House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had on the definition of lobbying.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we plan to bring forward our proposals for consultation in the new year, and this will no doubt be one of the subjects on which we will seek and receive views.
Bill Esterson
Does the Minister agree that businesses in this country should be lobbying the Government to go back to the negotiating table in Europe to get what is best for British business, jobs and living standards?
Mr Harper
That was a very contrived question. Our proposals on lobbying are very sound. On the European question, I think that the general public agree with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did. There is no conflict between standing up for Britain and ensuring that we are involved in every meeting in Europe and fighting for British interests. We saw the outcome of that in yesterday’s excellent statement on the Fisheries Council.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Section 8.16 of the 2005 ministerial code required Ministers to record specific details of meetings with outside interest groups, including lobbyists. Does the Minister agree that reinstating that requirement would be a positive move for lobbying transparency, and that it was a mistake for the then Prime Minister to get rid of it in 2007?
Mr Harper
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that we have made some changes to the ministerial code. For example, when Ministers in this Government leave office, they will not be allowed to lobby the Government for two full years afterwards. That is a new proposal that was not in place under the previous Government. If it had been, they might not have had some of the problems that they did.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I note what the Minister says about the Government’s plans to bring forward proposals for a register of lobbyists, but I want to ask the Government whether they work to the Buddhist calendar. On 2 November, he stated that the Government would publish their proposals before the end of November. Can we take his announcement today any more seriously than that one, or should we take all Government announcements with a large pinch of seasonal salt?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman and his party ought to be a little careful on this subject. We are not going to take any lessons from them, because they did absolutely nothing about this for 13 years. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, when we bring forward our proposals early in the new year, we will have done more on this in 18 months than the Labour Government did in 13 years.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
No one would disagree that there should be no place in this building for improper access or influence; that is obviously the case. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is a problem of definition? Perfectly legitimate charities and other organisations are lobbyists, even though they are not paid to lobby and do so on their own behalf. Will he therefore be careful about defining precisely what a lobbyist is, and take care not to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our constituents lobby us every day of the week about legitimate issues, for example. We must be careful to take these matters forward sensibly, which is why we are going to bring forward our proposals for consultation to ensure that we get this right and that we do not inadvertently stop our constituents and others raising important issues with us.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to ensure that armed forces personnel are registered for postal and proxy voting at the next general election as part of his plans for individual electoral registration.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
We are committed to helping service personnel to register and cast their votes. Service voters who are on the register before the move to individual electoral registration will remain registered until their service declaration expires, up to five years later. We also plan to extend the administrative timetable for UK parliamentary elections, which means that there will be a lot more time for service voters to return postal votes from overseas. We will also make it easier for them to apply for a proxy vote if they are deployed at very short notice before an election.
Mr Hamilton
I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. The number of service personnel serving abroad who were registered to vote increased from about 36% in 2005 to 48% in 2008. At the last general election, in 2010, there were only 294 proxy votes and 240 postal votes from the 9,000 members of the armed forces based in Afghanistan. What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do to ensure that the speed at which he is moving on this issue does not isolate our armed forces in Afghanistan?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, let me pay tribute to the previous Government for the very good work done to help servicemen and women in Afghanistan to make sure that they can participate fully. There was a real step change there, and we have continued with that for the elections of May this year. Registration levels seem to be improving. A survey conducted last year by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicates that 75% of service personnel are registered to vote, which is well up on the figures of a few years before. We are moving in the right direction, but we will, of course, continue—not least by taking the measures I mentioned—to improve it further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What plans does the Deputy Prime Minister have to extend the time between the close of nominations and polling day to enable long-distance postal voters, such as our loyal servicemen and women in the armed forces, to cast their ballot?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are indeed lengthening the timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 days to 25 days, which gives us just over an extra week to allow people overseas—whether they be in the armed services or elsewhere—to return their postal votes in good time.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the potential effects of an incomplete electoral register on tackling crime.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
I have had no specific discussions with the Home Secretary on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are doing everything they possibly can to ensure that the register is as accurate and complete as possible, which will continue to deliver benefits—not just for elections, but in helping to tackle crime.
Tom Blenkinsop
Why is the Deputy Prime Minister making it easier for prisoners to vote, but harder for the police to track criminals on the outside by removing the civic duty to register?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are not removing the civic duty, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows. It is not an offence at present not to register to vote. We are maintaining the offence that is on the statute book whereby there is an obligation for people to provide information about voters in their household. That is being kept intact. As to the hon. Gentleman’s first point about the link between the register and crime, the Credit Services Association recently supported the move towards individual electoral registration, saying:
“We believe that the proposed approach will lead to a reduction in financial crime, in particular fraud. In our view any proposal that will result in a reduction of financial crime is to be welcomed.”
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
5. What steps he is taking to increase participation in elections by service and overseas voters.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As I mentioned, the Government have published draft legislative provisions to extend the timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 working days. As I said, that will have real benefits for overseas electors and service personnel stationed outside the United Kingdom. We are also looking specifically at the best way to make improvements to the current voting arrangements for service personnel serving overseas.
Andrew Selous
Those who are prepared to die for their country should be given every opportunity to decide who governs their country, so what proportion of service voters are now registered to vote in comparison with the population as a whole?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said, the latest figures taken last year by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicate a sharp increase to 75% of service personnel now registered to vote. That is up from 69% in 2009 and 60% in 2005.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the efforts made by the previous Government to encourage servicemen and women to register to vote. What he should be looking at, however, is whether those people could vote by internet. Most have access to it—at Camp Bastion and other bases around the world—so this would increase participation.
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is always worth looking to see whether we could use or deploy e-voting. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it poses some serious security issues. It has been looked at in the past and we will continue to look at it. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but most people who have looked at internet voting feel that there is a real issue about whether it can be done in a secure and safe way. As I say, we will continue to look at it.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Gurkha soldiers have had their terms and conditions improved vastly in recent years, but while they fight and die for this country they do not have the opportunity to vote in our parliamentary elections. Will my right hon. Friend investigate whether this can be corrected?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Clearly the Gurkhas will enjoy the same right as everyone else who makes the United Kingdom their home to vote for Governments in this country.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is not tempted to do away with proxy votes, given that he is lengthening the time between the close of nominations and elections. It is not just servicemen or overseas voters but my constituents who work offshore for whom postal voting is not an option, and they really do need a proxy vote.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree. In fact, we are seeking to accelerate the provision of proxy votes for those who are deployed briefly just before a general election, so that servicemen and women who are deployed at short notice are not caught out by the rules and can use proxy votes.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
6. What discussions he has had on the definition of lobbying.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to question 1.
Jim Sheridan
May I pump the Minister a little, and ask whether it is part of Government thinking to require companies to register the costs of lobbying in their annual accounts, either directly or indirectly?
Mr Harper
If I remember rightly, that was proposed by my Liberal Democrat colleagues when they were in opposition, and the entire parliamentary Labour party voted against it, including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman. If he will be a little patient and wait for our proposals in the new year, he will be able to satiate his curiosity.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I hope that, in defining lobbying, the Minister will recognise that it is a perfectly traditional means of trying to ensure that a good Bill is passed. Some of the worst Bills have been passed when both the main parties have agreed. Will the Minister also ensure that any lobbying by a particular trade union will fall within the definition?
Mr Harper
I am yet to present a Bill that has had the support of both the Government parties and the Opposition, and I look forward to the opportunity to do so. However, my hon. Friend has made an important point. Lobbying—in other words, the setting out of concerns by businesses, charities, and our constituents—is a perfectly sensible activity. Indeed, legislation is worse when we do not listen to the outside world, and we do not want to damage that position. I hope that when we present our consultation paper, my hon. Friend will find it acceptable. We look forward to what she, and other Members in all parts of the House, have to say about it.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of the introduction of individual electoral registration on the 2015 boundary review.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
I do not expect our proposals for individual registration to have any effects. As I have said from the Dispatch Box on many occasions, we are as focused as ever on accuracy and completeness, and I therefore do not expect the new arrangement to cause any problems for the boundary review. We are working incredibly hard to ensure that the 2015 register will be in good shape.
Katy Clark
Surely the Minister accepts that the Electoral Commission’s finding that about 6 million people are missing from the register must cast doubt on the data that are being used for the boundary review.
Mr Harper
That study was, of course, paid for by the Government, because we wanted to find out what state the electoral register was in before introducing individual electoral registration. It suggests that those who complacently thought that the register was already in good shape may need to think about that a little more, and also that our proposals, which include data matching and improving registration, are urgently required and will make the register better.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
10. What recent progress he has made on reforming the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
A Joint Committee of both Houses is currently scrutinising the Government’s White Paper and draft Bill, which we published last May. The Committee is making good progress, and today the other place is debating a motion proposing an extension enabling it to report by 27 March next year.
John Pugh
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that if we have an unreformed and larger House of Lords and a smaller House of Commons in 2015, with the payroll vote constituting a larger percentage, it will be a huge step backwards for democracy in this country? We cannot take an à la carte attitude to constitutional reform.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that there is anything à la carte about the White Paper and the draft Bill and the scrutiny to which they are being subjected by a Joint Committee. Indeed, I do not think that there is anything à la carte or arbitrary left in a debate that has been raging for more than 100 years. I think that it would be a big step forward for democracy if we were finally to secure elections to a Chamber which, let us remember, makes the laws of this land, but is as yet not directly legitimate and accountable, through the ballot box, to the people of this country.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for some clarity on his party’s views on House of Lords reform? If he is able in this Parliament to get his proposals through for a second Chamber that is 80% elected with peers serving one term of 15 years, will his party still want in a future Parliament to remove the remaining 20% of appointed peers and bishops so that we have a fully elected second Chamber?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I and my party start from the simple principled point that, in common with many other bicameral systems around the world, it is sensible to have both Chambers directly legitimised by—
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes, of course fully; I support a fully elected second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman’s party achieved precisely 0% of election to the other Chamber. I modestly suggest that if we achieve 80%, that will be better than 0%.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the greatest barrier to reform of the other place exists in the other place. Will he be prepared to use the Parliament Act, if necessary, to drive through this very important reform and to bring greater democratic accountability to the democratic process?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the Prime Minister himself has said, the Government will support this Bill as they support any Bill. That is in the coalition agreement: there is an unambiguous commitment that we will pursue this Bill as forcefully as we can. That means that the Parliament Act would be invoked in the normal way, if it were to come to that, but I hope that it will not. I hope we will be able to build consensus across all parts of the House in favour of meaningful reform. That is precisely why the work of the Joint Committee, which will report by the end of March next year, is so important.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Is not the Deputy Prime Minister just rushing in again, rather than waiting for the House of Lords Joint Committee to report? He is already giving us his opinions on what he is going to be doing. Why does he not wait for the Joint Committee to publish its report before giving us his opinions on it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I cannot hide my opinions about reform of the House of Lords. It has been debated for well over 100 years. We have been perfectly open about this. We have published a White Paper, which was generated in part by discussions involving input from all major parties in the House. We have left a number of options open in that White Paper, including whether we should have 100% or 80% directly elected and the precise method of election. I hope the Joint Committee will be able to shed some light on those issues when it reports at the end of March next year.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of—[Laughter.]
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I was saying, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policies and initiatives, and within Government I take special responsibility for this Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Nigel Mills
Over the years, we have introduced more than 1,000 tax reliefs, ranging from the vital to the obscure. Why is the Deputy Prime Minister so opposed to tax relief that supports marriage?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My own view is reflected in the coalition agreement, where this issue is among a number of others on which the coalition parties make an explicit agreement to disagree. That is because of a philosophical difference. I believe the state should be cautious about seeking to use the tax system to encourage people to take what, at the end of the day, are very private and emotional decisions about whether or not they should get married.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Mr Speaker:
“we must do everything we can to avoid a great big split in the European Union…That’s bad for jobs and growth in this country.”
That is what the Deputy Prime Minister said before the European summit. We now have a great split. Does he think the Prime Minister was right to put party interest before national interest?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am not going to rake over the results of the summit. The crucial thing is what we do now as a country, and on that issue there is absolutely no difference between the Prime Minister and myself or the two coalition parties. We are totally committed to full engagement in the European Union. Why? Because, as some business leaders set out very clearly in a letter this morning in The Daily Telegraph, 3 million people’s jobs directly depend on our place in what remains the world’s largest borderless single market, in our European backyard.
Sadiq Khan
The Deputy Prime Minister cannot answer a simple, straightforward question. I will give him a chance again: does he think the Prime Minister was right?
The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that the Prime Minister’s actions at the EU summit have left the UK in an “isolated position”. As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, the justification the Liberal Democrats give for propping up this Conservative-led Government is to act as a restraining influence. Well, they have failed on tuition fees, they have failed on legal aid, they have failed on the NHS, and now they have failed on Europe. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the Prime Minister should re-enter negotiations and get a better deal for Britain? If he does, what is he doing about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman refers to the reasons why this coalition Government were created—it was to clear up the mess that his party left behind. It is not easy, what we are doing, but it is right. At the beginning of this year, his party had nothing to say about the economy—[Interruption.]
The Deputy Prime Minister
At the beginning of this year, the right hon. Gentleman’s party had nothing to say about the economy. At least they are consistent: they are completing this year with still nothing to say about how to save our economy.
Mr Speaker
I do not usually fail to spot the hon. Gentleman, but there we go.
Toby Perkins
T2. Members on both sides of the House are very concerned about the implications for local communities and community cohesion of the initial proposals from the Boundary Commission. Although I recognise the importance of getting the numbers between constituencies relatively similar, community cohesion is also really important. Will the Deputy Prime Minister reserve the right not to support the Boundary Commission proposals if they are considered against community—
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole system has been devised so that it is not in the gift of politicians, still less the Government, to draw lines on the map to decide where these new boundaries are set; that is for the independent boundary commissions. There is a process of consultation and appeal, which is now ongoing. But I am glad he recognises that the principle is a perfectly valid one: that people’s votes should be worth the same weight and esteem, wherever they live in this country.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T4. Wiltshire schools have long felt short-changed by funding allocations for education, so they will welcome the doubling of pupil premium moneys for our schools in Wiltshire to more than £5 million next year. Now that Labour councillors in Manchester have voted for the pupil premium to be scrapped, will the Deputy Prime Minister consider giving our schools next year some of the more than £80 million of pupil premium that their council has rejected?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The pupil premium, which by the end of this Parliament will be £2.5 billion of extra money to help schools that are educating children from the most challenging backgrounds, is a very powerful, progressive policy, and I am very proud that we have delivered it, as a coalition Government. We have been searching in vain for months to find out what the Labour party would actually cut in public expenditure. Now, we have the answer: Labour councillors want to cut the pupil premium that benefits some of the most deprived children in this country. That is progressive politics for you!
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
T3. Eighteen months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went together to Germany, and they were met by the right-wing Liberal Foreign Minister of Germany, Guido Westerwelle, who was quoted as saying that he was pleased to meet his “closest friends” and “fabulous partners”. The German Foreign Minister was in Britain this week. Did he meet the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary together here, and did they discuss whether they are still the closest friends and partners?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I did meet Guido Westerwelle, the German Foreign Minister, yesterday, as did the Foreign Secretary.
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman wants to know whether we met in the same room or not. Okay, we did not; we met separately. Hold the headlines, “Foreign Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister have separate meetings”. Honestly, he is really scraping the barrel. We all agreed, as I explained earlier to the over-excitable right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), that it was very important that Germany and Britain should work together on deepening and widening the single market, and on promoting competitiveness and growth, upon which the jobs of millions of people depend in this country and elsewhere in Europe.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
T7. In the context of House of Lords reform, will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether consideration has been given to a form of representation for British overseas territories in a revised second Chamber?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This is not something that has been looked at as closely as my hon. Friend would perhaps wish. We have set out our ideas in the White Paper. As I said earlier, they are now being subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee, and the Government will make their final views known shortly thereafter.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
T5. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that any future referendum held in the United Kingdom or in any part of it should be carried out under the supervision of the Electoral Commission? If so, what is he going to do to ensure that?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Clearly, any referendum needs to be held in a way that enjoys public trust and is fair and objective, on whatever subject and in whatever part of the United Kingdom.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T11. Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in welcoming the agreement between the Government and the trade unions on public sector pensions? It shows that the Government have been prepared to listen and negotiate successfully with trade unions to get a deal that is fair for everyone?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be giving a statement on this matter immediately after Question Time. I am very pleased that a heads of agreement has been reached between the Government and trade unions under all four schemes, not only because it ensures the Government’s objective of putting public sector pensions on to a financially sustainable footing, but, much more importantly, because it means that millions of people working in the public services, whether in our schools, in our hospitals or in local government, will now be assured, at a time of great uncertainty, that they will have among the very best pensions in this country for years and years to come.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about his new year’s resolutions. The Leader of the House has reminded all Ministers of the following:“When Parliament is in session the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, to Parliament.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 73.]Given that, and given that the Deputy Prime Minister is one of the worst offenders, will he make it his new year’s resolution to behave himself in future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not need a new year’s resolution to be reminded that it is important to behave oneself at all times.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
T12. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that if charities are to be covered by the register of lobbyists, their donors will be properly protected, because many give anonymously for very good reason?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) explained earlier, the consultation will be published in the new year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) will find satisfactory answers to his questions in the course of that consultation.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
T8. Returning to the issue of electoral registration, does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the proportion of the population registered to vote will be as high or higher at the end of the individual registration process as it is now?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Of course we will work very hard to make sure that that is the case. The hon. Lady will know—this is a source of concern for everybody—that, because of research that the Government commissioned from the Electoral Commission, the latest statistics show that about 85% to 87% of people were registered on the electoral register as of last December, which compares with about 93% to 95% 10 years earlier, in 2000. So something went dramatically wrong in the last decade when her party was in government; more and more people fell off the register. Our register is now roughly at the same level of completeness as that in Northern Ireland, which is why we must all work together to make sure that we get the details on individual electoral registration right.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I wish the Deputy Prime Minister a merry Christmas, but if the Prime Minister was killed in a terrorist attack, who would take charge of the Government? Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that it would not be him, as he leads a party that has less support than the UK Independence party?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I receive the hon. Gentleman’s season’s greetings in the spirit in which they were intended. As he knows, appropriate arrangements would be made in that very unfortunate event. I must say, however, that his morbid fascination with the premature death of his own party leader is a subject not for me, but for the Chief Whip.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
T9. Senior high school pupils have just three and a half weeks remaining to submit their applications for university. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that applications will rise or decrease, given his broken promise on introducing £9,000 tuition fees? What impact does he think that will have on social mobility?
The Deputy Prime Minister
What I, of course, hope is that as people focus on the reality and substance of the new system rather than the misleading polemic about it, they will come to appreciate that at the moment thousands of students on part-time courses, under the system introduced by the hon. Gentleman’s Government, pay fees as students whereas under the new system no student will pay a penny of fees at all while they are studying at university. The method of repayment, which is in effect a form of time-limited graduate tax, is more progressive, not less, than the more regressive system that it seeks to replace.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
According to The Mail on Sunday, MPs are on day five of our holiday. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the statutory register of lobbyists ought to include a strict overview of a very shadowy organisation that puts itself forward as the TaxPayers Alliance?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My experience is that one should not believe much that one reads in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday. The key point is that the consultation on the register of lobbyists will be issued in the new year, and will seek to define what we mean by lobbyists and the rules that will then be applied evenly to all kinds of lobbyists.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
T10. We understand that the Deputy Prime Minister has been given responsibility by the Prime Minister for rebuilding bridges with our European partners. Will he tell the House how he intends to go about fulfilling that responsibility?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman one way in which I think it is incredibly important that we as a country should show leadership. On 27 January, there will be a European Union summit of all European Union countries aimed precisely at, in my view, the most important issue of all, which is how we boost competitiveness and growth within the eurozone and across the European continent. We, as a coalition Government, will come to that summit with some bold ideas about how we can increase growth, increase competitiveness and increase employment across the European Union and—yes—we will stay until the end.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
In September last year, the right hon. Gentleman told the House:
“We promised a new politics. Today is the day we must begin to deliver on that promise…We must put people back in charge.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 44.]
Why was that true for the doomed referendum on the alternative vote but not for the public’s view on Britain’s relationship with the EU?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As he knows, we have legislated to make it quite clear—the Foreign Secretary has pioneered and led on this legislation—that if there were to be a major transfer of power from this House to Brussels and from the UK to the EU, there should absolutely be a referendum. We are the first Government to have guaranteed to the British people that if we give up more power to the EU, they will have their say. I do not think we could be more crystal clear than that.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister said earlier that there was no criminal sanction on individuals if they failed to register to vote. The only reason that is so is that the obligation rests on the householder, on whom there is a criminal sanction. Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that as we move towards individual registration, Ministers must reconsider the proposal to allow opting out without any criminal sanction whatsoever?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I made it clear to the House on a previous occasion that we accept the arguments against providing an opt-out, and we will reflect that in the final legislation. On the quite tangled issue of what is, and what is not, an offence, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right that at the moment the offence applies not to registration, but to the provision of information on behalf of a household—in other words, to the obligation to provide information about other people in the household. It is not an offence at the moment not to register. He makes a valid point that is a valid subject for debate, and it was raised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: under individual electoral registration, the obligation clearly falls more squarely on the individual, rather than on the so-called head of the household. We think that we need to proceed very carefully when it comes to creating new offences in this area, but we are, of course, prepared to listen, and will continue to do so.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister welcome the remarks made by our fellow member of the European Liberal Democrats, Herr Westerwelle, who said that Britain would still be welcome at the very heart of European economic decision making, and that some of the concerns that we raised at the Brussels summit could still be addressed?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree that the decisions taken at last week’s summit were, at the end of the day, all about the fiscal and budgetary rules that accompany a country’s membership of a currency union, but that does not, and will not, exclude our country from having the ability to continue not only to participate in, but to play a leading role in shaping policy and debates on the wider economic reform of the European Union as a whole. That is what we intend to show in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
What will the Deputy Prime Minister say over the Christmas period—I hope that he has a very good Christmas—about the many people in our country who are unemployed? A million young people, and many thousands of young graduates, are unemployed. What new thing can he whisper into the Prime Minister’s ear so that we get this sorted?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, I hope that people will be increasingly informed about the details of the youth contract, which will start in April next year—a new billion-pound programme that will provide 250,000 work experience places to any 18 to 24-year-olds who want to take part in a work placement scheme. It will also provide a new subsidy, worth about half the basic wage, to thousands of young people who are seeking employment. The key thing is that from April next year, under the youth contract, every single 18 to 24-year-old who cannot find work will have the opportunity to earn or learn.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I return the Deputy Prime Minister to the issue of Lords reform? Like him, I support a 100% elected House. Often, when I read the deliberations of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, I am concerned that there is a very negative view coming forward from a variety of Members. Does he have any view on the fact that a consensus is perhaps emerging, which might speed the passage of legislation?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I cannot find my notes on the latest social attitudes survey, which was published recently, but in it, public opinion was very clear: only 6% of the members of the British public surveyed supported the status quo—an unelected House of Lords. The vast majority wanted the House of Lords to be fully elected, partially elected, or even abolished. As for those who say that the issue is a minority distraction, I totally accept that there are many more important things weighing on people’s minds at the moment—not least jobs, unemployment, and growth in our economy, which remains our absolute priority—but the vast majority of people, when they stop and think about it, want a reformed House of Lords.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
1. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on reform of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have regular discussions with the Justice Secretary, during which we talk about a large number of issues of concern to both of us, including the reform of the European Court of Human Rights.
Jeremy Corbyn
Does the Attorney-General agree that the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights are very important safeguards of the rights and liberties of people all over the Council of Europe area, and that any diminution of British participation or support, or acceptance of the Court’s rulings, would be damaging to the human rights of people in this country and would, of course, diminish the value of the Court, which is one of the great achievements of post-war Europe?
The Attorney-General
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that both the Court and the convention are of great importance to the United Kingdom, and I also agree that it is important that the United Kingdom should play a full part in the work of the convention and the work of the Court. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we currently have the chairmanship of the Council of Europe, and during that time we are seeking to take forward and implement a reform programme for the Court which will enhance its efficiency and effectiveness and particularly enable it to address the vast backlog of cases that it is facing.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Will Ministers seek to make allowances for Council of Europe members with strong legal traditions to ensure that the Court is an effective functioning court in which gross abuses of human rights do not wait in long queues behind cases that do not raise such important general principles?
The Attorney-General
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about what we should be seeking to achieve. I can assure him that in trying to achieve our aims in the course of our chairmanship, we are looking very much to diplomatic initiatives which will bring us together with other partner states in carrying this agenda forward. We certainly cannot do it on our own, and the success of our initiative is entirely dependent on taking the other member states with us. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the backlog of the Court is a serious issue. It means that people are waiting years simply to receive a five-line letter saying that their claim is non-admissible. That is deeply unsatisfactory, and at the same time admissible claims are taking a very long time to be heard.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
I wish Ministers well in their work in trying to reform the Court, but is it not a fact that more than 100,000 of the backlog cases come from one country, Russia, because there is no rule of law and no confidence in courts there at all? So has the time come to consider seriously whether we should ask Russia to leave the Council of Europe until such time as its domestic legislation meets some of the minimal obligations of membership?
The Attorney-General
Membership of the Council of Europe and whether a country is excluded is not a matter for the United Kingdom on its own. The object of the convention is to improve standards throughout member states which are signatories. In fairness, the right hon. Gentleman may well accept that despite difficulties in many areas and with certain countries, standards are progressively being raised. Whether the backlog coming from Russia is quite as high as the right hon. Gentleman says I am not sure, but I think we can say that Russia makes a substantial contribution to the number of pending cases.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The current backlog stands at something of the order of 165,000 cases, and 127,000 of those, as I understand it, come from Russia. Given the proposals from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Justice Secretary for dealing with the reforms to the European Court, can he give the House some idea of how long that backlog will take to deal with?
The Attorney-General
Much depends on the outcome of the reform package that we might be able to implement. There are a number of things that need to be done. First, a very large number of those cases among the total of 165,000 are non-admissible. It is a question of processing them so that the individuals concerned can be told that their cases cannot be heard and the reasons for that. When it comes to the admissible caseload, the issue for the future—clearly, we have to clear the backlog—centres on subsidiarity and the extent to which the Court relies on national courts which are correctly implementing the convention to provide the solutions. This is one of the challenges, and in doing that we also have to recognise that for many countries the right of individual petition is very important.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
2. What discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the potential benefits of introducing corporate deferred prosecution agreements.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have had a number of discussions with the director of the Serious Fraud Office about the potential benefits of introducing corporate deferred prosecution agreements. A great deal of very positive progress on this ongoing work has occurred in the past few months among the Law Officers Department and also the Ministry of Justice.
The Attorney-General
Deferred prosecution arrangements can apply only in the case of corporate bodies.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
3. What discussions he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office on the need for further legislation to address economic crime.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I hold regular meetings with the director of the Serious Fraud Office where we discuss all aspects of the SFO’s work, including the need for further legislation to address economic crime, such as on deferred prosecution agreements.
Luciana Berger
I wonder whether the Attorney-General has read the speech given by the director of the Serious Fraud Office, Richard Alderman, to University college London? In that speech he said:
“One suggestion that I have is whether the time has come for us to recognise that recklessly running a financial institution may be a ground for criminal liability.”?
Does the Attorney-General agree with him?
The Attorney-General
As the hon. Lady will be aware, under the Bribery Act 2010, for example, the reckless running of a financial institution can already constitute a criminal offence. Whether that should be extended further in respect of corporations is a matter that the Government would have to consider carefully, as would the House.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
The Attorney-General might be aware that one of the areas of economic crime where legislation might be lacking relates to the financial crisis. Will he advise the House on whether his conversations have included or will include the potential for investigation of the tax affairs of chief executives and directors of failed financial institutions?
The Attorney-General
That would normally be a matter for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, not the Serious Fraud Office. However, the position of any prosecutorial authority is clear: if there is evidence of criminal conduct, it is in the public interest that it should be stopped and that those engaged in it should be punished if found guilty.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
If the Attorney-General has not already done so, will he discuss with the Serious Fraud Office the possibility of bringing prosecutions arising out of the collapse of Farepak five years ago, when 120,000 people lost £38 million? If that is not possible, will he see whether it is possible to make legislative change to ensure that it does not happen again?
The Attorney-General
Such legislative change is a matter for another Government Department. On the question of prosecutions, I am not in a position to comment on an individual case. If the hon. Lady wishes to bring further details to my attention, I will certainly ensure that they are passed to the director of the Serious Fraud Office.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend surprised and/or disappointed that there has not been a series of prosecutions for fraud of bankers following the recent financial crisis?
The Attorney-General
If a matter that requires investigation is brought to my attention and to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office, the Serious Fraud Office or other prosecutorial authorities will investigate it. The fact that there may have been a financial collapse does not necessarily mean that criminal offences have been committed.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Tax evasion and tax fraud cost the Exchequer billions every year. If the Government are serious about reducing the deficit, would they not do better by chasing the tax evaders and tax fraudsters, rather than sacking public service workers and cutting public services?
The Attorney-General
If I may say so, that is rather a long way from the Serious Fraud Office. If the hon. Gentleman wants the statistics on the pursuit of tax evasion, I would be happy to provide them and write to him about it.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
4. What plans he has to conduct a review on the disclosure of evidence obtained through undercover police operations.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have no plans to conduct such a review. The Director of Public Prosecutions is taking action to improve how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with cases of this kind following the recent independent inquiry by the right hon. Sir Christopher Rose into the Radcliffe-on-Soar power station protest cases.
Toby Perkins
Has the Attorney-General made any progress in drawing up a memorandum of understanding for the sharing of information about the authorisation and activity of an undercover officer between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police?
The Attorney-General
The Director of Public Prosecutions has agreed to adopt the recommendations made following the recent independent inquiry by Sir Christopher Rose, which state that explicit guidance should be included in a prosecution team disclosure manual. The DPP has also confirmed that specific training on the proper handling of cases involving undercover officers will be given to all senior lawyers in the Crown Prosecution Service’s central casework division and complex casework units and to the chief Crown prosecutors and any CPS staff who chair case management panels. Relevant guidance is already available to CPS lawyers on their obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and joint working will take place with the police to ensure that everyone understands where their responsibilities lie in the matter.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
On the issue of disclosure, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that he or the CPS thoroughly look into the circumstances in which a major and costly criminal trial involving allegations of police corruption collapsed recently in the Crown court at Swansea in order to ensure that lessons can be learned so that such mistakes relating to disclosure are not made again?
The Attorney-General
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes the collapse of that case very seriously indeed, and there will be internal inquiries and, I am sure, inquiries by the police into why it took place and the lessons that need to be learned from it. It is of course worth bearing in mind that, in terms of its history, it is very much a historic case, but that is no reason for any complacency about the lessons that we might be able to learn for the future.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
5. What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the case of Babar Ahmad.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have had no recent discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to that matter.
Caroline Lucas
I should really like to understand what happened to the evidence in the Babar Ahmad case and, specifically, why the CPS apparently gave it directly to the United States without considering it first. Ministers have refused my written question on the matter, saying that it would “prejudice…proceedings”, so will the Attorney-General explain why and tell us what bilateral agreements are in place to allow evidence gathered by UK police about crimes alleged to have been committed in the UK to be provided to the US authorities in cases considered for trial in the US, such as that of Babar Ahmad?
The Attorney-General
As the hon. Lady will appreciate, the case is live, and that is the reason—I have no doubt—why the CPS has been guarded about any response that it can give to her. She has raised a number of very specific questions, however, and I respectfully suggest that the best thing to do is for me to write to her and to try to answer the specific matters that she raised at the end of her question.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
What role can the Attorney-General and the Government play in ensuring that there are no more Babar Ahmad cases?
The Attorney-General
I have to try to work out where the right hon. Gentleman’s question is coming from, but the main complaint about the Babar Ahmad case is the length of time that it is taking. As he will be aware, proceedings started on 5 August 2004, and in this country proceedings, including the refusal of leave to appeal to the House of Lords, were completed on 6 June 2007. The problems and delays since then are in fact due to the European Court of Human Rights, and that ties in with my answers to earlier questions about the inordinate length of time that it takes to bring such cases to the European Court of Human Rights—with consequences, in the case of Babar Ahmad, that are plainly undesirable.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Attorney-General may have read on 11 December in The Sunday Times, as I did with some interest, that the Government will be
“asking British magistrates to examine detailed evidence involved in each case”
and bringing forward plans to allow judges
“to order a trial in Britain if they considered it would serve justice better.”
Given that the House is committed to reforming extradition, are those the sort of changes that we are to expect, and when are we going to hear about them officially?
The Attorney-General
As the hon. Lady appreciates, the Home Office leads on the question of extradition. I indicated when I last took questions that the Government take the view that, first, they need to study the Scott Baker report, which they are doing, and then they will come to the House with proposals. I hope that that will be as soon as possible. In the meantime, I suggest to her that speculation in The Sunday Times is not always the best indication of Government policy.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on prosecution rates of planned changes to legal aid for victims of domestic violence.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have not made any assessment of the potential effects on prosecution rates of any planned changes to legal aid.
Lilian Greenwood
Does the Attorney-General agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) that a woman who has reliable eye witnesses, police and medical evidence, photos of injuries, has fled to a refuge and has a partner on a perpetrator programme should not receive civil legal aid to help bring her abuser to justice? If not, what will the Attorney-General do about it?
The Attorney-General
My responsibility is the superintendence of the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecuting those who are guilty of domestic violence, and the question of civil legal aid does not come into it one way or another.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government intend to waive the financial eligibility limits in cases whereby a person applies for an order for protection against domestic violence, such as a non-molestation or occupation order?
The Attorney-General
There again, sadly, I am afraid that I have to say to my hon. Friend that she has to direct that question to Ministers in the Ministry of Justice. I do not have a responsibility for civil legal aid.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In view of the anxiety that there will be fewer prosecutions of people responsible for domestic violence as a result of these changes, will the Attorney-General agree to report to the House, a year after the changes have come in, on the number of prosecutions before and after the changes?
The Attorney-General
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, which is an important one. It is the view, and certainly the policy, of the Crown Prosecution Service that it will continue to prosecute cases of domestic violence and to give them a high priority, as I have said in this House on several occasions before. I would be very concerned if any of the other changes taking place in civil legal aid were to have an impact on that, but I have no reason to suppose from my discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions that that is the case. The emphasis on prosecuting domestic violence remains a top priority for the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Many of the victims of domestic violence have been trafficked into this country for domestic servitude. What is the Government’s view on providing legal aid to victims of human trafficking?
The Attorney-General
In so far as somebody may be a victim, they do not need legal aid. My hon. Friend will be aware that for victims of human trafficking who, in the course of human trafficking, may have technically committed offences, there is a protocol in place to ensure that they should not be prosecuted without very good reason. From that point of view, I do not see, in terms of my responsibilities for criminal justice, that their needing legal aid as victims comes into it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
7. What recent assessment he has made of the effects on prosecution rates of specialist domestic violence courts.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
Evaluations of specialist domestic violence courts in 2005 and in 2008 clearly demonstrated that SDVCs involving specialist domestic violence support services have contributed to improving prosecution rates as well as safety for domestic violence victims. There have been no further assessments since 2008.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
County Durham achieved specialist domestic violence court status in 2006, since when there has been a huge increase in the number of successful prosecutions for domestic violence. These courts have not only brought more perpetrators to justice but have achieved more appropriate sentencing. What guarantee can the Attorney-General give that those very positive outcomes will not be put at risk by cuts to the court services?
The Attorney-General
First, I entirely agree with everything the hon. Lady said. I pay tribute to the previous Government for the emphasis that was placed on this area when the SDVC system was set up. Although there is a court rationalisation programme that will impact on SDVC provision in 21 court houses in 22 systems, all courts affected have received guidance and support to ensure a smooth transition so that the revised courts will be able to provide the same quality of service. That is a commitment that the DPP and the CPS take extremely seriously. I very much hope that although some courts will have to close, the quality of service that is available at the courts that are open and to which transfers of the work are made remains of the highest quality.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
8. What charging responsibilities have been transferred to the police from the Crown Prosecution Service.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
9. Whether the Crown Prosecution Service plans to evaluate the effects of the transfer of responsibility for charging from the CPS to the police.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The transfer of charges from the Crown Prosecution Service to the police under the fourth edition of the DPP’s guidance on charging was completed in June 2011. The following charging responsibilities have now been transferred to the police from the Crown Prosecution Service: summary-only matters where a not guilty plea is anticipated; criminal damage offences under £5,000 where a not guilty plea is anticipated and can be tried summarily; and Fraud Act 2006 and handling offences where a guilty plea is anticipated. There are certain exceptions that must continue to be referred to the CPS, which is currently undertaking an evaluation of the transfer that is expected to be completed early in 2012.
Graham Jones
Is the main reason for transferring the charging responsibility to save money, and how much money does the CPS expect to save?
The Attorney-General
No, it is not to save money. It was a question of whether the system could be operated more efficiently. Some anxiety was expressed when the pilots were commenced, but the evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service has overwhelmingly been that the system is working well. For that reason, we are happy to consider, on a pragmatic basis, rolling it out further. Ultimately, whatever charging decision is made, decisions on prosecution will remain with the CPS.
Yasmin Qureshi
Before I ask my question, I should declare that I was employed by the Crown Prosecution Service many years ago, that I have been instructed by the CPS as an independent barrister and that I have a family member who works for the CPS. In my area, Greater Manchester police are closing their files management unit, which prepares files for the CPS, so that the officers can be put on the beat. Coupled with the devolved powers to police officers, that has led to a deterioration in the quality of the files that are sent by the police to the CPS. Because of this money saving by the police, the CPS has ended up spending more resources and personnel on sorting out these cases, which should have been dealt with properly by the police.
The Attorney-General
If what the hon. Lady says is correct, it should not be happening. If she would like to give me the details of the particular office where this is occurring, the best thing that I can do is to have it looked into and write to her. I accept that all transitions can cause problems, but the CPS is clear that the basis for allowing these changes to go forward is that they will improve efficiency.
Petition
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from the residents of Woodside Close, Walsall and others. It has been signed by 263 people.
The petition
Declares that the Petitioners object to the proposed redevelopment at 1 Woodside Close, Walsall WS5 3LU, planning reference 11/1217/FL, involving the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 14 two bedroom apartments, on the grounds that the Petitioners believe that the redevelopment is an overdevelopment, incorporating a third storey in the roof, out of character with the area, and that the development is in an unsustainable location, with insufficient parking together with parking on the frontage, as shown on the plans, along with inadequate amenity space.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to consider the objections of the local residents.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.[P000993]
Public Service Pensions
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the reform of public service pensions.
Seven weeks ago I reported to the House that in an effort to secure agreement, the Government were making a new offer to public service workers. Despite some unnecessary interruptions, scheme negotiators have been working hard to reach detailed heads of agreement by the end of the year deadline that we set. It has not been an easy task, but the Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from taking difficult long-term decisions in the nation’s long-term interest.
We wish to see pensions for public service workers that are fair and sustainable, that provide dignity in retirement, and that are affordable for the workers and for taxpayers. That is why we committed in the coalition agreement to establish an independent commission to bring forward proposals for reform. Lord Hutton’s magisterial report did just that. We have stuck closely to the recommendations of the former Labour Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The case for reform is self-evident. The average 60-year-old lives longer now than in the 1970s. That means that people are living in retirement for longer. The life expectancy of a 60-year-old was 18 years in the 1970s; that has risen to 28 years today. As a result, the cost of public service pensions has risen to £32 billion a year—an increase of one third over the last 10 years.
We have already made some changes that deal with short-term pressures, including changing the basis of pension uprating to the consumer prices index and increasing member contributions by 3.2 percentage points, phased over three years. Those proposals are unchanged. Next year’s contributions increase is almost identical to that planned by the previous Government. The precise details of next year’s increase have been set out by Departments. All increases are tiered by income to protect the lower-paid. The Government will review the impact of next year’s increases, including on opt-outs and equality, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered. Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide evidence and views to the Government.
I know that many Members of the House will be concerned about the pay and conditions of our armed forces. Let me be clear that members of the armed forces will continue to make no contributions towards their pensions and will be exempt from the increases announced at the spending review.
From the beginning of this process, we have committed to ensuring that public service pension schemes continue to offer a defined benefit pension that is based on the size of the worker’s salary and is not dependent on the market performance of a fund. That is not available to most people in the private sector. From the beginning, we have been clear that all accrued rights will be protected in full, and that the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the risks associated with further increases in life expectancy by linking the scheme normal pension age to the state pension age. In November, we improved the offer to a 1/60th accrual rate, which is an increase of 8%. That is available only in the event of agreement being reached. We also agreed to protection for those who are 10 years from retirement.
I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the TUC and the scheme negotiators on both sides for their efforts to reach agreement. I am pleased to report that heads of agreement have now been established with most unions in the local government, health, civil service and teachers’ schemes. It will of course now be for union executives and memberships to decide their response.
The heads of agreement deliver the Government’s key objectives in full, and do so with no new money since our November offer. In future, scheme pension ages will match the state pension age and schemes will be on a career average basis; all the agreements are within the cost ceiling that I set in November, and will save the taxpayer tens of billions of pounds over the decades to come.
Because heads of agreement have been reached, the better offer that I made in November has been secured by trade unions for their members, including the “no change” guarantee for workers 10 years from retirement. The heads of agreement also deliver a number of the key objectives set out by the trade unions during the talks. Negotiations on them are now concluded, and we and the unions agree that this is the best outcome that can be achieved by negotiation. It is the Government’s final position, and we will bring forward legislation to the House in due course.
The full details of the heads of agreement in each scheme are today being set out in written statements by each Department. The key changes made are as follows. In the civil service, we have agreed to revalue each year’s contributions by the consumer prices index rather than earnings, allowing an accrual rate of 1/44th to be offered. That will cost the same as our original offer, but with a configuration preferred by the trade unions. As a consequence, the new scheme will be very similar to the Nuvos scheme that is already available in the civil service, except that in future the normal pension age will be linked to the state pension age as it rises. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Public and Commercial Services Union has rejected the heads of agreement and walked away from the talks.
I have previously made the point that the local government scheme must be treated differently because it is a funded scheme. The Local Government Association and the trade unions have agreed that the pension age in the new scheme will be linked to the state pension age, and their preference is to deliver a career average scheme. Further discussions will take place over the next three months to agree the details.
In the health scheme, we have agreed to a revised revaluation factor of CPI plus 1.5%, which will allow the accrual rate to be improved to 1/54th. In education, we have agreed to a revised revaluation factor of CPI plus 1.6%, allowing for the accrual rate to be improved to 1/57th, along with modest improvements to early retirement factors. All those heads of agreement are within the cost ceiling that I set out in November, but in a configuration preferred by the unions.
Discussions on police, armed forces, judiciary and fire service schemes have been a separate process from the start, and proposals will be brought forward in due course.
Let me turn to some other aspects of the deals. All the agreements include a cap on taxpayer costs at two percentage points above or below the scheme valuation. That cap is symmetrical, so employees will benefit if costs fall. As Lord Hutton made clear, with the other aspects of reform now agreed there is no reason to believe that, under normal circumstances, that cap will need to be used. It is there as protection for taxpayers and for workers if extraordinary unpredictable events occur.
In the course of the talks, unions have stressed the importance of ensuring that their members will continue to be able to receive the benefits of their scheme if it is outsourced. That is the purpose of the fair deal policy, the future of which we have been consulting on. Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff. The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers, and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them.
In addition, the Government will consider what practical options might be available to reform the terms of access to the NHS pension scheme, in particular for NHS staff who move to a non-NHS “any qualified provider” delivering NHS services. [Interruption.] That is something that the trade unions have suggested, so hon. Members should keep quiet and listen. [Interruption.]
Danny Alexander
Opposition Members never have any answers, so they chunter from the sidelines instead.
At the same time, by offering transferred staff the right to remain members of the public service scheme, we are no longer requiring private, voluntary and social enterprise providers to take on the risks of defined benefit that deter many from bidding for contracts in the first place. Replacing so-called bulk transfers of pensions with continued access to public sector schemes means that we continue to protect public service workers’ pensions, manage the risk to the taxpayer and forge ahead with our ambitious plans for public service reform.
I have made the commitment that these reforms will be sustained for at least 25 years. The Government intend to include provisions on the face of the forthcoming public service pensions Bill to ensure that a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes.
What does this deal really mean? For our work force, it means that they will continue to receive the best-quality pensions available in this country—and rightly so. In the private sector, these pensions could be bought only at a cost of one third of salary. This is a proper reward for a lifetime’s commitment to serving the public. The new scheme is fairer to women too. By moving to career average, we will give a better pension in future to those, mainly women, who have low or steady salaries throughout their careers.
The Government have been clear that because we are living longer, public service workers must work a bit longer and pay a little more for their pensions. But in return we have also made an important commitment—that at retirement, those on low and middle incomes will get at least as good a pension as they do now. I can confirm today that we have met that commitment. For people who depend on our public services, it means that most unions will be asking their executives to lift the threat of further strike action while work is done to conclude the final agreement, and I hope that the remaining unions will do the same. For the taxpayer, it means that tens of billions of pounds extra that would have been spent on unreformed pensions over the next 30 years is now available for other pressing demands. These are reforms that significantly improve the long-term fiscal sustainability of this country, and reinforce the credibility of our fiscal stance.
The Office for Budget Responsibility will provide a forecast of the savings in its next fiscal sustainability report. For industrial relations, I believe this shows that it is possible to reach agreement through negotiation in good faith, based on clear objectives. That is the right way to approach relations between government and the trade unions. Sometimes the talks have been difficult, but it has been right to stay at the table. In these difficult times, it is important to show that people can come together to achieve genuine reform, preserving the best of the past, but recognising the realities of the future. This is a fair deal for public service workers, an affordable deal for the taxpayer, and a good deal for the country. I commend this statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement. Families and businesses who rely on public services, as well as the millions of public service workers worried about their finances and their future, will be relieved to see that real progress is finally being made in these talks. Labour has been clear from the beginning that the Government and public service employees would need to find ways of adjusting to the welcome fact that people are living longer. We said in response to the Chief Secretary’s previous statement on 2 November that any resolution to the dispute needed to be fair to taxpayers, fair to public service employees and genuinely sustainable for the long term, and that that would be endangered by a search for quick cash savings or the playing of party political games.
The vast majority of public sector workers, including dinner ladies, community nurses and police community support officers, retire on very modest pensions; moreover, they are already being hit hard by a pay freeze and worried about mounting redundancies. It was clear to us that tearing up decent public service pension schemes or imposing punitive and unaffordable contribution increases would be entirely counter-productive if it resulted in lower savings and inadequate retirement incomes that only left more people retiring into poverty, dependent on state benefits in their old age.
We will be looking at the detail of these proposals on the basis of the tests that we have set out. In particular, can the Chief Secretary offer clarification on the following points? Can he set out the timetable for further consultations and negotiations for each of the four schemes discussed today? When will he come forward with details for the police, armed forces, judiciary and fire service pension schemes? For each scheme, can he give us the new schedules for contribution increases across the schemes, the timetable according to which they will be introduced and how he will ensure fairness and affordability for lower-paid employees, especially those who work part time?
For each scheme, can the Chief Secretary give us the new accrual rates and methodologies for uprating pensions, and say what the timetables for introducing them will be? What assessment has he made of the impact of the changes on the number of public sector employees opting out of the schemes, and the implications of that for future scheme income and viability, as well as future pensioner poverty and the demands on state benefits?
How will the Government ensure that older workers, especially those in physically demanding jobs, are not forced to work beyond a point that would be detrimental to their health, or their ability to do their job? What will the Government do to maintain the morale and engagement of public service employees doing vital work for our country at a time of falling real pay, heightened job insecurity and significant changes to their pensions? Although we are pleased that there is agreement on a fair deal, there is a genuine fear across the public sector that the Government intend to use that deal more as they privatise parts of our NHS and schools, as well as other parts of our public sector. Crucially, how will the Government make good on their promise to deliver a deal that is secure and sustainable for the next 25 years, so that in future we do not face the uncertainty, anxiety and disruption that we have seen over the past year?
The Chief Secretary has made much of Lord Hutton’s review of public sector pensions. We have always said that Lord Hutton’s report provided an important starting point for negotiations, and we have always recognised that change is needed. However, Lord Hutton has also stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, with particular care for the affordability of any additional contributions for lower-paid public service workers, and to avoid fuelling a race to the bottom on pension provision. However, the Government have made it much harder to make progress on many of Lord Hutton’s sensible long-term recommendations by seeking to impose, prior to any negotiations, a steep 3.2% rise in contributions and a permanent switch in the way in which pensions are uprated—from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index—neither of which formed part of Lord Hutton’s recommendations.
However, it is good to see that the Chief Secretary recognises that he needed to do more to address the genuine concerns about his plans over the last 10 months—concerns about the need to do more to protect lower-paid public service employees from unaffordable increases in contributions; about the need to reassure older employees worried about how long they will have to work; and about the need to ensure that people who dedicate their working lives to our public services can expect a decent income in retirement. However, it must be a matter of regret for everyone in this House that it took 10 months of stalemated negotiations and strike action that resulted in closed schools, cancelled operations and disrupted lives for families and businesses around the country, for us to reach this point, just five days before Christmas.
The last Government agreed and established a framework to negotiate reform and manage long-term costs; this Government chose to tear that up and take an aggressive and provocative approach to this serious and sensitive issue. For months the Government have refused to engage in constructive talks to address the issues concerning public service employees, engaging instead in unhelpful megaphone diplomacy. Major changes to public service employees’ current contributions and future security have been announced without warning and imposed without negotiation. Last month’s strikes could and should have been avoided. In short, the Government have displayed negotiating skills similar to those that we saw at the European summit, being more interested in going for the cheap headline than putting in the hard graft necessary to get an agreement that works for everybody.
Clearly the Government still have a lot of work to do over the next few weeks. Ministers and employers will need to clarify the details of their latest proposals, and trade unions will rightly want to inform and consult their members. Reaching a final agreement will be a difficult and delicate process, and we must hope that it is not jeopardised by provocative tactics or inflammatory rhetoric, as we have seen in previous months. We hope that further progress will be made and that early in the new year the Chief Secretary will be able to return to the House and report that a fair and sustainable agreement has been reached, and that we will not see further industrial action. That is what the Opposition want to see, and it is what the country wants to see as well.
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that the hon. Lady was listening to anything that I said in my statement, because I have already answered almost all the points that she raised. She certainly seems to have forgotten that this is the season of good will. She said that the Opposition’s position was clear, but she did not say what it was. As she and her party have opposed most of the reforms, perhaps they should have the good grace to admit that they got it wrong. It is no doubt uncomfortable for the Labour party that many of its union paymasters have been willing to come to an agreement in the interests of their members—and, indeed, in the national interest.
Lord Hutton’s contribution was significant; indeed, he is the only Labour Member—or former Labour Member—who has made a contribution. It is worth telling the hon. Lady that he welcomes the deals that we have announced today. She asked a question about the agreement put in place by the previous Government, so let me tell her what Lord Hutton said about that cap and share deal:
“Cap and share cannot take account of the increases in cost of pensions over recent decades because people have been living longer. Also, untested, complex cap and share arrangements cannot of themselves, address the underlying issue of structural reforms, nor significantly reduce current costs to taxpayers.”
That is why we could not rest with the position agreed with the previous Government.
The hon. Lady asked a few questions about the timetable. As I said in my statement, the timetable for reaching heads of agreement is finished. Negotiations on the heads of terms have finished, and as I said in my statement, those heads of terms are agreed by most unions in all schemes. That is a good result, which I hope she would welcome. The other schemes—for the judiciary, armed forces, police and so on—will be agreed in due course. For the firefighters the deadline is 20 January; for the police service the second round of the Winsor report, due at the end of January, will take forward that process.
I think that the hon. Lady still opposes the increase in member pension contributions, but I have to tell her that, as a consequence of today’s announcements, that is continuing. She asked a question about the relationship between accrual rates and revaluation factors. I listed the precise accrual rates and precise revaluation factors for each scheme in my statement; I do not propose to repeat them now, but they will certainly be available in Hansard later. As for older workers, one of the reasons why the trade unions favoured the relationship in question between accrual rates and revaluation is precisely that it works more strongly to the advantage of older workers. We will bring forward legislation, I hope in the next Session, that will include the changes that we want to make to ensure the 25-year guarantee.
The truth about this exchange, as with so many others, is that there are two parties on this side of the House acting in the national interest and one party on the other side that seems to find it increasingly hard to see even its own self-interest. While we on this side of the House are working together to build confidence in the future of the British economy, Labour Members are fighting with each other, as they lose confidence in their own leader. As a result of this statement, at least the hon. Lady can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he falls on his sword there will be a good pension available to him. All that the British people will see is a party that has not a shred of economic credibility left.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
By far the most important point in this statement—the one that the Chief Secretary touched on only briefly—is that it demonstrates to the markets that the Government will remain committed to sound public finance. Does that not stand in contrast to a number of eurozone countries, not least France, which are finding such measures extremely difficult to implement, and are paying the price in much higher debt service costs?
Danny Alexander
I hesitate to enter into any specific diplomatic disagreements of recent weeks, but my hon. Friend makes an essential point. The ability to negotiate such changes strengthens our fiscal credibility as a country, as well as the long-term sustainability of our public finances. To those who want to see that this Government are capable of making changes that reassure the markets and build confidence—not just in the short term, but in the medium term—this agreement is an essential building block. It is one that other European countries have not always been able to achieve—and again, it goes to show that this Government are making the right decisions in the national interest.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Is not the truth of the matter that even with this settlement, public sector workers will pay more, work longer and receive less, that the Government have bullied into submission a number of trade unions, and that those that refused to submit have not walked away from the talks but have been refused access to them? Does the Chief Secretary not accept that his role in all this is to destroy the industrial relations climate in this country, possibly for a generation?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman is wrong in everything he says. The fact that a coalition Government of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have been willing, through a process of painstaking negotiation, to reach agreement with the unions on difficult decisions actually strengthens the industrial relations climate in this country. We now have a good, fair foundation for the relations between the trade unions and the Government; it is a relationship not between paymaster and servant but between two organisations working together to secure the best interests of their members.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm the number of trade unions that have reached agreement, and tell us what will happen to those public sector workers who are in unions that have not reached agreement? Their pensions are clearly under threat.
Danny Alexander
I think that there are 28 unions altogether, of which 26 have signed up to the agreement in principle, although it is fair to report that they now need to take the issues back to their members and executives. Unite has reserved its position in a number of areas, and the PCS has refused to sign up, which is deeply disappointing. In the teachers’ scheme, all the unions were present at the discussions and have agreed in principle, although four unions have asked to reserve their position pending sight of the technical annexes that will accompany the heads of agreement.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Has the Chief Secretary made an estimate of the number of people who will opt out of their pension scheme because of the increased contributions, leaving them with no pension cover whatever?
Danny Alexander
For anyone who wishes to have a pension, these are among the best pensions available. It would be right for people to stay in their pensions or to join them, and I hope that no Member of the House will encourage anyone to opt out of their pension on the basis of this agreement.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I congratulate Ministers and the trade union leaders on what is clearly a win for the taxpayer, a win for the public sector workers and a win for the public. This is good news at Christmas, and it gives us the prospect of a much more prosperous and secure new year. May I ask what Ministers will now do to ensure that three key messages get down to the workers, and not just the leaders? They are that this is a better deal for the low paid, for women and for older workers; that this is a secure deal for the next century; and that everyone’s accrued rights are protected. The workers need to understand that, as well as the bosses.
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words of praise. He makes an important point about the need to get this message across directly to public sector workers. I hope that the unions that have signed up to the heads of agreement, following consultations with their executives in many cases, will now be part of the process of explaining the new deal to their members. The Government will also continue with the efforts, which we started after my statement on 2 November, to communicate directly to nurses, teachers, civil servants and local government workers, so that they understand directly from the Government what the terms of the agreement are.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
In regard to workers who are transferred to another organisation, can the Chief Secretary confirm that their right to stay in their pension scheme will apply to all pension schemes? Will that be time-limited in any way? If the organisation to which they are transferred is taken over or changes ownership, will they still have the right to remain in the public sector pension scheme?
Danny Alexander
Yes, they will. I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on all the points that he has made. What we are saying is that we do not want bulk transfers any more, in which the new providers have to set up their own scheme. Instead, the people to whom he refers will continue to be part of the public sector scheme—the NHS scheme, the civil service scheme or whatever—with the new provider, rather than the taxpayer, paying the employer contribution into the scheme. This will create a more secure footing for those people to be on. It is important to be able to give full reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and, through him, to the members of those schemes that he is concerned about.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate Ministers and the unions on this excellent settlement, particularly because of the way in which it will benefit the lowest paid and part-time workers, many of whom are women. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many women are likely to benefit from the settlement? Does he also agree that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) cannot welcome the proposals because of her union paymasters?
Danny Alexander
I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise figure for the number of women workers who will benefit, but about 60% of the public sector work force are female, and all those people will benefit from the terms of the scheme. Unfortunately, women workers tend to be among the lowest paid at the moment, and tend to have steady rather than rapidly rising salaries, but they will particularly benefit from the scheme that we are putting in place under the agreement announced today.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remarks about reaching a settlement through negotiation will not have been lost on his colleagues on the Treasury Bench who were gagging for further industrial action. If he believes that negotiation is the right way forward, will he continue to talk to those unions that still need to resolve important points of detail in the interests of their members?
Danny Alexander
No one on the Treasury Bench wanted to see industrial action; in fact, the only people who seemed to welcome it were some of those on the Opposition Benches. Of course, we are talking about heads of agreement, and further fine details within each scheme remain to be resolved over the coming weeks. That process will continue to involve the unions, precisely as the process has done up to now. The agreement on the heads of terms is complete; that process is over, and this is the final position. On the question of the fine details, however, I can give the hon. Gentleman a positive answer.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the hard work that he has put into this process and the unions that have worked so hard to put a deal in place. What message does he have for the PCS union, whose own strike ballot had only a 32.4% turnout and which is now agitating for further strikes?
Danny Alexander
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General tells me that there were 14 meetings in which discussions took place between the civil service employers and unions, and that the general secretary of the PCS did not turn up to any of them. That is a deeply disappointing position to be in. I hope very much that the PCS will rethink its position, because it will not have the support of its members—as that ballot showed—and it will certainly not have the support of the general public if it chooses to inflict further industrial action after an agreement has been reached.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stop trying to demonise the PCS, and recognise that it is representing its members, which it has a democratic right to do, and that its general secretary has attended a great many meetings? According to the PCS’s calculations, the average civil servant will pay £63 a month more to work for longer to get less. He has twice told the House that billions are being saved, but that can be done only at the expense of hard-working public sector workers. Is he really proud of this?
Danny Alexander
I am very proud indeed that we have managed to achieve something that Members on both sides of the House thought would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do—namely, to reach agreement between the Government and many of the trade unions on the long-term reform that is necessary to ensure that public sector workers continue to get the best possible pension schemes long into the future. The previous arrangements were unsustainable, but this one is sustainable, which is why I am confident in offering the House a 25-year guarantee that no party in the House will need to revisit these arrangements over that period.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition claimed recently that the Government were imposing a 3% tax rise on the lowest-paid workers. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to clarify for my constituents that, under the Government’s offer, the lowest-paid workers will make no extra contribution whatever?
Danny Alexander
Yes, I am happy to confirm that. We set out at the beginning that no one earning less than £15,000 should see any contribution increase at all. In fact, through the consultation process, better terms were able to be offered in some cases. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was able to offer better terms to lower-paid workers in the health sector. This demonstrates once again this Government’s commitment to supporting the lowest paid in these difficult times.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The 2 million public service staff who took action last month will note that the Government have given no ground on the imposition of a 3% tax grab on their pension contributions. The Chief Secretary has said that the heads of agreement are not the actual agreement, but the basis for further detailed negotiations. What are his deadlines for starting and ending those negotiations, and when will the millions of scheme members who must, in the end, decide on their future have something put in front of them to which they can say yes or no for themselves?
Danny Alexander
It is a matter for the trade unions to discuss their individual processes of engagement with their members. We have worked well with many of the trade unions in this process, but that does not extend to my being able to describe their internal processes to the right hon. Gentleman.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I congratulate everyone who has been involved in reaching the heads of agreement. This will give hard-working public sector workers the certainty that their pensions will remain among some of the very best available. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the move to career-average earnings will benefit women and low-paid workers in particular?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. It is an important point, on which I am glad to have the chance to expand. At the moment, final salary schemes in the public sector work disproportionately to the advantage of people who are highly paid or who see a big increase in their salary at the end of their careers, and the contributions of lower-paid workers subsidise the pensions of the highest paid. On a career average basis, each year’s earnings is what it is and the contribution to be made is treated as what it is; pension is built up year by year on the basis of what people have earned and contributed. That means that each individual’s contributions are valued in a more similar way than they are in the inequitable schemes in place at the moment.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The underestimation of life expectancy that occurred in the 1970s and the pension holidays of the 1980s put huge pressure on the pensions industry, both public and private. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has set a high bar, but as part of that, will he ensure that pension holidays are no longer possible in the invested schemes, as that would mean building in a correction in case we underestimate longevity?
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I am sure will have been heard by the Local Government Association and the local government trade unions as they continue their talks on that scheme. I am not going to set out particular rules at this stage, but he makes an important point about the need to ensure that the schemes continue to be funded to meet future life expectancy.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
I congratulate the Chief Secretary and indeed the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on the successful negotiations, particularly in respect of the protection for low-paid workers. Is the Chief Secretary as disappointed as I am that the PCS union has not only walked away from this agreement but has continually misled its members by telling them that the Government were not interested in meaningful negotiations. How does that sit with so many other unions that have signed the heads of terms today?
Danny Alexander
I do not know quite how disappointed my hon. Friend is, but I am certainly very disappointed in the stance of the PCS. I hope that it will come round in time to seeing this as a beneficial and positive agreement. It is striking that, in the end, other trade unions have looked at the interests of their members and put those first rather than be too worried about the rhetorical position of a small minority of unions.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the earlier question about the level of opt-out likely to arise from settling these schemes? I am thinking particularly of the local government scheme, which is a funded scheme that will be adversely affected by high levels of opt-out. Will he be clear about what work has been done on this matter and whether there are remaining concerns for trade unions and employees?
Danny Alexander
At the start of the process, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast opt-out rates resulting from the contributions increase as being about 1% of pay bill. Of course, because the local government scheme is a funded scheme, one thing we are allowing is that savings delivered by long-term reform, such as increasing the retirement age or moving to a career-average basis, can be used to cover the cost of some of the contribution increases. It is therefore possible that once the final local government scheme is put in place, local government workers will face little or no contribution increase because they are in a funded scheme.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
For purposes of comparison, what estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the proportion of new starters in the private sector who can look forward to a defined benefit scheme?
Danny Alexander
The number of new starters in the private sector who can look forward to a defined benefit scheme is very small. The number of open defined benefit schemes is decreasing, but that should not deflect us from our wish to continue to provide defined benefit pensions in the public sector, which are a right and proper part of the reward for a lifetime’s commitment to serving the public.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary said of the civil service scheme: “It is disappointing that the PCS and Unite have not supported the heads of agreement and walked away from the talks”. Some might argue that they had been excluded. Be that as it may, he made a virtue of staying at the table, so what is he going to do to re-engage with Unite and the PCS to avoid giving the impression that it is his Government who are simply spoiling for a fight?
Danny Alexander
I would have welcomed from the Scottish National party—as from the Labour Front-Bench team—a recognition that opposition to these reforms was wrong and a welcome of the fact that we have reached agreement. Sadly, Salmond and Serwotka are the duo who continue to reject public service pension reform. The position of Unite is more nuanced, as it has signed up to the agreement in the local government sector and reserved its position on the health sector, pending consultation with some of its lay members. If that proves to be positive, the union would be welcome back at the negotiating table.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
An inflation-proof pension of £20,000 a year taken at the age of 67 would cost about £500,000 to purchase on the open market, yet the average pot in the private sector is about £30,000 for those people who have any provision at all. This difference is exacerbated by the charging structure in the UK fund management industry, which cripples private provision. Now that the Chief Secretary has more time on his hands, having concluded these negotiations, will he address this issue with colleagues because it is a disgrace?
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that I would accept the description of having time on my hands. The hon. Gentleman’s point is a serious one, however, particularly on the charging structure. This has been looked at by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) in the context of the new National Employment Savings Trust scheme, and the Financial Secretary has been considering it. If we can find things to help reduce those costs, we will certainly go ahead with them.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The truth is that this Government are indulging in a race to the bottom on pensions. The fact is that the 11% of private sector workers currently in a defined benefit scheme will find pressure being brought to bear to reduce the benefits of those schemes as a result of the Minister’s forcing down of public sector pensions. Will he tell the House how it can possibly be in the national interest to force more pensioners into poverty, resulting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of pensioners in the future having to rely on means-tested benefits?
Danny Alexander
I have to say that that is the most shameful scaremongering about what we are offering that I have heard. What we are offering public service workers are the best pensions available to any work force in the country. Most public service workers will continue to have a very good pension in retirement. People on low and middle incomes will in most cases receive a better pension at their retirement age than they could under the current schemes. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will join us in explaining and selling this deal to the many hard-working public servants in his constituency rather than misrepresenting it.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Given that Lord Hutton has said that it is “hard to imagine” a better offer than the “generous” one put forward by the Government, has my right hon. Friend received any imaginative proposals from the shadow Chief Secretary about public pension reform or indeed about how she would pay for it?
Danny Alexander
Sadly, the answer to that question is that no such proposals whatsoever have been received.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I am disappointed that despite a number of written questions from me and the questions put today, the Chief Secretary cannot do better than the OBR estimate of 1% of the pay bill in respect of reduced contributions. In his statement, however, he said that the Government would “review the impact of next year’s increases, including on opt-outs and equality”. Does that mean he will tell us in a report to the House about the impact of these changes on equality so that we can know whether or not his confidence that this is a good deal for women is true?
Danny Alexander
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for picking up on that point. We will certainly look at the impact on opt-outs of the first year’s contribution increase. That will allow us to make adjustments to how we deliver the increase in years 2 and 3. I will be happy to share the relevant evidence in an appropriate form, perhaps in a statement or debate in the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
In light of the hard-line position taken by the PCS union, what indication has my right hon. Friend had that it is serious about pension reform and will come back and sit at the negotiating table?
Danny Alexander
I am not sure that I have had any such indications so far, but I would, of course, welcome them if they came in the future?
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary will be aware of the demanding and dangerous job done by prison officers up and down this country. Will he clarify the state of negotiations with the Prison Officers Association on the normal pension age for prison officers in the context of the difficult and important job they do?
Danny Alexander
I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing gratitude for the hard work that prison officers do for the country, and in recognising the physically demanding nature of some of that work. There is a specific outstanding issue in the arrangements relating to mechanisms allowing prison officers to retire before reaching the state pension age, and we are continuing to engage in discussions with the Prison Officers Association to deal with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Should not something be done about the destructive polarisation of the public and private sectors that this issue encourages?
Danny Alexander
I agree that, while we are securing very good pensions for public service workers, we must not neglect the fact that many millions of private sector workers have no pension provision at all. That is what the NEST scheme is intended to address. The opt-in arrangement for a new basic pension scheme, which will be rolled out over the next five or six years, will enable those millions in the private sector who currently have no provision to build some up for themselves. I hope that, in due course, my hon. Friend will join us in promoting that scheme to constituents.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Would not the negotiations have proceeded more quickly and smoothly had the Chief Secretary’s party not colluded in the constant denigration of public sector workers, and the setting of one group against the other? The Chief Secretary is still doing that today in seeking to create a huge divide between public and private sector workers, and to make one group envious of the other.
Danny Alexander
Opposition Members seem to be making increasingly desperate attempts to find new ways of saying that they do not agree with what we have offered. It would be simpler for them to say that they welcome the agreements that we have reached in many areas.
I said in my statement, but will happily repeat for the hon. Lady’s benefit, that the contribution made to the country by public service workers such as teachers, civil servants, nurses, local government workers, firefighters and prison officers is enormously important. That is why one of the Government’s objectives has been to ensure that they continue to receive better pension provision than any other work force in the country, which is absolutely right. I hope that, on reflection, she will choose to welcome that.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that following these reforms, lower-paid nurses, teachers and civil servants will no longer subsidise the pensions of chief executives, permanent secretaries and the like?
Danny Alexander
I entirely agree. That is one of the abiding reasons why both the hon. Lady’s party and mine have sought to reform public service pensions for many years. As a result of the inequities in the current system, the contributions of hard-pressed low-income workers subsidise the pensions of the wealthiest public service workers. The new deals will mean that that will no longer happen.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Large increases in pension contributions combined with a continuing pay freeze will lead to a severe squeeze on living standards for nurses, teachers and other public service workers. What impact will that squeeze have on the wider economy, particularly in regions where there is a high proportion of public service employment?
Danny Alexander
There is a squeeze on living standards and, indeed, on our economy for a combination of reasons, including the crisis in the eurozone and the catastrophic mess that the hon. Lady’s party made of the economy. I think she should start by admitting that.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the Chief Secretary on reaching an agreement. The last thing that any of us want is a regular five-yearly salami slicing of public sector pensions. What aspects of the deal will make it future-proof over the 25-year period to which he has referred?
Danny Alexander
That is an extremely good point. Under the earlier cap and share arrangement, there would have been a three-yearly salami slicing of pensions: every three years, public service workers would face the prospect of increases in their contributions and reductions in their benefits. The principal feature of the new scheme, which protects them from that prospect, is the link between the normal pension age and the state pension age. As the state pension age rises, so will the retirement age for public service workers. That arrangement, which Lord Hutton recommended, is the best and simplest way of protecting public service schemes from the longevity risk in the future, which is why those schemes are fundamentally sustainable.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman said that agreement had largely been reached in the negotiations, and that it would now be referred to trade union executives and, perhaps, individual members, through a ballot. Does he agree that, according to the democratic process, those individual members have as much right to reject the offer as to accept it, and will he tell us what attitude the Government would adopt to such a rejection?
Danny Alexander
Members of trade unions do indeed have that right, and it will be for the unions to decide their individual processes. I made clear in my statement that the negotiations on the heads of terms had been completed, that this was the Government’s final position, and that we were proceeding to draft legislation on that basis.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Most of my constituents will never have access to a public sector pension, and if they have any private sector pension provision, it is likely to be neither guaranteed nor linked to inflation. Given that the cost of public sector pensions is now £32 billion a year and has increased by a third over the last 10 years, should not the agreement be warmly welcomed? Without it, we would leave a huge pension liability to be paid off by our children and grandchildren in the future.
Danny Alexander
The hon. Gentleman has described the position precisely. Over the next 20 or 30 years, the agreement will save taxpayers, including his constituents, tens of billions of pounds which it will be possible to use for other purposes. I recognise that many of his constituents in the private sector do not have access to pension provision, and I hope that that problem can be addressed, not least by means of the NEST scheme.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Will the Government take steps to veto any agreements that may be made between the trade unions and the Scottish Government?
Danny Alexander
I hesitate to use the word “veto” at the Dispatch Box, even in answer to the hon. Lady’s tempting question. It is traditional for Scottish schemes to proceed by analogy with our United Kingdom schemes. I hope that that will continue, and that the intransigent opposition of the Scottish Government to any pension reform will cease. Of course, as with contributions, if the Scottish Government choose to proceed differently they will have to bear the cost.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
This excellent deputy Chancellor is very self-effacing, but he has achieved a considerable feat in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Does he agree with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), that what he did in putting the national interest first should be considered equivalent to what the Prime Minister did in Europe?
Danny Alexander
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Over the last few months, I have sometimes felt less like a Chief Secretary than a chief negotiator. I certainly think that, in this as in every other aspect of our policy, the Government as a whole have indeed put the national interest first.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the Chief Secretary specify the actuarial reductions involved in all four pension schemes? Have they changed? What will the consequences be for shift-working public sector employees, whose life expectancy does not generally match the national average, if they opt out of schemes?
Danny Alexander
The actuarial factors have not changed. Early retirement pensions will still be calculated on an actuarially fair basis, although of course that in itself changes over time according to the actuarial assumptions. The only exception is the teachers’ scheme. There has been discussion about modest enhancements to early retirement factors at the cost of the accrual rate for retirement ages over 65, as and when the state pension age exceeds 65. The teaching unions made that a priority in their negotiations, and we have chosen to agree with them.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I hope the Chief Secretary is beginning to realise that the very thing that is likely to destabilise some pension funds is the decision of members to opt out of them.
The right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the position of the PCS and that of my own trade union, Unite, but has made very few comments about the Prison Officers Association, except when the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont). The Chief Secretary said that two unions had not signed the formal heads of agreement. Will he confirm that the POA has not signed it?
Danny Alexander
I interpret the position of the Prison Officers Association more positively, which is why I did not mention the association in my statement. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), who is no longer present, there is a specific outstanding issue in the arrangements relating to mechanisms allowing prison officers to retire before reaching the state pension age, and we are continuing to engage in discussions with the Prison Officers Association.
I bow to none in my respect for the work of prison officers. I think it right for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General to continue to engage in those discussions, because this issue is both important and specific to that particular work force.
Points of Order
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very concerned that the Minister for defence equipment, support and technology, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), appears to have forgotten to follow up on the specific commitment he made on two occasions in this House—first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on 4 July, column 1212, and, secondly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 14 November, column 570—that he would bring forward a White Paper on defence procurement previously promised in the spring. Given the economic downturn, that paper is vital for the defence industrial base, which accounts for 10% of GDP. Will you, Mr Speaker, therefore assist the Minister with his memory lapse by asking him to come to the House before the year ends and he fails to fulfil his promise?
