which he showed me yesterday. I doubt whether anyone knows more about this subject than he does. He is a wonderful example of the expertise—in this case, pretty esoteric perhaps—which resides in the House of Lords in its present form. He has uncovered an extraordinary number of pieces of legislation which allow virtually unfettered powers of entry to private premises for the officers or representatives of many different government and other bodies. These powers of entry have multiplied at an extraordinary rate. I think, at the latest count in his schedule, there are more than 1,200 of them. As my noble friend mentioned, there was an attempt in 1954 by the relatively young Lord Hailsham to deal with powers of entry, which I think related to the powers of electricity companies. I wish to quote a tiny bit from Hansard. Lord Hailsham said:
“For 200 years or thereabouts, the inhabitants of this country slept peacefully in their beds, in the supposition that the late John Wilkes had successfully established the proposition that their houses could not be entered without a warrant”.—[Official Report, 24/2/1954; col. 1127.]
The real paradox is that the sanctity of property has always been most vigorously protected by the fact that in this country in general the police have been required to obtain a warrant from a magistrate. I believe it is high time that the hitherto unchecked expansion of the right to enter property should be brought into line with the constraints to which the police are subject.
My Amendment 133 refers to entry by agreement. In almost every instance there is absolutely no reason why an entirely satisfactory arrangement should not be made between the property owner and the powers for whatever inspection may be necessary; and, indeed, it very often is. However, the fact remains that there is a feeling that the extent to which official busybodies are allowed to arrive unannounced and demand entry for whatever purpose they desire has aroused widespread and atavistic resentment, which itself generates a feeling of alienation from the state. That is something which any democratic Government should seek to counter. Indeed, my own party, the Conservative Party, gave specific undertakings in its manifesto which my noble friend has quoted. It is disappointing that so far we have not seen action, but this is a moment when action can be taken.
I recognise that there are cases where the whole purpose of the entry for inspection has to be an unannounced event. I refer to a couple of examples. The first and most obvious one is the everyday work of trading standards officers who need to enter premises such as shops and restaurants to look at the kitchens and make sure that hygiene and other standards of service are being met. Another group concerns those who inspect old people’s homes and other such premises. That is why I have included my Amendment 134 as a safeguard.
My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury had hoped to speak to these amendments but he has had to go to another meeting, but he has asked me to say that he supports them. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will not only accept but welcome what I am trying to do. I shall of course be perfectly happy for him to tell me that he would wish to knock the wording into better shape, although I personally think it is pretty good, having been drafted by our admirable Public Bill Office to which we all owe such a debt of gratitude. I beg to move.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I support wholeheartedly these amendments. My interest in powers of entry began about two years ago when I became a member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Select Committee. Very soon it became apparent to me that statutory instruments kept coming in front of the committee providing for powers of entry for regulators in various different areas of activity.
One statutory instrument I particularly remember and which really prompted my interest more than any other was one arising under the Medicines Act, which gave power to regulators to enter the premises of pharmacists in order to ensure that the various provisions of the relevant statutes were being observed. The power to enter, which included entry into people’s dwellings, was a power to turn up and demand entry. If entry was refused, it was a criminal offence, and the official would have to come back with a warrant upon which he could gain entry; or, of course, if he knocked on the door and was admitted by consent, that was satisfactory.
When I saw the power to enter without consent and without a warrant, I began to worry. I went to visit the civil servants who had produced the particular statutory instrument and asked them about it. I was told, “Oh, this is common form, this has been here for years. Several previous statutory instruments under the old Medicines Act had similar provisions”, which was not really an answer to the question. I asked how often they had found it necessary to prosecute people for refusing entry, and they said, “Never”. Then I asked how often did they have to get a warrant. “Oh, we are always allowed entry”, they said. There was not a problem. They entered according to their customary practice, of which all of them had experience, by agreement. However, there on the statute book, in so far as a statutory instrument is part of the statutory law, was a power to enter without either agreement or a warrant. Other statutory instruments began appearing with the same features. Inquiries about those did not produce a significantly different response from that which had been given to me by the officials who had dealt with the Medicines Act statutory instrument.
I then met the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and conversations with him encouraged—and perhaps to some extent exaggerated—my worries about these powers of entry in statutory instruments. They do matter, I respectfully submit, particularly where the premises in question is somebody’s home. People are entitled, when they go through their front door and shut it behind them, to feel inviolate. Of course, the police have all sorts of powers of entry. They can enter under warrant, which is well known; they can also enter in hot pursuit of a criminal if the criminal dives in and seeks to take refuge; they can enter if they suspect criminal activity is going on within the premises and so forth. These powers of the police are well accepted and understood, but powers of entry for officials who are not the police but simply officials in some government department with a regulatory function—which is important and needs to be carried out—are an entirely different proposition.
There is absolutely no reason why powers of entry for all officials outside of the police should not require either agreement from the occupier of the premises or a warrant. The notion that you need a safeguard for very speedy entry in some cases is probably mistaken. A warrant can be applied for without any notice to the person whose premises are to be entered. The arrival of somebody with a warrant is just as much a surprise as the arrival of somebody without one. There is no need in an emergency to allow an entry. The warrant can be applied for and obtained very quickly from a magistrate, of whom there are many in all parts of the country. You ring them up and can go to the duty magistrate at any hour to get a warrant—if your facts are sufficient to justify the magistrate’s agreement to your application.
So much for powers of entry. The need for powers that require neither agreement nor a warrant is simply absent. What is worse is that a number of the statutory instruments where these excessive powers of entry can be found are accompanied by a provision making it a criminal offence to refuse entry. I have done no research other than the questions I asked of the individuals I have already referred to, to discover how often it has been necessary to bring criminal proceedings against people who refuse entry. I do not know the answer to that but, again, if there is any anticipation on the part of officials of a likely refusal, then they should get a warrant, ex parte without notice to the occupier of the premises, and turn up with it. Then they would be allowed entry.
We are not only talking about entry, but also about the searching of premises. Who would be other than aggrieved and indignant if an official turned up at his or her premises, demanding the right to search and shuffling through the wardrobe, the drawers in the bedroom, the Chesterfield or whatever it may be? These are necessary powers but they should not be exercised without the authority of a judicial figure if agreement on the exercise of them is not forthcoming or is expected not to be forthcoming. This reform of the powers of entry is long overdue and is excellent.
In Clause 40 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill there is a welcome attempt on the part of the Government to introduce safeguards to be associated with powers of entry in order to reduce the problems to which I have referred. Those seem to be fine but, if I may respectfully say so, for one exception. They start in subsection (1) by saying that:
“The appropriate national authority may by order provide for safeguards”.
That is a discretionary power. “May” means “may”—it does not mean “shall”. Then one finds in subsection (2)(d),
“a requirement for a judicial or other authorisation before the power may be exercised”.
That is still a discretionary power. To my mind, the attraction of Amendment 133 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that it makes the requirement for a warrant or consent compulsory. If paragraph (d) were taken out of Clause 40(2) and given a separate paragraph, making it a compulsory requirement for the exercise of a power of entry, the rest of Clause 40 would be entirely satisfactory and welcome. To leave it simply as a matter of discretion is simply not good enough, and the Government should think again about that. There is no reason why it should not be necessary to have either an agreement or a warrant. In any case, where there is a worry that notice to the occupant of the premises would give him or her opportunity to get rid of material that they do not want discovered, then go without notice but with a warrant. That solves the problem. This is an area of the law that needs reform. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, provides the necessary reform, but it needs some adjustment to Clause 40. That is all I need to say at this stage about that.
If the occupier consents, of course there is no problem, but I have a little worry about consent. Consent, if it is to be a satisfactory alternative to a warrant, must be free and willing. When an official knocks on the door and says, “I am from the department of whatever and I need to search your property” for whatever he or she is searching for, the householder may very well be overawed by the authority and hence unwillingly give his consent. That should be looked at very carefully, and a code of conduct in that regard is probably desirable. If there is any doubt about it, the official should get a warrant before it can be done without notice to the occupier. That should solve the problem. For the reasons I have given, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this important issue. Ultimately, it is the householder or the business owner who has to decide whether the official or whoever it might be is allowed in or not. Not all of them are necessarily government officials because there are powers of entry for certain people—for instance, RSPCA officials in certain circumstances as regards animals. But I may be wrong. I just think that there are, which is frightening. I do not know one way or the other.
Lord Scott of Foscote
The noble Earl is quite right. There are powers for RSPCA officials. If they have reason to believe that an animal is not being well looked after or is being mistreated, they have a power of entry.
The Earl of Erroll
That is the point. The power of entry does not extend just to government officials. It can extend to other bodies. The danger is that the poor person at the door does not really know. As regards a business, perhaps officials have come along to seize equipment for some reason and think that an offence has been committed. That could be severely dangerous for a business, particularly if some of the equipment might be needed. A person needs to know instinctively whether the official can come in or not. The danger of any consent being involved is that it would be an excuse for bullying. We notice already that people who have regulatory functions, say, under health and safety, food safety or whatever, sometimes insist on things being done, which may not be strictly within their powers to insist on. Often expensively, people comply because they are terrified that they will get more inspections or more grief from the authority if they refuse. They also may have a feeling of, “If I don’t let this person in, it will seem as if I have something to hide. Then I will go in a black book and they will be around again and again”. I do not like anything that relies on a consent model.
I have looked at this issue randomly and I picked out hedgerows regulations, which I thought probably applies to private households. It includes a nice, simple phase which states that if someone does not let an official in or that it is difficult, they can get a warrant. It is terribly simple. I do not see why we do not classify things: basically, a warrant is needed to get entry, except, as everyone has said, in the case of an emergency. I will not try to suggest the wording because two efforts have been made. It is absolutely right. The idea that we modify every statute, Act of Parliament or regulation to bring them into line is completely the wrong way to go about it.
We had this problem with surveillance, investigatory powers and communications et cetera, which is why we introduced the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act—RIPA—which we talked about earlier. RIPA has been made incredibly complicated, which we would not want. But why do we not have an Act which regulates all powers of entry so that everyone can see the conditions quite simply and all other statutes or Acts refer to it if there is to be a power of entry? The power should be laid down in one place, but this time it should be kept simple.
At the end of the day we have to think back probably to Edmund Burke who, in the late 1700s, referred to the Englishman’s home being his castle. Yet here we are still struggling to keep a little bit of last defence there in some way. It seems that every single member of the public has access to it except the person who wants to protect it. If we cannot have any of this and it is too difficult to set it out simply in one place then I like the list of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, or a duty for someone to have that list somewhere easily available so that, if I am a business owner or householder, I can click on the Home Office website and it will tell me exactly what I have to do. How we do that is up to the powers that be. Personally, I think having it in one simple Act somewhere else that everyone refers to would be much simpler, certainly for me and the general public.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not unsympathetic to the sentiments underlying the amendments in this group and I am not unsympathetic to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. Clauses 39 to 53 in Chapter 1 of Part 3 of the Bill go in the direction the noble and learned Lord would like to go. Obviously they do not go far enough as he would like to delete from Clause 39 “may” and replace it with “shall”.
I hope I will be able to explain this in response to my noble friend’s amendment but I think that might be going a bit too far. My noble friend would introduce a presumption that anyone seeking to exercise a power of entry may only do so either with the consent of the premises owner, which I think is Amendment 134, or under the authority of a warrant. That approach might be appropriate in many cases and that is why we want to look at all the powers we have and are asking all departments to do so. However, I am not persuaded that it would be right to adopt it as a blanket approach. One size does not fit all.
My previous job before the Home Office was in Defra. There, obviously animal disease was a matter of great concern to us. I also remember, as a farmer in the north of England not far from Longtown, the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth. Obviously there is a need for the authorities, if we can put it like that, to be able to go into premises very rapidly, sometimes without a warrant—however rapidly the noble and learned Lord thinks that we can get a warrant. In the case of foot and mouth, speed was of the essence. It is possible that one of the reasons that the 2001 outbreak was not dealt with as effectively as it might have been was because there was initially a degree of inertia and a lack of speed.
The Committee will be aware that there are a very large number of powers of entry and we discussed that in the previous amendment. We want to make sure that we have appropriate lists of them to make life easier for individuals. However, when we carry out our review into all the powers as provided for by Clause 40(2) some will obviously prove necessary, some will require strengthening with further safeguards and some we will seek to abolish. That is why the word “may” might be more appropriate than the “shall” the noble and learned Lord is suggesting.
Lord Scott of Foscote
I was not suggesting that “shall” should apply to all the items. I was suggesting that it should apply to Clause 40(2)(d)—“may” could be kept for the rest.
Lord Henley
I take the noble and learned Lord’s point. He has not actually got an amendment down on this at the moment so we have not been thinking about that precisely but certainly we would consider having a look at that if the noble and learned Lord wants to come back to it on Report. I can see that Clause 40(2)(d) is where he wants the “shall” to come in.
The very simple point I am making is that not all powers of entry can be treated the same. Some powers of entry relate to the investigation of criminal offences or to a breach of regulation, but others do not. I would argue that it would be counter-productive in this instance, and indeed might prove unworkable in the case of powers of entry derived from European legislation, to seek to overlay a blanket requirement along the lines proposed in these amendments.
That is not to say that these types of safeguard do not have a place, and that is why we support the wider use of warrants whenever powers of entry are exercised. We also support the principle of consent in most cases—although obviously there are cases where consent would not be appropriate—and the removal of a power to enter people’s homes unless it is fully justified and accompanied by a magistrate’s warrant. I am trying to indicate that we need to consider the most appropriate approach on a case by case basis, and I think that Clause 40 allows us to do just that. The list of possible safeguards set out in subsection (2) includes a large number set out in paragraphs (a) to (k). These include a requirement for judicial authorisation and a requirement to give notice of the exercise of a power of entry and so on. I could read through the entire list. We consider that a targeted approach appears to be the preferable course of action on this occasion. The safeguards that apply best in most cases are specific to the type of investigation or inspection required and to the legislation conferring particular powers of entry.
I do not know if my noble friend Lord Selsdon wants me to go on to deal with his amendment or whether he is going to speak to it.
Lord Henley
I shall therefore give way. I thought that it was part of this grouping. However, my noble friend has not yet spoken so I shall listen to him.
Lord Selsdon
I shall speak simply on the matter of the code of conduct. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, pointed out that my amendment had certain faults in it because it should have said “either/or” and not all at once. What one had done before in discussion was to determine which factors should go into the code of conduct. My noble friend the Minister has rightly said that he will produce a very reasonable one. However, a difficulty is that each of the different pieces of primary and secondary legislation requires different consideration. For example, in the first 12 Bills listed on the Home Office website, there are 36 powers of entry relating to animals. They need a different method of handling when you enter a property. I want just to point out that I am on the same side as the Minister with regard to codes of practice or codes of conduct, but the noble and learned Lord pointed out that I should have put in “either/or” instead of the whole lot. That was my own typographical error.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I could not accept his code of conduct, but he will see what we have set out in Clauses 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and even down to Clause 53 which sets out a corresponding code in relation to Welsh devolved powers of entry. It might be that my noble friend wants to have further discussions about that. However, what we have set out in terms of being able to alter or replace the code should be sufficiently wide and able to deal with difficult matters such as a code of conduct in relation either to animals or to other matters. On glancing through my noble friend’s code, I thought that it was what might be described as over-prescriptive. It is better to leave it to the route that we are setting out in the Bill.
Baroness Randerson
Perhaps I may point out that the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are busily creating their own powers of entry. Once this Bill is passed, as I hope very much it will be, the safeguards in it will apply to the powers of entry under UK legislation but not to legislation passed by the devolved Administrations. Have there been any discussions with the devolved Administrations about applying the same standards to their legislation?
Lord Henley
One of the joys of devolution is that it allows different parts of the United Kingdom to do different things. One might or might not approve of the different things they do, and they might create tensions in certain border areas. It will entirely depend on what powers each of the three devolved countries have as to what they do. Obviously we will continue to discuss matters with colleagues, as we do on all matters that go across borders. However, in the end it has to be a matter for them. It might be that differences will appear in due course, but once you have let the genie out of the bottle, that is what happens.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Since there will be conversations, it might be important to think about the way in which this code of conduct can be understood by citizens whose premises are to be entered, or not entered, in that this is very much addressing the official who seeks to enter, and what he or she may or may not do. It is very important to have something very simple that the citizen can actually grasp and say, “No, you have no warrant. I do not agree. This is not an emergency, so not now”.
Lord Henley
I well understand what the noble Baroness is saying. As we all know, statute is not written in a language that most of us find that easy to understand—although I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord finds it easy to understand. Codes of conduct are obviously written in a manner that we hope will be understandable by all those who have to either make use of them or who will be affected by them. I am sure that as codes of conduct are drawn up, the strictures the noble Baroness has mentioned will be taken into account.
Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for his very powerful support, which I think the Government should take very considerable note of. The Minister gave no indication of any real sympathy with this. The examples he gave from the Defra thing of course are covered extremely well by my second amendment, which says quite clearly that where the purpose of the exercise of the power of entry would be in any way frustrated by having to get agreement, or even a warrant, that that could be justified under the present situation.
As the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, said, this is a very important subject, and he made some very useful points. We shall certainly return to it on Report. I believe that there will be widespread support on all sides of your Lordships’ House for what we are trying to do. If there is any chance of having constructive conversations with the Home Office—which I rather doubt—I would be happy to have such discussions. However, at the moment I absolutely reject the idea that this one-by-one study in any way replaces what I want, which is a much more constrained, sensible and proper use of powers of entry. Although in the mean time I have to withdraw the amendments, we shall be returning in full force to them on Report.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, we are still on powers of entry. This is a small, technical group of government amendments to Clauses 45 and 47 and Schedule 9 to ensure that the Secretary of State’s order and code-making powers in the powers of entry provisions and the new order-making power inserted into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—RIPA, as we have called it this afternoon—may make provision in respect of a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland, where such a provision is ancillary to reserved or excepted matters. These are similar to amendments already made to Schedule 1 during Committee of the whole House. I beg to move.
( ) Subject to this,”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, these amendments give effect to a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, is still here, I hope this amendment will find favour with him at least. The committee argued that there may be considerable interest in the first order to be made under Clause 51(5), setting out those relevant persons required to have regard to the code of practice for powers of entry. In view of this, the committee recommended that the first such order should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government are content to accept this recommendation and these amendments make the necessary changes to the Bill, including to the parallel order-making power, exercisable by the Welsh Ministers in Schedule 3. I beg to move.
“( ) If a draft of an instrument containing the first order under subsection (5) would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.”
( ) Subject to this,”
“(iii) at any time when Parliament is sitting or is in recess the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, considers it would be inexpedient to introduce primary legislation to authorise a temporary extension of detention because of—(a) time constraints,(b) the risk of prejudicing the possibility of a fair trial of a person suspected of or charged with a terrorist offence, or(c) unacceptable risk to public safety or to security,”
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, Amendment 143 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Clause 57 establishes on a firm and clear basis the principle that a terrorist suspect should not be detained without being charged for longer than 14 days. Fourteen days is already a very long period to detain someone without charge. For any other offence, the maximum would be no more than four days. The case for a longer period in respect of terrorist suspects is justified only by the especial nature and problems of terrorism.
Over the years, there has been much debate about how long the period should be. At one time under a previous Administration, a maximum of 90 days was suggested. This Bill now sets the maximum period at 14 days, to be extended only in the most exceptional circumstances. It has not been necessary to extend the period of detention without charge beyond 14 days at any time in the past five years. Nevertheless, it remains the view of the Home Secretary, as well as of the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, that the possibility that it might one day become necessary to do so cannot be excluded and should be provided for.
The Government took the view that, in order to make sure that the period of detention would be extended only in the most exceptional circumstances and only when really necessary, there should be no standing power to extend the period by order, and that it should be extended only by the introduction of emergency primary legislation if and when the need arose. They prepared draft Bills to have ready for introduction when required; and they invited a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to give the draft Bills pre-legislative scrutiny. That committee, of which I had the privilege of being the chairman, believed that the Government were right to wish to create a contingency power to extend the maximum period for pre-charge detention of a terrorist suspect beyond 14 days up to not more than 28 days in truly exceptional circumstances.
The committee understood and respected the Government’s reasons for proposing that this power should be provided by emergency primary legislation, to be enacted only when the need arose, so that temporary extensions of the period of detention would happen only in very exceptional circumstances, and so that the need for and the provision of the power could be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We believed, however, that the parliamentary scrutiny of such emergency primary legislation to this effect would in practice be very seriously circumscribed. We thought that it might prove in practice to be very difficult to explain to Parliament the reasons for introducing it without either disclosing information that would endanger security or public safety, or information that would prejudice the right of a suspect or suspects to a fair trial. This could make the process of justifying the legislation almost impossible for the Secretary of State and totally unsatisfactory and frustrating for Members of both Houses of Parliament. We also thought that there would be an unacceptable degree of risk that it would sometimes be almost impossible to introduce and pass the legislation required within a sufficiently short period of time when Parliament was in recess and would have to be recalled. It would, of course, be absolutely impossible to introduce primary legislation during the period between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the opening of a new Parliament.
We therefore concluded that emergency primary legislation, as exemplified in the Government’s draft Bills, did not offer a satisfactory solution, and we recommended a new order-making arrangement, under which the Secretary of State would be authorised to make an executive order if need arose to extend the period of detention of terrorist suspects without charge to not more than 28 days for a three-month period, if exceptional circumstances applied, subject to strict safeguards and subject also to the agreement of the Attorney-General.
In Clause 58 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the Government have accepted the committee’s recommendation in part and have made provision for temporary extensions of the period of detention by executive order in the period between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the first Queen’s Speech in the next. However, they are proposing to rely exclusively on the introduction of emergency primary legislation when Parliament is sitting. I and the noble Lords who were members of the Joint Committee and who have put their names to this amendment remain of the view that the difficulties of introducing emergency primary legislation might be insurmountable even when Parliament was sitting, and that there needs to be a fallback or fail-safe provision allowing the Secretary of State to make an executive order if in those circumstances it is really necessary to extend the period of detention of a terrorist suspect or suspects for longer than 14 days.
Our amendment is permissive, not mandatory. It would not prevent a Secretary of State introducing emergency primary legislation if he or she were satisfied that he or she could safely and effectively do so. It would allow the Secretary of State to proceed by means of an executive order even when Parliament was sitting, with the concurrence of the Attorney-General if time constraints, risks to security or public safety, or the risk of prejudicing a suspect’s right to a fair trial, made it impossible or impracticable to introduce primary legislation. The safeguards will be the same as those applying to an executive order made at a time when Parliament had been dissolved. The principle that there should be an alternative to the introduction of emergency primary legislation is already established by Clause 58 of the Bill as it stands. The amendment that we are proposing is a modest extension of that principle—permissive, not mandatory; it does not seek to establish a new principle.
I should not like to be the Secretary of State who had to explain to Parliament and to the country after a terrorist incident in which innocent people had been killed or injured that the incident could have been prevented if only the Protection of Freedoms Bill had been enacted as improved by the acceptance of this eminently reasonable cross-party amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and other members of the Joint Committee. It is an eminently sensible amendment because the Government have rightly recognised the practical impossibility in certain circumstances of emergency legislation, hence the introduction of Clause 58. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, there remain real concerns over the workability of the Government’s proposal.
We believe that there is a serious risk of jeopardising a fair trial if Parliament is to be provided with enough information to properly scrutinise the necessity of the use. It seems as though it would be practically unworkable because, as the noble Lord said in his introductory statement, there would be a need to introduce and pass legislation with too short a timeframe to enable proper scrutiny and accountability. The scrutiny of legislation within such a short deadline would appear to be a dangerous way to legislate because the time pressures and state of emergency would undermine proper and dispassionate scrutiny of the legislation. By prescribing the use of an emergency power too tightly, within the most serious situations, the sheer use of the power would indicate to any future jury the unusual gravity of the case and therefore prejudice its views. We support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed consideration of this clause, and I thank him for his letter of 16 November in which he provided a detailed explanation of the reasons behind his amendment.
The amendment would extend the circumstances in which an order could be made under Clause 58 to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention in relation to terrorist suspects from 14 to 28 days. We have made it clear that we believe that the maximum period for pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should in the majority of circumstances be 14 days. Given that no suspects have been held for longer than 14 days since 2007, it is evident that such a long period is not routinely required.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, of course I entirely respect the Government’s preference for introducing primary legislation if time and other constraints permit. I am afraid that, having sat through the proceedings of the Joint Committee and having heard a great deal of evidence on the subject, it remains my belief that the Government’s view that emergency primary legislation when Parliament is sitting will always be able to provide what is needed is optimistic. Their determination to rely on emergency primary legislation is admirable. If this amendment were to be passed, they would still be able to exercise that power and resist the temptation to introduce an executive order. I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Minister are of the view that they would always be able to do so.
It is at that point that my view still, with respect, differs from that of the Minister. The risk of great difficulty in introducing emergency primary legislation for the reasons set out in the amendment remains. The consequences of not being able to extend the period of detention over terrorist suspect or suspects without charge could have literally fatal consequences. While I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage, I wish to reserve the right to return to the matter on report.
Lord Henley
“(6ZA) As soon as practicable after making an order under paragraph 38 of Schedule 8, the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the order before each House of Parliament.”
“(6C) Subsections (6A) and (6B) do not apply to an order under paragraph 38 of Schedule 8 which revokes an order under that paragraph.”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the Committee will be aware that the Government made a remedial order—the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011—earlier this year to replace the stop and search powers in Sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a more targeted and proportionate power. That order will cease to have effect when, subject to parliamentary approval, Clause 61 of the Bill comes into effect.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights issued two reports on the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011. It recommended in both reports that the Bill should be amended to clarify that a senior police officer making an authorisation in respect of the new stop and search powers must have a reasonable basis for not only their suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place but also their view that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate to prevent such an act. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime and Security responded to the Joint Committee’s second report stating that he would consider whether the Bill should be amended. I can confirm today that the Government accept the Committee’s recommendation, which is implemented by this amendment.
I should stress that Amendment 146 is without prejudice to the construction of “considers” elsewhere in the Terrorism Act 2000. In the particular context of this provision in the Bill, we are merely emphasising—in response to the Joint Committee’s report—the implicit meaning that consideration must be reasonable so that the intended meaning is clear to all, including the courts. We feel this clarification may be helpful given the contrast between “reasonably suspects” in the first part of the test for authorisation and “reasonably considers” in the second.
The amendment to Schedule 6 makes a parallel change to the stop and search powers in Schedule 3 to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, as amended by that schedule. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we welcome the Bill’s provisions in relation to stop and search in general. We also welcome the amendment before us today. Stop and search is an important police tool and was introduced for a very good reason in response to the changing security environment. However, as actions this summer have shown, community cohesion and the effectiveness of policing depend on public confidence. We know, for example, from the interim report of the Independent Riots, Communities and Victims Panel, that stop and search was cited as a major source of discontent with the police. This discontent and concern was widely felt by young black and Asian men specifically. It is absolutely right and proper that this government amendment introduces the concept of reasonableness. I wholeheartedly support the Government in their amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
Lord Henley
Lord Henley
My Lords, I wonder whether this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday, 10 January at 3.30 pm. I wish the Committee a very happy Christmas.
House of Lords
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Economy: Deficit Reduction
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what evidence they have that their deficit reduction plan is working.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, tackling the deficit is necessary to supporting sustainable economic growth. The Government’s consolidation plan has restored confidence in the UK’s fiscal position, preserving our AAA credit rating and leading Standard & Poor’s to move the UK’s rating from negative outlook to stable. In May 2010, the spread of UK gilts to German bunds was in line with Italy and Spain; since then, UK rates have fallen by over 150 basis points but Italian and Spanish bond yields have risen by over 100 basis points.
Lord Barnett
In the midst of all that, the noble Lord forgot to answer the Question. As I am sure he will recall, the Prime Minister said that the deficit would be eliminated in 2015 and his own Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it will be 2017. Why was he not willing to say that? Is there something wrong in telling the truth that he has to give me a long, wordy Answer? However, it is even worse than that—and some very respected forecasters are forecasting that it could be even worse. Would he not accept that if the circumstances change, through no particular fault of the Government, changes in policy should take place? For example, we might do something to stop the unemployment figures announced yesterday being even worse. What does he have in mind in the event of some kind of major change in circumstances?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the Government are on track to meet the fiscal mandate which was set by my right honourable friend the Chancellor. The mandate requires the Government to bring the cyclically adjusted current balance into balance at the end of five years. The Opposition may not like it but that fiscal rule means that there is an ability for us to be flexible in the face of very difficult economic conditions; it means that we can preserve the infrastructure expenditure, which is so important, to underpin long-term growth; and it means that the automatic stabilisers can operate. If the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is suggesting that we should abandon all of that, I wonder what his policy would be.
Lord Blackwell
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the primary reason for our current deficit is the fact that public expenditure as a percentage of GDP grew from less than 40 per cent to close to 50 per cent in the first 10 years of this century? Will he confirm that the Government’s primary focus is therefore to get public expenditure back down below 40 per cent, where it can be supported by an affordable level of taxes?
Lord Sassoon
I certainly agree with my noble friend that we inherited the worst peacetime deficit situation that this Government have ever known, and that getting the budget back into balance is indeed the priority of this Government.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that access to bank credit for smaller microbusinesses will be essential for economic growth and elimination of the deficit. Will the Government therefore take a look at the extraordinary barriers to entry of new potential banks into exactly this field, the FSA having now become so utterly risk-averse that it has lost any sense of balance?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, it is very important that credit flows to SMEs, which is why we announced a package of £21 billion at the autumn Statement, and it could go higher if the demand is there. I take my noble friend’s point about the importance of diversity and new entrants into our banking system. That is something that both the FSA and the Government keep under review.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, given that the stability message has failed, is it not time now for a growth strategy? Given the appalling figures on unemployment for both young people and others in the country, is there not hope to be given to people? Given that the Government can borrow, with the low interest rates, at a rate less than the private sector, is it not time to invest in infrastructure projects so that we come out of this recession and not make it a depression?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing: we are investing in infrastructure projects. Indeed, as was announced at the autumn Statement, we are targeting an additional £20 billion of private sector money coming into infrastructure from long-term UK investors. As to the policy mix, I can only refer back to the IMF’s latest assessment which said that the case for relatively tight fiscal and relatively loose monetary policy is strong.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, surely the question for most ordinary people not schooled in economics is whether the Government’s programme for rapid deficit reduction is actually a price worth paying. Could the Minister tell us how the Government propose to quantify the cost of deficit reduction in terms of the impact on people and communities?