Mr Speaker
That is not directly a matter for the Chair, but what I can do to assist is look meaningfully, but in a typically friendly fashion, at the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House, both of whom will have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order.
Mr Speaker
Indeed, the Deputy Leader of the House is champing at the bit, as he is keen to favour the House with a response, which we will now hear.
Mr Heath
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady mentioned a memory lapse, but I think she may have suffered a memory lapse since yesterday, when we had Defence questions and the Minister with responsibility for defence procurement talked about the specific matter she raises.
Mr Speaker
There may now be an outbreak of contentment, therefore, but if the hon. Lady remains dissatisfied—which I suspect is an unimaginable scenario—she will doubtless return to the issue.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to imply that the shadow Chief Secretary was improperly influenced by trade union donations, when she has no declarations in the register yet has 10 donations amounting to just short of £50,000?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I know to what he is referring. I did not intervene at the time because the Chair judges whether an intervention is warranted at a specific moment, and I did not think it was. However, the hon. Gentleman’s point of order does give me the opportunity to underline the point that no Member should attribute an unworthy motive to another Member. I took the view at the time—for which I make no apology and which I have explained—that the question was a collective criticism of another political party, rather than it being directed at an individual. If, however, it was directed at an individual, it should not have been, and I think the following advice is a useful guide to all Members: concentrate on the big picture and the policy, but do not attribute unworthy motives to another Member of the House. I hope that is clear and that we can now move on.
National Health Service (Right to Treatment)
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision to ensure that medical treatment prescribed as necessary by a doctor or other medical professional must be provided unless the type of treatment is not approved by the Secretary of State or the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; to establish a national register of cases where such prescribed treatment is refused; to introduce a mechanism for appeal against decisions about provision of medical treatments; and for connected purposes.
The NHS is becoming a lottery. Decisions about the treatment people receive depend not on their medical needs, but on where they live. These decisions are unfair to patients, inefficient because inconsistent resource allocation decisions are not cost-effective, and unaccountable because responsibility for the decisions is not taken by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for how the NHS spends its money and because patients have no right of appeal if NHS treatment is denied.
This Bill seeks to restore equity by giving patients a legal right to treatment, when it is recommended by their doctor, so that all patients have access to the same range of NHS services. The Bill also seeks to strengthen accountability by requiring the Secretary of State—whom I am pleased to see on the Treasury Bench—to come to Parliament to seek approval for explicit rationing decisions. The Bill seeks to improve transparency by creating a national register of all treatments for which NHS funding has been withdrawn. Finally, it seeks to empower patients by giving them a right of appeal if they believe they have been denied a clinically necessary treatment.
There cannot be a single Member who has not been approached by a constituent who has been denied treatment. The following cases are just some of the problems I have encountered this year. A constituent with cystic fibrosis needs antibiotics to prevent lung infections. Nine out of 10 people with cystic fibrosis die from respiratory problems. She cannot use the two most commonly prescribed antibiotics because she is intolerant to them, so her consultant prescribed a different drug, but the North Yorkshire and York primary care trust decided not to pay for it. Haxby health centre in York recently told patients that eight common procedures would no longer be available to them on the NHS. Patients were referred to a private clinic charging, for example, £146 for treating in-growing toenails and £243 for removing benign lesions such as moles. Obese people can generally have bariatric surgery—the fitting of a gastric band—if their body-mass index exceeds 40. In York, however, treatment is limited to much more extreme cases where the patients have a BMI greater than 50. In vitro fertilisation—test-tube baby treatments—are available to infertile couples in Hull and Leeds, but not in North Yorkshire and York. Yesterday, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I went to see our local PCT about its decision to stop paying for facet joint injections prescribed by NHS pain consultants to people in our area with chronic back pain. Patients forced to go private as a result of this decision expect to spend between £800 and £1,000 a year for the treatment.
This problem of postcode rationing is likely to get worse, because responsibility for health commissioning will soon be transferred from 150 PCTs to about 300 GP-led care commissioning groups and greater fragmentation will lead to greater variation in treatment decisions made locally, and also because of the tight squeeze on NHS funding. This year, PCT recurrent revenue funding increased by 2.2% while the retail prices index in the year to date is running at 5.2%, so there is a real-terms cut of some 3%.
The NHS has a cash-limited budget of course, and I therefore accept that there will be limits to the services it can provide. Indeed, in the 1992-97 Parliament, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health, which produced two reports on NHS rationing, or “priority setting” as it rather coyly called it. I contend, however, that if there has to be rationing, it is essential to ensure that those with the greatest needs always get treated. The rationing decisions must be rational, in that they must be based on clinical evidence—
Hugh Bayley
I do not think it is customary to take interventions while introducing a ten-minute rule Bill.
As I was saying, if rationing decisions have to be made, they must be both rational—based on clinical evidence—and fair, so that all patients are treated on an equal basis. If we are forced for cost reasons to say that, for example, tattoo removal or breast augmentation or in vitro fertilisation will no longer be provided, that should be a national decision made by a Minister and approved by Parliament, and applied on an equitable basis to all patients. It is patently unfair that in vitro fertilisation is available to patients in Hull and Leeds but not to patients in York.
Piecemeal local decisions undermine public confidence in the national health service. When a man in pain is told he must pay hundreds of pounds a year for the injections his NHS pain consultant prescribes, or when a woman is told she must pay to have her in-growing toenails attended to or an unsightly mole on her face removed, they naturally ask what will be struck off the NHS treatment list next. Every time the NHS says no to a patient, a little piece of public trust leaks away—a crack appears through which doubt and fear seep into the public consciousness about the reliability of the NHS in our time of need.
Nye Bevan chose the title of his political testament, “In Place of Fear”, with a purpose. Before the creation of the national health service, people lived in fear of the catastrophic consequences of illness or incapacity, and we do not want to return to those pre-NHS times. It is fortunate that all parties in this House are committed to the future of the NHS, so the Government, I believe, should act decisively to stem the leakage in public trust and to prevent it from turning into a torrent.
It is for those reasons that I propose my Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Hugh Bayley, Frank Dobson, Mr Kevin Barron, Ms Gisela Stuart, Andrew George, Malcolm Wicks, Barbara Keeley, Mr Virendra Sharma, Valerie Vaz, Bob Russell, Grahame M. Morris and John Healey present the Bill.
Hugh Bayley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March 2012 and to be printed (Bill 266).
Backbench Business
Christmas Adjournment
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now move on to the main business. As hon. Members know, it has been divided into several sections. It is all very complicated, but we have fingertip control in the Chair. [Interruption.] None of you believe it. I call John Hemming to move the motion in the name of the Backbench Business Committee.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
In addition to moving the motion, I have been requested to speak briefly on what I was going to say later in the proceedings. Chapter 23 and the United Nations convention against corruption both enable the review of judicial procedures to ensure they maintain the rule of law. Chapter 23 was brought in for the accession of Croatia to the EU. Reviewing this, it seems that the EU does now pass Groucho Marx’s test, in that it is a club that would not allow us to join. One area of concern is the inaccessibility of many judgments. Ignoring secret judgments, even public judgments are not always published. If they are not handed down by the judge, then copyright rests with the shorthand writers and they are not published by the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. This would need resolving to satisfy chapter 23.
The underlying question for both the UNCAC and chapter 23 is that of the accountability of the judicial system. The courts are accountable through the appellate structure, article 3.7 of the Act of Settlement 1701 and public scrutiny. The latter is the area, perhaps, where England and Wales fall down most severely. I have come to the conclusion that secrecy undermines the rule of law. This has been recognised by many learned judges, but it remains the case that our courts have a considerable tendency to go into secret.
The case of CTB v. NGN highlights a number of problems with this. An ex parte injunction was obtained indicating that the second defendant had been blackmailing CTB. However, last week CTB accepted that this was not true. This was more than six months after the original injunction was obtained. What was particularly interesting was that the original injunction acted to prevent the second defendant from writing to eBay and BlackBerry to obtain evidence to disprove the allegations made in the ex parte hearing, relating to a shirt and text messages. Potentially, even laughter from a public gallery could have alerted the judge to the falsity of some of the claims. It appears that only when CTB was named in proceedings of the House did it become easier to obtain the evidence to prove that the injunction was not properly obtained.
That injunction was clearly a gift that keeps giving. It is like an ace serve that cannot be returned, because the serve itself prevents it bring proved that there was a foot fault. The injunction was even effective at the weekend, when it acted to prevent three Sunday newspapers from writing articles reviewing allegations that there were unlawful elements to the statement of claim and original witness statement. It also acts to prevent the Attorney-General from investigating whether any regulatory action is required.
Sir David Eady kindly referred to me as a “national treasure”. I was pleased that my cutting of the Gordian knot assisted in resolving a case in his court. We will never know whether it would have been possible to obtain the evidence as to the truth of the matter of CTB v. NGN without me fulfilling my duty of protecting ordinary citizens from secretive, wrongful and oppressive applications for committal. The case is now ended and no further action is required. However, it does raise serious questions about how injunctions undermine the rule of law and whether there should be statutory limitations on injunctions to prevent this from happening in future.
My concern about secret court hearings and their unreliability stems mainly from the miscarriages of justice seen in the family division. Here we have a further problem of accountability, again relating to evidence. The difficulty, again, is that a secret court operates in a pool of reality that is not linked directly to the public domain. Much of the decision making in care proceedings rests on reports from experts such as Dr George Hibbert. He is someone about whom a number of people have complained, and I am told that at least one person has refused to work for him because of what she saw as his unethical provision of reports to suit the demands of local authorities.
The difficulty is a question of how to ensure that this issue is properly investigated. The courts refuse to accept that an expert may be the hired gun of the local authority; at the same time, there is no right to a second opinion. Indeed, the court often refuses to accept additional evidence on behalf of parents and against the state. It is this procedural problem that in my view gives rise to thousands of miscarriages of justice in care proceedings. This may not involve models and footballers, and therefore may not get the same attention from the media; however, to me and many other hon. Members it is at least as important, if not much more so. We do not have the proper checks and balances that can ensure a truly independent investigation of miscarriages of justice in secret courts.
There are two recent privacy cases—CTB and Clarkson—where it is accepted that the original claims of blackmail are not strong enough for the claimant to wish to press them in a trial. It is alleged that in the DFT case this is also true. ZAM and OPQ have not seen any attempt at a criminal prosecution. However, two recent criminal prosecutions for blackmail—the Rooney and Ecclestone cases—were not subject to anonymity orders. This is actually a high proportion of those cases where a claim of blackmail has been made. Many involve the same legal advisers, who, when giving evidence to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, made no reference to the fact that some of the allegations of blackmail are false.
In my view, Parliament has a duty to investigate secret courts. It has the power to do this, but it needs to go further than it has so far.
One issue that needs a detailed review is secret expert reports. This could be done by a parliamentary Committee. A second issue that needs a detailed review is secret imprisonments. The Hammerton case was corrected by the Court of Appeal. However, there are others, such as that of Yvonne Goder, where it is difficult to find out what has been happening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Everybody in these debates is going to be on the six-minute limit, and I am afraid, Mr Hemming, that you have just reached your limit. So, I am now reminding everybody that they are on a six-minute limit.
Business, Innovation and Skills
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
Christmas focuses the mind on shopping. At this time of year, we become more aware of the importance of retail to our economy and the recovery. Retail is Britain’s largest private sector employer, providing 2.9 million jobs and representing more than 10% of total UK employment. In my constituency, more than 5,700 people are employed in retail. The retail sector generated £292 billion of sales in 2010, equivalent to one fifth of UK GDP.
The exceptional flexibility of retail work, with a higher proportion of part-time hours than other sectors, gives employees greater freedom to fit their work in with wider family responsibilities. It gives an opportunity for that first start in life—indeed, 42% of all working 16 to 17-year-olds are employed by retailers. Youth unemployment is at a record high and has broken through the 1 million mark, so any loss of retail jobs will have a direct impact on young people.
A lot of concern has been expressed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—USDAW—about changes to working tax credits, which mean that the total weekly hours that a couple with children need to work to qualify will increase from 16 to 24 hours. For some families, 16 hours of part-time work will not pay, and employers will lose valuable staff and the flexibility of shorter working patterns. I ask the Government to look again at the possible implications of this policy change.
Many challenges lie ahead for retail, including the worldwide economic downturn and uncertainty over the euro. In addition, the way we shop as a nation has changed dramatically. We have seen the massive growth of large, successful out-of-town superstores and the phenomenal rise of online shopping, which now accounts for nearly 10% of all retail sales. At the same time, we are seeing the decline of many town centres, with vacancy rates doubling over the past two years and total consumer spend away from our high streets now at more than 50%. The high street is changing, as was shown in the Mary Portas review, which was published last week.
Many town centres have always been a mixture of big-brand shops and independent retailers, but out-of-town shops have been able to offer larger stores combined with easy parking. The town centres that have done best in the face of these developments are those that have invested and developed a distinct shopping offer. Out-of-town shops do well because shoppers like them, so town centres have to become attractive to shoppers and, as Mary Portas says, there are as many different ways of doing that as there are towns.
As chair of the all-party group on markets, I strongly support the idea of placing markets at the heart of the plan to turn around ailing high streets and believe that vibrant markets are key to regenerating our town centres. At a time of high unemployment, market stalls are easy and cheap to set up, and they allow people to try out fresh ideas and flexible working. I also like the idea of national markets day. Indeed, our all-party group organised such a day in 2007, when dozens of MPs visited their local market.
People like markets. They have existed for hundreds of years and have been a key source of retail innovation. I am thinking, for example, of Tesco in Hackney, east London, Marks & Spencer in Leeds and Morrisons in Bradford. Markets also provide a public place for people to meet. They give a sense of belonging and of place in the community. Good town centres and markets make an important and underrated contribution to public health. It is important that that partnership between the big retailers and independent small traders in shops and markets in town centres, which has worked so well in the past, continues to meet the challenges of the future. I see that working well in parts of Stockport. In Heaton Moor, for example, the district shopping centre is adapting to the changing demands of the local community. Its coffee shops, café bars, delicatessens, fish and meat shops, other specialist shops and first-class restaurants show how change and innovation can turn local shops into a vibrant and attractive place. Interestingly, the area also has a Tesco local and a Co-operative store, and about 2 miles away there is a Tesco Extra, which is a 24-hour store. That shows that out-of-town stores do not, in themselves, destroy town or district shopping centres; it is the ability to change and adapt that will determine their future.
We need shopping to be interesting if we are to be attracted into the town and district centres. My suggestion to attract shoppers to Stockport is that it should offer a cultural experience day ticket. Shoppers could buy a ticket that would include discounted entrance to major heritage sites, including Staircase house, the Stockport air raid shelters and the hat museum. A trip round the Robinsons brewery might be an added attraction, and the day could perhaps finish with tea and a film at the Plaza combined with some shopping in Merseyway or the market. That, combined with special discounts at the shops and in the market, might prove very attractive to everybody in the north-west.
Retail is an important industry, a major employer and a big contributor to the economy, and it is at the heart of our towns. The Government need to restore consumer confidence, because without that people will not spend money and there will be no growth. At a local level, councils must support innovative ideas, and big retailers need to work with town centre partnerships and independent retailers to develop a vibrant high street. Town centres should be places where we go to meet other people in our communities and where shopping is just one part of a rich mix of activities. If we can get this right, towns up and down the country will come alive again and retail will become an even bigger part of our national life, contributor to the national purse and provider of that all-too-important employment.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in the pre-Christmas recess debate. I also wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) for taking the time to reply.
Enterprise zones offer great potential to the people of Fylde. In September, BAE Systems announced 1,300 job losses, which will have an impact on my part of Lancashire as many of those fall on my constituents. It was then that my campaign for enterprise zones really took place, although I have long been campaigning for an enterprise zone to come to Fylde. I must put on the record the fact that following those job losses the Government were quick to act, announcing the zone to cover the sites at Warton and at Samlesbury in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker, during the Conservative party conference in October.
However, it is one thing announcing an enterprise zone and quite another turning it into something meaningful. The work force in our part of Lancashire truly are world-class. Many have backgrounds in engineering, in-flight systems design and advanced project management skills. As such, we need to aim high in the types of employers we seek to attract. In recent weeks, BAE Systems has come in for criticism for the way in which the aspects of job losses and restructuring have been handled. I believe that the Lancashire enterprise zones provide BAE Systems with an opportunity to show its commitment to the region and leadership in attracting world-leading companies to set up home on the Warton and Samlesbury sites, and I wish to take this opportunity to recognise all that the company is doing in this regard. It is also right to put on the record the work that you have done behind the scenes, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make Samlesbury a successful site for enterprise zones and potential inward investors. I know that you, too, have campaigned tirelessly, doing so behind the scenes because of the nature of your role, to do the right thing by the work force at BAE Systems, and it would be remiss of me not to recognise that.
Many in this House will be familiar with the advantages that an enterprise zone will bring to an area, and the purpose of this debate is not to go over old ground. Following the Chancellor’s announcement in the autumn statement that capital allowances will be given for some enterprise zones and not for others, may I use this opportunity to call on the Government to ensure that we do not create two classes of enterprise zones, as that will lead to distortions in investment decisions? Instead, we should do everything we can to ensure that all enterprise zones are given every opportunity to flourish in what is a very competitive and tough investment market. I ask the Chancellor to ensure that, within the EU investment rules, we are creative and we give companies every opportunity to use all the various investment and tax mechanisms in play.
With its high-tech and highly skilled design and manufacturing work force, Warton is a natural place for top-end capital intensive industries to invest. We have people there who have worked at the cutting-edge, and in some of the most challenging environments in this country, all their lives. Our people also have the ability to reskill, retrain and move into other sectors, so we must think about how we can use mechanisms in the Department to retrain and reskill them to meet the challenges ahead.
I also urge the Government to ensure that all enterprise zones in Lancashire and the north of England operate on a level playing field and that investment decisions do not simply go from one area to another as a result of the tax structure created in an enterprise zone—I have the zone in Liverpool very much at the forefront of my mind.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to request that the Government be open to all types of small-scale investment, such as investment in capital infrastructure, that would help to facilitate enterprise zones and make them more attractive. I know that the Chancellor will be receptive to requests for investment in roads and so on—on a small and limited scale—and I urge the Government to continue to adopt that open-minded approach. To gain the high-quality companies that my constituents and your constituents deserve, Mr Deputy Speaker, we need to seek not just home-grown organisations, but, in particular, those from overseas. So I urge UK Trade & Investment to have dedicated people selling the potential of investing in Britain’s enterprise zones to global investors. If we play this right, enterprise zones will give some of the most challenging areas of our country a new lease of life and will ensure that some of the most highly skilled and highly motivated people, who are currently threatened with losing their jobs, have a bright and sustained future. I thank the Government for the opportunity to bring enterprise zones to Lancashire and urge them to ensure that enterprise zones are the success that we know they can be.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who, of course, comes from my constituency.
I also welcome the opportunity to raise a very timely issue: the collapse of the Farepak Christmas savings club. It has been raised in this Chamber on many occasions, because more than five years ago, on 13 October 2006, the company collapsed and as a result 120,000 people lost some £38 million. Very few of those people have received a penny back from Farepak as yet, although the administration has continued.
Hon. Members will remember that a response fund was set up at the time of the collapse, to which the people of this country gave very generously and as a result of which some Farepak victims got some money. The reality is, however, that Farepak has still not paid out in any way to the 120,000 individuals or to their families. The Government are well aware of the background. Last week, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning responded to the debate on the subject secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), and said that the current situation was completely unacceptable and that the whole matter had taken far too long to sort out. Members on both sides of the House would accept that the length of time it has taken to resolve the matter is not acceptable. We must see whether there are lessons to be learned.
I would argue that the 120,000 people who saved with the Farepak Christmas savings club did so responsibly, so I ask the Government to look again at what they can do to ensure that those affected receive full compensation for what they lost. In my constituency, hundreds of families were affected and for many of them Christmas that year was destroyed. In particular, I pay tribute to my constituents, Louise McDaid and Jean McLardy, who both live in West Kilbride and who, along with others, set up the Farepak victims committee, which has been campaigning for the past five years for justice for the Farepak victims. It has become clear over those years that the sector is poorly regulated and that individuals who pay for items in instalments do so with very little protection. The Farepak victims are unsecured creditors, which meant that when the company went bust they went to the bottom of the pile.
The reaction five years ago was the setting up of a voluntary organisation, the Christmas Prepayment Association, which provides should a company that is a member go bust. Many prepayment companies, however, are not members of the scheme and there is no requirement for them to belong to it. Indeed, some of the biggest players in the sector, such as Tesco and Asda, are not regulated by the voluntary scheme and the association covers only Christmas clubs, whereas many prepayment organisations are not geared towards Christmas.
Many Farepak customers are very upset about how the administrators, BDO, have handled the administration, about the lack of information available to them as creditors and about the deal that I believe was done with some of the ex-directors of Farepak to pay a total of only £4 million in compensation of the £32 million that was due. As was widely reported recently in the press, BDO has incurred expenses in excess of £8.2 million in administration of the scheme, whereas it has managed to get only £5.5 million for the victims. I tell all hon. Members that there are serious issues about whether that mechanism should have been used to resolve the situation. Until recently, the victims were told they could expect 15p in the pound back, but now it is not clear whether they will receive even that limited amount. An application has been made for disqualification orders to be taken against the directors, but as yet we still have no indication of whether there are likely to be any prosecutions in the criminal courts.
I believe that the case of Farepak highlights important failings in the regulation of the prepayment industry. That applies not just to Christmas savings clubs but to many situations where individuals pay for things in instalments, and, of course, it is people on modest incomes who do that. Most people who pay up in this way often reasonably expect that the sums they pay will be ring-fenced and put in a separate account and that they will have priority if the organisation goes down. Today, I ask the Government, five years after Farepak, to look into what can be done for the Farepak victims as well as at the wider issues of the prepayment sector, and to come back with proposals to ensure that the sector is better regulated so that we can give proper protection in the future.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on credit and debit card surcharges. This Christmas, more people than ever are buying their presents online. Last week’s retail figures showed that internet shopping, or, as it is rather mysteriously called by the Office for National Statistics, non-store retailing, rose nearly 20% between November 2010 and November 2011—a staggering increase. Purchases made online now constitute 12.2% of non-fuel purchases. It is therefore essential that the Government do everything they can to ensure that when we buy something online the prices are fair, the process is easy and the transaction is transparent.
That is simply not the case and the problem with surcharges is getting worse. A recent study by Which? found that in 2004 Ryanair charged its customers 80p for debit card payments, but that now passengers have to fork out £12 just to be able to pay for their flight. The British Retail Consortium, meanwhile, estimates that the transaction costs are 37p for credit cards and 9.2p for debit cards—rather less than £12. Those costs are no longer surcharges but a business model in their own right, and one that severely undermines legitimate economic growth. If Ryanair’s surcharges have risen 15 times in seven years, just think what such charges will do to economic growth across the country as we pull ourselves out of recession.
When consumers choose to buy something, they do so in the belief that the price is fair and that they have got a good deal. So, when hidden surcharges are added at the end, consumers come away feeling wronged and the incentive to buy is greatly reduced.That is compounded by the fact that businesses are incentivised to think of new ways to get away with hidden costs, rather than delivering desirable products or services at the cheapest possible price. Prices go up and innovation is throttled, harming society as a whole. The Government must act now or risk stifling our fragile recovery.
This November, retail sales were down 0.4% on the previous month, a disappointing outcome for hopeful high street shops. Clearly, the depth of the recession, the ongoing crisis in Europe and the difficult economic circumstances around the globe have had a severe impact on consumer confidence and people’s disposable income. Over the same month, however, online shopping was up 2.4%. The fact that internet shopping is growing is not exactly news, but what is important is the pace of that growth compared with that of other industries in this country and of online shopping in other countries. A recent study by the Federation of Small Businesses estimated that online trade will represent 10% of gross domestic product by 2015. If the Government also hope to eliminate the structural deficit by roughly that year, they would do well to pay close attention to internet shopping.
Ofcom has found that eight in 10 UK internet users ordered goods or services online in 2010, a higher figure than that in any other European country. What we have here in Britain is a very large number of people who have access to the internet, use it on a regular basis and are turning to it as the means by which they trade. In that respect, at least, we are leading the way in Europe. As a consequence of those benefits—the savings for customers and the convenience—the Government have already announced £100 million to support the roll-out of high-speed broadband. Although it is nice to see the Chancellor embracing some Keynesian investment, card surcharges already represent a major supply-side restraint which could be removed without any significant cost to the Exchequer. One of the many questions that any Government must ask themselves is what are the barriers to growth. Here we have a significant and growing barrier to progress, and it is time we took action to end the distorted market and unleash the full potential of online retail. Otherwise, consumers will be put off internet shopping.
Hidden costs harm confidence and skew the market away from productive enterprises, but they are also inherently unfair and damaging to a free and open society. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the need for an open society, the need to be transparent, and the need to have a fair distribution of wealth and property. Such non-transparent charges entrench inequalities in wealth and property; they make more difference to those with less.
It has always been the case that the most discerning consumers—those who have the luxury of time and possess significant purchasing power—are able to sit back, compare prices and select what they want; that is something that those who are always working to pay the bills simply cannot afford to do. It should be of concern to the Government that a recent Which? survey found that half of people think that card surcharges make comparing prices difficult. The free market is distorted and undermined by any hoarding of information, and the effect that such charges have on our fundamental sense of fair play is damaging to society as a whole. The charges engender significant mistrust in businesses. That is as harmful to their balance sheets as it is to the consumers who feel betrayed.
It is great that the reduction in travel associated with internet shopping has significant environmental benefits, in terms of CO2 emissions and problems associated with overcrowding. In particular, it eases congestion on the transport network. I am sure that any of my constituents who have tried to cut through the Grand Arcade these past few Saturdays would greatly appreciate slightly fewer Christmas shoppers there; those shoppers could, of course, go to the independent shops on Mill road and elsewhere.
What can we do? What should the Government do? How can we enable internet trade to grow, and ensure that prices are fair? This is one of those extremely rare circumstances where the solution is as simple as it is effective: we can require card surcharges to be included in the advertised price. I am sure that many hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, will be delighted to know that the European Union is already taking a step in that direction—the 2014 consumer rights directive is set to limit debit card surcharges—but we can and should take action now, and go further. We could be leaders in Europe.
In June, the Office of Fair Trading upheld the super-complaint brought by Which? about payment method surcharges. The OFT said that the Government could amend the Payment Services Regulations 2009 to ban the surcharges and make pricing more transparent and fairer. The Government must respond by taking that small step, in order to unleash growth, empower consumers and build and safeguard a free and fair society.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise concerns about the collection and recycling of hazardous mercury-bearing waste from lamps, and waste electrical and electronic equipment, known unpromisingly as WEEE.
WEEE is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the UK. Following the adoption of a European directive in 2003, UK regulations were introduced. They took effect in 2007, and were aimed at recovering more of that waste and ensuring its treatment in an environmentally sound manner, with less going to landfill. The regulations require any business that sells and imports WEEE, including hazardous WEEE, to join an approved compliance scheme, pay a registration fee to the scheme, and supply data on the amount of electrical equipment placed on the market each year.
Under the regulations, companies are required to finance the costs associated with the treatment, recovery and disposal of WEEE, but it appears that some unscrupulous organisations have been charging disproportionately for that. That may explain why the big four lamp manufacturers and importers—Sylvania, Philips, OSRAM and GE—have established their own not-for-profit organisation, Recolight, which offers free lamp-recycling, paid for by the imposition of an up-front fee, unique to the lighting industry, on the sale of hundreds of millions of lamps purchased by households and commercial and public organisations since the introduction of the WEEE regulations. That may seem an understandable response, but I am concerned that it may have led to Recolight enjoying a dominant position in the market for the recycling of WEEE lamps.
The ability of the big four to apply a common up-front fee to every lamp certainly gives the appearance of the existence of a cartel. I understand that decisions about the application of the Competition Act 1998 fall outside Ministers’ remits, but the result appears to have been a suppression of competition in the market, which—this is the crucial point—limits the ability of the market to reduce the adverse environmental impact of hazardous mercury-bearing WEEE lamps. It is of concern that since the formation of Recolight, lamp recycling rates have actually fallen, whereas previously there was 25% year-on-year growth, and there has been growth in all other WEEE sectors. Research and development investment is also falling as a result, and jobs are being lost.
Negotiations on the European Commission’s proposals for a recast WEEE directive are drawing to a conclusion. I understand that the Government expect to launch a consultation on the amendment of the UK WEEE regulations shortly, and I urge Ministers to consider how best those regulations could be recast so as to prevent any manipulation of the market in a manner that reduces the effective management and disposal of hazardous mercury-bearing electrical waste. It is vital that the market works fairly to achieve that outcome, and clearly the lamp-recycling industry requires stability if it is to operate effectively.
I have a number of questions relating to the structure of the market, the impact on recycling rates, and the opportunities that will arise from recasting the WEEE directive and making consequential amendments to the regulations in the UK. First, in the light of an apparent fall-off in rates of lamp recycling, can Ministers say what monitoring there is of levels of recycling of WEEE, and what action is being taken to promote increased recycling volumes in order to protect the environment and WEEE operators—those are the main priorities of the WEEE directive—and ensure that consumer revenues are used appropriately? Will Ministers ensure that standards for the collection, transport and recycling of hazardous mercury-bearing lamps are improved, and ensure that full health and safety data on product recycling are made available to the UK lamp-recycling industry? Will they take the opportunity of the recasting of the WEEE regulations to look at whether the roles of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive could be strengthened? Will Ministers consider requiring the value of evidence to be set by an independent third party, particularly where producers’ compliance schemes compete, from a dominant position, with those of recyclers?
Do Ministers think that collection and compliance functions should be separated, and will they consider that during the exercise amending the WEEE regulations? Overall, will Ministers ensure that the overarching priority of the WEEE regulations is to increase recycling rates and improve environmental protection? It is clearly unacceptable for any behaviour by manufacturers to impact adversely on those objectives; that must be looked at carefully. It is important that Ministers take all possible steps, now and in the future, through the introduction of the amended WEEE regulations, to prevent such practices. I hope that Ministers will confirm that there will be strict regulation of the compliance schemes that have driven the kind of protective actions that are now threatening the survival of a once thriving independent market, so that we can ensure that recycling rates, rather than profit margins, are maximised. I am sure that Ministers will appreciate the public policy significance of these issues, and I very much look forward to the Government’s response.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to put on record my concerns about how the Higher Education Funding Council for England—HEFCE for short—will, in 2012-13, allocate its funding to widen participation in higher education, and how that will impact on the Open university, which is in my constituency.
The Open university is a much-cherished institution, and it enjoys widespread support across the country, and in all parts of the House. It has a very impressive record on widening participation in higher education over the past 40-odd years. In the current year, 20% of its new students have come from the 25% most disadvantaged communities in the country. It has 13,500 students with a registered disability, and some 18,000 students working through its access and opening programmes, so it has a very impressive track record.
In the current year, HEFCE is providing some £368 million to higher education institutions across the country to support them in meeting the additional costs of attracting the students whom we are talking about. The Open university receives approximately 10% of that. I am aware of Treasury pressure on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to divert some of that funding to other areas of higher education. In this academic year, BIS included the following wording in its annual grant letter to HEFCE:
“for 2011-12 the top policy priorities for targeted funding should be supporting widening participation and fair access”.
I heartily agree with that.
My wish is that similar wording is included in the funding letter for 2012-13 which is due to be published in a few weeks. Without such wording, my fear and that of many at the Open university and in the wider higher education community is that there could be serious unintended consequences for the Government’s laudable goal of widening participation. I am not disputing that there is keen competition within higher education for a slice of the funding cake. There will be many equally worthwhile goals, but I fear that redirecting this money into other aspects of higher education would jeopardise the Government’s ambition to provide as wide a range of higher and further education options as possible. That is a role that the Open university currently performs exceptionally well.
I draw the attention of the House to the recent Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report published in November, which stated:
“Widening participation in higher education has an important impact on future economic prosperity and therefore is worthy of public investment…We welcome any additional investment to remove barriers to participation in higher education.”
I endorse that entirely. Of course, all institutions in the country have to live within their means. I would like to place it on record that the Open university has played its part in this. When the previous Government withdrew funding for equivalent and lower qualifications, that resulted in a significant drop in income for the Open university. It consequently reduced its running costs by some £30 million. To help keep tuition fees low—the Open university has fees of around £5,000, compared with £8,000 or £9,000 elsewhere—it is further reducing its running costs by some £75 million by 2014-15 and some £30 million of that has already been realised, but if the Open university were to lose another £37 million as a result of the redirecting of funding, there would be devastating consequences for its programme of widening participation.
The Government have a good record in this field and have worthy ambitions. The current funding scheme works. I very much welcome the £150 million national scholarship programme and the higher education White Paper published in the summer has a strong ambition to widen participation. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give me or the Open university an early Christmas present by confirming that this money will stay, but may I urge him to speak to colleagues over the next few weeks so that that letter reflects current provision?
I have a few seconds left, Mr Deputy Speaker, so may I take this opportunity to wish you and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? I look forward to being back in the new year.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this Christmas special.
Thanks to the vision of a Labour council supported by a wide range of stakeholders and community groups in north Lincolnshire, Scunthorpe now has a fantastic new performance venue, the Baths hall. On Sunday, the Scunthorpe choral society joined forces with the award-winning Scunthorpe junior co-operative choir to give their annual carol concert in that state-of-the-art venue. Their performance was fantastic. However, many people booking tickets for the cover price of £10 found themselves paying an additional £1 of credit or debit surcharge—a hidden cost not seen until the purchase was in progress. That is just one illustration of the widespread use of surcharges, which I want to highlight today.
It is estimated that 94% of the UK adult population holds a debit or credit card. Debit and credit card users are facing increasingly high surcharges when purchasing goods and services. Rip-off surcharges are often hidden until the end of the payment process, so it is impossible to tell how high the charges will be until the final payment is made. The argument is made that these charges cover transaction costs. In truth, it costs companies only about 20p to process a debit card payment and no more than 2% of the transaction value for a credit card payment.
In March, Which? asked the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the charges for paying by card. It is not only individuals and businesses that suffer from the practice of excessive surcharge, but retailers too. The British Retail Consortium representing retailers believes that Which? was right, in its super-complaint, to draw attention to excessive charges levied on customers using debit or credit cards. Retailers themselves face significant difficulties when handling card payments. The widely varying fees that banks levy on retailers for processing the different payment methods is a big issue for them.
Results from the British Retail Consortium’s most recent cost of collection survey show that, on average, the banks’ charges for processing a credit card transaction are 15 times higher than for cash, but responsible retailers protect card-using customers from the banks’ excessive charges on them. Responsible retailers have been engaged in a long-standing campaign to bring those fees down to levels that reflect the actual, very low, costs of processing transactions. The BRC believes that banks should play fair by their customers, as responsible retailers do with theirs.
In times of austerity, when as a nation we must all find ways to save money and tighten our belts, tackling excessive surcharges seems a fair and reasonable way to put money back in the pockets of consumers, squeezed family budgets and businesses. Action has already been taken in order to try to tackle excessive surcharges. The Which? super-complaint, challenging the practice of excessive surcharging, was upheld in June by the Office of Fair Trading. Over 43,000 members of the public pledged their support for the campaign. The OFT recommended that businesses make payment charges transparent by including the price of transaction fees in headline prices.
The OFT also recommended that the Government take regulatory action on surcharges. There are two options: the Government could wait until 2014 and implement the consumer rights directive that has recently been passed by the European Parliament. That will place a limit on the amount of a surcharge. However, that will only cap surcharges, not eliminate them altogether, and nothing will happen until 2014. Two years is a long time to wait, and we need a solution now as surcharges are hurting family pockets and businesses now. An alternative and, I believe, preferable option would be to amend existing UK law, namely the payment services directive. An amendment to article 52(3) would not only control surcharges, but could eliminate them completely. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said earlier, it is important that action is taken now.
In closing, I reiterate that these rip-off surcharges are just that—a rip-off. They rip off individuals, families and businesses. At a time when we want to cut costs and save money, I urge the Government to take urgent action. I urge Ministers to think clearly and act swiftly. Let us not wait for the EU directive to take effect in 2014. Let us show the public that we as a Parliament can act speedily and responsibly in the interests of our people, and end these rip-off surcharges as quickly as possible by using the powers available to us in this House.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I join others in wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the rest of our colleagues a very happy Christmas.
The theme of this debate has already become apparent. It is warnings against excess, calls for a fairer and more prosperous society, requests for things we want in the new year—not from Father Christmas, but from Ministers —and an optimistic belief that Parliament can change things. I join in that optimism. I specifically associate myself with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) that the market in the borough of my birth may be more prosperous with every year that passes.
I have been raising such issues ever since I entered Parliament, and the issue that I want to highlight this year is high pay. We have talked a lot about low pay but now, mercifully, we are also talking about high pay. When Mrs Thatcher was Prime Minister, I intervened in her final speech here to criticise the Tories for their record on wealth inequality. Predictably, she was unapologetic. It was her clear view that rising wealth inequality was not a problem so long as we were all getting wealthier: never mind about the gap.
Sadly, Labour adopted the same policy in practice. Rich people created wealth and they should be rewarded—for example, by cuts in capital gains tax—so that they could invest more of their unearned income in wealth-creating projects. I am afraid my colleagues never shared that view, and we do not share it now: I think we have been proved right. We have seen not greater redistribution but greater inequality between the rich and the poor. A very good OECD report produced in October 2008 entitled “Are we growing unequal?” shows that the top 1% in this country now own 14% of the national wealth. Department for Work and Pensions statistics covering the last decade or so of the Labour Government show that the average household income of the top 10% rose by almost 40%, whereas the average household income of the poorest 10% fell by just over 10% over the same period. That is not the way to make a just and fair society. Therefore, I think that it is right to return to these issues and remind colleagues that the figures continue to show some great inequalities.
According to the Office for National Statistics, bonus payments across the whole economy in the financial year 2010-11 totalled £35 billion, the same as the previous year, so there has been no reduction, despite the austerity facing the country. The total amount of bonuses paid in the financial insurance industry in 2010-11 stood at £14 billion, which is also identical to the figure for the previous year. Earlier this year, in order to justify Stephen Hester’s £7.7 million pay package, the chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland said:
“We need talented and motivated people and we need to be able to pay them fairly”.
That was after the company made losses of £1.1 billion in 2010. In 2009, at the RBS meeting in Edinburgh to discuss Sir Fred Goodwin’s £16.9 million pension, shareholders objected, but even though 90% of them voted down the remuneration report, they had no power to amend his pay because he had an advisory role.
There is a perverse logic to such bonuses: people at the top are rewarded in order to make the company do better, but even if it does not do better those people are still rewarded in the hope that that will turn things around. I think that people at the top sometimes forget that they stand on the shoulders of others—the people at the bottom, such as the administrative workers, electricians, cleaners and manual workers, without whom there could be no profits for those companies at all.
My party’s manifesto at the last election proposed that there should be fair pay audits for every company with more than 100 employees in order to combat discrimination in pay, and that all public companies should be required to declare in full the remuneration of anyone paid £200,000 a year or more. The coalition agreement states:
“We will bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.”
We now have an opportunity, because there have been further reports that are very helpful. For example, the One Society report produced in September made it clear that the pay of low-paid workers in the UK is literally one third of 1% of the pay of their chief executives. The High Pay Commission report published a couple of weeks ago confirmed that last year executives of FTSE 100 companies awarded themselves a 49% pay rise.
The Government have just finished their consultation on executive pay, and I want them to be robust in the new year and to continue to drive forward change in our tax system. I want what the Prime Minister said about the public sector, which was that there should be a fair ratio between the highest and lowest-paid, to be reflected in the private sector. I welcome the fact that the salary of every civil servant earning more than £150,000 will be published. It should be similar in the private sector. Just as the Government have started well by reducing tax on the low-paid and increasing tax on those who earn more, I hope that we will see the transfer of powers, as the Prime Minister said, from the boardroom to the shareholder, and that people on the work floor will be involved in decisions on the salaries of people at the top. What people want this Christmas is not a multimillion pound bonus, but for everyone to be paid fairly, and to pay their fair share too.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I start by wishing everyone a happy Christmas. I have been waiting a considerable time for this debate, and I am glad that it is now upon us. I would like to talk specifically about businesses and growth and some of the barriers affecting growth in my constituency.
By way of background, 83% of the local work force in my constituency are employed by small and medium-sized enterprises, which is around 15% more than the national average. Jobs and growth in my constituency are disproportionately dependent upon the success of small shops and medium-sized businesses. My constituency is home to around 3,800 SMEs that each employ fewer than 250 people across a wide range of sectors. I pay tribute to all the business men and women across the county of Essex. We are a highly entrepreneurial constituency full of small businesses, because they do a hell of a lot to create vital jobs.
My constituency has some outstanding world-class businesses and family-run businesses, such as Crittall Windows, an award-winning international company. We have the world-famous Wilkin & Sons jam factory in Tiptree, an outstanding chocolate maker, Amelia Rope, and a worldwide logistics company called Simarco. They all exemplify Essex’s attitude and status as a county of entrepreneurs. As ever, with most independent and small businesses, given the right kind of macro-economic and fiscal framework, they will adapt to the changes and challenges thrust upon them by any Government, by international circumstances and—dare I say it?—by Europe.
The Government deserve much praise for the actions already taken to support small businesses and growth, and the decision to reduce the small profits rate to 20p stands in stark contrast to what we saw under previous Governments. We also heard from the Chancellor last month that he will now halt the fuel duty rise in January, which is welcome news for small businesses. Businesses are now eagerly awaiting the promise of red tape reform. The one-in, one-out rule is all well and good, but all I hear is that we should just have a bonfire, throwing many out and bringing none in.
There are still many barriers to growth. Interestingly, in the past 10 days we have heard about the Portas review. I should declare an interest as the daughter of small retailers; my parents are shopkeepers. I think that we all recognise the fact that our high streets are having a very challenging time. They need reform. Even in a place such as Witham, where businesses work hard, we have empty shops on our high street; it is a fact. Although there is no silver bullet or magic wand, the Government and local authorities need to start looking at the recommendations and implementing some of the excellent proposals that Mary Portas has outlined. I would like local authorities to become really ambitious in their agenda for growth and in how they support business, which might mean removing some of the licensing and planning restrictions that have been detrimental so that we can find ways to boost growth on the high street and make our town centres far more vibrant. We must also support national market day. Those of us who represent market towns want to see much more emphasis on that area. I hope that the Government will start prioritising some of the reforms she advocated.
The other area is red tape, including the ever-burdensome red tape that comes from the European Union. For example, the agency workers regulations will cost Britain £1.5 billion. To put that into some kind of context, that is more than the apprenticeship budget alone, which we debated last night. I would rather see that money go into businesses and job creation in this country.
The other concern for Essex and my constituency is infrastructure. Essex and the constituency are well placed. We have Tilbury, Felixstowe, Harwich, the A12 and the A120, but our roads are struggling because there is no infrastructure investment. We also desperately need infrastructure investment in our railways in Essex. We need to get freight off the roads and back on to the railways. Anything that can be done to deal with that area would be useful, because ultimately businesses will grow if we can sort out our infrastructure problems.
Finally, I want to touch on banking. I hear endlessly from small businesses in my constituency that banks are simply letting them down, not on a small scale, but on a macro scale. I am concerned by the actions of the banks, which are effectively causing my constituency and small businesses misery. While the small businesses are creating jobs, the banks are leveraging, with shocking terms and conditions and fees being added to business accounts. They are dealing with individuals and small businesses in quite a threatening way. I had one dreadful case in my constituency involving one particular businessman, about whom I have written to Ministers this week, and I should like an official, if not a Minister, to meet him. Businesses now feel compelled by aggressive banks to sign up to unfavourable terms and conditions, and that has to change. I hope that Front Benchers will respond positively to the issues that I have outlined and give small businesses an early Christmas present by committing to remove some of those barriers.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to rediscover my voice in the Chamber, and for the format of the debate, so that one does not have to sum up 46 contributions in one go.
I shall make a couple of general remarks about the importance to this country’s recovery—following the legacy of deficit and recession that the Labour party left us—of regenerating a healthy economic environment. It is the key to prosperity and to generating growth and jobs, but it is rare for Members to spend time singing the praises of the private sector. We spend much of our time focused on the public sector and on the problems that arise within the private sector, but rarely do we celebrate the fact that the private sector accounts for four out of five people in employment and the majority of all taxes generated, employing people’s creative juices and the entrepreneurs of the future to drive the economy forward.
This country under this Government has started to have some success in the private sector. Exports in particular have grown by 16% since May 2010, and jobs generated in the private sector, as the Prime Minister reminds us, are picking up the slack where jobs are being cut in the public sector, so it is vital that we have a healthy private sector economy.
I will not respond to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), because his comments did not relate to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I will ensure that the Justice Secretary is aware of his concerns about tribunals in the care sector.
I shall therefore address the role of retail, which the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised. I am a committed believer in the importance of retail for generating growth in the economy, not least because before I became a Member I founded a business that started as an idea and ended up employing 2,500 people in 144 stores throughout the country. I completely understand the importance of retail as a force for regeneration not just on the high street but in the wider economy, and its potential for adding significant jobs where retail formats are able to grow.
The hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said that the impact of online sales poses particular challenges for retailers, and that is why it was so important for the Government to receive the report from Mary Portas on how we revitalise our high streets. The Government intend to look at her recommendations very seriously and will report on them next year.
The key message that I learned from my time in retail was that to attract people into stores, whether one’s store is in an out-of-town centre or on the high street, one has to make it an attractive experience. Retail is becoming essentially a leisure business, so I was almost enticed to visit Stockport when the hon. Member for Stockport mentioned the cultural experience day ticket, something that other areas—perhaps even my constituency of Ludlow—may wish to take on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) referred to the great success of the enterprise zone initiative. The Government have announced 24 enterprise zones, including one in his constituency, and I congratulate him on his achievement in securing it in response, in particular, to the loss of jobs at British Aerospace. That is a fine example of how strong constituency advocacy can achieve results quickly under this Government. He was concerned specifically about the impact of differential capital allowances, and he will be aware that enhanced capital allowances are available only for enterprise zones in assisted areas, which his constituency is not, but I will ensure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns, which I will forward to my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) mentioned the challenges to those many people in all constituencies throughout the country who were affected by the collapse of Farepak back in 2006. I have constituents who are still awaiting payouts, as does every Member, I suspect. The insolvency was particularly complicated, with 116,000 claimants who were initially hard to identify because they were clients of some 21,000 agents and the company did not keep good central records.
Processing claims and distributions to rightful claimants is therefore a costly exercise, and the main reason why funds have not yet been disbursed to those who have lost money—to creditors—is that there can be only one distribution, and the administrators are determined to ensure that they make the maximum recovery so that they can make that single distribution. Otherwise, the cost of distributing will eat into the funds available for recovery. That is the main reason why it has not taken place yet.
Creditors are represented on a creditor committee. They are in regular and close discussion with the administrators about how the distribution is made, and they are also approving all fees paid to the administrators. There is a process—in which all creditors, including all those individuals, are represented—for securing the proper information about what is going on.
The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Scunthorpe referred to the challenges posed by hidden surcharges through, in particular, online purchasing, which, as I said earlier and they identified, is a rapidly growing part of our daily lives. As cash payments and payments by cheque decline, and as payments by card accelerate, it is important to ensure that products are sold transparently in relation not just to the top price, but through comparison websites, so that online shoppers can make a genuine comparison. The Government are looking carefully at all the options for legislation arising out of the Office of Fair Trading’s welcome report.
Hon. Members may have seen that earlier today the OFT made another welcome announcement, on measures to address the cost of travel money when purchasing foreign exchange in this country and through the use of debit and credit cards overseas. That will be done as a voluntary arrangement, and most of the largest banks in the UK have agreed to place a zero charge on foreign exchange purchases in this country. Through the UK Cards Association and the British Bankers Association, a new code will be set up so that charges levied on transactions overseas are transparent, a development that I am sure hon. Members will welcome.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has a particular interest in the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive—I hesitate to call it WEEE, because that can be misinterpreted outside this place—and a constituency interest through a company that is a major recycler of electrical equipment. I have seen her correspondence with Ministers in the Business Department. She has raised a number of points about how the regulations might be beefed up, and I shall ensure that following this debate the consumer affairs Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) is made aware of her concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is a doughty champion of the Open university, not least because it is the largest university in the country and, perhaps, because it is based in his constituency, raised concerns that have been well flagged by current students at the Open university. On the Government’s e-petition website there are no fewer than three petitions, one of which has 42,000 signatures, calling for the Government to maintain their widening participation funding for the next academic year.
I can confirm that widening participation and social mobility remain key priorities for this Government, and by way of example we have this year, for the first time, for the coming academic year extended access to loans for tuition costs to part-time students, many of whom are at the Open university. We are also providing more financial support for those from poorer families. The maintenance support grant for those from households with an income of less than £25,000 is rising from under £3,000 to £3,250 for the next academic year. The national scholarship that is coming into effect from next September will ultimately generate some £300 million of additional cash to help to support tuition fees for some of the most disadvantaged. The Department has raised with the Office for Fair Access concern about whether funding for part-time courses will continue to receive wider participation funding, and it will be considering the issue carefully. As my hon. Friend said, the Minister is due to submit his letter in January, and that will give guidelines to the Higher Education Funding Council as to how it will continue to demonstrate its commitment to widening participation.
The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) has a distinguished track record in this House for championing social mobility, and it was therefore no surprise that he wanted to talk about the High Pay Commission. As he knows, the Government are determined to get on top of a challenge that is another legacy of the previous Government, who, in 12 years, oversaw a widening disparity between boardroom pay and pay on the shop floor that needs to be addressed. We want to see transparency, proper accountability for shareholders, and a sense of responsibility from Britain’s boardrooms. Last September, we published a discussion paper on executive remuneration in conjunction with a consultation on the future of narrative reporting for companies. That put forward wide-ranging proposals on improving the link and aligning executive pay more closely to company performance. The consultation closed last month. Earlier this month, the Treasury launched a second consultation, on bank executive remuneration. That is consulting on arrangements that would extend to the eight most highly rewarded executives below board level disclosure requirements on their pay. It will report at the end of February, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be interested in what it has to say.
If I have not dealt with any Members’ points sufficiently, I am sure that the Department will be able to follow them up in due course. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everybody present a happy Christmas.
Communities and Local Government
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now move on to the debate on issues relating to Communities and Local Government. Seven Members are listed to speak and there is a six-minute time limit on contributions. As I will be leaving the Chair shortly, may I wish everyone in the House, and all those who work in it and visit us, a merry Christmas and a happy 2012?
Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)
When the coalition came into government, its focus had to be on reducing the UK’s debt and putting the UK economy on a sustainable footing. For too long, the UK had overspent and under-delivered. The Chancellor made it clear that the Government’s economic policy objective is to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the country and between industries, rebalancing the economy by moving from unsustainable public spending and towards exports and investment. This should support the UK’s long-term economic potential and help to create new jobs. In addition, the Government have introduced the Localism Act 2011, which recognises the need to develop sustainable communities, allowing them greater freedom to develop while focusing on the planning needs of the local area, with a strong emphasis on regeneration.
Combining both those aspects is the starting point of my speech, which is about the regeneration and expansion of the Liverpool city region’s ports and waterways. How important are the ports to the city region? The ports and maritime industry have played a vital role in the history of Liverpool. In fact, so prosperous was the port that for periods during the 19th century, Liverpool’s custom house was the single largest contributor to the British Exchequer. Disraeli described Liverpool as the second city of the empire as the port became the gateway to the world, with 40% of the world’s trade passing through it. Liverpool built the world’s first enclosed commercial dock in 1715. Further docks were added in later years, all interconnected by lock gates and extending 7.5 miles along the Mersey. This interconnected dock system was the most advanced port system in the world. These magnificent docks, extensive dock systems and waterways still exist today and are ripe for regeneration.
However, the course of life does not run smoothly, and during the 20th century the port began to decline owing to a combination of the UK’s lack of a manufacturing base and the shift away from the Commonwealth to the Common Market. The southern ports of Southampton and Felixstowe, and eastern ports such as Hull, benefited from this move. In the 1900s, Liverpool’s population was about 850,000, but it began to decline in the 1950s, and rapidly so in the ’70s. Today, the population is about 450,000—and yet the city was designed to hold double. A city with such a large infrastructure to sustain—from a tube system, to parks, listed buildings, art galleries and museums, and even two cathedrals—is expensive to run and much in need of an increased population. Added to that, Liverpool, without the full use of its port and waterways, is only half a city; having water down only one side and an inability to make use of it makes it thus. I therefore propose that any impediments to the use of its waterways, or unfair restrictions placed upon the city so as not to enable it to use them, would harm not only Liverpool and the Liverpool economy but the whole of the city region.
As times change, situations do too, and in 2012 the port of Liverpool is again ripe to come to the fore, for several key reasons. First, there is the growth of the new emerging markets such as those in the far east and Brazil; that does not only affect imports, as the UK is looking to double exports to Brazil by 2015. Secondly, there is the decision to widen the Panama canal to accommodate the world’s largest vessels. That is due for completion in 2015 and promises to change the structure of world trade flows. When completed, larger ships will emerge from the Pacific, prompting expansion of the US eastern seaboard ports such as New York. As Liverpool is already the primary western facing port into the Atlantic, it will be favoured as a primary port for all these extra-large vessels. Thirdly, there is the domestic consideration of costs to business and ultimately to the consumer. Liverpool is geographically well placed and very central, with a population of 8.2 million within 70 miles of it and easy connections to Ireland and Scotland; and a four-hour heavy goods vehicle journey from the port of Liverpool can reach a population catchment of 34 million. Fundamentally, Liverpool remains a great place for doing the things that supported its early growth—notably, handling the UK’s trade with the USA and the Americas and emerging markets, and maintaining its links with Ireland.
The city region has the ability to create a port hub—a super-port, if you will, Mr Deputy Speaker. To achieve this, it will need to continue the development of the 3MG inter-modal hub in Halton, the rail freight scheme at Parkside, the world cargo centre at Liverpool airport, and the post-Panamax facility, which is a new £300 million container terminal capable of simultaneously handling two of the new-generation post-Panamax size containers, and is privately funded by Peel Holdings. Although the existing maritime and logistics sectors support approximately 34,000 jobs, development of the super-port projects could transform the Liverpool city region economy, creating 21,000 jobs by 2020 and nearly 30,000 jobs by 2030 with the extension of the cruise liner terminal. At present, liners are permitted to berth only for port-of-call visits, but a turn-around facility would generate approximately £1 million for the city region economy for each liner. There is also the development of the—
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey). I thank everybody in the House who has looked after us over the year and wish them a very happy Christmas and a happy new year. I hope that this Christmas gig will become as popular as the “Doctor Who” Christmas gig.
I want to raise some planning issues that have upset my constituents, because I do not like to see my constituents upset, and then to discuss the national planning policy framework, which the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) will also mention. I am a member of the National Trust and have dealt with planning litigation. I have had to read planning policy guidance and planning policy statements, so I understand why some people want to streamline them. However, that should not be done to the extent that they are non-existent. They are comprehensive and, together with the local plans and unitary development plans, they came about as a result of careful consultation. Word is already out that the national planning policy framework will be a lawyers charter. Lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee.
Turning to Walsall South, I hear stories in my surgery of intimidation, threats and broken windows, all because some people oppose an application. I had many specific cases to raise, but sadly time has been cut short, so I will deal with just two. In my constituency, the green belt is already under threat. For example, officers said that the proposal for the Three Crowns inn site would involve unacceptable development in the green belt and there were no special circumstances to outweigh that. However, the planning committee let it go through, so three detached houses have been built on the green belt. That is a great cause for concern. My constituents told me that a substantial amount of time was taken up by speakers in favour of the development, but that they were allowed only three minutes.
That brings me to the long-suffering folk who live around 1 Woodside close. All previous applications have been refused by the inspector on the basis that development would have an adverse impact on the character of the local area. My poor constituents have had to put up with six applications of a similar nature. Of the last two applications, one for the construction of 13 flats was dismissed on 28 October 2010 and one for the construction of 14 flats was dismissed on 20 August 2011. Still the applicant persists without any response from the council. Clearly, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 needs to be revisited by the council. The residents in Cottage Farm residents association feel that their views have not been taken into account. I will present a petition to the House at the end of the debate this evening on behalf of those residents. I admire their resilience and stamina.
That brings me on to the national planning policy framework. The Government want to promote well-being, but they put it at risk by putting the green belt under threat. The Chancellor wants to use planning to stimulate growth, but town centres are crying out for development. The Government appointed Mary Portas to look at what is wrong with our town centres and she has told them to make explicit in the wording of the NPPF a presumption in favour of town centre development. In Walsall town centre, 15.8% of shops are empty—an increase of 20% since February.
The NPPF will weaken the test that is applied to town centres. Under the sequential test, developers have to show that there is no suitable alternative site in the centre, but that does not apply to offices. The NPPF will relax brownfield targets; relax the requirement to plan for the efficient and effective use of land; reduce the protection of the green belt; remove the direction to direct offices to the town centre; and reduce sustainable economic development. The combination of those things will push development away from where it is most needed.
Valerie Vaz
No. I am sorry, but I do not have time.
Walsall has a history of protecting employment land and has a sustainable settlement pattern. Manufacturers who are experiencing growth have not asked me to raise planning issues; they have asked for money for apprentices so that they can train them and fill the skills gap. This is not about housing either, because the Home Builders Federation holds more than 280,000 units with planning permission that are ready for development. Planning permissions do not deliver new homes. The problem of there being not enough homes is more to do with the stagnant property market, banks not lending and the boom in overseas investors investing in housing, not affordable housing.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that the development of sites protected by the birds and habitats directive would not be sustainable. However, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor said that he wants to relax the habitats directive. I am on the side of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Trust, the Prince of Wales, the campaign by The Daily Telegraph, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the people of Walsall South. Whose side are the Government on? With respect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a special phrase: this is not about being a nimby, but about being a NIGEL—“Not In the Garden of England”. We are all NIGELs now.
Finally, once land has been sold and developed, it is lost for ever. That is our heritage. That is what we leave to the next generation. I urge the Minister to think again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
This Nigel would like to remind Members that they can accept two interventions with the usual injury time.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
May I start by thanking the many Members from all parts of the House who have paid tribute to the way in which the Backbench Business Committee handles these debates? As Forrest Gump put it, these pre-recess Adjournment debates are a bit like a box of chocolates:
“You never know what you’re gonna get.”
I just hope that my contribution does not stick in people’s throats.
All the Members and staff in this House will be looking forward to spending Christmas with their family and friends. We are looking forward to a traditional Christmas dinner and, if we are lucky, to a warm log fire. However, not all our country-folk are as fortunate. I would like to spend some time remembering the hundreds of people around the country who will not spend Christmas with their friends and family, and who will not enjoy gift giving and festive celebrations, but who will instead spend it on the streets, desperately hoping for passers-by to give them a few pennies or pounds.
Homelessness can have dire consequences. Just last month, I was saddened to hear about the death of two of my constituents who had been sleeping rough on the streets of Newquay. If we are to tackle the crisis of homelessness in our communities, we first need to understand better the causes. A recent report by the charity St Mungo’s highlighted the role that relationship breakdown, domestic violence and mental health problems can play in leading people to sleep rough on our streets. Indeed, relationship breakdown is the largest single trigger of rough sleeping cited by outreach workers. It is the reason for just under a half of all male rough sleepers. Almost a third of female rough sleepers have left home to escape domestic violence. The St Mungo’s study also found that just under half of rough sleepers have one or more mental health problems. Indeed, people who have slept rough are more than 15 times more likely to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia than the general population.
At this time of year, it is important that we recognise the work of charities such as St Mungo’s in helping people in desperate need. I hope that in his response the Minister will join me in paying tribute to the great work that such charities do in caring for rough sleepers and giving people a second chance. In particular, I would like to recognise the work of Cosgarne hall in St Austell in my constituency in helping local people.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on the problems of homelessness. I join him in paying tribute to the work of St Mungo’s and many other charities. Does he acknowledge that one problem for such charities is that when they house people in hostels or relatively short-stay accommodation, they have enormous difficulties in finding move-on accommodation? It ends up with a blockage in the system because local authorities cannot cope with the numbers that charities refer to them. The Government must address that issue.
Stephen Gilbert
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We need to make the journey from presentation at the local authority through to hostel accommodation and supported accommodation much more seamless. I endorse entirely his recommendation.
St Petroc’s is another homelessness charity in Cornwall. It helps to provide food and shelter to the more than 100 rough sleepers across Cornwall. That will be particularly important in the cold days and months ahead. I have visited the St Mungo’s shelter in Brent, as I am sure has the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and seen the work it does with homeless people. I was also lucky enough to visit the Outpost housing project in Newcastle recently, which works with young lesbian, gay and bisexual people who get kicked out of home after coming out. Like many hon. Members, I have also been to Centrepoint here in London.
From all those visits, one thing is clear: we are all just a few steps from being homeless, whether through losing our job or losing our partner. There is no typical homeless person and homelessness can and does affect people from all walks of life. That is why I am calling on the Government to consider the introduction of a right to shelter—a fundamental statement of principle that the Government will do more to help those who find themselves homeless, often through no fault of their own. It is simply not right that many people can go to their local authority for help and be turned away to sleep on the streets in the sixth largest economy in the world. As well as a right to shelter, there needs to be more recognition by drug, mental health and other service providers that they have a role to play in preventing homelessness. We need a more flexible, personal service that reflects the complexity of an individual’s life so that we can achieve the vital ambition of ending rough sleeping.
Over the past year, 102,000 people approached their local council and declared themselves homeless, an increase of 15% on the previous year. Tackling homelessness must remain a Government priority, so I welcome the fact that the spending review protected the £400 million of homelessness grant to local authorities and the voluntary sector, and the fact that the Government have prioritised help for single homeless people, providing £10 million to the charity Crisis to help in its good work. I also understand that a cross-departmental ministerial working group has been set up to address some of the complex causes of homelessness. However, much more can be done, and I reiterate my call for a basic right to shelter and sufficient funding to ensure that no individual is left with no option but to sleep rough.
I hope that my contribution today, though limited, will serve as a wake-up call to the Government to do more in the years that remain to them, so that in future we can all enjoy our Christmas holidays knowing that nobody will be spending them out in the cold.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I wish you a merry Christmas and a good new year, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I absolutely concur with what the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) has just said about homelessness. He put the case very well. Despite various changes in homelessness legislation over the years, I find that in London a depressingly large number of people are denied access to housing because they are single, because they are concealed homeless or because they do not have an identifiable physical condition or mental illness. They end up sleeping rough, sleeping in cars or in some cases just endlessly sofa-surfing among friends’ homes.
It is quite surprising that if we go down to “Occupy London Stock Exchange” outside St Paul’s, we find quite a lot of people living there who work, and for whom it is a place to live and survive. That is the reality of homelessness in this country. It is probably slightly worse in London than the rest of the country, although I acknowledge everything that the hon. Gentleman said about Cornwall and the south-west also having a considerable problem.
I wish to draw attention to a number of matters in this short contribution. I am proud to represent an inner-London constituency, and housing is the biggest issue that my constituents face by a long chalk. The borough as a whole has 13,000 families on the register of those who need somewhere much bigger to live, and we have a very large number of young people and children growing up in grossly overcrowded accommodation. In such accommodation it is impossible for all the children to maintain good health, do their homework and achieve anything at school. It is hardly surprising that there is so much family breakdown and underachievement in school.
I have people in my advice bureau in tears because they have three teenage siblings, sometimes of widely differing ages, sharing a bedroom and they are unable to study or do any homework, with all the obvious consequences. That leads to underachievement in school and to consequences for the rest of our society, as those young people feel excluded from the education system and end up in the criminal justice system because of what they get into.
We have to recognise that the overall rate of private renting in Britain is growing at the expense of owner-occupation. That gap is growing much faster in London, to the extent that in my constituency, privately rented accommodation now accounts for well over 30% of all households, owner-occupation is below 30% and the rest is made up of council and housing association accommodation and a very small number of co-operatives. Almost a third of my constituents live in private rented accommodation.
For young people who are in work—perhaps a young couple earning reasonable salaries—it is impossible to raise the deposit for a mortgage even if they can afford one. Their only chance of buying is if their parents are well-off enough and prepared to remortgage their own property to provide them with a deposit. The average age of first-time purchasers in London is now in the late 30s, if not the 40s. The choice between private rented, council rented and purchased accommodation that the Government talk about so blithely simply does not exist.
Even in my borough, which is doing its very best on housing matters, it is impossible to buy somewhere under a part-rent, part-purchase shared ownership scheme. A key worker needs to be on more than double the average London income to get anywhere near buying somewhere under shared ownership. That is a major problem.
The situation has very serious consequences for London. Where are the skilled workers of tomorrow whom we need in the public service? Where are the service workers of tomorrow? Where will such people come from unless we seriously address the need to examine all sectors of housing difficulties?
Stephen Gilbert
The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent case, and I agree with much of it. Does he agree that one concern is that a pernicious generational divide might be emerging, broadly between the baby boomers—the housing “haves”—and generation X, for which, as he rightly says, home ownership is an aspiration that many will never be able to meet?
Jeremy Corbyn
Absolutely. Those who own and occupy their own homes in my constituency tend increasingly to be much older people. If they pass on or decide to sell their property, it is nearly always sold to a speculative owner who then rents it out privately. The rental income from those properties is absolutely enormous. There is therefore a very strong case for seriously increasing the powers, facilities, opportunities and abilities of local government, and for intervening in the question of housing markets as a whole.
I turn very briefly, because the debate is short, to the case of my own borough council. It is doing its best to address the borough’s housing issues, and it is building about 100 new council homes a year, largely on local authority housing land, disused garages, car parks and difficult places on estates. In some cases it has made agreements with preferred partners through housing associations, which are building on former industrial land, although there is not much of that, or on other sites. The council’s condition for joint participation with a housing association is that it maintains the existing tenure system—a tenancy for life—and rent structure. That means that the rents are not market-related but economically related, and are those that the local authority charges. That is having a good effect, and the council is doing its best, but unless we can address issues on a wider basis, with much greater Government investment in council housing for rent, the needs of my borough will not be met any more than those of any other borough.
I have two points to make in the last 42 seconds that I have. The first is about housing benefit. Will the Government raise the cap on housing benefit, so that the new rent levels that are imposed on people do not force them out of their homes? I have lost count of the number of people who have come to my advice bureau about to lose their home because of the housing benefit cuts and rent increases.
Finally, the Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone has proposed the concept of a London living rent. We have had a London living wage, and it is time to have a London living rent to be fair to people who are forced to live in privately rented accommodation by making it affordable, long-term and permanent.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to raise the issue of sprinklers in buildings. I do so because last year a serious fire took place in commercial premises in Lowestoft, in my constituency. Thankfully there were no casualties, but if sprinklers had been installed, the significant impact and upheaval that subsequently affected many people would have been avoided.
Wessex Foods was a large food warehouse and factory located on the south Lowestoft industrial estate, processing raw meat into burgers. On Sunday 14 July 2010, firefighters from the local fire station were called to a fire at the site and arrived in just a few minutes. Unfortunately, the fire had already developed to such a degree that they were unable to go into the building safely. The building was completely destroyed by the fire, which took 10 days to be fully extinguished. At its height, 14 fire engines and 80 firefighters were at the fire, and over the course of the succeeding 10 days almost every firefighter in Suffolk attended the scene.
The impact on the local community was profound. A factory that had been in operation for 30 years has now been permanently closed and razed to the ground, and 150 people have lost their jobs. Despite the size of the building, at approximately 5,000 square metres, and the use to which it was put, sprinklers had not been fitted. If they had been, the outcome would have been completely different and the firefighters would have been back at the fire station within an hour.
There are compelling reasons why the current approach to sprinklers should be reviewed. Where sprinklers are installed, there is a dramatic reduction in fatalities and injuries. There has never been a multiple fire death incident anywhere in the world in a building fitted with a sprinkler system that has been designed to the appropriate standard for the purpose intended.
There is a need to have regard to demographic changes. People are living longer, and older people are particularly vulnerable to the ravages of fire. They may not be able to evacuate a building as quickly as young people. Those who suffer from dementia face added challenges. As a nation we are encouraging older people to continue living in their homes longer. I have no problem with that, but we need to ensure that elderly people, especially those living alone, are provided with an appropriate level of protection.
There has in the past been concern about the reliability and cost of sprinklers. However, in recent years, there have been significant advances in both design and reducing costs. The likelihood of a sprinkler going off accidentally is now estimated to be of the order of 16 million:1.
It is important to have regard to the views and needs of the fire service. Firefighters do a great job, often in hazardous and dangerous circumstances. We owe it to them to reduce risk as far as reasonably possible. With fire service budgets and resources coming under increasing pressure, it is important to focus on measures that make their jobs easier. I am mindful that in rural counties, including Suffolk, we are reliant on a combination of full-time crews and retained crews in market towns. As work patterns change, recruitment of retained firefighters is becoming more difficult. We thus need to ensure that we reduce the risk of major incidents wherever possible. It is also important for Government to listen to local fire chiefs and fire authorities. They are the people on the ground with first-hand experience, who invariably know best, and they advocate more widespread use of sprinklers. In the past year, not only Suffolk but Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Humberside have demanded a more proactive approach.
For commercial and industrial premises, two issues need to be addressed. First, we find ourselves out of step with many other countries. In England, only buildings of more than 20,000 square metres are required to be fitted with sprinklers. In Scotland, that figure is 14,000 square metres, while in Germany it is 1,800 square metres. If we had been in line with the European average, the devastation caused by the Wessex fire would have been avoided. Secondly, there has been too little focus in determining policy up to now on the business disruption that arises from a major fire. In these difficult and uncertain economic times, we can ill afford that. Some 85% of small and medium enterprises that suffer a serious fire never recover or cease trading within 18 months.
It is important that the Government review the new and compelling evidence on sprinklers that is becoming available. This should be taken fully into account in the review of part B of the building regulations due in 2013. It is important that that review takes place on time and is not delayed. The evidence that we need to look at includes feedback from Wales, where the fitting of sprinklers in new residential property has been mandatory since the spring. Next year is the bicentenary of the installation of the first sprinkler system in Britain in the Theatre Royal, Drury lane. Some might say that not much progress has been made in 200 years: I would say that now is the time to redouble our efforts to save lives, to protect the vulnerable and to safeguard jobs.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
May I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the Houses of Parliament a very merry Christmas?
I speak today in support of increased local decision-making in the planning system. Specifically, I would like to encourage the Government to ensure that the neighbourhood plans made possible by the Localism Act 2011 give local people enough power to have a real say over what development takes place in their area, where it takes place and, crucially, whether it meets the sustainable development test.
There are many cases in my constituency that illustrate not only the ways in which people currently feel disengaged from the planning system, but the great potential in communities when they get organised. A great number of my constituents have contacted me about large housing developments proposed near Birds Marsh woods and the Avon floodplain in Chippenham. They have emphasised the importance of preserving the countryside around the edge of the town, and many have expressed their frustration at their apparent inability to affect the decisions being made. One lady made the point that,
“the voice of ordinary residents does not seem to be heard, and decisions are made by people for whom this is not their home”.
Similarly, the expansion of an edge-of-town Sainsbury’s superstore has recently been approved by the council, leading to the resignation in dismay of the chair of the Chippenham Vision group.
Earlier this month, I asked the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation what advice he would give to councils that face such developer interest in out-of-town sites. He assured me that the “town centre first” policy remains firm, but that development in Chippenham would suggest otherwise, as Wiltshire council felt free to ignore it. There will be no public confidence in a "take it or leave it" attitude to planning policy, with some councils proceeding with development that is neither sustainable nor what local people want, for fear of paying for expensive appeals by developers.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I intend to speak on much the same issue later in respect of wind farms. Does the hon. Gentleman take the view that when the Government impose massive development on an area where the people simply do not want it, it poses a huge threat to people’s faith in democracy?
Duncan Hames
The imposition of development plans that are not owned by the local community was exactly what we had in the regional spatial strategies—the grand regional plans left to us by the previous Government —and I applaud this Government for abandoning them. The RSS in the south-west of England never actually took legal force, and I am glad that it will never do so. It is important that people feel that decisions are made locally and democratically.
In Wiltshire, the council has not yet adopted its core strategy—its local plan—and we of course await the final version of the national planning policy framework in the spring. In the interim, our system is not robust enough to balance the competing interests in the planning process, and development too often seems inevitably set to proceed.
Jeremy Corbyn
For the hon. Gentleman’s information, I was born in Chippenham, thus I have an interest in it. I applaud what he is trying to do. Out-of-town developments not only disfigure beautiful landscapes in a beautiful area; they also create vastly increased traffic and environmental consequences for everyone else, as well as a complete hollowing out and destruction of the town centre, which becomes the home for charity shops and banks—and very little else.
Duncan Hames
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted to learn of his interest in Chippenham. In fact, it was that very concern about the hollowing out of the town centre that prompted the resignation last week of the chair of the Chippenham Vision group, who had sought, in a voluntary capacity, to work with different parts of the community to build a vision for the future of our town centre. However, that was fundamentally undermined by the decision to grant a dramatic increase in the retail floor space of an edge-of-town superstore, which will no doubt be expanding into non-food items, threatening the businesses in our town centre, to which I shall return later.
Given the Government’s new presumption in favour of sustainable development, and given the record of other councils in agreeing permissions on unallocated “white land”, which does not benefit from the protections in the draft framework, I see a need for robust mechanisms to ensure the rigorous application of that presumption according to clear tests. I was encouraged by a recent response that I received from the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Hanham, who, without pre-empting the consultation responses, acknowledged that the meaning of “sustainable development”, as well as its application, was an area where the Government needed to look again more closely in the consultation. I would suggest that a crucial part of any mechanism for deciding whether an application qualifies for that presumption should be input from the local community. The question should not end up being decided in the courts through case law, or by planning inspectors. If that happens, the Government will not achieve their objective of greater localism.