Lord Sassoon
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. The end objective here is not a balanced budget but sustainable growth, to bring down unemployment and increase employment in this economy. So what is really important, whether it is infrastructure spend, the fundamental reform of the welfare system or our education system, is that in the end we get a better balanced economy with more sustainable employment over the long term.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, the Minister has made it clear to the House today that the Government’s deficit reduction strategy is based on sand. It is always five years ahead. He has told us today that the target is to balance the budget by 2017; next year it will be 2018, the year after that 2019 and, like old age, it will simply retreat before us. Given that the Government’s strategy has been pushed off track and is failing to meet its deficit targets, why in the autumn Statement did they not cut expenditure more and raise taxes more to put the deficit reduction strategy back on track?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first, the deficit reduction strategy, as the OBR confirms, is absolutely on track. If the noble Lord is suggesting that we should cut expenditure and raise taxes, is that the policy of his party?
Lord Dykes
My Lords, did the Minister notice that the credit rating agencies and the American-dominated $16 trillion debt system gave AAA ratings to all the hedge funds and banks that collapsed in the United States and elsewhere in the world just about a week or a few days before they actually did collapse. Are they really so reliable?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the track record of the credit rating agencies as far as sovereign debt is concerned speaks for itself. It is quite different to the mistakes that they have made in other sectors.
Justice: Evidence
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to receive a further report from the Privy Council review, led by Sir John Chilcot, on using intercept as evidence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, there have recently been changes to the membership of the Privy Council group. I look forward to it reconvening shortly to assess progress and, as appropriate, to offer advice.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, it is now nearly four years since the Chilcot committee was asked to find a way of making intercept evidence available in court. The preferred approach has always been by what has been called public interest immunity plus, which has many advantages. However, in December 2009, that approach was abandoned in the light of the decision of the fourth section of the European Court of Human Rights in a case from Finland. Since then, we have heard very little. Does the Minister recall that a month ago the Lord Chief Justice and the president of the Supreme Court gave evidence that the courts are following decisions of the European Court of Human Rights too strictly? If that is accepted, would he encourage the Chilcot committee to look again at PII+ and perhaps take further legal advice?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am sure that the group will want to reflect on the implications of the judgment to which the noble and learned Lord referred in the European Court of Human Rights and to reflect on the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice when he said that the United Kingdom courts should give due weight to decisions from the European Court of Human Rights. However, the noble and learned Lord should recognise that experience in other countries, whether they are bound by the European Court of Human Rights or not, is that using intercept as evidence involves significant operational burdens, and that the review is helping to address those issues by trying to find the right balance between advantage, costs and risks.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Privy Council review has been looking at a very small number of possible models for admissibility and that the key issues, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, concern the ECHR, upon which the review might perhaps take note of the recent and very helpful public comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine? Will the Minister try to ensure that, given that all the legwork has actually been done now, an announcement is made within weeks rather than months?
Lord Henley
My Lords, it is not for me to decide when the Privy Council group should make its decisions. That must be a matter for the group itself. As I stressed at the beginning, there have been changes to the membership of that group, which has complicated matters and slowed things down somewhat. As I said, I am sure that the group will take account of the implications of the judgment in the European Court of Human Rights and of the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine.
Lord Hurd of Westwell
As a former member of the group that we are talking about, could I press my noble friend a little further on this point? My recollection is that some time ago we were within spitting distance, we were within reach, we were edging fast towards a settlement or compromise that would satisfy both the main parties and points of view in this complicated matter. What has gone wrong since then?
Lord Henley
My Lords, it is not for me to pronounce on the problems that the group is having. As my noble friend knows from his distinguished service on this group, the membership has changed not once but twice over the last year or so. There are difficult issues to be addressed. I know that it came forward with one model, and there were problems with that, but I think my noble friend will accept that trying to get the right balance, to which I referred in my first Answer, between advantage, costs and risks is a very great challenge and one that we want that group to get right.
Lord Rosser
I am not clear from the Minister’s answer whether the Government have a view on this issue or not. In light of the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice in relation to the ECHR decision to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, referred, do the Government take the view that there appears to be no insurmountable obstacle in principle to the use of intercept evidence, or are our intelligence services still voicing significant concerns on this issue?
Lord Henley
There are obviously significant concerns about using intercept as evidence. It can be very useful as intelligence, but using it as evidence can create significant problems. We want to address those problems and make sure that we have got it right before we allow intercept to be used as evidence. That is why the previous Government set up the review under Sir John Chilcot and why we are continuing to look at the work that it is doing and looking forward to its report in due course.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
I understand that what happened was that the first group of privy councillors under Sir John Chilcot, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was a member, made a report that was considered. It then went into the next phase, with the privy councillors liaising with an action unit, or something like that, in the Home Office. That activity has hit problem after problem. It is not the fault of the privy councillors that there is a delay in reaching a solution. As the Minister said, it is a very complicated matter.
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct. I was not trying to imply any criticism of the group; I was saying that it has put forward a solution that we have found a number of problems with. We will continue to look at any ideas that it puts forward. If we could use intercept as evidence in a manner that was safe and appropriate, we would, but again I stress that we have to get the right balance between advantage, costs and risks.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, when I heard the Minister’s original Answer I wondered whether it was a case of changing the membership if you do not like what is being said, and in this case I would welcome that. However, does the Minister accept that the longer this goes on, the less trust and confidence there is among those of us who take an interest in this about whether there is a real determination to reach a good and useful outcome?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the only reason why the membership changed was because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, stood down due to reasons of health. He has been replaced by Shaun Woodward, and there is nothing else behind that.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, during my three years as Minister for Security, almost every key plot against this nation was first identified through the auspices of GCHQ and this sort of intelligence. While one has to be sad that things have been delayed, will the Minister confirm that the most important thing to get right is not to lose any of the skills and capabilities that have been lost in the past when people have spoken about them unnecessarily?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to underline the importance of intelligence—and I stress the importance very often of intercept as intelligence. Whether it can be used as evidence is always another matter. Frequently, even if it could be used as evidence, it would not be very useful evidence, having been useful intelligence.
Political Party Funding
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on party funding.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are grateful to the committee for its report and will consider its recommendations before providing a formal response. The Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government’s proposed approach to party funding reform in his Written Ministerial Statement of 23 November.
Lord Tyler
Can my noble friend give us an assurance that unlike under the previous Administration, the most reluctant and recalcitrant participants in this process will not be allowed to delay everything, and will not be given a complete veto on progress? In particular, may I suggest that we should start with immediate action to stop the arms race in expenditure, both at the constituency level—targeting constituencies as well as national constituencies—and before, as well as during, campaigns? This could achieve some cross-party agreement, and of course would be very popular with the long-suffering public.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I welcome those suggestions from my noble friend, which I will pass on to the Deputy Prime Minister. In his Statement that I referred to, he said:
“The Government believe that the case cannot be made for greater state funding of political parties at a time when budgets are being squeezed and economic recovery remains the highest priority. But there is a case for looking carefully at whether existing levels of support could be used more effectively”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/11; col. 25WS.]
I would have thought that some of the suggestions that my noble friend made could be brought into that general consultation with all political parties.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether the advice that has been given will be followed in time to influence elections that are going to be pending quite soon? In particular, having borne in mind that the Government have been speedy in altering the structure of constituencies, will they also take into account the importance of fair dos in spending to affect these forthcoming elections?
Lord McNally
My Lords, even this report recommends that nothing that it suggests should come in before 2015, but the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated that all political parties are welcome to have broad discussions with him, and these matters could form part of those discussions.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I feel a little light-headed because I think I may agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Obviously, to make elections fairer it is not just a question of where competing candidates and parties raise their money from, it is also how much they spend. This has long been acknowledged at the level of constituency party campaigning. Surely, whatever else we may disagree on, none of us would want elections to take the form, in terms of expenditure, that is the case in the United States, where the most obscene levels of expenditure are required even to begin to get off the ground. Can the Government focus their attention on looking at the ways in which total expenditure can be minimised, particularly at a national level? At least we could make some progress on that, even if the other side of the equation is more difficult.
Lord McNally
My Lords, not only do I feel light-headed, I think I am going to swoon away: I think I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. Yes, I fully agree with him. As the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly said, this is obviously not the time to try the fundamental reforms that this report, and indeed the Hayden Phillips report before it, recommended. However, there is an opportunity to engage in discussions to see if we can do things within current frameworks to address some of the issues he raised. That would be a very fruitful use of time in this Parliament.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, while I too agree with a good deal of what has been said, does my noble friend not agree that it would be very dangerous if we were to set maximum levels of expenditure for the parties which were convenient for a party which could attract less than 10 per cent of the electorate, as opposed to major parties which attract somewhere around 40 per cent of the electorate? Perhaps it was a little dangerous for my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to leave this matter in the care of his deputy, who does not seem quite to be on song with the rest of the Government.
Lord McNally
For a party that has pretty consistently polled over 20 per cent of the vote in recent general elections, there is certainly no self-interest about the 10 per cent figure. Indeed, we should all wait for the next election, which as we all know, usefully, is in 2015. Four years is a long time in politics.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Given that we are all in agreement, maybe I should say that I agree with Nick.
Given that the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to get big money out of politics by capping donations at £10,000, would not the best way of ending the big donor culture perhaps be for the Minister’s party to return Michael Brown’s money—money that was not his to give and should never have been accepted?
Lord McNally
That was a good growl of approval. It is not for me, as a member of the party of Lloyd George, to lecture anybody on party political funding. However, I have been pressing for party political funding reform all my political life, and I can assure the noble Baroness that this affects all parties. The problem about this culture of forcing our parties to raise big money from big donors, as I have said many times from those Benches and I say now from this Bench, is that the regime is corrupting of our political system, and the sooner we can get rid of it the better.
Crime: Metal Thieves
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to establish a nationwide task force to target metal thieves.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the Government recognise the growing problem of metal theft and are taking urgent steps to address it. Five million pounds has been provided to establish a dedicated national task force to significantly increase enforcement activity to deal with both scrap metal dealers who trade in stolen metal and those who steal metal.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, that is fine as far as it goes but does the Minister agree with what his Home Office colleague James Brokenshire said in the other place on Monday? Mr Brokenshire estimated that the cost of metal theft may be now as much as £777 million a year and said,
“we have now reached the stage where the only conclusion is that new legislation is needed to tackle metal theft”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/11; col. 508.]
As a vital first step, will the Minister accept my amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which would make cash transactions for scrap metal sales illegal, bearing in mind that probably as much as £1 billion out of the £5 billion in this industry is accounted for in cash and is the cause of most of the problems?
Lord Henley
First, my Lords, I always agree with everything that my honourable friends say and I agree with absolutely everything that my honourable friend Mr James Brokenshire said on Monday about metal theft. We think that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is dead. It is past its sell-by date and we need to look at other measures to properly regulate the scrap metal yards, because that is where the problem is—in dealing with the stolen metal. We will certainly look very carefully at the noble Lord’s amendment, which I have not yet seen, when it comes before us shortly in the legal aid Bill. If we can give it a fair wind or tinker with it, we certainly will because I agree with him that addressing the question of cash in this industry certainly needs looking at.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the stakes have been significantly raised in this issue, now that it is a question not only of very significant funds but of human lives being put at risk in hospitals, when hospitals have to close and operations have to be postponed because metal has been stolen by thieves? Does that not raise the measure of the issue significantly?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to raise the issue of the threat to life. Already this year, I think that some six criminals have been killed stealing metal—it is perhaps a higher figure—but in stealing that metal they have caused considerable disruption to power supplies and other things. We know that that has affected not only hospitals but, on other occasions, the emergency services. That is why the Government certainly feel it necessary that we must make moves in the area.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, the call for tighter regulation of scrap yards, including cashless transactions, is widespread. We know that the industry itself wants to back regulation. I wonder whether the Minister could be a bit more specific on the timescale and when we might expect some real reform of the regulations, including particularly the easy access to cash which supports something causing not only the damage of yesterday that we have heard about but damage in our own case. We have around 10 churches a day losing their roofs. Can we have a timescale?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to the problems that the churches are facing. I recently met his colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, to discuss this issue. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the industry itself recognises the need for more regulation in this field, which is why we want to go down that route. However, although the industry recognises the need for more regulation, it does not see the advantages of going cashless. I think that going cashless would possibly be the biggest gain to make.
The Earl of Glasgow
Metal theft has become a really serious epidemic. As the noble Baroness said a moment ago, only about two days ago some copper metal was taken from a hospital in Wales and that resulted in eight operations having to be abandoned. I want to be assured by the Minister that the Government are going to deal with this very urgently and have some plans to deal with these scrap metal dealers as soon as possible.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance. The important thing to say is that is very difficult to stop the actual theft, given how widely spread all the various metals are. That is why we think the important thing is to deal with the handling, and why we want to deal with the yards. If we could cut off the route for getting money from these stolen metals, we would then cut off the thefts.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, in view of the danger to life in hospitals and the very possible serious damage to life due to metal theft on the railways, is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient penalties available once the criminals—either the thieves or the receivers—are caught? I would not normally call for harsh sentences but in view of the salutary sentences given to the rioters, should we make sure that there are salutary sentences for those engaged in this dangerous and life-threatening trade?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my memory of the Theft Act is sketchy but, as I remember it, it provides for seven years for theft, something considerably longer for burglary—which most of this would come under—and makes very severe long sentences available for handling. It is the handling we want to get at because it is the fence who deals with the metal who provides the value to it.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, as we desperately need a solution to this terrible problem and as the Deputy Prime Minister desperately needs a success, why can we not put him in charge of the committee to come up with a solution to this metal theft problem?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that the whole Government are united on this issue. We just have to sort out the details before we bring forward legislation.
Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O’Cathain
That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 8 November, be annulled on the grounds that they do not fulfil the Government’s pledge to protect properly faith groups from being compelled to register civil partnerships where it is against their beliefs.
Relevant document: 43rd Report from the Merits Committee.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, although I am a reluctant rebel today I am very grateful to the Government, and particularly to the Leader of the House, for scheduling the debate and for sticking to the policy of treating this as a matter of conscience. Conservative Back-Bench Peers have a free vote. In fact, all three main parties allowed a free vote when this issue was first voted on in March 2010. At that time the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that it raised,
“fundamental issues for religious organisations, and it is therefore right that they are considered as matters of individual conscience”.—[Official Report, 2/3/10; col. 1439.]
I am surprised that the Opposition are now whipping, but that is their decision.
The purpose of my Prayer is to address the widely held concerns that the regulations threaten religious freedom. The Merits Committee has drawn them to the special attention of the House, because of the concerns expressed to it. The House must decide whether we reject them and invite the Government to think again. The regulations are intended to create an entirely voluntary system for places of worship that wish to register civil partnerships. That is the intention and I do not doubt the Government's sincerity, but senior lawyers advise that the interplay between the regulations and equality law could result in legal pressure on churches that do not want to register civil partnerships. That is what I want to address.
In no way am I trying to block these regulations as a means of opposing civil partnerships. I have seen some deeply unpleasant briefing materials and, indeed, have received many obnoxious letters which impugn my motives. I have absolutely no hidden agenda. My sole reason for this Prayer is to attempt to stop churches having their religious freedoms taken away by local authorities or by litigious activists. The House must not pass regulations that fail to fulfil the intention of the Government. The wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who I am glad to see in his place, should be honoured. He made it clear that he did not wish to see places of worship forced to register civil partnerships against their will.
In the run-up to this debate, there has been so much confusion that I particularly want to make it clear that we must not confuse the registration of civil partnerships in churches with the question of the redefinition of marriage. Marriage remains in law the union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others; nothing said or done here today will have any effect on that. The issue is the impact of these regulations as drafted, which seek to allow civil partnerships to be registered—and I underline registered—in places of worship. It is not a question of voting against civil partnerships; it is a question of asking noble Lords to vote for the protection of religious freedoms.
The regulations were laid as a negative instrument on 8 November. Parliament has 40 days from that date to annul them, and that period runs out at the end of this week. Strangely, the coming-into-force date printed on the regulations was 5 December, so technically they are already in force. That date was the Government’s choosing. We still have time to vote them down. If my prayer is agreed today, the regulations will cease to have effect. However, applications by same-sex couples will not be jeopardised, as the local systems have not yet been established. This means that the Government have time to think again about how to implement the proposals, while ensuring that their intention—and I emphasise their intention—of protecting religious freedom is achieved.
The procedure for rejecting delegated legislation which I am invoking today was agreed by the House in July. If the House no longer wanted to have that power, it could have given it away or curbed it. I acknowledge that many noble Lords, especially on these Benches, are reluctant to vote down secondary legislation. According to the Library, we have done so three times in just over a decade—twice in 2000, on the GLA election expenses regulations, and again in 2007, on the casino regulations. I am sure that this is one such situation in which we should act. The regulations are fatally flawed: they put religious freedom in jeopardy. It is always dangerous to take away freedom, but to do so using secondary legislation, which is subject to so little scrutiny, seems especially egregious.
The House of Commons had no opportunity to scrutinise these regulations. As a negative instrument, they did not qualify for the Delegated Legislation Committee. Edward Leigh, the Member for Gainsborough, tabled a Prayer to Annul and tried to persuade the Government to set up a Committee, but this was denied. Thus, the sole responsibility for scrutinising these regulations lies with us. We have no opportunity to amend the regulations; if we had, I would have tabled an amendment. As a revising Chamber, we might have preferred that, but it is not an option. If we think that the Government’s drafting is wrong, we must reject them. This is the only way of asking the Government to think again.
The regulations themselves do not force churches to register civil partnerships on their premises, but offer an opt-in system whereby faith groups wishing to register civil partnerships have the freedom to do so. The regulations contain this statement:
“Nothing in these Regulations places an obligation on a proprietor or trustee of religious premises to make an application for approval of those premises as a place at which two people may register as civil partners”.
But I am afraid that this statement is meaningless, because it only protects against obligations in these regulations. A similar statement was inserted in the Civil Partnership Act by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli. However, it is not the regulations under the Civil Partnership Act that have the potential to place an obligation. The churches need protection not from the regulation under that Act, but from that under the Equality Act. Having protection under these regulations is like being given protective goggles on a construction site, when what you need is a hard hat—it is protection against the wrong thing.
Professor Mark Hill QC, a leading ecclesiastical lawyer, has produced a written legal opinion which makes the very serious claim that the regulations will result in,
“a curtailment of religious freedom”,
and will compel churches,
“to secure approval for the registration of civil partnerships despite their doctrinal objection”.
This is serious. Professor Hill cites Section 149 of the Equality Act, “Public sector equality duty”, which requires all public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination. This duty applies to local authorities and to the registration officials who are housed and employed by them. These are the people with whom the churches have to deal when they apply for the licence to register marriages.
According to Professor Hill, local authorities could say that the public sector equality duty requires them to oblige churches to register for civil partnerships as a precondition of being able to register for marriage. It is blindingly obvious that a church which performs marriages, but refuses to perform civil partnerships, is discriminating. The church regards this as justified discrimination, simply by being faithful to its religious principles. However, the public sector duty is about eliminating all forms of discrimination. So you can see the problem. Some local authorities would claim that facilitating churches to register marriages, but not civil partnerships, will make them complicit in discrimination.
I know that the Government argue that marriage and civil partnerships are two separate systems, and that the local authority cannot make approval of one dependent on the other. Indeed, the final decision on approving premises for marriages rests with the Registrar General, while the decision over civil partnerships takes place locally. In both cases, however, the application has to be submitted through the registry office, housed at the local authority.
In a separate legal opinion, responding to the Government, Aidan O’Neill QC, a leading human rights lawyer at Matrix Chambers, states that it will be a relevant consideration for, and duty of, the relevant public authority to have regard to how any such approval might impact upon its attempt to eliminate discrimination. He states that although the Marriage Act 1949, which governs registration of churches, allows little discretion, the public authority would still be bound by the public sector equality duty. In order to avoid a conflict between the registration duties under the 1949 Act and the equality duty under the 2010 Act, Mr O’Neill says that a public authority could “read down”—which, as a non-lawyer, I take to mean “re-interpret”—the Marriage Act 1949 to make it compatible with the public authority’s positive obligations under the Equality Act. He suggests that a judicial review might even require it so to do.
It is certainly not difficult to imagine a local authority solicitor advising his chief executive that in all functions, including processing applications for churches for power to register civil partnerships and marriages, the local authority must eliminate discrimination. This would include processing applications only from those churches that also allow the registration of civil partnerships. The application may never be referred to the Registrar General if the local authority applies a filter on the application at the initial stage.
The Church House briefing, which I think everyone has had, argues that because marriages and civil partnerships are different things, the law cannot be used to require a church to provide one just because it provides the other. However, Aidan O’Neill asserts that the equivalence between marriage and civil partnerships is a basic tenet of the Equality Act. The courts are unlikely to view them as two entirely separate services. They have already ruled, in the Ladele case, that being willing to register marriages, but unwilling to register civil partnerships, is discrimination. Mr O’Neill’s opinion, which I have made available to colleagues, shows how churches and denominations could be squeezed by combining the obligations of the Equality Act, the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, and EU law.
We cannot ignore the views of these two QCs. The willingness of Professor Hill and Aidan O’Neill to commit these opinions to writing proves that there are lawyers who are willing to argue these points in court. If there is any risk that these arguments might succeed and that churches could be deprived of the right to register marriage by politically correct local authorities, we must prevent it. We have to get it right first time. Last year the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, actually spoke against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, because of the holes in the drafting. She said:
“Our preference would be to get this right from the outset”.—[Official Report, 2/3/2010; col. 1440.]
This is our last chance to get it right. We cannot put the churches in the legal firing line and sort it out later.
I received a copy of the Minister’s letter yesterday, which says that,
“if a successful legal challenge were ever brought, I would like to provide reassurance that the Government would immediately review the relevant legislation”.
I suggest that this is not good enough. We must get it tied down, guaranteed and cast-iron now.
The churches might win out in the end, of course, but why should they face the cost, the fear and the chilling effect of sorting out a legal mess created by Parliament? We know that some people would like to force churches to register civil partnerships. The chief executive of Stonewall said that right now faiths should not be forced to hold civil partnerships, although in 10 or 20 years’ time that might change. Mike Weatherley, the Conservative MP for Hove, has more immediate plans: in a letter to the Prime Minister this year he called for churches that refuse to register civil partnerships to be banned from registering marriages. In a nutshell, this is what would happen if these regulations are not annulled.
We have watched the progress from permission to coercion before now. In 2003 we legalised joint adoption by same-sex couples; that was permissive. However, when the sexual orientation regulations were introduced, even though they were not specifically about adoption, it suddenly became compulsory for Roman Catholic adoption agencies to take part in same-sex adoptions. How permissive is that? As a result of the overlap between the permissive provisions and the obligations of equality law, all but one of the English Catholic agencies have either closed down or been secularised. Holes in the regulations must be plugged or someone somewhere will exploit them.
Officials at Church House are not concerned, of course—the Church of England does not have to apply to registrars to register marriages—but surely they ought to be concerned about other religious denominations and independent churches that rely on the good will of local authorities. I have had so many letters on this subject from churches that I did not even know existed. The secretariat of the Roman Catholic Church prefers the Government’s interpretation of the regulations but admits that there is a risk. It says:
“If, of course, there were an opportunity for the Regulations to be revisited at this stage, then they should include … a statement explicitly to put the matter beyond doubt”.
I reiterate that I am not talking about redefining marriage or about trying to unpick the Civil Partnership Act. I am talking about the particular mechanism that the Government have chosen to legalise civil partnership registration on religious premises. I accept that it is the Government’s intention to introduce a voluntary regime that protects churches. I urge the Minister to agree to my Prayer, withdraw the regulations and go away to think again about whether the Government really have done enough to achieve this voluntary regime.
Aidan O’Neill QC argues that the only way to protect the churches is an amendment to the Equality Act. The Scottish Government, who are considering their own plans to allow religious civil partnership registration, have the same view. If leading QCs are not convinced, the Government have not provided reassurance despite their wish to do so. My Government need to go away and think again. I beg to move.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I wanted to start by arguing that this issue has already been debated at length in your Lordships’ House and that the opinion of the House had already been made clear. Then I came to my senses and remembered that I was actually in your Lordships’ House, so I disposed of that line of argument.
I shall move on to the substantive issues and tackle first the intention of the clause to which these regulations apply. Noble Lords may recall the amendment that I originally proposed with the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes, Lady Neuberger and Lady Campbell, who I am very pleased to see in her place today—I know that she has been very ill recently, and for her to come here was a great kindness. The regulations did not and do not place an obligation on any religious organisation to host civil partnerships if it does not wish to. I shall read once again the actual words in the Act:
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.
How can such a clear statement of intent be twisted into forcing religious organisations to host civil partnerships in their buildings against their will? I shall tell the House how I think it happens. First, you take a spurious argument. You dress it up in legal language; find a senior QC or two, and preferably a professor, and get them to write a lot about very little. Then you throw in a large dose of prejudice, and finally you add that secret ingredient: fear—in this case, fear that people will be coerced into acting against their conscience. It is a heady cocktail and its purpose is simple: to make good people with good intentions do things that otherwise they would not do.
That is how it is done. What has always confused me is why we continue to drink that cocktail when we know what goes into it. It has always confused me that decent, hard-working people continue to listen to extreme views built on half-truths. We know that they are half truths but some kind of politeness stops us from challenging them. That needs to stop. We need to call an untruth an untruth, a lie a lie, an opinion an opinion and a fact a fact. We must not develop the politics of the Right in America, where it does not matter what the actual truth is, whether any prosecution would actually succeed or whether or not it really is a conscience vote. All that matters is how big your microphone is and how controversial your views are—nothing to do with truth, fairness or justice.
I say, with the deepest respect: is it not about time that a Government who know that this is not a conscience vote put a three-line whip on all their Members, not just their Ministers? At this point I normally thank the Minister for his help and support, and indeed I am sure that he knows I do so now. I suspect that thanking him will do neither him nor me any good, but I do so anyway.
Is it not time also that Front-Benchers of all parties, who know that this is not a conscience vote, stand up and say so? Is it not time that those who hold legal opinions admit that no one believes that a legal action would succeed in this context, because of the very conscience clause that is in the Act? We should be better than this. This House is a place where truth should win out and the arguments should be about the big issues—good, evil, right and wrong. It is a place where the facts should be respected and the kind of misinformation that we see peddled in our postbags rubbished for what it is.
In the run-up to this debate, I have asked myself, “What is it that those who seek to annul these regulations hope to achieve?”. It is simple: they do not want same-sex couples to celebrate their partnership in any religious building. They argued against the original amendment. They simply do not care if the religion concerned wants to host these celebrations or not; it is their way or no way at all. That is simply wrong. This provision is all about religious freedom. It is about allowing churches and religious organisations the freedom to decide whether or not they wish to host civil partnerships. It is about removing the civil law from those discussions. It is about allowing each faith to decide for itself what is best for it and its congregation. It is fundamentally about religious freedom.
I know that this is a difficult issue for some churches, but the legal opinions of even the Church of England and the Catholic Church confirm that no church will be forced to approve its premises and that the public duty that the noble Baroness talks of simply does not apply. If you cherish religious freedom, there is a bigger principle at stake—the principle that means allowing the Quakers, the Liberal Jews or the Unitarian Church to make their own decisions on civil partnerships in their own religious buildings.
I shall end by saying a little about what I believe I have learnt that this House can and cannot do. We should not fashion our laws around the convenience or inconvenience of any particular religion. We cannot stop a gay Catholic man from suing the Catholic Church. We cannot stop a gay Anglican from suing the Church of England. For that matter, we cannot stop a straight man or woman from doing the same. We in this House cannot stop people from going to court. The question is not, “Can they make a case?”—in my experience, a good lawyer can always make a case—but, “Will they win?”. On that there can be very little doubt: the answer is no. However, should any in this House feel unconvinced, please draw comfort from where we started and from what is written in the Act:
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.
That is the law that we passed. It is a debate that we have had. This procedure should not seek to frustrate the will of this House or indeed of the other place. We should see off this Prayer to Annul and its bogus claim to seek to protect religious freedom. Should the noble Baroness decide to test the opinion of the House, I hope that noble Lords will join me in the Lobby. I beg to oppose.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, to assist the House I suggest we hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches first, maybe then the Convenor of the Cross Benches, followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and then the Bishops.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we complain when primary legislation is not commenced or implemented. The first instinct of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was absolutely right, though he then extended his arguments. We also complain when legislation is not clear. This is not the case today. The Merits Committee, of which I am a member, did not make a judgment on the merits of the substance of this order. It used its entirely standard language, drawing it to the special attention of the House on the grounds that,
“it gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
That statement is quite uncontentious.
I can see from those already attempting to intervene that we will hear today closely argued analysis of a construction of the words “Act”, “authority” and “services”, and I am always glad to recruit such expertise to the cause. Essentially, however, the issue is, “Does the order do what Section 202 of the Equality Act provides?”. I believe that it does. Or, “Does it require any individual or organisation to do what they do not wish to do?”. I believe that it does not. The order cannot trump primary legislation, nor can it require what the Act itself precludes. As we have been reminded, primary legislation says that nothing places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so. If there are differing views within an organisation, that is not a matter for government.
The noble Baroness uses in her prayer the word “pledge”. It is not a pledge—or rather, it is more than a pledge—because the words are in Section 202. That section is surely permissive: it is an opt-in, not an opt-out. We know there are objections to it, but that was a matter for 2010. I say that to those who would like to extend that section, as well as to those who would like to see it interpreted restrictively. To attempt now to reverse it, extend it or block it, is inappropriate.
I will be quick because there are so many noble Lords who wish to speak. I find it very difficult to see anxiety engendered among people with a particular view. I do not like to see people fed fear. I realise that something that may seem entirely reasonable to me may seem very prejudicial to you, whoever you and I are—that is, whichever side of the argument one is on. I will end by voicing what others might see as my own prejudices. That 46,000 couples have entered into civil partnerships is wonderful; 92,000 people have been able to give formal, legal expression to their relationship. It is a paradox that some who advocate celebrating marriage within a faith oppose extending it to other stable relationships. I welcome the order and look forward to taking forward Section 202.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I speak as a lawyer today. I concede my obligation to the House to set out my genuine view, because this is a legal issue and because I was formerly the Lord Chancellor. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Alli, agree the basis upon which Parliament—not only this House—passed the amendment to the Civil Partnership Act which abolished the prohibition on civil partnerships being registered in places of religious worship. My noble friend Lord Alli said at the time that there was no disagreement about this.
From the outset I want to make very clear that the amendment does not place any obligation on any religious organisations to host civil partnerships in their buildings. We made that clear by including in the amendment the words:
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host Civil Partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.
There is no doubt that that was the basis on which the provision was passed. If we have not given effect to that provision, we should not agree to these regulations. The only issue today is therefore whether as a matter of law we have given effect to it. It is for the House to make a decision about this. It is always possible to find a lawyer who says that something is arguable. It is for us to go through the provisions today and form a view about whether or not, contrary to our intention and to that of the House of Commons, we have somehow failed to achieve it.