Instead, I suggest that we should look to the examples offered by communities in Wiltshire that are working with the Government’s framework for neighbourhood plans in the Localism Act 2011. Woolley, in Bradford-on-Avon, and Malmesbury, in north Wiltshire, are two communities that are seizing this opportunity. In their impressive document, “Plan for Woolley 2026”, residents have come together in an entirely voluntary capacity as Friends of Woolley to draw up a framework for Woolley’s physical, community and economic development for the next 25 years. Meanwhile in Malmesbury, Councillor Simon Killane is spearheading the neighbourhood planning pilot scheme. That includes a neighbourhood forum, which will bring residents and community organisations to meet potential developers to discuss their plans and what they might mean for the local community and the infrastructure it needs. Those plans will be assessed against the neighbourhood plan, based on residents’ own aspirations and ratified by a local referendum.
I was pleased to read Baroness Hanham’s assurance that such neighbourhood plans will have to be “given a fair hearing” against other local authority plans or, indeed, the national planning policy framework. The 2011 Act gives neighbourhood plans statutory force. As she points out, such plans will have to be
“in general conformity with strategic policies in the local plan”.
However, the word “general” is very important. It reminds me of the old planning policy statement 12, whose definition stated that
“the test is of general conformity and not conformity.”
That means that it should be possible for a neighbourhood plan to conflict with land allocations in existing core strategies or local plans, as long as the general aims of development can be achieved, perhaps by bringing different land into use. The Government need to be clear about what “sustainable development” is taken to mean in that context. In my view, sustainability encompasses the impact of development on carbon emissions, travel-to-work journeys, the conservation of wildlife and the preservation of our countryside.
I would not oppose housing development, but I believe that local plans need to propose development that accommodates the needs of the local population and the understood demographic changes that are envisaged, and not be about accommodating outflow or overflow from other towns. To do so would be to allow a council’s settlements to become dormitories, which is something that we are vigorously fighting against in Wiltshire. Members should be aware that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government is due to publish its report on the draft national planning policy framework tomorrow. I look forward to reading its recommendations and contributing to further debates on this subject, so that we might harness the power of genuinely local decision making in our planning system.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Thank you for this opportunity to raise the subject of financial transparency in local government, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would also like to extend my thanks to the TaxPayers Alliance and the Local Government Group for providing some of my research notes.
This is an important issue, because we would all agree that we should be doing everything we can to ensure that council tax is affordable, especially against the backdrop of pressure on front-line services, particularly adult social care, which is piling on costs for local authorities. With that in mind, I welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement in June 2010 calling on councils to provide financial transparency by publishing online information about spending over £500 by the end of January 2011; all councils except Nottingham city council have now done so. Such financial disclosure will act as a trigger, enabling local taxpayers to see how councils are using public money, shine a spotlight on waste, establish greater accountability and efficiency, open up new markets, and improve access for small and local businesses and the voluntary sector.
To strengthen that, the Government published their “Code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency” in September 2011. The code stipulates that the provision of public data should become integral to local authority engagement with residents, so that it drives accountability to them, it should be promoted and publicised, so that residents know how to access it, and it should be presented in a way that encourages residents to use and compare such data. Despite all that, however, we have not been overrun by a fully mobilised army of armchair auditors seeking to identify savings. This is a real opportunity that has been missed. To my mind, that is because although a vast amount of data has been put into the public domain, much of it is hard to comprehend.
I believe that the focus should be on the quality rather than the quantity of what is available. Three examples highlight this. First, most councils publish their expenditure to comply with the guidelines, but that does not necessarily mean that the publication is clear. Individuals are therefore often unable to challenge expenditure. Secondly, we have seen examples in which, when the data are printed off, font size 2 is used. Those data are technically accessible, but they are not exactly readable. Thirdly, the information is often hidden away on websites. A good example is provided by Birmingham city council. To access its data we have to go to the homepage, then click on “Council and Democracy”, then on “Services”, then on “Featured Services”, then on “Corporate Resources Directorate”, then on “Invoices and Payments”, and then on “Payments to suppliers over £500”. The process takes us through seven different pages, and it is not signposted in any way. The information would be very hard to find without going through the DirectGov site—or being Columbo. Chris Taggart, the founder of OpenlyLocal.com, has said:
“Public sector data is still being treated as an asset to be sold, rather than an underlying infrastructure of a modern democratic society, and with this approach people and the innovators who seek to empower them are marginalised and disenfranchised.”
There are, however, many good examples of local authorities providing data in innovative and eye-catching ways. Examples are Kensington and Chelsea, and Northamptonshire, which map the data so that residents can understand at a glance where the money goes. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy says that councils should set out reasons for particular spending decisions so that a more informed judgment can be made. It also highlights the need for effective feedback mechanisms, so that people can comment on spending and have their views taken on board.
Information needs to be accessible, transparent and understandable. I therefore welcome the five steps to fully open data that are set out in the code, but they need to be more robustly enforced. Guidelines could be altered to ensure that local authorities published their expenses in a comprehensible manner. A number of small and medium-sized enterprises are also working with open data, including OpenlyLocal, Spotlight on Spend and Armchair Auditor. Those private enterprises are all developing new ways of presenting council data. I would urge central Government to encourage local government to make use of such sites to break down its spending and make it more easily digestible and comparable.
I also have a recommendation. I would like to use incentives to encourage residents to become that army of armchair auditors. There is a fear that any savings that residents identify will simply disappear back into a council black hole. Perhaps 50% of the savings could go back to the council for it to spend as it wished, with the other 50% being spent on the front-line service of the resident’s choice. That could involve improving the local school, the local community library or a local sports club. This could be processed by a committee of back-bench councillors and finance officers, who would weed out the majority of suggestions. Probably 95% of the expenditure identified would be justifiable; it might just have been badly explained on the council website, for example. The remainder of cases could be passed on to the lead member for finance to bank, which would help the taxpayer and improve front-line services. CIPFA has also pointed out that when expenditure is found to be justifiable, a letter should be sent to the resident to explain what the money is being spent on.
A number of arguments have been made against this proposal. Some councils have said that they would be embarrassed if residents found that they were not spending money efficiently. I say that they should embrace that, because if a saving is identified, the council will have the opportunity to spend the money on something that people will reward it for. Nottingham city council says that the process would cost too much money. I do not think that that is an excuse when there is so much pressure on council tax bills. It has also been suggested that it would be too difficult to provide answers, but I find that unacceptable. Surely someone is signing off those budgets, and therefore owns them. A further argument is that much of this would involve one-off expenditure, but I believe that local authorities should still learn from such experience. This is a real opportunity to enthuse local residents and to deliver much-needed savings.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)
I am conscious that it is a privilege as well as a duty to wind up a debate for the Government from the Dispatch Box on any subject. Having spent some 18 years as a local councillor myself, including three years as leader of Stockport council, before being elected to this place, winding up a debate on local government issues today is a special honour for me.
Members on both sides of the House acknowledge that local government faces unprecedented challenges. All councils are effectively being asked to do more with less, and some are managing it better than others. I am confident—indeed, the coalition Government are confident—that local councils up and down the country are equal to the task. This Government want to work with local authorities whenever and wherever they can in a spirit of partnership.
Most Members of all parties are genuinely committed to good, sound local government as the most effective way of delivering the essential public services on which so many of our constituents depend. We recognise and acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of dedicated professional people employed by local authorities who are doing a very good job to the best of their ability. Although we expect councils to share the burden of our deficit reduction strategy, it is not because of some ideological desire to do down the public sector, but because local authorities collectively account for about a quarter of all public expenditure. As the country struggles to overcome the difficult financial situation we are now in, councils have a key role in helping to tackle the problems.
I have been particularly pleased to note the Government’s progress on their empty homes strategy, their investment in social housing, and increased democracy in the planning network through neighbourhood plans—putting local residents in charge of the decisions that affect them.
Let me now deal with today’s debate. I start by thanking all Members who have contributed by speaking passionately about their own concerns—and, more importantly, those of their constituents. In the time available, I will endeavour to give a worthwhile response to each Member’s speech.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey) referred to the development of the port of Liverpool to promote economic growth. As a fellow north-west MP, I am familiar with the issues she spoke about. Indeed, the hon. Lady and I share in our constituencies the great river Mersey, which, as everybody knows, starts in Stockport and finishes in Liverpool—not the other way round.
I am speaking for this Government and for myself when I say that it is vital for the Government to continue to do everything in their power to contribute to economic growth in the Liverpool city region, the north-west region and, of course, across the rest of the country as well. The hon. Lady is right that the port of Liverpool has a crucial role to play in all this. As she will be aware, the Government have welcomed the report on Liverpool by Lord Heseltine and Sir Terry Leahy. Their knowledge and understanding of the issues have been invaluable in shaping that report. Although it was an independent report, so Government policy will not be bound by it, we acknowledge that it provides a unique opportunity—not shared by other cities—for Liverpool city region and its partners to own the recommendations and to drive them forward in partnership with central Government. It has been noted and acknowledged that 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion-worth of investment could be added to the wider SuperPort initiative by 2020.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about planning issues in her constituency. The first thing I would say to her is that I am no stranger to the frustrations of the planning system myself, so I sympathise with some of the frustrations she expressed today. As it happens, like the hon. Lady—I do not know whether it is appropriate to declare the interest—I am a member of the National Trust.
This Government clearly acknowledge that an effective planning system is vital for economic growth, for strong and vibrant communities and for a sustainable environment. As I am sure the hon. Lady is already aware, I cannot personally discuss the merits or otherwise of individual planning applications, as there is a strongly held convention that Ministers do not comment on the merits or otherwise of such an application in case it impinges on the impartiality of the Secretary of State, should that application come before him for determination. The specific issues she refers to are, of course, the responsibility of Walsall metropolitan borough council.
Reforming the planning process is one of the Department’s key priorities and I am sure that the hon. Lady, like myself, will be looking forward to reading the Government’s response to the national planning policy framework consultation, which will be published in spring next year. Indeed, the coalition agreement and the growth review commit the Department to a radical package of reforms that will transform the planning system to ensure it meets the aspirations of our communities and supports the sustainable development that the country needs while at the same time being as simple to understand and as streamlined as possible.
The next contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert). I start by praising his campaigning work on homelessness. I know he has an excellent track-record on this issue both in his own constituency and at a national level. He speaks with great passion about the topic. I can confirm the coalition Government’s commitment to action on the issue, on which they have already done a great deal of work.
Let me mention just a few of the measures that we have taken. We have protected the £6.5 billion Supporting People budget, and we will invest £400 million in homelessness prevention over the next four years. We recently announced a £42.5 million boost to provide more than 1,500 new and improved bed spaces to improve hostels for rough sleepers and ensure that those coming off the streets receive the support they need. We are giving an additional £20 million to Homeless Link for a new homelessness transition fund to support the roll-out of No Second Night Out and protect vital front-line services. I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the valuable work done by St Mungo’s, which was also mentioned by other Members, and by St Petroc’s in his constituency.
I agree with the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the importance of affordable housing, not just in London but throughout the country. The Government have manifestly taken serious steps to tackle the chronic lack of such housing. In 2011-12 we are allocating £40 million to London boroughs to prevent homelessness and tackle rough sleeping. The Department has also transferred £8.45 million a year to the Greater London Authority for four years so that it can fund and commission pan-London rough sleeping services. They include rolling shelters, tenancy sustainment teams and outreach services which generally operate across borough boundaries.
As was mentioned earlier, we have provided £12.5 million for Crisis, the national charity for single homeless people, for a crisis private rented sector development programme to enable the voluntary sector to set up private rented sector access schemes for single homeless people. In its first year alone, the programme will lead to the creation of more than 1,500 tenancies. Our £4.5 billion affordable homes programme is set to exceed expectations and deliver up to 170,000 new homes by 2015.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke of the benefits of installing sprinklers in residential and commercial new-build properties. I listened with interest as he made his case—with great enthusiasm—and I am sure that the Department will also have noted its merits, especially given his detailed knowledge of the terrible fire at Wessex Foods in his constituency, to which he has referred before.
My hon. Friend did not call for the introduction of new regulations, although he highlighted the fact that sprinklers can save lives, thus preventing a considerable impact on the local community. It is important to note, however, that building regulations already contain provisions for the installation of sprinkler systems in buildings where the risk is considered high enough to justify their use—such as tall blocks of flats, commercial and industrial premises, and assembly and recreational buildings over 30 metres high—as well as provisions for large storage buildings and care homes.
In December last year, following an extensive public consultation exercise, the Department published the findings of a review of building regulations in a report entitled “Future changes to the Building Regulations—next steps”. The review concluded that there was no new evidence that would justify revisiting the requirements for sprinkler protection for all buildings at present.
I commend the work being done by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) in relation to the national planning policy framework on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that his views are being taken into account in the national planning policy framework consultation, which—as all Members will know—recently closed. I am sure he appreciates that I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation by commenting on the issues that have been raised today, but I know that he joins me in welcoming the aim of the reforms, which is to simplify a system that most people agree has become too complex and confrontational, and to emphasise the central and critical role of the local plan to decision making. The draft national planning policy framework distils more than 1,000 pages of national policy guidelines into about 50.
We have made clear through the housing strategy published on Monday 21 November that we must do more to provide homes for young people and growing families. We also need jobs in expanding businesses. However, that will not be at the expense of our natural and historic environment. The points made by my hon. Friend about sustainability are hugely important.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that financial transparency in local government is essential. Like me, he served as a local councillor before being elected to the House, and it was interesting to hear about his experience in Swindon. The coalition Government expect councils to be transparent about their finances. We have set out our expectations in our code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency, which was published on 29 September 2011. As set out in the code, all local authorities in England are now expected to publish online details of any expenditure of over £500. We have been very pleased with the positive response from councils in respect of publishing this information—with one or two notable exceptions. I am also pleased that local government is continuing to forge ahead and publish a wealth of further information beyond expenditure, such as on contracts and tenders, council allowances, senior salaries and payments.
I am aware that I have run out of time, but may I conclude by wishing all Members a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year?
Energy and Climate Change
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Five Members wish to take part in this debate, so a time limit of six minutes has been set. May I remind the Minister that the time allotted to him to respond to the debate is up to 10 minutes? The timings this afternoon are tight, and we want to make sure that every Member who wishes to participate in debates has the opportunity to do so. We will therefore be grateful if Ministers co-operate as well.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I have spoken about wind farms in mid-Wales before, in particular in a Westminster Hall debate on 10 May, which I secured. It is the dominant issue in my constituency, and in the neighbouring constituencies of the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), who are not present today.
I am sceptical about onshore wind, and have been for a long time, and an increasing number of MPs have been contacting me since the Westminster Hall debate to tell me that they agree. I do not want merely to repeat the points I made in May, but I must outline why I am sceptical about onshore wind and why I am so implacably opposed to the mid-Wales connection project.
The cost of the huge subsidies involved is a matter of great concern, particularly to the poorest citizens in our society. Between 5 million and 6 million people are already in fuel poverty, and they are facing a choice between heating or eating. This is, in effect, a Robin Hood tax in reverse: the poorest people in society are having to pay additional sums in their energy bills and that money is being transferred to huge, powerful companies.
There is also an impact on business competitiveness. Some 1 million young people are unemployed in our country—that is 1 million lives scarred by the scourge of unemployment. We are doing what we can to find jobs for those people, but we are making matters worse by undermining competitiveness and driving jobs overseas.
There is also the impact on the landscape, which is particularly important to me. History in Wales teaches us the cost of thoughtless development. We had coal spills dumped all over the valleys, which this generation has had to pay to clear up. We have had irresponsible coniferous forestation, which caused massive environmental problems, and which this generation has also had to clear up.
I am particularly concerned about the scale of what is proposed in mid-Wales—the sheer horror of it. The mid-Wales connection is based on the largest ever onshore wind development in England and Wales. Under the proposals, permission will be granted for the erection of about 500 new onshore wind turbines in mid-Wales—the final figure depends on their size—over and above the 250 that currently exist and those that already have planning approval. There will also be a 20-acre electricity substation and about 100 miles of new cable, much of it carried on steel towers 150 feet high down one of the narrow valleys that lead from mid-Wales to Shropshire. It is scarcely believable; the scale is almost impossible to comprehend. Not even the enemies of Britain over the centuries have wrought such wanton destruction on this wonderful part of the United Kingdom.
However, today I want to speak about the impact of wind farms on democracy—that great invention that is the foundation of Britain’s constitution, and which is being disregarded so casually throughout Europe. I wanted to entitle this speech “Wind farms and democracy in mid-Wales”, but I felt that that would be deemed too tendentious.
In his response to my speech on 10 May, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) offered some reassuring comments. In referring to wind farm development, he said that
“it must be in the right location, and it must have…democratic support”.
He warmed to this theme, saying that
“too often, onshore wind is imposed on communities that do not want it. I am keen to ensure that we address that democratic deficit…in our plans.”
He went on, adding with a flourish that
“it needs more democratic legitimacy than it has today, and I intend to ensure that that happens.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 365-67WH.]
I was much encouraged, not surprisingly.
In my speech on 10 May, I also referred to a public meeting in Welshpool, to which 2,000 people came. I asked those people to come with me on a three-hour journey to Cardiff to express their views to the National Assembly. A few weeks later, they did—2,000 of them, on 37 buses. It was the best protest ever seen outside the National Assembly. That is how strongly people feel, and as a result the First Minister changed his position on the maximum cumulative impact that could be allowed in mid-Wales. He said that a new 400 kV line and a substation were not needed. We were generally encouraged, but then the giant energy companies got to work, the way dark forces do in science fiction. These massively powerful wind farm companies—leviathans fattened on public subsidy—got to work with a mixture of threats to people and community payments, which is a way of securing support for their proposals locally. A terrific amount of pressure was applied, and there was a huge lobbying exercise.
Members can imagine my shock and disappointment at reading a BBC report two weeks ago which said that more wind farms and pylons may be built in Wales in the national interest, despite local protests. The very same Minister whom I quoted earlier was quoted as saying that
“this is a national decision…the local views are important…but at the end of the day we are making decisions in the national interest”.
In the national interest—that is autocracy, not democracy.
Even more shocking is the pressure being put on local planning authorities. They are being pressured into deciding on applications by a particular date, and conditions have been ignored. They are told that all the conditions that would apply to any other planning application must not apply to wind farm developments. Transport infrastructure, ecological and environmental information, power usage—none of these factors is known, and yet they are being pressured into making decisions. It is utterly outrageous.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. The international aim of limiting the impact of climate change to so-called acceptable consequences is, according to current trends, set to fail. That is notwithstanding the fact that the Energy and Climate Change Secretary told the House last Monday that the Durban climate conference
“was a clear success for international co-operation.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 569.]
The executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change saluted the countries that had made this agreement, but the executive director of Friends of the Earth called the Durban agreement
“an empty shell of a plan”
that
“leaves the planet hurtling towards catastrophic climate change.”
Others were even less diplomatic.
The gulf between these different reactions reflects the gulf between the reality of the current political process and the reality of what the science tells us we need to do. Indeed, it says it a lot about people’s expectations that, after so many climate talks and empty pledges over the years, an agreement “in principle” to tackling climate change from 2020 can still be hailed as an overall success.
There has for a number of years been almost universal agreement on the need to keep climate change within a range that would limit its impact to a so-called acceptable level. That is the risk that Governments have decided they are willing to take on our behalf, and on the whole, the public have accepted this position in the belief that we will be spared from “dangerous” or “very dangerous” climate change.
The threshold between “acceptable” and “dangerous” climate change has been the famous target of limiting warming to no more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels, which, in theory at least, is the limit that international negotiations are striving not to breach. But today the fight to ensure that the planet and its people suffer only the “acceptable” consequences of a warming world faces a double threat.
First, Governments have so far failed to take the action needed to protect their current and future populations from the worst of climate change. Writing in the Royal Society’s journal earlier this year, a group of leading climate scientists explained that
“the continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade and the delays in a comprehensive global emissions reduction agreement have made achieving this”—
2°—
“target extremely difficult, arguably impossible, raising the likelihood of global temperature rises of 3°C or 4°C within this century.”
The consequences of the latest weak and delayed agreement are laid bare by Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the International Energy Agency, who has said:
“If we do not have an international agreement, whose effect is put in place by 2017, then the door to”—
holding temperatures to below 2° of warming—
“will be closed forever”.
The second threat is that, as the latest science shows, even a 2° temperature rise is too much. Indeed, the evidence now points to the need to keep global temperature increases to less than 1.5° at most. So it is deeply worrying that, according to the world’s leading climate change monitoring programme, average temperatures are 1° higher than those in the 1950s. Current research released in the run-up to the Durban conference, including work from the Potsdam institute, the Met Office’s Hadley centre, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Energy Agency, shows that on average the world is expected to warm by at least 3.5° by 2100. If that is an average, the grim reality is that some parts of the world are likely to be warming significantly more.
I raise these issues because it is crucial that we base our climate policy on the best available science. The clearest expression of the accumulation of emissions and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases was given by the European Environment Agency. The latest data show a concentration of 399 parts per million of CO2 equivalent. The UK’s current carbon budgets, which theoretically aim for a less than 2° temperature rise, are based on greenhouse gas concentrations stabilising at 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent, but even that level in no way guarantees protection. The Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report makes it clear that if global CO2 equivalent concentrations are stabilised about 450 parts per million, the risk of exceeding a 2° warming is about 50%. In other words, that is the equivalent of getting on a plane with only a 50:50 chance of it not falling out of the sky.
It is crucial that we make sure that our policy is based on the latest science. My speech is not the usual kind of intervention where we are scoring political points and focusing on short-term tactical questions. I believe and I hope that I am doing something more important than that. I am putting on the record the fact that we face a climate crisis of extraordinary urgency, and if we are to have any hope of tackling it, we need to be working on the basis of the right data. So I have three questions for the Minister to answer. First, will he agree to examine the latest science, and, as necessary, work to change the UK’s domestic targets to ensure that they continue to respect the political and public consensus to limit climate change to “acceptable” consequences? Secondly, will he ensure that the Government take the action needed to limit our emissions in time and in line with our global responsibilities to prevent climate change reaching dangerous levels—and that means including the emissions that are embedded in imports? Thirdly, will he fight on the international stage to do everything possible to ensure that all Governments take the same approach? If we continue to fiddle while not only Rome, but the whole planet burns, we will go down in whatever history can follow us as the species that spent all its time monitoring its own extinction, rather than taking active steps to avoid it. The Government say that there is no plan B on the economy. That is debatable, but the fact that there is no planet B is not.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
I represent a constituency that has a large number of park homes, which I visit regularly. I am particularly grateful in this regard to a constituent, Mrs Lorraine Bond, who has a Whipsnade park home. She asked me to come to see her a couple of weeks ago, having corresponded with me for quite a while about the exorbitant cost of heating her home using liquid petroleum gas cylinders—this is common for many park home residents. She told me that last winter, when it was cold, she was spending £300 a month on average to keep her park home warm. It is possible to have five extremely cold months in a difficult winter in the United Kingdom, so my constituents are having to spend £1,500 to keep their park homes warm. If we bear in mind the fact that most park home residents are elderly—they tend to be pensioners—and often on low and fixed incomes, the House will realise the significance of that sum. It causes me great concern and that is why I wanted to raise the matter with the Minister today.
The Office of Fair Trading just completed its off-grid energy report in October of this year. It describes the cylinder LPG market as
“a mature and declining market”
of only some 25,000 to 50,000 homes for the 47 kg cylinders of LPG. It points out that bulk LPG is more economical and involves greater ease of delivery and handling, but even bulk LPG is more expensive than other off-grid fuels such as heating oil, about which we hear a lot in this House, solid fuel or electricity. They all, in turn, are much more expensive ways of heating one’s home than a mains gas supply connection, which many rural areas do not have.
The market for liquid petroleum gas—propane and butane in the main—is very limited. There are only three major cylinder suppliers, Calor Gas, Flogas and BP Gas, and the OFT noted that retail arrangements for cylinder LPG
“in effect require dealers to deal exclusively with one supplier.”
It notes, with considerable understatement, that
“these agreements could potentially restrict competition.”
The OFT has said that it
“may return to these issues in the context of the wider cylinder LPG market at a later date”.
It urgently needs to do so, because we are talking about very vulnerable people on low incomes with little choice about the way in which they heat their homes. Our current regulation is purely through the OFT and the Competition Commission, because Ofgem and Consumer Focus do not have a remit for this market.
What can we do? The first thing we need to do is ensure that any future potential park home residents are well aware before they move in of how much it could cost to heat their home. They need to have that knowledge before they take the decision to become a park home resident.
I was encouraged when earlier this year, on 24 March, in column 1084 of Hansard, one of the DECC Ministers said that the green deal and the energy company obligation would apply to park home residents. That is very welcome, but what has happened with the renewable heat premium payment? Some £15 million of Government money, aimed at around 25,000 homes, is due to be spent up to March next year, so have park homes been covered by that payment scheme? If they have not been, can we ensure that they are in the remaining months?
My major question for the Minister concerns whether the renewable heat incentive, which starts in March next year, will apply to park home owners. As I hope I have outlined, they are some of our most vulnerable residents who are in greatest need of the new technology and financial support that the Government are bringing in through that incentive. I understand that at the moment that decision is still, in classic Government language, “subject to policy development”, so I urge my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), as the Minister on the Front Bench, to ensure that this group are covered. As I have said, they are the most vulnerable residents and they need this help.
A couple of weeks ago, I visited a major new development in my constituency in Houghton Regis, on Sandringham drive, where every roof—the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will be pleased to hear this—had photovoltaic cells on it, leading to water heating. It did not benefit from the renewable heat incentive, but the residents told me that they had very light heating bills last year as a result of that new technology. Above all, park home residents, who are mainly pensioners and mainly on low incomes, should be the ones to benefit from the renewable heat incentive and the technology that is coming in, which could make heating their homes much more affordable.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Over the next few minutes, I shall give a critique of aspects of the Government’s energy policy, but first I thank the Government for having an energy policy that it is possible to critique. Although I do not want to make a party political point, it is worth reflecting on the legacy that we inherited. On renewables, we were 25th out of the 27 EU countries, in front of only Malta and Luxembourg. Some 90% of our energy is from gas, coal and oil; 2.5% is from renewables. Furthermore, in 2010—the last year for which figures are available—the percentage of our energy that came from renewables actually fell. That is a staggering achievement, and it is worth noting.
What the previous Government were able to do—they had some success in this—was pass legislation, some of which is important, and that is the basis of what I shall talk about today. The Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to reduce our emissions by 80% from a 1990 baseline. I will not argue about the basis for that; we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about the importance of the 2° C target. I agree with much of what she said on that, but as she is present I just make the point that if she, like George Monbiot, had accepted that nuclear power has a part to play in meeting the target, her speech would have had more resonance.
The Act places onerous requirements on us. Broadly speaking, reducing our use of carbon by 80% from a 1990 base requires a strategy that may embrace 25,000 wind turbines—I say that with some regret to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who is sitting in front of me—and 25 nuclear power stations. Of course, it would also mean a massive reduction in energy use; I think that Members on both sides of the House would agree with that, and the green deal is a great way forward. My difficulty is with the next Act that the previous Government enacted, relating to the EU 20-20-20 directive of 2009, which requires us to produce 15% of our energy from renewables over the next decade. In my judgment, that directive contradicts our needs under the Climate Change Act 2008. We must decarbonise, and not necessarily go in for a renewables frenzy.
People might wonder why that matters, given that renewables need to be part of the mix. It matters because the emphasis on renewables has, in my judgment, meant that we have de-emphasised other low-carbon solutions that need to go ahead much more quickly, such as nuclear power and more use of gas, which I shall discuss.
One particular aspect of the renewables frenzy brought about by the 2009 directive undermines our ability to decarbonise, and we can see it in the solar power episode that is still playing out. We made a decision to pay 40p per unit for electricity that we can sell for 8p or 9p a unit. That, of course, generates a big industry. We make that subsidy even though we are no more than 2% or 3% of the global industry for solar, and therefore realistically cannot make a big difference to how the price comes down, and even though solar power produced through photovoltaics produces more than three times more carbon than nuclear power, as was shown in a recent peer-reviewed paper from Imperial college.
Why does all that matter? Why does it matter whether we go for renewables so hard, as opposed to going for gas, which is part of this? One of the things that we have to do is get our car and transport infrastructure off oil. We shall do that not just by electrifying, although that might be part of the solution, but by going down the route of gas cars. There are about 10 million gas cars in the world, more than 2 million of which are in Pakistan. There are nothing like that many electric cars. To say that gas is not part of the solution is just wrong.
Glyn Davies
Notwithstanding the fact that my hon. Friend is focused on putting too many wind farms in my constituency, I agree with much of what he says. Does he agree that we need to emphasise the potential of tidal power as well? I have not heard that mentioned a great deal. The Severn barrage can supply 5% of British energy needs. The potential of tidal power is massive.
David Mowat
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am not an expert in hydro power, the potential of which is very large. We have a deadline of 2017 to replace about a third of our generating capacity. To do that, we must use proven technology. That meant nuclear, but we might be late for that now. It is going to end up being gas, because gas is the default solution of a failure to invest in other technologies.
The very real need to decarbonise is being threatened by the costs that we are incurring through a strategy that is too focused on introducing the wrong sort of renewables too quickly. Let me give an example of the likely cost of the carbon floor. A £70 per tonne price of carbon will add about £400 to £500 to the average domestic bill. That is important because fuel poverty is at 10% now. We have energy-intensive industries laying off people or not investing in this country, in the context of trying to grow manufacturing as a percentage of GDP. The risk is that that will prevent some of the things that we need to do in pursuing decarbonisation. I ask the Government to consider this point: optimising renewables is not the same as optimising decarbonisation, and we need to do the latter.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is such a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who is a great mind in all areas of energy and one of the more assiduous Members of the House when it comes to constituency work, I am told.
I welcome the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is standing in on behalf of Department of Energy and Climate Change Ministers. So far in this debate, the Government business managers have replied, probably better than most of the Ministers would have been able to do on their own, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman. He should be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has a history of getting people to stand in for him in various matters, but I trust that his Christmas present from the Secretary of State will be slightly nicer than others that he might have given in the past.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), I am suffering from a spate of wind farm applications in my constituency. For years I have been campaigning against them. We should have gone nuclear a lot earlier, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South said. There is a fantastic quote in a very good book, “Let Them Eat Carbon” by Matthew Sinclair of the Taxpayers Alliance: “Renewable energy is plagued by old problems. Whilst the wind and the sun are free, using them to supply energy when and where we need it to power a modern economy is extremely expensive.”
We all know that, and even the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) would have to recognise it, so why do we keep trying to foist onshore wind farms on to areas of low wind speed, where they devastate areas of natural beauty? I guess it is because wind was the only game in town for a long time and its lobbyists are among the best.
I thought that in the spirit of localism, it would be a good idea to give power to local authorities, so I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill a number of months ago. It languishes, I think, at No. 13 for the next Friday sitting that we might have, so is unlikely to see the light of day in this Session. However, I would like to think that, like the gubernator of California, it will be back in some form in the future. I offer it to Ministers as a way forward in trying to solve some of the problems by letting local councils decide the correct proximity of wind turbines to habitation.
Why am I so interested in this? In Daventry district, 19 sites are being looked at, are in the planning stage or are on appeal for wind turbines, most of which would be about 126.5 m high, roughly the size of the London Eye, and in a beautiful, green part of rolling English countryside. I am against the turbines because they simply do not work. Last December was one of the coldest periods on record, but it was also remarkably still. The turbines barely produced any energy and we needed to use all the other carbon-eating technologies.
Glyn Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that the sheer antipathy to wind farm development right across Britain is turning people against the development of renewable energy? It is transforming antipathy to onshore wind into antipathy to renewable energy.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I absolutely concur. I know from my mailbag and from the number of e-mails I receive every day on the matter that people are turning against renewables of just about every type because wind turbines are, among other things, so badly sold. Onshore wind generation requires a 100% back-up of carbon-burning technology or nuclear energy, should the wind not blow, and in addition to the devastation of the visual environment there are the problems of noise and flicker. They are the wrong renewables choice.
That brings me to some unbelievably bad news I received yesterday about my constituency. There was—how can I put it?—a disgraceful, vulgar, disrespectful, terrible, shameful, contemptible, detestable, dishonourable, disreputable, ignoble, mean, offensive, scandalous, shabby, shady, shocking, shoddy, unworthy, deplorable, awful, calamitous, dire, disastrous, distressing, dreadful, faulty, grim, horrifying, lamentable, lousy, mournful, pitiable, regrettable, reprehensible, rotten, sad, sickening, tragic, woeful, wretched, abhorrent, abominable, crass, despicable, inferior, odious, unworthy, atrocious, heinous, loathsome, revolting, scandalous, squalid, tawdry, cowardly, opprobrious, insulting, malevolent, scurrilous and basically stinkingly poor decision of the Planning Inspectorate to approve the Kelmarsh wind farm, which will devastate huge swathes of beautiful rural Northamptonshire. It used an old-fashioned east midlands regional plan, which I thought we had abolished in the Localism Act 2011, did not take into account any emerging policy in this area, not least the national planning policy framework, and used the targets, which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is so passionately attached to, of getting 20% of our energy from renewables by 2020.
It is unbelievable that one planning inspector can overrule all elements of democracy, local and national, including parish and district council opinion, MPs, Lords and Members of the European Parliament, and say, “Well, actually, because of these particularly poor policies we have, forget democracy. This is what you are having.” That is what upsets people about the onshore wind industry. The sooner that can change, the better.
Significant damage will be done to the local environment, and even more will be done to what my constituents might think comes with the Localism Act. If I were a Secretary of State in the Department for Energy and Climate Change and was driving down the A14, I really would put my foot down. A three-point penalty easily outweighs what I and my constituents think of him, this decision and the policy it is based on. That said, even I wish the Secretary of State and everyone else in the House a very merry Christmas.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and measured contributions, including that wonderful description of the Planning Inspectorate’s recent decision. Many hon. Members will have some sympathy with the views expressed there.
I must confess a personal interest. I am the son of a climatologist, so I spent many of my formative years learning about the natural cycles of climate, visiting sites such as medieval vineyards around Tewkesbury and so forth as friends were heading off to Torremolinos. Today, however, our focus is on man’s impact on climate and how we respond to it.
I shall deal first with the contribution from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The hon. Lady’s case is that the 2% target—limiting the increase of global average temperatures to 2% above pre-industrial levels—is not ambitious enough and has potentially devastating consequences. I share and the Government share her absolute concern about the need to take effective and decisive action to deal with what is an enormous challenge globally, and we do not dismiss it at all.
The target of less than 2%, however, is likely to be at the very edge of what is possible in terms of the technological and economic implications. It also involves radical lifestyle changes, and dealing with that globally and in democracies is often very difficult.
Achieving the 2% target globally will itself be immensely challenging. On the current trajectory, as the hon. Lady rightly said, we are looking at a 3.5° C to 4° C rise in temperature, the consequences of which certainly would be devastating, and if anything the gap is widening.
Caroline Lucas
The figure is 2° C, not 2%, but does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on the key point that runaway climate change would also require radical changes in lifestyle?
Norman Lamb
Absolutely, I do. I accept that completely, and that is why the Government are determined to take decisive action.
The consequences, however, of a 3.5° C to 4° C rise would be devastating, including a 2 metre rise in sea levels, a massive impact on food production and so on, but to hit the 2° C target we need global emissions to peak by 2020 and, after that, to reduce by 4% annually. That target is achievable if decisive action is taken by both the developed and the developing worlds, and this Government are determined to take a lead internationally —one of the things that the hon. Lady raised specifically —in seeking to achieve it.
Developing countries on their own are likely to account for 60% of emissions by 2020 owing to rapid development, and the Government recognise that the European Union must show leadership, so we are pressing for a 30% 2020 emissions reduction target, rather than the current 20%.
To answer the hon. Lady’s specific question about whether we need to review the target level, I note that the Cancun conference agreed to a review of the science to see whether to adjust the target and whether the 2° C target is adequate to prevent the disastrous consequences of climate change. I acknowledge what she said about the outcome of the recent Durban conference, but it did make progress on the design of that review and on the steps, including negotiating a new global agreement, to get the global community back on track to achieve at least the 2° C goal. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for playing a key role in the Durban negotiations, which have taken things forward.
All that sets the context—the imperative of building a low-carbon economy—for dealing with the contributions from the hon. Members for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). Not only do we need to reduce carbon emissions because of the imperative of tackling climate change, but we face the massive challenge of energy security.
I shall deal first with the hon. Member for Warrington South, who criticised the focus on renewables and sought to concentrate on the optimisation of decarbonisation, arguing for the importance of nuclear and gas in the short term. We face the immediate and remarkable challenge that nearly one third of our energy supplies will be going off-grid in the next decade. That is because of decisions already taken. Nuclear cannot deliver in that time frame. There are disadvantages in relying heavily on imported gas because it makes us more vulnerable to risks with regard to security of supply, fluctuating and volatile cost, and availability of supply. To replace the lost capacity and to hit challenging emissions targets, we need a new supply quickly, and wind and other renewables are a crucial part of that. Over the longer term, the Government have no intention of favouring one form of low-carbon energy production over another. Our intention is to secure a level playing field for low-carbon technologies competing with one another. Tidal power, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, should be given its chance along with other technologies.
The Government have already issued a White Paper on electricity market reform. That is an important way to deliver the change that we need to secure proper competition between low-carbon technologies. It will mean that a level playing field is introduced by 2020, and it covers nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and renewables. The carbon plan published on 1 December, which sets out how we will meet the requirements of the fourth carbon budget—between 2022 and 2027—does not favour one form of production over another but offers different scenarios and different combinations within the whole mix. We are not looking to lock in any one form of production. The Government have stressed the importance of reducing energy demand and of improved energy conservation. That is why our green deal is so important, as is the radical step of introducing smart electricity and gas meters across every home. We do, however, stress the need for immediate and decisive action.
Norman Lamb
I will not, because I am conscious of time constraints and think that I must press on.
The hon. Members for Daventry and for Montgomeryshire discussed wind energy. First, it is important to recognise that this does cause concern for many people; we are all familiar with that in our own constituencies. Those concerns cannot just be dismissed. There are inevitably tensions between the absolute imperative of reducing carbon in our economy and the concerns of local people. It is important to recognise, though, that applications are turned down on landscape grounds. The key is to find appropriate locations in terms of landscape and wind speed.
The hon. Member for Daventry raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of wind energy. Wind energy is generated for between 70% and 80% of the time. It is already providing about 2.9% of total energy generation—that was the figure for the second quarter of 2011—and it represented approximately 31% of the overall renewable electricity generated in that period. It is already delivering results. The costs of onshore wind are expected to come down by about 8% to 9% between now and 2030. That will result in support for onshore wind reducing by 10% from April 2013. The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns about the proximity of wind turbines to where people live and the importance of local decision making. The Government, through the Localism Act 2011, want to give people in their communities a greater say in the decisions that are taken.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire raised particular concerns about what is happening in his own community. I pay tribute to the passion and commitment that he has demonstrated on this issue over a long period. He will be aware that the location of wind farms in mid-Wales is down to TAN 8—technical advice note 8—which is the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly Government. Any changes or variations to TAN 8 are their responsibility rather than that of the UK Government. Six applications for developments of over 50 MW are currently in train in mid-Wales, and we are waiting on the response of the local authority, Powys county council, which is due by the end of March next year. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) has written to the authority recently—last week, I think—to extend the deadline to the end of September so that it can conduct its assessment properly and respond fully to the proposals. That extension is subject to approval by the applicants.
I should also mention the Localism Act 2011, which has removed decision making powers from the Infrastructure Planning Commission. That body has dealt with applications for developments of more than 50 MW since April 2010. It was introduced by the previous Government and it was an appointed, unaccountable quango. This Government have returned responsibility to Ministers, thereby reinstating clear accountability.
I want to reiterate the value and importance of wind in meeting climate change targets, for the reasons that I have already expressed. It has to be part of the mix. I stress its economic benefits in Wales and elsewhere. Wind energy contributes £158 million directly to the Welsh economy every year in turnover, employment and expenditure. It is responsible for more than 800 full- time jobs in Wales, and that is expected to rise to 1,000 next year. That must be considered.
Finally, I will deal with the contribution of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I am grateful to him for raising the concerns brought to his attention by Mrs Lorraine Bond. The amount that she and others have to pay over the winter just to heat their homes should concern us all. He is right that the recent Office of Fair Trading report highlighted that cylinder liquefied petroleum gas—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister, you have now been speaking for 12 minutes, which is more than “up to 10 minutes”. I would therefore be grateful if you brought your remarks to a conclusion as quickly as possible, and if you could remember to address the Chamber, not the people sitting behind you.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will bring my remarks to a close quickly.
The concern is that the consumers we are talking about are mostly on very low incomes, are often elderly and struggle with their heating costs. I will talk about the steps that the Government are taking. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden wrote to the OFT recently, asking it to consider how to make markets work more effectively for vulnerable consumers.
Park homes will shortly be able to receive help under the Government’s main home energy efficiency scheme—the carbon emissions reduction target. CERT requires all domestic energy suppliers with more than 50,000 consumers to reduce householders’ carbon dioxide emissions by promoting low-carbon energy solutions. Under CERT, suppliers are free to decide what measures to promote. I recognise that suppliers have chosen not to install measures in significant quantities to date, but there have been successful trials this year of park home insulation solutions that significantly reduce energy use. Those trials have shown what can be achieved. Solid wall insulation for park homes will get a formal carbon score under CERT, which will incentivise energy suppliers to promote these measures to park home residents during the final year of the CERT scheme.
Finally, I have taken on board the concerns raised by the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire about the renewable heat incentive. It is clearly important to ensure that that matter is considered fully. The concerns that he has raised will be taken on board by the Department. Every effort will be made to ensure that these vulnerable consumers are protected as well as possible.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and wish everybody a very happy Christmas.
Health
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Five Members are listed to take part in this debate. There is a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of six minutes. I remind Ministers that this is a Back-Bench debate and that the Backbench Business Committee has recommended that the time available for Ministers should be up to 10 minutes. Each time they go over that, they take time away from Back Benchers.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to open the health section of the Christmas Adjournment debate.
Albert Einstein famously said:
“It is strange to be known so universally and yet to be so lonely.”
At a time of extreme population growth, greater connectivity created by technological advances and the ability to sustain friendships around the globe, it is perhaps bizarre to think about the worrying consequences of social isolation, yet it is incumbent on us to do so because increasing levels of loneliness are making elderly people in particular incredibly vulnerable.
More than 1 million people aged over 65 say that they feel socially or emotionally lonely all or most of the time. It is heartbreaking that while many of us will be spending the festive season with our family and friends, 500,000 older people will spend this Christmas day alone. Sadly, that seclusion is not confined to the Christmas season. Chillingly, it is part of the day-to-day life of many older people.
If people more cynical than your good self, Madam Deputy Speaker, are wondering why I am spending valuable parliamentary time talking about a natural human emotion, they do not understand the severe social, health and financial consequences of loneliness. Researchers rate it as a higher health risk than lifelong smoking or obesity. Associated physical and mental health conditions include sleep deprivation, a weakened immune system, higher blood pressure, an increased risk of dementia and intense levels of depression.
By raising the profile of the Campaign to End Loneliness today in this short debate, I hope to increase awareness of the scandalous isolation of older people. That is not just a sad indication of community breakdown but, to be brutally frank, has a long-term cost for our social service and health budgets. It can be halted through better state and voluntary intervention.
No one body can solve the problem. In fact, it is one for everyone in society to tackle, from local and central Government to the voluntary sector, and of course not forgetting us as individuals. However, the state has a significant role to play and is often best placed to act as the main co-ordinator.
At local level, the police, fire services and GPs are considered the most trusted bodies by older people, and therefore they can identify those most in need through their everyday activities. There is a fantastic example of that in Manchester, with police community support officers knocking on the doors of older people with a specific remit of reaching out to those who would otherwise slip under the radar. Likewise, Merseyside fire and rescue service, which comes into contact with people when it fits fire alarms or attends emergencies, has been using those occasions to identify those whom they feel are isolated and to flag them up to the appropriate body.
In my own constituency, Tonbridge and Malling council often finds that housing register applicants state that they want to move because they are lonely and feel isolated. That admission helps to identify those in need, and then the support and befriending services of local voluntary organisations are deployed. One such service is the Beat Project, which is funded by the Snodland Partnership and organises an informal coffee and chat group every week. It specifically seeks to engage people who would not normally join organised groups in the town. Many older people now attend, including a group from a local dementia nursing home. Many report that the event is often their only social contact with the outside world.
Medway council runs similar events through its older people’s partnership and its work with the WRVS. Through statutory, voluntary and community sector partners, it has sought to engage with older people across the local authority area to improve mental and physical well-being, create opportunities for intergenerational involvement and develop social networks to enable older people to lead full and active lives.
The last Government declared in the 2007 concordat for social care, “Putting People First”, that the alleviation of loneliness and isolation should be a major priority. I completely agree with that intention. Encouragingly, the current Government have put a welcome emphasis on improving community connections and well-being, which will help to meet that priority. However, any Government who are serious about enabling well-being must acknowledge the problem of loneliness as one of the targets of their activities. I hope the Minister will indicate today how far the Government intend to go in measuring loneliness as part of the well-being index.
There are many good schemes out there that can combat isolation—too many for me to mention in my remaining time. They all require one more thing, which is the ability to reach to those who remain in isolation. That is where the statutory services should help. Better co-ordination cannot be underestimated as the means of solving the wider problem of loneliness.
In the past I have planned to spend Christmas alone, but acquaintances from a local bar took in this particular waif and stray and have remained friends since. This year, Abbeyfield Kent and Age Concern Kent are opening up their doors and offering Christmas dinner to pensioners who would otherwise spend Christmas alone. I hope that that will create future social networks for those attending.
Loneliness is not just for Christmas, but this seems to me a perfectly good time to highlight in the House and beyond the worthwhile campaign to end loneliness among older people. As Mother Theresa said:
“Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty.”
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the accessibility of services and entertainment for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Several of the issues cut across other Departments, and I hope that the Minister will be tolerant, but I also hope that she will pass on my remarks to the relevant Departments.
Some 10 million people in the UK have some form of hearing loss, which is around 11,500 in every constituency. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) spoke about loneliness, and those who are deaf or hard of hearing can feel particularly isolated. It is sad that even in 2011 people with hearing loss still face unnecessary barriers to everyday activities, such as banking, shopping and watching television. I wish to highlight some of the positive steps that can be taken by businesses and Government to improve accessibility, and the forward-looking solutions that would guarantee accessible television entertainment for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Hearing loss is often referred to as an invisible impairment, and it can present a significant challenge if colleagues or service providers do not know that someone is struggling to hear. I declare an interest as I lost all hearing in one ear at the age of 16 after contracting mumps. My recent change in workplace seating arrangements has caused enormous problems, because the Speaker’s Chair is now on my deaf side, and I run the real risk of not hearing the Speaker’s instructions. Difficulty hearing in a debating chamber is an unusual problem, so I will consider some more common activities.
Imagine someone with hearing loss who begins their day by telephoning their bank. They will be met with a series of pre-recorded voice messages, which are now a familiar feature of all helplines, but present huge problems for people who cannot hear clearly. All the numbers whizz by and people miss hearing what they all mean. People with hearing loss would benefit from a clear, early option to be put through to an operator who has received deaf awareness training, and I urge companies to consider implementing this routinely.
Someone who has been unable to get through to their bank by phone might try to go and speak to them in person. Unfortunately for people with hearing loss, this still does not guarantee that they will be able to communicate successfully. There are 2 million hearing aid users in the UK, and a fully functioning induction loop is often the only way to guarantee somebody effective communication. However, in a recent survey by the excellent organisation Action on Hearing Loss, 86% of services were found to be inaccessible for hearing aid users. Where organisations had a loop system, it was often not working, it was not turned on, or staff were not trained in its use. Worryingly, more than 60% of the 1,500 premises visited did not have a loop system fitted at all.
There are any number of day-to-day examples I could give, but time does not allow, so I will turn to the end of a typical day, when someone might look forward to catching up with their favourite television programme. Surely, in the comfort of their own home, they will not be limited by their hearing loss. Sadly, even in the 21st century, against a backdrop of vast technological developments, it is still very likely that the chosen television programme will not be accompanied by subtitles. This is particularly true of programmes delivered on catch-up services over the internet, where there are currently no quotas for access services. This is despite the fact that in a recent survey three quarters of Action on Hearing Loss members said they used subtitles, with 43% using them all the time.
It would be an effective forward-looking solution if people with sensory loss could benefit from the inclusion of quotas for access services on all television programmes, regardless of the platform through which they are delivered. That would be in line with existing quotas for terrestrial television. New legislation, which I think the Government plan to introduce, should also ensure that technology is future-proofed. Believe it or not, subtitles were not initially available on high-definition TV, for example. That is quite astonishing—and they were only recently introduced on the public broadcasting HD channels. I urge Ministers not to pass up any opportunity to improve the situation through legislation.
I hope that this afternoon’s debate has demonstrated how important accessibility to services and entertainment is for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. As the population ages, the number of people with hearing loss in the UK will continue to rise. I therefore urge Ministers to cut across Departments to ensure that easy access to services and entertainment for people with hearing loss becomes the norm, not the exception.
In the last few seconds, I want to get an unrelated point on the record. I would really like the Government to look at how the administration process works, following the experience of Plymouth Argyle. There are genuine issues that need to be addressed, either by Ministers or by a Select Committee of this House, such as whether the creditors get the best value and whether the staff involved at the time are also protected.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all Members of this House and all the staff, who support us so fantastically throughout the year, a very happy Christmas.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I rise today to talk about the east midlands cancer drugs fund, because I have had many dealings with this organisation, none of them very satisfactory. The last such dealing was today, although I would like to start my story, as it were, with my attempts over some months to get Avastin for a constituent of mine. She has already funded more than £60,000-worth of the drug herself. She has sold her car, used her retirement money and sold her heirlooms, and she now has no money left, yet still the east midlands cancer drugs fund will not give her Avastin, because—it says—there is no proof that it works. However, she is living proof that it works, because she has been taking it for two years. It costs her £1,600 every three weeks, and nobody can afford that sort of money. I also have another affected constituent, whom I saw on Friday, but because she is smaller than the other lady it costs her only £1,300—a real snip.
I am appalled at the way those patients are being treated. The reason why we are talking about a second-line treatment is that the first line failed. However, those patients do not choose the first line, because they rely on the consultants to give them the right drug in the first place. When that drug fails, the consultant puts the patient on a drug that works, but in this case, those in the east midlands are not allowed to have that drug funded by the NHS. However, patients can have it funded in the west midlands, the north-east and East Anglia, along with four other trusts.
I first wrote to the east midlands cancer drugs fund about this case on 28 September. Hon. Members should remember that it is supposed to reply within 10 working days, but in this case it did not. As Avastin is not a priority drug, and as my constituent is not a priority person, the fund will reply at its leisure. I wrote on 28 September, but the first I heard from the fund was on 4 November, when, after pushing the organisation, I received a letter from the medical director of NHS Midlands and East, which said that that body would have the ultimate view on whether the drug could be prescribed. The letter also said:
“I can, however, ask the Clinical Panel to review”
my constituent’s
“case and have asked the Clinical Lead to convene an urgent meeting. This meeting will consider clinical effectiveness evidence in accordance with the principles underpinning the East Midlands Cancer Drugs Fund. I will also ask the Panel to reconsider the evidence in the context that other parts of the country have reached a different conclusion regarding the efficacy of avastin as a second line treatment. The Chair of the Clinical Panel will inform me of the outcome of its deliberations”.
That was on 4 November, after I had written on 28 September. That panel has not met. Why not? Because those responsible cannot get the right people together. They convened a meeting, but they asked the wrong people to come to it, so they decided to abandon that. Eventually, after several e-mails, on 10 and 14 November, they let me know that they were urgently considering a meeting, but had not had one yet, and they still have not. Apparently, the people who make the decisions are informing them by e-mail what they think of this case—everything is being reviewed by e-mail.
It is getting close to Christmas, as we are all aware. On 30 November I was told that I would hear by the end of that week. I have not heard anything. Now I am told that I will hear by the end of this week. This is completely and utterly unacceptable for my two constituents, who could die because of the irresponsible and inefficient way in which the organisation works. Fortunately, they are not doing so; they are getting good treatment, and both of their tumour levels have decreased from 40 to 5 while using that drug. That shows that it works, and I do not understand the reluctance of the east midlands cancer drugs fund to prescribe it.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise for not being here for the beginning of her speech. I was on the telephone to the consultant of one of my constituents who is terminally ill and who would love to get ipilimumab prescribed. Unfortunately, that is not possible. Sadly for constituents in Scotland, there is no cancer drugs fund there because the Scottish Government have different priorities from those of the coalition Government here. I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration with the way in which the fund is being administered in her area, but would she at least agree that the existence of such a fund is a real benefit to people in England? I wish that that could be the case in Scotland.
Pauline Latham
Yes, everyone should have a cancer drugs fund, but those funds should be reactive to what works for people. If I have time, I want to talk about ipilimumab too. It is a difficult name to say, but it is also known as Yervoy. The hon. Lady should talk to the Government in Scotland and ask them to do what we are doing here in this country. They have devolved powers that were voted for by this House—and which I do not agree with—but they have them, and they must make their own decisions.
The cancer drugs fund in the east midlands is not fit for purpose. It is not working for the benefit of patients. The people involved say that they need the necessary clinical knowledge of these cases, but they already have it. The consultant has written to them, as have I, and they can see that those patients are still alive. They are still failing miserably, however, to help my two constituents, who will die if they do not get the drug. I hope that the Minister will contact those people and ask them to work more efficiently and effectively to help those patients who rely desperately on them to provide the necessary drugs.
I want briefly to talk about Yervoy, which is also known by that other name that I cannot pronounce. It is used to treat malignant melanoma. I have to declare an interest, in that my brother died of malignant melanoma 11 years ago next month, before this drug was discovered. It is the first new treatment for malignant melanoma for 30 years. More people are dying of malignant melanoma than ever before, and it is on the increase. I believe that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should recommend that people should have that drug. I have heard stories of people in their 30s with young children getting the condition, and there is no hope for their future. As a responsive listening Government, we should be ensuring that those people get the drugs that they require.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). I am sure that the whole House will wish her well in her pursuit of those cases on behalf of her constituents.
I want to talk about diabetes. I discovered that I had type 2 diabetes only a few years ago, when I went to visit my local GP. He had asked me to open a diabetes awareness day. I turned up, and blood was taken from my finger. People like taking blood from politicians. I was told that someone would ring me the next day to tell me whether I had managed to get into the local newspaper. Dr Farooqi rang me. He said that the good news was that I was on the front page of the Leicester Mercury, and that the bad news was that I had type 2 diabetes.
With diabetes, we are facing a health tsunami. There are now 2.8 million people in the UK suffering from the condition. Worldwide, the figure is a staggering 346 million. It is the fifth most common cause of death in the world, and it is undoubtedly a health concern of epidemic proportions. The International Diabetes Federation predicts that if the situation is allowed to continue on its current path, 522 million people worldwide—one in every 10—will have diabetes by 2030.
In recent months the work of diabetes charities has gained a significant momentum. I would like to congratulate the International Diabetes Federation, led by its president Jean-Claude Mbaya, on hosting the World Diabetes Congress in Dubai, which I attended and at which I spoke briefly. We are going to have a British president of the federation in two years’ time—Sir Michael Hirst. I wish him well. I also commend the work of Diabetes UK and its chief executive, Baroness Young, as well as that of a charity in my constituency that I had the honour to help establish, Silver Star. It came here to test MPs for diabetes. It has worked in partnership with organisations, including the Leicester Mercury, and helped to light up its iconic headquarters in blue on world diabetes day, 14 November.
For the purposes of this debate I shall refer to type 2 diabetes, which is the type that 90% of people with diabetes around the world have. Diabetes is currently the leading cause of blindness, amputation, renal disease and cardiovascular disease. On average it reduces life expectancy by 10 years. Each week 100 people with diabetes lose a toe, foot or lower limb due to the condition. In 2010 an estimated 4,200 people lost their sight due to diabetic retinopathy. This figure increases by 1,280 a year. Only last week we were told in a Government-commissioned report that 24,000 people with diabetes are dying avoidably each year because they do not receive the right health care or do not manage their condition properly.
It is estimated that diabetes care accounts for 10% of the NHS annual budget—£9 billion a year, or £1 million an hour. Diabetes prescriptions account for 7% of NHS costs. These staggering costs will only increase unless this illness is prevented and contained.
We are now 12 days from new year’s eve—a time to make new resolutions. I urge the Minister—the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—to adopt my five resolutions. The first is to increase the level of education and awareness—including among ourselves: 10% of those sitting in the Chamber today will have diabetes without knowing it. And anyone walking into the Tea Room, as I have just done, will be offered every sweet and chocolate they could possibly want, and drinks loaded with sugar.
We need to make sure that, particularly in Olympics year, we get people to engage in physical activity. We also need to adopt the “fat tax” adopted in Denmark to try to make manufacturers responsible for what they sell. We must ensure that there is universal screening. Although the Government are currently committed to screening, it is not as widespread as we would like. Between April and June this year only 2.7% of eligible patients received a health check.
I want to ensure that we look carefully for ways to prevent the south Asian community in particular from getting diabetes. They suffer more from contracting it, as they are particularly susceptible to it as a group.
Finally, speaking as someone who has to get a prescription from my GP every month, I believe it absurd that there are 15 separate companies all producing different blood glucose testing strips. I often go to the pharmacy to get my prescription, but they give me the wrong strip for the wrong machine. It is vital that we ensure that there is one common strip.
Diabetes is a worldwide problem. My message is simple: no more declarations, no more fine words, no more summits: if we are to try to save lives, we need action now.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).
I want to speak on behalf of community hospitals, both locally in my own constituency and nationally on behalf of CHANT—Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together. Before coming to the House, I worked as a GP in rural Dartmoor, covering the smallest hospital in England at Moretonhampstead. I was privileged to see first hand how a personal and compassionate service transformed the care and saved the lives of so many of my former patients.
We know that we need to change the way that health care is delivered. As we all live longer and with multiple complex medical problems, we need to focus on preventing admissions to acute hospitals in the first place. Community hospitals are ideally placed to deliver that care. There are four in my constituency: Totnes, Brixham, South Hams in Kingsbridge, and Dartmouth. I pay tribute to all their staff, and to the volunteers in the leagues of friends.
The leagues of friends are a vital resource in all our constituencies. They raise an incredible amount of money—between £7 million and £8 million has been raised in south Devon alone over the last decade—and are made up entirely of volunteers who co-ordinate fundraising events as well as managing donations and legacies, and then plan how those projects should be managed in the future.
As a direct result of voluntary contributions, patients in South Hams hospital are able to have their chemotherapy locally rather than making the long, arduous journey to Plymouth, and in Brixham, the league of friends has donated £200,000 towards the new hospital ward. There have been numerous projects in Dartmouth and Totnes, all improving dignity, privacy and comfort and raising money for equipment. However, the contributions go way beyond funding. Local residents volunteer their services on the wards for both patients and visitors, and directly improve the quality of care.
I am delighted that the coalition has repeatedly expressed its commitment to community hospitals, and has recognised the vital role that they play in rural areas in particular. However, I should like the Department of Health to respond to a number of concerns and uncertainties so that these much-loved community resources can be put on an even stronger footing. The issues that I wish to raise are the ownership of the community hospital estate and the operation of the current tariff system.
I have heard from some leagues of friends that they are holding back funding of projects as a result of concerns expressed by some of their members about the future ownership of community hospitals. They are afraid that money raised by local communities and invested in local services could end up being lost to those communities should the ownership of the estates pass elsewhere. I know that the ownership of the premises in south Devon will pass to Torbay care trust, but concern is still being expressed at a high level in my local NHS about the possibility that the future ownership arrangements will inadvertently decouple community infrastructures from the communities that they serve. Those communities seek reassurance that if for any reason the provider trust that owns a community hospital relinquishes ownership of a building, selling it without reinvesting in an improved and equally local facility, the funds raised by local communities will be returned to them in full.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
There are three fine community hospitals in my constituency: Pershore, Tenbury and Malvern. My hon. Friend may wish to invite her constituents to visit the Pershore hospital, which is owned by the district council and operated by the NHS care trust. It is an interesting model.
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is an understandable fear that many premises in the most stunning locations, which have been bequeathed to their communities by local benefactors, could end up being sold off with communities powerless to intervene. I want to touch on some of the alternative models. Communities are reassured that for the time being there is a clear directive providing that in future only NHS organisations may own the estate, but I agree with my hon. Friend that local models can provide alternatives. NHS ownership may, in some circumstances, create difficulties, and inhibit the development of hospitals’ full potential. For example, the Community Hospitals Association is concerned that in some areas management may pass to mental health organisations with little experience of managing community hospitals. There is also a concern that passing management to predominantly secondary-care-focused trusts could cause the hospitals’ interests to be sidelined.
In many parts of the country, social enterprises have been formed to provide community services, but currently they cannot own and invest in premises, and nor can GPs acting as commissioners. May I ask the Minister to look into how ownership arrangements could be made more flexible in order to provide local solutions, while at the same time guaranteeing to local people that the value of their assets will be safeguarded for their communities? I hope that all our leagues of friends will then feel confident enough to continue to invest for the future.
Let me briefly raise the issue of the system of tariff payments. As the Minister will know, currently the tariff is not fairly distributed, which means that community hospitals are often not funded for the provision of step-down care. The acute hospital receives all the funding irrespective of how long the patient remains in its care, although community hospitals are ideally placed to provide safe step-down services. I therefore hope that the Minister will give an update on how and when the tariff will be reformed to assist community hospitals to offer the full range of services they wish to provide.
The main focus should be on avoiding the need for acute hospital admissions in the first place. Community hospitals have a key role to play in providing many services, not just in-patient and palliative care. I join the Community Hospitals Association in calling for more investment in research and evaluation of their role and contribution to high-quality care and the wider social care economy.
Finally, I wish all Members and staff of the House a very happy Christmas.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Angela Watkinson)
May I start by saying that I appreciate the waiving of my customary Whiply silence, albeit temporarily, to enable me to participate in this debate?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for raising the important issue of the loneliness and isolation that can affect older people. I welcome the good work done by Independent Age, Age UK Oxfordshire, Counsel and Care, and the WRVS on the campaign to end loneliness. We are living longer, healthier lives. We should celebrate that, and seek to unlock the rich potential of our older population, as well as promoting their well-being.
We recognise the terrible impact that isolation and loneliness can have on people’s health and well-being. We know that multi-professional collaboration from a health and social care perspective on the needs of older people—including recognising isolation and those at risk from it—will make a huge contribution to keeping older people well and independent in their own homes, and to helping to maintain a decent quality of life for them. Of course, combating loneliness and isolation cannot be the job of health and care services alone. A range of services must be involved, including transport, housing and leisure.
We recently concluded the caring for our future engagement exercise, and we will produce a White Paper and a progress report on funding. That is planned for spring 2012. The engagement exercise considered six areas: quality and work force; personalisation and choice; shaping local care services; prevention and early intervention: integration; and the role of financial services. Throughout this engagement exercise we heard from a wide range of organisations, carers and people who use services, and the issue of loneliness and isolation among older people was raised.
Under the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament, local health and wellbeing boards will take responsibility for producing the joint strategic needs assessment and a local health and well-being strategy. I pay tribute to the London borough of Havering; it has shown great commitment in setting up its health and wellbeing board and it has already made significant arrangements for taking on this important new role. I also applaud the good work done by Age Action Alliance, an independent alliance of organisations working together to improve the lives of older people. It is aiming to prevent deprivation in later life, as well as challenging age discrimination and seeking to make older people feel valued and able to contribute to their local communities and the wider society. We look forward to the ideas that will emerge from that alliance.
We are doing everything we can, and we also support the efforts of others, to ensure that older people have access to all the help they need to reduce social isolation. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) made a thoughtful contribution about the understanding, patience and sympathy people with hearing loss need but do not always receive. She described the limitations on everyday activities such as using the telephone, and the absence of subtitles on television, which greatly disadvantage those with hearing loss. I shall refer those matters to the relevant Minister. We hope to improve the quality of life of people with hearing loss.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) raised concerns about two constituents who were unable to receive specific cancer drugs under their NHS treatment from the East Midlands strategic health authority. She has made her feelings very clear. The health authority will have heard her and will wish to respond with some urgency; and the Secretary of State will, I am sure, expect that to happen.
I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for his question and his continued support for diabetes prevention and improving outcomes for people with diabetes. We pay particular tribute to his work through Silver Star, a charity he founded in Leicestershire that is invaluable in tackling diabetes within south Asian communities. As president of the Havering branch of Diabetes UK, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Sue Braeger, who sadly died recently. As chairman of the Havering branch, Sue was a formidable campaigner on diabetes issues, especially the management of diabetes medication for pupils in schools. She will be a hard act to follow.
We have learned this year—in the last few months, in fact—that nearly 3 million people in the United Kingdom have diabetes, a number that grows year on year. Worse, 24,000 people each year die unnecessarily from the disease—deaths that could have been prevented with better management and care. Much progress has been made in diabetes care since the publication of the national service framework in 2001, but prevention and early diagnosis remain a Government priority.
Next year, the National Audit Office and the NHS leadership team will be reviewing progress and considering whether there is need for further work, co-ordinated at a national level. Any such work would of course seek to reinforce and support activity led by clinicians at local level to improve outcomes for people living with diabetes.
We will also depend on the NHS health check programme, which has the potential to prevent many cases of type 2 diabetes and identify thousands more cases earlier. We will be continuing the change for life campaign, which raises awareness of the importance of maintaining a healthy weight and being physically active. As type 2 diabetes is linked to both obesity and inactivity, these public health initiatives are crucial.
For people diagnosed with diabetes, our priorities for treatment and care are to improve quality of life and reduce complications, and as a result to reduce cost. People with diabetes account for 15% of in-patient hospital beds in England. Their hospital treatment costs £600 million a year more than that for patients admitted without diabetes. Poor management of diabetes and insulin leads to emergency admissions and readmissions, and increased lengths of hospital stay. Poor care can also lead to deaths and permanent disability, with an estimated 80% of the 73 lower-limb amputations suffered each week by people with diabetes considered preventable.
The NAO will be reporting next summer on its study of the management of diabetes services. We expect it to provide robust recommendations on improving services and outcomes for patients and the public, and we look forward to seeing the results.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised the important issue of the role of community hospitals and leagues of friends. I should like to assure her that the Government are committed to helping the NHS work better by extending best practice on improving discharge from acute hospitals, and increasing access to care and treatment in the community. Community hospitals can be an important part of delivering this, especially in rural areas, providing both planned and unplanned acute care and diagnostic services closer to home. Community hospitals support best practice in admission avoidance and provide a range of services, from treating minor injuries to intensive rehabilitation. Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill through Parliament, clinical commissioning groups will be responsible for securing the best health care and health outcomes for their patients and locality.
The Department announced on 4 August that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts will also be given the chance to acquire estate from primary care trusts, including the community hospital estate. PCTs have reviewed and provisionally agreed lists of property for transfer to NHS bodies, and those will shortly be approved by the Department of Health. It is expected that the actual transfers of estate will commence in 2012. I know that this is a concern of my hon. Friend, but it is not expected that these changes will affect the role or function of local league of friends’ volunteers, who provide such valuable and important services in community hospitals around the country
The Government are also committed to increasing the scope of a more transparent rules-based funding system, where money follows the patient. Since its introduction, the payment by results national tariff has been mainly restricted to treatments provided in acute hospitals. We want to change that, but in a way that supports the delivery of high-quality services. That will not be easy, as there are significant challenges for us to overcome, such as making sure that activity that takes place in community settings is recorded and reported, as this is essential to plan services and drive payments, but we are making good progress. From April 2012, we will introduce the first ever tariffs for post-discharge care, with transparent prices to give more certainty about funding. I hope that that sets my hon. Friend’s mind at rest.
Finally, may I take this opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to wish everybody the season’s greetings?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Absolutely, and I am sure that it is warmly welcomed with Christmas and the new year upon us.
May I say that we have reduced the time limit to five minutes as we come to the general debate?
General matters
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I wish to discuss history teaching in schools, because the study of history in schools has reached an all-time low. Last year, for the first time, the proportion of pupils being entered for history GCSE dropped beneath 30%, but the situation is actually far worse than that. Yesterday, I released a report, “History in Schools: A School Report”, which reveals that in vast areas of the country—often in the most deprived areas of our nation—history is being forgotten entirely. In 77 local authorities fewer than one in five pupils is passing history GCSE, but we need to break the figures down and examine individual local authorities, because in places such as Knowsley under 8% of pupils are passing history GCSE. Only four pupils in the whole of that local authority area passed A-level history. In 2010, 159 schools in this country did not enter a single pupil for history GCSE. We must address the situation urgently.
Often it is the Daily Mail or academics who discuss what type of history should be studied in schools, whose history should be studied, how history should be studied in the curriculum, whether we should have a narrative form of history or a more interpretive form of history that looks at sources, and whether history should be seen as a framework of facts. The Government are instituting a curriculum review, and we welcome that. I hope that it will examine the process whereby history is studied in bite-sized chunks and pupils do not get a sense of a narrative framework of history—they dot around from ancient Egypt to the Victorians, then on to the Tudors and off to 20th century history. Although we can debate whose history and what type of history should be studied, we should not deny that history is a crucial subject that binds us as one nation. However, it is becoming a subject of two nations, and that is the issue that I wish to raise with the House.
Britain is dangerously isolated in Europe—and not for a good reason— because we are the only nation apart from Albania that does not make the study of history compulsory beyond 14. I do not believe that we should be in that club, so I put my case to the Government that although the curriculum review is ongoing and will carry on until 2014, there has never been a more compelling time to make history a compulsory subject to study to 16. If I was to tell the Minister what my ideal Christmas present would be, as the vice-chair of the all-party group on archives and history, I would say that it would be to make the study of history compulsory to 16 for all pupils. I wish everyone a happy Christmas.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to follow a speech from a Member on the Government Benches that I would have been honoured and delighted to have made myself.
I want to talk a little about the history of the Arab countries, because exactly one year ago a humble vegetable seller, Mohammed Bouazizi, set himself on fire in the small town of Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia, protesting at his humiliation by the state. That act set off what we now call the Arab spring, a process of revolutionary change that today remains as unclear as the revolutions of 1789 or 1917 remained unclear 12 months after the storming of the Bastille or the Winter palace.
Sadly, we are seeing how history repeats itself, not, as Marx wrote, first as tragedy and then as farce, but as tragedy followed by tragedy. Revolutions devour their children and nowhere is that more true than in the Arab and Maghreb world. Gaddafi is gone but Libya is full of violence. The Syrian people get warm words from the west but nothing more as they are killed daily. The King of Bahrain came for tea at Downing street and the next thing we saw was a helpless woman being dragged away in front of cameras back in Bahrain as if the ruling elites there were sending a message to our Prime Minister that they did not care a fig about human rights.
In Tunis today, the Manouba university’s faculty of letters, with 8,000 students, is occupied by Islamist ideologues insisting that girls wear the niqab and veil their faces if they want to be students. We are learning, perhaps too late, that Islamism is not a friendly ideology but remains a political construct aimed at destroying human freedoms.
We have had to watch Egyptian soldiers faced with a peaceful protest pull a woman from the crowd and drag her painfully along the ground, exposing her breasts, before a brutal soldier stamps his booted foot on her chest. What is our Government’s response? Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary issued the blandest of bland statements:
“The unrest of recent days shows the scale of the challenges which Egypt’s political system must address including the need to build full respect for human rights.”
That was all the Foreign Secretary could say. “Unrest” is putting it uber-mildly, as 13 people have been shot dead by the Egyptian army, acting on orders, and hundreds have been wounded since Friday prayers last week. A military dictatorship is revealing itself in Egypt, aided by Islamists with that ideology’s extremely limited concept of freedom and democracy.
We do not know the name of the young woman who has been in many newspapers, but we do know the name of the 26-year-old Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil. He is now on the 118th day of a hunger strike that might well claim his life as he is taking only water at the moment. Nabil began earlier this year by blogging that
“the Egyptian army and the people are of one hand”,
meaning that the two were working together for democracy. He changed his mind and later wrote that the army and the people were
“no longer of one hand”
when he saw the army repressing protesters. For publishing that incontrovertible journalistic truth, he was charged with “insulting the Egyptian military” and a military tribunal convicted him last April in a fake legal process. Last week in a retrial, amid the renewed brutality in Tahrir square, his conviction was upheld.
The tribunal’s decision has been condemned by Reporters Without Borders and by the US State Department. I want to take advantage of this pre-Christmas debate to ask for our Foreign Secretary to add his own—and, I believe, Parliament’s—voice in calling for the immediate release of Maikel Nabil, who might well die soon, just as Mohammed Bouazizi died on 4 January this year when he sacrificed his life to call attention to the lack of freedom in Tunisia. Mr Nabil is taking only water now. His sacrifice is also in protest at the fact that Egypt’s ruling military council has put on trial 12,000 people in the post-Mubarak era, more civilians than were tried during all of Mubarak’s rule.
Throughout history military tribunals dealing with civilians who irritate the generals work on the basis of presumption not of innocence but of guilt. There is no right to cross-examine witnesses or evidence, and no consideration of the evidence is permitted. There is no right of appeal. Nabil and the 12,000 Egyptians now in prison had no right to their own lawyer. This is Soviet-style justice, or perhaps could seem even worse if one considers justice in the Nazi era.
I hope British lawyers will be able to go to Cairo to help Mr Nabil and other prisoners of conscience. I ask our Foreign Secretary to call in the Egyptian ambassador and demand Nabil’s immediate release and British generals who have hosted their Egyptian fellow army officers should place some calls to Cairo and say that the Egyptian military will be covered in shame if Maikel Nabil dies at their hands.
The Arab spring is at a crossroads. Britain should speak loud and clear for justice and democracy.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise. I congratulate the Prime Minister on not signing the latest European treaty. Future generations will have every cause to thank him, and some of the French politicians behaved with less than great dignity.
Of course, next year we will host the Olympic games. I am delighted that 95% of the population will be within travelling distance of the Olympic torch route. I am delighted to say that the torch will visit Southend on 6 July. We are also fortunate to have the mountain bike event at Hadleigh.
Southend has not been so lucky when it comes to the national census. In 2001, 20,000 people were left off the census, and exactly the same seems to be happening this time. It is simply not good enough.
I am delighted that Visteon pensioners are receiving support. I understand that legal proceedings are drawing to a conclusion; I wish those pensioners well in all their endeavours.
Whistleblowing has become very fashionable, but not all whistleblowers are right, and there is every reason why constituents should know, through the Freedom of Information Act, who the whistleblower was when they have been wrongly accused.
With Christmas just around the corner, I urge the House to think of Camp Ashraf, as the deadline for its closure draws ever nearer. If protection is not given to the people there, Iraqi forces might attack them. It is our duty to put pressure on the Iraqi Government to postpone the deadline, and to ensure that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is allowed to evacuate the refugees safely.
Christmas is a wonderful time for giving, but many people give pets, and the result is absolutely disastrous: 11,500 pets were dumped last Christmas, so I hope that people will think very carefully before giving pets as presents this year.
A recent survey has shown that 16% of the population would quite happily buy fake fragrance. I would like to advise against the purchase of fake perfume; not only is it economically damaging, costing the real industry as much as £319 million a year, but it is dangerous for the user, with the potential for allergic reactions. I congratulate the Real Deal campaign on what it is trying to do.
I should also like to draw attention to the dangers of pocket lighters. According to a recent poll, one in 10 Brits has had an accident with a lighter, or knows someone who has. A worrying 79% of lighters sold in the UK do not conform to safety standards outlined in European regulations; I hope that the appropriate Department will have a look at that.
Sadly, hate crime is a growing problem, and it is particularly potent when it affects people who are learning-disabled. People with learning disabilities need to be helped to report hate crime, and I congratulate Southend Mencap on what it is trying to do.
I am still astounded at the way in which single parents are left isolated by what was the Child Support Agency. We brought before the House legislation that was supposed to help families, but I have in my constituency a Mrs O’Connor who has been struggling to get help for the past seven years. Her husband pays £5 a week towards the children. The latest letter that I got from the agency did not give a direct, personal line; it just gave a general line. That is absolutely disgraceful. The break-up of families is unfortunately an increasing phenomenon in today’s society. I commend the family justice review’s report, which mentions giving more power to grandparents.
I end with some thoughts about this place. When I first became an MP, I could make a real difference to people’s lives. Unfortunately, increasingly I can do so only at the margin. One need only look at Parliament square, where we still have demonstrations, or at the ridiculous arrangements at the Curtis Green building. An important announcement was made about a local hospital, and Monitor did not even have a conversation with me—it just sent out a press release. That simply is not good enough. We need to get back ownership of this place, which was destroyed in 1997.
As far as next year is concerned, I hope that my mother, Maud, will be able to celebrate her 100th birthday in April; I hope that the Queen will have a wonderful diamond jubilee; and we all look forward to the Olympic games. I wish everyone a very happy Christmas, good health, peace, prosperity, and a wonderful new year.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)
I want to speak briefly about two things: first, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, secondly, Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—a subject into which I will segue with surprisingly little effort; as you will discover, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a significant link between the two.
Today, the incumbent President, Joseph Kabila, was invested in office again after an election that was preposterous. It was condemned strongly by the United States and France—and by Belgium; one might not normally think that terribly important, but in the case of the Congo, the Belgians’ position is quite important. Europe looks to Belgium to give a moral lead in some historical respect. The Carter Center observed the elections and said that they were not valid. The Open Society Institute did the same. In general, the position of most Governments, including the UK Government, is that the elections were a farce.
Nevertheless, Joseph Kabila turns out to be still in power. It is one of those odd situations where it is hard to break off diplomatic relations with a country because it has flawed elections. Many countries do not have elections at all, but the Congo is one of those worrying cases where things are going backwards. It had pretty well organised, well run elections funded by the international community back in 2006. This time, early in the year, President Kabila changed the rules to take out the second round of elections because he did not think he would win in the second round. He thought he would win easily in the first round. As the campaigning moved on, it looked as though he might lose in the first round, so it looks awfully like some manipulation took place, although nobody could see it. The manipulation occurs in the places where the ballot boxes are tipped out—sometimes just tipped out all over the floor and sometimes actually counted.
Some remarkable results emerged. In Katanga, where President Kabila clearly has a fantastic campaigning machine, he managed to get 99.8% of the vote—remarkable. His getting the vote out and his ID work must have been truly magnificent—99.8% of the vote. Only more remarkable than that is the fact that the turnout in Katanga, his own stronghold, was 100.14%—astonishing success in the Congo. Perhaps we should be watching how those politicians campaign and what the campaigning methods are. On the other hand, perhaps not.
Eric Joyce
There are direct elections in the Congo, of course, for the president. The parliamentary elections, which took place at the same time, will be counted shortly and the results will come out in January. We should probably have no more confidence in those. That is a great shame. I urge the UK Government to take a very strong position. As time goes by it is hard to deal with such a Government. We give considerable international development aid. We cannot reduce that; it goes directly through NGOs, but I hope the Government will take a strong position in the coming weeks and months.
I shall now segue into IPSA. The President of the Congo has a cunning ruse. It is not that cunning, actually. He simply takes national assets, sells them to a mate for a pittance and then his mate sells them on for a few hundred million dollars profit. He has done it many times now. I have stuck it on my website for all who may be interested to see it. He has done it to the tune of $5 billion or $6 billion in the past two years. One such deal involved a company listed in the UK, a company called Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, better known as ENRC.
The deal is well known and has been extensively written about. I urge all Members to google it. It is an absolute shocker of a deal. It is quite clear that it was a very ropey and dodgy deal. One of the primary defenders of the deal is a man called Ken Olisa, who was a member of the board of ENRC. He said at the time, “I wouldn’t have joined the board if I thought there was anything ropey, if anything crooked was going on.” That was just before he was famously sacked by the ENRC oligarchs who run it. He then changed his tune and is famously quoted as saying that the company is more soviet than City. This is a company that essentially enables the President of the Congo to rip off the people of the Congo.
IPSA has five board members—very experienced individuals who draw on their own experience. There is an accountant/academic, a former judge, a former quangocrat, and even a former Member of Parliament, so a pretty good bunch, except that the business man on IPSA is none other than Ken Olisa. I find that absolutely staggering. When I spoke about the subject last time, I was not even aware of it. Someone tweeted, “Perhaps Joyce ought to look at Ken Olisa’s other job before he slags off Ken Olisa again.” It is absolutely astonishing that that man should be on the board of IPSA, carrying out a function that we all agree is very important. I hope he may have the chance to reflect on whether his position on the board is appropriate.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The preamble to the charter of the United Nations says that the UN was created
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war . . . to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and . . . to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”.
It refers to the need
“to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and… to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”.
It states that
“armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest,”
and that international machinery should be employed
“for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples”.
Article 1 of the UN charter, in chapter 1, refers to the need to
“develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”
and to encourage
“respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”.
Following that introduction, I would like to refer to the UN declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples, which was adopted on 13 September 2007. Article 8 states that indigenous peoples have a collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify themselves as indigenous and to be recognised as such. It states that indigenous peoples should
“be free from discrimination of any kind”
and that we need to recognise
“the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources”.
Sadly, there is one country in the world with which this country, every country in the European Union and the United States of America have very strong links, but which practises policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against its indigenous people. I refer to the state of Israel. The Israeli Cabinet took the decision on 11 September to proceed with a plan for attempting to resolve the long-standing issues faced by the country’s 200,000 Arab Bedouin population living in the southern Negev desert. The plan, known as the Prawer plan, will result in at least 30,000 people losing their homes. It is expected to be put to the Israeli Parliament any time now. The Bedouin community was not consulted when the plan was drawn up and already faces serious human rights violations through discriminatory policies.
The Bedouin are Israel’s indigenous people, as has been accepted by the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, but the Israeli Government refuse to accept that and withhold several rights that are accorded to them under international law. Israel now wants to try to move tens of thousands of Bedouin from their homes and villages into Government townships that are already overcrowded and have a whole range of social and economic problems.
Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting Palestine/Israel, the west bank and east Jerusalem. I witnessed at first hand policies of ethnic cleansing and apartheid against the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, which is a separate matter to that of the Arab Bedouin. We have heard today about the Arab spring, but I am referring to the Arab winter. Palestinian children are being arrested, ill treated—arguably tortured—and some of them are being detained in Israel in violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention.
Because of the illegal walls built by the state of Israel across the west bank, today Mary and Joseph would not have been able to get to Bethlehem, the shepherds would have been ethnically cleansed and the three kings would not have been allowed into Palestine. I am amazed that the leaders of the Christian faith around the world, whether the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, through the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Pope, have remained silent. It is time that the Christian leaders spoke up for the people of the holy land.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), and I pay tribute to his remarks. I shall stay in the middle east, but stick with the theme that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) introduced some moments ago of the Arab spring.
The Arab spring is far from off course, and we have to maintain our optimism and hope that it can deliver to the peoples of that region justice and, for the first time in all our lifetimes, the prospect of democracy, but worrying developments are taking place, even in countries with which Britain has the closest of relationships.
We know that 14 people have been killed by the security forces in Egypt since last Friday; we know that beatings are taking place; and we know of the case of the young woman who was half-stripped by the security forces, dragged along the floor and forced to reveal her underwear in what was a shameful act. Britain has strong relations with Egypt, but I endorse my right hon. Friend’s plea that its ambassador should be summoned to the Foreign Office and told of the serious concerns that this House and the people of Britain have about the actions of the security forces in a country that we value as a friendly nation.
Bahrain is also a country with which Britain has the strongest possible contacts and strong business connections, but we know from recent times that business in countries such as Bahrain is best helped when Britain promotes a strong regard for human rights. So we have to tell the King of Bahrain, with whom we have strong contacts, that the arrest of Zainab Alkhawaja, the blogger known as Angry Arabiya, and her punching by members of the security forces is a disgrace; that he has to address the results of the commission of inquiry that he set up—his own commission—to look into the disturbances there; and that the doctors who were arrested by the security forces for treating the victims of violence should now be released. Those are simple demands, and the Bahraini ambassador should have it made clear to him that this Parliament does not tolerate such abuse of human rights, even by countries with which this country has a close friendship.
In Syria, the situation is much complicated, with 5,000 people dead since the beginning of the Arab spring and the state deaf to any protest. The Russians may be starting to put a little more pressure on their long-time ally in Damascus, but Britain has again to speak out more loudly and to work with its allies in the European Union and at the United Nations to bring pressure on Damascus, because the systematic killing of people and the alleged rape of even children by the security forces is something about which we have to be vocal in the world. All Members would agree with that. We need robust diplomacy in the middle east, stating that human rights and the defence of democracy are in the common interest not simply of people in Britain, but of the ordinary citizens of Bahrain, Syria and Egypt.
Britain’s own interest is in seeing democracy develop in the middle east. My right hon. Friend said that he distrusted Islamist parties, but we have to be a little careful not to portray all Islamist parties as hostile to democracy. In Turkey, for example, democracy is consistent with a moderate Islamist party, so we must not allow the fundamentalists to drive a wedge between our country and such moderate groups.
Finally, on Belarus, almost a year ago to the day I led the international observation mission on the elections there, which were fraudulent from beginning to end and disgracefully ripped off the rights of the people of that country, but I was pleased to see this week a letter in the name of our Foreign Secretary and those of Germany, Poland and Sweden, making clear their position on Belarus. In that country, things go from bad to worse, and we have seen the presidential candidate, Andrei Sannikov, not only arrested and imprisoned, but imprisoned without his own family even being told where he is or able to communicate with him. That is a disgrace of an enormous magnitude and not simply the suppression of democracy, but an attempt to cow any voice—however strong, as Andrei Sannikov’s voice has been—that criticises the Lukashenko regime.
It is right and proper that we now demand the toughest possible EU sanctions on the Lukashenko regime and those around him.
Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)
I want to spend a few minutes celebrating some of the achievements in my constituency and highlighting some of my constituents’ concerns.
This has been a very difficult year for many of my constituents, particularly those in business. I want to recognise the extraordinary efforts of organisations such as Ilkley Business Forum, which has been offering leadership in bringing businesses together to try to support each other, and in ensuring that other partnerships work effectively in delivering the success of these businesses. I have two messages. First, I would say to constituents: “Buy local and support your local high street and local businesses. Unless you use those services, you might, as people often say, lose them, so please go and support them.” All levels of government have a responsibility to support business, including local government, so I would say, secondly, to Bradford council, of which I was once leader: “Ignore businesses in Keighley and Ilkley at your own peril.” At this time of economic difficulties, raising taxes by putting fees on car parking in those towns is wrong. As one business man said to me recently, “The local council thinks the streets of Ilkley are paved with gold.” Local businesses do not need to have these charges put against them; they need to be supported, and the council needs to reconsider.
We need to increase our capacity in the north. The north wants to make a positive contribution to the economy of this country and to change the dependency on the public sector and promote businesses. I therefore fully support the high-speed train link and want it to expand to Birmingham as soon as possible and then up to the north. Councils and MPs of all parties very much support this, and I give it my 100% backing.
The public sector is undergoing some of the greatest changes in Britain. Cuts to the public sector, particularly in the north, are having a real effect on services and staff. In my last role as leader of the council, I saw the enormous commitment by public sector workers in delivering key services. I know that these are difficult times, and despite the many issues raised, I welcome the positive response by the majority of the trade unions—a response that I have come to respect, as will many other people.
In my constituency, the jewel in the crown is probably Airedale general hospital. I want to acknowledge two “Highly Commended” national awards that the hospital has received and pay tribute to two members of staff, in particular. Senior audiologist Alan Walshaw has been recognised as audiologist of the year 2011, and Jane Downes, the hospital’s company secretary, has become company secretary of the year in a not-for-profit organisation. It is extremely important to recognise that.
Educational attainment and skills are low in the constituency, and if we fail to address these issues, the town will fail. Keighley First locality achievement partnership has already, in its first year, made a significant impact on attendance at schools, and I applaud its efforts. Parkwood primary school and Long Lee primary school have been judged to be outstanding schools by Ofsted.
A few weeks ago, I went to visit Project 6, which is a drug and alcohol treatment centre in town. Such a place is not always the most popular location in anybody’s town, but an enormous amount of important work is done there. Three ambassadors talked about their struggles in dealing with drug and alcohol abuse and the effect that it has had on their families. We all, in our towns and constituencies across the country, need to take some responsibility in addressing this. Many of these people want to make a positive contribution to society and not to be a burden. I pay tribute to the staff and volunteers at Project 6 for the work that they do.
The measure of any nation is how it addresses international development. We put an enormous amount of money into international development, and that is important. With other countries, we have helped to vaccinate a quarter of a billion children against diseases that our children do not suffer from; we have saved the lives of very many people in the horn of Africa; and we have put money into schools in Gaza, where 12 new schools are helping 24,000 children.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this pre-recess Adjournment debate. I will focus my contribution on two local issues in my constituency. I had planned to talk about three issues, but I guess that it will have to be two because we are short of time. I am sure that I will manage. The two issues are superfast broadband connections and progress on the local campaign to combat antisocial behaviour.
There is demand for superfast broadband across Bradley Stoke, which is a new town and the largest population centre in the constituency. The sticking point is that any significant undertaking to lay the necessary cables in the town to increase the broadband speed would have to be done at the providers’ cost because the roads are in a good state of repair.
Last year, we started a community broadband campaign that collected more than 1,000 signatures to demonstrate the demand for improvements to the Almondsbury exchange. Although I appreciate that there are local infrastructure issues, it is difficult to see why the private sector is not capitalising better on that demand. We also hosted a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and the local authority. The Minister told us that to help solve the problem, the Government have set up a scheme to provide £530 million of funding to improve broadband provision across the country.
To ensure that South Gloucestershire council is able to benefit from the scheme, the Conservative-run council is working with Broadband Delivery UK to develop a local broadband plan, setting out how homes and businesses would benefit from improved broadband provision. Progress has not been as quick as I and some of my constituents would like. I am as keen as they are that concrete results emerge soon and I am hopeful that they will.
South Gloucestershire council had been working with Bath and North East Somerset council on a joint superfast broadband plan to submit to the Government for approval. However, at its November meeting, the Bath and North East Somerset cabinet decided to pull out of the plan. It made no sense for the Lib Dem administration to pull out of the joint plan with South Gloucestershire council, given all the benefits that superfast broadband could bring to households and businesses across both districts. I am pleased to report that progress is none the less being made behind the scenes. I hope to give positive news to my constituents on this matter early in the new year.
Hon. Members may remember that several months ago, in another pre-recess debate, I called for antisocial behaviour to be taken much more seriously by the police force that serves my area. I had been contacted by residents in Filton who were concerned that antisocial behaviour was being allowed to get out of control and was becoming a daily occurrence in some areas.
I am pleased to say that we have made significant progress in ensuring that the local police put the appropriate amount of time and energy into tackling antisocial behaviour. I am in constant contact with Avon and Somerset police, including with Chief Constable Colin Port, with whom I have an effective working relationship. In my mind, local policing has improved greatly because local people’s priorities are being considered and swift action is being taken. I pay particular tribute to Inspector Robert Evely, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that local residents feel safe and that their voice is heard in local police decision making.
When local policing takes into account local feelings, it can only be for the better. That is why I am such a strong supporter of the Government’s policy of police and crime commissioners and the elections that will take place in November 2012. Police and crime commissioners will be directly elected and accountable to the public who elected them and whom they serve. They will help to repair the broken link that I believe exists between the public and the police service. It is a fantastic policy that will be of huge benefit to residents in my area. I encourage all my constituents to take an interest, to participate in the elections and, if they are so minded, to consider running for the office.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this recess debate. First, I want to talk about Feniton, which is a village in my constituency that was flooded badly in 2008. In the village there are many bungalows. When they were flooded, a lot of elderly people had to go up into their lofts to get away from the floods. As one can imagine, that was a terrifying experience.
There are schemes to alleviate flooding in Feniton in the future. One scheme is to build ponds in the fields at the top of the village to collect water so that it does not rush down through the village, and thus to prevent flooding. The other plan is to build a pipe through the village to take water away more quickly. The only problem with the second solution is that it would take water down to the bottom end of the village, which would probably flood that area. I therefore think that the ponds at the top of the village are the answer. I am looking to the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to help finance that. I know that money is tight, but I am particularly interested in trying to help my constituents in Feniton.
The other issue that I wish to raise is the aggregates levy sustainability fund, which was set up in April 2002 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and is intended to promote more environmentally friendly extraction of aggregates and to control the impact on local people.
There is a quarry at the villages of Westleigh and Burlescombe in my constituency, where some 750,000 tonnes of aggregate a year is extracted. The roads through Burlescombe are particularly poor and there are a lot of old cottages there, so the transportation of that aggregate is bad not only for the safety of the village but for its properties. The extraction produces something like £1.5 million a year of aggregates tax—a tax that was set up to help local people. I should like the Government to consider, as part of the Localism Bill, allowing some of that tax to be kept locally instead of being gobbled up by the Treasury, however exciting and necessary that might be.
The quarry has some 25 to 30 years to run, so we can imagine the millions of tonnes of stone that will travel through the village. It is high time that we worked out a way in which a percentage of the aggregates tax could be siphoned off and ring-fenced for the village of Burlescombe. That would bring some relief to the village.
There is also a tarmac plant at the Westleigh quarry, which runs day and night at times, especially at times of the year when there is a great demand for tarmac. Again, the villagers have to put up with lorries going through the village very late at night. It is high time that the Government, who are very keen on ensuring that local people have a say, give them a say on how the aggregates tax is spent. It may take several years, but a road and relief could be provided for the villagers of Burlescombe and Westleigh if just a small levy were put on the aggregates tax.
I will be interested to hear what Ministers have to say about that matter, because many of my colleagues throughout the country will have quarries in their constituencies and be in the same position. Why should people who have to put up with the problems of quarrying not get any benefit from the aggregates tax, which was set up to look after local people?
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
My local community has lost two friends in the past couple of weeks. First there was the very sad passing last week of Councillor Brenda Simpson, who was an outstanding member of Swale borough council for 23 years. Brenda was a perfect ward councillor who, despite being a staunch Conservative, always put the interests of her Kemsley community before party politics. She was honest, hard-working and a thoroughly nice person, and she will be missed by friend and political foe alike.
This month we also witnessed the death of the East Kent Gazette, which closed its doors after 156 years of publication. My heart goes out to the hard-working staff who face the prospect of losing their jobs.
This year we also witnessed the closure of Sittingbourne magistrates court, which was killed off by the Ministry of Justice despite a promise made to local people that it would remain open when Sheerness magistrates court was closed a few years ago. I am convinced that the closure will lead to some of my constituents being denied the access to justice to which they are entitled.
Sadly, there are more closures in the pipeline. For instance, we are fighting to keep open Queenborough fire station, which Kent fire and rescue service wants to close on the grounds that the number of houses in the area does not warrant a fire station. That ignores the fact that there are plans to build another 2,500 homes in Queenborough in the foreseeable future.
We are also fighting to save the Sheerness county youth club, which is under threat from Kent county council despite being acknowledged as one of the best youth clubs in the county.
We have a number of other challenges, too. For instance, our local road infrastructure needs upgrading if we are to prevent the centre of Sittingbourne from becoming gridlocked in the not-too-distant future. For a start, we need urgent action to ease congestion on the A2 and on the A249 at the Stockbury roundabout, which is a nightmare during rush hour. In addition, we want to see a commitment to complete the final stretch of the northern relief road in Sittingbourne and agreement in principle for a southern relief road.
Last week we learned that there are now almost 3,000 people unemployed in my constituency, an increase of 200 on the last quarter. But despite that increase I am quite upbeat about the future prospects for employment in my constituency. Recently Swale borough council approved planning applications for two new Morrisons supermarkets in the area, one in Sittingbourne and one in Sheppey. Tesco has also received planning approval for a major regeneration of Sittingbourne town centre. Those developments alone will create up to 1,500 very welcome jobs. Of course, because of their size, there might be a temptation for the Government to call in one or more of those planning applications. I would urge Ministers to resist that temptation so that those jobs can be delivered without delay.
In Sittingbourne and Sheppey we are lucky to have some excellent schools, including six secondary schools, all of which have either achieved academy status or are hoping to become academies. But a number of those schools are in urgent need of capital investment. I understand why the Government scrapped the ill-thought-out and badly managed Building Schools for the Future programme, but I very much hope that money will be made available to the schools in my constituency who desperately need to upgrade their buildings in order to maintain the excellent standards that they currently achieve.
Finally, there is one other bit of good news for my constituency, and it is literally good news! The Kent Messenger Group has stepped into the breach caused by the closure of the East Kent Gazette and last week launched a new paid-for paper in my constituency. It is called the Sittingbourne News Extra, and judging by its first edition, it promises to provide Sittingbourne and its surrounding villages with the local news to which they have become accustomed. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the editor and staff of the Sittingbourne News Extra on the quality of their paper and welcome them to our local community.
There is so much more that I could say about my constituency, of which I am very proud, but sadly time does not allow me to do anything other than wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members, a merry Christmas and a happy, healthy and peaceful new year.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
On the face of it, my constituency might seem well served by transport as it has an international airport, the largest dock complex in the country and 10 railway stations, including one that serves two farms and an ancient ruin, and was used by 13 passengers in 2010. But the road network needs a little improvement. The main road into the constituency is the A180, but the A160 off to Immingham dock—which, as I said, is the largest dock complex in the country—is in urgent need of an upgrade.
The last message I had from the Department for Transport said that the upgrade was included in 12 future schemes that should receive development funds, and that a decision would be taken by the end of the year. So time is running out and this is my last opportunity to lobby Ministers about the importance of the A160. Not only does it serve the existing Immingham dock, but it will serve one of the two new enterprise zones in the area, so it is clearly of vital importance.
I welcome the Government’s recent decisions to grant those enterprise zones that status, and we also gained from the announcement that the Immingham bypass would at long last go ahead, as well as the halving of the Humber bridge tolls. May I also draw Ministers’ attention to the urgent need for a direct rail service from the constituency to London? About a year ago I met Alliance Rail, which is keen to do this, and it told me that its plans were still in the system. But the byzantine procedures that they have to go through for the opportunity to run a rail service are complex beyond belief. If we are to go ahead with High Speed 2 and develop our rail network, we must put together a system that reaches decisions rather more quickly. If the Victorians had been locked into the present system, our trains would still be pulled by Stephenson’s Rocket, and the network would not have expanded as it did. There is no incentive for rail companies to provide extra services.
That is typified by the service that runs on Saturdays only from Cleethorpes to Brigg, Kirton in Lindsey and Gainsborough, and then on to Sheffield. We have a good service to Sheffield via Doncaster, but I am eager for people from Gainsborough—I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) in his place—to be able to use that service to take their families for a day out in Cleethorpes, where they can enjoy Pleasure Island and see the attractions that the “Cleethorpes in bloom” committee has organised.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making the case eloquently for the links between good transport infrastructure and economic development, but does he agree that direct train services are pivotal to that? Sometimes London does not realise that direct services—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. That is far too long an intervention. May I just say to Members that time is tight? I want to get everybody in, but time is very tight indeed. If people are going to give way, they should remember that the extra minute will come off somebody else’s time. Please let us try to ensure that we get everybody in.
Martin Vickers
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s point. It is vital for growth and economic development that we should have direct services. However, the system is so complex that there is no incentive for existing railway companies to expand. They can pile people on to existing services, but where is the incentive to take the commercial risk and develop a new service? We must do something to improve the situation.
Finally, I want to return to the vexed subject of the Humber bridge tolls. Members will appreciate that in his autumn statement the Chancellor halved the tolls. That is a great boost to the economy of the local area. Sadly, there is a fly in the ointment: the four local authorities have to reach agreement, because otherwise legislation is required. Three of the local authorities, under a mixture of political control, have agreed that the underwriting of the remaining debt should be split equally between them. Unfortunately, the leader of North East Lincolnshire council has taken a rather obstinate and petulant position, saying that that should be divided according to population.
I have written to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker)—the two Ministers who conducted the recent review. However, may I urge those on the Front Bench to pass on my concerns to both those Ministers and all concerned, and ask that whatever pressure is possible be applied, so that this matter can be resolved? After 25 years of campaigning we now have the opportunity to give the local economy a real boost, and give easier and cheaper access to those who have to cross the bridge to obtain health treatment. Now is the time to do that. I urge Ministers to do all they can to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I take the opportunity in this eclectic Christmas debate to wish you, your colleagues and all right hon. and hon. Members, as well as all parliamentary staff, a very happy Christmas and all the best for the new year?
I want to raise a topic of constitutional importance to a Government who have embraced parliamentary and constitutional reform with great enthusiasm: the West Lothian question. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all I want for Christmas is a West Lothian commission. I know that the Government share my enthusiasm to set up such a commission, because they have referred to it on many occasions. I think the first occasion in this Parliament was when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said in July 2010 that he anticipated that the commission would be set up by autumn 2010. That was confirmed again later that July by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who said that he would bring forward proposals in the autumn.
However, by October we heard that, in fact, the aim was to announce plans for a commission by the end of 2010. Then, when I raised the subject in last year’s Christmas Adjournment debate, I was assured that we would get the announcement in the new year. When I asked whether that meant 2011, I was assured that the Government were happy to confirm that that was the case. Imagine my excitement, then, when 2011 arrived, and when we were told, in March, that the commission would shortly be established. As time progressed throughout the year, a debate on the West Lothian commission took place in Westminster Hall, at which the Parliamentary Secretary confirmed that, in referring to “this year”, he did indeed mean 2011.
I was therefore very excited when a written ministerial statement was made on 8 September to assure the House that the commitment in the coalition’s programme for government to
“establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’”
would result in a commission being established after the conclusion of a
“short process of consultation and further deliberation. I expect that this will be in the weeks after the House returns in October.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 28WS.]
In the debate on my private Member’s Bill on 9 September, we again heard that the Government were keen to address this thorny constitutional topic as soon as possible. It is a problem that could become quite serious if it is not addressed.
It has taken 100 years to get this far towards establishing a commission on the West Lothian question, and we must welcome the enormous progress that has been made. I was delighted when the Deputy Leader of the House was able to confirm last week that the announcement was to be made shortly. I am therefore pleased to be able to give him this additional chance today, while we are still in 2011, to embrace this issue with the enthusiasm that I know he shares and to announce the establishment of the West Lothian commission. So, without further ado, I shall sit down and eagerly await that announcement.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I wish to raise a matter that is of particular concern to the logistics industry. That industry is something of a Cinderella sector whose contribution to the UK economy is often not recognised. It has had a tough few years, not least as a result of high fuel prices. Despite that, it has continued to deliver the goods for the UK, and our economy depends on an efficient, successful supply chain getting the right goods to the right places.
The logistics sector is of particular importance to my constituency, because Rugby enjoys an ideal location in the centre of England and at the crossroads of the motorway network, an hour away from the M25. As an aside, I should like to say that the industry and I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the Catthorpe intersection at junction 19 of the M1. It is at the crossroads of the motorway network, and the scheme will improve a junction that currently suffers from considerable delays and accidents.
The issue that I wish to raise is the proposed EU regulation on the height of commercial vehicle trailers. The EU is seeking to restrict such trailers to a height of 4 metres through a directive known as the whole vehicle type approval scheme. The EU claims that this will ensure safety on our roads, but I believe that it is an example of the EU bringing in standardisation for standardisation’s sake.
I doubt that many Members will be aware of the directive. I was unaware of it until I had a meeting with representatives of a company based in my constituency. Lloyd Fraser Contracts is a large logistics company, among whose many contracts is one with Mr Kipling cakes. At this time of year, it spends much of its time delivering mince pies, among other things. These are relatively light, fragile products that are packed in boxes of very little weight. It is important to get as many boxes as possible into the trailers, and one way for the company to do that is to make its trailers taller to maximise the available space.
In response to the EU’s claim, Lloyd Fraser told me that it knew of only two instances in which the height of a trailer had been an issue in an accident. It was put to me that self-regulation has worked effectively in recent years. I was also told that when issues of wind speed are involved, the company takes a decision to take the high-sided vehicles off the road. It sees no reason for legislation. However, 4.9 metres seems to have been adopted within the UK as the maximum height of a trailer, but the company is now using double, triple or even quadruple decks on its lorries. In doing this, British businesses gain extra cubic capacity, while fuel consumption and exhaust emissions per tonne of product are dramatically cut. There is a strong business case for allowing British distributors and logistics companies to do what they have been doing.
In this matter, I want to refer to research published by Professor Alan McKinnon in October 2010. It showed that between 2004 and 2008 there was a 57% increase in the amount of freight moved in double-deck trailers. If the EU regulations are implemented and the UK is not granted an exemption, this directive would see road haulage costs rise by roughly £305 million, with CO2 emissions increasing by 64%—equivalent to having 151,000 extra cars on UK roads.
This is a potential problem for the UK, but I understand that work is going on behind the scenes between the Government and the EU. I welcome some of the meetings that have taken place with representatives from the industry. I very much hope that this will bring a successful resolution for all. It is important to champion the freight industry for keeping this country’s economy on the move. When it comes to the negotiations, I hope that common sense will prevail.
Finally, I extend to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to all Members and to staff a very happy Christmas.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in the final debate before Christmas. I want to talk about manufacturing engineering. We have a large number of successful manufacturers in my constituency, notably in the engineering sector, but in a wide range of products. I believe that we should celebrate these successes; it is time we put the spotlight on them. I am organising a festival for manufacturing and engineering to achieve exactly that.
First, I want to thank all the firms and organisations, especially the schools and our local college, for the massive support I have received in organising this week-long festival, which will focus on a wide variety of manufacturers and engineers.
I want to organise the festival for three reasons. First, as I have already said, I want to celebrate the success in my constituency. Manufacturers make a lot of innovative products and they export them across the globe. That is absolutely fantastic, and we need to say so.
Secondly, we want more investment—much more investment—from outside as well as inside, because that will further drive the success of these businesses. To that end, I aim to ensure that investors come to Stroud to see what we have on offer in terms of the infrastructure and the people already there, and the opportunities.
The third reason I am organising this event is to make sure that young people see manufacturing as a pathway towards their own careers or a pathway to develop their expertise in manufacturing and engineering—to see it as a way to spend their lives in a working environment. It is so important to encourage young people to think about manufacturing and engineering as places to work.
Those are my three reasons, and I believe the festival will be a success. It starts on 23 April. I have brought on board a large number of people—beyond those supporting it through sponsorship and provision of other forms of support—because the initiative strikes at the heart of what we need to do.
Several things need to be done better, however, to make sure that manufacturing and engineering succeed in the long term. One is making sure that the banks start to understand how these firms really work, what they aim to do and how the banks can help them. We have to be more subtle and more sophisticated at analysing the requests for additional funds, especially in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. We need, too, to go beyond simply managing debt towards equity funding. The Government should encourage that as they move towards implementation of the Vickers report. I look forward to contributing to those debates, but I want to put down a marker now: we must ensure that that is done.
Secondly, I think that we must be more aware of the length and sophistication of manufacturing supply chains. That is equally important in the context of Gloucestershire as the town that contains my constituency and in the context of Gloucestershire as part of England, and indeed that of England, Britain, Europe and the world. Supply chains are critical. I welcome the Government’s investment in them so far, but we must ensure that our attitude to economic policy takes account of that important element of manufacturing and engineering. Obviously, I shall want to draw particular attention to what happens in Stroud.
Finally, I want to emphasise the importance of skills and apprenticeships. It was good that we debated the subject yesterday, but we still need to find ways of encouraging young people to think about small businesses as options for apprenticeships, and encouraging small businesses to see apprenticeships as a way forward for them. We focus too much on the restrictions that deter them from employing young people. I know that we are reducing those restrictions, but we must also start to talk positively about the role that young people can and should play in small as well as medium-sized businesses. Those are facts, and they are important in ensuring that our economy thrives.
I want 2012 to be a happy and successful year for manufacturers, and I wish all Members of the House and the officers who support it a first-class Christmas.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I must reduce the speaking time to four minutes so that all Members have a chance to speak.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I am going to speak about Portsmouth football club. I warn the House that there is some good news and some bad news. The good news is that fans have come together to set up a supporters trust. I declare an interest as a proud member of that trust: like so many others, I pay a £5 subscription, which goes towards funding community projects and, potentially, safeguarding the future of the club. I pay tribute to all who brought that about, in Portsmouth and at Supporters Direct.
Now for the bad news. It is often said by enthusiasts—although we in this House would disagree—that the mark of a good referee is that he goes unnoticed, letting the game run its course. Sadly for fans of Portsmouth, the financial referee has been too much in evidence in recent years. Yet again, Portsmouth has been let down by one of its owners. At about the time when we were debating the problems with the European arrest warrant, one such warrant was issued for the Russian owner of the club so that he could answer charges of money laundering in Lithuania. His company, Convers Sports Initiatives—or, rather appropriately, CSI—was placed in administration, and the hunt for another new owner is under way.
Fans and the club staff are right to feel disappointed after the extraordinary amount of work that has been put in by so many people over the last 18 months to avoid closure and rebuild the club. The sense of despair is all the more acute given that the “fit and proper person” test was supposed to weed out unsuitable owners. I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on the situation, and to be told what he can do to support the club in its latest challenge. Needless to say, I have a few suggestions.
I think that the Minister should be anxious for the vetting of prospective club owners to be done well, and I should like to hear his assessment of the process that led to CSI’s being allowed to buy Portsmouth. I was very pleased both by the report on football governance by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and by the Government’s response to it. The social value of the game is very much recognised in this place.
Those who invest in football clubs as a means of making money would do well to recognise that they have put their money not just into a vehicle for profit, but into the collective identity of communities—the bonds shared between generations of families. It is that simple enjoyment of the game and love of the club for its own sake that makes supporters clubs appropriate participants in club governance. Their sole interest is the club, and without them there would be no club. In my view, that is the most compelling argument for supporters trusts to have a governance role.
Like the Portsmouth supporters trust, I think that the option of supporter involvement via a financial stake should be considered for Portsmouth, and I am helping with the production of an assessment of the amount that could be raised. The professionalism with which the trust has conducted itself has been hugely impressive. The core working party is composed of knowledgeable and skilled individuals with the financial and legal expertise to develop this proposition. However, they have been faced with a series of improbable but all too real barriers. They do not yet have access to the financial information any prospective buyer would be entitled to see. There appears to be a bias against them—a suspicion that they are not serious, and an assumption they do not have the funds and that they are not competent. We will demonstrate, because we can, that all these prejudices are unfounded, but it should not be necessary to go to such lengths. I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear to the administrators that in taking such a stance they are not acting in anyone’s interests. Discrimination is not the better part of valour. The administrators should be left in no doubt that this House and the Government believe in supporter involvement and that the Portsmouth supporters trust should be both treated and judged on a level playing field.
I would be grateful if the Minister took an active interest in this latest episode of Portsmouth football club’s life, and for anything the Minister could do to support the trust and the fans in safeguarding their beloved club’s future.
Finally, I wish colleagues a happy Christmas.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
First, may I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and all the staff and officials of the House, as well as the security officers, for all they do in making the work of Members easier than it would otherwise be? I also want to thank my own staff—those currently working for me, and those who have moved on—for all their support in helping me represent Suffolk Coastal.
I want to highlight three topics. The first of them is the high fuel costs of people who live in off-gas-grid houses. I first raised this issue just over a year ago, when we were in the middle of a bleak mid-winter—the current winter has been much milder, of course. Last year people were paying just over 70p a litre for heating oil, and this Christmas the price is 60p, but that is still a huge amount of money, and the price is 50% higher than it was two years ago. I want to publicise the all-party group that was set up yesterday. I am sure that all the Members who have worked so hard on this issue will flock to join it. I also want to thank the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), for all the work he has done in helping to move this cause along. I hope that 2012 will be the year of success, when we can finally hold our heads up high on behalf of our constituents, many of whom are suffering fuel poverty. I also commend the community foundation networks for establishing the “surviving winter” appeal. When they are looking for people who really need their help, I ask them to look to the households without access to gas, as they are spending a lot of money to keep warm this winter.
Turning to rural post offices, I will keep up the fight for my local post offices in Wangford, Walberswick and Blythburgh. Unfortunately, the outreach service is no longer working properly, but it is important that such services can be accessed. The Post Office is working on that, but it is important that communities are supported, rather than face constant frustration.
On broadband, I am keen that the people of Suffolk show their support for the procurements that will happen next year. It is vital for our county that both fixed and mobile broadband are successes, in order to make Suffolk Coastal a great place not only to come to for the weekend but to work, rest and play all year round. I am also encouraged by recent comments by Ofcom about mobile broadband, and I am confident that the voice of the House will be listened to in ensuring that coverage of at least 98% will be achieved next year.
I thank all the people of Suffolk for raising more than £3 million towards the Treehouse appeal. I also thank the brave soldiers and officers of 23 Engineers, who are based in my constituency at the Rock barracks near Woodbridge. I specifically thank the commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Frazer Ross. He has shown great leadership to that regiment. I am very sad that he will be moving on to his next post early, but I wish Frazer and Sandra well. Incidentally, they are moving to within a mile of where I used to live in Hampshire.
I also thank Siobhan Jordan from Ipswich hospital for getting through the second Care Quality Commission inspection, and I wish Carole Crocker, director of nursing at James Paget university hospital, the best of luck; I hope we manage to pull through.
Finally, local enterprise partnerships were established only this year, and I pay tribute to the new Anglia LEP and Andy Wood, who has been its chair. He has been a great driver of growth and I hope that continues in 2012.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
To cut straight to the point, happy Christmas; there is not much time to say anything else.
I want to draw attention to the trial of Bradley Manning, a young US soldier with a Welsh mother who is standing before a pre-trial hearing in a military court in Washington at the moment. In April 2010, the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange publicly released the Iraq video “Collateral Murder”, which shows a US army attack in Iraq in 2007 that left 12 innocent civilians dead, including two employees of Reuters. The disturbing Iraq footage proved to be just the start of a series of WikiLeaks releases that included US military incident reports from Afghanistan and Iraq, and tens of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
In May 2010, a young US Marine was arrested while serving in Iraq on suspicion of being the source of the WikiLeaks revelations. Just a few months earlier, Hillary Clinton praised the use of the internet—praised blogs, e-mails, social networks and text messages—which she said has opened up new forums for exchanging ideas, and created new targets for censorship.
The pre-trial hearing that is now under way will determine whether Bradley Manning will face court martial. He is charged with aiding the enemy and violating the espionage Act, and if convicted could be sentenced to life imprisonment. Manning has appeared in public for the first time since being confined under maximum security for one and a half years. For much of that time he was held in conditions so harsh that the UN rapporteur on torture felt compelled to express concern after being denied unrestricted access to Manning by the US Government. The US Government’s treatment of Bradley Manning in these conditions has been discussed by me and others in this House previously, and it was international pressure that got him better prison conditions.
I believe that Bradley Manning is carrying the can for repeated mistakes by the US military. He should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place. He should have been discharged from the army, as was originally intended. The people who should be on trial are those who ignored the medical evidence. They sent a vulnerable young man to deal with sensitive classified information. They were negligent. It is clear now from the evidence coming out in the court that this was a troubled young man who should never have been given access to classified information. Those who allowed this access were grossly negligent and have only themselves to blame.
I believe that Bradley Manning’s actions have served as one of the sparks for the emerging Arab spring and the dramatic changes across the middle east. I hope that this House agrees with me that Bradley Manning should have a fair trial, that it should be held in proper conditions and with him being given access to the people he needs to see, and that his defence counsel should be able to call the witnesses they want to call. At the moment, those witnesses have not been called—that is being denied by the court—but all the prosecution witnesses have been allowed to be called by the prosecution.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Mr Speaker, welcome to the Chair. Because I believe in crawling to people in authority, may I wish you a very happy and merry Christmas and thank you for your delightful Christmas card?
This is a wonderfully eclectic debate—from ponds in Devon to dictators in the Congo getting 99.8% of the vote. I want to deal, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), with local issues that relate to Lincolnshire. He mentioned the extraordinary railway line that connects our two constituencies, and there are only three trains a week, which all run on Saturdays. However, there is a much more important railway line that runs from Grimsby and Cleethorpes down through Market Rasen, in my constituency, to Lincoln and then on to London. We used to have a direct service and my hon. Friend referred to resurrecting this vitally important service; but I say to him that we want it to go through Market Rasen and Lincoln, and not through Doncaster. I am sure he will be agreeable to that, and I expect the Minister to make a commitment to that effect when he winds up this debate.
What I really want to talk about in the remaining two minutes or so of my speech is an important project in Gainsborough that is in danger of closure but must not be closed. This is about the big society, which the Prime Minister was right to launch. He was right to change the emphasis from big government to families, individuals, neighbours and local people. In my constituency there is just such a big society project. It was founded in 2007 and is called YaSiG—Young and Safe in Gainsborough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) talked about the power of history and the importance of history teaching, but many people fall out of our school system and YaSiG provides for them. It provides for people between the ages of 13 and 24 who have fallen out of education and it co-ordinates a number of facilities for young people. It gives them a safe place to meet and socialise. It runs, among other things, a very successful motorcycle maintenance course, which I have visited, operating outside the classroom and providing just the sort of training opportunities that many young people need. YaSiG covers subjects as varied as sports, catering and horticulture. It emphasises building social skills, and it improves confidence and the ability to work with older people. There is no doubt that this project, which operates in one of the most deprived wards in England, Gainsborough South West, is already making a big difference.
The project was set up with money from the previous Government, under the community asset transfer programme, but it was not thought through. There were adequate funds for the capital injection but not for revenue maintenance, and the project simply cannot be sustained now. I urgently call—this should happen over the next 24 hours—on Lincolnshire county council, West Lindsey district council and the Government to co-ordinate their efforts to save this vital project. At the very least, West Lindsey district council should give the freehold to YaSiG, so that it can borrow against it, and should waive its indemnity of £45,000. If we really do believe in projects that further the big society and provide for the most deprived people in our community, we cannot let them go out of business. We should co-ordinate efforts to save them and to help our young people in the future.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a very happy Christmas to you.
I rise to speak on the subject of speaking—on the way in which we organise debates in this House. I have some simple but radical ideas which, if implemented, would improve the efficiency of Members and the quality of debate in this Chamber. Vitally, they would also increase the level of communication that this House has with the wider public and, in particular, with the young people we are so importantly trying to reach nowadays.
If we put in to speak in a debate such as this, we write, quite rightly, to the Speaker. The Speaker and his assistants then put together a list, we appear in a certain order on it and that information is held fairly tightly to the Chair. We may become privy to it as the debate progresses, but it is not widely disseminated in the Chamber or in the Palace of Westminster, or to the wider general public. There would be a huge advantage to us all if we were to publish that information—the order in which people were due to speak and roughly when they would be expected to speak—and it was on electronic boards in the Chamber, on the annunciators around the Palace of Westminster, on the internet, and if we allowed it to go out on apps on telephones, mobile devices and so on. Members of the public would, thus, know, for example, that the hon. Member for Central Devon was going to speak in approximately 30 minutes’ time and so would be able to tune into the Parliament channel to see his brilliant performance.
Such an approach would meet a number of important objectives. First, it would mean that Members would know roughly when they were due to speak in a debate, which would allow them to plan a little more thoroughly. Secondly, it would raise the quality of debate, because Members in the rest of the Palace of Westminster could come into the Chamber at a particular moment knowing that somebody was about to speak and they could then intervene on them, and because somebody speaking in the Chamber would know which Members were likely to speak subsequently, they could therefore invite them to comment, or otherwise, on something that they were saying.
The most useful part of such an approach would be that it would engage those outside this Chamber, as the public would be able to establish exactly when a particular Member was due to speak. We all have constituents who will often say to us, “I always watch the Parliament channel and sometimes I see you, sometimes I do not. I would love to know when you are actually speaking.” My proposal would be a method by which they could do that.
It would be particularly appropriate and effective for younger people, who could use an app on their telephone. My telephone, for example, has an app that can tell me when any bus in London is about to reach any particular stop, as it uses real-time information, and there is no reason why the information on when Members of Parliament are due to speak should not similarly be made available. I believe that that could engage young people, who could receive that information and, by tapping an app, could actually see us speaking in this Chamber.
I believe, quite rightly, that this is a highly impressive, wonderful and venerable institution. It is the mother of all Parliaments, but I believe that if we are to move with the times and keep that important link between ourselves and the general public—the electorate of all ages—we should make such a change. For those who fear change, I suggest that we could take a gradualist approach, introducing it bit by it. It could be experimental, in that we could try it for a short time and then reassess it. Of course, we could maintain some of our rules about being present for the opening speeches, the wind-ups and so on.
With that message, Mr Speaker, I wish you a happy Christmas and thank you for this opportunity to speak.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
At this time of year, it is appropriate that we should pay due tribute to our excellent emergency services: our doctors, nurses, ambulance crews, paramedics, firefighters and, of course, our wonderful police. They do a magnificent job, keeping us safe in our homes and healthy. When many of us are enjoying ourselves, they will be working, as they do 365 days a year. It is right that we should pay tribute to those excellent people.
I also want to place on the record the actions of the four brave police officers who laid their lives on the line just a month ago when they were stabbed. They were Harrow police officers, but were operating in the neighbouring constituency. They are now at home, recovering with their families, and I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with them and their families, wishing them a speedy recovery and a return to active duty as soon as they can do so.
I also, however, want to refer briefly to some reforms that are possible within the police service. The four police officers who were stabbed were wearing the official uniforms given to them by the police service as well as stab-proof vests. Despite that, they were stabbed, so it is appropriate that the police service should review the quality of the equipment issued to our police so that they are not placed in danger.
We could also improve the procurement policies pursued in the police service. The Government estimate that £300 million a year can be saved through more positive procurement. Let me give one or two examples of where I think it is going completely wrong at the moment. In the Metropolitan police, for example, if someone’s computer goes wrong and they call out an engineer, the call-out charge is £200. Equally, the maintenance for a single printer is £85 a year. Of course, for £85 a printer can be bought to replace it in a local shop rather than maintaining those they already have. It is a shocking fact that, in our police stations across the capital, if someone’s light bulb goes out of action they have to call someone else and the cost of getting that light bulb replaced is £200. Members of the police service could, quite simply, replace them themselves, but they are not allowed to. It is complete and utter nonsense.
I also think we need to consider reviewing the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At the moment, our police are forced to handwrite statements and police community support officers are not allowed to take witness statements from members of the public. Clearly, at a time when we can use technology, it is appropriate that we should do so. Our police officers have to keep multiple forms, most of which are not used at all. Custom and practice has built up, however, that that data should be collected and brought to police stations, where nothing seems to happen to it.
I also want to raise the issue of ethnic monitoring. It is absolutely crucial that we monitor our services to make sure that we provide them appropriately, but it is nonsensical that when someone is arrested, they and the police officer arresting them get the right to say to which ethnic minority the person arrested belongs. That does not seem very sensible. As we build up to the Olympics, the police are still suffering from the overload resulting from the riots last summer; there have been 12-hour shifts and all holiday was cancelled, and the pressure on the police is growing.
Mr Speaker, I end by wishing you, all Members of the House and everyone associated with Parliament a happy Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) said that this was an eclectic debate; “eclectic” does not begin to describe the task that lies ahead of me as I try to respond, in the next 10 minutes, to hon. Members who have spoken. As she has so many times raised the issue on which she spoke, and has not been given satisfaction from the Dispatch Box, I will deal with her point first and give her the statement that I think she was hoping for; the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), would perhaps have given it earlier, if he had had the opportunity. The commission on the West Lothian question will start work in February 2012, and will report by the end of the Session in spring 2013. My hon. Friend will make a further statement on the commission in the new year.
A spate of points were raised about foreign affairs. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) talked about various aspects of world affairs relating to what we loosely group together as the middle east, the Sahel and the Maghreb, as if that were all an amorphous mass, which it clearly is not. There are many countries there with different issues. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised the issues in Israel to do with the Bedouin in the south Negev desert. What brings those issues together, as far as the British Government’s position is concerned, is our commitment to human rights and developing democracy, and our wish to extend friendship, particularly to the new Governments forming in those areas, and to help them in any way that we can to achieve those objectives. Where they stray from those objectives, we might perhaps constructively point out that there are better ways of doing business. The hon. Member for Manchester Central raised the issue of Bahrain; it is very good that the King of Bahrain has appointed a commission to look into the issues, but the test is what happens to the response. Those matters were well worth raising.
The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who I do not think is in the Chamber at the moment, talked about the Democratic Republic of the Congo—a long-term interest of his—and expressed concerns about the elections there. The good news from the Democratic Republic of the Congo is that there were elections, they were largely peaceful and there was a high turnout, but clearly there were problems, which were identified by a number of observers. Those are matters that the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo need to look at.
The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) talked about the case of Bradley Manning, which is before the American courts; it is right for us to express concern and state that he should have a fair and open trial in the United States on the matters on which he was arraigned.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) talked about teaching history—a subject that I raised in Adjournment debates when I was in opposition, because it is desperately important for our young people to be given a sense of history—not just national and world history but local history, so that they have a sense of identity and of the place where they live. That is a matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education are looking at in the context of the curriculum review. The hon. Member for Kingswood made his point extremely well.
The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) spoke about how we conduct our business in the House. It is not for me to respond to that. Perhaps it is for Mr Speaker to respond, or the Procedure Committee, but the points that the hon. Gentleman raised were sensible suggestions that ought to be considered.
Many hon. Members talked about local issues in their area. I have a great deal of fellow feeling for some of them. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) talked about fuel poverty, a matter with which, as she rightly said, I have engaged myself over the years, particularly the difficulties of people in rural areas who often do not have access to mains gas, are reliant on fuel oil or LPG and find themselves in considerable difficulties because of the increasing costs. The Government are very aware of that.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) pointed out some successes in his constituency, in both schools and hospitals, and said something very important in support of the public sector. It is important that from the Dispatch Box we say how much we appreciate what people in the public sector do. The role that they play in society is an extremely positive contribution. I am very pleased about the successful resolution of those discussions that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced in his statement earlier today.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about two things. The first was high-speed broadband in his area, which he is right to say is crucial. That is why the Government are engaged in the programme, and why the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) has insisted that local authorities have a draft local broadband plan by the end of February, and have it agreed by the end of April, in order to secure matched funding. I hope the hon. Gentleman will now be able to make significant progress. Secondly, he spoke about antisocial behaviour, and was able to report progress in his area. As a former chair of the Avon and Somerset police authority, I am particularly pleased, as we share a police authority area, that Chief Constable Colin Port has been in contact and has taken such a supportive view.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was guaranteed my full attention when he talked about flooding in the village of Feniton, with which he knows I am more than familiar—not with the village, but with the concept of flooding in my constituency. He went on to talk about quarrying. My constituency is the most densely populated quarrying area in the whole country. The points he raised about the aggregates sustainability fund would be echoed by many communities in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) has, I hope, guaranteed that he will be mentioned in the Sittingbourne News Extra editorial next week. From his contributions to these debates, I feel that I know an awful lot more about Sittingbourne and Sheppey than I did a year or two ago.
The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said that he has an airport, he has docks, he has 10 stations, and then had the temerity to expect trains to stop at his stations. He wanted the roads, including the A160, to be improved, and he also spoke about Humber bridge tolls. I think that his views were compatible with those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who also spoke about roads. I think they have neighbouring constituencies, so it is good that they are working together. The hon. Member for Gainsborough also mentioned Young and Safe in Gainsborough, an organisation he obviously believes does very good work. We must hope that it survives its current difficulties.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) clearly has an exceedingly good company in his constituency, but spoke about the 4 metre height limit that has been proposed by the Commission. The Government agree that the 4 metre height limit is inappropriate and continue to press the Commission not to implement it. The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) talked about the importance of manufacturing in his constituency and he is absolutely right. He also spoke about the importance of apprenticeships. I am very pleased that we have had 442,700 new apprenticeship starts in the past year, compared with 279,700 the previous year. That is a real commitment to young people getting the skills that they need.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) talked about Portsmouth football club. As a former rugby player, I have to say that I am not a great expert on football, but she demonstrated the difficulty that the football authorities face in implementing the owners and directors test, which is a self-certification test based on a series of objective criteria, rather than a subjective test of individuals.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about efficiencies in the police service, and clearly improvements can still be made in modernising the police service. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) included everything in his contribution, as he always does. He is a regular on these occasions and gave a superb performance.
I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Officers and Members of the House a very happy Christmas. In particular, I wish to put on the record our appreciation of Eddie McKay, who was appointed to the House in January 1988 and is retiring this Christmas. We wish him every success and happiness in his retirement.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House and reciprocate his good wishes.
Planning (Woodside Close, Walsall)
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The petition is from the residents of Woodside Close, Walsall and others. It has been signed by 263 people.
The petition
Declares that the Petitioners object to the proposed redevelopment at 1 Woodside Close, Walsall WS5 3LU, planning reference 11/1217/FL, involving the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 14 two bedroom apartments, on the grounds that the Petitioners believe that the redevelopment is an overdevelopment, incorporating a third storey in the roof, out of character with the area, and that the development is in an unsustainable location, with insufficient parking together with parking on the frontage, as shown on the plans, along with inadequate amenity space.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to encourage Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council to consider the objections of the local residents.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.[P000993]
Abduction of Lydia Hunt
(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this, the final debate of the calendar year. Lydia Hunt is the first child of my constituent Jonathan Hunt and his wife Irma Obregon Guerrero. Lydia was born in June 2006. At Easter 2008, shortly before Lydia’s second birthday, the family travelled to Mrs Hunt’s native Mexico for a holiday with her family. Mr Hunt returned to the UK in May for work commitments, and the plan was that his wife and Lydia would follow a couple of weeks later. Some time later, Mrs Hunt called her husband to tell him that there would be a delay. She first said that she was unwell and then that her father was entering a land deal and that she needed to sign some papers in connection with it. She noted that the slow-moving legal system in Mexico meant that she would have to stay for at least a month.
The plan was that Mrs Hunt and Lydia would accompany Mrs Hunt’s parents to the UK in August, where they intended to spend a holiday, but on 16 August 2008, at 1 o’clock in the morning, Mr Hunt received a call from his wife to inform him that they would not be coming and that she did not intend to return at all but instead planned to remain in Mexico with Lydia. To date, Lydia remains in Mexico with Mrs Hunt. Their whereabouts are officially unknown. An arrest warrant for Mrs Hunt was applied for some time ago and finally confirmed in July this year after numerous appeals and delays, but it has not been acted on. When asked for a reason, the Mexican authorities say that they are still investigating.
Mexico is a signatory to The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction of 1980. This requires the determination of abduction cases involving minors within six weeks from the date of commencement of proceedings. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister, who is in his place on the Government Front Bench, for the personal interest that he has taken in the case. He has raised it on a number of occasions with his Mexican counterpart, and I know that the Foreign Secretary also discussed Lydia’s abduction with the Mexican Foreign Minister on a recent visit to the UK. I am very grateful for those interventions, but Lydia has not been returned and Mexico has still not met its legal obligations. This evening, I should like to press the Minister on the further specific actions that the UK Government can take to secure her return.
I am keen to underline two points: first, the length of time it has taken for Mr Hunt’s case to be dealt with—three years and counting; and, secondly, the wider issue of the non-compliance of a signatory to an international treaty. On the first point, let me set out a little more detail on the case.
Under The Hague convention, when a child has been removed abroad from its habitual residence, they have first to be returned to the country of habitual residence for the courts in that country to start determining custody. That is the basis on which the convention works. Three days after Mr Hunt’s wife made her bombshell telephone call announcing that she was not coming back—that is, on 19 August 2008—Mr Hunt filed a convention request for the Mexican authorities to return Lydia. Before that date, Mr Hunt knew nothing at all about The Hague convention, which requires that such requests be complied with within six weeks—that is, in this case, by the end of September 2008. In fact, more than three years later, it has still not been complied with.
Lydia was made a ward of the High Court in London in January 2009, so any major decision about her has to be made by the High Court. After a delay of almost a year, the Mexican court issued a return order for Lydia in December 2009 with immediate effect, and that judgment correctly followed the terms of The Hague convention.
In the following March—that is, March last year— Mr Hunt’s wife filed for an amparo, a Mexican legal procedure that is intended, I understand, to protect the constitutional rights of a Mexican citizen. It appears in practice—at least in this case—to give almost unlimited scope for frustrating the execution of international law. As a result of the amparo, The Hague order and the arrest warrant for Mrs Hunt were both suspended.
In May this year, an amparo hearing was held. The judge ordered that the original notice was not executed according to local domestic law, and that the entire process should start again. Mr Hunt was advised at the time by his very experienced lawyers in Mexico that that conclusion was wrong. It certainly was not consistent with international law, and his advisers pointed out that the judge, in his ruling, did not refer at all to The Hague convention and overlooked several aspects of amparo legislation as well.
On 11 August this year, Mr Hunt’s lawyers submitted an appeal to the federal court. The appeal panel of three federal judges in San Luis Potosi upheld Mrs Hunt’s amparo on 11 November on the grounds that she was not notified of the return order made by the first family judge under the terms of The Hague convention 1980. Of course, she was in fact well aware of the order: she had been engaged in challenging the initial judgement, and she would not have been in a position to do so if she had been unaware of the order.
Mr Hunt has now been told that a new Hague hearing will be scheduled for 26 March next year in San Luis Potosi. He is understandably worried that, although a date has been set, there is nothing to stop his wife from once again embarking on a series of amparos and appeals, as the previous three years of litigation have been rendered null and void by the court’s decision. If legal proceedings were to stall again, there would be an argument that Lydia was by now settled in Mexico and any enforced return would be detrimental to her welfare.
It may be appropriate that the amparo process gives rise to limited delays, but in this case the process has continued for more than three years, and it is now set to last even longer, even though it clearly makes a nonsense of Mexico’s obligations under The Hague convention.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party Mexico group, I am pleased to support what my right hon. Friend is doing and compliment him on the huge amount of work that he has done—and, indeed, the Foreign Office on the pressure that it has applied in the case of the Mexican Government. He and I are due to meet the ambassador in January, when we will obviously press the ambassador to insist that Mexico adhere to all its obligations under The Hague convention.
My right hon. Friend is making a most serious point—that a further delay in the amparo at San Luis Potosi in March will mean that it could be argued that this child is a normal resident of Mexico. That is the danger. This is, bluntly, a case of abduction. We look to our friends in the Mexican Government and Mexican judiciary to adhere to international conventions and law and to allow this child to be returned to this country. She is, after all, a British national.
Stephen Timms
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that he has given in this case. I very much look forward to the meeting with the ambassador in January. The fact that that meeting has been put in the diary is in no small part thanks to my hon. Friend’s intervention. He is absolutely right, of course.
The heart of this debate is Lydia’s welfare and well-being. She was two when she was abducted. I have no idea what she has been told about the whereabouts of her father or about what became of her former home in the UK. She has had no contact at all with her father for more than three years. There has been no effort to enable her to meet, or even to speak, to her father throughout the whole of that period. The preamble to The Hague convention states that signatories should be
“firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody desiring to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence as well as to secure protection for rights of access”.
Signatories to the convention are required to consider the interests and the welfare of an abducted child as being of paramount importance. That has clearly not happened in this particular case.
One consolation to my constituent would have been if a welfare check ordered by the British Embassy had been carried out. That check has not been carried out because of a number of difficulties in trying to do so, and despite an intervention on the part of Bob Geldof. My constituent has not only not had the chance to see or to speak to Lydia in the past three years, but has not even been able to establish whether she is safe and well.
Mr Hunt’s hopes were raised when his wife failed to “ampere” a criminal charge, which meant that an arrest warrant could finally be executed. That would have allowed the police to locate her and require her, by the terms of bail, to give an address where she lives with her daughter. Unfortunately, the warrant has still not been executed. The whereabouts in Mexico of Mrs Hunt’s family are known to the police. The family well knows where she and Lydia are; and the police could, if they chose, quite readily find out from the family where she and Lydia are. It seems highly unlikely that they do not know where she is, but the warrant, for whatever reason, has not been implemented.
Obviously, the British Government cannot interfere directly with the legal processes of another country. However, the fact is that despite Mexico’s having signed The Hague convention, Lydia has yet to be returned. The website of The Hague Conference on Private International Law describes the convention as
“a multilateral treaty, which seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return”.
The convention has clearly been flouted in this particular case. Many abduction cases are resolved promptly, but some cases, such as this one, are held up because countries refuse to comply with the terms of The Hague convention, even though, like Mexico, they have signed it. A flagrantly non-compliant country can still press other treaty partners to fulfil their obligations and return children who have been abducted from their own country.
A disappointing aspect of my involvement in this case is that it has not yet been possible for me to meet the Mexican ambassador. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his intervention. I am pleased, as he said, that we now have an appointment with the ambassador in January.
Child abduction is becoming more common. Reunite International child abduction centre, which has been working with Mr Hunt over the past three years, tells me that until September this year, the number of abduction cases reported to its advice line was up by 46% compared with the same period last year. The number of prevention cases went up by 35% in the same period. The problem of non-compliance will be suffered by many other parents in the future—parents who, like Mr Hunt, have had their children abducted to countries that signed The Hague convention only to find it time-consuming and expensive to pursue a return, as has Mr Hunt. My constituent has so far spent more than £80,000, mainly in legal costs, in attempting to secure his daughter’s safe return. It could well be that he will have to find a similar sum again, given that it appears that we are back at square one as a result of the most recent court decision.
I noted recently that a Republican Congressman in the United States, Chris Smith, the long-serving representative for Robbinsville, New Jersey, has sponsored a Bill on this topic. The International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Bill proposes the establishment of an office on international child abduction, which would report regularly on progress in individual cases and on the compliance of countries with their obligations under The Hague convention. The Bill would vest powers in the President, allowing him to impose specific sanctions to increase pressure to end cases of non-co-operation. Perhaps we should consider something similar in the UK. That initiative in the United States Congress underlines that, as a signatory to The Hague convention, the UK is not alone in struggling to ensure that non-compliant nations meet their treaty obligations.
I will finally pose three questions to the Minister. First, what assistance can the British embassy provide to the Mexican authorities in their search for Mrs Hunt? I know that a letter was sent by the attorney-general in San Luis Potosi to the attorney-general in Mexico City asking that he instruct the police, who are under his jurisdiction, to locate Mrs Hunt and arrest her. That would, in turn, allow the British embassy to conduct the long-awaited welfare check on Lydia. Mrs Hunt must be obliged to give recognised contact details, which would enable the process of returning Lydia under the terms of The Hague convention to get under way.
Secondly, can the Minister assure me that he will continue to raise this case with the Mexican authorities, as he has on a number of occasions, and to impress on them the importance of meeting the obligations that they have signed up to under The Hague convention, which they are not currently fulfilling? I was pleased to learn that Lord Justice Thorpe, who leads on these matters for the UK judiciary, has offered his assistance to the Mexican authorities in complying with their obligations under The Hague convention, and that he plans to raise this case in The Hague next month at a meeting convened for the purpose.
Finally, what steps can be taken against countries, such as Mexico, that are non-compliant in this way? It is clearly not right for a treaty partner not to fulfil its obligations as set out in an international treaty that it has signed freely, and which it will be able to take advantage of when it wishes to do so. What recourse is available when a signatory to an international treaty—this one or others—does not fulfil its obligations under that treaty? What specific action can the UK Government take to address Mexico’s non-compliance in this particular case?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the final debate of 2011, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing it, and I hope that my response will satisfy him on at least some of the questions he asked. He has pursued the case extremely diligently over an extended period, and of course he is always welcome to get in contact with the Foreign Office. I am very pleased that he and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) have secured a meeting with the Mexican ambassador next month.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham for raising the case of Lydia Hunt, who, as he said, was abducted by her mother and taken to Mexico in 2008. He has provided considerable support to Mr Hunt, and I appreciate his efforts to achieve progress for Mr Hunt in such difficult circumstances. As he is aware, I have personally followed Mr Hunt’s case with considerable interest and have every sympathy with him in his sad and difficult situation.
Before I comment specifically on the case of Lydia Hunt, I should like to provide a brief background to the wider issue of international parental child abduction. Unfortunately, there has been a considerable rise in reported cases over the past few years. The figure I have is that last year alone the Foreign Office’s child abduction section dealt with 643 active cases and saw a 10% increase in new cases on the previous year. I sympathise greatly with parents who face difficulties in working through unfamiliar systems, cultures and languages.
The British Government therefore strongly encourage other countries to sign The Hague convention. We regularly lobby on the issue at ministerial level and consider the convention to be the most effective route to return children abducted from their usual place of residence. In general, cases of child abduction are more likely to be resolved promptly when they occur between countries that operate the convention.
I can understand the immense frustration and distress that Mr Hunt must feel at still having no resolution to his case, despite his having submitted a Hague convention application for Lydia’s return in 2008. That might seem inconsistent with Mexico’s signing an agreed international framework for the prompt return of abducted children, but it is worth bringing to the House’s attention the fact that The Hague convention provides for a country to operate it within the guidelines of its own domestic legislation. How the convention is applied varies from country to country, and in Mexico it is not uncommon for the legal process to be lengthy, perhaps lengthier even than we are used to here in Britain.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgment that as Mexico is a sovereign state the British Government cannot interfere in its legal system, just as we would not expect the Mexican authorities to interfere in courts in this country.
Jeremy Corbyn
Mexico is obviously a signatory to The Hague convention, and it is up to the federal Government of Mexico to adhere to it. From the points that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) have made, it appears that the Government are hiding behind the state laws in San Luis Potosi as a way of avoiding implementing the arrest warrant, which is what the convention requires of Mexico.
Mr Browne
We expect signatories to The Hague convention to operate within it, but we accept that it permits a degree of flexibility because different countries apply the law in different ways. That does not exempt them from their obligations, and we continue to make that point to the Mexican authorities.
In answer to one of the right hon. Member for East Ham’s questions, I can tell him that the British Government participate fully in meetings to review and enhance the operation of the 1980 Hague convention organised by The Hague Conference on Private International Law. I am pleased that he is in contact with my noble Friend Lord McNally, the Minister of State for Justice, who takes a direct interest in the process.
I turn to the specific case before us. I was very saddened to hear that Mr Hunt did not secure the result that he was hoping for when Lydia’s mother’s amparo was upheld in November. I was, however, pleased to hear that he has been given a date for a new Hague hearing in March 2012. I know that he will have concerns about the process, given the lengthy proceedings that he has already faced, so I encourage him to work with his lawyer to mitigate those concerns through the appropriate channels.
As well as the legal process, Mr Hunt is anxious for news of his daughter’s well-being. I can only imagine his worry and frustration at having no contact with Lydia for so long. This aspect of the case has been a priority for the FCO. We would like to be able to reassure Mr Hunt by conducting a consular visit to check on Lydia’s well-being, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we require the permission of Lydia’s mother to do so. We have persistently and regularly requested consular access to Lydia, but to date we have not received her mother’s permission. The UK Government have no enforcement powers in Mexico to force Lydia’s mother to allow us to see Lydia. Further, as we all sadly know, we do not yet have any indication of Lydia’s whereabouts. We will of course act on any new information related to Lydia’s whereabouts to continue to seek consular access to her, and this may be a point that the right hon. Gentleman could raise with the Mexican ambassador directly when he meets him next month.
We have discussed with Mr Hunt the arrest warrant for Lydia’s mother. I share his hope that the execution of the warrant will subsequently assist with locating Lydia. Our consular staff will continue to request updates from the Mexican authorities on the progress of this aspect of the case. Beyond this, we cannot involve ourselves in criminal proceedings and cannot assist in the search for Lydia’s mother, which is the responsibility of the Mexican authorities.
I am grateful for this opportunity to reassure Mr Hunt that we have done and will continue to do all that we can to support him and his daughter. We very much hope our extensive efforts will contribute to a positive outcome for him, but we are limited in the scope of our powers as we are operating in the jurisdiction of another sovereign country. We have provided Mr Hunt with consular assistance at every possible juncture and in every way we properly can, in line with our consular policy. The Mexican authorities are acutely aware of the case and I am satisfied that they are handling it in line with their judicial process. I am also confident that they will inform us as soon as they have any news. Britain has a strong bilateral relationship with Mexico and I hope that relationship will have a positive influence on the outcome of this case. It would be harder if we were dealing with a country with which Britain has difficult diplomatic relationships, but it is hard enough as it is, with a friendly country.
We have worked closely with the Mexican authorities successfully to return children to the UK this year under the convention. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the way the Mexican authorities have acted swiftly upon the conclusion of the judicial process to resolve such complicated cases with a great deal of sensitivity and professionalism, and my hope is that the same will apply in this case.
Mr Hunt’s case, however, remains unresolved. I recognise the distress he must be feeling after more than three years of separation from his daughter. I hope it is clear that we continue to treat Mr Hunt’s case as a priority and are working to get a resolution. I have met the right hon. Gentleman and Mr Hunt to discuss the case, and I have spoken to or written to the Mexican Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign Minister or Federal Attorney General about Mr Hunt’s case on eight separate occasions since July 2010. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Foreign Secretary also raised it directly with his Mexican counterpart in June this year. Furthermore, our consular officials and ambassador continue to do all they can to raise Mr Hunt’s case with their Mexican counterparts. It was apparent during my visit to Mexico in October this year that our representations have ensured a high level of awareness of Mr Hunt’s case and our concerns. When I raised the case with Ministers, they were aware of it just on the basis of Mr Hunt’s name, even before I had the chance to go into any details.
Our efforts have not yet helped to produce the resolution Mr Hunt is looking for, but we will of course continue to raise his case where possible and appropriate. However, we should only do so if it is likely to help to resolve Mr Hunt’s case. I am therefore keen for us to remain in close contact with Mr Hunt’s lawyer and be guided by her on when any efforts by our consular staff and ambassador to engage with the Mexican authorities would be most effective for the case. Our ambition is a successful resolution; we have no other ambitions beyond that in this case.
In closing, I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman again for raising this difficult case and to recognise the diligence with which he has pursued it on behalf of his constituent. I can assure him that we will continue to do all that we properly can to support Mr Hunt. However, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in essence, this is a legal matter in Mexico, although I sincerely hope that Mr Hunt receives some positive news soon. Being out of contact with one’s child must cause unimaginable stress. I strongly support Mr Hunt in his case and in any legitimate course of action that he feels will help him to be reunited with his daughter.
On that note—that sad note, I am afraid—let me say that it is a privilege for me to finish the proceedings in the House of Commons this year. I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all your staff a happy Christmas.
Mr Speaker
Those good wishes are reciprocated, and I thank the Minister of State.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(13 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Communities and Local Government
(13 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Chris Kelly
To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many Government Procurement Card transactions were made by his Department's officials withdrawing cash from automated teller machines from 2006-07 to 2009-10; at what cost; and on what dates.
[Official Report, 7 September 2011, Vol. 532, c. 647-8W.]
Letter of correction from Robert Neill:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) on 7 September 2011. The duplicated amount on 8 September 2006 of £351.42 should have been ‘-£351.42’, where the money was immediately reimbursed.