I will very quickly go through the basic provisions so that we arrive at a clear answer. Section 2 of the Civil Partnership Act makes the moment at which a civil partnership occurs the moment at which the two partners sign the civil partnership document. Section 6 of the Act—this is, before the amendment—says that that signing can take place either at a registry office or at approved premises. It sets out provisions for premises to be approved by somebody called the registration authority. The registration authority is the local authority. The Civil Partnership Act gives the local authority discretion over whether or not they register premises. Section 6 of the Act as originally passed says that civil partnerships cannot be registered at religious premises. Section 2(5) says—and this provision remains—that there should be no religious element in relation to any registration of a civil partnership.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, which was supported by Parliament, did two things. First, it removed the prohibition on religious premises being used for civil partnerships. It retained the approval process, so that local authorities still approve whether premises—including religious premises—can be used for civil partnerships. Secondly, it added to the Civil Partnership Act words to the effect that for the avoidance of doubt, this does not compel any religious organisation to host a civil partnership ceremony if they do not want to.
That is the legal framework that we now have to look at. On the basis of that legal framework, my initial conclusion is that Parliament has made its intention absolutely clear: Parliament does not want to compel anybody to host registration of civil partnerships unless they want to.
I wondered what could conceivably be the argument that we have failed to express our intention clearly. I have read the two opinions that have been provided on this. I will do my best to summarise them fairly and set out why they are plainly wrong, although not lacking in bona fides. The first argument, which was advanced by Professor Mark Hill QC in his opinion dated 8 November, is that because the regulations say that—for the avoidance of doubt—the law does not compel anybody to host a civil partnership if they do not want to, the regulations saying it would not, alone, be enough. I completely agree with that. A regulation saying that hosting is not required would have no effect at all if the position was that the primary Act of Parliament did not get rid of the risk of any discriminatory legislation. However, the primary Act of Parliament does contain the prohibition, so it seems clear that Professor Hill is wrong about that.
I looked through Professor Hill’s opinion to find out what he said about the main provision in the Act, which appeared to be the critical provision. He said that Section 202, in referring to an Act, refers to the Civil Partnership Act and not to the Equality Act. I found that wholly unconvincing because the risk which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, and the QCs identify is that there are provisions in the Equality Act, except for the purpose of this argument, that might be said to create a risk of some sort of action arising from the fact that you perform civil partnerships but not marriages, or the other way round. It seems to me beyond argument that the intention of Parliament must have been to get rid of that risk by putting in the very same Act the phrase,
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act”,
gives rise to the risk of any compulsion. For Professor Hill’s opinion to be correct, you have to assume that this House and the Commons were unaware of the risk that the Equality Act could give rise to litigation when they put into the very same Act a statement that said that allowing churches to host civil partnerships does not lead to any church being compelled to host one. I cannot think of a judge who would give effect to such a nonsensical argument.
8 November was the date on which the advice of Professor Mark Hill was obtained. His advice came under some legal attack. Noble Lords will know that the legal advisers of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Home Office and the Equality Commission have all said that there is no legal risk. Reinforcement was obtained from Mr Aidan O’Neill QC. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, for providing a copy of his advice. He gives a lot of ground in relation to it, recognising the difficulty that exists.
Baroness Trumpington
Could the noble and learned Lord please stop turning away?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I apologise. Mr O’Neill says that since Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires statutes to be interpreted as much as possible in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, that section might, arguably, give rise to the possibility that it could be construed away or read down. However Mr O’Neill, who I do not criticise at all, is an honourable man. He rightly sets out the basic law in relation to reading down under Section 3. He says that the only limitation on Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, on interpretive obligation, according to the House of Lords decision in Ghaidan, is that in reading words into the legislation, or in deleting offending words, the courts have to be satisfied that such emendation could not be said to “go against the grain” by overriding some cardinal feature of the legislation in question, or otherwise raise generally policy issues that a court cannot properly seek to resolve by a process of judicial rewriting. That is what Mr O’Neill, the person relied upon by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, said.
Lord Tebbit
The noble and learned Lord has given a splendid exposition of the law of the United Kingdom. Can he assure us that there is no vestige of a chance that European law, either through Brussels law or the law that falls from the European convention, could override the British courts? After all, it, not this House, is now the ultimate authority on our legal affairs.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
In general terms I can give no assurance that the European courts cannot override the British courts on this. Indeed, they can override this Parliament. However, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that is not the issue that this House is addressing today. The House is addressing a simple issue of English law and it has been accurately put by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain: does the legislation that we passed give effect to the intention of this House? That is a question of interpretation of English law. I have no doubt that it gives effect to it because it is so clear. I have read both opinions very carefully and my view is not shifted by them.
I make two further points. First, Professor Hill QC and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, who accurately reflected this argument, said that there was some risk that local authorities would try to punish churches that did not agree to host civil partnerships by saying that they could not have the authority to conduct marriages. I have absolutely no doubt that there is no foundation for that in even the existing law. Section 41 of the Marriages Act 1949 lays down a process whereby there is no discretion in the local registrar, who is a separate person from the local authority. The person who decides whether a church is entitled to solemnise a marriage is not the local authority but the Registrar-General. He has no discretion in that matter once it has been resolved in terms of the statutory requirements. The legal foundation of that does not exist.
The second point made by the learned professor is that the regulations—not the Act—say that an application can be made by a trustee or a proprietor of the church. He gives rise to the possibility of doctrinal debates in churches about this and one trustee applying when the congregation does not want it and the minister or the priest perhaps does not want it. That is a policy consideration that the state has been concerned about and has made specific provision for. The Government say in relation to their response:
“Following concerns about ensuring that the local congregation is made aware of an application in respect of the premises they use for worship, we will make clear in guidance and on the application form that best practice is for the proprietors or trustees of the premises to make their congregation aware … In addition, each application will be required to be advertised by a local authority and is subject to a period of 21 days’ public consultation, providing further safeguards against applications being made without the knowledge of the relevant congregation”.
I do not think there is any statute in the world that would be able to provide for disagreements within a church about doctrinal issues. What the state has done—and I commend the state for it—is to follow the approach taken in the Marriage Act in relation to the solemnisation of marriage, and this has caused no trouble over hundreds and hundreds of years.
My legal opinion is absolutely clear. Although I completely respect the sincerity of the noble Baroness and completely accept the bona fides of the QCs, there is nothing in what they say and you can be confident that, even though I can give no guarantees that nobody will bring litigation—there is bound to be somebody who will—it only requires one case to deal with it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Before the noble and learned Lord finishes his extraordinarily useful and helpful speech, could I ask him to come back for a moment to one of the issues raised by hundreds of my correspondents—many noble Lords will probably have similar numbers of correspondents on the subject; I have hardly ever seen so many except for health—which is whether the Equality Act, if approached on the grounds of discrimination, would be able to overcome the specific amendment to which he has referred on both major pieces of legislation? It would be helpful for all of us, in replying to that very powerful public opinion, to know the view of the noble and learned Lord—as the previous Lord Chancellor—on this topic.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My unequivocal view, which I have been trying to express, though rather badly, is that the provision that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and I have quoted has the effect of making sure that no discrimination proceedings can be brought under the Equality Act or under the convention in English law as a result of a church saying no to civil partnerships being solemnised on their premises. That is the problem and I am absolutely clear that there is no possibility of discrimination legislation, based on the Equality Act, as a result of the drafting of Section 202.
There is also a broader point of principle. We should not, as a House, be knocked off doing what we decided to do by the opinions of two Queen’s Counsels. We should be clear that we achieved our intention. We used simple language. There is no doubt about what it means and I have absolutely no doubt that the courts will give it effect. I have reason to believe that it might be said that it would be quite easy to amend the provisions, using a provision of the Civil Partnerships Act under Section 259. This would take time, but it would be quite easy to do. It is, however, utterly unnecessary because we expressed our views utterly clearly and the courts will give effect to them.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for an extraordinarily erudite narrative. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating the debate because it gives us the opportunity to look at this very important and sensitive issue of the regulations. I have been much exercised, as I am sure many of you have, by the conflicting opinions I have received. I very much wish the issue were clear-cut, and perhaps it really is. However, for reasons I will explain, I will not be able to join the noble Baroness in the Division Lobbies if she pushes it to a vote.
I say that with real regret, because I entirely share the noble Baroness’s passionate concern for safeguarding religious liberty which is one of the tap-roots for all liberty. Those who hold to the traditional ethical teaching on sexual morality of the Christian churches and many other faiths can too easily be accused of being homophobes. The implication is that, if persuasion does not work, we may have to resort to coercion, which would be a profoundly wrong approach.
The question before us today is whether these regulations do in fact interfere with religious freedom. Having considered the issues carefully and tried my best to understand the conflicting legal opinions of the distinguished lawyers with whom I have also been in touch, I am not persuaded that they do give us that danger. There could, in principle, be two possible arguments for opposing the regulations. The first would be to register opposition to the principle of allowing civil partnerships to be registered in places of worship. The second would be because, although the principle is accepted, these particular regulations were deficient.
On the first point, although it is history, it can be argued that the change in the law agreed by Parliament last year does have its curious features. To say, as the law now does, that civil partnerships can be registered in places of worship but without any religious element taking place in the registration is, on the face of it, quite odd. Moreover, denominations wishing to offer services of blessing following civil registration can already invite people to come to the church or synagogue after the registration and have that element there. Parliament rehearsed these arguments last year and was persuaded that, if people want to register their civil partnership and have a religious ceremony at the same time and in the same location, then legislation should not get in the way of their doing so. That was essentially for religious liberty reasons. The Quakers, the liberal Jews, the Unitarians and anyone else who wanted to host civil partnership registrations should be free to do so, but not forced to do so. I do not, therefore, see a sufficient case for opposing these regulations on the first of those two possible grounds.
For me and, I am sure, for all of us here, everything turns on the second issue which is whether these regulations and, indeed, the Equality Act to which they give effect, are defective. By defective, I mean whether what is meant to be an option would, in fact, become a duty. Will churches and chapels be at risk of litigation? We non-lawyers are in the hands of the experts here. I can muster only a 40 year-old Oxford law degree which is quite inadequate for the task. However, the advice of the legal office of the General Synod is clear that it will be perfectly lawful for churches, chapels and other places of worship to decline to register their places of worship as premises for civil partnerships. That advice has been unequivocally endorsed by the standing counsel to the Synod, Sir Anthony Hammond QC, who was previously Her Majesty’s Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor and Queen’s Proctor. It is also the view of the Government’s lawyers and other senior lawyers not unknown in these erudite precincts, one of whom we have just heard from.
In addition, for the Church of England and certain other denominations, there would have to be a policy decision at the national level from the relevant body—in our case the General Synod—before any church could seek to register. I know that the Christian Institute has commissioned legal opinion from the two separate QCs we have heard about, who take a different view to the lawyers I have mentioned. This is disturbing, and I look to the Minister in responding to this debate to read very carefully into the record his own understanding of the position. In particular, I would like to hear him assure the House that, in the wholly unexpected event of the courts taking a different view from the massed ranks of government lawyers, church lawyers and other lawyers to whom I have referred, we would have either primary or secondary legislation to sort the problem out. I am sure that assurance can be given.
I have the highest regard for the professionalism and integrity of the lawyers of the General Synod, who also advise the House of Bishops. In the light of their advice, it is not clear that there is anything in these regulations or last year’s legislation which needs to be changed. They appear to me to preserve the ability of the Church of England and all other churches and faiths to decide their policy on these matters in the light of their own beliefs and teaching. I regret coming to a different conclusion from the noble Baroness; I would like to have stood with her in support of religious liberty, which is essential to a civilised society, but on the balance of arguments I believe the safeguards are already in place.
Let me say one final word before I conclude. It is hardly a secret that the Church of England along with many other religious traditions continues to wrestle with the underlying ethical issues. We are likely to go on doing so for a considerable time. I have taken part in many of those internal debates and they are at their best when characterised by a spirit of restraint, mutual respect and generosity.
Given the litigious nature of our society, it is only right that we should look at regulations on a sensitive subject such as this with a good deal of care. I am grateful that so many noble Lords and noble Baronesses are here to do that. Nevertheless, I would urge from these Benches that this debate is characterised by that same restraint, mutual respect and generosity that I just mentioned. Those are the qualities by which religious, and indeed all, liberties are best nourished and protected.
Lord Laming
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate and we should be extremely grateful for the insight and human quality that he has brought to the House. I think that the whole House would wish to dissociate itself from any unpleasant comments and criticism that have been directed at the noble Baroness who has moved this Prayer to Annul. She is rightly held in high regard in this House and no one should doubt the sincerity of her position.
The debate has moved on considerably since I prepared my notes and I shall therefore be brief and summarise my views. I am not a lawyer and I speak in a purely personal capacity. I approach this matter from a more social point of view. Successive Governments deserve great credit for the sensitivity and understanding that they have demonstrated in handling the registration of civil partnerships under the 2004 Act and the way in which they have demonstrated equal sensitivity under the Equality Act 2010. As a result of these pieces of legislation and the regulations that have been provided, it seems to me, from a lay point of view, that the churches have all the necessary freedoms and safeguards that they may wish to have. This is well illustrated by the fact that the churches will have to make their own decisions to opt in to these arrangements. It is certain that there is nothing in this legislation that in any way promotes a particular lifestyle.
I am a member of the Church of England and I have the honour to represent your Lordships on the Ecclesiastical Committee. I am a great admirer of all faiths and therefore find it very difficult to appear to be critical. However, I do so with kindness because I would not be being faithful to my beliefs if I failed to say that it has saddened me, and no doubt many others, that the churches have not been in the vanguard of promoting equality in our society. The way in which the Government have tackled this sensitive area is very worthy and credible and I very much hope that in approaching this matter the churches will follow that example.
We Anglicans like to say that we are part of a broad church. That is true theologically, but it may not be necessarily true socially. I hope that in approaching these matters we will not only be gracious to our fellow human beings but generous and understanding. I hope that this Prayer to Annul will be rejected by the House.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, perhaps we may hear from someone on the Conservative Benches and then come back to the noble Lord.
That amendment was made by the Equality Act 2010, but it was made to Section 6A of the Civil Partnership Act 2004. If you go along to the Printed Paper Office and ask for a copy of the 2004 Act, you will discover that it contains no Section 6A. That is because Section 6A was put into the Act by a regulation in 2005. That regulation was made under a provision in the Civil Partnership Act allowing statutory amendments to be made in respect of the Acts that were passed before the end of the Session in which the 2004 Act was passed. Therefore, any enactment contained in an Act passed before the end of 2004 can be amended by statutory regulation, using the affirmative procedure.
The point that arises in this case is a short one and I am not going to go into the opinions of the QCs. Noble Lords have had the great advantage of hearing another QC giving an opposite opinion—and it is not infrequent that that happens. I am going to give no opinion at all about the correctness or otherwise of the provision. They are practising QCs. They have signed their opinions, they are genuinely held and they illustrate a doubt—that is all—about the effect of the Equality Act on these regulations.
My point is that the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and his colleagues put forward, which was accepted on a free vote in this House and the House of Commons, refers to nothing in this Act, but only to provisions in the 2004 Act. The opinion of these Silks is that the risk arises not from the provisions of the 2004 Act but from the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. To my mind, this issue can be completely set to rest by a simple amendment. Instead of saying “nothing in this Act shall”, the provision would say “nothing in this or any other Act shall”. The Government could do that without difficulty because I am sure we are all agreed that we mean to exclude any attack on the basis of the Equality Act.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Leaving aside altogether the argument about the declaratory provision, does the noble and learned Lord accept the opinion given, for example, by the Church of England's lawyers, with which I fully agree, that in any event, under the Equality Act, there could not conceivably be unlawful discrimination in the provision of goods, services and facilities, nor could there be a breach of a public sector duty because no public function is exercised by religious organisations? Therefore, quite apart from the belt-and-braces declaratory provision, there would be no conceivable case of unlawful discrimination.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Two QCs have reached the opposite conclusion. I am not sitting as a judge here. I am seeing that that has happened. Those people have raised a doubt. It is for the avoidance of doubt, not for the avoidance of actual provisions that have such and such an effect. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was careful to understand that people would be very ready to raise doubts in this area if they could. Therefore, he put in a clear provision for the avoidance of doubt. The only problem about it is that his amendment deals with doubts that arise from the Civil Partnership Act. I have not heard anybody say that there is a doubt about this matter arising from that Act. The doubts, if they exist—they have been raised by practising Silks—arise from the Equality Act. I say that that can be simply dealt with by consent, because we are all agreed—so far anyway—that there should be no obligation arising from the Equality Act, or from any other Act for that matter, on any religious organisation to host civil partnerships if it does not want to.
My noble friend Lord Henley sent a letter to us all last night in which he states the Government’s position. He states at the bottom of page 1 that,
“the regulations cannot override primary legislation”.
It is true that these particular regulations cannot, but there is power for a Minister of the Crown, under the relevant section of the Civil Partnership Act, by affirmative resolution to amend an enactment contained in an Act passed before the end of the Session in which the 2004 Act was passed.
This issue has raised a lot of concern among a lot of people. All of your Lordships will have had letters. I have had more letters than I could answer myself without assistance—which I do not have, because I do not wish to charge the taxpayer for helping me. I try to help myself as far as I can. I have had a tremendous number of letters from ordinary people, as well as from a professor and a QC. Of course, another QC of great distinction says that that is all nonsense and that the other QCs are all wrong. People are accustomed to hearing QCs differ, but a difference of opinion between QCs is the sort of thing that causes doubt, which is the very thing that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, had the vision to see should not be allowed to happen.
The only problem is the extent to which that protection was afforded. I see no obstacle to the Government amending the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to state “nothing in this or any other Act” shall impose an obligation on any religious organisation to host a civil partnership if it does not want to. I urge the Minister to undertake to do his best—I think that would be the word—to bring forward such an amendment. In that case, I would be happy that the Prayer was not persisted with.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I very much respect the principled views of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, but this is not a matter of conscience, it is a matter of legal interpretation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, the question is whether there is any real doubt as to what a court would say on the matter. Your Lordships may have found it rather striking that the noble and learned Lord did not give the House any opinion at all as to the answer to this question; he confined himself to saying that views are expressed by QCs on this matter. In my experience of this House, it is rare for the noble and learned Lord not to give the House his very welcome opinion on issues, and I am sorry that he gave the House no opinion on the credence that could be attached to the opinions that have been expressed.
My view, for what it is worth, as a barrister practising in the area of human rights law and administrative law, is that there is no possibility whatever of any court accepting the arguments that have been advanced in those opinions. That is for two reasons. First, the court would focus on Section 202. It would recognise that Parliament has expressed in the clearest possible terms that religious bodies have a power to conduct civil partnership ceremonies but no duty whatever to do so. The regulations faithfully implement what Parliament has decided
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, expressed a concern that had been expressed by her advisers that that is not good enough because it is the Equality Act that, as she put it, poses the danger. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made the same point. My answer to that concern is that it is the very Equality Act that expressly addressed civil partnerships and allowed civil partnerships to be conducted on religious premises for the first time but made it absolutely clear that religious bodies have no duty to conduct such ceremonies.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The noble Lord must accept that the operative effect of the provision in the Equality Act is to make an amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, and nothing more.
Lord Pannick
I entirely accept that, but it is the Equality Act that addressed this very question of the circumstances in which religious bodies may, but have no obligation to, conduct civil partnership ceremonies. It therefore seems to me highly unlikely that any court will say that that very legislation, the Equality Act, nevertheless imposes indirectly some duty on religious bodies to do precisely what Section 202 of the same Act states that they do not need to do.
Secondly, if there were any ambiguity in the Equality Act—there is none, but if there were—a court would interpret the Equality Act by reference to the right under the European Convention on Human Rights and by reference to Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, which this Parliament enacted, which states that on any question that might affect the exercise by a religious organisation of the right to freedom of religion, the court must have particular regard to freedom of religion. It is plain beyond argument that the court would therefore say that a religious body has no duty to do what would conflict with the religious rights of the church or other religious body concerned.
Earlier in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked for assurances that the European Court would not interfere in this matter. I would be extremely surprised if the European courts would trespass on a fundamental question of religious freedom, but if they did, nothing that we decide today would affect that—it is simply irrelevant to this debate and therefore cannot be used either to support or to argue against the Prayer that the noble Baroness presents to the House.
Lord Tebbit
The point is that we are opening the way for the court to do so. The noble Lord said that he would be very surprised if it did. Has he never been surprised at the judgment of a court?
Lord Pannick
I submit that this Parliament must proceed by what we recognise is the overwhelming probability. We cannot legislate on the basis of something that would be wholly contrary to what Parliament has decided as recently as 2010. I say with great respect to the noble Lord that the attitude of the European Court is completely irrelevant to this debate.
I have to tell noble Lords that if I were asked to advise a client on the prospects of success for someone who wished to compel a religious body to hold a civil partnership ceremony against its will, my advice—and, I am sure, the advice of every other competent lawyer practising in this field—would be that any such application would be completely hopeless and misguided. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Prayer for annulment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The noble Lord took great comfort from the Human Rights Act, which of course dates back some time before the 2004 and 2010 Acts came into being, yet the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and those with him, thought that it was wise to put into the 2004 Act an avoidance of doubt provision. Therefore, they were not prepared to trust the Human Rights Act provision alone to avoid any doubt that might arise. Such a provision does not suggest that there would be a legitimate attack; it simply suggests that doubt is to be put at rest completely, and that is what I should like to see here.
Lord Pannick
My answer to the noble and learned Lord is that in 2010, when the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was seeking to persuade the House to create for the first time, contrary to what had been decided in 2004, a power for religious bodies to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, it was perfectly understandable that it should be made clear that this was a power but not a duty. We had that debate and resolved the matter. There is no ambiguity and we really do not need to revisit it.
Baroness Deech
Given the protection for religious freedom that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just described, why did the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act not permit a Jewish school to continue its religious freedom in maintaining the definition of Judaism that had prevailed in the Jewish religion for thousands of years?
Lord Pannick
As the noble Baroness knows very well, that case raised completely different issues. No specific provision in the Equality Act addressed that question. I have to declare an interest. As the noble Baroness well knows, I was the counsel who acted for the JFS, the Jewish Free School, in that litigation, and the problem was that there was no specific provision. By contrast, the Equality Act addresses this very question and it does so in the clearest possible terms.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, we have plenty of time. Perhaps we could hear from the right reverend Prelate and then from the noble Baroness.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, of course I share the concerns expressed by others about how these regulations might affect other churches. However, like my brother the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I should like to say how I think these regulations might affect the Church of England, although I shall perhaps be looking through a slightly different part of the lens.
At the moment, the Church of England, through the General Synod, has not expressed any desire at all for its churches to be used for registering civil partnerships. Therefore, it might be thought that I should be very content to rely simply on the provisions of the regulations that would require the consent of the General Synod to be given before any Church of England church could be approved for registering civil partnerships. However, it seems that this provision is not without difficulty. As your Lordships will know, we have special procedures in General Synod for matters that affect the doctrine or liturgy of the church. It could be thought by some that allowing churches to be used for civil partnerships would affect the doctrine or worship of the church. If so, those special procedures would come into play.
The provision in the schedule to the regulations talks simply about requiring the consent in writing of the General Synod without defining how that consent is to be obtained. If at some future date the proper consent of General Synod were obtained, there could still be difficulties for individual clergy. There are, as we have heard, a variety of legal opinions about whether a claim for discrimination against a priest who refused to allow his or her church to be used for registering a civil partnership would succeed. However, at the end of the day, clergy should not be put at risk of having to defend such claims, even if they seem unlikely and their prospect of success seems remote.
It seems clear, however, that an incumbent who refused to allow his or her church to be approved for civil partnerships would gain no protection from Regulation 2B, because the obligation not to discriminate comes not from the regulations but from the Equality Act. Regulation 2B would appear to be nothing more than window-dressing, and it shows how unsatisfactory these regulations are. There may be good intent but the promised conscience clause simply is not there. It cannot be there in regulations; either the Equality Act or the Civil Partnership Act needs to be amended to provide the necessary clause. I would want to see an express statutory conscience clause similar to that contained in Section 8 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, which provides that no priest of the Church of England or the Church in Wales can be compelled to allow their church or chapel to be used for the solemnisation of a marriage of a divorced person whose former spouse is still living.
As the General Synod has not expressed any desire for Church of England churches and chapels to be approved for registering civil partnerships, there is surely no need for the Church of England to be included in these regulations at all. Indeed, it should be expressly excluded from them; otherwise, might it look as though Parliament is breaking what I understand to be the convention that it legislates for the Church of England only when the church has asked it to? If at some future date General Synod decided—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Can I take it from his speech that the right reverend Prelate disagrees with the legal advice given to the Church of England by its legal advisers?
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
I think that the legal advice given to the Church of England in some areas may be open to question. Let us be honest: we have received various pieces of advice—noble Lords here have said that they have heard from many, many people, including lawyers.
If at some future date General Synod does decide that it wishes to allow its churches to be used for registering civil partnerships, then there is a simple procedure: we pass a Measure and we bring that Measure to Parliament using the established statutory procedure under the enabling Act of 1919 for Measures of the Church of England. Such a Measure could amend existing statutes and regulations as necessary to achieve the desired result, including the essential conscience clause of which I have spoken.
Baroness Verma
The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, has been trying to get in for a long time. We will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, afterwards.
Baroness Richardson of Calow
My Lords, I rejoice that many Christians and some churches have acknowledged that for some men and women, a loving, committed, intimate, faithful relationship can happen only within a same-sex partnership. I want to delight in that. I want to celebrate it with ceremony and joy, and I want those couples to be encouraged to take their rightful place in creative responsibility and participation in all society. I also want to learn from them the things that God is saying about His grace being given to human beings who are made in His image in infinite variety.
I am well aware that my theological viewpoint is vehemently opposed by many people, including many in this House, but it is a legitimate viewpoint that I could argue with many people. I hope today that while it is obvious that this legislation for registration of civil partnerships in religious buildings is permissive, I do not want it to be made obligatory but neither do I want it to be prohibited. Many churches have the right through their decision-making processes to determine their own theological position and to be able to follow through with many people what is for them the root celebration of their whole being.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. I only wish that there had been a similar debate in the other place, but there was not. We have heard two former Lord Chancellors taking different views, and two members of the Bishop’s Bench taking opposite views, in the same debate. The remarkable fact is that there has also been substantial common ground in almost all the speeches that have been made. First, this is clearly a highly sensitive issue involving deep matters of principle. Secondly, churches that do not wish to register civil partnerships should not be obliged to do so, but conversely churches that do wish to do so should be allowed to do so. The Government have made a serious attempt in these regulations to put these matters into law. Today’s decision clearly depends on a judgment as to whether, after the proper consultation by the Government, they have succeeded in that aim.
I shall briefly give my own explanation of this. It is clear that, because of the exemption to the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the church in Wales, they have been largely satisfied that the safeguards are sufficient for them. It is also clear that there have been learned and weighty opinions on both sides of the argument. Professor Hill has been mentioned, as have Mr O’Neill and Mr Goulding. The advice of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his letter of 13 December, states that the lawyers appear to contradict one another.
For me the question is this: is there a doubt that the regulations have properly put into effect the views of the Government? If there is a doubt, is it a fanciful doubt or is it a serious doubt? Is there at the very least an arguable case that the Government have failed to provide adequate safeguards? The lawyers’ different views and the views expressed today suggest that there is a real, not a fanciful, doubt and the churches should not have to defend themselves against possible well resourced litigants.
I note the undertaking given by the Minister in his letter, which I have cited, that if, contrary to his view, there were to be a successful legal challenge, if one were to be brought, there would be an immediate review by government. That is welcome as far it goes, and I hope that in replying the Minister will put in his speech similar, or perhaps even stronger, undertakings. No Government can bind their successors and it is surely far better for the Government to end any possible doubt by taking these regulations back and by showing that there are amendments that close a possible loophole, thus preventing a serious legal challenge being made to them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has suggested one way in which this should be done. Mr O’Neill has suggested another way. That is the reasonable response which the House should make today.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, may we hear from the Conservative Benches, then from the Liberal Democrats, and then from across the House?
Baroness Noakes
My Lords, I was pleased to be able to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in the Equality Act and I am equally pleased to be standing here today supporting my Government in bringing forward the regulations, which will complete what we started. I am proud of the journey that my party has made from opposition to civil partnerships to full acceptance of and delight in seeing these regulations taken forward. I do not understand why, but we have a free vote on these Benches. I do not believe that it is a matter of conscience. I believe, as has been said today, that it is legal interpretation of whether these regulations give effect to what we are clear that Parliament thought that we had to do. We have the luxury of a free vote, and that as it happens is a nice thing, but it means that we must use our free vote wisely or we must be clear that we are using it in the right way.
I do not believe that the majority of my party now opposes civil partnerships. We want to see an end to the discrimination against couples entering civil partnerships whereby they are prohibited from celebrating it on religious premises when the religious body wishes to take part in it. We should do the right thing today and end that discrimination and not take fright at some highly disputed legal argument, especially given the Minister’s undertaking that should there be a legal problem the Government will ultimately deal with it. I hope that my noble friends will join me in supporting the Government if it proves necessary.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I spoke in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and in principle I continue to support him. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that this is a question of legal interpretation and not an issue of conscience. I am a member of the Merits Committee. I read the two opinions that were sent to us that gave me some concern at the time. I was disposed initially to support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, but since then I have read a considerable number of contradictory opinions. I am reminded of a quotation from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, which goes something like this:
“Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went”.
I can well understand why this Motion is being debated and why so many people are anxious about the effect of this legislation, and in the light of the legal disagreements about the effect of the regulations and the statutes. I have considerable sympathy with those concerns. I have now worked my way through all the opinions, the seven or eight that I have read, from distinguished lawyers, mainly Queen’s Counsel, and I have come to my own firm conclusions.
First, I do not think that this statutory instrument is well expressed. It has been described to me as sloppy, but it reproduces the protection given in the Equality Act, which puts of course into the Civil Partnership Act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said. It has been suggested to me that including in Regulation 2B the words “nothing in this regulation or any other statutory enactment” would give adequate protection, but the enactment that might raise risk to religious premises is the Equality Act, not the regulation. As has already been said, this regulation cannot bind primary legislation, and an attempt to do so would be, as lawyers call it, ultra vires.
I am therefore satisfied that a better drafted statutory instrument would not deal with the problem that lies, if it lies at all, in the Equality Act, so my second point is that Sections 29 and 149 of the Equality Act are identified as potentially giving rise to litigation, but that the same Equality Act makes changes that give protection to those who choose to opt out. It gives protection in the Civil Partnership Act, but, my goodness me, it is actually in the Equality Act. Noble Lords have heard the words in Section 202(4) of the Equality Act that are inserted after Section 6(3) of the Civil Partnership Act.