The full answer given was as follows:
Robert Neill
[holding answer 19 July 2011]: The following cash withdrawals have been made by departmental officials from April 2006 to March 2010:
Amount (£) | |
|---|---|
24 April 2006 | 235.10 |
1 June 2006 | 611.03 |
8 September 2006 | 88.93 |
8 September 2006 | 351.42 |
8 September 2006 | 351.42 |
8 September 2006 | 402.64 |
18 October 2006 | 861.21 |
7 November 2006 | 73.12 |
27 November 2006 | 527.82 |
1 December 2006 | 205.52 |
5 December 2006 | 36.76 |
5 December 2006 | 477.94 |
10 January 2007 | 348.34 |
28 June 2007 | 500.00 |
2 July 2007 | 500.00 |
3 July 2007 | 200.00 |
4 November 2008 | 190.68 |
9 December 2008 | 49.64 |
Currently the Department pays a 2.95% fee on cash advances (minimum charge of £2.95). For foreign exchange transactions we pay a 2.95% fee (minimum charge of £2.95 plus a further currency exchange purchase fee of 2.95%).
The new administration has reviewed its policy on Government Procurement Card usage. As well as reducing the number of cards held, the Department has cancelled the cash withdrawal facility for all but two Government Procurement Card holders (for business continuity reasons).
The correct answer should have been:
Robert Neill
[holding answer 19 July 2011]: The following cash withdrawals have been made by departmental officials from April 2006 to March 2010:
Amount (£) | |
|---|---|
24 April 2006 | 235.10 |
1 June 2006 | 611.03 |
8 September 2006 | 88.93 |
8 September 2006 | 351.42 |
8 September 2006 | -351.42 |
8 September 2006 | 402.64 |
18 October 2006 | 861.21 |
7 November 2006 | 73.12 |
27 November 2006 | 527.82 |
1 December 2006 | 205.52 |
5 December 2006 | 36.76 |
5 December 2006 | 477.94 |
10 January 2007 | 348.34 |
28 June 2007 | 500.00 |
2 July 2007 | 500.00 |
3 July 2007 | 200.00 |
4 November 2008 | 190.68 |
9 December 2008 | 49.64 |
Currently the Department pays a 2.95% fee on cash advances (minimum charge of £2.95). For foreign exchange transactions we pay a 2.95% fee (minimum charge of £2.95 plus a further currency exchange purchase fee of 2.95%).
The new administration has reviewed its policy on Government Procurement Card usage. As well as reducing the number of cards held, the Department has cancelled the cash withdrawal facility for all but two Government Procurement Card holders (for business continuity reasons).
Home Department
(13 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Collins
In the United States there is a programme called Badges for Baseball—all these programmes have snappy names—in which the police organise baseball and softball league games directly with young people. Does the Minister feel that there may be additional scope for police to be directly involved with such programmes in the UK?
Nick Herbert
The Positive Futures programme will continue until the end of 2013; thereafter, elected police and crime commissioners will have a budget that they can distribute for similar programmes, should they so choose.
[Official Report, 6 December 2011, Vol. 537, c. 24-5WH.]
Letter of correction from Nick Herbert:
An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).
The correct response should have been:
Nick Herbert
The Positive Futures programme will continue until the end of March 2013; thereafter, elected police and crime commissioners will have a budget that they can distribute for similar programmes, should they so choose.
Westminster Hall
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
First Great Western Rail Franchise
(13 years 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
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It will be a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Alan. Before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Although I secured the debate, my hon. Friend, as I shall call her today, has worked very hard with Members across the region to co-ordinate our action to enable us to work as a team, because the rail franchise is important to everybody who lives in the south-west. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Great Western rail franchise before the public consultation begins, so that the Minister and her team at the Department for Transport—it is good to see them this morning—who will work on the draft franchise document, can listen to the views of key stakeholders and of hon. Members who represent constituents who depend on this vital service.
The rail franchise will not be the only one in the region, but it is vital. The Penzance to Paddington line, with all the branch line connections, is central to the connectivity of the south-west with the rest of the UK and international markets. The new franchise will be let in 2013. As part of the Great Western franchising process, the Government intend to issue a consultation document, which will include the opportunity for individuals and organisations to give feedback on the draft franchise specifications. It will be helpful if the Minister confirms today that she intends the consultations to start in January and conclude in April 2012.
I want to ensure that the mistakes of the previous Great Western franchise are learned. TravelWatch recently reported that the 2006 Great Western franchise proved unacceptable for all involved—passengers, politicians and the operator. After representations by concerned stakeholders, a fare strike and a top management reshuffle, significant timetable enhancements were made and additional rolling stock procured at extra cost to the taxpayer and the operator. We must avoid a repetition of that with the new franchise.
I have welcomed the fine words of the coalition agreement on reforming our railway system, and specifically on reforming the franchising process. In July, I welcomed the findings of the Government’s review into how rail franchising can be improved. There is widespread agreement that the existing system has become too prescriptive at the point of bidding and lacks flexibility once operational. Arguably, Government now exercise more control over the railways than they did in the days of British Rail.
Earlier this year, the Government set out the key principles for the new franchising process, which can be summarised as follows. The specifics of each franchise will be decided on a case-by-case basis, with bidders having a greater role in helping Government to refine and define specifications. The Government will set demanding outcomes for operators to deliver, but also give them more flexibility to decide how best to achieve those outcomes, thus giving greater space for operators to plan and run their services more commercially. Longer franchises should expand the opportunity for operators to invest in improvements, as well as enable them to strengthen their working relationships with Network Rail and other stakeholders.
There have been reviews and consultations over the past 18 months—most notably the McNulty review. As the Secretary of State said to the House last month in a written statement:
“Our railways are currently the most expensive in Europe. That is something we…must tackle. The recent review by Sir Roy McNulty found scope to cut rail costs by 30%—up to £1 billion a year. My Department is committed to working with the rail industry to develop a strategy to deliver a better value railway for the benefit of passengers, taxpayers and the wider economy.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 42WS.]
We all want to achieve that balance through the refranchising process.
The re-letting of the Great Western franchise will be one of the first of its kind to test the new process, so today, I want to share with the Minister some feedback that I have received from key stakeholders, and hon. Members will have the opportunity to give their feedback. First, I will summarise the key findings of the report published by TravelWatch in the south-west and the research undertaken by Passenger Focus. They agree with those of us who are here today that the south-west is well placed to contribute significantly to sustainable growth in the UK. Rail users and the business community see better connectivity as key to growth and the reduction of congestion, thus reducing sub-regional disparities in wealth, while accommodating the fastest growing population in England. In terms of gross value added, the south-west is projected to grow at a rate second only to that of London and the south-east. However, other parts of the UK are more productive, and that is largely due to the south-west’s poor transport links to other major parts of the UK. According to the university of Bath, productivity decreases by 6% for every 100 minutes of journey time from London.
The boom in south-west rail usage puts the industry’s planning forecasts in question. Usage has almost doubled since privatisation and virtually tripled in the Bristol travel-to-work area. Growth is not confined to the main line and the principal conurbations; branch lines throughout the south-west are the fastest growing in England, so the invitation to tender must give more priority to capacity. There is likely to be a capacity gap of about 100 million seats on mainline services over the next decade, despite the planned introduction of new inter-city express trains. The franchisee should deal with overcrowding, not by increasing fares to deter travel, but by having the right to bring in additional rolling stock without months of negotiation with Whitehall.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Unfortunately, I have to leave at 10 o’clock for a Select Committee. Overcrowding goes to the nub of the issue. We recently gained extra carriages, but that has not even kept up with the increased demand on the branch line services to which they will be given. It is crucial that whoever gets the new franchise plans for additional growth to ensure that people are not put off travelling because they cannot get a seat or the train is overcrowded.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Like Torbay, the maritime line in my constituency, between Truro and Falmouth, has been fortunate, and we are grateful to the Department for Transport and Cornwall council for contributing to extra carriages to ease some congestion. He is absolutely right; in the new franchise, it is essential that branch lines and increased capacity on them be considered alongside the main line. The south-west has suffered the lowest level of investment in its transport network and much of the system is already nearing the end of its planned life.
The region I am talking about today stretches from Wiltshire, Bristol and Gloucestershire, across the peninsula to the west, including Dorset, Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. The line is well over 300 miles in an east to west direction. Road and rail arteries have to travel disproportionately longer distances than those in the midlands or the north of England, because the populations are sparse and the distances between economic hubs greater. Whitehall has not understood that peninsular geography well since the post-war nationalisation of the former regional rail companies; therefore, over the years, Whitehall business case models for strategic investment have often not delivered extra investment in the south-west.
The decision to invest £5 billion in modernising the route from London to Bristol and Cardiff and to Oxford and Newbury is welcome, but the disruption caused by work on the main line and Crossrail will be felt across the franchise until the end of the decade. Without extra investment, electrification could adversely affect millions of passengers, beyond the electrified lines, such as those using the services from the south coast to Bristol and south Wales, to Weston-super-Mare and Taunton, services west of Exeter and those parallel to the M4 corridor from east Wiltshire through west Berkshire.
The Government are committed to progressive electrification of the network, which should be a priority for lines serving major employment centres, such as the Bristol travel-to-work area. It should also be a priority for diversionary routes to Bath and the far west via Westbury, and Wales via Gloucester, because that would relieve the Severn tunnel to Wales. Bidders should be encouraged to develop proposals for additional electrification schemes and to specify how they intend to meet any capacity shortfalls.
Reliable services are essential for business and for passengers. Investment should focus on eliminating bottlenecks and enhancing capacity to ensure delivery of reliable, user-friendly, clock-face timetables. The Government say that they want people to have a voice on service provision, and we all say hooray to that. The new franchise is an opportunity to give local stakeholders a say in their rail services. It may be time to explore whether the devolution of responsibility for infrastructure and operations to local partnerships might better align services to local needs.
Timetable planning must deal with existing pent-up demand and substantial latent growth. Today’s service levels barely meet demand. The franchisee should be incentivised to provide additional services where needed, particularly with the surge in demand that comes with electrification. There must be a mechanism for regular reviews of the service requirement with stakeholders. Passengers need a reliable, seven-day railway and the opportunity to travel somewhere and back in a day. Rail should do more to exploit that competitive edge by speeding up longer distance journeys to places such as Plymouth, Torbay and the far west.
The franchise’s trains are already by far the oldest main line fleet in the country. Bidders should have replacement plans for the diesel train fleet, with carriage lay-out and seating designed to accommodate the needs of the contemporary passenger. Where through-services are not practical, connections need improving. They need to be made more convenient, with adequate platform staff to assist with changing trains. Better co-ordination with the wider public transport network should be encouraged, and multi-modal and multi-operator information and ticketing should be promoted. The opening up at Old Oak Common of an interchange directly linking with Crossrail to Heathrow, High Speed 2 to the north and the proposed new link to High Speed 1 and the European high-speed rail network should be supported as providing a step change in connectivity to the south-west.
Stations can be focal points for the communities that they serve. Bidders should consider their improvement with imagination, and welcome active community involvement. The ticketing system should be made simpler and ticket purchase made easier, with greater use of electronic ticketing and a less punitive approach towards passengers who mistakenly travel on the wrong train with a restricted ticket. There is a continuing need to obtain value for money from lightly-used services if they are to be sustainable. The use of less onerous infrastructure and maintenance standards and light-weight vehicles could be appropriate without in any way jeopardising safety.
South-west lines that are run as community rail partnerships have experienced record-breaking passenger growth. The franchisee should at least match local contributions, which would therefore encourage complementary contributions from local authorities and other partners. The Government should encourage stakeholders to contribute their local insights, expectations and aspirations to the specification process.
I would like to share the feedback that I have received from some of my constituents about the rail services in my constituency, which reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). We very much appreciate our branch lines and think that they should be included in the franchise. We are very concerned that if branch lines are not compulsory and stipulated by the Department, it would be possible for a future operator to choose not to run those services if they became financially unviable. Especially for those of us from Cornwall, it is also important that the Department stipulates the need for a sleeper service to Cornwall. We would very much like to hear a commitment to the potential upgrading of the service to include modern facilities, such as en-suite showers and toilets.
In relation to the current franchise specification, the Department for Transport could also consider improving journey times between Cornwall and London. The requirement to make stops—often for very few passengers —at all stations slows the train down. I would like the Minister to consider whether some London trains could have fewer stops, with passengers using local services to connect with larger stations such as Truro. That would dramatically reduce the journey time between Penzance and London.
Cornwall has a fantastic record of support from the local authority, local volunteers and local business. As a result, the maritime line is the fastest growing rural line in the UK. This could be an opportunity to make partnership working and localism an integral part of the new franchise by empowering the local authority with direct involvement in the specification of services. It is also very important that the franchise is realistic about growth. The number of vehicles currently operating in our west fleet is 147. The original franchise specification for 2006 said that 102 vehicles would suffice. The new franchise must start from where we are today—cuts would be absolutely unacceptable—and recognise the considerable potential for growth over its period of operation.
The fact that there is a range of hon. Members here today representing a broad range of constituencies across the south-west shows that this is a vital franchise, which will be a very good test of the Government’s new franchise regime. We want to work with the Minister to ensure that the new franchise meets the key principles that the Government have set out while, at the same time, improving the service on the Penzance to Paddington line and the many important branch lines that support it.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—in Christmas spirit, I will describe her as my hon. Friend for today—for introducing the discussion. This is very much a cross-party debate, and I am pleased that she has managed to secure it. I am even more delighted that she has presented the case in an incredibly well-informed and balanced way. I hope that the Minister accepts that she made a really thoughtful contribution to what I am sure will be an excellent debate.
It is essential that those involved in preparing the franchise listen to the views of MPs from across the south-west on the priorities for our region and the importance of connectivity. They also need to listen to our individual concerns about the reliability and frequency of services to the towns and cities that we represent.
In the past six weeks, I convened a meeting of all south-west MPs to discuss connectivity across our region, particularly in respect of the rail franchise. I am therefore delighted at the timeliness of this debate. The meeting was incredibly well attended, as is today’s debate. Significant numbers of people came, which is an indication of the importance that we place on getting this right. I should also put on the record my thanks—and the thanks of other MPs—to Chris Irwin from TravelWatch SouthWest, Andrew Seedhouse from Plymouth university, Ray Bentley and Neill Mitchell for helping to ensure the debate and meeting was well-informed. They supplied briefings to all colleagues and attended in person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth has drawn attention to the common themes, and I make no apology for repeating some of them. It is essential that those involved in drawing up the franchise understand clearly that we want the new franchise to address some common concerns. As I have said, we also want full consideration to be given to issues that are specific to our constituencies.
To be honest, predating this Parliament, we as a group allowed things to slip under the radar a bit when the last franchise was being prepared and we got caught out. When the previous franchise was announced, we found that it was set significantly below the previous standard. The standard of service then was not all that good, but when the previous franchise was first proposed, it would have made things a whole lot worse—for example, we would have lost the sleeper service.
One of the key messages that we want to send out is that we need to ensure that the starting point for the franchise is at least the base line of the current service and that it should not be any lower. I will come on to this again, but, ideally, we need to keep one or two things that we currently have. It is also essential to ensure that other Departments feed into the process.
Any reduction in service would clearly impact on business and economic growth in the region, particularly in Plymouth, where we have just lost our airport. That leaves Plymouth, the 15th largest city in England, as one of only two large cities that is more than 10 miles from a motorway that does not have an airport—the other is Peterborough. I am sure colleagues will understand that, if Plymouth is to continue to be an economic driver for the region, it is vital to have reliable, affordable and fast services to other large cities—in particular, London and Birmingham—as well as to Heathrow, and I will come to that issue later.
Will the Minister explain how she intends to ensure that the wider economic benefits of the franchise are considered across Departments? I gently suggest to her that the issues specific to the franchise, on which decisions have been made in the past about additional revenue from fares, have not fully reflected the wider benefits—those not found in the fares box. Too many Government decisions on transport and the franchise have been silo based. I urge her to talk cross-Department to her colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, as well as to seek the views of local enterprise partnerships across the region, because they, too, will have a significant input into the process.
Will the Minister say—this point has already been made, but it is incredibly important to business people in my area—whether there will be a five or six-year franchise, which is the rumour, or whether there will be something practical and sensible, such as a 15-year franchise?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It might be sensible to answer that now. We published a notice in the official journal of the European Union expressing our intention to go for a 15-year franchise.
Alison Seabeck
That is very good news. I am delighted about the Minister’s confirmation, because that has been a cause of concern.
During the MPs’ meeting, it became clear from the evidence that was presented that our region’s population is growing fast. That point was made earlier, but Ministers and officials in Whitehall need to understand it. In my experience of two different Governments, I do not think that people really understand the south-west. They think that it is a green, leafy place where people go on holiday, but it is growing fast and has a huge potential that is being missed. If we do not get the right franchise, everything we have to offer will be wasted. That is an important point, and I particularly want officials to understand what the south-west has to offer.
All those issues need to be factored in, and we need to ensure that the mismatch in rail fares, which patently hits the south-west, is also addressed. I am afraid that that is the outcome of another botched privatisation, but there is a genuine issue that is well documented by TravelWatch SouthWest in its very good document. We have seen the Chancellor rectify or consider improving and correcting a mistake that was made with South West Water. I do not know whether anything can be done about rail fares, but they are clearly an important issue.
I will make a couple of key points about Plymouth and services into our city, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile)—my hon. Friend for the day, too—will re-enforce them if he is lucky enough to be called to speak. First, as I have pointed out, there are serious connectivity issues relating to our city—a city of more than 250,000 people. Secondly, we need to enable people to do business with our city. That means being able to arrive early enough for morning meetings. Plymouth is one of the top 10 locations for fast growing business, but we need people to be able to reach us by 10 am, not by noon, so we would really like to see a train leaving Paddington at approximately 5.55 am.
We would like to see more three-hour journeys and greater reliability. The signalling improvements that are happening in Reading will help with that. We are also keen to have links to Heathrow, because, without an air link, good rail connections are absolutely vital for both business and tourism. We would therefore be interested in supporting the Heathrow hub link. Given the long journeys on the franchise—five to six hours for colleagues in Cornwall—it is essential that bidders consider both comfort and wi-fi provision. That would certainly help; a lot of business can be done on a train. I have not even touched on the importance of improving connectivity via community rail links, which are growing exponentially in the south-west, or the benefits of improving car parking, bus connections, walking and cycling linkages, which, although not directly issues for the franchise, deserve wider consideration.
Overcrowding, which has already been mentioned, is a huge issue throughout the system. It is a problem for the Paddington to Penzance main line, which is what we should actually call it, rather than lose it in the greater south-western service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned, First Great Western operates 147 trains—some 40 more trains than was set out by the original franchise. That should therefore be the base level for the franchise. Once rolling stock is freed up by changes in other parts of the country, my plea is that it should be diverted to the south-west and not channelled up to the midlands and the north, as has happened in the past.
Our region’s rail links have been neglected historically. They are often seen as far too difficult, but we have heard already in the Chamber today, and we will hear again, a consensual call for additional resources to come to our region for good economic reasons—there is a real cost-benefit to investment. I hope the Minister is listening and will ensure that all the issues raised today are discussed at the highest level in Government.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate. I think we all agree that this issue is really important to all of our constituents. It is certainly an important issue for my constituents in South East Cornwall. The First Great Western train service from London to the south-west is a vital rail link for my constituency. The loss of the airport in Plymouth, and the fact that there is such a great distance between my constituency and Newquay airport in Cornwall, means that very often the railway is the only way that people can commute. I emphasise the importance of the train service for the tourism industry, and for people visiting family and friends. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is due to visit one of my branch lines in January to see for herself what beautiful lines we have in Cornwall, but also how important they are. I am very grateful to her for visiting south-east Cornwall.
As the Member of Parliament for South East Cornwall, I use the First Great Western service from Liskeard to London frequently. There are major issues that I have noticed, which my constituents continually bring to my attention, and I will share them with the Minister. As has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), rolling stock and overcrowding are big issues. Frequently, we have to change in Plymouth to carry on through to Penzance and use the small, two-carriage rolling stock, which is continually overcrowded and has luggage kept in the aisles. The amount of luggage compromises the safety of passengers on board. I recently witnessed one instance where a wheelchair user was unable to board the train in Liskeard, due to the amount of luggage on the train.
Alison Seabeck
I, too, have witnessed everybody trying to pile into those two carriages, because I get off at Plymouth. In the summer, when people have large surfboards—Cornwall is great for surfing—it must be almost impossible at times for people to get on, never mind somebody struggling with a wheelchair or a buggy.
Sheryll Murray
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. I have been on the train when many passengers have been forced to stand. What a lot of people do not understand is that someone who buys a first-class ticket from Paddington to Penzance and has to stand on the two-carriage train is entitled to a refund. The excessive cost represented by that could be channelled into improving the rolling stock. I ask the Minister to ensure that the provision of better rolling stock is included in any future franchise.
It is bad enough for someone such as me who is only travelling across the Tamar to Liskeard, or to Bodmin Parkway station in my constituency, but the journey must be horrendous for passengers travelling through to Penzance, especially during peak times. In September, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Transport about whether there were any plans to introduce new rolling stock on the First Great Western main line west of Plymouth in the next four years. The Minister replied:
“The Government are committed to a less prescriptive approach to the specification of rail franchises, with decisions such as rolling stock provision devolved primarily to franchise operators.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 992W.]
She might be interested to know, however, that First Great Western has told me that it is a Government problem. I ask her to ensure that the requirements for larger and improved rolling stock are included in the franchise specifically, so that there is no question about who is responsible in any future franchise.
Finally, I also make a bid for the retention of the sleeper service, which is the only way that I can get back to my constituency, given the sitting hours of Parliament and the need to start in my constituency at 9 o’clock on a Friday morning. Without the service, we would all be at a loss. I also emphasise how much it is used: in my experience, sometimes, it cannot be booked even a fortnight ahead because it is fully subscribed. The service is not underused—in fact, we could do with more carriages, not fewer.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
We have a number of Members standing, and it is my intention to bring in the Front Benchers from 10.40 am, so can you act with a little bit of brevity?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) that the Members of Parliament for the region covered by First Great Western will not be caught out in the franchise renewal, because that was certainly the experience of my constituents, in particular in Melksham, albeit before my constituency was created. Under the current franchise, a popular and well used service was cut to only two trains each way a day, and those trains run at times that are totally impractical for anyone hoping to use them for a sensible commute for a humane working week. I am determined that that should not be allowed to happen under the new franchise, but that instead we will see the franchise get Wiltshire moving and help people in my constituency to use the railways to get to work.
Three key, interrelated factors make a difference to the railway experience and to the potential of the railways to serve my constituents: service frequency, capacity and connections. Connections are an important solution to the conundrum, because they create the opportunity to relieve capacity and overcrowding in capacity bottlenecks and to increase the journey options, thereby disproportionately increasing service frequency for communities. In Wiltshire, we could have a few particular opportunities under the new franchise.
The railways Minister is more than familiar with the TransWilts rail service, which I have raised with her on countless occasions in the past 18 months. I am sure that she was as pleased as I at the success over the summer of the TransWilts rail partnership trial of extra Sunday services between Westbury and Swindon via Melksham. The take-up and the feedback on the service were good, and next year the partnership hopes to extend the trial to between May and mid-September. The TransWilts campaign group has comprehensive research behind it, demonstrating not only the need for more services but their cost-effectiveness and the strong support from the business community in our area for improved services through Melksham. The franchise specification process is an ideal opportunity to build upon that work; no line in the south-west region is better prepared for an expansion in services, having enjoyed them so recently, until the current franchise.
I was encouraged by the Government’s willingness to listen to us about the problems of overcrowding in my area, and chiefly by the prospect of additional capacity on the Cardiff to Portsmouth line which runs through Bradford-on-Avon in my constituency. There was certainly progress last Monday, when First Great Western announced two extra carriages on the 07.30 from Cardiff to Portsmouth, but only as far as Bristol Temple Meads. Unfortunately, that will not benefit Bradford-on-Avon passengers, who are still frequently unable to board trains or, even when they get on a train, to get a seat. That problem is not unique to Bradford-on-Avon or to my constituency; I often travel on First Great Western on Sundays and it is astonishing that even on Sunday afternoons it is not uncommon to find that one cannot get a seat on a First Great Western service into Paddington. Demand locally has risen well above the national level of growth, and I implore the Minister to consider overcrowding once more in further franchise specifications. I would appreciate her reassurance that in the Great Western franchise renewal process, bidders’ proposed efficiency measures will not be looked upon favourably if they involve cutting carriages and reducing seats. Franchisees should be required to deal with overcrowding not by pushing down demand with increased fares but by increasing capacity. Central Government can help by simplifying the rolling stock allocation system.
I have corresponded with the Minister about the opportunities presented by the new franchise, in particular on the prospect of services between Oxford and Bristol. I welcome the Chancellor’s support in the autumn statement for services between Oxford and Bedford, which will improve connections between west and east as far as Cambridge. There is a wonderful opportunity, on existing railway infrastructure, to extend the potential of such services with an Oxford to Bristol service under the Great Western franchise. Quite aside from the benefits of linking such high value-added university economies, there is also the opportunity of the reopening of Corsham station, which would be served by trains on that route.
Moneys have been set aside under section 106 agreements for redeveloping Corsham station, but progress has been slow and a real risk is that the developments seeking to contribute to improved railway infrastructure will have happened too long ago to draw upon. A commitment on Corsham station early in the course of the new franchise would be welcome. It should be noted that the road infrastructure often benefits from section 106 agreements. Substantial development of housing and employment sites around Melksham in my constituency has included funding for distributor roads and even a small bypass but, in that time, not a penny has been contributed to the rail infrastructure on which those same homes and businesses will depend.
I want to touch on the role of local authorities in the franchise renewal process. For a Government who believe in localism, it is important to ensure that the democratic voice of local areas is heard when determining the new specifications for the franchise. Liberal Democrat councillors in Wiltshire recently tabled a motion noting the opportunities that the stakeholder consultation presents for improving the county’s rail network. They welcomed the Minister’s encouragement to the council to
“discuss the potential for a Corsham station and a new Oxford-Bristol service with all bidders for the franchise”.
Welcoming the motion, the holder of the council’s public transport portfolio noted that, traditionally, the council has had nothing to do with the railways but that it now had clear objectives to include in the new franchise a number of the local schemes which I have mentioned this morning.
We could make the improved TransWilts service permanent. The council is bidding for £5 million from the local sustainable transport fund. I hope that the Department will look favourably on the innovation of that bid, and its value in connecting three mainline services across the county and therefore dramatically improving the options for journey planning for my constituents by linking services calling at Westbury, Trowbridge, Melksham, Chippenham and Swindon on existing railway infrastructure. The council is certainly determined to support an Oxford-Bristol service, which would allow new stations at Corsham and—I am sure this will interest hon. Members from Swindon who are present—Royal Wootton Bassett, which would be more accessible for some of their constituents than existing services at Swindon.
I am encouraged by the council’s willingness to engage with the Government, and I am keen to hear from the Minister how she plans to reciprocate that willingness to engage, and what mechanisms she is considering to incorporate in the specification process the views and recommendations of local authorities, and of the hon. Members who have come to this debate. I look forward to hearing her thoughts on that.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
It is a pleasure and a delight, Sir Alan, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for this debate, and congratulate her on securing it. During the debate, we will speak as a group of Members of Parliament with one voice. My constituency is the other half of Plymouth from that of my hon. Friend—for this morning—the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck).
I want to set the context for Plymouth. Around 250,000 people live in the city. We are a low-wage and a low-skills economy. We are the home of the Royal Navy, although other hon. Members may dispute that. We have a nuclear licence for our nuclear submarines, which makes Plymouth an important part of our defence. We have a brilliant, dynamic university. We have a reputation for being the global leader in marine science engineering research, and we must talk that up much more.
Members of Parliament from Devon and Cornwall make up around 19% of the coalition Government’s membership, so it is important and would be helpful if the Minister recognised that when she makes decisions. I know that, after the 2005 election, three Labour Members of Parliament worked hard to try to convince Ministers, but I suspect that they did not have the political clout to do so. We are in a unique position to ensure that we get the story right.
Plymouth feels incredibly isolated. Not only are we losing the airport—believe you me, I for one have been subject to an enormous amount of correspondence and discussion about that—but we have only one proper dual access to the peninsula, and we saw last month, when the M5 crash happened, how difficult that can be. Just last Friday, as I was driving to my constituency, I was stuck on the A38 for three hours because there had been a car accident that required the Devon air ambulance to pick someone up. It made it difficult to get there.
There is real concern about the lack of transport infrastructure, and a genuine feeling that no one is interested in hearing what happens in Devon and Cornwall, and certainly in Plymouth. Some 38% of people who work in Plymouth do so in the public sector. If we want to rebalance our economy, we desperately need to ensure that we have the necessary transport infrastructure. If we are successful in that, there will be an enormous roll-out throughout the regional economy, and we need that.
The First Great Western franchise is up for grabs again. It has decided not to put in for an extension to its current franchise, because it is keen to ensure the necessary investment in infrastructure, new trains and so on. We know that train journeys may be badly delayed during the winter, especially when the sea wall at Dawlish is flooded in a big way. We have an opportunity to ensure that we get the infrastructure right.
What do we want? We want more three-hour train journeys to and from London, and we want to make sure that we can get from London to Plymouth before 11 o’clock in the morning. If people want to do a decent job of work, they want to ensure that they can meet people at 9 or 10 o’clock. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View made clear, that is a key issue.
We need decent access to Heathrow. If we lose our airport, which, unfortunately, I think we will—I shall do everything I can to try to ensure that that does not happen—we must ensure that we have good connections to airports. Our best regional airport is Exeter, and it would be helpful if we could have a good bus link straight in to the airport, or a decent rail link so that people can get away.
We need to retain the rail sleeper service, and we need good wi-fi on trains. If business men want to work while travelling to Plymouth, they want to be able to communicate with their customers, and that needs to be not just in first class, but in second class if we are to be inclusive.
The cost of tickets is horrendous. When I travel back to London as I occasionally do on the railways on a Sunday, engineering works prohibit me from getting back in good time, and the journey can take for ever.
Another point is that electrification of the line to Plymouth is important. When Michael Ancram was deputy leader and chairman of the Conservative party he came to Plymouth, went to see Tim Smit who runs the Eden project, and asked him what was the one thing that could regenerate activity in the peninsula. Tim Smit’s reply was electrification of the line.
I pay tribute to Neil Mitchell, an independent transport consultant who has worked incredibly closely and done an incredibly good job on the matter. Our meeting the other day with all the Members of Parliament in Devon and Cornwall was incredibly helpful in ensuring that we got some of our message across.
My final point is that Plymouth is not Portsmouth. We are not 20 minutes from Bristol. Please make sure that we stop being ignored.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing this debate, which is important to all of us in the far south-west. I want to touch on three key matters: first, the franchising system, and particularly the duration of the franchises; secondly, some of my concerns about the consequences of electrification for those of us in the far south-west; and thirdly, the sleeper service.
I welcome what the Minister said about the commitment to 15-year franchises. The matter was causing some concern in the industry because there had been speculation that the Government might be backing away from that. It is incredibly important with issues such as transport to make a long-term commitment to provide the right environment for investment. A couple of years ago I attended a speech by the former Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, who said that, although transport is invariably about long-term infrastructure investment decisions, in the past 50 years, Britain has had some 45 different Transport Secretaries. That shows how difficult it is to maintain a long-term perspective. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) pointed out some of the problems with privatisation, and a key one was that it encouraged too much short-termism, short-term franchises and a system for sweating assets instead of investing in them for the future.
The Conservative party recognised that when in opposition, and for some years we have been committed to the idea of longer franchises. We recognise the benefits of vertical integration in which train companies are encouraged to invest for the long term. Such a step will be welcome in the industry.
As we know, the line will not be electrified all the way to Penzance in the foreseeable future, but the Government are committed to progressively electrifying the south-west line and the first phase of that will be the electrification of the line to Newbury. In order to accommodate that, I understand that the Government are considering investing in bi-mode trains that run on electric wires when they are in an electric area, and then switch to diesel when they are not. The concern, however, is that the trains currently selected for such a use do not have diesel engines that are sufficiently powerful to deal with the gradients west of Newton Abbot. When Brunel designed the track into Cornwall he came up with an interesting way of using tracks that could deal with steeper gradients, while at the same time designing trains that could work on those gradients. It would be a sorry state of affairs if after all these years we end up with trains that cannot work on such gradients.
The Government say that they will continue to use high-speed diesel trains on the Penzance line. What will happen, however, if the line is electrified to Taunton, Exeter or even Plymouth? How long will it be before people say that since the line has been electrified that far, we can no longer justify diesel trains that go all the way to Penzance? How long will it be before those of us who live in Cornwall arrive at Exeter and hear the words, “All change please, this train terminates here” before we get off and are invited to board a rickety old train that no one else in the country wants to use? It is important to think ahead, and unless the entire line is going to be electrified in the foreseeable future, we must invest in bi-mode trains that are capable of going all the way to Penzance. That will mean that, even if the line is electrified as far as Exeter, the rest of us will not have to change but can remain on the same train.
I know that the Minister used the sleeper service to Penzance while in opposition, so she will know what a crucial link it is for those of us in Cornwall. At a time when we are trying to discourage excessive flights, particularly domestic flights, the sleeper service provides a vital link for the business community. The sleeper service beats flying by a country mile and is the only service that enables someone to work in London until 11 o’clock, and then get on the train and be in Cornwall in time for an 8 o’clock meeting the following day. It is also the only service that will get someone into London from Cornwall in time for an early morning meeting. Last time the service was threatened, a vociferous and successful campaign was led by the late Sir Eddie George—I signed his petition to preserve the service. I now use the sleeper service almost every week and I would recommend it to anyone; it is the most civilised way to travel to Cornwall and the staff are superb. It would be a real failure if we were to lose it.
Last time the sleeper service was under threat, there was some suggestion that the issue was not only its financial viability, but that Network Rail wanted to do engineering work overnight and found the sleeper train rather inconvenient. It should not, however, be beyond the wit of man to deal with that issue and park the train somewhere while engineering works take place. I would like some reassurance from the Minister on that point.
We must think carefully about the type of bi-mode train in which we invest for the future, and if we cannot significantly reduce the journey time to west Cornwall in the foreseeable future—it is a five-and-a-half or six-hour train journey—we must ensure that the experience is as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. That is why we need a franchising system that encourages investment in the long term. I am concerned that, by being too prescriptive about minimum standards, the Railways Act 2005 encourages a kind of Dutch auction. We need a competitive system where companies compete to offer a better service, and where that is given more weight than the amount of money tendered. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing a debate that I think most hon. Members in the Chamber have bid for at some stage. Fortunately, she got lucky just before Christmas, and I am grateful to her for that. I am also grateful to the Minister for attending the debate. We have had many discussions about rail services to and from Swindon, and she knows the passion that I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) feel for railways, especially considering Swindon’s unique railway heritage as the hub of the Great Western Railway. We regard Swindon as its home.
To bring things bang up to date, Swindon is a thriving town of 200,000 inhabitants, with rail services that run to the west, the east, the midlands and the south and are relied on by thousands of commuters in the town and region. Connectivity to London, Heathrow and other parts of the south is vital, and time and again that is cited as an important issue to local businesses and passengers.
The draft franchise document will be of huge significance and must meet the aspirations of rail users, both passenger services and freight. It must also be based on a correct set of specifications. In short, the mistakes that were made in the 2006 franchise must not be repeated; we must not step backwards. We must start by looking at the current service, rather than holding a Dutch auction—as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said—to see who can get to the bottom the fastest.
Since 2006, there has been a race to rectify some of the problems that have been created. How many of us have had to endure problems with punctuality, for example, and how glad are we that much has been done to rectify that situation? The recent Government announcement about extra capacity will provide some relief, but we are running to stand still. As I have said, those issues were not properly addressed.
Mr Buckland
I do not have time to take an intervention because other Members wish to speak.
Unless the new franchise delivers a service that is punctual and has appropriate capacity and competitive ticket prices, it will have been a missed opportunity. To put it bluntly: if our passengers do not get value for money, we will have failed.
Peak fares from Swindon remain unduly high compared with those from neighbouring stations and other parts of the network. That seems to be a hangover from another time, and it is causing a competitive disadvantage. Season ticket holders who have to travel at peak hours and are captives of the service now pay in excess of £7,000 a year, yet the service that they receive does not even guarantee them a seat at certain times of the day. That is wrong, and I believe that the terms of reference and the franchise process must specifically address the needs of frequent users and season ticket holders. I accept that smart ticketing may help, but I feel strongly that more needs to be done to cater for that group, perhaps by introducing reserved seating, for example, or by offering an enhanced service that makes people feel valued.
The link between improved rail services and wider economic benefits is clear, and we should factor in such considerations to the franchising process. Just as road schemes are often justified in terms of their wider economic benefit, we must ensure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury are involved and engaged with the rail service to allow the fullest exploration of any wider economic benefits. Locally, we need strong engagement between the Department for Transport and the new Swindon and Wiltshire local enterprise partnership.
Justin Tomlinson
Briefly, it is not only the LEP that is supportive of such an initiative. We regularly meet different business forums that highlight transport as a No. 1 priority. Swindon’s economic base has grown, owing to businesses relocating there, but the biggest barrier to that is the cost of train travel.
Mr Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that local point, and I will develop it briefly. I have been looking at the regional significance of Swindon, and I would like to echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) about the importance of developing local services and local branch stations. For too long, obstacles have often been put in the way of the development of local services, because of the needs of the main line. Again, we need to examine the tendering process and ensure that options such as the development of a branch station just to the west of Swindon, which the Minister knows I am passionate about, will become a reality.
There is no reason not to be optimistic about rail in the south-west, because, as we have seen, the growth is exponential. More and more people are using rail services. Therefore, the franchise needs to be an optimistic one. It needs to be based on an upward projection of growth and to avoid the lamentable mistakes of five years ago. I am delighted that the Minister has listened to my protestations, among others, and that the Government have preferred a 15-year term for the franchise, rather than something shorter. My right hon. Friend has been saying yes to many of my requests recently and yes to many of the demands of the people of Swindon. I hope that she will say yes again to some of the observations that we have made about this vital process.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate. I will be brief because one more Back Bencher wants to speak. I also congratulate the Government on going for a 15-year franchise, but of course with that comes the responsibility to get it right, because it is a much longer-term contract. My hon. Friend made the point that it will also give the company the chance to put in the investment that will improve services.
May I make the point that the west country does not stop at Bristol? Although Bristol is very important, much of the west country is west of Bristol. My Cornish friends are very welcome here this morning; but of course, to get to Cornwall, one has to go through Devon. I therefore make a plea for us to build on the junction at Tiverton in my constituency. We want to increase the industrial parks around Tiverton, so there is a chance to move some industrial goods by rail at Tiverton. In the future, a new station at Cullompton would also be very much welcomed.
Ours is a very important part of the country. If we consider the issue from a tourism angle, we find that people come to London first, and then if they are asked where they want to go next, they say that they want to go to the west country, particularly Devon and Cornwall of course. They quite like Somerset and they occasionally go to Wiltshire and occasionally stop off in Bristol. To be serious, we do need that business. Plymouth airport is being closed. The airport at Exeter is building up, but it is not yet big. Bristol airport is doing quite well. However, many people still come in through Heathrow, so the contacts between areas and getting to and from Heathrow and the railway are also important issues.
All those matters need to be taken into consideration. As I said, the Government are right to go for a 15-year contract, but we need to consider the relevant issues very carefully when we award that contract.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak towards the end of this most important debate. The tender of the First Great Western franchise is of key interest not just to my constituents in Gloucester and throughout the county of Gloucestershire, but, as we have heard, across the entire south-west region. I hugely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing a debate that is of such importance to, I suspect, about 40 coalition MPs and a handful from the Opposition.
There are six key issues to canter through in relation to the retendering process, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for rail will be listening carefully, as she has been all morning to the points made by hon. Members. First, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) about thinking long term. A long-term franchise must be good for the region. It requires us all to respond ambitiously in thinking 15 years ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth referred to growth and capacity. Certainly on the London-to-Gloucester line, it is crucial that we have more trains, both in the mornings, inevitably, and in the evenings. There is no service to Gloucestershire after 7.45 pm other than the one that leaves at 11 o’clock at night and arrives the next morning. Additional capacity is therefore very important. I appreciate that there are capacity problems getting into Paddington, but we do need more.
With regard to punctuality, it is worth noting that significant progress was made on the First Great Western service after 2005, but the recent decline or deterioration, which is possibly connected with Network Rail’s failings, needs to be examined.
On where the trains stop and the speed of the service, all First Great Western services currently stop at Gloucester, and that must continue after the redoubling of the Swindon-Kemble line, which is so important to us all. However, it is not obvious to me why every train should stop at every little station on the Cotswold part of the journey. I am thinking about the service being speeded up. It is worth noting that it is slower between Swindon and Gloucester than a car journey, except at peak traffic times.
The Minister will know how grateful we all are to have heard about the plans for electrification to go as far as Swindon on the journey that we are discussing, although not all the way to Gloucester and Cheltenham. We should definitely be considering that within the lifetime of the franchise.
A number of hon. Members mentioned difficulties with fares. The issue involves price and, almost as important, the need to rationalise the number of different fares, so that the process is simpler and easier to understand. The difference between an off-peak and a full-fare single journey between Gloucester and Paddington is the difference between £25 and £85—an enormous multiple.
I should be grateful to the Minister if she said whether the fact that there have been additional carriages on the service in the last year of the franchise will be taken into consideration during the retendering process. I think that that is important. It is also worth asking whether infrastructure at stations can be included in the tendering process. At the moment, we need a new ticket office and revenue protection barriers. Those will be going in shortly, but certainly within the lifetime of the new franchise, we also need to have a separate waiting room and ticket office. That is important for customers at Gloucester.
Overall, the crucial point that I would make, which has been made in different ways by several hon. Members, is that we all agree that train travel—rail travel—is a critical catalyst for growth and a key part of our transport infrastructure. It is true to say that in the south-west it has been rather overlooked in the past and, arguably, in the present, with all the excitement about High Speed 2. I therefore add my voice to those of hon. Members who have already spoken to ask the Minister to look favourably on ways to improve capacity, punctuality, electrification, infrastructure and fare rationalisation on this important line from Paddington to Gloucester and Cheltenham and to support the growth of rail services across Gloucestershire and our region.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Before we hear from the Front Benchers, I point out that there is one hon. Member who stood but was not called. It may be appropriate if Mr Carmichael catches the eye of either one of the Front Benchers if he still wishes to speak.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate and on setting out so clearly the needs of local people and businesses in the south-west.
The debate is very timely, given yesterday’s issuing of the invitation to tender for the Great Western rail passenger franchise. It may be a coincidence that that was published on the eve of the debate, but if not, I congratulate the hon. Lady on prompting Ministers to get at least that part of their franchise programme on track.
I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House who are here to represent constituencies right along the route in relation to the new franchise. I shall pick out just a few of the key points that they made. They talked about ensuring that the baseline for the new franchise is no less than the current service, the need for fares to be affordable, the need for faster services, especially for the benefit of business passengers—the south-west region depends on businesses for economic growth—the importance of a link to Heathrow airport, the vital importance of tackling overcrowding, and the retention of a sleeper service to Cornwall. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some assurances on each of those points.
Several Members welcomed the opportunity to provide long-term investment, but that surely requires a degree of certainty. It is therefore of great concern that invitations to tender for franchises are being issued before the Government have decided what their franchising policy is. The First Great Western franchise ITT states:
“The contract will be based on the Franchise Agreement currently being revised in line with Government policy.”
It would surely have been sensible to finalise the franchising policy and the franchise agreement in time for the publication of the invitations to tender.
Unfortunately, it is not just the franchise agreement that is yet to be finalised by Ministers; the entire rail strategy is now running late. The departmental plan promised to:
“Develop and publish detailed proposals on delivering a sustainable railway including reform of Network Rail”,
but that, along with so much else, has slipped back to 2012. It seems that the Secretary of State inherited an in-tray overflowing with decisions her predecessor had sat on. Given yesterday’s determination by the Office of Rail Regulation that Network Rail is in breach of its licence because of the worsening performance on the national network, passengers are right to be frustrated that there is no sign of the promised reform.
As the process of renewing the franchises begins, we are left with more questions than answers. For example, we are no nearer knowing how committed Ministers are to rail devolution, and neither are prospective bidders. The ITT says:
“In line with the Government’s aspiration for decentralisation, the franchise may be let so as to permit future changes in the way that discrete parts of the network”—
Mrs Villiers
I feel obliged to correct the hon. Lady. We have not issued an ITT for First Great Western yet. The ITT comes after the consultation. If we issue the ITT before the consultation, we are unable to take on board the views of stakeholders. I am not sure what ITT the hon. Lady is reading from, but it is not First Great Western’s.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Minister for her clarification, but it is the information that was published yesterday in relation to the future franchise.
The publication the Minister produced mentions
“changes in the way that discrete parts of the network are financed, monitored and managed by organisations other than the DfT.”
The Opposition support rail devolution, which should go hand in hand with stronger transport authorities. We would like parts of the country such as the south-west, which do not currently have the benefit of integrated transport authorities, to have them. That would give the constituents of hon. Members who are here today more control and the opportunity to ensure that their needs are met. Could the Minister therefore update us on progress on rail devolution? What plans does she have for the devolution of services in the south-west? Will she confirm that devolution relates to funds and not just responsibilities? In parts of the country such as the south-west, which do not have an integrated transport authority, who, other than the DFT, does she envisage will be the relevant organisations?
The Department is similarly vague on the eventual reforms to cost and revenue risk, saying only:
“Revenue risk will be subject to a support mechanism probably linked to economic factors”,
but “probably” seems a bit vague for this stage in the process. Will the Minster therefore provide further details of how she intends to ensure that taxpayers get a fair deal from the new franchise and that we do not have a repeat of the licences to print money we have seen in recent years?
The Opposition have been highly critical of the way in which First Great Western has been able to end its 10-year franchise three years early—before the Minister jumps to her feet again, let me say that I appreciate the fact that the contract was agreed under the previous Government. I hope this Government have learned the lessons from the franchises that were signed in the years following privatisation so that contracts do not back-load premium payments while allowing a break clause. That has enabled First Great Western to avoid payments of an estimated £826 million, while, as now looks likely, bidding to run the franchise again.
There are also questions about what is to happen to the stations on the First Great Western line, and several Members have raised particular concerns. The invitation that has been issued states:
“The franchisee will be expected to take full repairing leases on some or all of the stations that it operates other than on Network Rail managed stations.”
Why is there the reference to
“some or all of the stations”
and what will happen to the others? If a private train operator takes control of stations, will that be within the 15-year franchise, or on the basis of 99-year leases, as Ministers have suggested? If it is within the 15-year franchise, what will happen at the end of the 15-year period? If the franchise changes hands in 15 years, one possibility is that there will have to be a significant payment to the outgoing train operating company, thereby skewing the refranchising in its favour, or are Ministers opening up the prospect of an operating company retaining the management of the stations even after losing the franchise to operate the trains? Potentially, we could see station access charges as well as track access charges, with yet more work for lawyers, more fragmentation and more cost to the taxpayer.
There are also questions about the trains to be used on the First Great Western line under the new franchise. The document says:
“It is currently expected that the franchise operator will take responsibility for the provision of rolling stock. From 2017 new Intercity Express Trains (‘IEP’) are anticipated to be delivered to the franchise operator”.
Will the Minister explain why it is only “expected” that the new franchise holder will be responsible for rolling stock? Will she confirm that the Department cannot force the new operator to lease the IEP trains? Given the Department’s admission that the leasing costs for the IEP trains will be greater than for the alternatives, what assurances can she provide that the IEP trains will actually be put into service? Will she give more details about the discussions First Great Western, and indeed East Coast, are reported to have had with rolling stock companies about potentially using more Pendolinos on these franchises, as opposed to the IEP trains being built by Hitachi? It is incredible that the taxpayer has spent tens of millions of pounds developing these new trains, on which jobs in the north-east depend, when responsibility for leasing trains rests with the private operators. As several Members have said, it is vital that the new franchise increases capacity to tackle overcrowding, rather than pricing passengers off the railways. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) graphically described the problems of overcrowding on inadequate train carriages. It is therefore vital that we know what rolling stock is to be delivered.
Potential operators of the new franchise are also having to bid without the Government’s having decided how best to address the clear need to improve links to Heathrow and High Speed 2—if the Government decide, as we hope they do, to give HS2 the green light. As the document says:
“Options for longer term enhancements of rail links to Heathrow, such as Western Access and Airtrack Lite, are being considered”.
Whether they go ahead will have a significant bearing on the franchise. Will the Minister provide an update on the Government’s thinking on the issue, particularly given that several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for South East Cornwall have highlighted the loss of Plymouth airport and, therefore, the importance of establishing such connections?
As hon. Members know, the Opposition have put forward their own proposal, which would offer the south-west significant benefits in terms of access to Heathrow and HS2. Our policy review concluded that we were wrong to reject the proposal to create a major new transport hub near Heathrow linking HS2, Crossrail and the First Great Western main line. We have proposed moving the west of London stop from Old Oak Common to near Heathrow. That was previously the Conservative party’s policy, and it was backed at the time by the Minister. Indeed, some tell us—quite authoritatively—that she may still hold that view.
As the Minister will know, the creation of a Heathrow hub has several benefits. First, it has the potential to save taxpayers money, by removing the need to build an expensive spur to Heathrow during the later stages of the HS2 project and opening up the potential for greater private investment in the scheme. Secondly, it will benefit Heathrow by improving access to our major hub airport, especially from the south-west. Thirdly, it will increase the potential for more of the country to feel the benefits of HS2, not least by improving connectivity to the south, the south-west and Wales. HS2 will benefit the nation as a whole, but those living in parts of the country that are not directly served by it need to feel that those benefits are real to them. Fourthly, taking the high-speed line direct to Heathrow from the start will inevitably change the route and open up the prospect of making greater use of existing transport corridors and avoiding the widest part of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty.
The debate gives the Minister a timely opportunity to provide clarification on the many questions that need answering regarding the Government’s rail franchising policy and particularly the tender for the First Great Western franchise. Passengers in the south-west need and expect a better rail service than the one they have at present. With six of the 10 most overcrowded services running out of Paddington station, there is a considerable need for the investment the Labour Government set in motion, not least for the further electrification of the First Great Western main line.
As well as investing in infrastructure, we need to improve the way passenger services are delivered. The Opposition are clear that that requires the genuine devolution of rail services and a fundamental review of the very structure of our rail industry. Given that the Government look set to maintain the existing industry model, we need, at the very least, to have tough new rules for rail franchises. We need to ensure that the often poor quality of service experienced by rail passengers in the south-west, which Members have described today, is not repeated in the future.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, as ever. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) on securing the debate at such a timely point. Yesterday, the Government fired the starting gun on the process for selecting the new franchisee with the publication of a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. We propose to issue a consultation in the next few days, which we expect will close at the end of March. The debate is thus well timed, and I welcome all the speeches that have been made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) put it, all hon. Members spoke with one voice about the importance of the process that we are undertaking. We will consider all the representations made today and during the consultation.
Alison Seabeck
On that very point, will the Minister promise today that she will take a meeting of all the south-west MPs, once that consultation is under way and we have had the opportunity to look at the franchise? We will certainly have views on it.
Mrs Villiers
I am happy to give the hon. Lady that undertaking. It will be a good contribution to the decision-making process.
Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has emphasised the economic importance of the Great Western rail network. They included my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Clearly, it has a crucial role. Rail connectivity supports jobs and growth, and is, in particular, vital for the tourism sector, which is such an important part of the economy in the area served by the Great Western franchise. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, it would be positive for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Treasury, local enterprise partnerships and local authorities to be engaged in the important decision in question.
Passenger demand has grown across much of the Great Western network in recent years, as many hon. Members have acknowledged.
Neil Carmichael
I hope that the Minister will take on board the need to modernise the rail track as a whole, so that we can get more trains on the track. That is certainly relevant to connectivity for my constituency, and will make a big difference to the network as a whole.
Mrs Villiers
Improving infrastructure is an important part of the way we are seeking to improve rail services on the Great Western network.
As an example of what I was saying about demand, passenger numbers on the Falmouth to Truro line have doubled since 2006. In the process on which we now are embarking we need, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, to learn lessons from the serious mistakes made when the current franchise was let under the previous Government. After a reduced service was specified on some routes, demand increased considerably, once the new franchise became operational. That resulted in controversial crowding, compounded by significant problems with reliability. Following on from that, a number of services were added to the franchise over and above the contracted minimum. The coalition recently agreed to fund a further 54 carriages on the network, including roughly 4,500 extra seats on the Thames valley lines. However, as my hon. Friends have said, demand continues to increase, so that crowding levels are still a live issue for the franchise.
To respond to passenger concerns about crowding and to support the economy, jobs and growth, the Government have prioritised investment in our rail network. Our programme of rail improvements is on a bigger scale than anything since the Victorian era. Some of the most ambitious and important changes will be taking place in the area served by the Great Western franchise. They include the intercity express programme to deliver a new fleet of electric and bi-mode trains and extra capacity; electrification of the lines linking Paddington, Bristol, Cardiff, Oxford and Newbury; upgrades to signalling and train operating systems; provision of an electric suburban fleet; a massive redevelopment of Reading station; Crossrail infrastructure works and rolling stock introduction; and, last but not least, the redoubling of the Swindon-Kemble line. Ultimately those will generate major benefits for passengers and for the economy of the area served by the franchise. However, delivering a programme on that scale is bound to have an impact on services during the construction and delivery phase, so franchise bidders will be expected to present robust proposals for minimising disruption during the upgrade works, with a keen focus on the needs of passengers.
As several of my hon. Friends have acknowledged, we are reforming rail franchising to give operators greater flexibility to respond to customer demand in a commercial way, but within a framework set by the franchise, which protects key outcomes, key journey opportunities for passengers, taxpayers and the economy. Our starting point in setting the specification for the franchise will be the current level of service rather than the contracted minimum. We also expect the franchise to include requirements on passenger satisfaction, for example in relation to stations, which several hon. Members have called for. As I have said, we propose a 15-year term for the new franchise. We believe that the increased certainty that that will provide will encourage private sector investment in the railways and the sort of long-term thinking called for by my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for South Swindon. A longer franchise should also make it easier for the new operators to build the long-term working relationships with Network Rail and other stakeholders, such as local authorities, that are crucial to an efficient and successful railway. We will be asking bidders to consider how they would strengthen the reliability of services and improve stations and trains. Throughout the process, Passenger Focus will have a vital role to play, emphasising the huge importance that the Department places on passenger concerns. We are grateful for the useful input that Passenger Focus has already given us.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester and for Truro and Falmouth and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, and others, called for faster journey times on the route. Those would in some circumstances require investment in infrastructure. That, of course, would involve a call on the taxpayer. The case for such investment can be strengthened if the wider economic benefits of improved connectivity can be properly understood and analysed. There is obviously a unified view among my hon. Friends about that, and it may be productive for hon. Members to work with local authorities, LEPs and other stakeholders in the south-west, to evaluate more formally the potential benefits of the kind of infrastructure works that would improve journey times, and such things as further electrification, which others have mentioned today. Other relevant issues might be the adoption of the model that has been used successfully in the north, on the northern hub or in relation to east-west rail, with the overall costs and benefits, and the possibility of section 106 contributions to the line, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames). If faster journey times would involve taking out intermediate stops, the concerns of the communities that value those stops would need to be fully considered.
I know how important the sleeper service is in the south-west. We are at too early a stage to be able to announce all the final decisions, but we would expect bidders to consider clearly and carefully the popularity of the service when they were developing their proposals for the train services to run under the franchise. We will also be interested to hear bidders’ and other stakeholders’ proposals on additional electrification. We can see great benefits in western access to Heathrow, and are looking seriously at that in conjunction with our work on High Speed 2. If the Government go ahead with their HS2 plans, the interchange at Old Oak Common would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, provide important new journey opportunities for people outside the south-west.
We fully recognise the concern about rail fares and the pressure they place on family budgets, which is why the Chancellor has secured funding to cancel the proposed RPI plus 3 increase and revert to RPI plus 1 for the January fare increases. However, we recognise that it is vital to provide a longer-term solution, which means getting the cost of running the railways down, so that we can provide better value for money for passengers. We will expect the new operator for the Great Western franchise to develop close working relationships with Network Rail, as they are essential for bringing the costs of the railways down, as Sir Roy McNulty demonstrated.
We are keen to explore the scope for devolving further aspects of rail to local authorities. We plan to publish in the near future a consultation on devolution options for rail services in England. We have been discussing devolution with a range of local authorities including Devon and Cornwall, which have expressed interest. There is plenty of scope to use existing mechanisms to strengthen the input of the community and local authorities in the refranchising proposals.
I welcome the speeches that have been made today. I hope that all hon. Members will take part in the consultation and encourage their constituents to do the same.
Child Support Payments
(13 years 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 Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Earlier this year, I was approached by Miss Nicola Richardson of Gilfach, Bargoed, who was concerned about the lack of financial support from her non-resident ex-partner for their two children. My constituent explained to me that her ex-partner did not have to pay any maintenance to the Child Support Agency, as he was a retained, or part-time, fireman, and his income from that work was excluded. The CSA assessment that Miss Richardson received stated that her ex-partner was to pay zero pounds.
Understandably, my constituent thought that to be extremely unfair, and I could think of no logical reason why she should have received such an assessment. I therefore made inquiries to the CSA and was informed that what my constituent told me was accurate. According to paragraph 4(2), schedule 1 of the Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000,
“any payment made in respect of the performance of duties as…a part-time fireman”
is not included within the calculation of a non-resident parent’s net weekly income.
The CSA informed me that similar exclusions apply for other occupations, including
“members of the auxiliary coastguard in respect of coast rescue activities, persons involved part-time in the manning or launching of a lifeboat, local councillors and members of the territorial or reserved armed forces”.
I was told that the purpose of the exemptions for those occupations is to encourage voluntary public service and to ensure that maintenance calculations can be made efficiently.
The explanation went on to state that, if such earnings were not exempt, the calculation of a non-resident parent’s net weekly income would be dependent on attendance-based earnings for the performance of duties, which could vary from week to week. According to the CSA, that would mean that there was a necessity to recalculate the amount due to be paid weekly. It also stated that that would have a “significant effect” on its ability to keep cases fully up to date, and therefore on its ability to provide
“an acceptable service to the vast majority of our clients”.
I found that to be quite a remarkable reply. To begin with, how can such exemptions, particularly in the case of part-time firefighters, be to encourage voluntary public service? Part-time firefighters are on an annual salary, ranging from £3,622.50 to £15,390. In the case of Miss Richardson’s ex-partner, he has been a part-time fireman for some 12 years, and my guess is that his salary is towards the upper end of that range. The work of part-time firefighters is to be commended, but by any stretch of anyone’s imagination, it is certainly not voluntary.
The other justification of the CSA is basically down to the fact that it finds it too much of an inconvenience to bother to work out a fair payment based on a variable salary. The result is that hard-pressed mothers and their children are being deprived of much needed financial assistance to which they are certainly morally entitled.
Having been amazed by the regulations and the CSA’s interpretation, which I have no doubt is accurate, I wrote to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller). She confirmed to me that what the CSA indicated was accurate, about which I have no doubt. In a letter to me in August, she stated that
“the law is quite clear on this matter”—
indeed it is. Disappointingly, in response to my question about whether the Government had any intention to review the law, I was informed in no uncertain terms that there are
“currently no plans to change this legislation”.
I hope that she will today have second thoughts.
I hope that I have highlighted an aspect of the CSA regulations that is clearly unfair. Understandably, my constituent feels strongly about the issue. She has organised a local petition—I have a copy of it with me—which has already attracted many hundreds of signatures. The petition makes the essential point that, because of the regulations, children are being denied the support that they need and to which they are surely entitled.
At the end of the day, the issue is not about the efficacy of regulations, but about ensuring that the resident parent has the financial means to enable their children to enjoy a healthy and secure childhood. That is why I strongly believe that it is necessary to have a discussion about it. I recognise the complexity, but let us stand four-square behind the principle of fairness and change the regulations once and for all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) on securing this debate. He has experienced a problem that many other hon. Members have encountered, and the debate gives us an opportunity to ensure that there is absolute clarity on how the Government will address the special occupation rules that he has drawn to the attention of the House today.
First, it is absolutely important for me—I am sure that I also speak for the hon. Gentleman when I say this—to pay tribute to the vital role played by people in the occupations that he has mentioned. Whether part-time firefighters, lifeboat men, servicemen, our councillors or auxiliary coastguards, among others, they carry out absolutely vital roles at the heart of our communities and with our armed forces; roles that keep our communities moving forward. That group of people—I am sure that he will agree with me—give a great deal to our community and understand the importance of duty and service. A broken child maintenance system is failing them, letting them and many other people down.
When the second child maintenance scheme was established in 2003, it was felt that earnings from such occupations should not be included as income when calculating what child maintenance to pay. That decision was taken to simplify the system. Such simplification proved to be desperately necessary, not least because the new IT system introduced in 2003—a specifically designed and built bespoke system—could not cope with the demands made of it.
A great deal has been learned in the intervening eight years about how best to approach computerised databases, and today the Government take an entirely different approach. For example, the new IT system introduced for personal independence payments and the new child maintenance system—the future scheme—will use out-of-the-box solutions; they will be applied to a situation, but have not been developed specifically for that situation. With personal independence payments, we are using an IT solution that is already in use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.
Back in 2003, the new IT system for the Child Support Agency had been built from scratch. There were significant problems—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember them, because he has served in this place longer than I have—from the word go with the coding and build of untried systems. At that time, the payments made to clients from the occupations that we are talking about tended to be relatively small. That is no longer always the case, and I have an enormous amount of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.
Although the current position was established for a number of reasons, I believe that it is unsustainable. No matter how praiseworthy the efforts of those in part-time professions are, they are often parents, and their children must be at the forefront of our minds when we develop such policy. I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, who work tirelessly to secure money for children from separated families.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the current IT system continues to be a source of grave concern, which is why we are launching a new child maintenance scheme next year that will replace the current Child Support Agency schemes and its two IT systems. Hon. Members may also be aware that the second system continues to have significant problems. Some 100,000 cases can no longer be dealt with in the system and must be handled clerically at almost double the cost. In practice, a third IT system must be deployed.
As part of developing the new scheme, I have considered whether non-resident parents should have the income from so-called special occupations taken into account. The effects of the current position can be serious. For example, a non-resident parent, who is a member of the Territorial Army deployed to Afghanistan for a number of months—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has constituents who are in that position—and who derives their sole income for this period from their pay as a soldier has a child maintenance liability of nil. That is different from the position of the regular soldiers serving alongside them who continue to be liable to pay maintenance and of their colleagues whose children continue to be part of their current family. The effect is to leave the children of TA soldiers and any others who fall into this category who are non-resident parents and are deployed on operations entirely unsupported for an extended period. Not including this income within the child maintenance calculation is unacceptable. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments and believe that we should change the rules.
For the new child maintenance scheme, we propose to base the liability of such non-resident parents on their total weekly income. By using Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs income data, we will avoid the administrative complexities that arose in the original scheme and provide a fairer system for the children of such parents.
A consultation on the Child Support Maintenance Calculation Regulations 2012 was launched on 1 December 2011 and will run until 23 February 2012. The hon. Gentleman referred to the letter that I wrote to him in August. What I said was correct at the time. I was actively looking at the issue, but as I was unable to bring it to the attention of the House, I was not able to fill him in on the details. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to do so today.
The regulations as drafted would remove the special occupation exemptions. The hon. Gentleman is a trail blazer in this area. We are very like-minded, and I hope that, as a sign of some Christmas spirit in this place, we will find a common understanding and a common approach to this really important issue.
Mr David
I thank the Minister for her comments. I welcome the fact that she has accepted my argument and recognised that there is a huge anomaly that morally needs to be addressed and that will be addressed with the new regulations. However, will those who are on the current system be able to transfer to the new regulations? Will those who currently lose out, and whose children lose out, be able to have the situation addressed under the new system?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman was reading my mind; I was about to move on to that very issue. Let me reiterate, though, that I inherited the anomaly. I commend my colleagues for acting so swiftly that we can introduce regulations to address this matter under the future scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support the measures in the Welfare Reform Bill, which will support the introduction of the new scheme, including the IT system, and to encourage his constituents and his hon. Friends to make their views known as part of the consultation. None the less, as he rightly says, people face financial problems now. I should certainly like to make such changes to the existing child maintenance scheme, and I have considered doing so in some detail. However, we inherited a situation in which 100,000 cases have fallen out of the system due to its failings and the prohibitive cost to the taxpayer continues to be borne.
To make fuller changes to the existing scheme rules and the underpinning IT systems risks further problems and added costs to a system that already presents the taxpayer with a bill of £450 million per annum. I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration, but I hope that I can garner his support for the implementation of the new scheme as soon as possible. That is dependent on the enactment of the Welfare Reform Bill.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I agree that it is important to maintain maturity and consensus on this matter if we are to move forward swiftly. Will the Minister ensure that, whenever the Department addresses these anomalies, proper and appropriate training is given to staff, so that they can take the claimant through the process swiftly and with as few problems as possible?
Maria Miller
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which gives me the opportunity to talk a little about the staff at the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. I was in Belfast recently, visiting the arm of the commission that deals with his constituents in Northern Ireland and the constituents of a region in England. I was impressed with its capability and its commitment to do a good job for all of our constituents.
The issue lies in the failings of the IT systems, the approaches taken in the past and the complexities of previous systems. As we look to the new scheme, I urge hon. Members to remember that simplicity and replacing the current IT system are critical if we are to effect the sort of changes that the hon. Gentleman advocates.
Mr David
Basically, I understand what the Minister is saying, but it is not a positive message for people such as my constituent who are losing out and whose children are losing out because of the failings of an IT system. It is not of benefit to them to say, “Things will be better in the future with a new IT system and a new scheme, but they will not apply to you.” When MPs get in touch with the CSA, they often find it very helpful. It allocates individuals to specific cases, and quite often individual cases are tremendously complex. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to ensure that a system is in place that gives special consideration to individuals who lose out at the moment and whose neighbours face similar circumstances, so that they might be okay in the future.
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and we want to ensure that more children benefit from positive financial arrangements. Too often, that is not the case at the moment. Half the children who live in separated families do not have a secure financial arrangement in place. However, more than half the parents within the child maintenance system feel that they could make their own financial arrangements with the right support. So I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider what support he could give to his constituents, so that they can consider making their own financial arrangements. There is no requirement now for anybody to make their financial arrangements through the Child Support Agency or the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission, but there is a requirement for people to meet their parental responsibilities and have a financial arrangement in place to support their children.
As I say, more than 50% of people with arrangements within the CSA feel that they could make their own arrangements with the right support, and that is very much at the heart of the approach that we are taking with the new scheme that we will put in place in 2012. The new scheme will address many of the failings that we have discussed today and that hon. Members will have experienced on an ongoing basis. It will be underpinned by a new IT system, which has been tried and tested by using systems in the commercial world. It will use HMRC data to enable parents to get financial support for their children in place, either within the statutory scheme or outside it.
In addition, we will introduce charges for the new scheme, to encourage more people to take responsibility to make the arrangements themselves. That approach is much better not only for the state—in terms of reducing costs—but for the children involved. The application charge, for which there will be an exemption for victims of domestic violence, will provide another vital incentive for people to consider a family-based arrangement before turning to the state for support.
We will also introduce collection charges and penalty fees if we have to use enforcement action. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, all too often people appear to feel that paying child maintenance is an optional extra. It absolutely is not—parents have a clear responsibility to make financial provision for their children. We want to promote a real attitude change, which perhaps has not been achieved before, to help to deter parents from failing to meet their responsibilities and to help them to think carefully about taking responsibility themselves.
The scheme will remain heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, and parents on benefits will still have all their maintenance disregarded, so that they keep all their benefits and all their child maintenance. That will help to ensure that more children have the necessary financial support in place.
The hon. Gentleman rightly asks, “Why can’t we do something now?” My concern is that we must ensure that the current system continues to operate, although in a very difficult set of circumstances, until the new scheme can be put in place. I must take the judgment that adding further complexity to the already broken system that I have inherited will not be best for the vast majority of parents. Put quite simply, the current IT system can barely cope at the moment and to add more complexity to it would cause more concern in the future. However, there is nothing stopping the hon. Gentleman’s constituent or, indeed, anybody else who is following the debate today from taking action to ensure that their children receive fair financial support following separation.
With the new scheme, I am talking about a strong package of reform, not for some distant future but for 2012, when we will roll out the scheme for parents and children who are currently within the statutory system. It will address the hon. Gentleman’s concerns; it will be fairer for parents and the taxpayer; and most importantly, it will support children in the right way, with parents taking real responsibility for their children’s welfare regardless of their own adult relationships.
Rail Services from and to Scotland
(13 years 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 Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I welcome Members to our debate this afternoon.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today. I take this opportunity to extend the compliments of the season to you and other Members, and to members of our staff in the room today.
I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise a number of issues concerning rail services in Scotland. For the most part, rail services within Scotland are a devolved responsibility of the Scottish Government, and I certainly do not wish—and would not be allowed by you, Chair—to deal with matters under that devolved responsibility. However, there are some important aspects of rail in Scotland for which policy or legislation is made at UK level, and I wish to raise those today.
The first issue is the future of cross-border rail services, and perhaps today is a very appropriate time to raise it, given that over the Christmas and new year period many passengers will be using the services to visit family and friends both north and south of the border. At present, the cross-border services fall under the franchise arrangements controlled by the Department for Transport, with its responsibility for services throughout Great Britain. However, those arrangements are now under threat, as a result of proposals put forward by the Scottish Government’s transport agency, Transport Scotland. As part of options for the future of rail services in Scotland, Transport Scotland is
“considering whether services north of Edinburgh should be provided by the Scottish franchisee, with Edinburgh becoming an interchange hub for cross-border services in the east of the country. In this scenario cross-border services would terminate at Edinburgh Waverley, with onward connections being provided by ScotRail.”
As a result of the cross-border services stopping at Edinburgh and Glasgow, there would be no through trains from England to destinations further north, such as Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness to name just a few. For that to happen, I understand that the Scottish Government would have to get the agreement of the UK Government to change the franchise arrangements, so today I want to raise my concerns about that possibility, in the hope that the Minister of State will listen to Members and will herself express reservations about the proposal. I also express my concerns today in the hope that Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government will listen.
At present, there are seven trains a day from England to destinations north of Edinburgh and Glasgow—plus the sleeper services, about which I will speak later—which provide through links, not just on the east coast line to London but on the west coast line to the English midlands and the south and south-west of England. Seven trains does not sound like many, but that is perhaps 2,000 plus seats a day, and is equal to perhaps 20 planes or 500 cars. I, and many others in Scotland, and indeed in England, believe that if the proposals result in the termination of cross-border services at Edinburgh and Glasgow, they are a serious mistake.
The option suggests that there would be an “interchange hub” at Edinburgh, but that is not a good idea. Edinburgh Waverley, as anyone who uses it will know, is a large station with about 20 platforms at the last count, and one could well imagine passengers, particularly the more frail, taking at least 15 minutes to change trains, allowing for time to go through the ticket barriers of the different operators. There is also considerable building and renovation work going on, which is likely to cause extra disruption for years to come. For passengers travelling long distances, who are more likely to have more luggage, having to change trains in Edinburgh would be extremely inconvenient and add to journey times.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important topic. Does he not agree that, given that 26% of the Scottish economy is based in the Aberdeen area, as a result of the oil and gas industry, it would be incredibly short-sighted in terms of not only general social traffic but economic traffic to stop cross-border trains going up to Aberdeen and beyond?
Mark Lazarowicz
Absolutely. As a regular user of east coast trains, sometimes using the services that go through to Aberdeen, I know that they are very well used. I have had feedback from the business community in Edinburgh, speaking not just for Edinburgh but more widely, about the potentially very damaging consequences for Scotland’s economic interests, because of the effect both on business travel and on the wider travel services between important parts of the Scottish and UK economies.
Another feature of Transport Scotland’s proposals that concerns me is the suggestion that having all journeys in Scotland north of the central belt run by one operator—ScotRail—would in some way be an advantage because it would remove other operators. I am not sure that it would be an advantage, because apart from the difficultly of having to change trains, passengers travelling north of Edinburgh would not have the option of using alternative operators if they so wished. Having said that, it is interesting that these Transport Scotland proposals seem to some extent to contradict others it puts forward in the same document. Elsewhere, it suggests that the Scottish franchise could be broken up into two or three franchisees, including one that would run the “economic” day services, presumably the profit-making ones, and another that would run the social services, presumably the loss-making ones. In my view, that would be a retrograde step, but it is probably not an issue to be discussed at length today.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend on securing the debate. In the rural location I represent, there is a deep concern that we will see a central belt locality with lots of passengers and rail services, offering, to all intents and purposes, a first class service, alongside the potential for second class services—I hate to use that term—being offered just on and off in rural localities, and not really meeting the genuine needs of people living there.
Mark Lazarowicz
That is a genuine concern. I obviously do not know the detailed financial arrangements inside ScotRail and its franchise, but there is currently some cost subsidy between the different sections of the route, and we could well see a situation in which the economic franchise took all the good routes, with the profits going to the shareholders or the Scottish Government, and the social services suffered, as very much the poor relations. That would certainly be a consequence if that line was followed by Transport Scotland. To be fair, it is only an option, and I do not want to misrepresent it as the preferred option.