It seems improbable to me that one part of this legislation, Section 202, gives protection to religious establishments and another part creates justiciable issues of discrimination and takes away that protection. Where there appears to be an inconsistency in different parts of the same Act, a court would seek to resolve them or construe the Act to prevent a result that would be absurd, irrational or illogical. One would also expect that a specific section in an Act would take precedence over a general section, particularly if the specific section comes later in the same Act.
The specific protection given in Section 202 of the Equality Act would, in my view, be relied upon in preference to the general anti-discriminatory provisions in Section 29, if they apply. Equally, looking at Section 149 and the duties of public authorities, the specific protection of Section 202 would, in my view, also apply if it can be shown that Section 149 applies in any event. I would therefore expect that each part of the Equality Act would be construed by a court in such a way as to make it compatible with another part of the same Act and that Section 202 would be accepted by a court so as to implement the important protection that it provides.
As we have already been told, the Church of England is satisfied with the proposed change in the law and the protection that it is given. Having listened with interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, I would expect a Church of England priest to rely upon the decision, or the failure to give a decision, in favour of religious establishments and say that he or she cannot allow the church to be used.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which, as we all know, has a duty under the Equality Act to be an advocate for equality and human rights, is also satisfied that there is protection for religious establishments. I do not consider there to be a real doubt and prefer the speeches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to those by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
I have now seen the helpful letter from the Minister saying that there would be a review if a problem arose as a result of some legal action. It would be even more helpful if the Minister were to say that there should in any event be a review, perhaps at the end of 12 months, to see what difficulties there are or may be, but I see no reason to annul this regulation, which is only carrying into effect the primary legislation put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others, and I shall therefore support this regulation and vote against the Motion to Annul.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, could speak, we could then hear from the Labour Benches.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I was going to defer to my noble friend Lord Lester.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I shall briefly say a few extra things. I am very conscious of time, and I am tempted to do what a former judge of the High Court used to do. He was famous for saying only “I agree”, and that was his judgment. I promise that I am going to make only a few extra points.
The first extra point that I must make is about the Merits Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, is meant to scrutinise mainly primary legislation, not delegated legislation. We have an arrangement with the Merits Committee that if it spots a human rights issue that it thinks should be dealt with by the Joint Committee, it should be alerted to that so that it can consider it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, that broke down in this case. I am going to ask the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ask the Lord Chancellor, when it sees him next week, whether government departments can take more responsibility and, where they spot issues of human rights in delegated legislation, to help the committee by identifying them. That means that noble Lords do not have the benefit of an opinion from the Joint Committee on Human Rights about compatibility with Article 9 and Article 14 of the convention.
Speaking for myself, I agree with my noble friend Lord Pannick that there is not the faintest chance of any violation of Article 9 or Article 14 by virtue of the Equality Act read with these regulations. On the contrary, I believe that the right view is that these regulations promote religious freedom and do so without discrimination.
Quite apart from the arguments that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has fully deployed, with which I wholly agree, the point raised by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby was about the discrimination provisions of the Equality Act and whether, leaving aside the declaratory provision, there could conceivably be a discrimination case. In my view, the answer to that is totally correct. During the passage of the Equality Bill, I had responsibility for over a year for dealing with these issues from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. My view is the same as that of the Church of England legal advisers, which is the further matter that I would like your Lordships to consider.
In the opinion that the Church of England was given, this was dealt with very shortly and very clearly in this way. It said:
“The question has been raised in Parliament and elsewhere of whether a religious denomination, or a local church, which declined to seek to have its premises approved for the registration of civil partnerships could be held to be discriminating in a way which is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010. The clear view of the Legal Office is that it could not. This is also the declared view of the Government’s lawyers. The clear view of the Legal Office is that it could not. This is also the declared view of the Government's lawyers. A key relevant provision is section 29 of the Equality Act which makes it unlawful for ‘a person (a “service-provider”) concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public’ to discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation, ‘against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service’. A Church which provides couples with the opportunity to marry (but not to register civil partnerships) is ‘concerned with’ the provision of marriage only; it is simply not ‘concerned with’ the provision of facilities to register civil partnerships. That would be a different ‘service’, marriage and civil partnership being legally distinct concepts. If Parliament were in due course to legislate for same sex marriage, as recently suggested by the Prime Minister, we would of course be in new territory. But that is a separate issue which would have to be addressed in the course of that new legislation”.
Then, for good measure, the opinion deals with the public sector duty:
“The non-discrimination requirement imposed by the Equality Act on service-providers does not include a requirement to undertake the provision of other services that a service-provider is not already concerned with providing just because the services that it currently offers are of such a nature that they tend to benefit only persons of a particular age, sex, sexual orientation etc. Thus, for, example, a gentlemen's outfitter is not required to supply women's clothes. A children's book shop is not required to stock books that are intended for adults. And a Church that provides a facility to marry is not required to provide a facility to same-sex couples for registering civil partnerships. The “public sector equality duty” (contained in section 149 of the Equality Act) also has no implications for a Church’s decision whether to make its premises available for the registration of civil partnerships. A Church is not exercising public functions in making such a decision so the duty is not applicable. The public sector equality duty will not prejudice denominations who conduct marriages (and whose buildings, unlike those of the Church of England, need to be registered for that purpose) but who do not wish to host civil partnerships. The registration of buildings for marriages is a purely administrative act by the registration authorities and does not involve them exercising a discretion or taking a decision. The public sector duty is therefore immaterial to the registration process. The Equality Act contains various exceptions for religious organisations (see Schedule 23). But given what is said above, it is not considered that a Church which solemnized marriages but did not wish to provide facilities for the registration of civil partnerships would need to rely on any of these since it would not be doing anything that even prima facie amounted to unlawful discrimination”.
Lord Elton
The noble Lord is kind to give way. I just want to observe that, like many before him and no doubt several after, he is proceeding to tell us what the result of a case would be. Does he not agree that the function of Parliament is to try to see that the law is so clear that no case would be brought? That is what my noble and learned friend’s proposal would provide.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I agree. I am seeking, using the Church of England opinion as a short way of doing so, to refer to the actual provisions in the Act to show that they are quite clear and have no application to anything that could give rise to a possible legal challenge.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I want to revert to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, just made. The phrase “for the avoidance of doubt” has been thrown around a lot during the course of the proceedings today. It seems there is a lot of common ground in your Lordships’ House on trying to find a sensible way forward. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, suggested earlier that, if vexatious litigation were to be brought forward in the future, then an amendment to the Equality Act should be brought to your Lordships’ House and enacted. Would the noble and learned Lord commit himself to supporting such an approach if vexatious litigation were to emerge as a result of the decision today, unlikely—I agree with him—though that is?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I should say that I am not a learned Lord. Whether I am a noble Lord is another matter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
If there is vexatious litigation, it should be struck out by the court as vexatious and nothing more should be done about it. What I am endeavouring to say—I am not doing very well because I am quoting from a detailed opinion, but I thought the House deserved to have that opinion before it because of the authority that it gives—is that the clarity provision was not necessary because a proper construction of the provisions of the Equality Act makes it absolutely clear that any discrimination claim, either about the provision of services or about the public sector duty, would be doomed to failure.
There is one further point. In the case of Pepper v Hart, the House of Lords in its judicial capacity held that, were there any ambiguity in legislation, one could have regard to the parliamentary record to resolve the ambiguity. Quite apart from Section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to, I have no doubt that, were there any ambiguity—in my view, there is none whatever—then the Supreme Court and the lower courts would have regard to statements made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, when she was leading for the previous Government, to the assurances given by the former Solicitor-General Vera Baird QC and to the statements that will be given shortly by my noble friend the Minister today. Those statements will all be one way. They will all indicate the true intention of the legislation. Therefore, were there to be any ambiguity, it would be resolved, if it had to be, judicially.
In my view, which is the same as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, others who have spoken, the Church of England’s legal advisers and others, there is no conceivable doubt that a challenge would be hopeless. If, as a discrimination lawyer with 40 years’ experience, I were asked what my views would be about this, I would say, “You have not got a snowball’s chance in hell”.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The noble Lord mentioned the case coming to the Supreme Court. That would cost the church a penny or two.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
No respectable member of the Bar, properly informed and reading the statute as a whole, if asked whether there was a reasonable chance of success, would be likely to say that there were. Anyone who brought such a challenge would have to find public funds or their own funds to do so and they would fail at first instance, in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, in my maiden speech to this House, my first thanks went to the officials and staff for their warm introduction. Not only did they make me feel extremely welcome, they made my husband Rafael feel extremely welcome, too. My second thanks went to your Lordships, not least for the fact that I was able to say “my husband”. These Benches have helped transform my life and the lives of countless lesbian and gay people in this country. I am immensely pleased that it is no longer just noble friends on one side of this House who applaud progress in this area but Peers on every side of the Chamber. That consensus is a sign of this House at its best.
I am therefore very sad that, despite this strong consensus, we have this Motion before us today—sad because it reflects neither the view of the majority of noble Lords nor the intent of the regulations arising from Section 202 of the Equality Act 2010. It is because I strongly support the principle of religious freedom that I welcomed the adoption of this section in the Act—that is, the freedom that would allow a church to say no to civil partnership ceremonies conducted in their premises or by their priests. Equally, if a religious institution or church does wish to celebrate a civil partnership, it should be able to do so. The unconditional right for lesbian and gay marriage through civil partnership can only be a civil one. That is a responsibility the state must ensure is provided without discrimination, fear or retribution. But just as I believe the Church should not interfere with the rights and responsibilities of civic society, I equally believe that the state should not interfere with the conduct of religion or ceremonies in places of worship.
As we have heard today, Section 202 is, as was always intended by those who supported it across the House, entirely permissive. We have heard clear legal opinion from the Church of England and the Government, and many prominent legal counsel have supported this view. The points made by Professor Hill, on which the noble Baroness relies, have also been considered, as we have heard, by Paul Goulding QC in a detailed written opinion, which I know many noble Lords will have seen. It is clear from Mr Goulding’s opinion that neither the regulations nor any part of the law would compel religious organisations to host civil partnerships against their wishes. In particular, he points to the provisions of the Equality Act which expressly state that. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer argued this case so well in agreement with Mr Goulding’s opinion.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, could speak first and then my noble friend Lord Cormack.
Lord Dannatt
My Lords, had I spoken earlier in this debate, I would have made a lengthy speech, much of which has been overtaken by the course of events, which would have been in support of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. I maintain my support for her today.
Much legal opinion has been expressed on both sides of the argument and a fair consensus would appear to have emerged, but I am left with a residual feeling of ambiguity. Ambiguity can give rise to unintended consequences, and it is unintended consequences that I am worried about. Those consequences arise from regulations that are not crystal clear and have worried a lot of ordinary decent people up and down this country, who have filled noble Lords’ postbags and mine in the past few days.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, circulated his letter, which we received yesterday, in which he states—and we have heard it repeated already today—that,
“if a successful legal challenge were ever brought, I would like to provide reassurance that the Government would immediately review the relevant legislation”.
If we think that there is some doubt or ambiguity in this case, and if we think that ambiguity could lead to unintended consequences, there is an obligation on the Minister to activate that sentence in the last paragraph of his letter and, for the avoidance of doubt, to make it crystal clear—an expression that we have heard many times in this Chamber today—to people up and down the country, whoever they are, that they have nothing to fear from these regulations. Until I hear a commitment to the avoidance of doubt, I maintain my support for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the points just made by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, but I should like to focus the House’s attention on one specific point: the particular and peculiar—and I use that word properly—position of the Church of England.
The Church of England is the established church of this land. There is not a town or a village in England that does not have a Church of England parish church. The people in that parish are entitled to the services of the parish priest and of the church. Let us be in no doubt that, if this regulation is passed as it stands, great pressure will be put upon incumbents of parish churches throughout the land, and that pressure will be very difficult for them to withstand, even though, for them, whatever it may be for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, or others, it will be a supreme issue of conscience.
Baroness Brinton
Does my noble friend therefore disagree with the advice from Church House, which states quite categorically that a church,
“would not be doing anything that even prima facie amounted to unlawful discrimination”?
The advice reassures both priests and the church as a whole that this would not happen.
Lord Cormack
I am not concerned with that legal opinion; I am trying to make a different point, which it is clear I did not do effectively enough. What I am saying is that pressure will be put upon incumbents throughout the Church of England, notwithstanding that legal opinion, which may or not be correct—and there is an element of doubt.
We have a specific provision in this country for the established Church of England, as has been referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. With the agreement of Parliament, we do not legislate over and above, or directly at, the Church of England; rather, we receive the measures that the church—initially through the Church Assembly but in more recent years through the General Synod—has thought fit to pass. Those measures come before the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I had the privilege to sit for some 40 years—indeed, I was for 10 years on the General Synod as well—which is one of the few committees comprised of Members of both Houses of Parliament. That committee has one duty and one duty alone: it has to deem the measure expedient or not. If it deems the measure expedient, the measure then comes before the two Houses of Parliament separately, either on the Floors of the Chambers or in Committee, where it can be voted upon. It is very unusual for a measure to be rejected—in my 40 years on the Ecclesiastical Committee I can think of only one such measure, which concerned provisions for churchwardens. I can think of others, such as the prayer book measure and the ordination of women measure, which engendered very real debate in both Houses, but at the end of the day those measures were passed.
It seems to me that there ought to be proper recognition of the position of the Church of England. I am in no sense seeking to make comments about civil partnerships. I listened to the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We all have many friends who have gone through civil partnerships, whatever our views on marriage might be. As the noble Baroness made plain when she introduced this debate today, that is not what we are discussing. It is important that the Church of England should have its special position recognised and there should be exemption for it, so that it is up to the synod to decide whether it wishes to pass a measure.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
Since I am not likely to make a speech today, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question in relation to the point that he is making. It relates to the difference between the institution of the church or whichever religious body—the noble Lord is talking about the Church of England, of which I am a rather unusual member—and the teachings of Christ about tolerance, acceptance and inclusion.
Does the noble Lord not agree that one of the problems in the Church of England is that we have numbers of people who cross the threshold—they go down the aisle in their white gowns having lived together for eight years, whatever that means—but never cross the threshold of that church again unless they bring their kids to be christened or arrive for their funeral? That is a real difficulty for the Church of England. Does he not agree that this is a very different position from that of those same-sex couples who are committed Christians and wish to acknowledge that among their congregation, and that very few would want to acknowledge it in a congregation that did not want to acknowledge them, nor with a priest who thought that they were of a different order of human being? Does he not agree that if the churches are really going to come to terms with understanding inclusion, acceptance, love and tolerance, which is what Christianity is about, then they will have to change?
Lord Cormack
All I will say to the noble Baroness—who made a speech and not an intervention—is that she was airing some of her own views and prejudices, as we all do from time to time. I would not seek to pass comment on the convictions, the commitment and the sincerity of any fellow Christian of any orientation. I am talking today about the regulations before us and the special, specific position of the Church of England— which, let us all remember, still has the ability, if the incumbent wishes, to grant a service of blessing to any couple. Be it a divorced man marrying a woman and they do not go through the traditional marriage ceremony, they can have a blessing—and so can a same-sex couple.
However, there is a special position for the Church of England which should be recognised by your Lordships’ House. The Church of England should not, therefore, be included in the regulations we are debating today—and certainly should not be so included unless the amendment, which was so learnedly described by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is incorporated and an undertaking to that effect given by the Minister when he winds up.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, perhaps I might at this stage respond to some of the comments made around the House. I know that there is a feeling that we have had a learned and full debate and that, after my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew has spoken—I understand he will speak just briefly—at that stage we might invite the Leader of the Opposition to make her winding-up speech.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, if the opinion of the House is tested on this Motion to annul I shall be voting against the proposition of my noble friend Lady O’Cathain. I want to say at the outset of what I hope will be brief remarks that I am sure she knows that I have enormous respect for her. She and I have stood shoulder to shoulder on issues of conscience in this House and will do so again. However, I am bound to say that, in my view, this is about as far from an issue of conscience as we could get. This is a matter of law, essentially.
We have heard from some much more balletic legal minds than mine during the debate. Indeed, your Lordships may be under the impression that the head of the pin is extremely crowded. As my noble and, in some cases, noble and learned friends—and in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, my noble and very busy friend—dance on the head of that pin, you will have observed that there is barely room for the legal books they are using.
All I will say as one of the QCs in your Lordships’ House is that I think the arguments have been very powerfully put before your Lordships by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and I agree with them. I hope that your Lordships are not going to fall into the trap of deciding how to vote if there is a Division on the basis that, because some lawyers disagree, we are all going to throw our hands up in the air and leave it to someone else to decide. Let us never forget that we are in the high court of Parliament. With all the knowledge in this Chamber, I venture that your Lordships are well able to reach a decision on the basis of the arguments that have been presented—and the arguments are absolutely overwhelming.
During my 40-odd years at the Bar I have advised on issues and gone into, for example, the Court of Appeal with what I had thought was a very arguable case, and found myself metaphorically blood-spattered on the floor within minutes, if not seconds. The legal analyses that we have heard in your Lordships’ House have plainly left us with the opinion—the only responsible opinion—that there is no realistic possibility whatever of religious organisations or priests being forced in any way to do anything in this context which is against their conscience.
Lord Framlingham
The noble Lord will appreciate that the debate today has been legalistic—because this is obviously what this Chamber does—but the ramifications outside the Chamber may not be legalistic. On the point that the noble Lord is making about allowing, will he agree that to allow, although it is not to encourage or force on people, can sometimes have that effect. That is my concern having seen that many Acts of Parliament have had effects that we were not aware of. I believe that if we are not careful, this one will bring the kind of pressure to bear on Church of England priests that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has indicated.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I respectfully but absolutely reject the contention that has just been made. Indeed, it is somewhat similar to the contention made by my noble friend Lord Cormack, who spent a great number of years as a very distinguished Member of another place. He often had to wrestle between his principles and his interests, as all Members of Parliament do, and I doubt that he found it more difficult than any Church of England or other priest or other religious official would find it to stick to his conscience when his conscience told him what was right, particularly when supported by the institution to which he belongs.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Lester mentioned the decision of the House of Lords as a court in Pepper v Hart. That is the one matter that was omitted earlier and is of very great importance. In the event of somebody being prepared to take the financial risk of bringing what in reality would be a completely hopeless case before the courts, it is beyond peradventure that the statement that we know will be made by my noble friend Lord Henley from the Front Bench today, because we have been given a trail of it, would be cited in court and would be extremely influential in the determination of any ambiguity. I therefore respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we have actually taken a great deal of time today, albeit in a very interesting debate, in discussing something that is really not a problem at all.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we have heard today some extraordinarily powerful and important speeches. When we were in government, one measure that we were most proud of, rightly I believe, was the Equality Act 2010, which we managed to pass through Parliament just before the general election. We did so with the support of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, then both in opposition. The parties opposite were consistent in their support for the legislation; I thanked them for it then and I thank them for it now, although I am concerned about a few aspects of the Act that are being chipped away. But that is not an issue for today.
When my noble friend Lord Alli moved his amendment and it was adopted by this House during the passage of the Bill, I was not able to fully support him. But I am delighted that his amendment was adopted and has resulted in the regulations before us today. The overriding point about the regulations and the legislative clause in the Act to which they refer is that, as so many noble Lords have said, they are permissive. They permit churches and any other religious premises to enable two people to register as civil partners of each other under the terms of Section 6(3A)(a) of the 2004 Act.
I warmly welcome so many speeches today, but especially the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, who was absolutely right to point out very forcefully that the provisions are permissive. They do not in any way require churches to provide civil partnerships to take place. They do not order them to do so or compel them to do so; they simply make it possible for them to do so should they so wish.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, argues that the proposals are not sufficient to protect faith groups from being compelled to register civil partnerships when it is against their beliefs. The noble Baroness is supported by a number of legal opinions. However, we believe that the legislation itself is clear. Section 202(4) of the Equality Act 2010 provides that the following should be inserted after Section 6(3) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004:
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.
That expressly states the point—the wording is clear and the meaning is clear, and we believe that the effect is clear—and so do the regulations in front of us today, which state, in Regulation 2(3), that the following should be inserted into the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005:
“Nothing in these Regulations places an obligation on a proprietor or trustee of religious premises to make an application for approval of those premises as a place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other in pursuance of section 6(3A)(a) of the 2004 Act”.
Again, there is clear wording, clear meaning and clear effect.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, has deployed legal opinions that support her view, quite properly, primarily those from Professor Mark Hill QC and Aidan O’Neill QC. But many noble Lords from all Benches have cited a number of different opinions today, and the speech from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton was masterful and gave a very clear opinion. His responsible views were unequivocal and were supported by many noble Lords throughout the Chamber today.
It was useful and heartening to hear the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who confirmed that the necessary safeguards are in place according to the Legal Office of the General Synod of the Church of England. I hear of course the differing views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, but I believe that many of the issues raised by the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn are matters for the General Synod itself, and not for this House or the Houses of Parliament. It is also important to consider a statement from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, which takes a similar view to the Church of England:
“As the regulations require prior consent, the measure can have no impact on Catholic premises. The church welcomes the fact that the Government has made an explicit statement in the draft regulations that nothing in them creates any obligation to make an application for approval. This will help rebut any attempt to mount spurious cases of unlawful discrimination against churches which do not host civil partnerships”.
The Government’s clear view is set out in their summary of responses to their consultation on civil partnerships on religious premises, published last month, and I agree with the view expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, Minister of State at the Home Office, says in a letter this week to Members of your Lordships’ House:
“I must stress that this provision is entirely permissive. We are entirely confident that faith groups will not be forced to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so”.
He goes further, by indicating further legislation if necessary. The Government’s clarity and confidence, which we as an Opposition share, is supported by the statutory body on discrimination, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which states in its response to the consultation:
“The Commission is also pleased that this provision is voluntary, placing no obligation on religious communities to conduct such ceremonies where this would be against their conscience or religious beliefs”.
We have heard a plethora of legal opinions in this debate, but also the important views of many noble Lords who do not have legal experience. Most importantly, we have heard the views of my noble friend Lord Alli. When he moved the original amendment in your Lordships’ House, he could not have been clearer:
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.
He has been equally clear today. These are compelling arguments, and I believe that they are conclusive arguments. There is nothing in the legislation or in these regulations which requires churches to host civil partnerships. The legislation and the regulations associated with it were designed to be permissive and not compulsory; they are written to be permissive and not compulsory; and they are best interpreted as being permissive and not compulsory. Some noble Lords have mentioned fear. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I believe that we must act in a spirit of mutual respect and generosity.
If the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, should test the opinion of the House today, we on these Benches will be opposing the noble Baroness and supporting the regulations. And yes, we have a Whip on, because we believe it is right to do so. I believe the record of my party, the Labour Party, on equality issues, is second to none, and we intend to maintain it in the Lobbies today if this matter does go to a Division.
The provision to allow, if they so wish, churches to host civil partnerships, is a good provision. The regulations are good regulations, and the original legislation—our own—was good legislation. I urge the House to support the regulations, and to sustain legislation of which this House should be proud in having played its part to get on to the statute book of this country.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I start by echoing the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford when he suggested that we needed to conduct debates of this sort with restraint, mutual respect, and generosity. I am very grateful to the House that that has been the case today on a subject that can generate very strong feelings.
To my noble friend Baroness O’Cathain, I say that although, as she knows, I will not be able to support her Motion, and although I very much hope she will not be pressing it to a Division—I do not think it would be wise so to do—I am grateful for the fact that we have had the debate. In my view, it has brought a great deal of clarity to this subject—particularly on the legal aspects of it. I am therefore grateful for the interventions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and from a whole host of other legal luminaries sitting all round the Chamber.
I am also very grateful that a large number of Peers have quoted from the letter that I sent out two days ago. This does at least encourage me to think that it did reach most noble Lords, though I appreciate that one or two noble Lords did not receive it. For that I can only apologise, but I can make copies available, should anyone wish to have one, after this debate. I will be quoting from my letter later on, possibly in response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill to, as it were, add a Pepper v Hart element to what I have to say.
We recognise that in allowing this expression of religious freedom and advancement for lesbian, gay and bisexual equality, we need to ensure that there are sufficient protections from legal challenge for faith groups who do not wish to host partnerships on their premises. We are confident that faith groups will not be forced to host civil partnership registrations on their premises if they do not wish to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the very important statement that he made, both in his letter and again to the House today, I notice that it says that if a successful legal challenge were brought, the Government would carry out a review. Will he bear in mind what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said earlier, and the point I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about vexatious litigation? It might not be successful litigation, but it would nevertheless be litigation, and it could involve people in considerable expenditure, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said earlier. In those circumstances, will the Minister given an undertaking to the House that the issue will be generally kept under review without having to wait for litigation? Will there be, if necessary—although most of us accept that it is highly improbable—an amendment to the Equality Act? That is, if those circumstances were to occur, would legislation be brought forward along the lines suggested by the noble and learned Lord?
Lord Henley
I hope that this debate has brought a considerable degree of clarity to this issue. I think that it is now generally clear—most people understand the legal aspect—that there is no doubt about this matter. However, as the noble Lord has raised this point, which was also raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, we will obviously keep all matters under review, and if we saw a problem, we could act. I do not think that that is likely. Particularly after what we have heard in this debate, it would be a very vexatious litigant who tried to bring such an action, and I do not think they would have much chance in the courts.
I hope that I have spoken briefly and with some clarity about what the Government’s intentions are. I repeat again, this measure is entirely permissive; it is not designed to go any further. On that I am at one with the Opposition Front Bench, with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and with a large number of the legal luminaries who have spoken. I hope that my noble friend will feel able, therefore, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Is my noble friend speaking on behalf of the Government at this Dispatch Box, having regard to the case to which he referred about reference to statements? Is he saying on behalf of the Government that this Act, in Section 202, refers to the 2004 Act and to the Equality Act 2010? Is it the position of the Government that this includes the Act of 2010?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am making, as my noble and learned friend put it, a considered ministerial Statement from the Dispatch Box, in line with the case he referred to, Pepper v Hart. Yes, I believe that this Act covers both the 2004 Act and the Equality Act 2010. As I said earlier, it would be very odd if the Equality Act was considered to have spoken inconsistently. However, I can give my noble and learned friend the assurance that he seeks.
Lord Tebbit
Could my noble friend address the point I raised earlier? In the event that the permissive nature of this is overridden by a judgment from a European court of any kind, what action will the Government take then?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am not sure which European court my noble friend is referring to. If he is referring to the European Court of Human Rights, we discussed that somewhat earlier in the day. I think that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who referred to a judgment in a Finnish case in the European Court of Human Rights, and then to the later remarks of the Lord Chief Justice that we must give due weight to the decisions of that court but not necessarily be bound by them. If it was the European Court of Justice, obviously we would have to comply with that, as with other matters, but I do not see quite how it would get involved in these matters.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I was very relieved that I was not at the butt-end of accusations of being homophobic, toxic, odious or even old, as I was in some of the letters that I got. I know I am old, but I do not like it to be said pejoratively.
I have listened intently. I remember—this is a flashback to my childhood—that when my parents asked me what I wanted to do, I said I wanted to become a lawyer. Thank goodness I did not, that is all I can say; it is even more confusing than being an economist.
I have listened particularly to the Minister. I just want him to agree once more, so that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has satisfaction. In the 2004 Act no one was in any doubt and yet there was protection for the avoidance of doubt, but there is doubt around the 2010 Act—whatever we think about it, there is doubt out there. If the Minister is saying, in a ministerial Statement from the Dispatch Box, that he is convinced that the protection for the avoidance of doubt in the 2004 Act applies to the 2010 Act, then in view of the opinion around the House I will withdraw my Motion. But I want to make sure that the Minister has the chance to say so.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I confirm again to my noble friend that that is exactly what I said. Section 202 inserts an amendment into the 2004 Act but it is equally true that it is in the Equality Act; it is a vehicle for this. It is proper to say that it is Parliament’s intention that that is the position. I do not think I can be any clearer than that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, since I raised the matter of Pepper v Hart—
Baroness O'Cathain
I was speaking. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I was in the middle of my request to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:15 - Division on Amendment 296A - Ayes: 126 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 296A disagreed.
“(2) For paragraph 9(3) of that Schedule (requirement for at least one member of council governors to be appointed by PCT) substitute—
“(3) At least one member of the council of governors must be appointed by the NHS Commissioning Board.”.”
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I begin with an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who wants to explain to the House that he is unavoidably—
Baroness Garden of Frognal
With due apologies to my noble friend, it is very difficult to hear her when people are leaving the Chamber. I wonder if we might just wait for people to clear the Chamber as quickly and quietly as they can so that my noble friend may resume with her amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I thank my noble friend Lady Garden very much indeed for intervening. I would like to express the apologies of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames for being unable to be here on this occasion. Unfortunately he has been taken ill and will probably not be in the House again before the Christmas Recess. He extends his apologies to the House and his deep regrets at being unable to be here to move this amendment. It is therefore my honour to do so on his behalf.
The first amendment amends paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 7 to the National Health Service Act 2006 to remove the requirement for a governor to be appointed by a PCT. The reason for governors being appointed by PCTs, of course, is that they were the key sub-national level of organisation under the previous National Health Service. The Act of 2006 therefore reflects that organisational structure. I submit to the House that in the new structure it is as important that the national Commissioning Board should be able to appoint at least one—and, one hopes, more—governors to the board because of the need for a clear link between the clinical commissioning groups and the boards of the foundation trusts. Our amendment requires that at least one member be appointed by the NHS Commissioning Board in the place of the PCT appointee who will no longer be able to take his place. A substantial number of NHS patients—one hopes a majority—are patients under the foundation trusts. It is therefore important that the concerns of the CCGs and of the board should be represented on foundation trust governing bodies.
I will also briefly speak to Amendments 300, 301, 302 and 303 in the same group. All relate to the decisions to be made about the mergers or dissolutions of foundation trusts. The purpose of the amendments is to add the name of the Secretary of State to those who are required to consent to either a merger or a dissolution. I shall explain very briefly why we believe this to be of great importance. Despite these amendments looking rather petty, they are not.
The Secretary of State is in a unique position to decide on the strategy of the National Health Service over the whole country. He is in an especially good position to be well-informed on the balance between demand and supply across the territory of England. If there is no requirement for him to emerge at this point as the figure who makes the ultimate decision as to whether there should be a dissolution or a merger, there is nobody else able to detect whether the needs of all patients in England are met. As the House will be aware, if a foundation trust merges and perhaps one part of that merger ceases to offer services, that may be very much in the long-term interests of the National Health Service. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, spoke eloquently on this point yesterday. Where a foundation trust is the centre of, for example, pathways in a particular chronic illness, and where it meets the hospital needs of a substantial part of an area of the country, only the Secretary of State is in a position to decide whether that foundation trust merger or dissolution will have a major impact on the health services available in that part of England.
We suggest, once again, that this is not a tactical or micromanagement issue, but a strategic one, given the significance of foundation trusts in many parts of the country. We therefore very strongly urge the Committee to agree to this amendment. We believe it is a crucial part of the strategy of running a National Health Service in England. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we have all been precipitated into this debate some 10 minutes earlier than we might have expected. I should like to speak to Amendments 296A and 298A, and to whether Clauses 176 and 177 should stand part.
Amendment 296A provides that foundation governors must,
“be notified and have the right to attend all meetings of the Board and its sub-committees and have access to all relevant documents and papers”,
under a “duty to protect confidentiality”. Amendment 298A provides that the accounts of a foundation trust or other public benefit corporation,
“must identify separately the income and expenditure which relates to any private income business, and the audit of such accounts must include assurance that all costs which relate to private income business have been properly calculated or recorded”.
I accept that the Minister has an amendment that is not totally dissimilar to this, but it does not include the words about the need to audit and have income and expenditure on the public record, which we think are rather important. Clause 176 stand part would leave out the clause that abolishes NHS trusts. Clause 177 stand part objects to the repeal of various provisions in the authorisation of foundation trusts.
We have already touched on aspects of foundation trusts. Our position is that we support the concept of foundation trusts as a model for developing a form of multi-stakeholder or community-based governance, and allowing earned autonomy for NHS providers from direct performance management. As we discussed on Tuesday, we accept the role of Monitor as a regulator of foundation trusts. We agree with my noble friend Lord Warner that the plethora of other roles that Monitor has been asked to play poses risks, and we have set out our objections to and worries about that.
We accept that the foundation trust journey is still being travelled. I suggest that it is probably time for a proper independent study of how the foundation model might be taken forward. We are where are, not where someone might have hoped we would be. We make no great claims for foundation trusts but we would agree that the more trusts that can meet the standard the better. However, some will not meet it, for many different reasons. The rush to force them into hasty mergers and takeovers will bring great risks. I point to the fact that only today the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has issued the report Achievement of Foundation Trust Status by NHS Hospital Trusts, which I have asked the Printed Paper Office to make available. I said that it is quite possible that other noble Lords might be interested in it in the course of today’s debate.
On the point about how many trusts will make it to foundation status, I quote from the document:
“By 1 October 2011 there were 139 NHS foundation trusts, and 113 NHS trusts at various stages in the 'pipeline' towards foundation trust status. Only 14 trusts have achieved foundation status since the end of 2009 … The Department expects the majority of trusts to achieve foundation trust status by 2014, but recognises that a small number may not do so before 2016”.
The report goes on to say that there is indeed a very serious problem of hospitals not achieving foundation trust status:
“Twenty hospital trusts have declared themselves unviable in their current form”.
It suggests that more than,
“half of all trusts are not yet foundation trusts and more are likely to conclude they are unviable”,
and goes on to say:
“A particular concern is what will happen to trusts that are unable to achieve foundation status but nevertheless provide an essential service to local people”.
This report’s very timely publication needs to be acknowledged in the course of our debates on these matters.
We do not accept that every NHS provider must be a foundation trust. We agree with Sir David Nicholson that there is scope for some NHS trusts to be permitted. This also allows us to say that a foundation trust can be de-authorised in exceptional circumstances. This Committee needs to discuss the issue of the Government’s rush to say that all trusts must have foundation status. That is clearly not going to work and we have no satisfactory answers at the moment about what is intended under those circumstances.
We will discuss the issue of the private patient cap so I will not refer to it now. We do not go the whole way in deregulation and see a continuing role for Monitor, not just in authorising foundation trusts but, as we said in our earlier debate, in retaining oversight and intervention powers. We agree that the authorisation process should be rigorous and demanding, so the question there which the Minister needs to answer is: if the department is determined to push hospital trusts into foundation status, what does it mean for standards—will they be relaxed? We think that they should not be. If further lessons are needed from Mid Staffs then I suspect that this is one that the inquiry will raise.
We share the view expressed by several noble Lords on Tuesday that there may be examples where the cause of a foundation trust’s problem lies with the local health system rather than poor foundation trust management. A more effective approach to reconfiguration and a sensible pre-failure regime is absolutely necessary. We understand and hope that the Minister is looking into this and look forward to being part of those discussions. Our view is that while having a great deal of autonomy, foundation trusts remain within the NHS; they are not to be hived off as quasi-businesses. We believe that in general only the two extremes differ from our view—those who want a fully publicly owned, public-provided NHS with no split, and a small band around the current Secretary of State who want to make foundation trusts into businesses and, like a private provider, free from all scrutiny. The rest of us are probably somewhere in the middle.
I turn to the amendments. We support the idea that foundation trusts must open their governance and must meet in public—which is vital. We support the idea that to be effective in their duty to hold the board, and especially the non-executives, to account, the governors must have the right to access and observe all meetings and to see all papers. The confidentiality issues which this might involve can be resolved through appropriate codes of conduct, but if governors are to be the main lines of defence then they must be able to know what is happening. Sadly, that is not the case in some foundation trusts.
We support the need to separate properly the accounts in respect of non-NHS business. It is important to avoid smoke-and-mirrors accounting, especially on the issue of the private patient cap, which we will discuss later. Transparency on that issue is vital. The bottom line is that NHS resources should not be provided at knock-down prices. We have had an undertaking that foundation trusts will provide information showing how non-NHS income acts for the benefit of NHS patients, but in the absence of detailed regulations about how that is to be done it would be best to maintain a sceptical view.
In line with our view that foundation trusts remain part of the NHS family, we support the amendments that ensure the Secretary of State must approve major transactions such as mergers. We do not support the Government’s amendments which are a further example of layering of bureaucracy and paperwork to try to justify their failure regime, which pretty much got a hammering on Tuesday and must be thought about again.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have amendments in this group to which I shall speak briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, introduced her amendments clearly and concisely. Some figures from the latest Health Service Journal underpin the reason why these amendments are so important. It has reported that foundation trusts are planning to cut at least 30,500 staff over the coming two years and that at least five acute foundation trusts have forecast a wage-bill cut of 10 per cent or more over the coming two years. According to the Health Service Journal’s analysis, patients in the poorest areas are 63 per cent more likely to find it difficult to see a GP than are patients in the richest locations, and 53 per cent more likely to attend accident and emergency.
I put those figures into the debate now because they demonstrate the pressure there will be on trusts. Changing to foundation trust status will put additional pressure on them. Amendment 304C in my name is a probing amendment. I tabled it to seek reassurance from the Government that the timetable for repealing NHS trust legislation will not revert to the originally proposed date—1 April 2014. I hope that the deadline will be extended to April 2020. I was going to say more but I await the Minister’s reply.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I should like briefly to comment on the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. In one respect, I was sorry that she spoke so briefly because I should have liked to have heard more of her reasoning for Amendment 296. I am not at all clear about what the advantage is to either the Commissioning Board or the hospital if one serves on the board of the other. Is it because that is the only conduit of information? Frankly, I do not think that anyone believes that. If that is actually the argument then the whole NHS is in a much greater state of peril than any of us thought was the case until now. I honestly do not see the importance of or justification for the amendment. It may be a probing amendment, but it would have been helpful if the noble Baroness had given us a bit more of the thinking behind it. As of this moment, pending her winding up, I am not at all convinced that the amendment is either important or necessary.
However, I turn to the noble Baroness’s Amendments 300 to 303, which are also in the name of our noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who I am sorry to hear is unwell. I very much support what she said about those amendments, even though—to use the word of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—she explained them concisely. They take us back to one of the main issues of this legislation: where is the Secretary of State in this brave new world? The Minister knows that a number of us think that the Government are thus far underplaying the role of the Secretary of State.
As my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby was speaking, I thought of the condition of a number of foundation hospitals that have been the product of a PFI system. That was triggered in my mind by her comment that if there was a coming together of hospitals, or if some element of service was not provided, it may be of a sufficient scale for the Secretary of State to want to take a significant interest. The truth, to the best of my probing, is that a number of hospitals out there—the products of PFI—are in very difficult and probably, without help, unsustainable positions.
I know that the Minister understands that and that it is a matter of concern to the department, so I do not make any comment prejudging the outcome, but my noble friend brought the Secretary of State into this precisely because there could be serious, significant or catastrophic effects on the provision of healthcare in the hospital sector which, by definition, would include the importance of ministerial—that is, Secretary of State—involvement and consideration.
I welcome Amendments 300 to 303, but I say to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and the Minister that I think they are part of the bigger picture of where the Secretary of State will be when the Bill finally reaches the statute book. The Minister has kindly and, I think, genuinely agreed to reconsider all those issues and bring them back for our consideration at Report. Subject to him saying the same about the issues raised by our noble friend Lady Williams, I hope that she in turn, hearing his response, will not feel it necessary to push the amendments to a vote today, although that might become an issue, depending on where we are at, on Report.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Perhaps I may respond briefly to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney. I apologise if I spoke too briefly, but I am conscious that there are an awful lot of amendments to get through and I do not want to steal the time of other people on other crucial amendments.
On the group of four amendments that the noble Lord is in accord with me about, as he will be well aware, consideration has been given to the material put before us by my noble friend Earl Howe, the Minister of State, about an attempt to bring together discussion within the House and among lawyers about the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, rightly identifies as being central to the Bill: the responsibility and powers of the Secretary of State. Because we are in Committee and the Committee will, we hope, be ending in a few days’ time, the only opportunity we have to table amendments that would bear on the issue of the Secretary of State’s powers is on the Bill as it stands—prior to any changes that may be made. It is in the light of that that we tabled this group of amendments to highlight the areas where, in our view, the responsibility of the Secretary of State is central. That is true of this group of amendments, and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, takes the view that they should be seriously considered by the Minister.
The point of Amendment 296 is to recognise that, in many cases, CCGs have to take account of the services given by foundation trusts—not least in respect of, for example, pathways and networks for people with chronic conditions. We thought, therefore, that it was important that there be not just sharing of information between the two but, rather, a process of interactive education, where the foundation trusts become increasingly aware of the responsibility that CCGs bear, particularly for those clinical conditions that lie beyond the capacity of a single CCG. That is why we suggested that a governor should be named by the national board to set up that communication—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, knows far better than I do, because he is an expert on the subject, sometimes, sadly, does not exist.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I will just raise a couple of points about Amendments 300 and 301, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in relation to the Secretary of State's role in mergers. The other day, I tried to express a little about my concerns, which I continue to have, about the speed at which the Government are expecting some of these trusts to become foundation trusts. One thing that I am beginning to see happening in the NHS—this will lead to some questions to the Minister for clarification—is the rush to merge. Mergers can take a number of forms, and a good example is in north-east London, where there is a proposal to merge Barts and The London with Whipps Cross and Newham. These three hospitals have failed to become foundation trusts but it seems to be thought that by some osmotic process, which I am not altogether clear about, such a merger will improve their prospects of doing so.
Discussions are also going on in other parts of the country about merging non-foundation trusts with successful foundation trusts. The evidence here is that there are some very high-risk ideas floating around regarding trusts which so far have not been good enough to become foundation trusts, and causing risks to stable foundation trusts by merging them with trusts which are in some degree of difficulty. However, I can see that the NHS might feel under pressure to try to get people to secure foundation trust status by the deadline that the Government seem to have in mind.
As I said the other day, trusts have had eight years to get themselves ready to become foundation trusts and they have failed to achieve it so far. You have to be one of life’s great optimists to believe that somehow, because the Secretary of State has set a deadline for 2016, it is going to happen. There is a serious question about whether the necessary checks and balances are in the system to stop what I would call silly and fruitless behaviour. Is the Minister confident that the Co-operation and Competition Panel will be a sufficient bulwark to stop what I am calling silly behaviour in relation to mergers, or do we really need the kind of strengthening that I think is implicit, if not explicit, in Amendments 300 and 301? This is a serious issue. We are beginning to see behaviour which may not be in the public interest as people try to get foundation trust status without the necessary skills and competences, or indeed the necessary financial situation in their locality, to achieve this.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I echo many of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, although I wish to put a slightly different slant on the issue. It is crucial that we press on with the project to get all trusts to foundation status. There is no doubt in my mind that having this two-tier system, which we have allowed to continue for too long, has led to difficulties in foundation trust hospitals becoming more self-reliant, more seriously entrepreneurial in the way that they think about their services, and more responsive to the local agenda, and so on. They have not had to bother because they have always had Big Brother watching. The de-authorisation process, which threatens to drag them back to the Department of Health, has acted as a sort of brake on their thinking. That has been quite difficult. I seriously think that we should move trusts to foundation status. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is looking puzzled, but I think that it has been a really serious problem.
Baroness Thornton
I was looking puzzled only because I wondered what evidence there was for some kind of break in the system.
Baroness Murphy
Some kind of break in the system? I shall continue with my theme: it is crucial that we move all trusts to foundation status. I quite agree that the dates that have been set before have come and gone, but quite often they have come and gone because the strategic health authorities have not provided the necessary support to move trusts to foundation status. In fact, some strategic health authorities were positive blocks in the system to the development of expertise within the foundation trust. I accept that there are some at the moment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has mentioned, face the PFI problem. Te recharge is too great for them to subsume and the debt is too great. Others have long-standing debts that cannot be written off. Some are not viable because of the populations they serve. Unless we have a definite aim and objective to get them there, they will never get there. We can get there if there is a concentration on the problem. Each hospital is different. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about some of the projects to merge one failing hospital with another, or one failing hospital with a less than successful one.
The evidence from NHS trusts’ failing hospitals merging has been that they continue to fail in a bigger way. The Barking, Havering and Redbridge three-trust hospital merger was a striking example of one that did not work and never could. I have that anxiety. If we are going to move away from the process that we have put into this Bill and retain de-authorisation and NHS trusts, we accept that we are continuing with a two-tier system for ever. That would be seriously detrimental to trying to get everyone moved over into a properly regulated system. It is going to be difficult. Certainly, the role of governors needs strengthening. Governors in some places are wonderful. In other trusts, they are mixed-ability classes, let us say. They will need considerable support and development to get there. Nevertheless, it would be catastrophic to have a two-tier system continuing to run after the introduction of the Bill. We need a fixed end point to work to.
Lord Warner
I totally support the idea of getting everybody into foundation trusts. I am questioning whether the processes that we have in place will actually deliver that in the time scales that are being set by the Government. I suspect that in practice you can make the kind of progress required to achieve the Government’s objective only if you reconfigure services rather than just pursuing merger mania.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, this has been an extremely valuable short debate on Part 4. I hope it will be helpful if I explain briefly why I feel that the provisions of this part of the Bill are so important.
They are very much part of our overall vision of modernisation and improvement to meet the needs of changing circumstances: changes in demands, in resources and in innovation. They are about ensuring that foundation trusts are accountable, transparent and autonomous in the way they operate so that they can innovate and provide high-quality and responsive patient care.
Part 4 of the Bill will reform the legal basis of foundation trusts to bring them in line with the new system of sector regulation. Protecting patients’ interests will be at the heart of the system and we will strengthen the governance of foundation trusts to ensure that this happens. We are also taking steps to ensure that all trusts become foundation trusts as soon as they are able. This will mean that all patients can benefit from services provided by organisations that put them first and provide high-quality, accessible care. It will also mean that all NHS providers would be able to take their own decisions on organisational change, such as mergers, acquisitions and separations, based on what is best for patients.
To ensure the best use of taxpayers’ money and the continued delivery of high- quality services, we will make the financing system more transparent and rules-based. Foundation trusts will be required by Monitor to report separately within their accounts their NHS and private-funded income and expenditure, increasing transparency about whether private patient activities are making a profit or a loss. We intend that foundation trusts should decide matters such as which partners they will invite to appoint their governors and how best to equip their governors with the skills they need for their role. Foundation trusts should develop their own good practice to ensure that their governors have the training they need and build up close working relationships with the board of directors so that governors have the information they need to hold the directors to account on behalf of the members whom they represent: the public, staff and patients.
I understand the intention of my noble friend Lady Williams in proposing that the NHS Commissioning Board should appoint a governor to each foundation trust, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Mawhinney because I believe that the right kind of close partnership working between foundation trusts and their commissioners can be achieved in a whole lot of ways and that trusts should be able to develop this relationship in the way that best works for them. To mandate an arrangement such as the one that my noble friend proposes would not be the right way to do it. I also quite agree that it is important for the provision of integrated services that foundation trusts should work closely with their partners in local authorities and other healthcare sectors. However, again, foundation trusts should be free to set up the most effective ways of doing this, including executive and professional collaboration. Similarly, we would not want to prescribe governor attendance at all parts of the directors’ board meetings. It is for foundation trusts themselves to decide how to deal most effectively with discussions and decisions on sensitive and confidential matters so that the trust’s interests are best served.
I also feel strongly that it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to become involved in the approval of mergers and separations of foundation trusts. Foundation trusts are themselves best placed to decide what will work well for their patients and staff, and to involve the Secretary of State would be to add an extra layer of bureaucracy for no good purpose, in our view.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seek to preserve the current position where foundation trusts can be subject to terms of authorisation applied by Monitor and, if they fail to meet their principal purpose, they can be de-authorised and returned to central control. The obvious point to make about this idea is that it would be incompatible with our proposal to repeal NHS trust legislation once the foundation trust programme has been delivered. The more deep-seated objection is that these amendments would depend on an infrastructure which we propose to replace with a comprehensive new regulatory system. There would be no obvious body to manage the performance of reverted NHS trusts, including measures for dealing with providers at risk of becoming unsustainable. We have looked at this from a different angle. Our proposed system would shift the emphasis from maintaining the existence of an unsustainable provider, often at great cost to the taxpayer, to ensuring continuity of essential services to local populations. That is surely what matters. It is surely right for the system to be geared towards continuity of service provision.
A further amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, proposes that abolition of NHS trust legislation and repeal of Monitor’s authorisation powers should not happen before 2020. We are taking a stronger, more testing and more transparent approach than before to managing the foundation trust pipeline, and we expect the vast majority of NHS trusts to become foundation trusts by 2014. This would give patients a clinically and financially sustainable NHS provider system, by definition, because otherwise the trust would not have been authorised as a foundation trust. I am afraid that the noble Baroness’s amendment would not support the change in momentum and mindset that is now evident within the NHS. I very much agreed with the cogent points raised on that topic by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, quoted the HSJ saying that some foundation trusts plan to make major reductions in staffing. I have not read my HSJ this week yet but I think that foundation trusts themselves are best placed to make decisions about how to provide services efficiently and effectively, which includes ensuring that they have the right levels of staff. What matters are those services. It is always regrettable if front-line staff posts are reduced, but if the service can be maintained in as good a way or better, that is surely what should matter in the end.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I apologise to the House, having regained my voice. The point I wanted to make was that there is a tension sometimes between changes of administration and management and the pressure to try to maintain the quality of patient service. We have already seen a situation where it went too fast and in the wrong direction without sufficient regard to quality. The Minister has often given us reassurances that quality of patient care lies at the heart of what the Government are trying to do. I just want to have reassurance that there would not be undue pressure. While there is always a need, if you are bringing about change, to have some pressure because organisations have an inherent resistance to change, rather than unduly pressurising an organisation that was not in a fit state to cope with that change, going a little more slowly might allow it to cope better.
Earl Howe
I understand that point. That is why we have built additional flexibility into the system. Although we have target dates for each of the NHS trusts that we plan to move to foundation trust status, we understand that nothing can be fixed in stone. There is some latitude here but at the same time it is important to have target dates; otherwise the momentum that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred to will be lost and that would be very regrettable.
That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that there appears to be a rush to mergers. We agree with the Public Accounts Committee and the noble Lord himself that mergers are only one way of creating more sustainable providers and services. Mergers must be assessed robustly to ensure that they really will deliver the promised benefits. The Co-operation and Competition Panel does that but at present it can only make recommendations. The NHS Trust Development Authority, which we propose to establish, will play an important complementary role in avoiding what one might call silly mergers. The key has to be local ownership and accountability, not oversight by the department. I was interested to see the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the gathering of management accounting data. I am personally a strong advocate for effective financial and management controls. I am sure we all want to see the NHS become more efficient. The problem with the amendment as drafted is that the system it proposes looks a bit clunky and bureaucratic. It goes against the grain to impose an extra layer of accounting and reporting requirements from the centre and it would clearly cut across the responsibilities of the foundation trusts’ governors and directors.
It is right for me to emphasise by way of concluding remarks that these reforms have been developed in discussion with, and informed by, the Foundation Trust Network, the Foundation Trust Governors’ Association, Monitor and individual foundation trusts. They are built on the experience of what foundation trusts know will work. I hope that in itself is a reassuring statement. I have not addressed the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the PAC report, which I am happy to do once she has intervened.
Baroness Thornton
In terms of discussions the noble Earl is having, are all the parties happy with the fact that if a foundation trust fails it goes into receivership instead of being de-authorised?
Earl Howe
My understanding is that the emphasis that we are placing on continuation of services rather than receivership and failure regimes has been welcomed. There are ways around what some might see as an inevitable conveyor belt to receivership. That should be only a last-ditch resort. We are putting mechanisms in place to ensure that the essential services on which patients depend should continue. That is a better way of looking at things.
Lord Mawhinney
I have been thinking about something that my noble friend the Minister said a moment ago. The amendment would require the Secretary of State’s approval, in addition to that of more than half of the members of the council of governors, for an application made under this section. He did not welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the grounds that the approval of the Secretary of State amounted to an added layer of bureaucracy. It would be helpful to the Committee if we were to know whether the Secretary of State is always considered to be an added layer of bureaucracy and, if not, can he give us a couple of examples of when the Secretary of State is a net plus?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, since my question to the Minister, before he rises, is in similar territory, I might as well leave him sitting down for the moment and get my question in. As I indicated the other day, I have been involved in what is legalistically an acquisition, although we have always talked of it as a merger, of a foundation trust by its neighbour, due to come to fruition at the turn of the year. The last hurdle that we had to overcome, though it was not much of hurdle, was the need for the Secretary of State to sign off dissolution orders for the existing trust, and at least one other order, to allow this to happen. Is my noble friend saying that, under this Bill, such things could proceed untouched by the Secretary of State? I do not have a strong view one way or the other, but it is quite an important change if that kind of reconfiguration can occur without the Secretary of State even having to agree.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I would not dream of putting my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s nose out of joint by calling him “an added layer of bureaucracy” in all circumstances. If I did so, I retract it immediately before it catches up with me. The answer to my noble friend is that the Secretary of State is not that of course; he has a major role in the structure of accountability and decision-making in the architecture of the Bill.
The issue to which my noble friends Lord Mawhinney and Lord Newton have referred is, however, complicated. I have asked for briefing on the way in which the merger process will work. It is quite extensive. To cut to the chase, an application from an NHS trust to merge with a foundation trust must be supported by the Secretary of State. That reflects current rules. However, the Bill removes the requirement for a foundation trust to consult the local authority on a merger. Section 244 of the Act, as amended by the Bill, would provide powers for regulations to make provision as to matters on which NHS bodies, including foundation trusts, must consult local authorities. We intend that foundation trusts will continue to be required to consult local authorities on particular matters set out in regulations and we will consult on those. That is the local authority bit of it. There will also be a duty of public involvement on foundation trusts in relation to such matters as the planning of service provision, proposals for changes in the way in which services are provided and decisions affecting the operation of services. I would be happy to write to both my noble friends—it would probably be better if I did so—to set out exactly what we envisage in the circumstances that they have raised.
I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, but perhaps I could refer to the PAC report to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred. We welcome the report, which says that the NHS is in need of major overhaul. What is interesting about the report is what it shows about the state of the provider sector when the Government took office last year. It had problems such as hidden bail-outs, inadequate leadership and toxic PFI deals. These matters had not been addressed and we have made the firm decision that we cannot continue on that basis. That is why we are proposing independent assessments of trust boards as part of the foundation trust authorisation process.
As regards that process, trust boards will be independently assessed. The point of that is to ensure that they are up to scratch and able to lead their hospitals to foundation status. The underlying issue here is that we want all trusts to be clinically and financially sustainable in the future. The Public Accounts Committee has, very properly, drawn to our attention various issues around the capacity and capability of leadership, among other things, and my noble friend Lord Mawhinney mentioned PFI as another issue. All NHS trust boards will have to identify their strengths and weaknesses before being independently assessed. That is a robust discipline.
As my right honourable friend made clear in October, if, even after receiving support, management teams fail to improve their performance, then action will be taken. This could include their possible removal as a last resort. The Government will provide help to a small number of challenged hospitals to turn themselves around where necessary, but only after they have met the four tough tests that we have laid down. The problems they face must be exceptional and beyond those faced by other organisations; they must be historic; they must have a plan to deal with them in the future; they must demonstrate that they are improving their productivity; and they must deliver high-quality, sustainable services.
Before I conclude, I should like to speak to a number of minor and technical government amendments—for that is indeed what they are—in this group. These make consequential amendments in line with the revised provisions of the Bill; they correct drafting errors to correct references and numbering, or they remove redundant references to repealed legislation. Their purpose is to make the Bill work properly and to ensure that the legislation is up to date.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, with the simple comment that I thought the reply of the Minister—which was, as usual, very well argued—strengthened the case for both of my amendments even more than I had thought before, and I am grateful for that. Strong leadership, as the Public Accounts Committee calls for, was exemplified by the Minister but should include the Secretary of State. However, may I now move on to the next group?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
If the noble Baroness would indicate what she wishes to do with Amendment 296, that would be helpful.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I apologise. I thought I had begun by saying that I would withdraw the amendment and then made some remarks afterwards.
Baroness Thornton
“( ) After paragraph 10C of that Schedule insert—
“10D The governors shall be notified of and have the right to attend all meetings of the Board and its sub-committees and have access to all relevant documents and papers.
10E For this purpose, governors will be required to acknowledge their duty to protect confidentiality.”.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say and I was surprised that he dismissed, in a rather cavalier fashion, our two very small and modest amendments about access and transparency for foundation trust boards. We had to force foundation trusts to meet in public. They do not have a good record for their transparency or their willingness to be accountable. That is not so across the board—some are absolute models. I looked in vain for something among all the amendments that the Minister has proposed that might address this important issue of accountability.
I am very disappointed with the answers to my Amendments 296A and 298A. They are modest amendments about accountability. I beg to move, and I would like to test the opinion of the House—
Earl Howe
If the noble Baroness would like a fuller answer, I would be happy to give her one. I am glad to give the Committee an opportunity to hear a slightly fuller answer to the noble Baroness’s amendments. I apologise that I skirted over them in the need to move on.
On Amendment 296A, the purpose clearly is to ensure that governors of foundation trusts have all the relevant information about their board’s activities and decisions to be able to hold them to account. That is not a controversial idea, but the amendment may have the opposite of the effect that the noble Baroness intends. If boards are forced to have governors present at all meetings, they may instead discuss confidential matters in private to maintain confidentiality and hold robust and frank discussions. If governors are admitted to private board meetings, the directors may be inhibited from discussing those confidential matters. The governors can best be kept informed of directors’ activities by close working relationships with them, regular performance reports, meetings with directors including the chair and chief executive, access to all directors and joint activities with directors. It does not have to be the formula that the noble Baroness has suggested.
The noble Baroness said that we had to force foundation trusts to meet in public. That is not right at all. It was we who made foundation trusts have their meetings in public; the previous Government resisted doing that for the whole of the time when they were in office, or from the whole of the time when foundation trusts were set up in 2003, so I do not think that that criticism is at all fair.
On Amendment 298A, the purpose is to require foundation trusts to account separately for NHS and private activity, to show whether that activity is making a profit or a loss. We agree with the broad principle of separate accounting, as we indicated earlier, but we are concerned that putting a requirement like this in statute would impose high costs on foundation trusts with low levels of private activity. Many foundation trusts have little, if any, private activity. We have given a commitment that to provide assurance and transparency we will require foundation trusts to produce separate accounts for NHS and private funded services where they exist. To support its new regulatory functions, Monitor will require foundation trusts to report separately within their accounts their NHS and private funded income and expenditure. That will increase transparency.
We are onside with the theme of the noble Baroness’s amendment, but we do not think that she is setting about it in the right way. It is too heavy handed, and I hope that she will withdraw it.
Lord Clement-Jones
It seems rather extreme and extraordinary to be plunged into the possibility of a vote on a matter such as this without further consideration of what the Minister has had to say, particularly with a fairly thin House at the moment, although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. But it is obviously up to her to make her own dispositions.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the problem with transparency and accountability is that the issues of confidentiality and expense are always used as excuses. I do not deny that my own Government almost certainly used them as reasons for not proceeding with issues of confidentiality and accountability. I am struggling with the idea that we should withdraw this amendment, because I feel that this is a really rather important matter. It may be a very small and minor matter, but it is actually rather important and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 299A and 299AA.
Before I do so, let me say just a word or two about two other amendments in this group, that is, Amendments 299ZA and 299AZA. I warmly thank the Minister, my noble friend Lord Howe, for having listened with such care to those of us who spoke to him about the issue of foundation trusts, in particular the issue of the private income paid into foundation trusts and the question of how that private income should be used ultimately for the benefit of the health service. He has been very patient, very willing to listen and extremely helpful. On behalf of these Benches and my own party I would like to thank him, and I am sure that others in the House will share that gratitude for the way in which he has responded.
I do not want to go into detail, because the amendments are very clear and have been laid, beyond saying that the first of those amendments, Amendment 299ZA, clearly states the situation with regard to income that comes into a foundation hospital—that is, that that income must be ultimately devoted to the health service. It sets beyond question or ambiguity the Government’s position on this critical issue. I am therefore extremely grateful to the Minister for that.
I also strongly support the proposals about the annual report. I take to heart the Minister’s distinction between the way in which the annual report deals with the funding of National Health Service patients in foundation trusts and with the separate funding of private patients in foundation trusts. On both those issues, it is extremely helpful that the annual report should be clear and open, so that we can all discuss not only the very serious issues that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, but also, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the very disturbing report from the Public Accounts Committee, which reiterates over and over again the need for leadership and for a clear statement of where the trusts stand, and the real concerns it has about the difficulties that some of them now confront. It is a dramatic report, and we should commend it to this House as far as we possibly can. Perhaps a separate debate on that issue in the Public Accounts Committee report would be appropriate on some future occasion.
Having said that, I will add only one other thing with regard to the first two amendments I mentioned, which are familiar enough to the noble Earl. In my view, it would be very helpful if there were “belt and braces”, by which I mean a government amendment which would indicate that, in the case of foundation trusts, the majority of patients should be NHS patients. That is, there should be an unquestionable commitment to having a majority of NHS patients. There are two reasons for that. One is simply that, good as the amendment unquestionably is, it is difficult for the general public—I certainly include myself in this—to understand the precise thrust of Amendment 299ZA, which I have quoted. It is helpful in this complicated Bill to have some islands of clarity that those who are not experts in the field—again, I include myself—can understand. People could understand the simple concept that a majority of patients should be from the NHS, not the private sector.