The outcome of the changes to cross-border services is pretty clear. Instead of having one through ticket on one through train, passengers could have to change services, wait sometimes in the cold—Edinburgh Waverley is not the warmest station in the world, I regret to say—and have the hassle of negotiating various pricing deals offered by different rail companies as they change trains. More passengers would therefore stop using rail. They would fly or add to traffic on already busy roads, and some tourists might not come at all. They would certainly be less likely to travel north of the central belt to areas where tourism is so important to the local economy. The proposals would not only affect passengers on long-distance cross-border services; there would also be a loss of choice for passengers from places such as Edinburgh to destinations further north, including Dundee and Inverness on the east coast services, and, dare I say it, there would be a loss of competition as well.
The operational arguments for maintaining cross-border services seem overwhelming, and the benefits to passengers are certainly clear. I am concerned that it appears that one of the motivations for the proposed termination of cross-border services at Edinburgh and Glasgow is what can only be described as a narrow financial interest. I quote again from the Transport Scotland report:
“The provision of these services, whilst providing additional capacity, also takes potential passengers and revenue from ScotRail services, and thereby affects the levels of subsidy required from the Scottish Government.”
The first priority should not be whether a few pounds, euros or even Scottish dollars should be saved for the Scottish Government; it should be the needs of passengers. I hope that the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland will recognise that, and the other concerns that I am raising. I urge Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to keep our cross-border services, and I hope that the UK Department for Transport will make those views known to the Scottish Government.
Many of the arguments against cutting cross-border services also apply to Transport Scotland’s proposals for sleeper services between Scotland and England. In its report, Transport Scotland suggests that all or at least some services be removed from the requirement to operate under the ScotRail franchise and allowed to operate under a separate franchise. The report gives various suggestions about whether that franchise should be supported financially or run commercially only. It also suggests that only services to and from Edinburgh be franchised, leaving other services to be operated on a commercial basis only. Effectively, that would almost certainly mean that they would not be operated.
Leaving aside the fact that removing sleeper services from the ScotRail franchise, thereby jeopardising their future, would be an extremely odd move at a time when the UK and Scottish Governments are considering financing new sleeper stock, if such a cut were made or sleeper services were totally withdrawn, it would be bad news for passengers, and particularly bad news for the business and tourist sectors. I spoke last week to people from the Edinburgh business sector who expressed concern that a threat to the Edinburgh sleeper service would damage the business and tourism connectivity of Edinburgh and of Scotland as a whole.
I hope that the Minister shares my concern about both those issues, and I hope that her Government will reflect to the Scottish Government the concerns shown by many in Scotland in business, leisure and local communities, as well as workers in the rail industry. I certainly hope that Transport Scotland will think again.
I emphasise that I am not against change in the ScotRail arrangements or anywhere else, but I am against change so damaging to the travelling public. I would like some imagination from both Governments and from the rail industry in general about how existing service patterns might be improved to provide better connections between Scotland and England and better cross-border services, rather than making it more inconvenient to travel across the border. For example, at a time of big increases in rail travel on day services, could we not consider providing more sleeper services in the UK rather than fewer, perhaps reinstating some of the services cut a few years ago, or even overnight services from Scotland and the north of England to the continent of Europe?
On day travel, is it not time to consider how to improve cross-border services rather than cutting them? On my recent visit to Liverpool for the Labour party conference, due to the non-existence of through services, I was reminded again of the number of changes involved and the difficulty of connections from Edinburgh and Glasgow to that major city. There are also other places in England where through services to Scotland are not what they could be. In my view, we should be considering improving the service rather than cutting it in the way proposed by Transport Scotland. I hope that Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport will consider those thoughts for the future, as they will have to work together on the issues due to their cross-border implications.
I have spent some time referring to and criticising some of the proposals for rail services made by Transport Scotland. There are many others on which I have a view, but I will not mention those that are primarily of devolved concern. There are obvious overlaps between both devolved and reserved responsibilities. I know, for example, that people in Scotland are angry at the increase in fares announced for Scotland, as for the rest of the UK, but that is obviously the responsibility of the Scottish Government and Parliament, so I will not go into it in more detail, although I emphasise that views on the issue are extremely strongly held.
I will comment on one area of future policy that concerns both Transport Scotland and the Department for Transport: high-speed rail. Having so far been critical of Transport Scotland’s proposals, I will now be more positive about some of its recent ones. Indeed, I warmly welcome its recent report, “Fast Track Scotland: Making the Case for High Speed Rail Connections with Scotland”. The report was published earlier this month and resulted in numerous conclusions with broad or all-party support. The first is:
“Scotland stands united in support of high-speed rail. It is vital that a high-speed rail network be established across the UK to secure its future competitiveness and economic prosperity”,
as well as the competitiveness and economic prosperity of the entire UK.
The report continues:
“The investment case for high-speed rail is strong, but is stronger when Scotland is included.
Scotland supports a high-speed rail strategy which brings Edinburgh and Glasgow closer to London and the UK’s great cities, and which preserves and enhances aviation links with London’s airports for the north of Scotland.
A new high-speed line must be built to Scotland to realise the fullest economic and environmental benefits for the UK.”
I endorse those comments completely. I believe that high-speed rail is important to improve journey times, for environmental reasons and to improve capacity on the rail network as a whole. Transport Scotland’s report presents a powerful case for connecting Scotland with the high-speed rail network. Equally, the report highlights how a failure to connect high-speed routes to services on other lines could damage Scotland’s interests by placing it and cities in the north of England in a relatively worse position, in terms of journey times and rail capacity, than cities linked to the network.
As I have said, it is in the interests of the UK’s high-speed rail network as a whole that Scotland should be part of the network, because of the benefits that it would bring to the business case for the whole network. Business leaders throughout the UK support Scotland’s inclusion in a high-speed rail link.
Ann McKechin
Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach taken by HS2 Action Alliance has been disappointing? It wrote to Members earlier today expressing that an alternative that would save a mere 20 minutes of journey time should be satisfactory. I represent a Glasgow constituency, and he represents an Edinburgh one. Given that the joint economic force of Glasgow and Edinburgh makes them the second largest economy outside London, does he agree that the strength of the case is overwhelming? It is time for those who oppose HS2 to consider properly the economic interests of all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mark Lazarowicz
I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the exact route of High Speed 2 is being debated, as are issues such as the right route and speed for a line, at what speed trains could run and whether changes could be made to reflect the environment. I accept all those concerns—I am not saying that one should not—but ultimately, it is not just a question of taking 20 minutes off the time to reach Glasgow and Edinburgh. In any configuration, we are talking about major time savings. By definition, those time savings increase the longer the distance travelled, which is why it is so important to the business case of the whole line that Scotland should be included at an early stage in the planning.
Support for Scotland’s inclusion in the high-speed rail link comes from business leaders throughout the UK. The London chamber of commerce and industry says that
“for HS2 to improve the country’s connectivity and infrastructure capacity, it must reach the whole of the UK. Only then will the expected business and transport benefits be enjoyed by the entire country… Consequently, the line should also be planned and thought of in its totality, rather than as independent and isolated sections.”
I absolutely agree.
The Greater Manchester chamber of commerce says:
“Glasgow and Greater Manchester are two of the UK’s largest economies and the third and fourth biggest population centres in the country. Strong economic development within these cities will be essential for countering the economic dominance of London and providing the driver for growth within their respective regions. As such, high-quality links between these centres is essential for developing trade, tourism and expanding the knowledge, opportunities and labour catchment areas for these conurbations… Significantly, though, the benefits of high-speed rail are greater over longer distances, and therefore the time savings between Manchester and Glasgow would be significant enough to help deliver a shift in mode of travel and generate passenger demand on the new rail network.”
That is why I, along with opinion across the political and social spectrums in Scotland and beyond, am extremely concerned by the possibility that serious planning for high-speed rail to Scotland will not even start for many years. If planning for high-speed rail to Scotland is left until later, it could be the 2040s at the earliest before high-speed rail reaches Scotland. Such a long delay after the routes reach the midlands and the north of England would be extremely damaging to the economic interests of Scotland and those parts of the north of England not linked to the route.
To secure the funding to allow high-speed rail to reach Scotland requires choices, and I accept that they may be choices about routes, speeds or the location of sections of routes. Putting together the funding package is still many years off, but I want to emphasise that we do not want to be in a situation where not even the planning has been started. We must ensure that we plan now for Scotland to be part of that high-speed line. Detailed planning of HS2 must be done at this stage, as the report from Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government calls for, and I fully endorse it.
Let me emphasise again that it is in no one’s interest for Scotland to be left at the end of a high-speed line. The Scottish Government have said that they will pay for the Scottish section of such a line. Although their commitment looks a little shaky under closer analysis, I am sure that a future Scottish Government of any political shade would recognise the value contributing to a project of such importance for Scotland. I understand that Scottish Ministers hoped to meet the Minister or her colleagues to discuss the issue. Was any progress made in those discussions? Is there potential for an agreement with the Scottish Government?
I could say much more, and although there is time to do so, it is right to allow the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesman plenty of time to respond to the concerns that I have raised. There are certainly many other rail policy issues at UK level that concern Scotland, including a number of the implications of the McNulty report and some of the proposals in the Transport Scotland report on transferring some of the responsibilities that Network Rail supervises at a British level to a devolved level. They are significant matters, but they are perhaps too technical and lengthy and would require me to divert to another subject at great length.
Maintaining the sleeper and cross-border services and planning for future and better connectivity are important and concern all Scotland. I hope that the Minister and the Front-Bench spokesman will say something that recognises the importance of those issues, assures us of a way forward and, as I have indicated, sends a clear message from the House to Transport Scotland that some of its proposals would be extremely damaging to transport interests throughout Scotland.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Before I call the Front-Bench speakers, may I say, after that excellent start, that this is a slow debate? We are taking the scenic route with plenty of time to admire the view. The Opposition spokesman need not trouble himself to rush to the end of his remarks. I call John Woodcock.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for that sound advice, Mr Hollobone. May I say at length what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech about a critical issue for, of course, Scotland, but also for the economy of the whole United Kingdom. Throughout the debate, it is important that we keep that in mind.
In recent weeks, we have heard concerning noises from the Scottish Government on the future of not only rail services in Scotland, but cross-border services, as my hon. Friend described. Given the franchise renewal timetable—two of the three major cross-border operations are due to be re-let in the next 24 months—this is a timely moment to discuss Government policy on cross-border rail services. He expressed the importance of the subject well.
On a personal level, as a twice-weekly user of the Euston to Glasgow service to return to my constituency, I am very aware of how well used and often overcrowded such services are. Although the train may be overcrowded this evening and a little late, the journey back home to my constituency for Christmas will be made all the sweeter for having had the chance to take part in the debate today, so, again, I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on securing this debate on the last afternoon before the Christmas recess.
It is important to talk about the improvements made to both lines into Scotland over the past decade. They were often made at a greater cost than should have been the case, but were improvements nevertheless. Despite the overruns and pain for passengers arising from the west coast main line upgrade, the end product was reduced journey times to Glasgow, with a more reliable service, operated by modern trains. One hundred and six extra Pendolino coaches, which were ordered under the previous Government, will arrive in the UK to provide extra seats on the route, and Lord knows they are needed at peak times.
The number of trains has steadily increased on the east coast route, with a half-hourly service to Edinburgh, which my hon. Friend mentioned, running for much of the day. The major timetable change, announced by the Labour Government last year, cut journey times and reintroduced a Flying Scotsman service, which takes just four hours between the capitals. The CrossCountry and TransPennine Express services into Scotland have benefitted from new rolling stock and increased frequency. Nevertheless, significant shortcomings in cross-border services remain, which is why the Scottish National party Government’s policy to cut Scotland off from the rest of the UK is so worrying. As an aside, it is also worrying that no SNP Members are here for a debate that affects the links between Scotland and the rest of the UK and that is directed at the alarming decision their colleagues in Government in Holyrood have brought forward and seem set to plough ahead with.
Even now, overcrowding on some trains limits the capacity for the modal shift that we would like from domestic air travel to rail. Walk-on fares are high and the cheapest deals sell out quickly. Passengers have to endure periods of very poor reliability, leading this week to the Office of Rail Regulation taking enforcement action against Network Rail due to poor performance on those routes. Ministers need to address those concerns when they make decisions on the future of the west and east coast franchises.
The proposals for a 14-year franchise on the west coast do not require extra capacity to be provided before 2026 and Ministers have scaled back the size of the inter-city express programme, designed to provide new trains and extra seats on the east coast. I am afraid that all that points to lack of clarity and ambition for cross-border services over the next couple of decades.
As ever, my hon. Friend led the charge on high-speed rail to Scotland. He made his case strongly, as he always does. It is important that we are clear that Scotland will benefit if we secure the scheme that is on the table, but still, unfortunately, remains in doubt—that is, a new high-speed line right the way through to Manchester and Leeds. With through-running on to the existing network, that will reduce journey times from London to Edinburgh and Glasgow by at least an hour. By bypassing the most congested parts of the east and west coast main lines, HS2 can allow for a step change in the frequency of cross-border services, which I am sure everyone in today’s debate would want to see. That is why we are continuing to urge the Government to introduce a single Bill on the full route to the north of England, rather than simply for the route to Birmingham, as is currently planned.
I know that the Minister will be particularly grateful for potentially having considerable time to wind up today and deal with where she is on that issue at length. She can perhaps give us a preview of the forthcoming announcement on HS2, which we all expect and hope will be made early in January. Ministers claim to be committed to the fully shaped network, but we need more than words. As mentioned on the issue of going all the way up to Scotland—it is the same for going up to the north of England—the principle remains that the business case for high-speed rail is far stronger if it extends to Manchester and Leeds. The benefits that that would bring to Scotland are a key part of that case.
However, it is understandable that my hon. Friend has focused his concern today on the “Rail 2014” document produced by Transport Scotland. As he said, obviously, the bulk of its contents deals with internal Scottish services. The threat of having fewer trains calling at fewer stations is certainly worrying for the constituents of my hon. Friends here today.
Mark Lazarowicz
I wanted to intervene on my hon. Friend before he moved off the subject of high-speed rail. Will he consider again the fact that it is of absolute importance that detailed planning for HS2 going to Scotland takes place at this stage, rather than waiting until the second hybrid Bill is going through the House? If we do that, bluntly, the chances are that high-speed rail will not go to Scotland for two or three decades. That would not be good enough.
John Woodcock
I hear—as do all hon. Members—the case that my hon. Friend has consistently made on that. The Government’s commitment to take the line only up to Birmingham and to legislate for that is alarming. Certainly, there is an opportunity here. Without delaying the building work and the commencement of construction by a single day, the Minister could easily create a single hybrid Bill that would legislate to take high-speed rail all the way up to Manchester and Leeds. She may want to say what the timetable implications are for the suggestion that my hon. Friend has made.
The cross-border services set out in the consultation document are remarkable. It is astonishing that a Scottish Government who claim to represent the whole of Scotland are suggesting the removal of through-services from London and other parts of England to towns and cities north of Edinburgh. That will force passengers to change at Edinburgh Waverley, with all the particular difficulties that my hon. Friend has laid out so well.
Under those plans, the roll-call of Scottish places that would lose their direct London trains is damning: Inverness, Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Falkirk, Kirkcaldy, Montrose, Arbroath, Aviemore, Pitlochry and Stonehaven. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) has rightly raised concerns about the possible loss of the Glasgow to Carlisle through-service. That concern would be felt in my county of Cumbria to the same extent as it would in his constituency and beyond. By my count, under the proposals that the Scottish SNP Government have introduced, just five locations in Scotland would retain long-distance services into England.
As has been mentioned, those services are important to businesses across the north of Scotland—as much to the oil industry in Aberdeen as, for example, to bed and breakfasts in the Cairngorms. The direct service is appreciated by older people, by those with limited mobility and, indeed, by families with young children or heavy luggage. I recognise that this is outside the confines of the debate, but if we could have a direct service through to my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the prospect of being able to negotiate the buggy and a week’s worth of luggage would be greatly improved for many more people than me.
Returning to Scotland, obviously the content of the consultation is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, who seem dangerously relaxed about restricting key transport links between Scotland and the rest of the UK. UK Ministers also have a responsibility. We welcome the Chancellor’s decision announced in the autumn statement to offer match funding to the Scottish Government to fund a replacement fleet of vehicles for the threatened sleeper services. In winding up, I hope that the Minister can tell us whether the Scottish Government have responded to that offer, whether she has made any direct representations on that issue and how the matter is progressing. Beyond that, can she let hon. Members know whether the UK Government will be responding to the Transport Scotland consultation?
Mark Lazarowicz
Would it not be an irony if new sleeper stock were purchased but there were no sleeper services to operate as a result of a change in the franchise? My hon. Friend might recall—although possibly not—that, a few years ago, trains were going to provide direct services from Scotland and the English regions through to the continent of Europe. Those trains were never used for that purpose and, for a while, they ended up on the London to Leeds services. I do not know what has happened to them now, but would it not be an irony if money were spent—£100 million—on new sleeper rolling stock that was not actually used for that purpose?
John Woodcock
It would be more than an irony; it would be a travesty. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the continued importance of sleeper services. Although airports have expanded and capacity has increased, the sleeper service remains a hugely important way of connecting London with Edinburgh, Glasgow and beyond. We need to find a way to retain it, and it is alarming that the proposals will potentially withdraw it. Will the Minister therefore answer our questions about the sleeper services? Will she also tell us whether the through-trains to Aberdeen and Inverness will be protected when Ministers publish the requirements for the east coast franchise? Will she reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the bi-mode part of the inter-city express programme, which is key to allowing through-running to continue?
Ultimately, Scots and citizens in all parts of the UK will lose out if the SNP’s great railway robbery goes ahead. Over the years, SNP Members, who are not here today, have often been known as the Tories’ little helpers. It is now time for the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat friends in the Government to show that they will not let themselves be the SNP’s little helpers as it pursues its agenda of cutting Scotland off from the rest of the UK.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on securing this debate on the last day before the recess. Let me also say how much I always enjoy serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. You wisely advised us to take our time and look in some depth at the important issues under consideration.
The goal the coalition Government set themselves was to tackle the deficit we inherited and to build a solid foundation for economic recovery and growth. That means not only getting the best value for every pound of taxpayers’ money spent, but prioritising the spending that can best support growth, jobs and prosperity. That is why transport, including rail, came out of the spending review in a much stronger position than most people expected, and why the Chancellor gave the go-ahead for a further list of road and rail improvements in his recent autumn statement.
Rail services—be they services within England, the cross-border services we are discussing or services in Wales—are very much at the heart of our transport strategy. The programme of capacity expansion we are taking forward is bigger in scale than anything undertaken since the Victorian era. The comprehensive spending review allocated about £18 billion to rail, while the autumn statement provided further support, including £50 million for the replacement of vehicles for the Caledonian sleeper, as we heard in this morning’s debate.
As we also heard this morning, however, that is subject to co-funding by the Scottish Government. They have not yet announced whether they are prepared to co-fund the project and to match the funding the Westminster Government are prepared to provide. As we know, there are no nationalists here to defend the position of their Government north of the border, so we are, sadly, unable to question them about it directly. However, we will continue to engage the Scottish Government on this.
Mr Russell Brown
I thank the Minister for the information she has just given us. Is there a finite time for which that offer of money will lie on the table, after which she will need to say that it is no longer there? In her interaction with the SNP Government in Edinburgh, she will discover that they will prevaricate on a whole host of issues and that they tend to put one obstacle in front of another. Does she therefore have a finite time for how long that offer of money will lie on the table?
Mrs Villiers
That is a very good question. I am not aware that the Chancellor or the Department for Transport have set a time limit for the Scottish Government to respond, but rapid consideration of this important decision would be welcome, not least because of the support for sleeper services, which was mentioned by both hon. Members who have spoken. It behoves the Scottish Government to get a move on and make a decision on this. The Westminster Government have put their money where their mouth is in expressing support for the sleeper service and potentially allocating £50 million to support its long-term future. It is now for the Scottish Government to step up to the plate and decide whether they are prepared to match that funding or lose it.
Ultimately, the running of the sleeper service will be a decision for the Scottish Government, because it is part of the ScotRail franchise, which is devolved to the Scottish Government. Ultimately, Westminster will not take the decision. As I said, I recognise the concern felt north of the border about this proposal and others made by the nationalists in the Scottish Government. I hope the disadvantages of such proposals will be thoroughly considered when the Scottish Government ultimately decide whether to match the funding we have offered and include sleeper services in the upcoming ScotRail franchise.
The Government are committed to a range of other improvements on our rail network to support and improve cross-border services. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, the west coast main line was given a £9 billion upgrade under the previous Government to deliver faster and more frequent services. As he said, the delivery was somewhat painful for passengers, but real improvements have now started to be delivered. In addition, west coast passengers will benefit from 106 extra Pendolino vehicles, a number of which are already in operation, with the rest coming on stream over the next 12 months or so. The intercity express programme will provide a new fleet to replace the diesel 125 high-speed trains on services between London, Aberdeen and Inverness. It will also potentially replace the electric 225s on the east coast line if the franchise operator wishes to go ahead with that.
Significant improvements are being made to the infrastructure on the east coast line as part of Network Rail’s control period 4 programme, which is funded by the Government. These include major work on the joint line via Spalding and Lincoln to provide a diversionary route for freight and free up space for more passenger services. The long-awaited Hitchin flyover is also going ahead, as are major power supply upgrades to improve services for all passengers on the line, including those on cross-border services.
Those improvements will make a real difference to rail passengers travelling between Scotland and England. Although they are important, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith outlined, they will not be enough on their own to deal with the long-term demand for inter-city transport capacity that our economy is expected to generate in the next 20 years. We expect rapidly rising demand for inter-city travel to outpace any measures we can realistically or practically take to boost capacity, given the constraints on existing lines.
That is why the Government have, this year, run a five-month public consultation—one of the biggest ever carried out—on proposals for a new high-speed rail network. The proposals would provide a step change in capacity and help bring our major conurbations much closer together. Our proposal for a Y-shaped national high-speed rail network would link London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, with connections to the west and east coast main lines from the proposed new line. Those connections are crucial to today’s debate because they would allow the through-running of high-speed rail services on to the west and east coast so that passengers could reach Edinburgh and Glasgow without having to change trains.
The Y-shaped network, plus the ability for trains to run off it and on to the existing network, would, as we have heard, cut journey times between Scotland’s two biggest cities and London to about three and a half hours. That is an hour less than many of today’s services. Such journey time reductions could give significant connectivity and economic benefits to Scotland. I know that those things are important to many in Scotland, including, I am sure, the constituents of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith.
There are also benefits in relation to air-to-rail switch, which is worth mentioning in this context. Experience shows that when rail journeys come down to three or four hours, they become more competitive with air services. The coalition Government’s proposal for a direct link to Heathrow as part of phase 2 of the Y network would provide important connectivity benefits to Edinburgh and Glasgow, with a seamless and effective connection to our major hub airport.
John Woodcock
The right hon. Lady has mentioned the benefits of the Heathrow spur in the context of going all the way to Scotland. Has she not seen, for a long time, the value of going via Heathrow in the first phase, rather than building an extra spur afterwards at greater overall cost to the taxpayer?
Mrs Villiers
I think that there is consensus between the parties that it is essential to have a connection to Heathrow. The Government’s proposal to include a spur as part of phase 2 would provide a top-class link to Heathrow, which would be great for passengers in both Scotland and England. As to the route that the Opposition have been considering, although they chose not to submit it to the consultation, I believe that others have submitted routes that are more or less identical, and I assure the hon. Gentleman now, as I have before, that all the route options presented for consultation will be rigorously assessed before the Secretary of State makes her decision on High Speed 2, and, if she goes ahead, before she makes her decision on the route.
There is a detailed process—and it is right that it is very formal—to ensure that every person who contributed to the consultation will be listened to, and that their representations will be dealt with fairly. The shadow Minister invites me to pre-empt the Secretary of State’s decision on that. He knows that that would not be a terribly wise career move. I assure him that she will announce her decision soon, but he will just have to wait for her to make the announcement. It would be unwise of me to pre-empt it with one of my own.
John Woodcock
It would be good if the Minister could say a little more about whether the proposal for a single Bill is under active consideration. There is cross-party consensus on that, so would not it make more sense, in relation to both the business case and the stability of the project, to lock in a single Bill now, and take things forward together?
Given that we have time, perhaps I may make a second point. In opposition, the right hon. Lady was in favour of going to Heathrow as part of the first phase. That must count for something, must it not?
Mrs Villiers
I always have been, and continue to be, strongly supportive of a connection between HS2 and Heathrow. I am also strongly supportive of a thorough, evidence-based consideration of all the options on routes, which is exactly what the Secretary of State is undertaking. I imagine that, as we debate, she is probably poring over the detailed submissions summarising the consultation, which provide her with all the information that she needs to take a decision on whether to go ahead with the project as a whole, and, if so, on the best route. I am confident that she will take the right decision. As I have said, the shadow Minister will have to wait just a little longer to hear that. He well knows that the coalition’s plans and proposals include a direct link to Heathrow in phase 2.
On the hybrid Bill, again, as we have had many opportunities to debate, the Government have concluded that the best way to take HS2 forward as efficiently and rapidly as possible is by two separate hybrid Bills—one for the first phase in the west midlands and one for the second phase to Manchester and Leeds. There are pros and cons about the procedures either way, but changing course now and suddenly deciding on a hybrid Bill to accommodate both phases might slow down the project. I think it would be risky. What is important is that once the Secretary of State has made a decision we should take whatever steps are needed to press ahead promptly with implementing it. I hope that the cross-party consensus that the shadow Minister has mentioned repeatedly will prove useful in proceeding with high-speed rail if that is the outcome of the Secretary of State’s deliberations.
Of course, the goal set out in the coalition agreement is to deliver a genuinely national high-speed rail network. It is therefore a timely moment to consider the impact on Scotland. Although the Y network that we propose would bring important benefits to Scottish passengers and the Scottish economy, because of the journey time savings that we have talked about and the relief of capacity pressure that the shadow Minister referred to, we still recognise the strong support for extending the proposed new high-speed line north to Scotland in the future.
The Government share the aspiration of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for high-speed rail one day to extend north of the border all the way to Edinburgh and Glasgow. He will appreciate that, constitutionally, the Scottish Government have responsibility for the rail infrastructure north of the border, including funding it. However, if we go ahead with HS2, phases 1 and 2, we will certainly expect to work with the Scottish Government on identifying and considering options for expanding the proposed high-speed network in the future. I assure him that there is no need to wait for completion of either phase before serious work is started in relation to potential further expansion of the network.
Mark Lazarowicz
I welcome the broad commitment that the right hon. Lady has given, but she will understand that although the Y-shaped route will clearly bring benefits to Scotland, because of the effect on rail speeds and capacity further south, it will by definition not help with capacity once the end of the Y line is reached and the journey continues on existing lines to Edinburgh and Glasgow. If anything, there might be capacity problems, because of extra trains on those lines. Can the right hon. Lady give any indication of the type of discussions that are going on with the Scottish Government? I get the impression that they are something that may happen one day, as she said; but we want more of a commitment than that. We want an indication of what work is going on now, and a commitment that preparation should start now.
Mrs Villiers
I assure the hon. Gentleman that officials from HS2 and the Department for Transport have regular discussions with Transport Scotland about high-speed rail. I have discussed it with Scottish Ministers on several occasions. The Secretary of State for Defence also discussed it, when he was Transport Secretary, with Scottish Ministers. Indeed, HS2 is already considering options further to reduce journey times to Edinburgh and Glasgow. We recognise the enthusiasm for further work on expanding the proposed high-speed rail network. As I have said, we share the aspiration of establishing a genuinely national network, which must of course include Scotland.
Mr Russell Brown
I would like to share with the Minister and hon. Members an infrastructure-related problem—albeit not to do with rail—which my ex-colleague the former Member for Carlisle, Eric Martlew, experienced when the M6 was brought north to Carlisle. For some reason it stopped there. When he asked an official why it stopped at Carlisle, he was told the road did not go anywhere. In other words, there was no need to take it to the border, or even into Scotland, which fell under the remit of the Scottish Office at that time. I have to share that worry with the Minister. We have a line that comes so far north, and we have this mindset that it goes nowhere. Colleagues in Scotland will be forcing the issue with the Scottish Government to engage in a process to make sure that something is happening north of the border that ensures that we get UK coverage of this railway.
Mrs Villiers
Mr Hollobone has given us great latitude to wander far and wide in the debate, but I am afraid that I do not have a very detailed knowledge of the history of the construction of the M6. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is always wise to learn lessons from what has gone wrong with previous transport projects. I reiterate the importance that we place on playing our part to supply a high-quality transport network for the country as a whole. As I have said, infrastructure matters north of the border are rightly devolved to Transport Scotland, but we recognise the importance of our decisions on high-speed rail taking into account fully the interests of the economy and passengers in Scotland. That is why we are happy to engage with Scottish hon. Members and the Scottish Government. We need to view, with careful scrutiny and perhaps some scepticism or reservation, the promises that Scottish Ministers are now making about high-speed rail. It is difficult to judge whether their promises on funding are watertight, but we certainly welcome the enthusiasm with which they support the principle of high-speed rail.
Before moving on to through services on the current network, I will respond to the shadow spokesman’s criticism that the Government were somehow insufficiently supportive on high-speed rail. I remind the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness that we were the first to champion the benefits of high-speed rail. Indeed, we were doing so when Labour’s 30-year strategy for the railways, published in 2007, had no place at all for high-speed rail.
One of the other key issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith was the controversial consultation document issued by Transport Scotland on the service pattern for the new ScotRail franchise to be let from 2014 onwards. As we have heard, that has posed a question on whether services north of Edinburgh should be a matter for the Scottish franchisee. As we have heard, that would mean cross-border services terminating at Edinburgh Waverley, with onward connections to Aberdeen and Inverness provided by ScotRail. That proposition has been dubbed the “Edinburgh Hub” by Transport Scotland.
As we have heard, the Scottish Government make three assertions on the effect of that change. First, they assert that it would return greater revenue to the Scottish franchisee and reduce taxpayer subsidy—that might be a controversial claim. Secondly, they claim that moving to just one operator would improve resilience—that ought to be carefully tested. Thirdly, they claim that the change would give the ScotRail franchisee more freedom and flexibility in timetabling and running services. Fourthly, they claim that there are advantages in vesting control over services north of Edinburgh in a Scottish franchisee with no reliance on services specified by the Department for Transport.
One of my concerns is whether that is an ideologically-driven proposal motivated by a wish to control as many rail services in Scotland as possible. I would be very concerned if that was a motivating factor behind Transport Scotland’s fairly startling proposals. It is very important for the decision to be made on a clear and calm assessment of the potential effects of such a change.
The proposals generated considerable opposition and debate in Scotland. We have had discussions with the Scottish Government and Transport Scotland about the implications of such a change. As hon. Members might recollect, this issue has cropped up before. In considering whether to proceed with the intercity express programme, the Westminster Government looked at whether east coast services should terminate at Edinburgh, so that they could all be provided by electric trains. We decided against a rolling stock option that would have required passengers to change trains at Edinburgh, because we were concerned about the implications of such a change. That is the conclusion that we reached, so, as the hon. Gentleman invited me to say, I certainly would have reservations about the Scottish Government’s proposal.
If, following the consultation, the Scottish Government decide that they would like this change to take place on the east coast line, we would of course consider their proposal in accordance with our mutual respect agenda. However, hon. Members have been clear in outlining the disadvantages of such an approach, which, as I have said, would have to be very carefully considered. It is disappointing that no one is here to defend the nationalists’ position or explain why they have chosen to consult on such a controversial proposal.
John Woodcock
I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but if she feels so strongly, would it not make more sense, for good governance, to be clear now that the proposal is not a goer? We would not need to go through the consultation, wait for a response and see whether something comes through. If she made it clear that this is not something that she would accept, it would allow people to go forward with greater clarity.
Mrs Villiers
I think that that would be unwise, because the Government take devolution very seriously. We are talking about rail services provided in Scotland. It is certainly not at all unreasonable for the Scottish Government to wish to have an input in how those services are run. At this stage, it would be inappropriate for the coalition to start dictating the outcome of a consultation on the ScotRail franchise. I will therefore confine my remarks to saying that we would have reservations about a route down which we did not chose to go in relation to the IEP, but we will listen to the Scottish Government if they choose to pursue that further.
Mark Lazarowicz
I am not asking the Minister to veto the Scottish Government’s proposals, if they go along the line of a Scottish franchise that takes on board the services north of Edinburgh, because I accept that devolution exists and that the Scottish Government have the right to put forward their views. My point is that we are discussing UK services as well, and I ask her to take that on board. If the Scottish Government decide on such proposals, I hope that she will ask them to ensure that the new franchisee will still be required to maintain cross-border services.
Mrs Villiers
I certainly take those points on board, but closing down the debate at this stage would not be appropriate, because it would be undermining, and we respect the devolution settlement and want to pursue an agenda of mutual respect. We would consider such proposals from the Scottish Government if they chose to go ahead. As I said, we need to weigh carefully all the appropriate evidence. If the proposal were indeed motivated by some political separatist agenda, that would be a real concern. A final decision will need to be made in time for the publication of the invitation to tender for the next east coast franchise in the autumn next year.
The shadow Minister mentioned performance on the east coast line. It has certainly been disappointing; the performance of both the train operator and Network Rail has been below the levels expected. Cable theft has had a major effect, and we are discussing co-ordinated action throughout the Government, with a view possibly to increase the punishment for cable thieves and to clamp down on rogue elements of the scrap-metal industry.
The west coast main line, meanwhile, has also experienced a performance dip in recent months, mainly owing to track faults and other infrastructure delays. I am afraid that performance on the two routes has contributed to the Office of Rail Regulation’s recent warning to Network Rail, set out in a letter of 19 December, that the company is in danger of breaching its licence conditions for the long-distance sector and will miss its regulatory targets for the sector this year. The ORR made it clear that it expects Network Rail to submit robust plans for improving performance on key routes such as those on the east and west coasts. The Government, too, believe that performance needs to improve, and we are fully supportive of the action that the ORR has taken.
Concerns about fares have been expressed. The fares that people pay are of course making an essential contribution to the massive rail upgrade programme that is being delivered and to which I referred at the start of my remarks. Some cheap fares for cross-border services are available to those who can book ahead and commit to a specific service, but we recognise that it is not always possible to do that. We understand the concern about rail fares and the pressure that they put on family budgets. That is why, in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, he announced that funding had been secured to cancel the proposed increase of the retail prices index plus 3% planned for next year and to revert to an RPI plus 1% increase for the fares coming into effect in January. That covers cross-border services on the east and west coast main lines, as well as others in England.
If we are to provide a lasting solution to passenger concern about fares, however, it is vital to get the cost of running the railways down. Sir Roy McNulty’s report, referred to briefly in the debate, set out a path that he believed would achieve significant savings without cuts in service provision. At the heart of his recommendations are measures to align incentives between Network Rail and the train operators. Put simply, we need to ensure that the two sides of the rail industry, track and train, work better together, with a strong shared incentive to get costs down and to improve outcomes for passengers. We are determined to deliver effective savings on the railway, so that we can deliver the improvements that passengers want and respond to their concerns on value for money.
I am grateful to hon. Members for listening with such patience to my remarks on cross-border rail services this afternoon.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
After a leisurely journey across the rail network, both north and south of the border, we have reached our destination early. I thank all Members for taking part.
Firearms Residue Testing (Criminal Cases)
(13 years 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
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I applied for this debate because a constituent has brought to my attention a case in which forensic evidence that was presented to achieve his conviction for murder has been proven to be unreliable. That constituent is Mr Paul Cleeland, who was convicted in 1972 of the murder of Terence Clarke outside his home in Stevenage. I want to address some specific issues about Mr Cleeland’s case, but I believe that it is an exemplar of problems with evidence presented in such criminal cases in the 1970s.
The matter has been raised twice in the House: in 1982 and 1988. It was pursued with persistence by Baroness Williams when she was a Member of Parliament, Mr Bowen Wells when he was the MP for Hertford and Stevenage, and Mr John Hughes when he was the MP for Coventry, North East. It is a matter of great regret that the issue remains unresolved to my constituent’s satisfaction after such a long time. Mr Cleeland is in the Public Gallery to witness the debate, a privilege he was unable to exercise in the previous debates.
When the case was first debated, it was reported that a
“prominent Queen's Counsel”
at the time had stated:
“There are a quite unusual number of blemishes in connection with the police evidence—in particular the discrepancies”
with ballistic evidence.
“Dr Julius Grant, Secretary of the Society of Forensic Medicine, calls the ballistic evidence ‘disturbing’ and said that it would appear to provide Mr. Cleeland with ample reasons for wanting his case re-opened and on purely scientific grounds I cannot do other than support them.—[Official Report, 29 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 1062.]
There is a wealth of discrepancies in the evidence against my constituent, which I will not rehearse here because the purpose of this debate is to focus on the problems that his case brings to light with the testing for firearms residue. However, I want to recount briefly some discrepancies in the ballistics evidence, because they have a direct bearing on the reliability of the forensic evidence of firearms residue.
The firearm submitted by the police as the murder weapon was an antique 12-bore Gye and Moncrieff shotgun. The police claimed that it was found in the vicinity of the murder by children, and that it contained two discharged shells with a box of unused shells lying nearby. The police attested through witnesses that the gun was sold to Mr Cleeland, but that was later refuted, and it was proven that the gun had been given to the victim. Mrs Clarke, Terry Clarke’s widow, had known Paul Cleeland for 12 years before the murder, but was unable to identify him as the murderer, despite being a witness to the crime. Mrs Clarke and neighbours, who were all witnesses to the murder, claimed that the assailant discharged a gun twice at a range of not more than 6 feet—point blank range—first into Mr Clarke’s back, and secondly into his chest.
There are discrepancies between ballistics reports. Mr J. McCafferty, a principal scientific officer in the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory on whose evidence the prosecution relied, claimed that the firearm would have been discharged at a minimum of 18 feet from the victim. However—I want to stress three key points—Mr Rothery, another expert, said that if the shotgun had been fired at a range of 18 feet, cartridge wadding would have remained affixed to the victim’s jacket. Mr Rothery and Mr Jennings, another ballistics expert, said that the firearm that the police claimed was the murder weapon would have to have been discharged 36 to 40 feet away to achieve the distribution on the victim. Dr Rufus Crompton, then consultant pathologist at St George’s hospital, London, provided corroboration of the evidence of Rothery and Jennings when he concluded from medical evidence that the range was about 36 feet.
If those witnesses were correct in their account of the assailant’s distance to the victim, or if Mr McCafferty’s assessment of that distance was correct, the necessary conclusion from the evidence provided by Mr Rothery, Mr Jennings and Mr Crompton is that the Gye and Moncrieff shotgun could not have been the murder weapon. It would instead have been reasonable to argue that using a shotgun at point-blank range to achieve as wide a distribution of pellets as that achieved by firing at a range of 40 feet, would have required the use of a sawn-off, 12-bore shotgun such as the one later found at a weir in nearby Harlow.
Those points are important because the doubts about the ballistics evidence submitted by Mr McCafferty underline the unreliability of his forensic evidence. At the time of Mr Cleeland’s trial, Mr McCafferty was a principal scientific officer in the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory. He had no formal academic qualifications, but he had been in charge of the firearms section of the forensic science laboratory since January 1964. At the time of the trial, he had 25 years of ballistic experience as an examiner of firearms and ammunition.
Given his long-standing position at the forensic science laboratory, it is perhaps unsurprising that Mr McCafferty was frequently relied on in trials as an expert forensics and ballistics witness for the prosecution. That included the trial of James Hanratty, who was hanged in 1962 for the murder of a Government scientist, over which there has been great and long-lasting doubt. Were the competence of Mr McCafferty as a forensics and ballistics expert to be brought into question, so too would the safety of the convictions of those in whose trials he gave evidence. That is why the results of the forensic tests used to convict my constituent have implications far wider than the case under discussion today.
During the original investigation, Mr McCafferty carried out a sodium rhodizonate test on Mr Cleeland’s clothes. The results of that test were relied on by the prosecution as evidence that Mr Cleeland had discharged a firearm. It has since become apparent, however, that the sodium rhodizonate test is suitable only as a preliminary, screening test. It is not capable of specifically detecting firearm discharge residues, but only the presence of lead or lead compounds. Despite the fact that the sodium rhodizonate test was not suitable for establishing the presence of firearm discharge residue, Mr McCafferty clearly considered that to be the purpose of such a test, as is clear from statements that he made during the 1977 investigation into allegations of perjury made by my constituent:
“On the 17th November I received from Mr Chaperlin in the laboratory exhibits…which were all items of Mr Cleeland’s clothing for the examination principally for firearms residue…On the completion of my examination of all the items received including the items of Mr Cleeland’s clothing I made a further statement which covered my chemical test for the presence of possible firearms residue.”
McCafferty’s evidence clearly impressed the judge at the time, who said when summing up the case that the clothes had been examined for
“traces of this lead residue”—
—a reference to the powder residue from the discharge of a firearm. The test carried out was the sodium rhodizonate test that we now know is unreliable for establishing the presence of firearm discharge residue.
In the early 1970s, forensic science was not as developed as it is today; the expertise and tests available were more limited, even if we could reasonably have expected the scientific rigour to have been the same. If we ask ourselves, however, whether other tests available at the time were suitable for establishing the presence of firearm discharge residue, the answer is yes. Other chemical tests would have supplemented the sodium rhodizonate test, and they were available to the prosecution at the time of the original trial. In particular, the atomic absorption spectroscopy and neutron activation analysis were available, and those sophisticated modern analytical methods were adopted to improve the sensitivity of the testing process. Neither test was used on Mr Cleeland’s clothes, however, even though, according to an expert witness who has gone unchallenged throughout my constituent’s appeals, they
“could have helped in ascertaining whether the elements on the clothing of Mr Cleeland came from the discharge of a firearm or were present as a result of completely innocuous activity.”
The fact that Mr McCafferty was seemingly unaware of the existence of those tests at the time of the original investigation casts doubt either on his expertise or his integrity. Some reassurance could perhaps be gained if it could be established that in his investigation into the murder of Mr Clarke, Mr McCafferty was incompetent but honestly so. Such a conclusion would perhaps cast less doubt on the evidence that he has given in other trials, as it would rely on him being unaware of the availability of those more specific tests.
Was Mr McCafferty aware of those tests? In 2006, my constituent came into contact with Professor Marco Morin, a ballistics expert who was involved in the high-profile case of Barry George, the man incorrectly convicted of the murder of television presenter Jill Dando. The prosecution in that case relied heavily on evidence of what it claimed was firearm discharge residue on Barry George’s clothing. Professor Morin referred my constituent to the training manual prepared by the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory, dated November 1980. That manual explicitly recognised that the sodium rhodizonate test, carried out by Mr McCafferty, was unreliable for the purposes of establishing the presence of firearm discharge residue, and it refers to the test as:
“Simple. Not specific. Useful for lead distribution on a target eg bullet wound.”
It later confirms that the presence of lead and barium particles—those detected by the sodium rhodizonate test—is “not reliable” as an indicator of firearm discharge residue.
It was known, therefore, during Mr Cleeland’s many appeals that the forensic test presented to the court as evidence of firearm discharge residue was not really evidence at all. However, that manual was prepared in 1980 and Mr Clarke was murdered in 1972. For how long was the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory aware that the sodium rhodizonate test was not a suitable test for the detection of firearm discharge residue?
During my inquiries into my constituent’s case, and following a written parliamentary question to the Home Office, I was kindly assisted by Martyn Ismail of the Forensic Science Service, with which the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory was merged in 1996. Mr Ismail provided me with three papers from the archives relating to the sodium rhodizonate test, dated 1943, 1959 and 1965. All those papers were useful, but especially that by G. Price in the 1965 edition of the Journal of Forensic Sciences, which describes the use of the sodium rhodizonate test—which we now know to be inappropriate—for the identification of firearm discharge residue on hands. The paper’s penultimate paragraph states:
“In the case of firearms where the breech remains closed after firing, such as shot guns and rifles, it has not been possible to detect traces of lead by this method.”
In other words, lead residue is released when the breech is opened following discharge of a weapon.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that the firearm submitted by the police as the murder weapon was an antique 12-bore Gye and Moncrieff shotgun, which police claimed was found in the vicinity of the murder, and which contained two discharged shells. Two shots were discharged in the murder; two discharged shells were found in the breech of the double-barrelled shotgun. We know that the breech of the shotgun had not been opened, because if it had been the shotgun would have discharged the shells. Therefore, in this murder case, where the shotgun’s breech was not opened to eject the shells, the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory has known since 1965—some seven years before the murder of Mr Clarke—that it was not possible to detect “traces of lead” with a sodium rhodizonate test.
We know that more specific tests were available to the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory at the time of the investigation, and that Mr McCafferty should have been aware of them. Mr McCafferty should also have been aware that the sodium rhodizonate test was unsuitable for the detection of firearm discharge residue, and that given the circumstances of the murder, it had
“not been possible to detect traces of lead”
using the sodium rhodizonate test.
It seems to me obvious that Mr McCafferty was an unreliable expert witness, and the very grave problems with his evidence in my constituent’s trial must surely cast doubt on every other trial in which he has given evidence. It may also cast doubt on the trials of others whose convictions resulted from the evidence of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory where the presence of firearm discharge residue was alleged.
We are dealing with a case that took place in the 1970s, and my concern when looking at the evidence is that it sounds almost like something from “Life on Mars”, where the crime has been fitted to the person but not necessarily to the evidence available to the police.
Reflecting on those grave matters, is the Minister prepared to consider a review into cases where the sodium rhodizonate test was used to establish the presence of firearm discharge residue? With particular reference to Mr Cleeland’s case, I ask whether an independent review of all the papers relating to his case in the Home Office and with the police could take place. The Boothby report was commissioned in the 1970s to examine the case in detail and also the evidence prepared by Mr McCafferty. Conclusions of that report have been referred to in previous debates in the House. Mr Cleeland has never seen a full copy of the report. Could the Boothby report be published in full, including any supporting documentation and notes used in its preparation? If it is not possible to publish the report in full, could it be given to an independent expert outside the Home Office to examine in detail?
My constituent feels very strongly that previous Ministers may have inadvertently given misleading information to the House, based on guidance that they gave about what was contained in the Boothby report, which asserted that the evidence presented by Mr McCafferty was correct and that the conviction was sound. I would like that to be reviewed by an independent person, if not Mr Cleeland himself and his lawyers. If it is the case that assertions based on the Boothby report that were made to the House were not valid, a formal note should be placed on the record to confirm that, but obviously that requires an independent review of those papers and documents.
My constituent has raised a number of very important and fundamental questions about his case and the nature of his conviction. This is not a court of law—it is not a court of appeal—but I believe that the Home Office, if it is in possession of the Boothby report and any supporting notes and documents, should seek to make those available for independent scrutiny. That would certainly help my constituent in preparing for his case and shine some light on the way in which forensic evidence of this kind was presented in court cases in the 1970s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lynne Featherstone)
It is a pleasure to stand before you this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. In case I forget, I wish you a merry Christmas now.
Let me turn to the serious nature of the case in front of us. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on securing the debate. It is important that Members of Parliament can raise in this way matters that are of concern to their constituents. My hon. Friend has set out the grounds on which Mr Paul Cleeland disputes his conviction for murder. I listened very carefully to what he had to say, because allegations of miscarriages of justice are very serious matters. My hon. Friend went over the ground in this case. The conviction has been the subject of much scrutiny and debate. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, to my knowledge, this is the third time that the matter has been debated in Parliament. As my hon. Friend said, the previous debates took place in 1982 and 1988. He referred to the many right hon. and hon. Members who over the years have tried to raise these issues.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, it is of course the criminal justice system, not Members of Parliament or Ministers, that decides on guilt or innocence. Terence Clarke was murdered in 1972, and Mr Cleeland was convicted of his murder by a jury the following year. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has been engaged with this matter over time since the first application to it in 1977. In 2000, the case was referred to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the murder conviction in 2002.
Of course, I listened carefully to the arguments about discrepancies in the ballistic evidence. My hon. Friend makes the case very well. He raised the issue of forensics and the reliability or otherwise both of the sodium rhodizonate test and of Mr McCafferty himself. Notwithstanding all that has happened with regard to this case, as set out in section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the Criminal Cases Review Commission can always refer a case back to court on the basis of information or an argument that has not previously been raised—at trial, on appeal or with the Home Office—and which creates a “real possibility” that an appeal would succeed. I assume—I hope that my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that many if not all those points were made in the appeals, and those issues have been raised previously.
Damian Collins
As I said in my speech, the Metropolitan police manual for 1980 has come to light only recently and subsequent to some of the appeals; and, indeed, the evidence that I have obtained via the Home Office, which cites academic papers dating back to the 1960s, has not previously been presented and, I think, certainly undermines the evidence presented by Mr McCafferty.
Lynne Featherstone
On the case itself, I would then make this suggestion—I am not able to give legal advice; I am not a lawyer in any sense. I would have thought that if there is new evidence, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is the body that should seek another judicial stage, if that were to be sought. In that sense, this is not, as we have said, a matter for Members of Parliament or, indeed, Ministers.
In terms of the alleged miscarriage of justice, the use of a forensic test in the case is questioned. That goes to the heart of my hon. Friend’s request for a review by the Home Office. Forensic science is an essential tool in the armoury of criminal justice. Forensic service suppliers in England and Wales provide some of the quickest turnaround times and highest-quality forensic science in the world. The Government have recently reappointed Andrew Rennison as the forensic science regulator to provide strong, independent regulation of quality standards, and it is right that the Government set the direction for and expectations of the quality standards to be used in the criminal justice system.
I want to be clear in that context that, as a test for the presence of lead, the sodium rhodizonate test is not fundamentally flawed. It is the case, however, that forensic science techniques are available today that would provide considerably more information than those in use in the 1970s. That does not mean that convictions from that time are unsafe or that a court has not properly relied on the scientific evidence available to it at the time.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being very generous. What I said was not that the test is unsound for detecting the presence of lead, but that it is not a safe test for detecting firearms residue.
Lynne Featherstone
Indeed, but I notice that in terms of the specific case, the forensic test was one of the 20 grounds of appeal considered by the Court of Appeal in 2002, when Mr Cleeland’s conviction was upheld. The understanding was that electron microscopic testing had not then been developed within the Metropolitan police laboratory to be in use. Also, whether or not that was correct, there was no evidence as to what such testing might or might not have demonstrated at the time or with the benefit of hindsight.
Damian Collins
My concern is that there was knowledge of the limitations of the test, yet evidence was presented from it in a court that suggested that there was no ambiguity at all and that it could be safely relied upon, whereas academic papers that were in the possession of the Metropolitan police cast doubt on that.
Lynne Featherstone
My hon. Friend is saying that since the relevant time, new evidence has come to light that casts doubt on all this, and has requested a review. What I can offer is this. I can ask the forensic science regulator, Andrew Rennison, to consider this type of evidence. I cannot give an answer on whether there will be a review, but I will ask his opinion of whether there should be a review.
In terms of the Boothby report, my hon. Friend has requested that a report on the allegations of police misconduct in connection with the case made by Mr Cleeland be made available. The Court of Appeal ordered the disclosure of that report in 2001 to seek to allay concerns raised by the appellant at the time about that. We therefore understand that his solicitors from that time may have a copy of the report.
Damian Collins
Mr Cleeland has confirmed to me that they do not have possession of the report. They never have had possession of it, despite what was said at the Court of Appeal. Certainly the report is not in his hands at all. Therefore if the Minister could deliver that report—make it available to him—we would be very grateful.
Lynne Featherstone
It was brought to my officials’ attention yesterday that the issue would be raised. The whereabouts of the report was discussed with the Hertfordshire police. We understand from them that Mr Cleeland’s solicitor has requested the report and that they are trying to locate a copy so that they can consider whether it would be appropriate to disclose it. The Home Office will also carry out the same process to see whether we can find the report, but I cannot guarantee that it was or will be found.
My hon. Friend has made an excellent case today in laying out why he believes that there should be a reconsideration, presumably both of the case and in looking at forensics and residues in that context. I cannot give answers on that or on the actual case; as I said, it is for the criminal review board to decide whether there is enough new evidence to take the case back to any sort of judicial process.
I thank my hon. Friend. I have sought to be as helpful as I can possibly be.
Damian Collins
I appreciate that the Minister is drawing to her conclusion. Would it be possible for her to write to me, following the debate, on the points that she has raised about the review of the test, the location of the Boothby report and whether that can be made available, so that I am able to share that information in writing with my constituent?
Lynne Featherstone
Hansard will do it for me, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on those particular points that he has raised.
Damian Collins
The Minister said that both Hertfordshire police and the Home Office will try to locate a copy of the Boothby report and see if that can be made available to Mr Cleeland. I would appreciate it if the Minister could write to me following the search for the report to confirm whether it has been found and what has happened to it. If it is decided that it would not be appropriate, despite what the Court of Appeal said, to give that document to Mr Cleeland, will an independent expert be able to scrutinise it on behalf of Mr Cleeland and form an opinion about its contents?
Lynne Featherstone
I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend following our search; I do not know about Hertfordshire police’s search. We will do whatever we can. I cannot go ahead of that, before we understand whether we have it, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend in that regard. I congratulate him again on securing this debate and on bringing such an important issue to Parliament.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank both hon. Members for taking part in that interesting debate; I think that Mr Collins’s constituent has been well served today. I wish both participants a happy Christmas.
Stafford Hospital
(13 years 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
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am expecting my colleagues from Staffordshire to come into the Chamber during this debate and to intervene if they so wish.
On 1 December this year, Stafford hospital started a temporary night-time closure of the accident and emergency department from 10 pm to 8 am. That happened principally as a result of a shortage of A and E specialists and the need to maintain a safe service. The hospital has been unable to recruit such specialists, partly as a result of a national shortage and partly owing to problems that Stafford has experienced. I wish to set out why it is important for the hospital’s A and E department to return to full-time working and to draw out some more general conclusions.
The hospital is part of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which also runs the non-acute Cannock hospital. Stafford serves a population of some 250,000 to 300,000 people in the middle and south-west of the county. As my intention is to highlight the importance of A and E, I will dwell only briefly on the Francis public inquiry, which is completing its work and will report next year. The inquiry is considering the lessons that can be learned from what happened. Certainly, lessons learned from the initial Francis investigation into the hospital have largely been put into practice. There continue to be major improvements, though clearly there is no complacency. It has been very encouraging to hear from constituents about the quality of care that they receive and their praise for staff.
I have heard some say that the Francis inquiry is not necessary, but I disagree profoundly. Let me simply report the words of a senior member of the Royal College of Physicians who said that that is the most important inquiry into the NHS in a generation. I am most grateful to the Government for their support for the hospital and the trust through a particularly difficult time for Stafford and the whole surrounding area. I ask for that support to continue, as the trust develops its plans to provide high-quality and financially sustainable services.
The importance that people in Stafford, Cannock, Rugeley and beyond place on the A and E department is shown by the more than 18,000 people who have signed petitions that support it. Stafford borough council has also shown strong support by passing a unanimous resolution at full council. Since the temporary night-time closure, a number of people have told me how concerned people, particularly the elderly, are that they no longer have a night-time emergency service relatively close to hand. We need to remember that, across the country, A and E departments not only treat people in medical need and save lives, but provide reassurance, whether to parents with a child who becomes sick in the middle of the night, or elderly people who have no transport of their own and are worried about imposing themselves by calling out an ambulance and overburdening the service. For them, an emergency service that is as local as possible is essential.
Let me make it clear that the closure was necessary. The decision was not taken lightly, but was made in the interests of patient safety. The temporary night-time closure is giving the hospital time to recruit the necessary staff and to improve training, which is difficult when one is overstretched.
I should like to thank the Minister and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), as well as the Secretary of State for Health and the Department of Health for their help and support. I also thank the Ministers and staff of the Ministry of Defence for providing armed forces medical staff to assist for some 12 weeks. They have been invaluable both in providing additional cover and in helping with training.
I should like to thank the leadership and staff of the University hospital of North Staffordshire, New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton, Manor hospital in Walsall and Burton hospitals for taking the strain of additional patients during the temporary night-time closure. I also thank the staff of the West Midlands ambulance service for providing the necessary additional cover.
I should now like to turn to the reasons why Stafford requires a 24-hour A and E department. First, the population of the area is growing. Stafford itself is a growth point and expects to see another 15,000 to 20,000 people settle in the area in the coming 20 years, with 2,000 to 3,000 from the armed forces returning from Germany to MOD Stafford between 2015 and 2018. Cannock and Rugeley are also growing.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He mentions Cannock, which is my constituency. Does he agree that the answer to all the problems that we have seen in Stafford is not to close Cannock but to impose a two-site solution, with services both at Stafford and at Cannock and an improved and more vibrant Cannock hospital? That is the only way forward and a solution on which we both agree as neighbouring constituency MPs.
Jeremy Lefroy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is essential that we have services both in Cannock and Stafford. Both hospitals are vital to their local communities, although they perform different services.
Secondly, we have an increasing elderly population who rely on local accident and emergency services. Increasing life expectancy is welcome, but when the elderly become ill, they tend to be more acutely ill. The combination of population growth and more elderly people will inevitably lead to more demand for emergency and acute services. Successive Governments have tried, with varying degrees of success, to persuade people who are not seriously ill to use alternatives to A and E. That is important—I welcome the Government’s moves in that direction—but it will only relieve a small part of the pressure on these departments.
Thirdly, Stafford’s accident and emergency department is extremely busy. The admissions for the past 12 months, up to November 2011, numbered 52,255. That is some two thirds of the number of admissions to Manor hospital in Walsall and slightly more than half of the admissions to the University hospital of North Staffordshire and New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touches on an important point, especially at this time of peak demand for hospitals. New Cross hospital and hospitals in Walsall and Stoke-on-Trent are under a lot of pressure. It is vital that we ensure that this closure is only temporary and that we resume full-time, 24-hour accident and emergency services.
Jeremy Lefroy
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I reiterate my thanks to those hospitals for taking on the extra patients in the night-time hours during this difficult time in the winter. Stafford accounts for 14% of the entire number of A and E admissions for the whole region, which includes Staffordshire, Wolverhampton and Walsall.
Fourthly, with Stafford being shut at night, most patients have to travel considerably further for emergency care. The University hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke is 19 miles away, New Cross in Wolverhampton is 18 miles away, Manor hospital in Walsall is 19 miles away and the hospital in Burton is 27 miles away. The absence of Stafford, even for 10 hours at night, leaves a very large hole in accident and emergency provision for the region. It is a matter not only of distance, but of the amount of traffic on the roads. Night-time travel is usually reasonable in the area, but congestion can be substantial during the day, particularly when the M6 is closed between junctions 12 and 14 and all motorway traffic is diverted through the middle of Stafford.
It has only been possible to cope with the temporary night-time closure with the use of several additional ambulances and increasing staff cover. Such facilities are expensive. Indeed, they are more expensive than keeping the A and E department open 24/7, which emphasises the fact that the decision was taken for reasons not of cost but of patient safety.
It is essential that Stafford hospital has a full-time accident and emergency service, but not every emergency can be treated there. Given the advances in medical science and treatment, it makes sense for some of the most serious emergencies to be treated by top specialists who will only be in the largest hospitals. Patients with major trauma, severe strokes or major heart attacks already go to regional centres such as UHNS. That is understood and generally accepted. However, a district general hospital should be able to respond safely to a number of emergency conditions and provide a minimum set of services, such as acute medical, including rheumatology and geriatric; acute surgical and orthopaedic; paediatric; maternity; and mental health, particularly for overdoses. In some cases, hospitals may have to stabilise a patient before they can be transferred to a specialist centre.
Retaining a core set of emergency services in district general hospitals is important to protect their viability. As John Donne said:
“No man is an island.”
That can equally be said of many acute services. It is not possible to retain acute medicine, which provides the lion’s share of the income of an acute hospital, without having access to surgical opinion on the spot. Any emergency service also needs the full-time support of critical care units and radiology, to name but two. That is not to say that there can be no change—there must be changes to make district general hospitals financially sustainable in a difficult climate—but we must not put so much pressure on them that their only option is to close their doors to emergencies from the communities that they serve, forcing people to travel considerable distances for all but minor injuries.
Changes must be thought through and discussed openly with those communities. There should be no sudden changes and nothing hidden in the small print. The NHS is paid for by the British people and is a service that gives us great reassurance, even if we are fortunate enough rarely to need it.
I have set out clearly why Stafford hospital needs a full-time accident and emergency service. I am making the argument from the point of view not of the hospital itself, the bricks and mortar, but of the patients—my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), for Stone (Mr Cash) and for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), many of whom rely on its services.
Stafford hospital provides a first-class service to many people in our area. The management, the staff, my parliamentary colleagues and I are not complacent; we recognise that there is more to be done. None of us will be satisfied until our hospital is known nationally, as I believe it will be, for its high-quality treatment and care and it has the confidence of all those whom it serves.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I will be fairly brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this debate. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Stafford, he has transformed the attitudes and policy towards Stafford hospital. I pay tribute to the work that he does on behalf of the hospital and all his constituents. The issue has a direct bearing on my constituency, as well as those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) and for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). Indeed, it also has a bearing on other parts of Staffordshire where the hospital is used by constituents from neighbouring areas.
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has said, but I should like to add another factor, which is highly relevant to a constituency such as mine. The Stafford part of my constituency has some deeply rural areas, such as High Offley, that are very much more remote than the streets of Stafford and other towns with good arterial connections to the M6. I have heard figures quoted about how quickly people can get to UHNS and other hospitals. I simply make the point that somebody might have a stroke, or a farmer might be caught in some dreadful tragedy in a dark field in a remote area.
My hon. Friend is completely right when he says that we need a full accident and emergency service. At the moment, we are going through a hiatus, but let it not remain long because we need a proper full service, especially for those deeply rural areas, as well as for the more built-up areas in the urban parts of Stafford and the adjacent areas.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. This debate is clearly important for Stafford and the surrounding area. I call the Minister to respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to respond to the debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today; I do not think that I have done so before.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) on securing this debate and of course I join him in paying tribute to the staff of Stafford hospital, the staff of the local ambulance service and indeed the staff of the neighbouring hospitals for all that they are doing to provide local people with good accident and emergency services. I particularly pay tribute to them at this time of year. When many people will be enjoying their Christmas lunch, there will be many NHS staff working over the Christmas period and it is always important to acknowledge their contribution and the work that they do.
My hon. Friend raised a number of issues about the overnight closure of the A and E department at Stafford hospital, which is a measure that will naturally be a cause for concern for his constituents. I know that all of them have been through quite a tough time, but I also know that he will agree—in fact, he did agree—that the safety of patients must always come first. However safety can be protected, that is always the best course of action, so I must support clinicians at Stafford hospital in their request for the overnight closure, which they made so that standards of care in the A and E department can be kept high.
My hon. Friend mentioned A and E staff, but it is also important to note that this issue is not always about numbers. A certain number of staff are needed in an A and E department, but that department also needs expertise; it not only needs staff in the right quantity but staff with the right skills and competencies.
I also want to remind hon. Members who are in Westminster Hall today—it is a pleasure to see so many of them here—that for some time now the NHS at Stafford hospital has been routinely diverting all of the most critical patients, including those suffering from major trauma, heart attacks and strokes, to the larger hospitals to the north and south of Stafford. That is not because of the suspension of overnight A and E at Stafford but because the larger hospitals in the area are better able to cope with life-threatening emergencies. My hon. Friend pointed that out, but it is worth repeating it for the record.
The change at Stafford A and E is down to staffing levels; I understand that financial pressures do not come into it. Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust has the funding for the posts that it needs to fill, but it has found it difficult to find the staff to fill them. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of reassuring the local community. The available health services need to reassure people; that is one of their important roles. They must also engender trust among those people who they are there to serve. That is a very important role that the NHS must play.
Since the summer of 2010, permanent staffing—both medical and nursing—at Stafford A and E has been low. The trust and the wider NHS in the midlands have been trying to get enough medical cover to keep standards at the right levels. It is also important to acknowledge the support from the neighbouring University Hospital of North Staffordshire. Without it, the situation would have been considerably worse. However, that regional support could never be kept going indefinitely. To buy some time to work out longer-term solutions, Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, arranged the short-term loan of four members of staff—two doctors and two nurses—from Defence Medical Services to help at the trust. My hon. Friend paid tribute to those staff and it is always good to see organisations working together to deliver the best possible solutions for patients. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that arrangement started on 17 October and it is now coming to an end; again, it could not be kept going for an indefinite period of time. However, let us place on record our thanks to the members of staff involved and to the DMS for providing them. I know that everyone at the trust welcomed the expertise that the DMS staff brought with them.
In October, the Care Quality Commission issued a warning notice regarding the quality of care provided by the Stafford A and E department. The CQC’s concerns centred on nursing staff levels, which at the time of inspection were badly depleted because of staff sickness and the overall difficulty of filling vacancies. On 9 November, the trust decided to close its A and E department overnight, starting from 1 December. That decision was not made lightly. As my hon. Friend pointed out, people want A and E facilities close to where they live, so, as I say, such decisions are never made lightly, and they need to be taken locally; it is not appropriate for the Department of Health to interfere with them. It goes without saying that the trust is paying the closest possible attention to the situation at Stafford A and E. It believes that that situation cannot be improved quickly, however frustrating that is for hon. Members.
Mr Cash
Does the Minister agree that there is also a question that may be a national issue, of which Stafford may or may not be an example? That is the need to ensure that consultants are always available, as and when necessary, because I think that that issue is all part of the hierarchy of the problem.
Anne Milton
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which is one of delegation and cover. It is of concern to the Department of Health; I think that there have been a number of newspaper articles and some television programmes about it. It is important at all times that care is delivered safely. That sometimes requires cover, but it also requires appropriate levels of delegation. However, what must be uppermost in everybody’s mind is that patients’ safety is always preserved, and the Department of Health will obviously work with the NHS to ensure that nationally we have schemes to ensure that patients’ safety is maintained.
For that reason, it would be unwise to return to 24-hour opening at Stafford A and E department before it is safe to do so. To minimise risk, I understand that the trust has set criteria that must be met before overnight operating can resume, and I also understand that there are regular staff meetings to check progress against those criteria. Those meetings are an important means of reassuring staff and those criteria will become critical. They mean that staff will be aware of the current situation and fully up to speed with the progress that is being made.
At present, I understand that patients needing A and E treatment are being diverted by ambulance to A and E departments in Wolverhampton, Walsall, Burton and Stoke, every one of which has been fully involved in planning for the overnight closure at Stafford. West Midlands Ambulance Service has established a divert policy to deal properly with patients coming to the trust, and to alternative A and E departments, at night. To help to manage those arrangements, the trust has appointed a “repatriation co-ordinator” to ensure close co-operation between Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust hospitals and the other hospitals affected. The thing that struck me as quite extraordinary is the amazing job titles that the NHS can come up with at times. However, that “repatriation co-ordinator” will be important, to ensure close co-operation between hospitals.
To date, very few patients have turned up at Stafford A and E at night, which is a testament to how well the trust has publicised the current arrangements. That is another important point; explaining the reason for the closure, and how and where to get help when Stafford A and E is closed, is vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford mentioned older people in his speech. As I say, the fact that few people are turning up at Stafford A and E at night means that the message that the department is closed overnight has got through, even to older people, who of course often attend A and E departments.
Mr Cash
On a purely practical level, diversion signs are important. My hon. Friend is referring to the importance of getting the message through, but however much we try to get the message through, I suspect that people will still turn up anyway. Therefore, the most important thing at that point is to know that the signing system—as provided by the highways authorities, or whoever—will actually provide the right information to help people to get to the other hospitals. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Anne Milton
I agree entirely, and I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Stafford are in touch with the local authorities, because it is extremely important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone rightly pointed out, that diversion signs are clear to people and that people do not turn up at an A and E department that is closed. It is actually quite extraordinary how resilient people are to those diversion signs. Information needs to be given to people in words of one syllable, so that they are quite clear that the A and E department is not open for business at the moment.
Stafford is taking, and it will continue to take, GP-referred maternity, paediatric and medical patients 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which will be of some reassurance to local people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has visited Stafford A and E department several times since the overnight closure came into effect, and I am pleased to hear that he is satisfied that the measures that have been put in place will ensure patient safety and good access to A and E services. I know that some of his constituents are concerned about the impact of increased demand on neighbouring A and E departments. The situation is being closely monitored and the local NHS is content that the arrangements are working well.
Of course at this time of year, the pressure on A and E departments gets greater. We have not suffered particularly severe weather in the south of the country, but some places have done so. Such weather always takes its toll on the NHS, and therefore the monitoring of how things go is very important.
As I have said, the closure took place on the advice of clinicians with the aim of ensuring patient safety. The trust continues in its efforts to recruit additional staff, and patients can be assured that it will not reopen its A and E department full time before it is safe to do so. The trust, the Staffordshire PCT cluster, emerging clinical commissioning groups and others are looking at a range of options to achieve a clinically safe and financially sustainable service, and will present their report on the way forward to the NHS Midlands and East strategic health authority cluster at the end of January next year.
I will say a word about emergency medicine nationally. The number of emergency medicine consultants has risen by more than half in the past five years, but we agree that it must continue to increase and we are working with the College of Emergency Medicine on how best to make that happen. In the short term, some trusts have been employing more GPs in A and E. GPs are primary care experts, so their presence in A and E allows emergency specialists to concentrate on the cases for which their skills are needed. We are, however, looking at a number of areas, because this matter is of national concern. We are considering revising the person specification for training in emergency medicine to make entry more accessible, and redirecting into emergency medicine some of the doctors who cannot secure other higher specialty training posts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pointed out the importance of specialist services, and what I have said about the national situation highlights exactly why they are so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone mentioned, the particular needs of people in rural communities, for whom travelling long distances causes additional problems, must also be taken into account. It has long been the case that specialist services need to be provided in specialist centres, and during my own working life as a nurse we had regional neurosurgical centres for the specialties that required highly skilled and specific care. That is important, because we are always balancing patient safety with the accessibility of local services.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I join colleagues in commending the thoughtful leadership role that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has taken. May I ask the Minister two things? Can we be reassured that the awful lessons of Stafford have been learned nationally? If I may crave the indulgence of my Staffordshire colleagues, I have happy memories of fighting with the Minister during the previous Parliament, when I was chairman of her association, to save the A and E at the Royal Surrey, so perhaps she would care to extend her warm words to all the medical staff who will be working there over Christmas and the new year holiday, just as she did to those at the Stafford hospital and elsewhere in Staffordshire.
Anne Milton
I thank my hon. Friend for his imaginative use of this debate to point out that I joined with him to fight a long, hard battle to save our hospital in the Guildford constituency. It is important, of course, to extend our thanks and tributes to staff working not only in our own constituencies, but across the country. On the first question, there is no doubt that lessons need to be learned, and I think that we sometimes feel that the NHS is slow to learn the lessons it should.
Work is being carried out nationally to address the skills mix, by developing non-medical roles within A and E departments. Enhanced nursing roles have genuine potential, and in countries with very remote populations, such as Canada and the USA, they are an extremely important part of the general skills mix. Emergency nurse practitioners who can look at the minor injuries and illnesses that in most departments account for 40% of the work load can be a major contribution to ensuring that A and E services remain available for local people, and advanced clinical practitioners, such as nurses and paramedics, can therefore treat many more of the major conditions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for securing this debate, and other hon. Members for attending on the last day before recess. A number of Staffordshire MPs have met with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), and I know that he will continue to keep in close touch, but should any new concerns arise I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will raise them with him. That leaves to me just to wish you, Mr Hollobone, and all the House of Commons staff a very happy Christmas and a prosperous and safe new year.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for taking part in this debate and I, too, wish everyone a very merry Christmas.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
EU Trade Foreign Affairs Council (Post-Council Statement)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)
I represented the UK at the trade session of the above Foreign Affairs Council in Geneva, Switzerland, on 14 December.
Trade Ministers met immediately before the eighth World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial conference to take a number of decisions related to the conference, notably the accessions of Russia and Samoa to the WTO and the least developed countries services waiver, as well as to approve the mandates for deep and comprehensive free trade agreements (DCFTAs) with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia.
The main items for discussion were the position to be taken by the European Union on the Doha development agenda (DDA), the future path of the WTO and the negotiations on the revision to the Government procurement agreement (GPA). There was broad agreement on the former, in particular the importance of messages on resisting protectionism, on strengthening the WTO and maintaining its relevance for tackling 21st century issues, and on the need for an active negotiating agenda in order to deliver “early harvests” of those areas that were most advanced in the DDA such as trade facilitation.
The UK, supported by the majority of member states, called for the EU to conclude the 10-year long process of reviewing the Government procurement agreement. I argued that a successful deal would pave the way for the opening of negotiations with China on its possible future accession to the GPA. I also stressed the value of obtaining a business-friendly deal at such a critical moment for the EU and the WTO.
Subsequent to the trade FAC, I represented the UK at the World Trade Organisation’s eighth ministerial conference (MC8) in Geneva from 15 to 17 December.
The conference agreed to Russia’s accession to the WTO after an 18-year negotiation. Agreement was also given to accession by Samoa and Montenegro. All will become members of the WTO during 2012 when domestic ratification is complete. With the approval of the accession of Vanuatu earlier this year, this will take the WTO’s membership from 153 to 157. Samoa and Vanuatu are the first least developed countries (LDCs) to join since 2004.
The conference also agreed a waiver from WTO rules to allow preferential market access to LDC providers of services, extended the deadline for LDCs to bring in rules to protect intellectual property, and agreed provisions aimed at speeding up LDCs’ membership negotiations. Members also reaffirmed their commitment to working towards the implementation of promises on duty free quota free access (DFQF) and cotton, first made at MC6 in Hong Kong in 2005.