The other reason why I beg him to look at this carefully is that it is also important from the point of view of the complex debate that we have already had in this Committee on the issue of competition policy and EU competition policy. If there is a clear statement that the majority of patients must come from the NHS, that should be immensely helpful in ensuring that we are not then subjected to the rigours of the extreme competition policies defended at present in the EU and, indeed, by our own Competition Commission. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who knows a great deal about the legalisms of competition policy, may have something to add on this point.
I turn briefly—well, fairly briefly; I am now conscious of the disapproval of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, so I shall be a little more detailed—to the three more minor amendments in the group that my name is associated with. The first of those is Amendment 297, where we would like to add the words,
“for the purposes of the National Health Service”.
In order to persuade noble Lords of the importance of this, I will read out the text that the Bill currently inserts:
“The general duty of the board of directors, and of each director individually, is to act with a view to promoting the success of the corporation so as to maximise the benefits for the members of the corporation as a whole and for the public”.
In that wording, the public trail far behind the interests of the members of the corporate body. That is unfortunate and unwise. We are therefore proposing the simple amendment that the words “for the purposes of the NHS”, which, as noble Lords will appreciate, recur in other parts of the Bill on many occasions, should be added to this section about the directors of foundation trusts. It is important to reiterate that foundation trusts work for the interests of the NHS, which is why we have suggested this simple amendment.
On Amendment 299AA, on which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will speak in slightly more detail, the point here is quite straightforward. Clause 162(1)(a), which we are suggesting should be left out, removes the existing subsection in the National Health Service Act 2006 that limits the provision of private services. In particular, the 2006 Act permits not the abolition but the restriction of private health services within foundation trusts. Section 44(1) of the 2006 Act provides that,
“An authorisation may restrict the provision, for purposes other than those of the health service in England, of goods and services by an NHS foundation trust”.
In other words, that subsection again sustains the argument that there is a role for the private sector but that there must be restrictions on it if the NHS trusts and foundation trusts are to sustain their fundamental legal obligation to the NHS. It is important that these restrictions should be upheld. Indeed, the authorisations that I have referred to are critical to the concept of maintaining the foundation trusts within the health service system and therefore making it less vulnerable to competition legislation.
The final amendment that I want to refer to is Amendment 299A, where we are simply bearing out what I have already said. I therefore hope the House will now hear additional arguments from my noble friend to show why this group of amendments is very important in order to retain the current status of foundation trusts, which is very welcome, and which will assist in meeting some of the trenchant criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee about this whole sector of the health service. I beg to move.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I will come in very briefly. I declare a past interest as former chairman of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, which probably has as large a private patient income as any in the country. Frankly, that income considerably benefits the two hospitals and their NHS patients.
I welcome the amendments of my noble friend, and hope that the Minister will give them careful consideration. All of us in this House, not least those of us who are former Ministers of health, have been united in our wish to see a successful and flourishing NHS, and in being really dedicated to it. It would be an oddity if a hospital designated as an NHS trust—whether foundation or otherwise—were treating a majority of patients who were not NHS patients. That is quite a simple proposition, and it is the one advocated by my noble friend Baroness Williams.
The amendments already tabled by my noble friend on the cap on income are extremely welcome and sensible. However, I hope that he might think of—dare I say it—embracing the thoughts of my noble friend Lady Williams as well in some further modification of those amendments so that they refer both to income and to numbers. The numbers thing will be more readily understood by many members of the public. Clearly we do not want NHS trust hospitals to gain most of their income from doing non-NHS work or from treating non-NHS patients. That just does not make sense. It would helpful if we could make that clear.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Williams very clearly set out the approach of these Benches to a number of amendments in this group. I simply want to return to EU competition law for a moment. The noble Earl’s amendment regarding limits on the cap goes quite some way to mitigating one of the elements of risk associated with the greater application of EU competition law. As I outlined on Tuesday, there are some really significant issues in the Bill which will introduce EU competition law to a much greater extent if we are not careful. One of those, clearly, is the uncapping of private patient income of foundation trusts. I am very pleased that the noble Earl has gone some way to dealing with some of those concerns. However, I of course very much share the view of my noble friend Lady Williams that we are not quite there yet, and that it would be belt and braces to have the additional safeguard of a limit on the numbers as well as on the revenue.
Generally, four key issues arise from the changes to Sections 43 and 44 of the 2006 Act, quite apart from that of EU competition law. First, there is the question of limits on the cap—what kind of limit is appropriate? Secondly, there is the question of being absolutely certain that any income from private patients is exclusively devoted to the National Health Service. Thirdly, there is the question of prospective transparency—of being well aware of what the plans of foundation trusts will be. Fourthly, there is the question of transparency after the event, in terms of reporting in an annual report.
As far as the limits on the cap are concerned, as I have mentioned, the noble Earl’s Amendment 299ZA is welcome, but it would be useful if he could consider whether any further qualification of that cap was appropriate. There is also the question of being absolutely certain that we are talking about this income going exclusively to the NHS, which is what my Amendment 299A goes towards—that is why I seek to add the word “exclusive” to the changes to Section 43 of the Act.
On the question of prospective transparency, I very much welcome the Minister’s Amendment 299AZA, but that simply provides for reporting after the fact. It is important to share prospectively with the general public and people in the locality the governors’ process for determining the right balance between private income and the NHS activities in a trust. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve by requiring the situation to be set out in an annual plan.
There are four elements. We are some way down the track towards achieving a number of them. At that point, I think that on at least one of the limbs that I and many others are concerned about—the further introduction of competition law to the NHS—we will be satisfied. We will at least have knocked over one of the green bottles, so to speak, with several more to come.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has put his finger exactly on the point here. I absolutely agree that, welcome though the amendments in the Minister’s name are, they do not go far enough. Counting things after the fact will not necessarily provide the kind of protection that is required in this area.
Section 44 of the National Health Service Act 2006 currently provides for a limit on the proportion of income that an NHS foundation trust obtains from private charges. I am familiar with this; I had to deal with it in the Health and Social Care Act 2008. That was the point at which my party agreed that there needed to be a review of the private patient cap. That is absolutely the case and we would agree on that. The restriction was introduced to ensure that NHS foundation trusts continued to focus primarily on NHS patients, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, explained. However, as we accepted at the time, the way that the cap was based on the financial year cemented in a widely varying range of restrictions, from zero to a little more than 30 per cent, with the average being around 1.5 per cent.
Baroness Murphy
My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that her opposition to the Clause standing part of the Bill is for probing purposes, as are some of the other amendments. We have all welcomed the review of the private patient income cap introduced by the previous Government following the judicial review by Unison of Monitor’s interpretation. The Government’s amendments go a long way to addressing our concerns about the extension of private income diverting NHS hospitals into private activity. I understand and have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in that respect.
I ought to say that I have never, as an NHS consultant, practised privately. This is both an ideological and a practical matter. As I mentioned before in Committee, my own professional activity simply could not be done effectively without working in conjunction with social services, housing and the voluntary sector. It would not, therefore, have sat very easily with my activities. I have, of course, seen the very important role that private income plays in swelling the NHS coffers in many foundation trusts. However, it is worth reminding ourselves how dreadfully unfair that private patient cap has been. Hospitals like the Royal Marsden have a cap of 30 per cent, but they manage to do that work without any diversion of activity from their brilliant NHS service. Many acute FTs and all mental health foundation trusts have a cap of zero. For NHS FTs as a whole, the average PPI cap is 1.5 per cent of their income. The overall figure is therefore tiny. Foundation trusts’ private income was less than 2 per cent of their total income across the board. However, this income can be very welcome to individual hospitals. Anything that makes the system fairer for hospitals is extremely important. It is of course worth saying that ordinary NHS trusts do not have a cap and can make as much income as they like.
We need a mechanism to enhance FTs’ commitment to remaining focused on NHS patients. I believe that all existing foundation trusts are focused on that, but if we approve the government amendments—Amendment 299AZA and one other—they will go some way to ensuring that at least the majority of activity remains as it is. In reality, private practice is not likely to extend very much. The provisions will prevent the kind of unfairness and terrible bureaucracies that have been associated with joint ventures and the complexities of the current rules which even the judge in the judicial review of the private patient income cap admitted were real practical difficulties for foundation trusts that needed to be addressed.
The government amendments are strong, but I would not entirely not support some of the stronger amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I have listened closely to the noble Baroness. I should perhaps add that within these Benches we discussed, and at one stage talked to Monitor about, the possibility of an individual cap for hospitals outside London. I completely take the noble Baroness’s point that in places such as Newcastle the figure for private patients is less than 2 per cent—even though the hospital there is renowned. One can think of many similar examples. We would therefore be perfectly open to reaching an agreement under which Monitor was responsible for there being lower caps in different parts of the country. The proposal that the number of patients from the NHS should be greater than the number from the private sector is an overall statement of principle that virtually every hospital can easily meet. We hope that it might, among other things, disincline our friends from the competition area from deciding that foundation trusts were undertakings and not private agencies.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, this has been an interesting short debate because the whole business of the cap has imposed wide variations on trusts. Where trusts cannot have any private activity, there has been an unintended consequence if some staff, particularly consultants, undertake private work. They have carried out that work offsite and not been available if there has been an emergency onsite, and travel times also have worked against patient care.
I can therefore completely understand why these amendments are before us and why the Government wish to act as has been outlined. Perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister can provide us with an assurance that any guidance—it is not necessary to include this in the Bill—will ensure that trusts do not inadvertently double-pay staff. The point of splitting private and NHS treatment was precisely to ensure that staff do not carry out private work in their NHS time and receive double pay, and that the accounts are clear. There are advantages to staff doing private work on NHS premises and to a flexible interpretation whereby, when there is a medical emergency, staff can run down the corridor. Private patients completely understand when someone has to be called away because there is a life-threatening emergency. They are happy to wait until the staff return. That system operates at the hospital in which I work. Although I do not do any private work, some of the oncologists have clinics in the evenings.
There is a need for clarity and I hope that some reassurance will be given that in removing the cap there will be good husbandry of public money.
Baroness Noakes
More than 20 years ago, I was director of finance of the NHS, on secondment from my firm, as some of my noble friends will recall. One of my areas of responsibility was something we called the income-generation initiative. It was sponsored wholly by the Department of Health which was to encourage NHS hospitals to maximise their assets and to generate income for the purposes of the NHS. The origins of the private patient income lie with the Department of Health wanting to ensure that the NHS maximised the returns from its assets and took opportunities to generate income solely for the NHS. Those of us who were involved in developing that initiative would regard all these discussions as a mark of success of the initiative, as it has generated so much income that other questions are now asked.
I never supported any kind of cap, because the circumstances of individual foundation trusts vary so significantly that any cap would never be effective. The way in which income can be structured to flow into a trust can markedly change the impact of the cap. By structuring your relationships with partnership organisations, for example, you can massively change whether a cap bites or does not.
I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, because perhaps it now needs stating that you should concentrate largely on the NHS—although, as I said, those of us who started this find it a rather surprising conclusion—and I support transparency. If I ever had one concern about the income-generation initiative, it was that costing was never particularly well understood in the NHS, and, therefore, neither was the net result from the activity nor how that activity was used. It is important to have transparency. I hope that other noble Lords will not encourage the Government to keep any limits which constrain the NHS from maximising its assets for the purposes of the NHS.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I was not going to speak in the debate and I certainly do not want to speak on the subject of the cap, in case I get into too much trouble from my Front Bench. I would like to pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We are moving into a world in which the NHS will have to look at how it uses its assets. As I have said in earlier discussions, the NHS footprint on its sites and its utilisation of buildings is relatively small given the size of the sites.
We are also moving in a direction where, across the House, we favour integration of health and social care. It would not be surprising if, in the next few years, on some sites of district general hospitals, there were nursing homes run by the private sector which had self-payers as well as state-funded payers. The way the Government are approaching this creates flexibility in how income might be generated. I hope we will not be so prescriptive in how we meet the legitimate concern that NHS trusts should concentrate on their core business, if I may put it that way, that we shoot ourselves in the foot again by having a cap that actually works against the best interests of the NHS.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I have never known my noble friend to show particular restraint about how he felt about his Front Bench.
This discretion has morphed into something that says that making efficient use of assets and being effective is the same as maximising private income. Of course, that is not the point here. The point is getting the balance right. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a very good point: the NHS does not exist to maximise private income profit.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this is an important issue and one that I recognise is of considerable interest to the Committee. To start at the beginning, the Government are clear that NHS providers should always focus on the provision of care to NHS patients. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the private patient income cap, which Clause 162 would remove, is damaging to the NHS and to patients’ interests. We think that there is a very strong case for removing the cap, because doing so will allow NHS patients to derive even greater benefits from foundation trusts. At the same time, we understand the sensitivities. The key to addressing those sensitivities is to have adequate safeguards to ensure that NHS patients and resources continue to be prioritised and protected. I reassure the Committee that we believe we can achieve that through the Bill and through the government amendments, and I shall explain why and how in a moment.
The words “private patient” in the cap’s title may have unfortunately given the wrong impression about the substance of the argument. My noble friend Lady Noakes was quite right in what she said. The cap’s scope goes far wider than just private patients. It captures income from activities such as innovations involving research, joint ventures and the sale of medicines and intellectual property to private healthcare providers in the UK and abroad. This means that innovative partnerships of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, indicated might happen are being hampered, and the ability of foundation trusts to earn more income to help to bring in leading-edge technology to the NHS faster—for example, for cancer treatment—is unnecessarily restricted.
Foundation trusts have told us that the cap is detrimental to care offered to NHS patients. They have welcomed our move to remove what they and we see as an outdated, unnecessary and arbitrary legal instrument that locks them into maintaining income from private charges below the levels that applied in 2002-03.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the compelling reasons for removing the cap. As I am sure the Committee will agree, the rule itself is unfair. Some foundation trusts have much higher caps, and hence much more flexibility, than the majority. In 2010-11, around 75 per cent of foundation trusts were severely restricted with caps of 1.5 per cent or less. Meanwhile, the Royal Marsden benefits from a 31 per cent cap and is the country’s highest private patient income earner. It has also been consistently rated as a highly performing NHS provider.
Baroness Thornton
I have a question for the noble Earl on this. He is absolutely right that the Royal Marsden is a very effective hospital, but what independent evidence is there that the cap harms the interests of NHS patients? We know that quite a few foundation trusts have been going on about it, and I absolutely agree that the cap needs to be reviewed properly, but what independent evidence is there that it harms the interests of patients?
Earl Howe
My Lords, if the noble Baroness is calling for evidence beyond the testimony of numerous NHS trusts, I am not sure what more I can offer her. I can write to her on this but there is very considerable evidence—almost a priori evidence—that if you restrict a trust’s ability to earn income which would otherwise go to improve facilities for NHS patients, you are damaging the interests of those NHS patients. That is an argument that we have consistently put forward ever since the 2003 legislation. However, it is also an argument that I recall Ministers in the previous Administration making when we last debated this subject at any length.
I was going to point out too that NHS trusts as distinct from foundation trusts do not have a private income cap. A number of them earn private incomes well in excess of many foundation trusts. There is absolutely no evidence that these providers are ignoring NHS patients as their prime responsibility—no evidence at all. A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Williams, have tabled amendments in this area to ensure that foundation trusts must protect the interests of NHS patients above all and that public money should not subsidise private care. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I would like reassure noble Lords of the safeguards that the Bill already contains to this end. Some of these safeguards are prospective in nature and some are retrospective.
First, foundation trusts will continue to be bound by their principal legal purpose, which is to provide goods and services for the NHS in England. I am going to move Amendment 299ZA today to state explicitly that “principal purpose” means that the majority of every foundation trust’s income must come from NHS service provision. That amendment will make it certain that the trusts are NHS providers first and foremost. I admit to my noble friend Lady Noakes that this is something of a belt and braces amendment, but I believe that it directly addresses the main concerns voiced by my noble friend Lady Williams.
The second safeguard is that the Bill would make foundation trusts more accountable and transparent to their public and NHS staff. My second amendment in this group, Amendment 299AZA, would support that by requiring every foundation trust to explain in its annual report how its non-NHS income had benefited NHS services. The Bill gives governors, who represent the public and NHS staff, greater powers to hold directors to account and this amendment would help them do so. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones sought to place additional duties on directors. The Bill would also place an explicit duty on them to promote the success of their foundation trust with a view to maximising benefits for its members and the public. If, for example, directors were to pursue private patient activity against the interests of members and the public, the governors would be able to, and they should, use their new powers to challenge directors or they could use their existing power to remove the chair and non-executive directors.
Lord Clement-Jones
I understand the safeguard aspect there, but what will the members of the trust or the general public know about how a foundation trust plans to use its assets in terms of private patient income?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it will be open to governors to seek information from the boards of directors on the plans that they have for the trust. They will have access to key papers. There should be no difficulty about knowing what the board has in mind for the trust in that strategic sense.
Thirdly, the NHS Commissioning Board and NHS commissioners would be responsible for securing timely care for NHS patients. They would be under a duty to exercise their functions with a view to securing continuous improvements in the quality of NHS services. That is an important provision too.
Finally, to achieve a fairer playing field, Monitor’s licensing regime would allow it to step in to prevent NHS money cross-subsidising private care. Foundation trusts would also be required separately to report to Monitor their NHS and private-funded income. My noble friend Lady Williams said that in her view it would be useful to have in the Bill that the majority of foundation trust patients have to be NHS patients. While I agree with the intent behind that thought, I cannot agree with her two arguments that support the need for an amendment. First, we do not agree that legislation should be used symbolically in this way. Foundation trusts’ principal purpose already covers the point that she raised. Secondly, even if we had such an amendment, it would not make any difference to how the courts interpret and apply EU competition law. It is the nature of the activities that they are undertaking that matter, not how many patients they treat or how much income they earn.
Perhaps I may make a specific point about my noble friend’s Amendments 297 and 299. They would duplicate unnecessarily the legal description of the NHS, which since 1946 has been described as “health service”. Use of the word “national” would be inconsistent with references to the NHS throughout existing legislation.
Just to elaborate on EU competition law, the Bill, as we discussed the other day, does not change the position on EU competition law or the applicability of the law. It remains the case that there is uncertainty on the status of NHS providers as undertakings for the purposes of competition law because no direct case law exists. In so far as foundation trusts already provide private healthcare services, they may be engaged in economic activity. Therefore competition law, both the prohibitions on anti-competitive behaviour and the prohibitions on state aid, may apply to their activities in these markets. Although the Bill would offer more flexibility to participate in these markets if the cap were lifted, it does not mean that foundation trusts are more or less likely to be considered undertakings in their provision of NHS services.
It was suggested by my noble friend Lady Williams that there might be a sort of case-by-case approach to lifting the cap. I recall that that approach was strongly rejected by the previous Government, and for very good reasons. We agree with those reasons. The disadvantages of that approach would be that it would be very difficult to set up a clear system and it would be likely to be difficult to administer and to increase bureaucracy. It would potentially lead to greater variation between foundation trusts and to claims of unfairness between different trusts, which could possibly be a source of litigation. It would maintain the problematic definitional issues around the cap itself. We are not drawn to that approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether we could consider including in guidance to foundation trusts the need to avoid double-paying staff. I think she makes a very interesting point and I can confirm that we will give that some active consideration.
While the principles of some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords are ones that we could all agree with, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary and could be damaging. For example, a requirement for non-NHS income to support only NHS services could mean that foundation trusts would find it impossible to invest in their non-NHS activities and therefore make greater profits to support core NHS work. We want to avoid safeguards, no matter how well intentioned they may be, having a perverse legal consequence on foundation trusts’ ability to innovate.
I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment because I am completely convinced that the necessary safeguards are there and that what we are proposing are the right things to do.
Baroness Thornton
If the Minister thinks that the safeguards are here, and if all that is true, should the governors be the ones who decide on the level of the private cap?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think that the board of directors is best placed to decide how much private income overall a trust should receive, on the proviso that the principal purpose of the foundation trust remains adhered to. Governors should concern themselves with any threat to that status. If they perceive that the board is in danger of overstepping the mark in that sense, then of course it is their province. Otherwise, I think it is for the board of directors to judge what is in the best interests of the trust as a whole and of NHS patients. That could mean expanding the trust’s private patient work, capitalising on intellectual property, or whatever it happened to be.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I shall intervene briefly before my noble friend Lady Williams sums up on her amendment. What the Minister just said about this relationship between governors and directors and the advancement of the principal purpose of a foundation trust added another dimension. It is not so much the question of the majority of income or of patients coming from the private or the public sector that is important. That is simply a test for competition law purposes. The issue is whether the principal purpose of the foundation trust remains within a social purpose. The element of solidarity established by FENIN is there and it is therefore at less risk of falling totally within EU competition law as an undertaking.
The Minister’s comments bear considerable study, but what he has said does not completely take us out of the risk area. I know he does not use the word “risk” in relation to EU law applying further, but that is certainly the mindset of a number of us looking at these provisions, particularly in relation to the cap. It is the question of social purpose and solidarity that is crucial in law, and the question of whether what my noble friend has done to date is sufficient. I will obviously read his comments carefully but I do not think we are quite there yet.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I would like the Minister to consider very carefully the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones because my impression is rather the same as his, although on a much weaker basis of expertise. On the one or two occasions when I visited the Commission to discuss this matter, I had a strong sense that social purpose is one of the main criteria that they look at in deciding whether something counts in the area that captures competition law in the EU. I cannot speak about the Competition Commission in England because I do not have enough expertise to do so, but I hope that the Minister will consider what my noble friend has said because I believe that it is a crucial factor for the EU Competition Commissioner.
Lord Clement-Jones
I want to add one further point about “prospectivity”, if there is such a word, and governors and/or directors looking at the activities of the trust. It is important that one considers that point from the social purpose point of view. One can then look at the pattern of activity of the trust and see what investments are going to be devoted to private and NHS patients. That is an important part of looking at the risk factors associated with a purpose not being a social purpose.
Baroness Thornton
I am glad that the two parties of government are in discussion with each other about these matters. However, there are Members on the Cross Benches and on these Benches who also have opinions on these issues. If it is appropriate, we would like to be involved in those discussions.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I am perfectly certain that the noble Baroness will contribute even more to this esoteric but very important discussion. With words of thanks to all those who have taken part, I now withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, in paragraph (b) for “any records” substitute “the records”.”
“( ) In paragraph 22(1) of Schedule 7, omit paragraph (e) (duty to make forward plan available to the public).”
“(2A) An NHS foundation trust does not fulfil its principal purpose unless, in each financial year, its total income from the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England is greater than its total income from the provision of goods and services for any other purposes.”
“( ) After subsection (3) of that section insert—
“(3A) Each annual report prepared by the NHS foundation trust must give information on the impact that income received by the trust otherwise than from the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England has had on the provision by the trust of goods and services for those purposes.””
“( ) a copy of any information published under section 65D,”
“( ) a copy of any statement provided under section 65F,”
“(d) for “65L(2), (4) or (5)” substitute “65L(2) or (7), 65LA(3)”.”
“( ) a copy of any information published under section 65D,”
“( ) a copy of any statement provided under section 65F,”
( ) in subsection (3), omit paragraph (a) (and the following “and”)”
( ) omit sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph (and the preceding “or”)”
(a) ”
(b) in paragraph (c), for “that Act” substitute “the National Health Service Act 2006” (and omit the “or” preceding that paragraph)”
Lord Warner
“(2) Healthwatch England is to be appointed in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Patel, had to leave before we could get to this amendment so I shall speak on his behalf in moving Amendment 306.
The amendment brings us to Clause 178, which is about HealthWatch England. In simple terms, the amendment seeks to make HealthWatch England an independent body and not a sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission. That is its purpose. We have to some extent already touched on this issue and made the arguments in earlier debates about why we think, in terms of public credibility for HealthWatch England, it should not be nestling within, hosted by or whatever else you want to call it the Care Quality Commission. I shall turn to the issue about that particular body in a moment but, as a matter of principle, whether it is the Care Quality Commission or some other body, we take the view that it should be a free-standing body so that it can exercise—and, perhaps just as importantly, be seen to exercise—a very independent role in pursuing the purposes and interests of patients and the public.
The whole area of public and patient involvement and them having their say in the running of the NHS, the way it works, its standards and its standards of care has caused difficulty across the political spectrum in getting it right. The Government deserve considerable congratulation on having another go at this. It is not a matter of principle, certainly as far as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I am concerned, that we should not have a body called HealthWatch England—we totally favour that—but you might as well go the whole hog if you are going to claim that it is an independent body. Calling it a sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission does damage to the public perception of its role.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has seen recently the NALM to discuss these issues and I want to quote from some of the briefing that it used in that meeting with him. The NALM made it very clear that it saw collaborative working between HealthWatch England and some of the other bodies as important, but that did not mean to say that it wished it to be hosted in one of those bodies. The briefing is most interesting. It says:
“Our work with the CQC over the past year has given us little confidence that this is the right location for the public’s independent national body concerned with health and social care”.
It is concerned that it will not be seen as independent. Whatever arguments the Government may have, we have to take careful note when representatives of the public and patients do not believe that they will be seen as independent if they are placed in the CQC.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, we have already debated to some extent the way in which HealthWatch England might operate. However, this group of amendments returns not just to that issue, but to a number of other important issues which go to the core of the extent to which HealthWatch England is genuinely going to be an effective organisation. I give Ministers and the Government the benefit of the doubt on this—that that is something that they want to see happen. Therefore, the way in which HealthWatch England is established, the way in which it functions and the powers that it has are going to be critical to whether or not this body will simply join the long list of organisations that have been set up over the years to represent patients’ interests and have then been dismembered after a short period, or in some cases a slightly longer period, because they are not seen to be effective. If the Government are genuine about putting patients at the heart of the new NHS, then they need to ensure that HealthWatch England and healthwatch organisations are effective.
My noble friend Lord Warner, slightly unusually, pulled his punches. He talked about it perhaps being a major mistake to host HealthWatch England within the CQC. I have to say there is a danger that this could be a disaster. It is a disaster because of the sustained attacks that the CQC is currently undergoing, which seem to emanate in some instances from Government and Ministers who clearly are not satisfied with the direction of travel. There are clearly concerns that this is an organisation which is being asked and expected to do far too much at the moment. To add this additional responsibility is not necessarily helpful.
I can understand that it is important that HealthWatch England relates effectively to the Care Quality Commission: that is one of the organisations it must relate closely to. But it must also relate closely to the NHS Commissioning Board. It must also relate properly, under certain circumstances, to Monitor. Simply saying that the relationship with the CQC is paramount does not necessarily make an enormous degree of sense.
My noble friend Lord Warner made a specific point. If the motivation for hosting HealthWatch England within some other national organisation is to save money—I understand that it may not be the prime motivation but it is a concern in all this—then there are plenty of other ways of achieving those savings in terms of back-office functions. Those functions can be provided by agency agreements; you can have organisations which are in the same building and able to share some of the physical facilities and so on. It does not necessarily require that the organisation sits as an integral sub-committee within or as part of the organisation concerned. You can do it in other ways; you can achieve those savings in other ways.
However, if you place HealthWatch England in the Care Quality Commission, or for that matter in the NHS Commissioning Board or any of the others, you are in danger of there being either a real or perceived conflict of interest. It may well be the case that HealthWatch England will, on occasions, be asking the Care Quality Commission to do certain things. It may well be the case that there will be, on occasions, circumstances in which HealthWatch England will be saying that the Care Quality Commission has failed to do certain things. That is not a happy situation; nor is it one that is likely to engender the trust of the public if they are seen as being part of the same organisation. That is the principle which underpins some of these amendments.
There is then the question of the extent to which HealthWatch England is seen as being a creature of either the CQC or Government. That then relates to how the ruling body of HealthWatch England—the committee, if it is a sub-committee of the CQC—is appointed. That is why one of the amendments to which I have my name, Amendment 307, specifically refers to the committee of HealthWatch England being,
“elected from local Healthwatch organisations”.
It is a principle of accountability; it is a principle of ownership; it is a principle of safeguarding that independent viewpoint and voice. That is why that is necessary and that is why Amendment 307 in this group is so important.
We also have a series of amendments, Amendments 308, 309, 312, 313, 315 and 316, which try to make sure that it is absolutely explicit that HealthWatch England's role is not just to provide information or advice but, on occasions, to make recommendations to the bodies concerned. It may be a recommendation to the CQC or to the other major national organisations. This group of amendments specifies that that is part of its functioning. It also makes it clear that there should be proper responses to those recommendations from the bodies to whom they are directed. Again, if the Government are serious about making HealthWatch England effective and about having a genuine and clear voice of the users of the NHS and social care services, surely placing in the Bill the power to make recommendations is central to that.
Amendment 314, to which I have also put my name, essentially requires HealthWatch England to provide the CQC with information and advice on the views of patients and the public, and of local healthwatch organisations. It is not a question of it being a discretionary responsibility but a clear responsibility—it “must” rather than it “may”. I know that, in this Committee or in your Lordships’ House more generally, we sometimes get into esoteric discussions about the relative force of “must”, “shall”, “may”, and so on and so forth. I am quite clear that must is stronger than may. That is to avoid a situation where the national body fails to take into account the views and opinions being expressed locally. It is saying that this is an obligation on the organisation to reflect that. Again, if you want to see an independent voice for patients at national level, it must be clear that that body is obligated to put forward the views of patients, the public and local healthwatch organisations.
Amendment 317 also goes to the heart of the relationship between HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations. It is a very simple expectation, which I am surprised was not included in the Bill already. HealthWatch England must send a copy of any report it produces to all local healthwatch organisations. This is about the way in which local healthwatch organisations relate to their national body. I speak as someone who ran a national body for patients for a number of years. I know that we would have had an extremely difficult time with our member community health councils had we been making advice and recommendations at a national level without keeping the local organisations, on whose advice those recommendations were based, fully informed of what we were saying and doing. The Bill sets out some of the people who should receive the reports produced by HealthWatch England, but fails to mention local healthwatch organisations. It is a simple change. I am sure it was a mere error in drafting and that the Minister will be able to accept Amendment 317 without wasting time at Report on the issue.
Amendment 318 relates to the relationship between the Secretary of State and HealthWatch England. Clearly, there is a nagging concern in the Department of Health that HealthWatch England may not do all that the Government are hoping, which it certainly will not be able to do unless they make some of the changes being suggested in this group of amendments. However, the Secretary of State has taken upon himself the power to give directions to HealthWatch England. Personally, I do not have a problem with that. I accept that Secretaries of State like to have that in respect of all sorts of organisations. However, before making those directions, which the Secretary of State should not make lightly, Amendment 318 provides that the Secretary of State,
“shall consult local Healthwatch organisations”.
If the Secretary of State were to give a direction on the basis that it was failing to discharge its functions, that should be in the light of the knowledge that local healthwatch organisations, to which HealthWatch England should be responsible and is, in part at least, servicing and supporting, have been properly consulted.