Finally, the 42 signatories to the Government procurement agreement (a plurilateral agreement within the WTO framework allowing access to each others’ procurement market) agreed, after 10 years of negotiation, a revision to the Agreement. The deal expanded market access within the signatories, including, for the EU, access to €100 billion-worth of PFI contracts related to reconstruction in Japan.
On the Doha development agenda negotiations the agreed chair’s summary noted that negotiations were at an “impasse”, that members had “significantly different perspectives”, and that it was
“unlikely that all elements could be concluded simultaneously in the near future.”
Despite this, Ministers remained committed to further work, to the need
“to more fully explore different negotiating approaches”,
and to advancing negotiations to allow
“Members to reach provisional or definitive agreements based on consensus earlier than the full conclusion of the single undertaking”
(i.e. “early harvests”).
Finally, the conference agreed to
“intensify their efforts to look into ways that may allow Members to overcome the most critical and fundamental stalemates in the areas where multilateral convergence has proven to be especially challenging”.
Skills Funding and the Skills Funding Agency (Chief Executive)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Further to my announcement on 1 November, I would inform Parliament about the outcome of the review into the status of the chief executive of skills funding and the Skills Funding Agency.
The review has concluded that the existing arrangement of a statutory post holder should be replaced with a more traditional Executive agency model. This is consistent with the Government’s wider commitment to improve radically the transparency and accountability for all public services, providing clarity and focus to the work of the agency and ensuring that skills and apprenticeship programmes are delivered within an overarching strategic framework set by Government.
The Skills Funding Agency will continue to play a vital role in funding the education and skills training that our country needs to tackle the very real challenges that lie ahead; and the outcome of this review reflects the Government’s ongoing commitment to building on the strength of the further education system, while ensuring rigorous accountability structures are in place.
I can confirm that both the Skills Funding Agency and wider stakeholders have been fully engaged in the review process, and I will be writing to them today about the outcome of this work.
We will bring forward legislation for this change as and when parliamentary time allows.
ECOFIN
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 30 November 2011. The following items were discussed:
Breakfast: debrief from Eurogroup meeting of 29 November and discussion of the economic situation
Council heard that Eurogroup had agreed the sixth tranche of funding for Greece under its assistance package. It also received an update on the options for leveraging the European financial stability facility. Council then discussed bank capital and funding, following up on the European Council of 26 October, and agreed that capital requirements needed to be met without deleveraging, I made it clear that if required, funding schemes needed to be at national level. This was agreed. I also called for early discussion of progress on the capital requirements directive.
Follow-up to the G20 Summit of 3-4 November in Cannes
France provided a debrief of the summit. They confirmed that the major topic of discussion had been the euro area crisis and that the EU had been urged to agree a comprehensive approach to the crisis. They also noted that the summit had discussed ways of increasing IMF resources.
Annual Growth Survey (AGS)
The Commission presented its second annual growth survey and set out five key priorities: fiscal consolidation (while taking account of the need for growth and for differentiation between member states); restoring normal lending conditions, with particular attention to SMEs; completing the single market; reforms to modernise labour resources (in particular ensuring wages better reflect productivity, improving labour mobility, and addressing youth unemployment); and efficient public administration.
Second economic governance package
The Commission presented two legislative proposals and a discussion paper. The first of the legislative proposals relates to strengthening budgetary surveillance within the euro area, particularly for member states in excessive deficit. It would require euro area member states to submit their draft national budgets to the Council and the Commission by 15 October of the preceding year for assessment. The second proposal is a draft regulation on the surveillance of euro area member states experiencing severe financial disturbance. It set out a process of more comprehensive monitoring for member states receiving a programme of financial assistance from EU and IMF-backed funds. Such monitoring could also be applied to member states not receiving assistance but considered to be at risk.
The Commission discussion paper proposed three options for stability bonds: full substitution of national issuance by stability bonds with joint and several guarantees; partial substitution of national issuance with joint and several guarantees; or partial substitution of national issuance with several but not joint guarantees. The Commission noted that stability bonds would create a deepening of economic and monetary union and this would need to be accompanied by parallel measures to strengthen economic governance. Some options would also require treaty change. The Commission said that it would prepare further steps on euro area economic governance by the end of 2011.
There was no substantive debate, particularly not on stability bonds, but a number of member states expressed support for the general principle of further strengthening euro area economic governance.
Recommendation on a nomination to the executive board of the European Central Bank
This was added to the agenda as a result of discussion over breakfast. Council adopted a recommendation on the nomination of Benoît Coeuré of France, to replace Lorenzo Bini Smaghi of Italy, who has announced his resignation.
Economic and financial impact of EU legislation
Council discussed conclusions addressing the need for impact assessments of proposed EU legislation, and for all such legislation to take account of the need to ensure sustainable public finances and create jobs and growth. The UK intervened to support the conclusions. After much discussion conclusions were agreed with a number of amendments.
Court of Auditors’ 2010 Report on the EU Accounts
The President of the Court of Auditors presented its report. In the auditors’ view, the budget presents fairly the position and cash flow of the EU, although there remains scope for improvement. Control systems are only partially effective and overall there has been an increase in the level of errors. The Commission highlighted that the report showed progress had been made. The UK, the Netherlands and Sweden all expressed concern at the increased error rate. The presidency noted the report, which will be further considered by Council in February 2012, when Ministers will vote on discharge of the 2010 accounts.
EU Statistics
Council adopted conclusions welcoming the report of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board and inviting the Commission to put forward proposals regarding the professional independence of national statistical authorities and EUROSTAT.
Code of Conduct (business taxation)
This item was withdrawn from the agenda by the presidency and is now expected to be considered by Council in January 2012.
Civil Service Pensions
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
On 2 November the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House setting out an improved offer on public service pensions to public sector workers (Cm 8214). This offer provided a more generous cost ceiling for scheme-specific discussions to work within, and protected all those within 10 years of their pension age from any further change. This generous offer was conditional on the Government and trade unions reaching agreement by the end of the year, including in the principal civil service pension scheme, bringing to a conclusion talks that have lasted since February 2011.
Since 2 November my officials and I have been engaged in detailed and intensive talks with the National Trade Union Committee for the civil service. I can now report to the House on the heads of agreement on the scheme design for the principal civil service pension scheme to be introduced in 2015, on which talks have concluded. The Government have made it clear this sets out their final position on the main elements of scheme design, which the FDA, Prospect, GMB Prison Governors Association and the Immigration Services Union have agreed to take to their Executives as the best that can be achieved through negotiations. There is a specific outstanding issue relating to mechanisms for prison officers to retire earlier than state pension age where we are continuing to have discussions with the Prison Officers Association. We will invite these unions to join us in further work on the remaining details in the new year, and their Executives will consult members as appropriate. The continued union engagement includes a commitment to suspend any further industrial action while the final details are resolved and unions are consulting their members.
The core parameters of the new scheme are set out below:
a. a pension scheme design based on career average;
b. a provisional accrual rate of 2.28% (equivalent to 1/43.9) of pensionable earnings each year, subject to further agreement on final details.
c. revaluation of active members’ benefits in line with CPI;
d. a normal pension age equal to state pension age, which applies both to active members and deferred members (for new scheme service only);
e. pensions in payment to increase in line with prices (currently CPI);
f. benefits earned in deferment to increase in line with prices (currently CPI);
g. average member contributions of 5.6%, with some protection for the lowest paid (the detailed structure of which is still to be agreed);
h. optional lump sum commutation at a rate of 12:1, in accordance with HMRC limits and regulations;
i. spouses/partner pension of three-eighths of pension, in line with the current open scheme ;
j. lump sum on death in service of two-times salary;
k. ill-health benefits in line with those in the current open scheme;
l. actuarially fair early/late retirement factors on a cost-neutral basis; and,
m. an employer contribution cap to provide backstop protection to the taxpayer against unforeseen costs and risks and allowance for an improvement in member benefits if the value of the scheme falls beyond a fixed level;
n. the scheme will support the use of partial retirement and will follow the recommended approach set out in the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission final report of 10 March 2011 on abatement (details to be finalised); and
o. a guarantee, outside of the scheme designs parameters set out above, of no further reform for the next 25 years.
Transitional arrangements
Scheme members who, as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to their current pension age will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. They will be allowed to remain members of their existing schemes up to and including the point at which they draw their pension rights and all current scheme rules will continue to apply.
Members who are within a further 3.5 years outside this protected group will have an additional degree of protection, in the form of further accrual in their existing schemes. This protection will be tapered in a linear fashion depending on the age of the member.
Areas for further detailed discussion
Discussions with the trade unions identified above will continue early next year, to shape the remaining elements of the scheme design such as abatement, re-employment, treatment of re-joiners and public sector transfers and contribution rates structures including years 2 and 3 of the employee contribution increases. Any of these issues that affect the final cost of the scheme will need to be taken into account in the final rate of benefit accrual. The requirement to fit the new scheme within the revised cost ceiling for the reference scheme published on 2 November will remain, and agreement on these issues will also be subject to review by HM Treasury to agree the approach taken to risk management and impact on cash flows.
The Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that this scheme design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government on 2 November. Copies of the heads of agreement and the scheme actuary’s verification have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Local Government Pension Scheme
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
On 2 November the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House setting out an improved offer on public service pensions to public sector workers (Cm 8214). This offer provided a more generous cost ceiling for scheme-specific discussions to work within, and protected all those within 10 years of their pension age from any further change. This generous offer was conditional on the Government and trade unions reaching agreement by the end of the year, including the local government pension scheme in England and Wales, bringing to a conclusion talks that have lasted since February 2011.
Since 2 November, I have been engaged in talks with the local government trade unions and the Local Government Association (LGA) to enable purposeful discussions on local government pensions reform. I can now report to the House on the heads of agreement signed jointly by the local government trade unions and the LGA on the principles governing the scheme design, ongoing cost management and governance of the new scheme to be introduced in 2014. Further work on these agreed principles will commence in the new year under the supervision of a newly appointed project board representing key scheme partners. The Government have made it clear this sets out their final position on the main elements of scheme design, which unions have agreed to. This includes a commitment to suspend any further industrial action while the final details are resolved and unions are consulting their members.
The core parameters of the agreed new scheme design are set out below:
a. a single solution to both the short and long term issues by the early introduction of the new scheme in April 2014, with regulations in place by April 2013;
b. the single solution to be built on the basis of career average earnings;
c. can include zero increases in employee contributions for all, or the vast majority of members, provided that overall financial constraints set by the Government are met;
d. some elements of choice to encourage retention of existing membership and encourage new membership; and
e. flexible retirement age built around the scheme’s normal retirement age equal to the state pension age or age 65, whichever is later, and applies both to active members and deferred members (new scheme service only). If a member’s state pension age rises, then normal pension age will do so too for all post 2015 service.
A copy of the heads of agreement has been placed in the Library of the House.
Telecoms Council
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I represented the UK at the Telecoms Council in Brussels on 13 December 2011. The meeting was chaired by the Polish presidency.
There were four substantive agenda items:
1. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the first Radio Spectrum Policy Programme (RSPP): Adoption of Council’s position at first reading. (EM 13872/10)
This item was for member states to agree to a Council position to enable a First Reading deal to be reached with the European Parliament on the Commission’s proposed RSPP (EM 13872/10). The Council adopted this position without substantive comment.
2. Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on roaming on public mobile networks within the community—Progress Report and Exchange of views (EM 12639/11 and EM 12666/11)
This item was an exchange of views based around three questions on the above proposal as detailed in my pre-Council statement and was the only item that resulted in a round-table debate. I intervened as indicated in my pre-Council statement.
The main points of the discussion were:
Most member states agreed that the aim should be to adopt the new regulation before the expiration of the current regulation to avoid any gaps in consumer protection;
Most member states would prefer a technology-neutral regulation that does not contain the technical details of the structural solutions to be adopted. Thus, any technical detail would be contained in BEREC guidance and subject to consultation with key stakeholders;
Many member states were in favour of promoting the European approach to mobile roaming regulation within worldwide forums such as the ITU. However, the UK and others noted that Europe should strive to lead by example, rather than impose its approach on the world; and
A number of member states stressed the importance of ensuring the establishment of effective competition within the EU roaming market before price caps are lifted.
3. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA—Progress Report (EM 14358/10)
This item was a progress report from the presidency (EM 14358/10). I did not intervene on this item and there were no substantive interventions from other member states.
The Commission stated that it will publish a comprehensive internet security plan during 2012, the aim of which will be to: ensure that IT-related products and services are designed to survive cyber-attacks; and ensure that member states computer emergency response teams can exchange information more freely, thus allowing them to co-operate more effectively.
4. Lunchtime discussion on the future of universal service in telecommunications, with regard to the communication of the European Commission presented in the end of November (EM 17466/11)
The Council broke after the ENISA item for lunch. During the lunch, there was a debate on the issue of whether broadband should be added to the universal service directive, with debate framed by the three questions posed by the presidency as detailed in my pre-Council statement. This debate was prompted by the publication of the Communication from the Commission on the results of the public consultation on the role of the universal service obligation in electronic communications. (EM 17466/11)
I intervened along the lines set out in my pre-Council statement. Member states generally welcomed the decision by the Commission to leave to them when to decide to introduce a universal service obligation that would include broadband.
5. Communication from the Commission on Net Neutrality —Adoption of Council conclusions (EM 9350/11).
After lunch, the Council then considered the adoption of the Council conclusions that cover the recent communication entitled “The open internet and net neutrality in Europe”. (EM 9350/11). The conclusions were adopted without any substantive comment. However, I did intervene to highlight the self-regulatory initiative that UK stakeholders were engaged in.
This concluded the formal substantive business items for Council. However, there were eight items that were taken under Any Other Business. They were:
a) Digital agenda for Europe—information from the Commission (EM 9981/10).
b) Ministerial conference on perspectives for the development of the electronic communications market in the EU (Warszawa 19-20 October 2011)—information from the presidency.
c) Sixth ministerial conference e-govemment (Poznan 17-18 November)—information from the presidency.
d) Communication from the Commission on the results of the public consultation on the role of the universal service obligation in electronic communications (EM 17466/11).
e) Open data—an engine for innovation, growth and transparent governance—presentation by the Commission.
f) Connecting Europe facility—proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European networks and repealing Decision No. 1336/97/EC (EM 17176/11 and EM 16006/11)—presentation by the Commission.
g) State of play on implementation of the electronics communication framework—information from the Commission.
h) Work programme of the incoming presidency—information by the Danish delegation.
My only intervention under AOB was on item a. I intervened as per my pre-Council statement by stating that the Commission should bring forward actions that lead to the creation of a true pan-European digital single market. Other member states including Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden also highlighted the importance of this issue during similar interventions.
Armed Forces Covenant
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
Our armed forces make great sacrifices on the nation's behalf, not only on operations overseas, but in their service in the UK too. This Government recognise that the nation in turn has a responsibility properly to support them and their families. That is why the Armed Forces Act 2011 recognises the armed forces covenant in law for the first time, and creates an obligation on the Defence Secretary to publish an annual armed forces covenant report.
The Government are today publishing an interim armed forces covenant annual report, in advance of the statutory requirement created by the Act. It has been compiled in consultation with the covenant reference group, which brings together officials from across Government with service charities and family federations. The interim report covers the full scope of the armed forces covenant, published on 16 May 2011, and provides a baseline for future statutory reports.
On 16 May 2011 we also published “The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow”, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This document outlines the commitments made by the Government in support of the covenant. In contrast, today’s interim report is focused on recording progress and a broad survey of areas of interest and concern. These include housing, education, health care and the operation of inquests, as the statutory armed forces covenant report will from next year. It also considers whether our service men and women are disadvantaged in their ability to access public services, or whether in any areas there is a case that special treatment is justified, and again the statutory report will do the same.
Overall the report makes clear that while more can and will be done, much has been achieved since the coalition programme for government was published:
We have doubled the tax free operational allowance so that those serving on eligible operations now receive a lump sum of just over £5,000 for a six-month tour;
We have improved rest and recuperation leave for those on operations;
We have endorsed the proposals by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), for making improvements in mental health care provision, the majority of which have been implemented fully, and the provision of enhanced prosthetic services for military amputees;
We have delivered a scheme to provide scholarships to bereaved service children—to date a total of 22 further education and 61 higher education scholarships have been awarded for academic years 2010-11 and 2011-12;
We have delivered more help for those leaving the service to go on to higher/further education—not least through payment of tuition fees, which has been extended to the spouses or partners taking up the entitlement because of bereavement or injury of a discharged service person;
We have introduced the pupil premium for the children of those currently serving (£200 per child, rising to £250 next year), amounting to £9 million for 2011-12. In addition, we have made available £3 million per year for state schools with service children, including those of reservists. Since the launch of this fund, 139 bids from schools have been approved, amounting to £2.9 million for this financial year;
We have announced a community covenant scheme supported by a £30 million community covenant fund. Over 20 councils have signed a covenant with the armed forces community in their areas, with more planned in the coming months. More than £750,000 has already been released to support local projects, with further bidding rounds taking place quarterly;
We have doubled council tax relief for those on eligible operations overseas;
We are working with credit reference agencies to ensure service people are not disadvantaged by mobility requirements in accessing credit.
Recognising the key role played by the covenant reference group, the Government have committed themselves to publishing, alongside the annual report, any observations which the external members of the group might have on it. The external members have offered their observations on this interim report, and they are reproduced within it. They have drawn attention not only to the progress which has been made, but also to how much remains to be done. The Government welcome their constructive input and will take careful note of the points made. We are extremely grateful to them for their continued engagement and assistance, as we jointly take work forward on the armed forces covenant.
The armed forces covenant is a matter for the whole of Government, and sustained progress requires both close collaboration across Whitehall and clear ministerial leadership. My right hon. Friends, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, have therefore agreed to establish a new ministerial Committee, led by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the Minister with responsibility for Government policy, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) to oversee this work and ensure that momentum is maintained. The Prime Minister will chair the first meeting of this new Committee early next year. This new forum will work closely with the covenant reference group, whose key roles, including monitoring progress and holding the Government to account, will be unchanged. I will chair an annual joint meeting between the two bodies to ensure that the covenant reference group have the opportunity to engage with Ministers directly.
Early Years Foundation Stage
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
I am today publishing the Government response to the consultation on the early years foundation stage (EYFS).
The consultation has shown broad support for the Government’s proposals for a reformed EYFS, implementing the recommendations of Dame Clare Tickell’s independent review. The reforms will reduce paperwork and bureaucracy for professionals; focus attention on the areas most essential for children’s healthy development; support early intervention with children who face difficulties; and secure a stronger partnership with parents.
The Government response confirms our plans, including simplified assessment at age five and a new progress check for children aged 24 to 36 months, focused on the most important areas of children’s development. We also set out how we propose to refine the early learning goals (in particular literacy and maths), and minor changes to the guidance on assessment at age five to ensure it is relevant to all children including those with special educational needs and disabilities.
I am launching an additional one-month consultation on the EYFS early learning goals and educational programmes, and the relevant statutory instrument. This further consultation is required by the Childcare Act 2006.
The new early years framework is an important element in our plans to ensure families in the foundation years are supported, to give children the best possible start in life, and ensure that all children have the knowledge and skills that provide the right foundation for their future progress through school and life. The revised EYFS statutory framework (and the associated regulations) will be published in spring, to enable schools and other providers to prepare for implementation of the new EYFS from September 2012.
I have placed a copy of the Government response in the Libraries of both Houses.
Reform of the Teachers' Pension Scheme (England and Wales)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
On 2 November the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House setting out an improved offer on public service pensions to public sector workers (Cm 8214). This offer provided a more generous cost ceiling for scheme-specific discussions to work within, and protected all those within 10 years of their pension age from any further change. This generous offer was conditional on the Government and trade unions reaching agreement by the end of the year, including in the teachers’ pension scheme, bringing to a conclusion talks that have lasted since February 2011.
Since 2 November I have been engaged in detailed and intensive talks with the teacher and lecturer trade unions and employer representatives. I can now report to the House on the heads of agreement on the scheme design for the teachers’ pension scheme to be introduced in 2015, on which talks have concluded. The Government have made it clear this sets out their final position on the main elements of scheme design, which unions have agreed to take to their Executives as the outcome of negotiations on the main elements of scheme design. This includes a commitment to seek Executives’ agreement to the suspension of any industrial action on pension reform while the final details are being resolved. Further detailed work will take place in the new year and Executives will consult members as appropriate.
The agreement includes changes to the Government’s reference scheme to reflect the priorities of the teaching profession in relation to early retirement and other issues, consistent with the need to remain within the Government’s overall cost ceiling.
The agreement reached allows for further discussions on variations to the balance between the accrual rate and the career average revalued earnings revaluation factor within the limits of the Government’s cost ceiling.
The core parameters of the new scheme are set out below:
a. a pension scheme design based on career average;
b. a provisional accrual rate of 1/57th of pensionable earnings each year, and the resolution of outstanding issues not covered by this agreement.
c. revaluation of active members’ benefits in line with CPI + 1.6%.
d. normal pension age equal to state pension age, which applies both to active members and deferred members (new scheme service only);
e. pensions in payment to increase in line with prices index (currently CPI);
f. benefits earned in deferment to increase in line with CPI;
g. average member contributions of 9.6%, with some protection for the lowest paid;
h. optional lump sum commutation at a rate of 12:1, in accordance with HMRC limits and regulations;
i. spouses/partner pension in accordance with current provisions;
j. lump sum on death in service of three times FTE salary;
k. ill-health benefits the same as those in the current open scheme;
l. actuarially fair early/late retirement factors on a cost-neutral basis except for those with a NPA above age 65, who will have early retirement factors of 3% per year for a maximum of three years in respect of the period from age 65 to their NPA; and
m. an employer cost cap to provide backstop protection to the taxpayer against unforeseen costs and risks.
The Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that this scheme design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government on 2 November. Copies of the heads of agreement and GAD verification have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Canal and River Trust (Transfer Order)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)
On 12 September 2011, I launched a supplementary consultation on the detail of the order to transfer the functions of British Waterways (BW) in England and Wales to a new waterways charity, the Canal & River Trust (CRT). The consultation closed on 24 October 2011.
Today, I am announcing the publication of the Government’s response to this consultation, which is available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/closed/.
The consultation asked for views on the detail of certain aspects of the transfer order. The majority of responses to the consultation supported the overall direction of the Government’s proposals, and, subject to obtaining parliamentary approval in due course, the Government intend to proceed as follows:
We will remove the ministerial power to direct disposal of property under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, since it will not be needed by the CRT;
We will not extend the provisions in the Transport Acts 1962 and 1968 on employment to the CRT, on the basis that they have largely been replaced by more recent employment legislation;
We will amend sections 104 and 105 of the Transport Act 1968 to give the CRT an enhanced “statutory proposer” role in relation to ministerial orders on classification and maintenance of its waterways;
We will amend section 27 of the Transport Act 1962 to restrict the power of direction to circumstances in the interests of national defence;
We will not apply the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975; Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 2010; National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 2010 or the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 to the trustees of the CRT, because this would not be appropriate for trustees of a charitable body.
In addition, the Government intend, also subject to parliamentary approval, to apply the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the CRT, in respect of all those statutory functions that the CRT will inherit from BW through the proposed transfer order. This limited application of the FOIA will have the effect of excluding from the provisions of the Act those broader charitable functions carried out by the CRT. It will also exclude bodies that merge with the CRT, unless the FOIA already applies or is made to apply to them at the point of merger.
Recognising that, as concerns administrative burdens, this will initially put CRT in a potentially disadvantageous position with regard to other statutory navigation authorities, the Government will, within two years, launch a procedure, under section 5 of the FOIA, to consider extending the provisions of the Act to other statutory navigation authorities, with the intention of creating a level playing field.
In these circumstances, the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) may be considered to apply to the CRT to the extent that the CRT is carrying out “functions of public administration”. Ultimately, this will be a question for the courts to decide. In the meantime, I have asked the CRT trustees to make a public commitment to adopt a transparency policy that closely follows the provisions of the EIRs; we are seeking to capture this commitment in the funding agreement being negotiated between DEFRA and the CRT trustees.
The Government’s response also includes, by agreement, the Scottish Government’s response to the Scottish issues raised in the consultation.
NHS Pension Scheme
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
On 2 November the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement to the House setting out an improved offer on public service pensions to public sector workers (Cm 8214). This offer provided a more generous cost ceiling for scheme-specific discussions to work within, and protected all those within 10 years of their pension age from any further change. This generous offer was conditional on the Government and trade unions reaching agreement by the end of the year, including in the NHS pension scheme, bringing to a conclusion talks that have lasted since February 2011.
Since 2 November I have been engaged in detailed and intensive talks with the health trade unions and employer representatives. I can now report to the House on the heads of agreement on the scheme design for the NHS pension scheme to be reached in 2015, on which talks have concluded. The Government have made it clear this sets out their final position on the main elements of scheme design, which unions have agreed to take to their Executives as the best that can be achieved through negotiations. Further work on the remaining details will take place in the new year, and Executives will consult members as appropriate. This includes a commitment to suspend any further industrial action while the final details are resolved and unions are consulting their members.
The main parameters of the new scheme are set out below:
a. a pension scheme design based on career average ;
b. a provisional accrual rate of l/54th of pensionable earnings each year, subject to further agreement on outstanding issues not covered by this agreement (see annex A);
c. revaluation of active members’ benefits in line with CPI plus 1.5% per annum;
d. a normal pension age equal to the state pension age, which applies both to active members and deferred members (new scheme service only). If a member’s SPA rises, then NPA will do so too for all post 2015 service. Those within 10 years of NPA are excluded and accrued rights will also be related to existing NPA;
e. pensions in payment to increase in line with prices index (currently CPI);
f. benefits to increase in any period of deferment in line with prices index (currently CPI);
g. average member contributions of 9.8%, with tiered contributions. Member contributions in year 1 to increase between 0% and 2.4% in year 1. There will be no increase in year 1 for staff with WTE pensionable pay less than £26,557. There will be further discussions on contribution rates and increases in years 2 and 3;
h. optional lump sum commutation at a rate of £12 of lump sum for every £1 per annum of pension foregone in accordance with HMRC limits and regulations;
i. early/late retirement factors on an actuarially neutral basis;
j. ill-health retirement pensions to be based on the current ill-health retirement arrangements but with enhancement for higher tier awards to be at the rate of 50% of prospective service to normal pension age;
k. spouse and partner pensions to continue to be based on an accrual rate of 1/160th. For deaths in retirement spouse and partner pensions will remain based on pre-commuted pension;
l. an employer contribution cap as detailed in the heads of agreement.
There will be transitional protection:
all accrued rights are protected and those past benefits will be linked to final salary when members leave the scheme;
all active NHS pension scheme members who as of 1 April 2012, have 10 years or less to their current pension age, including MHOs and members of the special classes will see no change in when they can retire, nor any decrease in the amount of pension they receive at their current normal pension age. This will be achieved by allowing such members to remain in their current arrangements until they retire (for 2008 members until they have taken all their 2008 pension benefits);
members who are within a further 3.5 years of their normal pension age, ( i.e. up to 13.5 years from their NPA) will have limited protection with linear tapering so that for every month of age that they are beyond 10 years of their normal pension age, they lose two months of protection. At the end of the protected period, they will be transferred into the new pension arrangements; and
the costs associated with the protection outlined above sit outside the costs of the reference scheme.
On the basis that the scheme design within the heads of agreement is agreed, the Government agree to retain fair deal provision and extend access to public service pension schemes for transferring staff. This means that all staff whose employment is compulsorily transferred from the NHS under TUPE, including subsequent TUPE transfers, will still be able to retain membership of the NHS pension scheme when transferred. These arrangements will replace the current provisions for bulk transfers under fair deal, which will no longer apply. In addition, a partnership review of the implementation of the provisions set out in this paragraph for staff working in “Any Qualified Providers” (AQP) will be carried out.
The Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that this scheme design does not exceed the cost ceiling set by the Government on 2 November. Copies of the heads of agreement and GAD verification have been placed in the Library.
Public Health System
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
Today I am publishing policy updates on the new public health system, covering local government’s new public health functions and the operating model for Public Health England (PHE). Subject to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill, PHE will be established in April 2013.
The Government have an ambitious programme to improve public health through strengthening local action, supporting self-esteem and behavioural changes, promoting healthy choices and changing the environment to support healthier lives.
The updates define the Government’s plans, set out in the White Paper “Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Our strategy for public health in England”, in November 2010, to change the way public health is delivered nationally through establishing Public Health England as an executive agency and locally, through moving responsibility and accountability for public health to local government.
These reforms will see local authorities taking the lead for improving health and co-ordinating local efforts to protect the public’s health and well-being, and ensuring health services effectively promote population health. Local political leadership will be central to making this work.
In addition, a new executive agency, Public Health England will:
deliver services: health protection, public health information and intelligence, and services for the public through social marketing and behavioural insight activities;
lead for public health by encouraging transparency and accountability, building the evidence base, building relationships promoting public health; and
support the development of the specialist and wider public health work force by appointing directors of public health with local authorities, supporting excellence in public health practice and bringing together the wider range of public health professionals.
The NHS will continue to play a full role in providing care, tackling inequalities and ensuring every clinical contact counts.
In “Healthy Lives, Health People: update and way forward”, published in July 2011, we included commissioning of termination of pregnancies as one of the areas for which local authorities will be responsible. I have now reflected further on whether it would be appropriate for local authorities to be responsible for commissioning procedures that will involve surgical procedures and the associated need for strong clinical governance arrangements to ensure people receive a safe, legal service. I therefore intend to consult on whether commissioning termination of pregnancies should in the longer term be the responsibility of clinical commissioning groups or local authorities. In the interim, as a practical measure, CCGs will be responsible for commissioning these services for April 2013.
The update documents have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. The updates are also available at
http://healthandcare.dh.gov.uk/category/public-health.
Rules of Engagement (HMIC Review of August 2011 Disorders)
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
On 15 August I wrote to ask Her Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Denis O’Connor, to undertake a review of public order policing and to consider further work to support clearer guidance to forces on the size of deployments, the need for mutual aid, pre-emptive action, public order tactics, the number of officers (including commanders) trained in public order policing and an appropriate arrests policy. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that HMIC has concluded its review and have today published its report, entitled “The Rules of Engagement: A Review of the August 2011 Disorders”.
HMIC recognises that the events of August 2011 were
“unparalleled in terms of speed, scale and geographical spread of disorder”.
HMIC also recognises the achievements of the police in bringing the disorder under control and in particular, the individual acts of bravery displayed by police officers across the country.
The report confirms that the initial response, in particular to the disorder which broke out in Tottenham, was too slow. This has been acknowledged in the interim reports released by the crime and victims panel and by the Metropolitan police themselves.
This review makes a number of interrelated recommendations which will require careful and serious consideration by the Government and the police service working together. This work will be aligned with the development of the strategic policing requirement.
The way in which the police respond to public disorder is a matter of key public interest. The August disturbances brought havoc to some of our cities and communities. HMIC has, in a short period of time, produced a wide-ranging and detailed report and this is to be commended. The report contains a significant amount of detail and evidence which will require detailed assessment by the Government and the police service as a whole.
A copy of this report will be placed in Library of the House.
Energy Towing Vessels
(13 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
On 10 October 2011, I announced to the House that the Scotland Office would lead efforts to secure a long-term replacement for the emergency towing vessels (ETV) service in waters surrounding the Northern Isles and Western Isles. Extensive discussions have since taken place with a very wide range of interested parties, including senior representatives of the oil and shipping industries as well as public sector organisations.
I am pleased to confirm that the north sea oil industry, led by Oil & Gas UK and its member companies, has indicated its willingness to offer support by establishing a call-off arrangement for their chartered vessels to be deployed in support of HM coastguard in the event of an emergency. Detailed work is under way between operators, vessel owners and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on working practices and necessary protocols governing the arrangements. During the last meeting of the Scottish ETV working group, I discussed the matter in depth with Oil & Gas UK, local authorities and other interested parties who have responded positively to this proposal. With that in mind, I have instructed that work should proceed quickly with a view to putting a framework in place as early as possible in the new year.
This is a very positive development offering additional reassurance to local communities, particularly those in the Northern Isles. This step also demonstrates active support by the oil industry for corporate social responsibility and I greatly welcome their helpful contribution and constructive engagement.
The Government intend to use the remainder of the £3 million funding provided by the Department for Transport to maintain cover until no later than 31 March 2012. Further work will continue with local authorities along the west coast to examine all viable long-term options for those waters, and I will reconvene a further meeting of the working group early in the new year.
House of Lords
Leave of Absence
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, the Conference of Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth will be held in Trinidad and Tobago in January 2012. Accordingly, I seek leave of absence from your Lordships' House on 10 January.
Economy: Private Capital Investment
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what additional fiscal measures they will take to encourage private capital to invest in manufacturing or tradable services in the United Kingdom.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, the Autumn Statement announced several measures which encourage private capital investment: an above-the-line research and development tax credit from 2013, ensuring that the relief continues to attract large-scale investment in innovation; 100 per cent capital allowances for six enterprise zones; and a new seed enterprise investment scheme in 2012 to help early-stage companies. The draft Finance Bill also set out further steps in wider corporation tax reform.
Lord Empey
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the best way of achieving long-term financial and strategic security for the United Kingdom is to strengthen our international trading position. A significant increase in our manufacturing capability is one of the best ways of achieving this. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have any plans to offer increased fiscal incentives to encourage businesses, especially SMEs, to invest in R&D spending? Can he further advise whether any additional fiscal incentives are being considered that will create sufficient confidence in the private sector to boost investment in manufacturing?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the first thing to remind the House is that the changes already made in corporation tax and the capital allowance regime will in total, in 2015, contribute an extra £700 million in reduced taxes to the manufacturing sector. For example, £1 billion of R&D relief was claimed in 2009-10, including by 7,400 SMEs. So this Government are indeed taking considerable targeted action to support our manufacturers, including SMEs, whether by way of encouraging R&D or through other aspects of the corporation tax regime.
Lord Barnett
My Lords, the Question asked what additional facilities the Government have provided. In practice, would the Minister agree that there are no additional facilities outside the deficit reduction plan? Indeed, the measures that he has already mentioned were well taken care of when the OBR reported that growth will be down to 0.7 per cent, which is hardly helping. In the light of the current economic situation, will the Government consider real, additional facilities outside the deficit reduction plan?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, to be clear, the three measures that I mentioned in my opening Answer were indeed new and additional measures, the costings of which are given in the Autumn Statement.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Does my noble friend expect that the important changes in the relationship with the Royal Bank of Scotland that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced yesterday might lead to more lending by the Royal Bank of Scotland to small and medium-sized enterprises?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, that is a very interesting question. The board of RBS has made it clear that it is going to concentrate its business on its corporate and personal banking and therefore, certainly relative to its total business, it will indeed achieve that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
My Lords, will the new enterprise zones be wholly or mainly limited to the manufacturing sector?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the enterprise zones are not limited to any particular sector.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the banking industry is not serving this aspect of investment particularly well and that barriers to entry are limiting new banks. Is he therefore observing the growth of peer-to-peer lending and will he give us some assurance that those new lenders entering the market will be appropriately regulated but not to the point of being stifled?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we are very interested in anything that keeps credit flowing. However, although my noble friend is very good at reminding us of that issue, we are getting a bit far away from fiscal measures.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that, however low interest rates may be and whatever fiscal incentives may be in place, ultimately investment is determined by business confidence. Is he aware that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales produces an index of business confidence? In its latest report, it says:
“The Confidence Index has suffered its largest quarterly decline since the survey began”.
The survey began in 2004. Is it not clear that the destruction of business confidence is the main outcome of the Government’s economic policies?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the best measure of the expected effects of the fiscal measures that I outlined in my first Answer is what business organisations have had to say. For example, the EEF, the engineering employers organisation, has said that the R&D tax credit,
“will send a powerful signal that government intends to make the UK the number one choice for R&D investment and is another step on the road to making the UK the most competitive tax system in the G20”.
I could give the noble Lord similar quotes from the CBI and others.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, large companies are sitting on almost unprecedented amounts of cash rather than investing it. Would the Minister consider means of encouraging those companies to invest in smaller companies and nurture them?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we are always open to new and imaginative suggestions. Large companies have been talking to us positively about how to develop the supply chain and encourage their smaller suppliers.
Lord Brookman
As one of those turkeys not voting for Christmas, I ask the Minister to put to bed for ever a comment made to me some years ago. I come from manufacturing, as many of us on these Benches do, but I was told that it was dead and we were going to sustain our future by banking, the service sector and finance. Will the Minister confirm that manufacturing has a future in this country?
Lord Sassoon
Indeed, and I am very happy to say it and say it again. We have a manufacturing sector in the UK that is close in size to that of France. We have exporters that have grown their exports by 15 per cent since the election. Manufacturing and exporting are alive and well in this country.
Justice: Personal Injury Cases
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they are proposing that personal injury claimants pay part of their legal costs.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, the Government are reforming no-win no-fee conditional fee arrangements to return them to the basis on which they were first introduced in the 1990s. CFAs worked well then, and personal injury claimants were liable to contribute to their lawyer’s success fee if the lawyer charged one. However, CFA claimants no longer have an interest in the costs run up on their behalf. Our reforms will bring proportion to civil litigation costs while preserving access to justice.
Lord Hoyle
Does the Minister not understand that many people who have suffered serious and maybe life-threatening injuries will be deterred from seeking compensation? Far from saving £50 million, as has been suggested, recent Parliamentary Answers have shown that this measure will cost the Government over £100 million, which comprises legal fees, additional compensation and loss of income from recovered treatment fees from insurers? This is a folly. It will deter ordinary people from going forward to seek the compensation that is due to them.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the Government do not accept that the measure will deter people from coming forward. As I indicated, the reforms brought in by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in the 1990s, which introduced the no-win no-fee conditional fee agreements, allowed people suffering from personal injuries to come forward and pursue their claims. We are not satisfied that at present there is a proper proportion with regard to the amount of fees charged, particularly where the claimant has no interest in ensuring that they are kept within modest means. The system has got out of proportion; our reforms seek to bring it back into proportion.
Baroness O'Loan
Is the Minister satisfied that there will be equality of access to justice for the very poorest victims of clinical negligence in circumstances in which they must bring their action against public authorities, whose defence will be funded by the state?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I perfectly recognise that the issue of clinical negligence is one that many Members of your Lordships’ House raised during Second Reading, and I am sure that it will be fully debated when we reach the relevant stage in Committee. We say that “after the event” insurance premiums should be allowable in cases of clinical negligence. Indeed, we are seeking through the NHS and those who represent claimants to try to ensure that, where there can be joint reports and better agreements between the two sides, that should be done. I hope that we can make progress on that but no doubt it will be fully debated in the weeks to come.
Baroness Turner of Camden
Does not the Minister think it very unfair that somebody who has been injured through somebody else’s fault, and is suing on the basis that someone else is at fault, should lose some of their compensation even though it is not their fault?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, success fees are intended to cover the risk of not winning and the lawyers not being paid. In many cases where there is personal injury there is a very low risk of that happening. Indeed, it begs the question whether it is necessary for solicitors to charge success fees at all in these situations. However, as my noble friend Lord Gold pointed out at Second Reading, claimants who fund themselves often do not receive the full amount of their compensation. It seems rather odd, to put it mildly, that those who are funded by the taxpayer should get the full amount back but those who fund themselves do not recover the full amount of their compensation.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I understand that there is an intention to bring in damages-based agreements whereby a claimant will have to pay some of their costs out of the damages they receive. The compensation factor is that there will be a 10 per cent increase in general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, which is currently assessed by judges on an ad hoc basis and according to the Judicial Studies Board guidelines. However, bereavement damages have long troubled people as being far too low. They are £11,800, which can be split between all those who are bereaved as a result of an accident. Do the Government have any plans to increase the size of bereavement awards, particularly in view of the fact that other awards may be increased by 10 per cent under the new regime?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend raises the important point about damages in respect of bereavement. As he noted in his question, conventionally these matters have been dealt with by the judiciary. Certainly, the proposed 10 per cent increase will be taken forward by the senior judiciary. I will ensure that the important point my noble friend makes regarding damages for bereavement is drawn to its attention.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, the Minister will know that the NHSLA—that is, the legal arm of the NHS—opposes these changes and desired that legal aid should continue in clinical negligence cases. That was its answer to the consultation process. What is its current position?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am not aware that it has made any further pronouncements on the matter. However, the Government believe that a conditional fee arrangement backed by ATE insurance will ensure that the vast majority of clinical negligence claims will be able to be investigated and that the ATE insurance market will adapt to the new arrangements. It is also important to point out that in Clause 9 of the Bill there is an exceptional funding scheme, which may well be relevant in profoundly serious cases where clinical negligence arises. However, I am sure that my noble friend will make a contribution on these matters when this is debated, I hope next month.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that people in minor accidents are sometimes encouraged to find that they have whiplash, which encourages a lawyer to say that they must be legally represented?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I made the point earlier that there is little or no risk involved in many cases, but I also think—and this relates to my noble friend’s point—that some cases in which a claimant is funding their own legal costs may well never come to court, whereas if all their fees are paid for them it may be easier to pursue the claim.
Cyprus: EU Presidency
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what they consider will be the longer-term effect of the Republic of Cyprus assuming the presidency of the European Union in July 2012.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, we are confident that the Republic of Cyprus will carry out its presidency responsibilities as defined by the Treaty on European Union. It is for the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to set the objectives for its presidency of the European Union from July to December 2012.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
However, my Lords, have Her Majesty’s Government considered the consequences for the United Kingdom when it endorses an EU presidency by a bankrupt nation that has for 40 years maintained a dishonest and discriminating policy towards Turkish Cypriots and has survived under a leadership that has recently been defined by 90 per cent of its own people—Greek Cypriots—as corrupt? What will that say about our national values?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think the whole House recognises that criticisms can be levelled at a number of countries, including the Republic of Cyprus, which, in the list I have here, comes 30th out of 191 countries in Transparency International’s examinations of levels of corruption, and comes 16th out of 30 countries in the European Union. There is obviously a problem there which I think is recognised in the republic itself. As to the future presidency, it is our hope that there will be decisive progress in the coming months towards a settlement that everyone in the north, Turkey, Greece, the Republic of Cyprus and indeed this country desires. If we can move forward in that way, everyone benefits.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have just returned from a visit to Cyprus that was funded by the north Cypriot Government. Is the Minister aware that the Turkish Cypriot north set up and established the Immovable Property Commission in 2006, thus allowing mainly Greek Cypriots to get compensation for properties that they had lost? To date, the commission has received 2,629 applications and has paid out more than £63 million. As the Minister will know, this has been ratified by the European Court of Human Rights. Are Her Majesty’s Government aware that no such local remedy is available for Turkish Cypriots to claim for properties they have lost? Hundreds of people have had to go to the European Court of Human Rights to claim their compensation. Is this acceptable for an EU country that is about to take over the presidency of the EU? Should it not set an example?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We want to see progress on all sides on this vexed question of property. The commission that my noble friend mentions is making a positive contribution. Ultimately, we believe that the whole property issue can be solved only as part of a comprehensive settlement. We certainly support any efforts to resolve the issue, whether in the north or in the republic. I cannot say more than that at the moment.
Lord Harrison
My Lords, I, too, declare a pecuniary interest as having returned from northern Cyprus on a visit sponsored by its Government. Does the Minister recall a Question that I laid earlier when I asked the British Government to use their best interests to bring together both sides so that the presidency will bring renown to the island of Cyprus and to its two peoples? Unfortunately, there is little working together for a common purpose, as was demonstrated during our visit.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I do indeed recall the noble Lord’s earlier Question in which he rightly expressed the hope, which we frankly all share, for decisive progress. The next meeting in the UN process under the Secretary-General of the United Nations takes place at the end of January, and we all hope for further progress. At the latest meeting, the stance was not totally negative but there was not much progress, and we hope that they will do better this time. The gains for all sides from a successful advance in the UN process are so enormous that one longs to see it move forward, but so far, I am afraid, we have been disappointed.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I take the opportunity to wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, a happy birthday, he having been a Foreign Secretary who worked tirelessly for a solution of the Cyprus problem. Does the Minister agree that it would be rather useful if the Governments of both Cyprus and Turkey reconsidered their attitude towards each other? The petulance with which the Government of Turkey are approaching the Cyprus presidency would seem to be barely fitting for a rising nation of great importance to us. As for the Government of Cyprus, their blocking Turkey joining the EU to work on measures against Syria and their blocking of many of the chapters of Turkey's accession is entirely counterproductive for their own interests. Would not some reconsideration by both sides of their attitude towards each other be in order?
Lord Howell of Guildford
First, I warmly endorse the noble Lord’s wishes for the happy birthday of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I think I can speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in presenting those congratulations to him on his 86th birthday. That is terrific.
As to the broader points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, he himself has played a significant part in trying to get the parties to take a more reasonable attitude to each other. He is right: the compromise that will emerge from the end of Cyprus’s tribulations can be achieved only if there is a more giving and revised attitude on both sides. Very hard lines have been taken up. There has to be compromise, there has to be movement, there has to be some revision of views between the two sides. Then we will make progress. What the noble Lord says must be right, and we have to work for it.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that there is no intention to change the status of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus or the military facilities there?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I can confirm that. As the noble Lord knows, there was a recent review of the sovereign bases. A Statement was made to Parliament indicating that the review has been completed. It has not been fully published, but its broad conclusions are established, which are that the bases are vital and will certainly continue. There was, of course, already the view that in the event of a settlement and the unity of Cyprus, 50 per cent of the sovereign base area would be part of the settlement and would be available to help it. Generally, the commitment is as firm as it has always been that the sovereign bases are important and will remain.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, on the other hand, can we not look forward to a happy and fruitful presidency of Cyprus, which after all shares so many of its attributes with the bloated Commission in Brussels?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is tempting me into wider issues and debates, which I will vigorously resist.
Bovine Tuberculosis
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what scientific evidence they have used in developing their proposals for controlling bovine tuberculosis by culling badgers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, evidence of the effect of badger culling on bovine TB incidence rates comes principally from the randomised badger culling trial. The scientific evidence from the trial suggests that proactive badger culling, done on a sufficient geographical scale in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way and over a sustained period of time of at least four years, will reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high-incidence areas. It is the Government’s judgment that these results can at least be replicated by a farmer-led cull using controlled shooting. The two pilots will test our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of this method.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should declare an interest as the instigator of the randomised badger-culling trial some years ago. I agree with the Minister that sustained, long-term culling could reduce the incidence of TB in cattle by about 16 per cent, but can he help me with two questions which are puzzling me concerning the Secretary of State’s announcement last week in another place? First, this pilot involves two areas. As a scientist, I know of no statistical technique for analysing the results from a trial involving just two areas, so perhaps the Minister could enlighten me on that point. Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to a wider rollout depending on the results of the pilot. Does that mean that the Government would consider rolling out this shooting policy to the 39,000 square kilometres of the English countryside affected by bovine TB, with the implication that one would end up shooting between a quarter and a third of the UK’s badger population?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that supplementary question, and I acknowledge the authority with which he raises these questions. The purpose of the pilots is to evaluate the effectiveness of the process, rather than to provide a scientific appraisal of the cull, which is designed to last over a four-year period, and I think that the noble Lord will understand that. At the bottom of this is the fact that we are hoping to monitor the humaneness and effectiveness of a shooting policy before we roll it out, and I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is right and proper. It is suggested that the pilots should be held over a series of areas, rather than one complete area, as that would defeat the object of trying to find areas that are viable. The pilots will cover an area of at least 150 square kilometres, perhaps extending to as much as 350 square kilometres.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, as a young doctor I saw the ravages of bovine tuberculosis, particularly in young children, many of whom suffered spinal tuberculosis with paralysis and infection of long bones. As that type of infection disappeared following the widespread pasteurisation of milk and the screening of cattle herds, is the Minister satisfied that a more extensive badger cull would significantly reduce the potential risk of the spread of this infection into the human population?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The answer to the risk of bovine TB being transferred to humans is, as the noble Lord mentioned in his question, the pasteurisation of milk. Milk is pasteurised to make it safe for human consumption. We are concerned about the incidence of the disease, which is crippling for cattle and, of course, for badgers, but I think that I can reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of this programme is not the fear of its transfer to humans.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, we have time. Perhaps we may hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the desperation of my neighbours on Exmoor, most of whom are under a restriction and are losing cattle at every retest? They are frustrated with science because year after year they have been promised that if they will only wait a little longer there will be an effective oral vaccine. They are still being told that. Is the noble Lord also aware of the welcome for the courage that has been shown by the Defra Ministers in this Government in finally starting to tackle this problem?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments and I shall convey them back to my colleagues. It is correct to say that, in a 12-month period, in some of the worst areas nearly a quarter of cattle herds are under restrictions. Clearly, that cannot be tolerable. It causes immense stress to farmers, particularly in highly infected parts of the country.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, the estimated costs for policing this eradication programme have risen from £200,000 to £2 million per cull area. What share of those costs will Defra meet with the Home Office and what budget lines will be cut in order to take forward this programme, which may well do more harm than good?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I would not agree with my noble friend’s last comments; I think she is misjudging the situation. I think this is a programme that we have to carry forward. Clearly, we have to allow for policing and Defra has agreed to meet half the costs.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that this policy is scientifically based and without controversy? Is he not aware that the approach of culling will occasion great consternation among a very large number of people in this country and, therefore, that it is bound to incur costs for the safety and policing of the project?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think it is very much in the interests of this policy that noble Lords should be prepared to recognise the importance of going ahead with it. I cannot agree at all with what the noble Lord has said.
Procedure of the House
The Chairman of Committees
To move that the 10th Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 231) be agreed to.
House Committee
The Chairman of Committees
To move that the 2nd Report from the Select Committee on Recovery of money wrongly claimed by Members (HL Paper 238) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, this is a simple report that we hope will constitute the final element of the House’s response to the expenses scandal. As noble Lords will be aware, the House has already dealt robustly with those Members found to have abused the system of financial support. However, the House Committee felt it important to ensure that any Members who have not repaid the wrongly claimed money are prevented from returning to the House until they have done so. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it would be inappropriate to restore to such Members the privilege of taking part in the important work of this House and the right to claim financial support until they have settled their debts to the public purse in full.
Accordingly, this report proposes that any Member who is found by the House to have wrongly claimed money under the system of financial support but has not repaid all of that money by one month before the end of their suspension from the House should receive a further suspension until the money has been paid in full or until the end of the Parliament, whichever comes first. If the debt were still outstanding at the beginning of the following Parliament, then the House would be invited to approve a further suspension and so on. The suspension of an individual under these provisions would be imposed by the House agreeing a Motion in the name of the Chairman of Committees.
I should just mention the role of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, which I chair. In its sixth report of this Session, the committee stated that the recovery of debt was not a disciplinary matter and therefore did not come within its remit. The committee went on to say that securing repayment was a matter for the Clerk of the Parliaments, consulting the House Committee which oversees the system of financial support for Members. The Clerk duly consulted the House Committee, which noted that the Committee for Privileges and Conduct had concluded in its 2009 report on the powers of the House as follows:
“The House possesses … an inherent power to discipline its Members; the means by which it chooses to exercise this power falls within the regulation by the House of its own procedures”.
In line with this conclusion, the House Committee is now inviting the House to use its existing powers in a new way. I believe that our proposals are appropriate and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, I have to tell the House that I am troubled by the Motion that is presented to the House. I am troubled on two bases.
First, I am unclear as to whether the House intends the Motion to have retrospective effect and thereby to reopen decisions made by this House during 2010. Noble Lords will know that a number of cases were dealt with by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, whose members at that time included the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Lord Howe of Aberavon—who sits in his place and whom I, too, wish happy birthday—Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Irvine of Lairg. The decisions arose out of the complaints made by and against a number of Members of this House during 2009. All those complaints were dealt with under the code of conduct made in the fourth report of Session 2007-08, to which I shall now refer as the report on procedure.
The House knows that there was a broad spectrum of complaints about the way in which expenses were claimed by some Members of this House. Each complaint was dealt with on an individual basis and differently. Some Members were asked to apologise in writing; some were asked to apologise to the House; some were dealt with by the Clerk of the Parliaments; some came before the Committee for Privileges and Conduct sub-committee; some came before the full committee; some were dealt with by the police; and some Members were tried and sent to prison. All those cases were dealt with under the old procedure. The variations in treatment are difficult to explain shortly, but it is unnecessary for me to go through that history because this House decided, I believe properly, to institute a new, clear and transparent system by which Members would be entitled to receive expenses.
Transgression of the new rules should be clearly and robustly dealt with. Therefore, if the House Committee’s recommendation is meant to refer to any future transgression under the new system, I can see the merit of making the position crystal clear to Members as we go forward so that Members will know, if sums are improperly claimed, a Member’s return to the House during that Session of Parliament will not be considered until full repayment has been rendered. There will then be no scope for misunderstanding of the rules. However, if the recommendation is intended to have retrospective effect, I have to confess to your Lordships that I have a problem.
The House will recall that in the hearing before the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, the issue of whether there should be a separate sanction for non-payment of moneys improperly received by a Member under the old system contained in the report on procedure was dealt with. The committee said this at paragraph 56 on page 20—and with the leave of your Lordships I intend to quote it in full:
“As a point of principle, and regardless of the circumstances of the present case, we have decided that the length of suspension should not be determined by reference to the time of repayment. Repayment is not a sanction: it is an act of restitution, the returning of money wrongly claimed and paid. The over-riding priority must be that this money should be returned to the House, and thus to the public purse. Lady Uddin’s appeal makes the point that she does not have the means to pay so large a sum. We are not in a position to comment on her financial circumstances, but it is clear that the sanction recommended by the Sub-Committee risks having the effect of preventing her indefinitely from returning to the House. Not only is there a danger that an ‘indefinite suspension’ could exceed the powers of the House, which are limited to suspension ‘for a defined period not longer than the remainder of the current Parliament’, but there is also a possibility that an indefinite suspension would result in the money never being recovered”.
I believe that the Privileges and Conduct Committee’s analysis was right in law and in principle. The House endorsed its conclusion, which was proper. The decision of the House was then communicated to the parties. It is contained in full in the sixth report of Session 2010-11, published on 21 October last year. Therefore, the House was specifically asked to determine the issue of principle as it related to the old system and came to a definitive view. I would be troubled indeed if, by this Motion, the House purported to resile from this principle on a retrospective basis. In my view, that would be improper.
The issue of whether a further suspension could be imposed in respect of the non-payment of moneys due came before the newly constituted Privileges and Conduct Committee, of which I am now a member. On 31 October this year, the committee was invited by the House Committee to think again and to review the recommendations made by the previous Privileges and Conduct Committee, of which I was not a member. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Scott of Foscote, and I all sat on that committee. We found no basis on which we could properly disagree with the previous committee's legal analysis or with the principles enunciated in the report. The Privileges and Conduct Committee specifically includes Members of this House with a legal and judicial background in order to assist the House by making recommendations that are consistent with the rule of law and with fairness.
The second issue that troubles me is whether the House, by using the stratagem of a Motion, intends to circumvent the prohibition that exists in law on suspending a Member of this House permanently. As Members will know, chapter 12.12 of the Companion states:
“The House of Lords does not have the power to suspend a member permanently. A writ of summons, which entitles members of the House to a ‘seat, place and voice’ in Parliament cannot be withheld”.
I respectfully suggest that we should not set ourselves up in opposition to Her Majesty's writ—not least because there is no appeal against our determination. Any suspension imposed by the House can only be temporary and can last only for the duration of one Parliament. I can find no lawful authority that entitles us to act to the contrary. Nor am I aware of any other provision that would enable us so to do.
I am well aware that a sizeable number of Members of your Lordships' House would like the position changed. There is merit in saying that, where a Member has so transgressed as to make it intolerable for them to continue to be a Member of the House, legal provision should be made for their expulsion. But that can be done only by legislation, which we do not currently have.
Therefore, I invite the House to decline to accept the House Committee’s recommendation in its current form. If the House wishes to send a clear signal in the future, and I think that it should, there is force in us so doing. However, this Motion should not have retrospective effect and neither should it apply for more than one Parliament unless and until legislation is passed to enable us lawfully to implement a permanent suspension. Your Lordships know that there is no appeal from this House—none at all, not to the EU, not to our courts. We determine our own procedure, we determine what is right, and therefore a heavy burden is put on us. If we wish to be unfair, unjust or immoderate, we are entitled to be so. I know this House too well to believe that that would ever be our intent, so I invite the House not to make a decision in relation to this Motion and to give the House an opportunity to think again.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I declare an interest. I was a member of the Privileges Committee, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has informed the House. The danger of the proposal currently before the House is that it risks confusing two separate matters. On the one hand, the House needs power to impose appropriate sanctions if Members of the House become convicted of dishonourable behaviour of various sorts. The sanction in those circumstances takes the form of suspension from the House and it is in the nature of a punishment for the conduct that has been found to be proved against the Member of the House in question. However, there is an additional factor, which is the repayment to the House of money that the Member of the House owes and has wrongfully obtained. Of course, those two different purposes may overlap. It may be that the wrongful conduct was the reason why the debt arose in the first place—there is plainly an overlap—but none the less I think it important that the two should be kept separate.
That was not always the case in the law of this country. Many Members of this House will have read, and many who have not will know of, the Dickens novel Little Dorrit, which is based upon the experiences of a family in the Marshalsea prison, the father being there for a debt that he could not repay. That imprisonment could go on, as I recall, indefinitely. Those sad days are now long behind us. People do not get punished for not paying money that they have not got, and this House ought not to reverse that trend by introducing a sanction that can be imposed for failure to repay money that is owing that the individual has not got and cannot repay.
An individual who is found guilty of dishonourable conduct can expect an appropriate sanction to be imposed by the House proportionate to the gravity of the dishonourable conduct. The individual, he or she, who owes money to the House, which may or may not have been associated with the dishonourable conduct, can be expected to be called upon to repay it. If he or she thinks that he or she has not got the financial resources to manage repayment, then the individual can expect to have to make a disclosure of assets to the appropriate accounting officials of the House to demonstrate that that is so and, maybe, to have to submit to questioning so that the official can satisfy himself or herself that that really is so. The individual, the Member of the House, can then expect to have some recommendation perhaps made by the official as to what should be repaid, what instalments perhaps might be appropriate and so on. But if the end result of a full and frank disclosure, and answers to whatever questions may have been put, is that the individual has not got the assets to repay, or to repay more than a moderate amount fixed by the official, I respectfully suggest that that should be an end of any sanction. A person should not be subjected to an additional sanction that is not available to be imposed on those with the money to discharge their debts if he or she simply cannot afford to pay and does not have the money to discharge.
I believe that the proposal before the House confuses those two separate matters. I, too, would oppose it.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I support the two speeches that have just been made. I have no worry about those who could pay but have not done so and I support the proposals in the report so far as they go in that regard. But I am concerned about those who are or may become insolvent. It has always been a principle of insolvency law that a person should in due course be able to get his discharge. Thereafter, he is entitled to retain his personal earnings because he must be allowed to support himself and his family. That principle was established in 1872 by Mr Justice Vaughan Williams in the case of Hawkins. I am concerned that the indefinite suspension, which may well be the result of what is before the House, would be against that basic principle of insolvency law.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I take a certain amount of issue with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. We are not here in a court of law. We are a self-regulating House and we have the reputation of this House to worry about. There seems to be great concern about whether the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has the means to repay the amount of money which she seems to have fraudulently claimed. But have we looked into the circumstances of the noble Baroness? I gather that she owns her own house in London. Could she not mortgage that house and repay in that way, or could she not even sell it and buy a smaller one? It strikes me that we are rather taking her at her own word that she is unable to repay this amount of money.
We have the reputation of this House to consider very deeply. If we were to invite her back while enormous sums of taxpayers’ money were still owing, I do not think that the British public would understand that in any way whatever.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, from listening very carefully, my understanding is that the issue that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland raised was not specifically to do with the individual case. It was to do with the process of retrospection and those rules that applied at the time that a decision was taken with regard to a particular case. I have not been in your Lordships’ House as long as many noble Lords but, from listening carefully, particularly to noble and learned Lords over the years, I know that the issue of retrospective legislation of any sort is anathema to most people in your Lordships’ House. I hope that we will not debate this issue with reference to an individual or to whether an individual can or cannot repay. I hope that we will stick entirely to the issue of retrospection.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I cannot share the view that there is some retrospective element here. It is not retrospective to apply the proposed suspension to noble Lords who were found to have claimed expenses without good cause, and in some cases such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in bad faith, and who were ordered to repay the relevant sums but who have failed to do so. That failure surely entitles the House now to decide what action it is appropriate to take against them. Paragraph 56 of the Privileges Committee report, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, read out, does not address, as I read it, what should happen if the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, fails to pay up.
On the noble and learned Baroness’s second point, I do not understand this to be a permanent exclusion from the House. The suspension will apply on its terms only for the duration of this Parliament. It will be a matter for the next Parliament to decide whether it is appropriate then to suspend the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, or any other noble Lord in default if they still have not repaid the relevant sums.
The answer to the point made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scott and Lord Lloyd, is surely this: it must be implicit in this report that the relevant committee will have a discretion not to take action if it is persuaded that the noble Lord in question does not have the means available to pay the sum. In my view, there is no unfairness whatever in what has been proposed by the committee.
Lord Baker of Dorking
My Lords, I am grateful to be speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, because I was about to rise with some temerity to take on three distinguished lawyers in this House. However, having been a member of the House Committee for a number of years, particularly during the period of having to deal with this very shameful episode in our history—let us remember that some Members were claiming money fraudulently—I have to say to the noble and learned Baroness that this was all without precedent both for the Privileges Committee and for the House Committee. We were literally living from day to day without knowing what was going to happen as a result of investigative journalism.
The attitude of the House Committee was incredibly scrupulous during the investigations. We did not take into account the personal circumstances of any of the Members involved, or of their religious and political beliefs. We were indifferent in the old-fashioned use of the word in that we were not careless but we were impartial. As a result, it was very clear that the system had to be changed. We brought in the new system, which I hope will avoid these problems in the future. It was also difficult for us, in investigating these cases, soon to discover that we were not the only people conducting investigations. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service were also involved, so it was a complex procedure. As all noble Lords know, certain evidence was produced and conclusions reached, and certain cases became well known in the press. The Privileges Committee, being the committee that deals with matters of discipline, dealt with these, but again if I may say on a very ad hoc basis. There was little precedent for the decisions that the committee had to make and the amount of suspension that it was prepared to grant.
It fell to us, as the committee responsible for the allowances system in the House, to consider one particular case. It was indeed a difficult matter for us and it was debated at considerable length. The position we reached was that we should establish a principle. I believe that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was saying that she rather agrees with our conclusion but that it should be applied only in the future and not to the past. That is the nub of her argument, which I think has been effectively answered by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The principle is simply this: that someone in this House who has fraudulently claimed money on an extensive scale should not be allowed to re-enter this House until that money has been repaid. It is not a question of insolvency, and since there is no insolvency in this matter, insolvency law does not come into it at all. Further, we have to be aware not only of our own reputation in this House and in our debates here but of the wider public interest in this matter.
Let us think about what would happen in the private sector in a similar case. If a senior executive in a large company was discovered to have been fraudulently claiming massive expenses on a regular and practical basis, thus taking money out of the company, he would almost certainly be subject to instant dismissal. If he were not, he would be suspended and the board would examine the case. I am sure that it would then say that the executive could come back to the company but only if he repaid the money first. That is the principle that we are trying to establish, and I must say that it is entirely fair. We have tried to establish this principle irrespective of how it affects individual people. That is a very important point about a principle. A principle must be just that. I think it is a principle that is widely understood by the country, and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Flather
My Lords, I have heard the arguments and I think that I have understood them. As a lay person, it seems to me that if you have no means to pay back money that you have taken fraudulently, it does not excuse you. It does not excuse you in normal life and it should not excuse you in your Lordships’ House. A large amount of money, £125,000, has been taken. It takes a long time to take that much money out of expenses in your Lordships' House. We cannot just overlook that and say, “It’s all right”, because the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, cannot repay. Well, she can borrow; she can get a loan; she can see where she has money—she has money in Bangladesh; and she should pay back the money to Parliament and then discharge whatever borrowing she has made. You cannot be excused because you are too poor. I am sorry, but I cannot agree with that idea.
Lord Richard
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, has in a sense put her finger on it. We have no procedure in this House for assessing whether someone in these circumstances is capable of repaying. If the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, cannot in all conscience repay this money because she does not have it, I would not be in favour of penalising her in the way that she is being penalised. If on the other hand she can repay it and is deliberately not doing so, it seems to me that the decision that the House is being asked to make is perfectly proper. There is a gap. We have no procedure for determining what her circumstances are, and it would have to be done in a quasi-judicial way. I wonder whether the way out today, because this is a very troubling matter, is for the Chairman to take the matter back to the committee and see whether we cannot institute some form of sensible procedure for determining the basic question of fact upon which, in the end, this matter depends.
Lord Alderdice
As a member of the committee, I toiled with other members of the committee over this very difficult question, on which it is not easy to become entirely clear. Noble Lords who were on the Privileges Committee have to some extent confused the role that they very properly exercised at that time—exercising discipline in respect of an offence that had happened—with the quite different responsibility of the House Committee to address not a matter from the past but a current problem of continued and ongoing indebtedness to your Lordships' House. Therefore, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that it is not a retrospective matter but a current matter, and that the indebtedness continues. It is not clear whether the person’s failure to repay is intentional or because there were no other possibilities, although I know in my part of the world that it has not been entirely unusual for people to have their fines paid for them, never mind their debts. That is not an area in which we can necessarily get involved.
However, there is a further matter. Comparisons have been made with Dickens and debtors’ prisons and things of the kind. This is not a private club; it is not a company; it is part of the legislature of this country. It is not a right for us to be here; it is a responsibility for us to be here and to fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the country.
I have no doubt in my mind how the country would regard a Member of your Lordships' House who continued not to repay debts that should never have been incurred in the first place. I know what the country would say about speeches, votes, questions and interventions by a noble Lord—indeed, I do not think that people would regard such a person as a noble Lord at all. We have the reputation of your Lordships' House to consider in this matter.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, have read the report and will understand that when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, talked about there being no right to permanently suspend a Member, she was of course right. However, the report makes it clear that this can last only until the debt is repaid and until the end of the Parliament. If it is still unpaid in the next Parliament, the next Parliament must then make its decision. This is not permanent; it is dependent on the repayment of a current debt, not the punishment of a past misdeed. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the House Committee could properly return with anything other than the recommendation that it has thoughtfully made to your Lordships' House today.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, this should be a day of great joy for me because it is exactly a year ago today that I entered this House, but because of this desperately sad issue there is no joy. I listened closely to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said. Of course, this is a heavy burden that we undertake, but I cannot agree with her that this is retrospective. When a fine is imposed, it is meant to be repaid. There is an explicit understanding in that. Repaying a fine is not a voluntary gesture.
I hope that the noble and learned Baroness will forgive my impertinence, because she has far greater legal experience than me, when I say that she has made a fundamental error. For all the legal learning, she has construed an argument that would never be accepted by a jury of ordinary men and women. A Peer who had misappropriated public funds and not repaid them is not a victim. He or she cannot expect simply to walk back in as if nothing had happened; £125,000 is not a drop in the ocean, it is a huge figure. How many decades does a state pensioner have to wait until they get anywhere close to that sort of total?
The Chairman of Committees is entirely right. What he proposes is sensible, measured and just. I also happen to believe that it is in the best interests of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. I wrote an entirely personal letter to her some time ago, but I thought it appropriate that I should not say anything in public that I would not have said to her directly. I urged her to take into account that if she were to rush back here without having repaid her outstanding dues, she would find herself subject to huge public and press hostility. It would do her and this House only further harm. I have not had a reply and perhaps I should not expect one, but if she would only let it be known to the House that she will not rush back and has no intention of claiming more money, perhaps there would be no need to take the action that we are proposing to take today. However, she has not, so I fear that we must. I hope that she will bear in mind—
Lord Elton
I do hope that your Lordships will stop personalising this case. We are addressing a matter of principle not a particular case.
Lord Dobbs
Indeed, my Lords, but the matter of principle involves individuals. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, herself admitted that when she was the first to raise the issue of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
Can I make it absolutely clear that the submissions that I made for the House to consider were matters made in relation to law and principle and did not refer to any individual? Indeed, I recited verbatim the paragraph in the Committee for Privileges and Conduct report, which said that the committee was deciding a point of principle and not in relation to any particular Member.
Lord Dobbs
Yes indeed, my Lords, but, if she will forgive me, it was the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who first raised the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in this debate. It is all very well talking about principle, but we have to be aware of the practical implications of these matters.
I hope that we will all bear in mind that most people beyond Westminster will not be asking themselves why suspended Peers should not be allowed back until they have repaid their debts, but will be asking, simply and bluntly, why they should be allowed back here at all.
I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, that, at some point in the near future, we may have to go further in looking at the self-regulatory powers in this House, but we have to deal with the situation as it is today. I know how much care the members of the Committee took, and how much sadness it gave them to come to their conclusion. I can do nothing but commend them for the difficult job that they have done extremely well.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I will make two brief points. First, I support the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the impact of the report of the House Committee in this case. Secondly, this House is funded by the public purse and our ongoing membership of this House costs the public purse. That is relevant to this debate and the situation in which we find ourselves. It is a matter of the integrity and credibility of the House. We need to consider all factors. It is not a matter of personality; it is a matter of fairness.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I wish to follow up a number of points. First, this is a question of principle. We know about the individual concerned, but it is a question of principle, and if we allow this to go through as we are suggesting today it will apply in other situations. That is problematic. I agree that the image outside is appalling, but, occasionally, you have to look at other, wider issues besides simply responding to what the public image is. Indeed, politics involves people in doing that from time to time.
Secondly, it is important to understand what I think my noble friend Lord Richard has put his finger on. I say this as a non-lawyer. This House is not a court of law. If it was a court of law, this would be a bit easier. I suspect, however, that a court of law would not be able to do what is being recommended today, as it would not have the lawful authority to do so. In effect, this is a retrospective form if not of punishment, at least of an order. I want, therefore, to suggest where that leads us. If we are not a court of law, but we in some way regulate ourselves, as is being suggested—and I understand that and the reasons why—then there is an important fact that we have to bear in mind. If this was a company or organisation outside, when such events happened and a person was disciplined and punished in the way that we are doing, he or she could then go to court if they felt it was unfair for whatever reason. The court would then decide whether that organisation had acted properly. We cannot do that, because nobody can go to court as a result of an unfair punishment from here. They cannot even go to the European court over it, so there is no appeal mechanism.
What would happen if we were a court of law? I assume—and again, I am speaking as non-lawyer—that a decision would be made, and the person concerned, if they felt it was unfair, might at that stage argue their case and so on. If they did not pay, the court would bring them back as it would with a fine that had been imposed, for example, and would either order goods to be possessed or, alternatively and more normally, conduct a means inquiry. As I understand it, although I am not a lawyer, that is where the Charles Dickens case comes from: there was a feeling that you had to inquire into a person’s means to find out whether the non-payment was deliberate or because they could not pay. We do not have a mechanism for doing that. We are trying to behave at one level as though we are a court of law, but then not giving ourselves the powers to do what a court of law would do. We are also saying that we are going to impose this punishment or condition—whatever you wish to call it—on a Member, but that that Member will have no recourse to the law.
I felt very uncomfortable when I began to look at it yesterday, or the day before. We are doing something, as a point of principle, that is deeply undesirable. We have to clarify, in our own minds, that if we are not going to be a court of law—and we cannot be—we need to have a system that follows through; when we impose a punishment or condition, or whatever we call it, we have to have a mechanism for deciding how that is done. We should not do that retrospectively, because a court of law could not do that. I will feel uncomfortable if this House gives itself powers that we do not think a court of law should have; yet does not give itself the power to inquire into means when they are relevant, as in this case. I personally would not support this Motion approving this report as it is today, and I ask the House to consider taking it away and thinking again about this important issue of how, if we are not a court of law, we impose our sanctions; and how we then ensure that the sanction we impose can realistically be delivered, and delivered fairly. That is the issue we have to face. That is the principle—and it even overrides the great public feeling there will be on cases like this.
Lord Filkin
My Lords, I am struggling to understand, let alone have sympathy for, some of the sophistry that is being argued against the House Committee’s report. It seems, I think, to most of us in this House that a wrong has been committed, restitution ought to be possible and the person ought to make restitution. We should not welcome somebody back to this legislature until that has been fulfilled. The House Committee could hardly have brought in any other recommendation than the one it has, and we should support it without further debate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for introducing the report from the House Committee this afternoon. It is with regret that we have to revisit an issue that has done great damage to the reputation of your Lordships’ House in relation to money wrongly claimed under the system of financial support for Members.
The public interest and reputation of Parliament require that these matters are dealt with in as rigorous a way as possible. A number of Members of your Lordships’ House have found themselves subject to investigations—in some cases by the authorities and in some cases by the relevant mechanisms of your Lordships’ House. In a small number of cases Members of this House have been suspended. In two cases, investigation by the authorities has led to prosecution and custodial sentences. The House has had, through a very, very difficult period, to consider the adequacy of its mechanisms. Changes have subsequently been made, both to the system of financial support for Members and to the code of conduct governing membership of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute to the work of those involved in dealing with these matters. I believe the rules produced and decisions reached were sensible. They are worthwhile provisions and have been of benefit to the House during a very difficult period for Parliament as a whole, including this House.
My noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, with her customary eloquence, has put forward a number of very serious points this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made the point that suspension of a Member of Parliament from this House under any such Motion would be for the lifetime of the Parliament, and a further Motion would have to be brought at the beginning of the next Parliament. I understand the point my noble friend has made in relation to retrospective provision. Noble Lords will always be very wary of retrospective legislation and rightfully so, but there is, in effect, a different interpretation in the report before us today from the House Committee. That has identified a gap that needs to be filled. The sixth report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct in October 2010 stated that the recovery of money wrongly claimed was not a disciplinary matter and not a matter for the committee. However, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees stated in his opening statement in that report:
“We therefore recommend that it is for the Clerk of the Parliaments, as Accounting Officer, consulting the House Committee as necessary, to consider what arrangements with Lady Uddin may be necessary to secure repayment of this sum to the House”.