I think that the amendments are entirely modest, sensible and ones that the Government can accept without further problem. They are integral to ensuring that HealthWatch England is the proper voice of the users, patients and those who depend on the NHS.
Baroness Jolly
I rise to speak to Amendment 311ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, which calls for people’s views on those services commissioned by the board, whether locally or nationally, to be taken into consideration. I need to make a declaration, because I am chairman of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. When she sums up, will my noble friend the Minister try to give some assurance that those with rare and complex conditions, services for whom will be commissioned by the board, will be included in all consultations by local healthwatch organisations and by HealthWatch England?
I have some general remarks about HealthWatch, which is to be the voice of the patient both nationally and locally. I want to tease out what it is all about, where it should be and who should be doing it. HealthWatch has to do far more than its name suggests—it has to do more than just watch. Clearly, it needs to listen. I totally support the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Harris of Haringey, who are pushing the idea that HealthWatch should be able to recommend. This is not just a tacit thing: it has to be very much more proactive, to push things back. Whether it is pushing it back to the Secretary of State, CQC, local authority boards, NICE or even clinical commissioning groups, it is critical that that should be seen as part of HealthWatch’s role. “No decision about me without me”—well, we will not know about that unless the recommendation amendment is actually woven in.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege is about local healthwatch organisations. Local healthwatch organisations will have an opinion on clinical commissioning groups’ commissioning plans, and that opinion should go to the board.
Where should healthwatch organisations be placed? We have said it before in this Committee and I suspect we shall have to say it again on Report: we on these Benches are not convinced that the role for HealthWatch England is with the CQC—as a sub-committee of the CQC—or that the role locally should be with local authorities. One of the things that these organisations will have to do, whether nationally or locally, is to be quite critical of their hosts. It is very difficult to be critical of your host, so it is perhaps not appropriate that they should be their host.
Along with the question of where healthwatch organisations should sit, another issue—certainly, this is an issue at local level—is funding. Funding is currently held by local authorities for LINk organisations. I suspect that many of us who have been involved in this Committee have been receiving letters from LINk organisations saying that their funding is being cut and they cannot possibly manage. That needs to be taken into consideration. I understand that, currently, the pot of funding for local healthwatch is going to be given to a local authority. Should we be unsuccessful in moving local healthwatch out of the local authority, I would like the Government to give some thought as to how that money might be ring-fenced. I know that they are not happy about ring-fencing money, but should money be ring-fenced and be part of, for the sake of argument, the public health budget? If local healthwatch organisations have to remain with local government, then the funding needs some sort of protection.
Who should be involved with HealthWatch? I support the amendment of, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that there should be locally elected delegates. HealthWatch England would be far stronger if there were local voices from local healthwatches. Now that we will have not strategic health authorities but sub-national areas, perhaps there should be two members from each sub-national area to represent their patch who could give the views of local healthwatch organisations to HealthWatch England. Perhaps that might be appropriate.
The local healthwatch organisations—LINks and their immediate predecessor organisations—have had problems with who actually forms part of these organisations locally. Some have been very good, but some have been less than effective. The members of these groups have just happened to be whoever was interested and keen at the time. Sometimes the groups were positive, but sometimes they really did not work at all. There might be shades of the past here: I wondered if there was any mileage in suggesting that the local healthwatch should be composed of someone from the local authority, someone from the voluntary sector and, of course, someone representing the patients, so that you weave into the local group some professional expertise in order to help with some of the strategic work.
I pass on apologies from my noble friend Lady Tyler, who was going to speak about children—she had her name down to Amendment 311ZA. Children need to be heard. When you talk about the views of children, you might have a mental picture of very little children, but in this context children go up to the age of 18. A lot of interesting services are currently available for teenage children, teenage individuals, young people or young citizens. It is critical that their views, needs and experiences are sought so that they can be fed into the mix.
I have probably said enough now about HealthWatch for the three groups so I shall sit down and not stand up again, but it is critical that we do this right in the Bill. I look forward to seeing what comes out on Report and to seeing where we need to move on to from there.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, my contribution in support of the amendments is simple and brief: it is to ask that the Minister ensures that we learn the lessons of history and do not repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to patient involvement. As we know, there is a huge evidence base about the benefits of patient involvement in health outcomes, and I am sure that the mantra of “No decision about me without me” is something that all noble Lords will accept.
While successive Governments have been committed to patient and public involvement, the history of it has not been a happy one. Some of us can go right back to 1974 when CHCs were first set up. Like my noble friend Lord Harris, I believe that this Government are committed to putting patients at the heart of the NHS, but let us look at why the previous attempts to do so have not been successful. In summary, I suggest that the reasons are these: the efforts have not been sufficiently well funded; they have not been seen as sufficiently independent and therefore have had conflicts of interest; they have not had enough status; and there has not been seen to be enough communication between national and local bits of the set-up.
I leave aside the current problems of the CQC, although I agree with noble Lords who have spoken about that, but the very idea of making the new body a sub-committee of anything seems to me to ensure that we are in fact going straight down the route where we have made so many mistakes before. I remind the Committee that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right that we have already had this debate much earlier in the progress of the Bill, when we discussed the relationship between the Care Quality Commission and HealthWatch England. The debate took place on 22 November and I spoke in cols. 977-79, and your Lordships will be very grateful to hear that I am not going to go through it again.
There are just one or two things that I want to say. The amendments that I tabled at that time were very similar to some of those that have been tabled today. However, I want to make it plain that I am not, in principle, in favour of making Healthwatch England totally independent. I think there are enormous advantages in having a very close relationship with the Care Quality Commission. As I have said, I am not going to go into the reasons why at this time.
The first amendment that I have tabled provides:
“The majority of the members of the Healthwatch England committee shall not be members of the Commission”.
I think that is very important, in order to give them opportunities to criticise the CQC. The second amendment provides:
“The provision that must be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1A) includes provision as to—
(a) the majority membership of Healthwatch England committee being elected from representatives of Local Healthwatch organisations, and
(b) the manner in which those representatives are elected, the term which they must serve and the role that they must fulfil”.
That has been very well argued again this afternoon.
Both the independence and the influence of Healthwatch England can be secured, providing that the right sequence of accountability is in place. I see this as follows: Healthwatch England must have a majority membership made of elected people from local healthwatches, and it must be accountable for the way it influences the CQC by local healthwatches across the country. The CQC must be accountable for the way in which it responds to HealthWatch England, and local healthwatches must be protected from interference and bias from local authorities. I will say more about that in the next group.
I want to take up the very good points about history made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The question of whether Healthwatch England should be a stand-alone organisation is actually answered in history. Fourteen years ago, the then Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales published Hungry in Hospital?. This highlighted the failure to feed elderly patients in hospital separately. Just a few weeks ago, exactly the same problem was highlighted in the dignity and nutrition programme report from the CQC. We know it is still a problem but have failed as a nation to sort it out. I wonder if ACHCEW had been part of the regulator, whether the CHCs could have ensured that the matter was addressed by the regulator and then monitored whether it was or not. Simply making an organisation stand-alone does not give it influence; indeed, it can distract it into supporting its own infrastructure, leaving less capacity for getting on with the job. Its functions, membership and accountability are what make it independent, and not, necessarily, its stand-alone status.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, my name is not under any of the amendments, but I want to say briefly how much I support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley.
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I think that, while Healthwatch will have some opportunity to look at the CQC, it will usually look at the negative side. However, I thought HealthWatch was going to be a body that might be able to influence future policy. Certainly, when I had the experience of sitting on a CHC board, it was able to contribute to the future policy of a new development. I feel we are looking very much at the negative, rather than the positive and the contribution that can be made by members of HealthWatch, possibly to future national policies.
Thinking back to the changes that took place in mental health and learning disabilities, I think that it would have been very valuable to have had the contribution of the HealthWatch group of people. We did not have it at that stage. Somehow we need to weave into this the positive side of policy-making and strategy that HealthWatch can often contribute in a very positive way. While HealthWatch will have a contribution to make in looking at the negative side—which usually means the critical side in relation to the CQC—I do not think that that should be its sole role. I hope the Government will take that away and perhaps feed it in.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in favour of these amendments, which would make HealthWatch England independent of the Care Quality Commission and strengthen its role so that it has the function of making recommendations, not just providing advice and information, to the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board, Monitor, the Care Quality Commission and local authorities.
I emphasise that we are strongly in favour of HealthWatch England having the powers that will make it the powerful consumer champion for the views and experiences of patients, their families and carers that we want to see. However, we firmly believe that this will not be achieved if it remains a sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission—an important issue that we will return to on Report, and which we believe is crucial to HealthWatch England’s success as a public watchdog and patients’ champion that is able to make a real difference. My noble friends Lord Warner and Lord Harris have set out the arguments for this very strongly. I will not go over them again. They were indeed thoroughly aired in the previous debate anyway.
The amendments in this group from my noble friends Lord Harris and Lord Rooker also seek to ensure that the Secretary of State consults local HealthWatch organisations before he or she gives a direction to HealthWatch England concerning its failure to discharge a significant function that it is required to undertake. We support this requirement. We also support the amendment requiring HealthWatch England’s annual report to be sent to all local healthwatch organisations.
On the issue of how the committee of HealthWatch England is to be constituted, although we are supportive of its members being elected from local HealthWatch organisations—as also proposed by my noble friends—we will want to consider this issue more fully in the light of whether the full independence of HealthWatch England from the Care Quality Commission is secured. We also want to consider how we can ensure that members of both HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations, are more fully reflective of their communities in terms of gender, disability and ethnicity. A great deal more thought and work needs to be undertaken on this issue, possibly as part of the pathfinder healthwatch transition pilots. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on how this could be taken forward.
I was going to comment on a number of other amendments but they have been thoroughly gone into by noble friends, so I will leave it at that.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, this has been another excellent debate. We have returned to the topic of HealthWatch, which we also discussed on 22 November. I listened very carefully to the views expressed in that debate. It seemed that there was a consensus, as there has been again today, about the need to have the patient voice very much at the heart of the NHS. There was agreement then, as I think there is today, that the Bill moves us forward in making sure that the patient voice is at the heart of the NHS. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his comments in this regard.
However, I fully recognise that there are significant concerns about the way in which the Government are taking forward these proposals. When we discussed this previously, I made a commitment to continue discussing these issues. We have had subsequent meetings, which some noble Lords have attended; I thank them for their input. I found those meetings extremely constructive. I also attended the meeting between the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the national association.
Our previous debate focused on the independence of HealthWatch England, which will be a statutory committee of the CQC. I understand that this risks, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, dangerously compromising the independence that I talked about as being so important. Let me be clear why we are proposing this arrangement. There is a reason why, at present, there is no national statutory organisation to champion the patient voice. The last body, to which noble Lords made reference—the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health—was abolished for being ineffective and lacking influence as well as being too expensive and too centralising. To quote from the Health Select Committee’s 2007 report into Patient and Public Involvement in the NHS:
“The evidence we received was overwhelmingly critical of the Commission”.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that the Government should set up an authoritative, stand-alone body, and others have made similar points. This is, however, precisely the point. While I respect the view of the noble Lord, the Government have not been convinced that it would be possible to have such an authoritative stand-alone body in the form that they suggest. The previous Government’s attempt to do this with the commission did not work out well, as noble Lords know. The abolition of the commission was announced five months after it started work. It limped on for a further three years, chewing up £100 million and was universally criticised.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Bandying around figures—“it chewed up £100 million”—gives a completely misleading impression. Could she tell us what proportion of that £100 million was the administrative cost of the commission, as opposed to the provision of patient and public involvement forums in every part of the country? The figure of £100 million is totally misleading.
Baroness Northover
I suggest that the noble Lord talks to his noble friend Lady Pitkeathley about some of the details.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I suggest that if you use a figure like £100 million, which was not the figure used by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, you need to explain that that includes the running of the public and patient involvement forums. It is not the cost of the administration of the national body itself.
Baroness Northover
The organisation used up £100 million. There were criticisms from the local organisations that they were not getting the money they needed, so there was widespread criticism. There was criticism at a national level within the NHS and, in particular and importantly, the local organisations did not feel that it was acting in the way they needed it to, or feeding through to them the resources they needed to do what they felt was appropriate.
Lord Harris of Haringey
One of the failings of the commission was that it did not have a relationship with local public and patient involvement. The purpose of the amendment which talks about direct election would be to obviate that problem and provide a constraint in terms of whether or not there were going to be overly centralised administrative costs, because the body itself would be accountable to the local bodies that would be the recipient of most of them. My concern and my frank irritation with the commission—which I had no part in at the time—was the suggestion that all the £100 million was somehow used by the central administration. That was not the case.
One of the failings of the commission was that it was not accountable and did not have a proper direct relationship with local public and patient involvement. That was a fault both of the way it was constructed in terms of the legislation, for which the Labour Government of the time must take responsibility, and of the way in which the commission chose to work, with the support of the Department of Health at that stage.
Baroness Northover
What the noble Lord has said bears out the point. This was a nationally established commission which we all agree did not work. We therefore need to learn from that costly experience to try to move on and to work out a way in which you can have local healthwatch organisations as the local eyes and ears, feeding through to HealthWatch England, a national organisation. We are at the moment looking at how that national organisation should be sited. Everyone has said that the relationship between the national organisation and local organisations did not work previously. We are seeking here to make that relationship work much better. I can see another noble Lord is about to hop up.
Lord Warner
The Minister will be pleased that it will be the noble Lord who pulls his punches, as my noble friend said earlier. I wish to pursue this issue of how much money the Government think they need to spend on funding HealthWatch England. This is the real issue: say, for example, it has £10 million—I do not know what figure is being considered, but there will be a sum of money. It seems to be agreed that there ought to be some kind of national body. I do not altogether understand the Minister’s argument that we got it wrong in the past, because we fully accept that we got it wrong. However, it does not follow from that there should not be a national public body called HealthWatch England. The Government seem to accept that. The argument is over whether you should place that body in the Care Quality Commission. I can see that one might argue that costs could be reduced by doing that, but we first need to know what the Government are prepared to spend on this body, and then we can discuss the best way of spending that money in terms of independence.
Baroness Northover
Perhaps I may come on to the points that I was going to make regarding why we are making our proposals in light of the experience of the national organisation that did not work brilliantly. They address some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, raised and are implicit in the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Harris, and others about the independence and status of the new organisation.
I cited what happened with the previous national organisation, and the point about where we are placing HealthWatch England is that it is an attempt to ensure that it is in a strong position to influence the regulator, the CQC, rather than sitting off to one side and not necessarily being listened to. A lot of concern has been expressed about how that relationship would work, but I point noble Lords towards the other side of the issue. If HealthWatch England is sitting there alongside the CQC, with local healthwatch feeding into HealthWatch England, what better way to make sure that you flag up to the regulator concerns from local areas. Noble Lords should try to look at the issue from that point of view, as opposed to seeing the CQC as somehow silencing HealthWatch England. It is vital that the views of patients and other service users are taken on board by the CQC and that it does not close its ears and eyes to what is happening.
Lord Warner
I am still struggling. I am sorry to keep interrupting the noble Baroness, but let me give her an example. Could HealthWatch England, as a sub-committee of the CQC, run a national campaign against what is being done by that regulator on an issue such as feeding elderly people in hospital?
Baroness Northover
HealthWatch England has a statutory obligation to represent the position of patients and, if it is concerned about the feeding of patients, yes, it indeed has the right to set its agenda, to campaign on that and to argue that this must be checked on and brought up to a much better standard. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said, we have throughout the NHS and through its recent and long-term history, problems and challenges in meeting basic standards of care and attention. All of us know that, whatever party we come from. The previous Government did not get this right; we are seeking to move forward, and we need to ensure that we consider these questions fundamentally and address why these problems continue to arise. They have been intractable; we will continue to address them; I welcome noble Lords’ contributions on that.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The noble Baroness made a very important point just now. She said explicitly that HealthWatch England could and should be a campaigning organisation, although it would be a sub-committee of the CQC. This is irrespective of the debate about where it is located. I think that the principle of creating a national patient organisation as a campaigning organisation on behalf of patients is extremely important. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for making that commitment on behalf of the Government.
Baroness Northover
HealthWatch England will represent the voice of the patients. It will publish on that; it will advise on that; to take up a point raised under one of the earlier amendments, it will no doubt make recommendations within the areas of its advice. It has the obligation to make those recommendations to various organisations within the NHS. Various organisations, including the CQC, have the responsibility to respond to that. All those obligations will flag up problems, so I do not see that I have made a startling admission. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would know that transparency—publishing information—was the best way forward.
However, I agree with many noble Lords that this has been rather a patchy area. We have to try to give greater strength to these organisations both locally and nationally. Much of that is not based on their structures, because all sorts of structures have been tried, but we are trying to take them further forward.
Lord Warner
I just want to pursue the issue of the campaign, because it is very important. Currently, there has been a very effective campaign about literacy run by the Evening Standard. That has attracted lots of voluntary money to run it and led to some interesting changes and the Government supporting it. To be absolutely clear, I ask: are we saying that a sub-committee of the regulator—the Care Quality Commission—could run a campaign on the feeding of elderly people in the National Health Service in association with a national newspaper and criticise the Government strongly, implicitly, about the way that they are running the NHS in that area? If the Minister, on behalf of the Government, is saying that yes, it can, I start to get more convinced about the Government's commitment to independence of the sub-committee of the CQC.
Baroness Northover
As I said, HealthWatch England will need to look at what works well and what works not so well right across the country, gathering the information from local healthwatch. It will flag up things which, no doubt, will be uncomfortable at all levels of the NHS and the Government. Noble Lords would not expect change to be driven in any other way. If things are unsatisfactory locally, as fed by local healthwatch to HealthWatch England, if it is doing its job it will obviously flag up areas where change is required.
Lord Warner
I am not talking about flagging up; I am talking about a campaign. A campaign means that you take action, using the media, to put serious pressure on the Government in relation to their record in running the NHS for elderly people. I am not saying that that should happen; I am trying to understand what power this body would have as a sub-committee of the regulator, which is the point that we are discussing.
Baroness Cumberlege
Does the noble Lord, Lord Warner, agree that much depends on the membership of this body and whether it is independent? I am not sure why people call it a sub-committee. In the Bill it is called a committee. I have chaired the top board in organisations and I know that you get very close to some of those committees—you listen to them. If an organisation is totally independent and it goes left field, making a whole lot of noise, you just dismiss it and say, “Oh, they’re always making problems”. The opportunities are far greater if part and parcel of what it does is informing you of what is going on. I honestly think that you will listen much more carefully to people whom you meet in the corridor, in the chambers or wherever the debates are going on.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. The Care Quality Commission does not always say that everything is dreadful. The Healthcare Commission used to say, “This bit’s good; this bit needs addressing”. I can see that this committee—not sub-committee—of the Care Quality Commission will serve a very useful purpose. It could put enormous pressure on the Care Quality Commission really to understand what is going on and it would not just be an irritant that is offside.
Baroness Northover
I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for that and I agree with her very much. We all wish, and have all sought, to drive up quality in the NHS. That is so often difficult to achieve but this is one of the means by which we hope to make that happen. No doubt some people will be made to feel uncomfortable by what the committee reports and says, and I hope that that will be the case.
Baroness Pitkeathley
Perhaps the noble Baroness can take that a little further. For example, could HealthWatch, in the position envisaged for it by the Government as a committee of the CQC, join with a national campaigning charity—I am thinking of something such as National Voices—to put pressure on the CQC itself about how it was reporting patient outcomes?
Baroness Northover
I am sure that it could. If it felt that it was not managing to persuade the CQC or some other part of the NHS to do what it considered to be in the best interests of patients, then I am sure it would go to greater lengths to ensure that it got its message across. It is very important that we have a louder patient voice within the NHS, and this is one means of seeking to achieve that.
I return to some of the amendments that noble Lords have flagged up. This is a very important debate. I think we agree on where we wish to head and what we are seeking to achieve, but I hear noble Lords’ concerns about whether this is the right way of going about it. Noble Lords talk about an independent organisation and so on but that route was tried. This is another route for trying to make sure that there is a body close to an organisation which itself must have a major role in driving up quality. The synergies there are very important.
The question was raised of how local healthwatch is going to influence HealthWatch England. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about elections to HealthWatch England from local healthwatch. Clearly, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said, a great deal will depend on who is on these organisations nationally and locally, and it will be necessary to ensure that they are as strong as possible. The Secretary of State will determine how the membership is comprised through regulations and we will be discussing with a wide range of stakeholders the contents of those regulations. I can confirm that we will discuss the suggestions put forward by noble Lords. We had from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, an emphasis on election and a concern about that route from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. Both noble Lords might wish to feed in to how those regulations are taken forward so that we can best comprise HealthWatch England and local healthwatch.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Can the Minister indicate the timetable for consultation on the content of those regulations? Those of us who wish to see an election process in the Bill will need to know sooner rather than later whether that is the way in which the Government’s thinking is going. When is that consultation going to take place and when is it likely to conclude?
Baroness Northover
In the meeting that I was in yesterday with NALM this was an issue. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is probably aware of that. No? That was one of the issues—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to it—that did come up. The consultation will be early next year. Given that we are almost in next year, that is pretty soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, wanted to make sure that HealthWatch England’s annual report was shared with local healthwatch. While we do not feel that that is a matter for the Bill, the annual report must be published. It is important that that information is made widely available. I am sure that the noble Lord’s suggestion will be noted by HealthWatch England and local healthwatch as the information between the two must go back and forth, in both directions.
Lord Harris of Haringey
The Bill does not refer just to the annual report. It refers to all reports.
Baroness Northover
It is clearly important that the information goes back and forth between the local and national organisations.
If HealthWatch England were significantly failing in its duties, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene. An amendment addressed whether the Secretary of State should consult local healthwatch. This was on the assumption that HealthWatch England was in effect failing local healthwatch. While the Secretary of State should not be bound into a rigid consultation—something else entirely could be in question here—we would fully expect him to seek the views of others where appropriate in coming to a decision to intervene. I hope that that will reassure noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Jolly talked about local healthwatch needing to look widely at all groups of patients, including those with rare diseases and so on. She is right. We will be coming on to other amendments where we look at this a bit more. LINks and its predecessors recognise that they have not had as wide a coverage as they would like or been as representative of their communities as they would need to be. This concerns us. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred to it briefly in relation to whether local healthwatch should elect to HealthWatch England. We are seeking to learn from this. We want to try to make sure that local healthwatch has as broad a spread as possible. It is worth bearing in mind that it has a place on the board of the health and well-being boards and so there will be information feeding back to local healthwatch from the others on the health and well-being boards and from local healthwatch into the health and well-being boards. We will come on to local healthwatch in relation to local authorities, but there is synergy there too.
While I feel that the Bill provides safeguards for the independence of HealthWatch England within CQC, I would like to repeat my commitment that we are prepared to listen to further views. It is very clear that we are all trying to head in the same direction. There is a variety of views about how best to do this. We would welcome noble Lords’ continued input as we take this further forward. In the mean time, I thank noble Lords for flagging up these issues. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner
My Lords, this has been an interesting and spirited debate. I will certainly reflect on the Minister’s willingness to consider some of these issues further. My noble friend Lord Harris and I will certainly be considering this further and I would not rule out the possibility that we might come back to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 311 and 320. This group of amendments seeks to ensure that the voice of the child is heard in health matters. Too often in Bills that do not relate specifically to children and young people, they are marginalised, yet, as has been said before in debates, child health is a vital aspect of healthcare and children are patients, just like adults. They have opinions just like adults and, in my experience, consulting children about what works for them always results in improved services and policies.
These amendments seek to ensure that HealthWatch England’s functions are clear and explicit in relation to children as well as to others and that its functions in providing advice to the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and monitoring authorities on the views of patients and members of the public refer to the views of children, who are patients and members of the public.
Local healthwatch functions must also promote and support patient and public involvement in the commissioning, provision and scrutiny of local care services and must obtain the views of patients and the public about people’s needs for and experience of local care services. I submit that those functions must be carried out to include children. HealthWatch England must provide support and assistance to local HealthWatch organisations in relation to this.
Furthermore, as noble Lords may know, Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes clear that children have a right to be heard on issues that affect them. Measures to promote patient and public involvement in decisions about their own care and in the development of health services and care services must include children from the start. I believe that this will make for better health services.
The Bill does not make this clear enough. Research commissioned by the NCB has found that local involvement networks or LINks, which the Bill will transform into local healthwatch, are not always clear that children and young people are part of their remit. Local healthwatch and HealthWatch England will need to be able to identify capacity and maintain the skills to reach out to and engage children, including the most vulnerable children and their families.
A recent review of law, policy and practice in relation to children’s participation in the NHS and other public services and settings found that, in their efforts to support user involvement, the health authorities and NHS trusts had not specifically identified children as service users. The review also found that although 41 per cent of GP practices reported to have a patient participation group there was no evidence of children’s active engagement in these forums. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has argued that reforms have been lacking in providing the structures and frameworks where children and young people are properly represented. And concerns about children’s involvement in patient and public voice mechanisms were also reflected in the report of the NHS Future Forum. In 2009-10 Professor Sir Ian Kennedy carried out a review of how the NHS delivers to children and recommended a local partnership in each local authority that would co-ordinate public services in the best interests of children. His ambition was that,
“the welfare and well-being of children and young people, seen as so important by so many, will be the prevailing cultural approach”.
My amendments here try to make clear that children are within the remit of local HealthWatch and HealthWatch England and that children’s and young people’s views should be heard. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I support these very important amendments. One only has to remember the tragedy of Baby P and all those vulnerable children who sometimes fall between the police, the social services and the health departments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I put my name to these amendments, which are incredibly important. I hope that the Government’s response will be that they are listening and prepared to change this. It is worth noting that the Government’s response to Professor Sir Ian Kennedy’s report said:
“In the past, the NHS was not always set up to put the needs of patients and the public first. Too often patients were expected to fit around services rather than services around patients. Nowhere was this more the case than for children, young people and their families … If we are to meet the needs of children, young people, families and carers, it is vital that we listen to them in designing services, gather information on their experiences and priorities, provide them with the accessible information that they need to make choices about their care, and involve them in decision making”.
That is the Government’s own response to the report.
I also draw attention to the report from the ombudsman in Wales. I know we are going to debate ombudsmen later but I will make this one point. The ombudsman upheld a complaint that Health Inspection Wales,
“failed to seek the child’s perspective on her care”.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is very concerned that “no decision about me without me” must extend to children and should involve both children and young people. Without that we will have poorer service planning and, as a result of that, poorer health outcomes. A voice for children and young people needs to be incorporated in the decision-making process of the NHS Commissioning Board, health and well-being boards and clinical commissioning groups, and a safe conduit for this involvement may be HealthWatch and local healthwatch.
I want to briefly draw the House’s attention to the fact that we have many young carers so it is not only children as patients that we need to consider. In the 2001 census it was found that there were 175,000 young carers and no one is disputing that those numbers have gone up significantly since then. A third of those are caring for somebody with mental health problems and the average age of young carers is 12 years old. Reading their comments, society clearly does not understand the pressures that they are under. There is evidence that when they get to school late, the school does not understand. When they try to accompany their parent to out-patient or even in-patient appointments, they are not listened to even though they have been providing all the care. The facilities where their relative is looked after are not appropriate for them to stay overnight. I remind the Committee that when a young parent is dying, the children will want to stay at the bedside. They may want to sleep in the same room. They do not want to be taken away. They may want to have a break; they may want to go out; they may want to watch a video. If we are really going to invest in quality of care and health outcomes for the next generation, and meet the Marmot review’s requirement for health inequalities not to be widened but narrowed, we must address the needs of this group in our population who provide a lot of care, who are incredibly important and who will be the citizens of the future, but to whom the system does not currently give a voice. To expect adults to be a voice for them is completely unrealistic, because, when they are a young carer, there is no other adult there apart from the person whom they are caring for.
I hope that these amendments will not be dismissed with a whole lot of reasons as to why they cannot be put into practice. If we are really committed to changing healthcare services for the population, we should listen to the voice of children and young people.
Baroness Thornton
My noble friend Lady Massey is, as usual, correct about these matters. I am always happy to take my lead from her. All my experience of working with NCH and lots of children’s organisations over the years, and, more recently, of talking to YoungMinds, leads me to think that this is a matter that the Government need to take into consideration.
Lord Warner
My Lords, my name, too, is on the amendments. I support what my noble friend Lady Massey and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have said. I want to refer to adolescent health services. We know that primary care services are not often very user-friendly in relation to adolescent health needs. I have come across GPs who have had special sessions and even private doors so that adolescents can come into their surgeries without being spotted by nosy neighbours. There are some real issues of privacy with young people in the adolescent years. They do not always find these services easy to use, when they often have considerable health needs and sometimes quite serious mental health needs. In my time as chair of the Youth Justice Board some time ago, we were starting to find that for many young offenders the origin of their offending was when someone significant in their family had died. It was the absence of any bereavement services that caused them to go off the rails. It is more than just symbolism to put these extra words in the Bill; it is a very important signal to the NHS that Parliament recognises the need to pay attention to the needs of children, to listen to them and to meet a set of needs which are often not being met.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for flagging up this issue and for the work that she has long done in this area, which I saw particularly clearly when she and I were both trustees of UNICEF. Our aim is that HealthWatch England and local healthwatch organisations should be there to understand the views and needs, locally and nationally, of patients and other service users and members of the wider public—everyone.
I reassure noble Lords that, at both national and local level, this clearly includes children and young people. I realise that the concern expressed by noble Lords arises from deficiencies in how things have operated in the past. The Future Forum flagged up the need to ensure that, for example, local healthwatch should be more representative of communities than had been the case previously, which why is my honourable friend Paul Burstow in the other place introduced an amendment to the effect that local healthwatch should represent the breadth of views and diverse characteristics within a community, whether it be carers, young people or otherwise.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
If we come back later with an amendment which specifies people of all ages—I accept what she said about the elderly also not having an adequate voice at times to meet their needs—will the noble Baroness consider it? This is one occasion when the legislation can give a lead and set a moral code. I also seek an assurance that there will be specific mention of children in the official guidance that goes with the Bill so that they are incorporated at every stage and do not remain left out, as they have been until now.
Baroness Northover
I hear what the noble Baroness says. It is interesting that she said “people of all ages”. The purpose of healthwatch and the NHS is to help and try to assist people of all ages, whether they are patients, their families and so on. We need to make it more person-centred—we all agree that that is what we are seeking to do—and I hear what she says in regard to the regulations.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her words. I have some concerns, to which I shall come in a minute. I am glad that so many noble Lords contributed. I am particularly glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned young carers and that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, talked about adolescent health, so long an area which has been very much neglected in relation to health services.
I would also like to thank the Minister for meeting a group of noble Lords to discuss the issue of children’s interests in this Bill. I hope that the Government have got the message about the need to involve children in decisions about their care and treatment. Many have considerable health needs, although the young population is generally considered the healthiest. They have health and care needs, including mental health needs, disability and so on. I worry that when children get lumped in with expressions such as “the community” or “the family”, their needs are ignored. Children have very little redress on this. If we do not make it explicit that we should consult children, they often do not have the ability or contacts to come back at that and make a protest. We have to do that for them, and children must be included in and consulted on all Bills that affect them.
I would like the words “children” and “young people” and consultation with them to be made very explicit in this Bill. I have amendments later, although I cannot remember their numbers, which will also reintroduce the notion of children into this Bill. In the meanwhile, I will withdraw the amendment, but I may well wish to return to the matter on Report with other noble Lords and look at it again.
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 317AA and shall also speak to Amendment 317AB, 336B and 336C and 318BA to 318BC, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
The Bill contains a number of provisions which relate to the handling of information by various bodies. Amendments 317AA and 317AB relate to HealthWatch England and Amendments 336B and 336C relate to health and well-being boards. Amendments 317AA and 317AB come in Clause 178 and seek to strengthen the safeguards against HealthWatch England publishing information which relates to the private affairs of an individual.
The Bill already contains some safeguards, but I do not believe that they are adequate. Clause 178(4) states that,
“any matter which relates to the private affairs of an individual”
and,
“would or might seriously and prejudicially affect that individual’s interests”,
should be excluded from the reports that HealthWatch England is empowered to produce. But it states that information should be excluded only when it “seriously” prejudices an individual’s interests, not if it prejudices their interests less than seriously—and who decides what is serious and what is prejudicial—and that it should be excluded only “so far as practicable”. It is not clear to me why information that relates to the private affairs of an individual should be published at all. It seems to me that the prohibition should be absolute and that, in Clause 178, proposed new Section 45B(4) should simply read:
“Before publishing a report under subsection (1)(b) or (3), the committee must exclude any matter which relates to the private affairs of an individual”.
That is what Amendments 317AA and 317AB would bring about. Paradoxically, this is a case where no safeguards would be better than the inadequate ones we have in the Bill.
Similarly, health and well-being boards are given wide powers under Clause 196 to request information—powers that are clearly wider than they need to be. As the Bill stands, a health and well-being board can ask a local healthwatch organisation for details of people who have complained or raised concerns about a service and, as the Bill stands, a healthwatch organisation would be obliged to disclose that information. Amendments 336B and 336C would stipulate that no information be requested which would require the disclosure of personal information within the meaning of the Data Protection Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will speak in more detail to Amendments 318BA, 318BB and 318BC, which come in Clause 179, but I would like to indicate my support for these amendments. I am aware of concerns that have been raised about the independence of local healthwatch organisations arising from the fact that they will be both funded by and accountable to the local authority. It is explained in paragraph D35 of the integrated impact assessment that this is based on the importance of localism. Paragraph D106 of the integrated impact assessment states:
“There is a risk that tying local HealthWatch into local authorities could reduce their independence and effectiveness”.
So it seems that the imperatives of localism trumped those of independence and effectiveness.
The integrated impact assessment goes on to recognise that the duty on local authorities to fund local healthwatch arrangements may be perceived as giving rise to a conflict of interest for local authorities, given the role of local healthwatch organisations in relation to scrutiny. It is stated that work is under way to map out the concept of independence for local healthwatch organisations, and to use this to promote the arrangements as accountable to local government for performance and to local citizens for the issues raised with commissioners and providers, but we do not know the outcome of this work as yet. The Bill does not provide any detail on the membership of local healthwatch organisations. It is left to regulations to specify who makes appointments to these bodies, and how. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could give some indication of how this separation of accountabilities, which is evidently envisaged, is to be realised and institutionalised.
In any case, however, the fact that the local authority holds the purse strings remains a risk to the independence of local healthwatch. There is therefore a strong case for local healthwatch organisations not to be funded by the local authority. The argument that the importance of localism requires accountability is not as strong as the need to have effective, independent local services. These amendments would make local healthwatch organisations responsible for their own activities and accountable only to HealthWatch England, rather than the local authority, but I fear the risk from local authority control of the purse strings would still remain.
Lord Rix
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 324, tabled in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Tenby and Lord Wigley, in this rather Christmas stocking grouping of amendments. This regards the provision of independent advocacy services for people who are in the process of making a complaint against the NHS. This amendment is particularly relevant to the needs of disabled people, including those with a learning disability, and I would like to take this opportunity to declare an interest as president of the Royal Mencap Society.
For those who are unfortunate enough to encounter it, the NHS complaints system is deeply flawed and ineffective. It is complex in its make-up and lengthy during the course of its deliberations. I welcome the Government’s proposal for local authorities to make appropriate provision to support people in the complaints process, through the use of advocacy services. Effective and high-quality advocacy services are of course an essential prerequisite for many families to secure the answers they want and the justice which they really require.
Without this amendment, there is a risk that advocacy support could be started and then abruptly halted some time before any conclusion to the ongoing complaint which has been made. As I have already mentioned, the NHS complaints system is a lengthy and complex process and the level and scope of advocacy support made available by local authorities should reflect this.
I am also aware that in some cases advocacy support services have been denied to families, as the level of support deemed necessary has been regarded as too onerous and burdensome on the provider. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, where people are denied the help they need on the basis that they may need too much help. At a time when families could be dealing with the emotional upheaval and distress of coping with the loss of a loved one, any uncertainty about the level and period of advocacy available to them is, to put it somewhat generously, an unhelpful distraction. This is why I believe it necessary to ensure that advocacy support during the NHS complaints system is not restricted in length and type for those families who need it. This amendment would help to provide such a guarantee.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, ought to speak next, because I suspect that his amendments relate to what the noble Lord, Lord Low, was saying, and it may be that the synergy would be better that way.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much. In this case, logic trumps chivalry.
I have four amendments in this group, all of which relate to the independence of the local healthwatch—some of them in some slightly indirect ways. We spent some time at an earlier stage, and again today, talking about the independence of Healthwatch England from the regulator. I did not intervene today, but it is evident that the Government are not persuaded that we need to unravel them. I am afraid we are going to have to return to that at a later stage, because I am certainly not convinced by the Government’s arguments. However, I think that even the Government must recognise that a body representing patients, users and consumers of health and social care services has to be independent from the provider.
The problem with some of these clauses is that the local healthwatch organisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, has said, is not clearly independent from the local authority in all respects. We are not yet clear how independent of the local authority it will be in its membership and how that membership is appointed. Schedule 15, which comes in with Clause 179, is pretty general as to who the members would be. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, we have to await regulations before we see that. Meanwhile, there are other reasons why one is a bit suspicious that the local healthwatch organisations would come too much under the sway of the local authority, which is going to be the provider of many of the services to which they relate.
There may be other ways of doing this, but these amendments are attempting to make clear the independence of the local healthwatch body by establishing that it sets its own priorities and manner of operating, subject only to any guidance given by Healthwatch England; that is, it would not be subject to any guidance, restriction or direction from the local authority. There are then a number of clauses which are pretty complicated in themselves, but appear to treat the local healthwatch as if it were an excrescence of the local authority.
For example, I want to delete the bulk, or the purport, of Clause 181, which appears to treat local healthwatch organisations as if they came through the local authority rather than being independent bodies. Some of the requirements may well apply to healthwatch locally, but they should not be implemented and enforced via the local authority in any sense. The noble Lord, Lord Low, has already referred to some of the problems about freedom of information, but some of the other provisions could well raise difficulties if the local authority was the one ensuring that the local healthwatch met those provisions.
Independence of consumer organisations across the economy is important, and I will return to that on Report. Local bodies, in particular, need to be independent. They are the bodies to which individual patients and users will relate, and if they believe that the local healthwatch is in any way associated with, dominated by, or accountable to the actual providers of the bodies that provide the services, its credibility will be diminished. I would therefore hope that the Government took note of these concerns and made it more explicit in the final version of this Bill that local healthwatch organisations were independent of the local authority and made their own decisions, with their own priorities and manner of operation. I do not think that we can leave all that to regulation; it has to be more explicit in the Bill. This is one way of doing it, although the Government may well come up with better ways of doing it, but I think that we need to ensure that we reach that stage before we finish with this Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this grouping concerning local healthwatch. As has already been said this afternoon, local healthwatch is the source of intelligence from the people who are actually using the services. This intelligence is gathered through their enter and view monitoring visits to both health and social care services—we should not forget that it is social care as well—and through their local involvement work.
However, neither commissioners nor overview and scrutiny committees have the same binding arrangements to enter and view health and social care facilities. Local healthwatch has the opportunity to interview people at the time they are actually using the service. The local healthwatch has the independent messenger status with local people that neither commissioners nor overview and scrutiny committees have. Local healthwatch has the right to enter and view, to talk and listen, to the most vulnerable of all people, those with dementia or other mental illness, those lying on trolleys in A&E, or on mental health in-patient wards. “No decision about me without me” can be tried and tested when most fresh in the minds of patients and users. It is only here that the reality of the services that results from the theory of commissioning is to be found. To fail to take due account of this perspective in commissioning services is commissioning wearing a blindfold. The purpose of Amendment 318E is to ensure that commissioning is evidence based.
New Sections 14Z and 14Z11(2) require clinical commissioning groups to involve and consult on their commissioning plans. We know that this is a somewhat bureaucratic exercise, and it is often simply for the cognoscenti. Although these clauses are to be welcomed, they do not go far enough—hence the insertion of my new clause. Frail elderly patients lying in hospital wards who are not being fed will not be responding to consultations any more than will patients who have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The local healthwatch must talk to those patients and its findings must be an indispensable component of the evidence on which commissioning is based.
New subsection (3A), inserted by Clause 180(6), also requires commissioners and others to have regard to reports and recommendations from local healthwatch. This replicates the current arrangements for reports and recommendations from LINks, which has failed to bring the patient experience into the heart of commissioning. Compared to the status given to the views of health and well-being boards on commissioning plans—the strategic beginnings of commissioning—this is weak. What is needed is equal attention to the evidence on the outcomes of that commissioning, which local healthwatch is uniquely well placed to provide.
My new clause requires local healthwatch to hold the clinical commissioning group to account for incorporating the evidence that the local healthwatch has produced at the very start of the commissioning period. It should then heavily influence the commissioning plan for that period in taking the reality and applying it to commissioning theory. Binding the patient experience into commissioning is a much more specific requirement than merely “having regard to” local healthwatch reports and recommendations. The conjoint benefit of this new clause is that it increases the accountability of local healthwatch for producing robust evidence of the patients’ experience. Providers must also satisfy the local healthwatch if they are to secure further contracts.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, I think that my noble friend said that providers must satisfy the local healthwatch before they can proceed with their commissioning. Is this another barrier to the commissioning process, or does she anticipate a collaborative conversation? I am not clear on whether this is another hurdle in the commissioning process or a lesser effect. It would be helpful, at least to me, if she would expand a little on that thought.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, there is no intention that this should be a further hurdle, but if commissioners are going to commission services that are really relevant to local people then they need to take account of what the local healthwatch is saying. This is a huge resource that could improve services enormously and make contracts much more relevant than some of them have been in the past. I hope that that answers my noble friend.
I shall take three quick examples to illustrate my point. The first is a patient in an older persons ward who leant forward confidentially to the CHC visitor, saying, “They don’t feed them in here, you know. They just put the food at the end of the bed, then they take it away again. Please don’t tell them it was me who told you”. The second one is the mental health in-patient in a unit with an outside garden, who explained that he could not go out even though the summer was really hot. There were not enough staff to accompany the patients outside so he “had to stay in all the time”—his words. What quality of life is that? The third is from another patient in an older persons ward who expressed concern about a patient whose hearing aid battery was flat: “They could just have gone to the audiology department to get another battery, but they wouldn’t”. The staff just spoke more loudly to the profoundly deaf patient, increasing his distress and isolation.
To some people these examples may seem quite trivial, but to the people concerned they are not—they are very important. I took those three examples because the first is over 10 years old, yet we know from the CQC’s recent dignity and nutrition inspection programme, and from the evidence from Mid Staffordshire, that patients are still not always adequately fed in hospital. That makes the point of the amendment perhaps more powerfully than anything else. What we are doing now is not working; it is not effective, and does not bring about the radical changes that are necessary. We have to do things differently, and the suggested new clause gives us the opportunity to do just that. I feel strongly about this issue and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration. Otherwise, I may have to bring it back at Report.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I will speak to the seven amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 319, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326 and 327. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, described this group as something of a Christmas stocking; I have to say that even my seven amendments do not have a common theme. They are on a variety of topics, ranging from some that simply correct what I assume are drafting errors in the Bill to others that raise rather more fundamental issues along the lines of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
Amendment 327 deals with what is, I think, a drafting error. Unless I have misinterpreted the interlaying Acts that are being subsequently amended, the Bill leaves a reference to primary care trusts in the base Act. Presumably the assumption is that the commissioning groups will take on those functions and should be expected to respond to the local issues raised by local healthwatch organisations. I am sure that is simply a drafting arrangement.
Amendment 323 would slightly tighten the wording on how independent advocacy is organised and says that the provision should be appropriate to the needs of those for whom that provision is being made available. I am sure that the Government will have no problem with that. It makes sure that advocacy arrangements recognise the very different nature of the problems and the client groups who will raise them.
Amendment 321 puts into the Bill a requirement that arrangements be made to enable members of local healthwatch organisations to have indemnity cover against the risk that a claim may arise from their duties. I am doing the Government a favour by highlighting this at this stage. I certainly recall, from the time of my involvement in community health councils, and in another sector prior to that—the work of electricity consultative groups for a completely different government department—that the same issue arose. I refer to the indemnity or protection that is there for people who are carrying out public duties if they are involved in an accident and a claim is made against them for it. What we will have—I am sure it will be in the Minister’s brief—is some vague statement about Treasury indemnity.
The problem for individuals in this position is that it is not clear what such indemnity will cover and how they will be able to access it if, for example, they are involved in an accident or an incident during their work as a member of a local healthwatch organisation. I would advise—I am trying, as ever, to be helpful to the Government—that this should be sorted out now rather than waiting to get into a tangle about it. I remember spending many happy years, when I was Director of the Association of Community Health Councils, trying to get a definition that would satisfy local CHC members that they were protected. Otherwise, the answer goes back that you should claim on your own insurance policies; yet those insurance policies often exclude people who are carrying out work—even voluntary work—or similar duties. Acting on behalf of a local healthwatch organisation will almost certainly be excluded by the individual members’ insurance policies. My experience on CHCs and in other organisations is that this is a constant pressure and a constant concern. There should be something explicit in the Bill to provide a degree of reassurance to people who are undertaking these activities on behalf of their communities.
Amendment 319 relates to the membership of local healthwatch organisations and is put forward today as a probing amendment. I hope the noble Baroness will give us details of how it is envisaged that local healthwatch members will emerge in that role. The question of how legitimate local healthwatch organisations will be—how representative they will be—depends critically on the precise arrangements by which people end up as members of the organisations. The previous Government’s proposals in respect of LINks, which I never fully understood, left it in a state of limbo and people were, essentially, self-appointed as members of LINks. There must be a degree of transparency and clarity in the process by which people end up as members of local healthwatch organisations. The proposal here is that there should be some system of election. Often, although this was not exclusively the case, the most effective members of local community health councils were those who were elected by local voluntary organisations in the areas concerned. They were often the people with the most detailed, personal knowledge of the services they were monitoring. They often had a constituency they could draw back into for information and support for the work they were doing. Above all, they had the added legitimacy of having been chosen for that role by other local voluntary organisations.
I am not suggesting that as a model that should necessarily be adopted. What I am saying is that the clarity it gave those individuals was very helpful. Other members were appointed directly by the local councils for the area. Again, that gave clarity about who they were representing and what their legitimacy was. Some were appointed by regional health authorities, though this changed every time the health service was reorganised, which was every two or three years. That is something that does not change, even now, and I am sure we will be back here in two or three years unpicking whatever finally emerges from the sausage machine of legislation that we are processing now.
It is going to be critical to have a clear process by which local healthwatch organisation members are appointed. It is also important that they have legitimacy. Otherwise the organisations to which they relate will say, “You are not representative. You are self-selecting” or “You do not represent the communities you purport to represent”. Clarity about the appointments process is important. Some system of election would be valuable, but it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell us today exactly what is envisaged. We certainly need to know that before we proceed further with the Bill.
The orange in the Christmas stocking is the relationship between the local authorities and local healthwatch organisations. I have tabled Amendment 322, which refers to local healthwatch organisations not being subservient to the body that is responsible for their establishment. That goes to the core of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about the extent to which local healthwatch organisations can be effectively under the control of local authorities.
I know that we will be assured that local healthwatch organisations will be independent and have all this additional legitimacy because they will know that local authorities have provided them with support, and that that is why the proposed structure is being adopted. However, that model will not necessarily work. I speak as someone who was leader of a local authority for 12 years and I know how decisions are made. In particular, I know how decisions are made at times of financial stringency. Unless the resources for these local organisations are guaranteed in some way, they will be vulnerable—not necessarily because they are saying unhelpful things but simply because the local healthwatch organisation will not be seen as a core activity of the local authority at a time of stringent finances and resources. That is why this issue needs to be addressed head on.
There is a problem of potential conflict of interest. Local authorities are responsible for providing certain types of social care. They are responsible for commissioning and providing that care. They will have a responsibility with others through the local health and well-being boards. There is a danger that local healthwatch organisations will be seen as being conflicted because they are subordinate to the local authorities in their area.
There are two simple ways for the Government to solve this problem, both of which I know they are not currently minded to consider. One model is a separate structure that provides the funding and resourcing for local healthwatch organisations; and that would flow back to HealthWatch England. The other model is to ring-fence the resources that are passed through to local authorities for this purpose. I know that Her Majesty’s Treasury is always against ring-fencing and, indeed, the Local Government Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, always argues against the ring-fencing of resources because it is always better for local authorities to make their own determinations. However, this is not about determining local needs. This is about providing something for the local community on behalf of another government department.
The Department of Health has, no doubt, fought a valiant battle with the Treasury to secure the resources for HealthWatch and the Treasury is passing that money through the Department for Communities and Local Government down to local authorities. There is no ring-fencing. The reality is that local authorities will not be able to say to the Treasury at the next comprehensive spending round how those resources have been used. They will not even be able to demonstrate that those resources have been used for the purposes for which they were given, and they will lose the battle for the continuation of that funding. If there is a ring-fenced structure, you will ensure that the resources are there for local healthwatch organisations. There may then be a question about how effectively those local organisations operate, but at least the resources will be clear and the local authority will be accountable for how it has used that money explicitly, rather than for whether or not it has used the money for that or for other purposes.
Unless that issue is addressed, there will be not only perceptions of conflicts of interest but the problem that local healthwatch organisations may, in time, be starved of resources. This is not an idle concern. We have all received the correspondence from LINks, talking about the budget cuts that they have faced in the current financial year. We can expect that to continue. If the Government are serious about having vibrant and effective local healthwatch organisations, they have also to solve the resourcing question and the perceived conflict of interest between the local authority and local healthwatch organisations.
We heard much in our earlier debates about the synergies and wonderful effects that talking in corridors would have within the CQC. I thought at one point that the noble Baroness was going to talk about talking in the toilets about decisions and how you infuse ideas from one organisation to another if they are co-located. That will not be the case with local authorities and local healthwatch. You will not get that same connection. The mere fact of being in the same organisation will not matter because they will not be physically located with the people who are making the decisions about social care; they will probably be in an outward-facing office, meeting the public. It will be an outpost of the local authority. There will not be that informal interchange which we were told would be so valuable if Healthwatch England was placed within CQC. The issue is how you make these organisations effective. That will require independent resources and it will require that the question of conflict of interest is dealt with.
Viscount Tenby
My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rix. He has clearly outlined the rationale behind the amendment; accordingly, I do not intend to keep the House long—sighs of relief all round, I should think—although, like my noble friend, I should declare an interest. Until last Wednesday, I was chairman of a residential home for those with learning disabilities.
I think we are aware that the complaints process against the NHS can be extremely complex and challenging for those involved. That nearly always coincides with a period of some personal distress. Indeed, the very inclusion of Clause 182 indicates that the Government, to their great credit, are aware of that factor. However, there is a danger that the provision is not sufficiently explicit. My noble friend has highlighted the potential for advocacy support to stop before a conclusion has been reached. I share his concern, and add that the amendment safeguards against the freedom given to a local authority to define what it deems to be “appropriate arrangements” for the provision of independent advocacy services.
The critical point is that, at a time when local authority budgets are particularly stretched, to expect them to provide additional resources for advocacy support could result in the needs of people being sacrificed in favour of councils balancing their books. We all understand that that goes on. In other words, the level of advocacy support offered might be dictated by available funds and, accordingly, “appropriate arrangements” might be taken as being what is appropriate for the council to offer.
That detracts from what I assume is the object of making advocacy support available: to benefit the individual. The ability for people—often in mourning and in some distress—to seek justice should surely seek precedence over what is convenient to the local authority. By explicitly removing any upper limit on the length and type of advocacy, the amendment sends a strong message to councils that the individual must be the priority in this situation. It removes the excuse that a council might have not to provide the adequate level of advocacy support required by those who need it; and instead gives the individual the power to challenge any decision they feel is unjust on the basis that their advocacy needs are greater than the support proposed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I shall add just a few words. If we do not get this matter right, we, the Members of the House of Lords, will be blamed. I hope that Ministers will act on what has been said this evening.
Baroness Wheeler
My Lords, noble Lords have spoken to their amendments effectively and comprehensively, so I will not deal with all the amendments. I start by giving our support to the spirit behind Amendment 318BA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Low, and Amendment 322, tabled by my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Harris. They underline the crucial need to uphold the independence of local healthwatch organisations by enabling them to carry out their activities as they see fit, subject to any directions from Healthwatch England, and emphasise that they must not be regarded as either servants or agents of the local authority.
Local independence is vital for people to have trust and confidence in their local healthwatch organisations to articulate their priorities and the needs of the local community. To be effective, they must be able to scrutinise how consortia and health and well-being boards have undertaken public engagement and transparency, and how they are ensuring that the patient voice is embedded in the care pathway design. They also need to be able to scrutinise how lay representatives on consortia and health and well-being boards themselves undertake public engagement and transparency.
Amendment 318E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, would require local healthwatch organisations to provide the NHS Commissioning Board with their opinion on whether local plans take proper account of their views, as evidence in reports and recommendations. We support this, and of course underline that CCGs must also be required to consult local healthwatch organisations while commissioning plans are drawn up and developed.
On the question of how local healthwatch organisations are funded, we need to recognise the widespread concern raised by noble Lords and current LINks organisations that the arrangements for local healthwatch organisations and their dependence on funding from local authorities compromise their independence, particularly in terms of public perception and confidence in their role and work. With local authorities having greater involvement in healthcare—particularly public health—how will healthwatch organisations be able to exercise the independence that the public would expect?
A number of amendments seek to address that issue, either through guaranteeing resources or prescribing how the local authority should take decisions in relation to its commissioning of healthwatch, the allocation of resources and the governance arrangements. Perversely, some of them could have the unintentional consequence of tying in local healthwatch groups to the local authority more tightly. In view of the current economic climate and the massive cuts that local authorities are having to make, the concerns and unease over the future resourcing of local healthwatch organisations need to be addressed. I hope that the Minister will recognise this as a major issue, consult all stakeholders and come back to us on Report with reassurances and solutions.
This is the first time we have touched on the new independent advocacy services that local authorities will be required to establish to provide assistance to individuals making complaints about health or community care services or providers, including using the local healthwatch organisation to deliver this service. We are very sympathetic to Amendment 324 from the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Wigley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. It seeks to prevent any case being dismissed from the outset or midway through as too complex or lengthy. Complaints against the health service are often complex and require long periods of support to be provided to the complainant. It is a service that should be provided to all users, and provision will need to be made to support people with mental health problems and learning difficulties, as well as people with disabilities.
We support Amendment 325 in the names of my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Harris. This would provide for advocacy to cover complaints about both health and social care. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these issues.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, again, we have had a very impressive and wide-ranging debate. It links in with the earlier debate on this area, as well as with our discussion the other day.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, made a very strong point when he talked about the need for confidentiality. I hope I can reassure him that HealthWatch England will be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act and other applicable law. However, these are complex matters, involving a number of interlocking pieces of legislation and other issues. As a result, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to write to him with full details of how we see these provisions working. However, I hope that he will be reassured about the overarching effect of the Data Protection Act. He made some very telling and important points.
Our aim is for local healthwatch organisations to become an integral part of the commissioning of local health and social care services. They will build on the strengths of the existing Local Involvement Networks and, we hope, address their weaknesses. I have listened to the concerns that various noble Lords have expressed about independence, given local healthwatch organisations’ contractual relationships with local authorities. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that local healthwatch organisations will be very firmly in the lead in determining their own work programmes and local priorities. Local authorities, for example, cannot arbitrarily veto a local healthwatch organisation’s work plan or stop a local healthwatch organisation providing feedback or recommendations to HealthWatch England, nor can they suppress local healthwatch organisations’ reports with which they disagree. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is not in his place, as no doubt he would be hopping up and down challenging me on these matters. It is extremely important that local healthwatch organisations are effective in this way: we have made the provision that we have. Nor can local authorities starve local healthwatch organisations of funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, implies. Local healthwatch organisations must have sufficient resources to fulfil their statutory functions. Those are laid down and they have to deliver on that.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The problem with not ring-fencing funds and simply relying on the statutory requirement is that there are many ways of interpreting a statutory obligation. For example, there is an obligation on local healthwatch organisations to provide information to the public. You can provide information at various levels. At one extreme, this could be leaflets to every household, or it could be telephone helplines. It could be all sorts of things—or it could simply be to say that the information manual has been placed in the local library. If the local healthwatch organisation does that, it has fulfilled its statutory obligation in providing information to the community. I am assuming that Ministers do not want that to be the scale of the provision, but simply saying that you have met your statutory obligation is not a sufficient safeguard to provide £60 million-worth of services, if that is the sum of money being made available to local healthwatch organisations.
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made exactly this point at the meeting that we had the other day with my noble friend Lord Howe, who I thought countered his points extremely effectively. However, I realise that is now almost 6 pm and I know that noble friends have other appointments; maybe we would otherwise carry on until Christmas. We take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said. I am sure that he takes on board the counterpoints from my noble friend Lord Howe, but we will continue to discuss how best to ensure that local healthwatch organisations are effective in the way that we need them to be.
Some of the amendments of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege would increase the role of the Secretary of State in relation to local healthwatch organisations. Though we understand the intent behind the amendments, we do not feel that that is quite the way to go. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the need to keep the issue of local healthwatch organisations’ independence under review and we are working closely with stakeholders to look at how best we can support that independence at local level.
My noble friend made a range of proposals which were extremely interesting and we will take those back, along with other noble Lords’ suggestions. We are keen that local healthwatch organisations have the flexibility to work with and for their local communities. I am aware of the concern expressed by a number of stakeholders that the Bill does not contain sufficient flexibility. I can confirm that we also want to make sure that the process of getting local healthwatch organisations started is as efficient as possible. We want to assist in that and again we discussed this with stakeholders yesterday. We would not want to see local healthwatch’s ability to get on with its valuable role slowed down.
My noble friend suggested that local healthwatch organisations should have a stronger role in relation to CCGs’ commissioning plans. I sympathise with the sentiment behind this amendment and with other proposals to try to make sure that the voice of the patient is heard. However, this would place a further statutory function on local healthwatch organisations, and it might be unnecessarily prescriptive. There are, of course, arrangements in place in the Bill for local healthwatch organisations to feed their concerns to HealthWatch England, and HealthWatch England can also provide the NHS Commissioning Board with information and advice on the views of local healthwatch organisations on the standard of healthcare. Were a local healthwatch organisation to have concerns that a clinical commissioning group had not taken proper account of its views in commissioning plans, they could be raised by this route. However, this is an important issue, and I will take it away to consider it further.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Will the Minister clarify whether she is seriously suggesting that rather than having a route going direct from a local healthwatch organisation to a clinical commissioning group, it is better to have a route that goes from the local healthwatch organisations to HealthWatch England—I do not know whether we would include CQC in that process—then through the national Commissioning Board and then back down to—
Baroness Northover
I did not put that clearly enough. Local healthwatch organisations will be feeding into clinical commissioning groups. That is already apparent. They have all sorts of ways, not least through the health and well-being boards, to make sure that the needs of the community are clearly expressed so that commissioning is as appropriate as possible. Where that is not being properly listened to, and therefore serious issues need to be addressed, there are other ways of ensuring that actions can be taken.
However, all these groups need to be talking to each other. I hope very much that they will. One of the reasons for local healthwatch organisations to have the association with local authorities is that local authorities have responsibility for so many areas that also affect the health of the population. They will have new responsibilities in public health as well. All this needs to link up to make sure that the quality of health is improved. This is part of that arrangement. We are looking at it locally and nationally. However, I will take back the suggestions that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege made. We want to make sure that this system works effectively without being overly prescriptive.
I agree that indemnity is a fundamental issue. It is one to which the Government have given significant consideration. We have concluded that it is most appropriate for it to feature in local contractual arrangements rather than in primary legislation that may lack flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is right that the system by which people serve on local healthwatch organisations needs to be transparent—all this needs to be transparent. I heard what he said in that regard, and I will feed it into the discussions that are going on at the moment.
On some matters it is probably best, if I need to follow up, that I do so in writing, as I am acutely aware that my noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, have another engagement this evening, and we must release them.
I turn to NHS complaints advocacy. Clause 182 has the effect of transferring a duty to commission independent advocacy services for NHS complaints from the Secretary of State to local authorities. The principle behind advocacy will remain unchanged: it is the provision of appropriate support to people who wish to make a complaint about the NHS to enable them to make their own decisions. We propose that commissioning of advocacy shifts from the Secretary of State to local authorities to best meet local needs.
I note the wonderful Amendment 324, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Wigley, which seeks to ensure that advocacy will be provided without limits on the length or type of support. I commend them for their ambition but it would not be appropriate to put that limit in the Bill. I am sure they understand that but we take what they say about the importance of advocacy and commend them for their strong advocacy of advocacy.
I realise that all these areas are of great concern to noble Lords. This may be just one part of the Bill but in many ways it is the heart of the Bill, which is about patients and how best you ensure that patients’ experience translates into an improvement in quality in practice. Other noble Lords have grappled with this before. The previous Government did and Governments before that. We are trying to take this further forward, both in terms of the national and local arrangements. We hear what people say in response to the proposals but I hope that in the mean time the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she appeared to take the force of the points that I was making with my amendments about the use of information. When she referred to the overarching effect of the Data Protection Act it appeared that she was listening more to my amendments about health and well-being boards than those relating to HealthWatch England, but I will wait to receive the letter that she kindly has promised to write to see how fully she has taken the force of my points in relation to both those bodies. I was encouraged by what she said so for now I will withdraw my amendment.