In essence, the House Committee has now brought forward its advice in the form of an invitation to this House to agree a clear principle that a Member should not return to the House while still owing money. In the end, that principle is in the public interest. I cannot disagree with it and I will be supporting the recommendation of the House Committee.
Lord Laming
My Lords, I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes because I support the Motion that is before it. The House will know that I have been a member of the relevant committees for only a relatively short time, but I bring to them many years, sadly, of experience of dealing with disciplinary matters in the public services. Sad to say, that experience has taught me that these matters often involve conflict and sometimes considerable distress, which is made more serious when the people involved may be known to us personally.
However, I have an overriding impression of the way in which the House Committee has dealt with this matter and I support entirely the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in saying that the committee has approached this matter from the point of view of principle, not from that of personality. It has gone out of its way to try and be fair, but every Member of this House will know that being fair in these circumstances is not a simple matter. Of course, one wants to be fair to the individuals involved but there is also an issue of being fair to your Lordships’ House and, more than that, of being fair to the taxpayer. The money does not belong to your Lordships’ House; it belongs to the taxpayer and it should be returned to the taxpayer.
Over the years, sad to say, I have dealt with many instances when taxpayers’ money has been wrongly claimed. The first responsibility of any organisation dealing with matters of this kind, particularly a public organisation, is to seek to recover the money—and to seek to do that recognising that it has to make a decision in the circumstances in which it now finds itself. I believe that the House Committee has both been reasonable in these matters and adopted a stance which tries to be fair and to reflect the seriousness with which the public would view this situation if we did not endeavour to recover the money. This does not imply permanent suspension from the House. I commend the Motion to the House because I believe that it is a reasonable, fair and sensible course of action to take.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, perhaps the House feels that we should come to a conclusion on this matter now. I feel a little daunted in facing the first three noble and learned Lords who spoke in the debate, particularly the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, but I am glad to say that some of the points that were made have already been answered by other noble Lords.
On the question of retrospectivity, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, answered very well, this is not retrospective because the sanctions agreed by the House last year related to the original breach of the expenses scheme. The House is today being asked to approve the principle that any Peers who subsequently fail to repay the money which they have been found to owe should be suspended for that reason and that reason alone. I should say to the House that this is a report in generality, not a report about any particular Peers, so I rather regret that a number of names have been mentioned at this stage. That may or may not come up later; as the report says, a further Motion will have to be moved in the new year.
The second point related to the Privileges and Conduct Committee. It is true that that the committee did not believe that the length of suspension which it recommended should be determined by reference to repayment and that it rejected the idea of an indefinite suspension. However, the House Committee’s proposals to suspend Members until they have repaid is not a second punishment for abusing the system. It is related to the failure to repay, which falls within the remit of the House. Neither is it an indefinite or permanent suspension; what we propose is a carefully defined suspension that can be ended as soon as the Member in question pays up.
Moreover, we are not thwarting the writ of summons because, as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Alderdice, said, at no point would we be suspending a Member for a period longer than the remainder of the Parliament. A further suspension early in the following Parliament would be a separate suspension, not a continuation of the earlier one. As a number of noble Lords have said, it may be that we should legislate in future for longer than that but that would need new primary legislation.
Lord Soley
The report says:
“If money remains outstanding at the start of the following Parliament, the Chairman of Committees should move a further motion to initiate a further suspension”.
I want to be clear: is the committee taking the view that in future Parliaments we should do this all the time? Is that the recommendation?
The Chairman of Committees
If the money had not been repaid, the issue would be up for a new Motion by the Chairman of Committees at the beginning of the new Parliament. The Peer in question would already have received their writ of summons and would be able to come to the opening and so on, but then the Motion might go ahead.
Another point made by noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was that the system is discriminatory against people who do not have the money. I accept that less wealthy Members may struggle to pay off their debts to the House, but of course they should not have made their wrongful claims in the first place. Moreover, I do not think it would be right to means-test errant Members and then make special concessions to those who could not afford to pay. The House Committee believes as a matter of principle that Members who have cheated the taxpayer of money should not be allowed to take part in proceedings of the House or claim any further money until they have repaid their debt in full. How they might raise that money is a matter for them.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested that we should take this back and have another look at it. I will resist that temptation. As my noble friend Lord Baker said, the House Committee spent a great deal of time looking at this in detail. This is the conclusion that we came to and which I recommend to the House. I beg to move that the report be agreed.
Draft House of Lords Reform Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 6 July, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill that it should report on the draft Bill by 27 March 2012.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I suggest to my noble friend that some explanation of this Motion might be of interest to the House.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, of the many Motions that I have moved in the House, I would have thought that this one would be almost entirely self-explanatory. The House will remember that last July both Houses of Parliament agreed to the creation of a Joint Committee of both Houses to examine the Government’s draft Bill on the future reform of the House of Lords. In that Motion, the Joint Committee was due to report by March 2012. At that time, a number of questions were raised about whether the Joint Committee would be able to report in that time, and I indicated that if it wished to have an extension it would be able to ask for one. A few weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the chairman of the Joint Committee, wrote to me and indicated that it would need some more time and suggested the date of 27 March. All this Motion does is extend the time available to the Joint Committee by about a month to take us to 27 March 2012. I hope that that is a sufficient explanation of the Motion before us.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, what is the point of all this if the Deputy Prime Minister tells the world that he intends to force through legislation, invoking the Parliament Act, regardless of what the committee might say? We had a contempt of Parliament committed yesterday and I would be grateful if my noble friend would indicate that the committee will indeed report properly, that its report will be debated and that no one, least of all someone who wants to treat the constitution as his own personal plaything, should be allowed to usurp the functions of a committee of two Houses.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I might have expected my noble friend to speak, but I think he is being unnecessarily intemperate. It may be a surprise to him to hear that what the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday was not new at all. He had said it once or twice before. In fact, I said something similar last June in this House. It is surprising how quickly all these things are forgotten. I said:
“Therefore our intention is to introduce a Bill next year and to hold the first elections to the reformed House in May 2015”.—[Official Report, 21/6/11; col. 1155.]
The Deputy Prime Minister yesterday was simply following my lead. In the light of that, I do not think there is anything too much to worry about, although, of course, there is a process before a Queen’s Speech is brought to this House. However, the really important thing that my noble friend asked about was whether the report of the Joint Committee would be taken seriously. I can say unequivocally that it will be taken most seriously.
Lord Richard
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked for an explanation. The Joint Committee has been meeting regularly and is considering this Bill in a full and detailed way. It is being given full and detailed consideration. All I am saying is that we need another month to continue with that full and detailed consideration, at the end of which we will no doubt produce a report.
Lord Grocott
Following that comment, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House make it clear that, should the Joint Committee find that it cannot reach a conclusion by the new date that has been set—many of us anticipated that that would be the case when it was set up—the timetable under which it operates will not be determined by what is required for the Queen’s Speech, the date of which has still not been announced? In particular, can he tell the House—I cannot recall this ever happening before—whether the second most important Minister in the country has announced the Government’s flagship policy for the next Queen’s Speech even before the date when that speech should take place has been determined? In order to regain propriety, rather than following what seems to be a make-it-up-as-you-go-along policy, and having told us the most important content of the next Queen’s Speech—in the Government’s estimation, not mine—will the Leader of the House help us by at least giving us the relevant date?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, it is always nice to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is the guardian of the Government’s conscience. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is not the first keen Minister to wish to pre-empt Queen’s Speeches and make sure that there is a clear case for his Bill, nor will he be the last. The date of the end of this Session, and therefore the date of the beginning of the next Session, will be announced a few weeks before in the normal way, following well-worn precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, spoke extremely eloquently a minute ago. No doubt he and his committee came up with the date of the end of March because they believed that it would be possible to achieve that date. I am sure that Members of the committee will hear this debate and will have seen what was in the papers yesterday. I very much hope that we will not need to extend any longer the time that we have to wait for this report.
Lord Elton
Can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell me on what other occasion a senior member of the Government has announced in advance that he is going to use the Parliament Act?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am not aware that my right honourable friend said that he would do so. He used words about the will of the House of Commons; and the Parliament Act is of course part of a process that kicks in when the two Houses disagree with each other. It is a well understood process, and although it has perhaps not been well used, it has been used on many occasions. It is always of regret to me when Parliament Acts are used because I believe that, between the two Houses, there must be a better way of reaching agreements.
Lord Ryder of Wensum
My Lords, my noble friend has been exceedingly patient. Would it not be wise for us to close this debate on the grounds—on which we are united—that the speech made yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister showed only a veneer of expertise?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I will not be tempted down that road by my noble friend.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I congratulate the Leader of the House on the skill with which he has dealt with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister. The noble Lord has answered them in exactly the way that they merited.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, further to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister, can the noble Lord at least clarify whether it would be constitutional for the Government of the day to use the Parliament Act to radically reform and change your Lordships’ House without its consent?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the Parliament Act is a matter of statute law. It is our view that it would be illegal to use the Parliament Act when changing the composition or powers of this Chamber.
Baroness Walmsley
Does my noble friend the Leader of the House agree that it should not surprise any noble Lord that the Government wish to bring forward legislation to realise a matter that was in the manifestos of every single major party in the last election—and that we should get on with it?
Lord Strathclyde
I share with my noble friend her surprise that there is any surprise at all.
Electricity and Gas (Carbon Emissions and Community Energy Saving) (Amendment) Order 2011
Lord Marland
That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 November be approved.
Relevant Documents: 34th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 December.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pannick
“( ) The Lord Chancellor must secure (within the resources made available and in accordance with this Part) that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Hart of Chilton. It is an appropriate amendment with which to begin the Committee stage of this important Bill.
As the debate at Second Reading indicated, there is considerable concern about the contents of Part 1. There is widespread acceptance that in tough financial times legal aid must bear its share of the cuts in public expenditure and that the Government have to make difficult choices. However, there is widespread concern about the wisdom of the choices that are being made in Part 1 and whether it is appropriate to limit legal aid so extensively for those sections of the community that are most in need of advice and assistance to obtain the legal rights and benefits to which they are entitled.
The amendment seeks to focus this Committee’s debate on the contents of Part 1, and seeks to remedy a considerable defect in Clause 1. The defect is that the clause fails to mention that the objective of Part 1 must be to secure access to justice, to protect the needs of individuals and to do so in an effective manner. Clause 1 fails to recognise that our debates about the content of Part 1 should take place in the context that legal aid is a vital element in securing access to justice, and that without access to justice, the rights and duties which we spend time creating in this Parliament by legislation are reduced in value and effect.
The drafting of Amendment 1 is closely based on Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which imposes duties on the Legal Services Commission. When the Bill transfers those responsibilities into the Lord Chancellor's Department, the primary objective of securing access to justice by effective means to meet needs must be retained in the Bill. That point was made in the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that he can accept the amendment. It is carefully drafted to recognise, as does Section 4(1) of the 1999 Act, that the duty to provide access to services in order to meet needs is not absolute. It is a duty defined by reference to the resources available. The drafting does not impose an independent duty which trumps the specific contents of Part 1. On the contrary, it says expressly,
“in accordance with this Part”.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment as doing no damage whatever to the specific clauses which we shall be debating later in Committee. At the same time, the amendment ensures that the Bill recognises the vital principle which always has been and which should remain at the heart of our legal aid provisions: a commitment to providing access to justice. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained, the current drafting is a change from the wording of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the amendment makes it clear that the Lord Chancellor has an obligation to secure the access to legal services that meet the needs of the individual. That was recommended by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, although the amendment contains an important modification in that there is a qualification that the provision of legal aid must be on the basis of resources,
“made available in accordance with this Part”—
Part 1. In other words, there is no absolute requirement on the part of the Secretary of State to make legal aid available regardless of the financial situation.
I understand the purpose behind the Bill, which is, first, to save approximately £350 million as a contribution to reduction in expenditure generally and, secondly, to make some important changes to the litigation system as a whole. Although legal aid and the amendment are concerned with Part 1, it cannot be viewed in isolation, particularly not from Part 2, which brings about changes in current conditional fee arrangements. The need for those changes is clear. As recently as yesterday, a Court of Appeal judge observed at the end of the case that it was another case in which,
“the existence of a conditional fee agreement has made it practically impossible to obtain a settlement”.
He went on to observe that, ultimately, it is the public who pay for these things, either through higher premiums, or through the unwarranted expenditure of public resources.
Access to justice means satisfactory access not just for claimants but also for defendants. My reading of the purpose of some of the amendments put forward by the Front Bench of the party opposite is that they are intended substantially to maintain the status quo. This is somewhat surprising in view of the widespread acceptance of the undesirable effects of the current system, not least by Mr Jack Straw, former Secretary of State for Justice, in debates in the other place. I suggest that some of these amendments will actually impede access to justice.
There is an additional benefit from this amendment, apart from the clarity that I hope it provides. Our law is generally subject to the Human Rights Act—in particular, Article 6 of the convention, which provides for the right to a fair trial. How an individual state decides to reflect this principle in its provision of legal aid or some other form of assistance is, I suggest, very much for that state to decide, and it should be well within the so-called margin of appreciation—theoretically, at least—permitted by the courts in Strasbourg. There have been cases where in one context or another the lack of legal aid has been found to violate Article 6, although it might be said that the jurisprudence in this area lacks some coherence. However, this amendment should make such challenges far less likely to succeed in that there is a clear statement of the Lord Chancellor’s obligation and, contained within it, a sensible acknowledgement of the limits provided by available resources.
The Lord Chancellor said in an interview with the Guardian, published yesterday, that the Bill was concerned with,
“protection of fundamental rights of access to justice for critical issues that no civilised society can do without”.
I suspect that all in your Lordships’ House would agree with that aim. It is an aspiration that should inform our debates on the Bill in Committee in the weeks to come, and I suggest that this amendment is a good beginning.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the Constitution Committee did us, as it always does, a good service in reminding us and stating emphatically that access to justice is a constitutional principle. The amendment that it proposed to Clause 1, which would say that the Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in order to ensure effective access to justice, would be a humdinger of an amendment. It would reassert absolutely and emphatically the fundamental constitutional principle of equal access to justice for all our people. The amendment that the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Faulks, and others have tabled and placed before us is not the same as that amendment. They have chosen to qualify the requirement on the Lord Chancellor by including language about his obligation being only within the resources made available for the purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also said that in his view the duty was not absolute, although a little later in his remarks he said that access to justice was a vital principle. I am not clear exactly what the degree of obligation on the Lord Chancellor would be.
It certainly seems to me that if the legal aid budget is to be cut by £350 million, it may not be possible within the resources available to secure access to justice. I am beginning to wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and his very distinguished co-signatories, all of them lawyers, may find themselves in somewhat the same position as the revolutionary students in Paris in 1968, whose motto was “Demand the impossible”. It is very exciting to demand the impossible but the prospects for your proposition are not necessarily very good. At all events, I am a little confused about exactly what their amendment would require of the system, and I wonder whether there is not some sort of internal conflict within the amendment.
For my part, I believe that the duty on the Lord Chancellor and the Government should be absolute. If equal access to justice is a fundamental constitutional principle, then I believe that we, as citizens and taxpayers, should pay whatever it reasonably takes to secure it. The legal aid budget, running at some £2.2 billion, is a lot of money. On the other hand, as I mentioned at Second Reading, £2.2 billion is only around 1 per cent of the social security budget and the £350 million cut to the legal aid budget that is being proposed by the Government would, I think, be 0.2 per cent of the deficit, about which all of us are very properly exercised.
I think it is disputable whether the existing legal aid budget is unaffordable. If we believe that it is a fundamental constitutional principle, we could afford to pay what it costs. Of course, costs must be disciplined and the previous Labour Government were severe on that matter. I was not entirely happy when the former Prime Minister, Mr Blair, spoke of his intention to,
“derail the gravy train of legal aid”,
because I believe that a great many legal aid lawyers are working for pretty small remuneration and are not riding on any kind of a gravy train. Nor was I entirely in agreement with the tone and the sentiment of my right honourable friend Jack Straw when he spoke of,
“BMW-driving civil liberties lawyers”.
Of course, it must be right—this is very much the intention that the Lord Chancellor declares in his article in the Guardian today—to attack lawyers who are drawing entirely excessive remuneration out of work that may be funded by legal aid.
My noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, when Lord Chancellor, mounted a vigorous attack on the cost of the legal aid system. He attacked the costs but he did not attack the principle. The Government are right, of course, to examine the costs. If it costs £120 million to run the Legal Services Commission, then that commission must be a candidate for economy. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree here, as elsewhere, that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are speaking of a fundamental constitutional principle, of a fundamental entitlement for our citizens. Can we speak of a fundamental constitutional principle in the context of an unwritten constitution? I believe that we can, and so I think does the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House because it quoted the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and Lord Bingham speaking very eloquently about the right to equal access to justice.
Noble Lords will be very well aware of the Sir Henry Hodge Memorial Lecture, given by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in June. I had the privilege and pleasure to listen to that lecture, in which she told us that the principle of equal access to justice is to be found in the Magna Carta:
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”.
That is a principle that has been established cumulatively through our history. She told us that a statute of 1494, in the reign of Henry VII, provided for actions to be brought in forma pauperis, relieved from court fees and provided with lawyers acting pro bono. Then later in our history, there was the famous case of Ashby v White, the Aylesbury election case in 1703, when Lord Chief Justice Holt, in his judgment said:
“If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of a right and want of a remedy are reciprocal”.
Some noble Lords may have read an excellent and informative article in the London Review of Books, on 20 October, by Joanna Biggs, who traced some of the history of the establishment of the right of equal access to justice. She describes how, in 1944, Henry Betterton, who, like the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, the Lord Chancellor, was a barrister and indeed a Conservative Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, was appointed to chair a special committee on legal aid and legal advice. In his report in 1945 he said:
“The great increase in legislation and the growing complexity of modern life have created a situation in which increasing numbers of people must have recourse to professional legal assistance”.
The free legal aid that was at that stage available was, he said, at best somewhat patchy and totally inadequate. He recommended that in the future legal aid should be available not just for the poor but for people of small or moderate means. People who could afford to do so should contribute to their legal costs. Barristers and solicitors were to be paid adequately. There should be legal aid centres across the country. That was the vision that underlay the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. That legislation was widely recognised as being part of the structure of the new welfare state that was being created by that Labour Government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I do not mean to prolong the noble Lord’s speech by my interruption, but perhaps I could suggest that it is not helpful to his case if he becomes narrowly partisan. This is not an area where any one party can claim a monopoly of virtue or vice. It is much better to focus on what unites the House rather than what divides it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I hope to be able to do that. I hope that I have not been unduly partisan, but we all feel strongly on this issue and I very much hope that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who I understand feel strongly on the issue, will explain their case to us and, when it comes to voting in the Division Lobby, will act according to their professions. Perhaps in that remark I am becoming a little too party political—for which I apologise to the Committee.
If the Government say that a national debate is taking place, I would reply that the 5,000 responses to the Green Paper demonstrate that there is a very strong consensus against what they propose and that they would be wrong to defy that consensus.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord a question. I listened with great care to what he said. It would be extremely helpful to know where his argument is directed. Is it intended to support or oppose Amendment 1?
Lord Howarth of Newport
I will come to that in a second. The noble and learned Baroness will be pleased to know that I am about to wind up. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling an amendment that challenges us to debate the principles against which the detailed amendments should be judged.
I conclude by saying that I believe that the Government have no mandate for what they seek to do. They have no political or moral authority and no permission from the people to take away their right of access to justice and to dismantle that part of the justice system. It would be a dereliction of our constitution if the Government and Parliament were not to resolve to spend the money that is genuinely necessary to secure access to justice for all. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will press his amendment to a vote. If he does I will certainly support it. If he does not, I hope that when we come back to the issue on Report, he or others will table an amendment that fairly and squarely insists on the fundamental principle. If they were to table the amendment proposed by the Constitution Committee in all its principled directness and simplicity, that would be preferable.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, speaking as a liberal from the Liberal Democrat Benches, it is with regret that I say that I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I support it with regret because I had hoped that we would not be in this position by the time we started Committee. Noble Lords will recall the Second Reading debate at which unfortunately I was not able to be present because I was out of the country. Since that debate there has been private and public negotiation, lobbying, a great deal of journalism and an expectation that we would move from the position that was expressed from the government Front Bench at Second Reading. However, I detect absolutely no hint that any concessions will be made. Indeed, I detect an air of irritated intransigence coming from the Ministry of Justice in relation to the Bill.
I would not feel driven to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and to take the same position as my noble friend Lord Faulks from the Conservative Benches on the coalition side, if I felt that there was some movement in the direction of the general principle set out in the amendment. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained, this is not an expression of a new principle, nor is it an expression of a principle that is to be applied outside the context of this very Bill. It seeks merely to set out a principle that I believe every person in this House should embrace within the Bill’s in effect financial constraints, which are expressed in the amendment.
I, as a liberal and a Member of the Liberal Democrats, have understandably—like, I am sure, my noble friend Lord Faulks—been encouraged not to cause difficulties, not to intervene too much and not to obstruct the Government in getting their Bill through; in other words, I have been encouraged to support this coalition Government, which I would very much like to do. However, I have detected an assumption that Liberal Democrat Peers are to support the Government’s approach to this Bill, and I say to my noble friend Lord McNally that it is not sufficient to make us wait to find out later what concessions are to be made on the many representations that have been made.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Government that a great deal of legal aid money is being wasted at present. I believe that fervently, and I could identify, and indeed have identified when asked, areas in the legal aid system where savings could be made. However, arguments have been made for concessions in areas where access to legal services is required as the only way, in effect, to meet the needs of people whose rights have been adversely affected. If my noble friend wishes us not to support this amendment, I invite him to tell us when he replies to this debate the areas in which concessions are to be made and the general nature of those concessions, not the particulars. In other words, I am asking my noble friend not merely to assume our support from these Benches but to earn our support from these Benches. Without that, I am afraid that I shall remain dissatisfied and will feel free to intervene during these debates on the merits of these amendments.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I briefly support the amendment by echoing the words that have already been quoted—those of the Lord Chancellor, who said:
“access to justice is a hallmark of a civilised society”,—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/10; col. 659.]
and those of my noble friend Lord Pannick, who has said repeatedly that access to justice is a vital constitutional principle.
At Second Reading, I regretted that the word “rehabilitation” had been replaced by the word “punishment” in the title of this Bill, and I fear that the proposed denial of legal aid to some for whom its provision is a vital part of their rehabilitation suggests that there are some in government who are allowing an uncivilised concentration on punishment to supersede their duty to protect the public. I know that this is a hybrid Bill and that Part 3 will concentrate on rehabilitation, but I wish I felt the same of Part 1.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, I wonder whether others felt, as I did, that what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, just said was music to the ears.
Of the amendments currently tabled to this Bill, I regard this amendment as by far and away the most important, and it is one that I strongly support. It provides the litmus test of what the Government are really trying to achieve with legal aid. This part of the Bill has been presented to us as a cost-saving measure that, in today’s climate, is hard to oppose, but as it stands it is far more than that. As others have said, Schedule 5 to the Bill repeals the fundamental principles of legal aid, which appear at present in the Access to Justice Act 1999. By removing them under Schedule 5, the Government have removed their obligation to supply legal services, to make sure that they are available and to make sure that the means of accessing them are available to those in need. They are, in effect, casting away two of the most vital parts of our constitution and essential ingredients of a just society. They are, first, equality before the law and, secondly, the principle that no one should be denied access to justice through lack of means. The omission of an overarching statement of principle at the start of this Bill signals that the Government no longer wish to honour that obligation. If the obligation does not rest on the Government, it does not in reality rest, or exist, at all.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, 43 years ago, I was a Home Office Minister but I doubt very much whether the procedures that have been so dramatically described by the noble Baroness were current in those days.
I rise to support wholeheartedly this amendment and to salute the courageous and most splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. This amendment goes fundamentally to the heart, core and kernel of what we mean by justice, the rule of law and the fundamental constitutional principles that govern Parliament. If one looks at that splendid book, The Rule of Law, by the late Lord Bingham, which was published last year, the right to justice where a person has a reasonable cause is utterly fundamental. In the immortal words that he used, one of the ingredients of the rule of law itself was that,
“means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide disputes which the parties are unable themselves to resolve”.
He went on to say that,
“denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law”.
No one could put it more splendidly than that. Indeed, it is on that basis that the Constitution Committee has attacked the elements which seek to undermine legal aid. The clear recommendation made by the committee on this clause was that:
“Clause 1 should be amended to read: ‘The Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in order to ensure effective access to justice’”.
I consider those words in the light of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Pannick.
On the one hand, one can see that a distinction can be drawn between the two. One is in absolutist terms while the other is in qualified terms. But I do not think that the Committee need worry a great deal about that. The words chosen by my noble friend have already been enshrined in statute in the Access to Justice Act 1999, and all that we are doing is saying that we wish to take the House and the British community back to the mentality which supported the Access to Justice Act. In doing that, I wholeheartedly respect and support this amendment.
The idea that access to justice is a constitutional right has been spelt out in the courts. In 1994, in the matter of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech, Lord Justice Steyn ruled in the Court of Appeal that the,
“principle of our law that every citizen has a right of unimpeded access to a court … even in our unwritten constitution …must rank as a constitutional right”.
No one could put it clearer than that. It means, therefore, that any substantial impediment to the reasonable exercise of that right is something that undermines the very concept of our constitution, unwritten though it be. I can well imagine that the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will say, “Well, these are difficult times. Everyone has to react to the crisis and to accept responsibility which is joint and several in respect of all of us”. I can understand that, but I would say in reply to such a submission that, first, no credible and enlightened Government in our day and age can ever stand before the world and say, “We are too poor to be able to afford justice”. Secondly, it is almost certain that the net saving in respect of the £350 million which the Government claim will be slashed from the legal aid bill will either be a very small saving or no saving at all. We will debate these matters in the months to come and there is ample evidence in support of that proposition.
Lastly, let us remember what the situation was in 1949 when the Legal Aid and Advice Act was passed. Britain had emerged from a terrible war bloodied, weakened and practically insolvent. John Maynard Keynes was sent to the United States to negotiate on the best terms possible a loan that it took many decades to repay. The Americans absolutely screwed us and, as we know, it was only a few years ago that that loan was repaid. The Government of the day in 1949 could have said, “We are so impoverished and reduced in our strength that we cannot conceive of such a luxury as legal aid”, but they did not.
Lord Goldsmith
I rise to support this amendment for reasons which I will explain—
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, it is the turn of this side, but I wait with pleasure to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say.
When I started my career as a barrister in the late 1950s, we had started with legal aid for only a few years. Up until then, aid from lawyers to poor people who were prosecuted for criminal offences mostly came from a group of barristers of poor quality who spent their time sitting in the court in the hope of being chosen by the defendant to defend them. Legal aid replaced all that, for civil cases as well as criminal, and we must never get anywhere near the previous situation.
This amendment is one of the most important in the Bill; indeed, it is in many ways the most important. The right of access to justice is a central feature of British justice, as it has been for centuries. We are rightly proud of that. We have over the years achieved the right of access to law. Now that right is under threat. Clause 1(1) is not adequate. This is made clear by the 21st report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the Constitution, published on 17 November. That is a very distinguished committee. The four Members who have put their names to Amendment 1 include two members of that committee, the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Hart. They also include the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice and an outstanding judge of recent times, and, finally, my noble friend Lord Faulks, who is a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House but who has proved his high quality as a lawyer and a politician.
I am aware that in recent years the costs of legal aid have risen too far. This was recognised by Lord Bingham in chapter 8 of his book, The Rule of Law, which has already been mentioned. Steps are being taken by the Government to reduce costs in a justifiable way, but we must make it clear that access to justice is essential and that we cannot set up in this country a legal system which does not provide access to justice to those who cannot afford it out of their own pockets.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, went before me, because I can wholeheartedly agree with the last sentiment that he has expressed—I am not surprised that we share that view.
Before I speak about my hesitation in respect of the amendment, I should declare, because I was unable to take part at Second Reading, that I am a practising lawyer, though not a publicly funded lawyer for a long time. I am also chairman of the Access to Justice Foundation and president of the Bar Pro Bono Unit, two organisations which try to help people who have legal need through the generosity of lawyers who are prepared to do that for free.
My reason for being hesitant about the amendment is that it does not go as far as the Constitution Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, said it should. There is a qualification of importance in the amendment, which is the reference to available resources. I was concerned that allowing that qualification might allow the damage to be done to the legal aid system and the access to justice that so many people need that we are fighting for.
I recognise the constraints. I also recognise that this was a formulation which the Government of whom I was a part put forward—I was not that happy about it then either, as it happens. However, there is a reason why I shall support the amendment: it is a way of testing what the Government actually believe in. It is a way of testing whether this Government are prepared to sign up, on the basis that there is not a blank cheque, to the principle that the Lord Chancellor has an obligation to secure justice for those who need it and to make sure that it is secured effectively. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has a computer chip in his neck—I hope that I have known him long enough to know that that is not the way he operates—but I shall look forward with interest to two things during this debate. The first is what he says about this amendment. It will be telling in the extreme if he is not able to accept that, even though there will not be a blank cheque and even though it depends on the resources being available, his department should acknowledge a duty to secure that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs. That is a constitutional principle that the Government should at least support.
Secondly, I will look to see the answers to individual amendments and the issues that arise in relation to particular aspects of the Bill. For example, I am very concerned about welfare, where so much of the resource at the moment is provided not to well paid lawyers, barristers in Chambers or City firms of solicitors, but to legal advice centres. They are agencies that work on a shoestring and depend on legal aid, so much of which will be cut to them. The Government should be judged on the attitude that they take to that—not more fat for the fat cats, but helping the poor people of the country, the vulnerable and the less privileged, and ensuring the rights that it is one of the jobs of this House to provide.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was born in inner-city Liverpool. I had the privilege of representing part of that city for 25 years, first as a city councillor and later, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, knows, as a Member of the House of Commons. Liverpool is one of the more deprived and economically disadvantaged parts of this country. Therefore, not as a lawyer but as someone who knows communities that have been socially disadvantaged and where access to law and justice is crucial, I spoke at Second Reading strongly against the proposals in the Bill.
I want today to support my noble friend's amendment because, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I believe that it goes to the very heart of what the Bill is about. It demands the perfectly possible. It is perfectly possible because it is what we do already. Unlike the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, I turn the attention of Members of the Committee not to the word “resources” but to what the amendment says at the end. It says,
“that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs”.
To oppose the amendment and vote it down would be for us to say that people should not have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs. Do we really want to turn the clock back to those pre-1949 days that my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan spoke about a few moments ago? We are all aware of the five giant evils that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned in his remarks that were identified by Lord Beveridge. It was Hartley Shawcross who, from the Labour Benches in 1949, introduced the legal aid provisions. Hartley Shawcross was the Member of Parliament for another Merseyside seat, St Helens.
By way of illustration, the Liverpool Law Society wrote to me recently about what would happen if the provisions in the Bill were to be enacted, and one of the examples comes from St Helens. It involves a long-distance lorry driver who died of lung cancer after a mistake was made in his diagnosis. The settlement was made with his widow after commissioning significant experts’ fees. Under the new regime, the Liverpool Law Society said that the client,
“would not have been in a position to fund any disbursements to enable an investigation to be taken forward”.
That is only one example of many that I have been given of people who for one reason or another, particularly because of changes to legal aid, would no longer be able to get that crucial access to justice that is available in this country at present.
The Bar Council says that it is,
“profoundly concerned about the impact that the Bill's proposals could have on access to justice, particularly for some of the most vulnerable members of society”.
The point is underlined by the Law Society, which said that,
“the Bill ensures that serious injustice will be done … Clients with physical or mental health deficiencies, or low levels of education, may be unable to resolve their problems in the absence of support through legal aid”.
It is worth reminding the Committee what Lord Justice Jackson said when he examined the proposals and came out very strongly against any cuts in legal aid. He said:
“I … stress the vital necessity of making no further cutbacks in legal aid availability or eligibility … the maintenance of legal aid at no less than present levels makes sound economic sense and is in the public interest … On the assumption that it is decided not to maintain civil legal aid at present levels, the question may possibly arise as to whether any particular area of civil legal aid is particularly important and should be salvaged from the present cuts. My answer to that question is that of all the proposed cutbacks in legal aid, the removal of legal aid from clinical negligence is the most unfortunate”.
We have heard several references to the Committee of your Lordships’ House. The House of Commons Justice Committee stated that the Government are in error in failing to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the knock-on costs arising from the cuts to legal aid. In other words, this is penny-wise but pound-foolish. This is a point borne out by Action Against Medical Accidents. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who spoke so eloquently earlier on, chaired a meeting at which I and other Members of your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, were present, where Action Against Medical Accidents said that in order to save the Ministry of Justice just £11 million it will cost the NHS at least £14 million and possibly as much as £21 million.
This is what the House of Commons Committee said:
“We are surprised that the Government is proposing to make such changes without assessing their likely impact on spending from the public purse and we call on them to do so before taking a final decision on implementation”.
We still have a chance between now and Report to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said he would be, I will be looking for a signal from the government Front Bench today of reasonableness: a willingness to re-examine whether or not the propositions that have been put to us by the Bar Council, the Law Society, practising lawyers and people who have represented disadvantaged communities hold up and are up to scrutiny. It is in that context that we should return our sights to the amendment before your Lordships today, proposing that,
“individuals should have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs”.
When we come to vote we will be voting on that proposition. Unless I hear from the Front Bench that it is prepared to look at this again between now and Report, I will join my noble friend in the Lobby.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, it is probably my turn, if my noble former constituent will allow me. I have been stimulated, not for the first time and I hope not for the last, by some of the speeches in this debate. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, reminded me of how grateful I was that, in 18 years as a Minister, nobody ever sent me anywhere near the Home Office. I do not know whether or not I would have withstood it, but I am glad that I did not have to be tested.
Secondly, the speech of my noble friend Lord Carlile was absolutely spot on. I have not had the same experience as he has of being pressurised by the Whips: they have given up on me. I am glad to support him, because we need some signs of movement in the speech that will be made at the end of this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that I would much prefer it if this amendment were treated as putting down a marker to see what response we get and that we should judge things in the light of what may happen later on with the Bill as well as what is said tonight. In that respect, I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said. But we need something less than irritated intransigence, as my noble friend Lord Carlile put it, from the Ministry of Justice in the way that it responds to the concerns in the Committee. We should make that very clear tonight. In other words, if we do not get some sense of willingness to move then we should return to this on Report. Meanwhile, I look forward very much to a constructive response from my noble friend.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, let us hear first from the noble Lord and then from my noble friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, I would like to ask the Government a simple question. What do the Bar Council, the Law Society and the organisations concerned with poverty with regard to legal services have to say? Have the Government taken the trouble to consult these organisations? The noble Lord says that they have. So what is their reply? They remain obdurately opposed to the principles that the Government are putting forward today. I unhesitatingly support the amendment. Pretty well all the speeches in the Committee—whether from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat or these Benches, and on the Cross Benches—have expressed opposition to what the Government are trying to do and support for what the amendment stands for.
I also unhesitatingly support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He has spoken very bravely, and has been supported by several noble Lords who share his profession. A bevy of Silks have announced support for the proposition advanced by the amendment. I got involved with legal aid from pretty well the very beginning, because of a very simple notion—I thought it was imperative that ordinary people should be able to advance their cause and, where they are impaired from doing so, they should be supported by the state. That was my view then. The amendment sets out very clearly, within the constraints that are necessarily imposed upon us, the basic principles that we should preserve.
It is vital that individuals should have access to legal services, where their rights are being seriously impaired or are not being properly advanced—subject always to the provisions of the 1999 Act. There is a serious risk that both of these will occur, separately, under the changes to legal aid provision now being contemplated. I am surprised that any person of any sensitivity—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, would fall into that category—would support such changes. I have always had great admiration for the noble Lord—I do not know why, as he has done his best to impair that decision on my part. It is not a question of party prejudice at all; it is a question of downright decency and that is what I support today.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, one could be in danger of being slightly sentimental about the Access to Justice Act. Some in this Chamber will remember it very well and opposed it very strongly. I called it the “Exit from Justice Act”. However, I recognise that legal aid is a sort of Cinderella of the welfare state and is a very difficult service to defend in terms of public opinion, for reasons that I advanced at Second Reading and which I do not propose to repeat. However, I will just say that I am, always have been and always will be, passionately committed to the legal aid scheme. Without an effective legal aid scheme the legislation we produce in this place can be viewed as cynical. To legislate rights knowing that a large number of those for whom they are intended do not have access to them must be a form of cynicism. Having said which, the Government are placed in an extremely difficult position, and there is no jibbing the fact that all departments of state have to bear some part of the cuts which the Government have determined are essential for our economic well-being. I am one who concurs with that judgment.
Lord Clinton-Davis
There must be some restriction. I unhesitatingly support the legal aid system but there has always been an understanding, has there not, that the amount of resources which are available must be consonant with what we can afford?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Lord has just made the case for the Government rather succinctly. That is the argument; what I am saying is that if you put the qualifying phrase,
“within the resources made available”,
into Clause 1, then everything is subservient to it. At the moment, the legal aid cost rises and falls—it usually rises but occasionally falls—according to the demands of the citizen upon it within the scope of legal aid availability. As I say, with this phrase in it the Government could say at the start of the year, “We are not paying out more than blank pounds for legal aid”, and that would be that.
Lord Goldsmith
Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord that I was concerned about precisely that point. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and indeed to the Government, but I hope that the answer is in the requirement that it should be secured,
“in accordance with this Part”,
and that that therefore means that those things which I, too, hope will be in the Act at the end of this Bill’s passage will have to be secured, and will not be subject to any monetary qualification. I hope that that is the answer as it was part of my reason for taking the view, after my hesitation, that I would support the amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I refer the noble and learned Lord to the fact that the sentence within the brackets which qualifies the obligation of the Lord Chancellor to secure includes the words,
“within the resources made available and in accordance with this Part”.
If they are in conflict—namely, that the resources made available are insufficient to meet the demands of this part of the Bill—then we are in a bit of a muddle, are we not?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, my starting point was the same as that of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, in that I, too, felt very alarmed that this amendment seems to be too concessionary because it was acknowledging too much on the resource front. However, I acknowledge now that it pins down the question of whether there is a constitutional issue here. If there is, it has to cut across all the areas of law.
I was always battling the previous Government over their cuts to legal aid because of what they meant to quality. What concerns me about the Bill is that it takes whole sections of law out of the purview of legal aid so that medical negligence is not included, and nor are family matters unless there is domestic violence. It is the business of creating whole areas that are not covered by legal aid that is a source of alarm to me, and that is met by the amendment. If you are committed constitutionally to access to justice, you cannot create whole areas that are excised from legal aid. That is how I would read it now.
There are two things I want to say pre-emptively before the Minister stands up to reply. First, one of the things that is always said by the Minister responding on issues like this about legal aid is, “Look how many lawyers have spoken”, as though somehow or other we are the beneficiaries, we are all in this great trade union and we are basically protecting a closed shop. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, known to us all as a decent and fair man, that it is not surprising that lawyers will by and large be the people who speak on this. We know from our work in the courts that it is the poor who will be disadvantaged. It has been my experience while acting in the courts that the disadvantaged will always be those with few resources. We have to make provision for them. That is what access to justice is all about; we know that from our experience. This is nothing to do with protecting the interests of lawyers.
Secondly, on looking for cuts, I have always said to the Government, and I said it to the previous one, that there are other areas where we can make savings. It has always been a source of amazement to me that when the Government need lawyers—for example, when Treasury Counsel sought representation for different government departments—they are not paid at legal aid rates; they are paid at commercial rates. They are paid the sort of money that the corporate sector pays its lawyers. If we want to save money, we should be making serious savings in what government departments pay lawyers for representation. It was always a source of amusement to me that when the Hutton inquiry took place and the Prime Minister at the time, Mr Blair, needed representation, it was to Mr Sumption that he turned—one of the most expensive barristers around. I do not think that it was Mr Blair’s own purse that paid the bill; it was the taxpayer. I would like to see the Government making cuts with regard to the lawyers that they choose to represent them and that pocket of money distributed to those who really need representation—the poorest in our society.
We are concerned that there is a constitutional issue here. Whole areas of law should not be taken out of the purview of legal aid.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I wonder whether I might make some brief comments, bearing in mind the time. I would like to add to what has been said. It has largely been lawyers who have spoken, and I very much hope that noble Lords will not give less weight to the names on this first amendment or to the lawyers who have supported it. That is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has just said, inevitable because we know what goes on on the ground. As a former judge, hearing mostly legal aid cases, I have clear knowledge of what happens on the ground.
The lawyers who have spoken are all very distinguished. They have done a great deal in the past and indeed are still doing it. What they have to say should resonate with all Members of this House because these are not party political issues. I very much hope that no noble Lord will make them party political issues. Seeing as people have spoken from all sides of the House, it would be good if no one spoke any longer in a party political way. This issue is too important for us to do so.
To recognise and accept the amendment would not drive a coach and horses through the Bill. On the contrary, it recognises financial restraints and in my view is very shrewdly phrased. I do not believe that it has the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was suggesting. There is nothing to stop us dealing with other areas where we would say it is necessary to have legal aid and it would not be possible for the Government to say that such legal aid should not be forthcoming. However, one has to recognise reality. We have to recognise that not every aspect of the current legal aid bill can continue to be paid. There are areas highlighted by amendments—some of them my own and some from other noble Lords—which we have to look at and say that there should not be cuts. One example of that is private law.
This amendment sets out in simple language the right of citizens to have access to justice in general terms. It is an amendment that would be extremely difficult to oppose and I strongly support it.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, if we could hear from the Liberal Democrats, the Cross Benches and then the Labour Party.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, many years ago, when Lord Scarman was chairman of the Law Commission, I remember him saying that his cleaning lady came to him one day and asked whether he could help her with a social security problem. He described how it took him three days of combing through the social security legislation before he was able to help her. He told us this story because he was explaining how there was an enormous need for poverty lawyers—the ones who deal with the legal problems of the poor—to be empowered to provide those services. If a Law Lord such as Lord Scarman took three days to do what a law centre could do more quickly, it illustrated the point.
The great virtue of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is its conspicuous moderation and realism. I cannot understand those noble Lords who criticise him for being so moderate and realistic. The real value of his amendment is that it strengthens the hand of the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary in his dealings with the Treasury. Many years ago when I was Roy Jenkins’s special adviser, I remember that Barbara Castle, a Minister in the then Government, explained why she supported cuts in civil legal aid. She wrote to her colleagues saying that if she had to choose between hospitals and legal services, she would unhesitatingly preserve hospitals. It is that notion that legal services for the poor are a soft target and matter a great deal less culturally and politically than health services which is at the bottom of the problem in my view.
Successive Governments have found it very easy to sabotage civil legal aid since the original Legal Aid and Advice Act was passed. This is not a party political problem; it has pervaded all parties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who, unfortunately is not in his place, cut legal aid when he was Lord Chancellor, and followed a long line of Lord Chancellors in doing so. He attacked what he called fat-cat lawyers to justify some of the cuts that he made. When Lord Taylor’s memorial service was held in St Paul’s cathedral, Sir Humphrey Potts, in giving the encomium—I recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, was at the front of the cathedral—made a joke at his expense, saying that he saw that he, in a fit of post-retirement remorse, was attacking fat-cat lawyers. It was a good joke but it illustrated a powerful point. It would be very easy for my noble friend Lord McNally when he replies to make some cynical remarks about his legal friends standing up for the closed shop. However, I am sure that he will not fall into this trap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has said, those of us who are here today are not in the platoons of legal services for the poor lawyers who will be most hit by these cuts, along with their clients.
Baroness Verma
Perhaps the noble Lord could speak first, followed by the noble Baroness.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I rise with great caution as a lay man in this very legal debate. However, I read the article in today’s Guardian by the Lord Chancellor, in which he spoke of promoting non-adversarial solutions. I therefore invite the Deputy Leader of the House, when he replies, to tell us a little about how that will work out in practice and to what extent those kinds of solutions will compensate for the very large cut that is proposed to be made to the current legal aid budget.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I will be brief. Very much following the speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I should like to add another slant to why the amendment should be supported. The trouble is that Clause 1, as it stands, does not confer access to justice. The wording does not make it clear that such a provision will meet individuals’ needs. It could be minimal, perfunctory and partial, and yet still comply.
What individuals need is the crucial element of what my noble friend Lady King of Bow called in her Second Reading speech the state’s compact with the citizen: that is, if the rule of law is unintelligible and unavailable to the citizen, their rights and responsibilities are withheld, so not only is the individual deprived of what they might be entitled to but democracy is significantly eroded. We should not allow the wording of Clause 1 to be unamended, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, we have heard legal speeches from the top lawyers in this country, and no one should fail to recognise that. In particular, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said, this is a very modest amendment that clearly takes account of the situation that we are all in. However, those of us—and there are many in this Chamber—who sat through Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill know very well where the needs are. There are needs other than those who are disabled or have special needs. As we heard, I think a couple of days ago, there are those who suddenly hit crises and need help.
Above all—from the way I look at these things; I wish we knew more—I support my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham’s plea for rehabilitation. One should consider the amount of money that we could save if we actually addressed the point about early intervention and all the matters that are now rising to the top of the list of things that are accepted but to which we are still not prepared to give the resources that are needed.
I also realise that there are difficult loyalties between members of the coalition. One or two of your Lordships have made their position clear, and I admire them for it. It is difficult to vote against your party. I almost beg the Minister to realise that the amendment would meet his and the coalition’s needs and should be accepted.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I have been involved with legal aid for longer than anyone except my noble friend Lord Phillips. I started in 1958.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I can go from 1958 to last Friday on doing legal aid work. I do not know whether the noble Lord can follow me on that, so I have some experience of legal aid. I have filled in the forms and appeared in various tribunals and courts, and I have sometimes appeared pro bono with the assistance of legal aid granted by panels of solicitors who control that sort of thing. However, I am afraid that the amendment does not say anything. That is my concern. It states:
“The Lord Chancellor must secure … that individuals have access to legal services that effectively meet their needs”.
That is a fine statement of principle, except that it is qualified in two ways: first, by the words,
“within the resources made available”,
and importantly by the words,
“in accordance with this Part”.
That can have meaning only if we look at what is in this part of the Bill, not just at this precise moment but by the time we have finished dealing with it.
Your Lordships have seen the Marshalled List and will appreciate the number of amendments in my name that make it clear that I am not satisfied with the settlement put forward by the Government within the resources that are made available. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked what the Bar Council, the Law Society and all the NGOs say. They speak with one voice and accept the need for reductions. They accept that case, and so do I. It is an unhappy position and I wish it were otherwise.
In my Second Reading speech, I said that I hoped that the Government would commit themselves to saying that we are not here to squeeze government expenditure for all time but that when the economy improves we can widen the use of resources that will be available at that time.
Lord Clinton-Davis
What the Government are proposing will cost much more, because of various things. What does the noble Lord have to say about that?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I will say something about that in our debate on Amendment 2. I entirely agree. I think that the Government are making a mistake in welfare law and that cutting legal advice and assistance for people at the bottom end of society will cause more problems than it solves; it will not achieve the savings that the Government think it will. That is my case. Your Lordships have only to look through the Marshalled List of amendments to see that, time and again, I seek to rejig Part 1 in a way that I think will make more sense while attempting to save the Government the money that they must save to meet the deficit in this area. That is why, to be honest, I am not concerned about this amendment. As I said, it does not say anything; it just concerns what resources will be necessary to meet what will be in this part of the Bill when we have finished with it.
Our decisions in Committee should not be about piling back in everything that has been taken out. We are living in a different world. There are different needs. Society has changed. From getting on for 60 years of experience, I think I know what those needs are. I hope, with your Lordships’ assistance, to go through it all piece by piece, detail by detail, and point out to the Government what they should rethink.
I can make a speech about principles. Good God, I have done rhetoric all my life—I am a Liberal Democrat. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, earlier. He made a fine speech, and I agree with every word, but what it had to do with the Committee's proceedings I was not quite sure.
We want to get away from rhetoric and down to the nuts and bolts of the Bill to see what solution we can come out with at the end. That is why I shall support my noble friend if this is taken to a vote and ask my colleagues to come with me to support the Government at this stage. It might be necessary later in our proceedings to hammer home certain points that we have not yet discussed, but I respectfully suggest that it is not necessary to defeat the Government on this amendment.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I must begin by declaring some interests. I am an unpaid consultant with the firm of which I was senior partner for 30 years, in the course of which I engaged in legal aid work in the fields of personal injury law, family law and criminal law. I was also one of the founders of the citizens advice bureau in Wallsend, near the town in which I live, and I was instrumental in securing a law centre in Newcastle. I also have to declare a paternal interest, as my daughter practises in the field of housing and employment law at the Bar.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and his co-signatories on tabling the amendment. I confess that I share some of the reservations expressed by other noble Lords about the qualification included in the amendment. I am tempted to say that if my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith is satisfied, I must be satisfied. In all events, I am open to persuasion by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whom, with his display of forensic skill and general persuasiveness, I have never heard without being utterly persuaded. I am sure that he will persuade me and others of your Lordships that the amendment is on the right lines. The reference to Part 1 is predicated upon changes that I think many of your Lordships would like to see to the scope of the Bill.
The key issue for Parts 1 and 2 is that of access to justice, as fully explained by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his brief opening remarks. There are two parts of the Bill with somewhat different purposes. Part 1 deals with legal aid, which is what we are dealing with today. Part 2 deals with litigation funding and is based on the recommendations of Lord Justice Jackson. Taken together, they mark a fundamental change in our system of justice. We will debate the Jackson proposals in Part 2 later. Many will see merit in many of his proposals.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his words. We are very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Bach, with us. He very courteously explained to me the personal reasons why he could not be with us earlier, but it is good to see him in his place now.
The debate has taken on some of the aspects of a Second Reading debate and it is none the worse for that. The first amendment allows for such wide-ranging points to be made. I shall not try to reply to them all at this point, as we are at the very start of Committee stage. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace and I will return to many of the issues, like medical negligence and social welfare, as the Committee stage runs forward.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the official Opposition are not arguing for retaining the status quo. He and the spokesman for the Labour Party in the other place have made it clear that, if they had been in office, faced with the economic situation with which we are faced, they too would have been making cuts. The debate is about where those cuts should be made and with what impact. It is fair for him to look at the impact assessment, and the fact that it lends some ammunition to him is an assurance that it is a very fair impact assessment. The very first question I answered from this Dispatch Box about the Bill related to the fact that if you make budget cuts to a section of government expenditure that is focused mainly on the needy, it is the needy who will find the impact of those cuts. That is true of housing, social welfare, and so on, and that is the reality of a Government who have to cut back on expenditure.
I make no complaint at all about the contributions from lawyers in the debate. If we were debating a fundamental issue about medicine, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and other expert medics in the place would contribute; and if we were talking about defence, I would hope that our generals would contribute. I do not think that there is anything wrong with the fact that a large number of the contributors have come from the legal profession. The daunting thing for me, as a non-lawyer, is the array of talent that is on display from the legal profession. I always remind my colleagues down the corridor that, whenever I stand at this Dispatch Box, I am very conscious that somewhere in the listening audience there are about three former Lord Chancellors and half a dozen former Solicitor-Generals or Attorney-Generals. I have never quite got to grips with the number of QCs that we have in the House of Lords, but there is a goodly number. We have good legal expertise and this debate is, and the Committee stage will be, all the better for it.
It is certainly not my intention to approach this—I am trying to find that barb from my noble friend—with something like tetchy impatience. In fact, over the past few months, I have been watching my noble friend Lord Howe at the Dispatch Box. He will be my model for this Committee stage—a kind of concerned bedside manner.
However, in talking about Committee stage when I was on the Benches opposite, I was on record as saying that if the House divides in Committee, almost invariably one will have to resist. I genuinely want to use Committee stage to listen. I cannot make blanket promises and I certainly, at this stage, cannot start giving a list of concessions. The position of the Government is that the Bill has been delivered from the other place in pristine condition and ready for adoption but, as our system works, we listen to the advisory—
Lord Beecham
I am not so sure about adoption being that much more difficult these days.
Lord McNally
We will listen and we will ponder. I hope that that will be the spirit in which we conduct the debates. It is certainly not, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suggested, an attempt to turn the clock back. Even when this exercise is finished, no one could dispute that we will have one of the most generous legal aid schemes in the world. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor, in his article in the Guardian, which has been quoted a number of times, says:
“Access to justice is a fundamental part of a properly functioning democracy”.
He goes on to make the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and a number of others made: “Without legal aid, and”—I emphasise this—
“the dedicated lawyers who deliver it, our system of justice would quite simply collapse”.
That is the starting point.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just cited the idea that we have the most generous legal aid system anywhere in the world, which he said no one would dispute. During the debate, noble Lords have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, myself and others about what Lord Justice Jackson has said about any further cuts in legal aid. He certainly disputes it, as do surely many others.
Lord McNally
There is absolutely no logic in what the noble Lord has said, with the utmost possible respect—I think that is what you say to each other when you are insulting one another. Lord Justice Jackson may well have a perfectly reasonable opinion that legal aid should not be cut, but it does not follow that, if it is cut, it will not remain the most generous system in the world. There is a non sequitur in what was said. Lord Justice Jackson says that he does not want the present system cut, which is fair enough but, if the system is cut, it will remain the most generous legal aid system in the world.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Does my noble friend at least accept that we legislate vastly more than any free democracy in the western world? We have between 200 per cent and 400 per cent more statute law than any free state that I have yet discovered.
Lord McNally
I have no idea whatever whether that figure is correct. I am not even going to promise to write to my noble friend about that. Yes, I think both members of the coalition came into government determined to legislate less and I am sure that, if and when power changes, any new Government will come into power wanting to legislate less. However, you get into a department and find that it has two or three Bills that it has just been waiting to get on to the statute book, or some campaigning organisation, probably chaired by my noble friend Lord Phillips, has a ready-made Bill to get on to the statute book as soon as possible.
First, perhaps I can deal with the calumny from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I am not a Home Office Minister; I am a Ministry of Justice Minister. We benefit from that subtle division of responsibilities carried out by the previous Administration, which has so benefited government. Just as my noble friend Lord Carlile emphasises the liberalism of his approach, I make no apologies for approaching these matters as a social democrat. I look at these issues through those eyes, including that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It is extremely important that in reforming our justice system, we keep rehabilitation in the forefront. It is important to make clear that we will have a vigorous system to prosecute justice and punish offenders. However, if we carry on casually allowing the upward rise of our prison population into six figures, it will be a self-defeating process. Unless we attack the rehabilitation of offenders to stop the horrendous reoffending rates, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has often championed, we will be doomed to be spending increasingly more on punishment in a justice system with no real help to society at large.
This has been a philosophical debate. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, set the tone in a speech which, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford pointed out, was wonderful in its rhetoric but brought us to why there was not universal support for the Pannick amendment. It suggested that the Government might have to take some account of the resources available. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, went back to Magna Carta, quoting Lord Bingham and others. I have beside my bed a copy of his The Rule of Law, which is a guide for any lay innocent Justice Minister. We have to accept the fact that Governments and departments have to meet budgets and that they cannot find blank cheques and never have been able to.
I went to see the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who, sadly, can no longer attend the House and has taken leave of absence. Jeremy Hutchinson is now 96, but was one of the group of lawyers who helped to bring in the 1949 Act. He said rather wistfully, “We thought that we were bringing in a National Health Service for law”. In a way, I can understand that that is a noble aspiration. However, as successive Governments have shown, it is one that must be constrained by the economic realities of the day. Therefore, we are having to make choices—and sometimes hard choices. Perhaps I may again quote my right honourable friend’s article in the Guardian:
“The logic is simple: to determine carefully which types of cases most urgently merit scarce resources, to encourage people to use non-adversarial solutions to their problems where appropriate, and to speed up and simplify court processes where they are not”.
That is the philosophy of the Bill and it is what we are attempting to do. It is unfair when people use language suggesting that we are taking an axe to a whole system of justice. I know from my contact with the Lord Chancellor that that is not his intention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about our approach to non-adversarial solutions. As the Lord Chancellor indicated in the Guardian article, we are looking to increase funding for family mediation. The Government are committed to increasing it by £10 million, which would fund an extra 10,000 cases.
I hear the speeches from my own Benches and am always interested when someone like my noble friend Lord Carlile makes an intervention followed by praise for courage from around the House. I draw his attention to the line in George Bernard Shaw’s “Saint Joan”:
“Woe unto me when all men praise me!”.
Actually, I am a little bit old fashioned. I believe that the real courage is in standing up and saying, “I support the Government. I think that this is a very good Bill and I intend to vote for them tonight”.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I am sorry to interrupt and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to help the Minister, I really do. I do not yet understand whether he really disagrees with the principle stated in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The principle stated would replace what is in Clause 1 with what seems to me a platitude but a very important one. I do not hear the Minister say that he thinks it is not the right principle.
I suggest that this needs to be thought about right now because we had the same situation in connection with the Public Bodies Bill. In Committee on that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I did a rather bold and perhaps unthinkable thing and I stood on my head about it. The noble Lord made the House divide on my amendment to write a principle at the front of that Bill. We did that at the beginning in Committee, and getting the principle in had a beneficial effect. I am not suggesting that that might be necessary now, but it would help those of us who are loyal to the Government to know whether there is a real disagreement with the statement of principle in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord McNally
If my noble friend had a fault—and, my God, that is a dangerous thing even to suggest—it is his impetuosity. I was just coming to the nub of the Pannick amendment, but thought that after a long debate it was reasonable to try to pick up at least some of the points made by noble Lords.
The amendment seeks to place a statutory duty on the Lord Chancellor to secure access within the resources made available and in accordance with the provision in Part 1: the legal services that effectively meet the needs of individuals. We accept that this proposed amendment is very similar to the duty placed on the Legal Services Commission by Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999. We also accept that the duty that the amendment would place on the Lord Chancellor would be qualified by the reference to the duty being subject both to the resources available and to the provisions of Part 1. However, against the backdrop of this Bill, we believe that Amendment 1 is unnecessary. It is central to our proposal for reform that the reforms establish an affordable system while ensuring that no one is denied their fundamental right of access to justice. Legal aid will be a key element in ensuring access to justice in some cases, but in many cases justice can and should be afforded without the assistance of a lawyer funded by the taxpayer. Fundamental rights to access to justice are the subject of international protections such as the European Convention on Human Rights and certain enforceable EU rights, and are protected by this Bill in relation to legal aid through the areas retained in scope in Schedule 1 and through the exceptional funding provision in Clause 9.
The exceptional funding scheme will ensure the protection of an individual’s right to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as those rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law. These rights are of fundamental importance, and the Government consider that the Bill adequately protects them. However, we do not consider that any more extensive right to taxpayer assistance by way of legal aid to access to the courts should be established. In light of the way the Bill protects fundamental rights of access to justice, to the extent that the amendment seeks to introduce requirements over and above what is required by, for example, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is not desirable or necessary. To the extent that it would require no more than, for example, Article 6, it is also unnecessary. Clause 1 states that the Lord Chancellor must secure that legal aid is made available in accordance with Part 1 of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor has powers under Clause 2 to make arrangements to meet that duty.
Considerations about the demand for civil legal aid services have not been ignored. Under Clause 10 the Lord Chancellor will make regulations setting out criteria that the director of legal aid casework will be required to consider when making decisions. When settling the criteria, the Lord Chancellor must consider the extent to which the criteria should reflect certain factors. These include the availability of resources to provide the services and the appropriateness of applying such resources to provide the services, having regard to present and likely future demands for civil legal aid services.
In addition, the Lord Chancellor will be required, in carrying out his functions, to protect and promote the public interest and to support the constitutional principle of the rule of law. These considerations are inherent in the Lord Chancellor’s functions as a Minister of the Crown and do not require specific reference here. In addition, the Lord Chancellor will have specific duties under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. We have also been clear in our response to consultation that we will work in conjunction with the Legal Services Commission and its successor executive agency to develop and to put in place a procurement strategy that will reflect the demands and requirements of the new legal aid market.
Having read that out, I appreciate that a large number of noble Lords will want to read Hansard, see what it says and see how it matches. It would be madness for any Minister faced with an amendment tabled by the noble Lords who tabled this amendment simply to dismiss it. I will certainly draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the debate.
Lord Clinton-Davis
So far the Minister has not mentioned the conversations that he and the Government have had with the Bar Council, the Law Society and other bodies concerned with this aspect of law. They have been critical of the Government's approach, have they not? In what way?
Lord McNally
At one stage I accused Peter Lodder, chairman of the Bar Council, of stalking me, so often did I see him. Of course the Bar Council, the Law Society and various other bodies, including committees of this House, will give an opinion on legislation. We are certainly in conversation on these matters. The noble Lord shakes his head, but when he was a Minister he did not say, “Come in, vested interests, tell me what you want and I will do it”. He listened to them, and where they could convince him he made changes. I assure noble Lords that my honourable and right honourable friends the Ministers in the other place and I have made ourselves constantly available to a wide range of bodies, including professional organisations, and we will continue to do so during the passage of the Bill. No organisation has a rubber stamp on the matter, but we will listen.
In philosophy and in content, this has been an extremely useful debate that I will draw to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. When it comes to the crunch, we face a division between the principled approach of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that access to justice means that we must pay the legal aid bill, whatever it is.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I referred to expenditure that was genuinely necessary to ensure that all our citizens have equal access to justice. I certainly did not endorse any inefficiencies or extravagances in the legal aid system that there might be at the moment.
Lord McNally
The point is that that is genuinely what we, too, are trying to do. It is a matter of judgment. In the next month or six weeks, as we take the Bill through the House, we will test those judgments in detail. I hope that in the light of my response, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
The Minister referred to Article 6 of the convention being the standard. We should bear in mind, as he said, that among the 47 states we have one of the best systems, yet by using Article 6 we are adopting a standard well below common law and anything that we in this country have enjoyed since 1949. Will he reflect on that?
Lord McNally
As I said, I reflect on almost anything that my friend says, and it is now in Hansard as well.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this has been a lengthy debate that has touched on a large number of very important issues. In responding, perhaps I may briefly take the attention of the Committee back to what we are debating: the terms of Amendment 1. With all due respect to the Minister, I simply cannot understand his objection to the amendment. It is not a matter of legal complexity, it is not a matter of legal expertise, and it is certainly not a matter of philosophy. Surely the amendment identifies in terms that I hope are clear and uncontroversial the aims of the legal aid system in our society. It recognises that the provision of legal aid must be within available resources, so it does not cut across the Minister's understandable desire to save money. There is no question of the amendment requiring a “blank cheque”, which was his phrase in answering criticisms of the Bill. Surely a statement of constitutional principle such as this is absolutely vital at the start of a Bill of this nature.
I suggest to noble Lords that the Government's refusal, through the Minister, to recognise a simple, and I hope uncontroversial, statement of principle in Clause 1 is deeply troubling in what it tells the Committee and the world outside the House about the Government's approach to legal aid and to the more detailed provisions that we will come to debate in Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Perhaps the noble Lord would outline what is meant by,
“in accordance with this Part”.
Lord Pannick
I will come to the noble Lord's concern that the amendment does not go far enough. My point is that if the Government are not even prepared to recognise the principle that the Bill should seek to secure, within the resources available, individuals’ access to legal services that effectively meet their needs, why should the Committee support the detailed reductions in the scope of legal aid that we will come to debate?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I do not think that the noble Lord grasped my point.
Lord Pannick
I will deal with the noble Lord’s point if he will be patient; I prefer to deal with it in the course of my remarks and not at this precise moment. The Minister said that the amendment was unnecessary. I say with respect that that ignores the need for a statement of constitutional principle to assist the Lord Chancellor, the director, the courts and the public. The Minister suggested that these matters were inherent in the role of the Lord Chancellor. What, then, is the objection to putting the statement in the Bill?
The Committee heard support for the amendment from all sides of the House, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke. The only noble Lords who spoke against the amendment, apart from the Minister, were the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Thomas of Gresford. Each was concerned that the amendment did not go far enough: that it was either anodyne or positively dangerous in cutting down on the possible provision of legal aid. I say to each of those noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that his comments, with respect, ignore the provision that has been on the statute book since 1999: Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, the terms of which are echoed in this amendment. Under all Governments since 1999, that has been the state of the law, and Section 4(1) refers both to “the resources made available” and to provision,
“in accordance with this Part”,
so I cannot understand the objection to including those same phrases in Amendment 1.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I do not think the noble Lord has grasped what I was saying. The amendment states,
“in accordance with this Part”,
but we have not determined what this part will cover. As the noble Lord realises, I have put down many amendments to Part 1 in an attempt to rejig what will be in scope and what will not. He is inviting the Committee to accept,
“in accordance with this Part”,
at the very outset before we have decided what is going to be in it.
Lord Pannick
With great respect to the noble Lord, I am inviting the Committee to accept that whatever the Bill is at the end of proceedings in this House and in Parliament as a whole, it is vital to have at the outset a statement of constitutional principle. This amendment is entirely without prejudice to all the amendments that we will be debating, considering, and perhaps voting on, many of which I support, but that is an entirely distinct question from the issue that we are now debating, which is the constitutional principle about what goes into the Bill. I was particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his support on this point, and I respectfully agree with what he said.
I am not going to test the opinion of the House today—I am going to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree—but I very much hope that the Minister will be able without a vote to recognise that the opinion of the House is very strongly in favour of this amendment for all the reasons that have been expressed in Committee today. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that if there is no movement on this issue—an issue that I and many other noble Lords regard as absolutely fundamental—the House will return to this matter on Report, and it is clear, I suggest, that the Minister and the Government will face a substantial rebellion on their own Benches. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“( ) The Lord Chancellor must secure equality between the state and any party in dispute with the state in the provision of services of advice, assistance and representation for appeals on any point of law in the fields of welfare benefits, employment, debt, housing, immigration, education, and asylum.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, we are now coming to what I regard as the nitty-gritty of this Bill: what is going to be in scope and what is not? What is to be provided for? I have focused in particular on the area of welfare law, which I think is of extreme importance in our deliberations. I am speaking to Amendment 2, and, as your Lordships can see, to Amendments 29 and 78. They are concerned with the provision of legal aid in the appeal system in the tribunals. I have other amendments set down which I hope will address what I consider to be a very important part of our deliberations: how do you provide advice and assistance to people before they ever get into the tribunal system? When they are faced with a problem and they want a resolution of it, to whom do they go? I have amendments down which will deal with that part of the matter.
It seems to me to be a fundamental principle that if you get to the Second-tier Tribunal and then to the appeal courts beyond that and if, as will undoubtedly happen, the Government are represented by counsel and solicitors ready to argue the point in front of those experienced tribunals, under the principle of equality of arms, which is a very important principle under the European Convention on Human Rights, it is very important that the applicant—or appellant, as he will have become—should be fully represented as well. It would be quite improper, wrong and a breach of the convention if we were to have litigants in person in front of the Second-tier Tribunal and beyond seeking to put their case forward and to argue law as well as fact.
I sometimes have the feeling that the Ministry of Justice is living in the past. At one time, when the tribunal system was set up, it perhaps—I am not convinced of it—did not require experience, skilled advocacy and the putting together of a case. However, with all the legislation going through that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is concerned about and with the new Bill on welfare law, it is clear that there are going to be some very important issues of law to be discussed at that level. Therefore it is quite simply a statement of principle in Amendment 2 and of practicality in the two other amendments to which I have referred that I urge upon your Lordships for your consideration. Equality of arms is vital to justice, and nowhere more so than in the field of welfare law. I beg to move.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I shall intervene briefly. My remarks, such as they are—I hope they will not be long—apply also to quite a number of other amendments for which I shall not be able to stay, some of them in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. At Second Reading, I indicated that I have a lot of sympathy with many of these concerns, not least those in the field of welfare, for exactly the reason that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford has just outlined. At one and the same time, we are passing—or the Government are proposing that we should pass—significant changes in the welfare area affecting hundreds of thousands of people and we are seeking to reduce the scope for people to have legal aid or support of one kind or another in challenging some of the decisions that will then be made. I think I referred to it at Second Reading as a sort of pincer movement in that respect and I see no reason to change that judgment now.
That leads me to make two or three points. First, we really need something that we have not had, which is a combined impact assessment of the effect of the various pieces of legislation on poor and vulnerable people. We have not had it. This is not joined-up government and it is very difficult to make a judgment about what we collectively as a Parliament are doing to these people in those circumstances. That is aggravated by what has been acknowledged in this debate, which is that the Government do not know—I do not know whether the Minister will accept these words—what the financial effects of these measures will be, although we all know that there will be effects in increasing costs for other departments. The Government say that they cannot quantify them but I do not think that they would deny that they will be there. If they cannot quantify them, but cannot deny that they will be there, the savings figures are potentially meaningless.
Even within the Ministry of Justice, which I assume has costed the consequences, the extra costs of claimants, litigants and appellants defending themselves will almost inescapably drive up the costs of the Tribunals Service. Has that been measured? Is it taken into account in these savings figures? These are the questions to which we have to have answers. I do not want to see these amendments pressed to a Division tonight any more than I did the previous one, but they enable us to say that we need to know what we are doing before we can make a judgment in these matters.
I cannot stay for too much longer for reasons which I hope the House will understand but there are all sorts of things that one could say. Mediation was referred to earlier as well as alternative forms of advice in one way or another. Again, we need to know just what the position is. I should make the point that mediation has absolutely nothing to do with social welfare. You cannot have mediation about whether you are entitled to a benefit or not. You either are or you are not, although I accept that mediation may have a part to play in some other areas about which we are concerned.
In any event, we keep hearing talk about more cost-effective ways—I do not know the exact phrasing—of assistance, advice and so forth. But as has been said and as was illustrated in the debate on the CABs not much more than a week ago, most sources of advice are being squeezed either by this Bill—for example, the effect on law centres and other advisory services depending on pro bono work or legal aid work from lawyers—or by the squeeze on local authorities, which is putting the bite on CABs. We then hear talk about this, that or the other amount of money being available, but it is far from clear whether the Government know whether the availability of other forms of advice is going up or down and whether the measures will have any significant effect in either direction. We need to know more about all this before we can make a sensible judgment. I am very grateful to my noble friend for having raised this issue, even though I hope that he will not press it further tonight.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who I am tempted to call my noble friend even though technically he is not. I rise in support of Amendments 2, 19 and 29 in particular, although I do so with some trepidation because I am not a lawyer. After what my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws said, perhaps that is not such a bad thing after all. In fact, my first job was as a legal research officer with the Child Poverty Action Group. Many people assumed that I was a lawyer because the group did not have one in those days.
From what we have already heard in relation to Amendment 1, this Bill is not about a narrow understanding of the law; it is about an understanding of the law as an important instrument of citizenship. These amendments are about something I spoke on at Second Reading, the relationship between the citizen and the state. I cannot believe that any Member of your Lordships’ House wants to weaken the position of the individual citizen against the state, yet my fear is that that is what this Bill will do in Part 1.
I am a believer in the state, particularly the welfare state. But the state can loom very large and very oppressively in the lives of some of our most marginalised citizens. It is really important that they can turn to the legal system in their relations with the state. I also want to refer briefly—we will come back to this in later amendments—to the importance of the tribunal system. One of my first pieces of work as legal research officer at the Child Poverty Action Group was on one of the first empirical studies of the supplementary benefit appeal tribunal system. I was very privileged to be supervised by the late Professor John Griffiths, who I think would be horrified by the measures in front of us today.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I agree with every word that has been spoken so far. I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is easy for those who have never been involved in what one might call social security law to underestimate the extent to which so-called ordinary citizens can be completely baffled and often frightened by their engagement with it, certainly if one is talking about appeals; it is important for the Minister to note that the amendment, to which my name has been added, is only in respect of appeals on points of law. I ask him to contemplate how he would feel, with all his self-confidence and eloquence, if he had to go before any of the tribunals mentioned in Amendment 2,
“welfare benefits, employment, debt, housing, immigration, education, and asylum”,
although heaven forfend that the Minister should appear before a tribunal in relation to asylum. Seriously, however, it is not reasonable to demand a citizen even to decide whether he or she has a point of law which can be taken before a tribunal. It is simply unrealistic. One could almost say it is cruel to pretend that we are creating rights for those citizens most in need when they cannot even get advice and representation on points of law at appeals.
Finally, I shall quote from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux briefing that has been sent to us all because I am sure that we all share a huge admiration for Citizens Advice. The association says that it agrees with the arguments made covering legal assistance in the Upper Tribunals, which share the jurisdiction of the High Court and follow complex procedural rules to hear appeals on points of law; and that most often it is either public bodies or large corporate employers that use these tribunals to appeal decisions made in the claimant’s favour in lower tribunals, and they instruct legal counsel to do so. It is important to realise that it is not Mr Jones or Mrs Brown appealing, but the public body they have worsted at the tribunal appealing against the order made in their favour. If these people are denied the right to legal representation, what sort of justice is that? It is not justice and I hope that, with regard to this amendment and the others in the group, the Government will consider and agree to this change.
Lord Williamson of Horton
My Lords, on an amendment such as this it is important that we look first at the substance. This is an important and substantive amendment, and in general I think it is a very good one. However, it is also important to look at the text. I have one point on the text which, if I may, I shall put via the Minister to the mover. The reason I do so is that the coverage is very wide; that is to say, the amendment covers employment, housing and education —not just other welfare services but a whole range of things that go very wide. My question concerns the phrase,
“in dispute with the state”.
To a lawyer that may be absolutely clear, but as a non-lawyer I am not clear about what is covered in terms of important bodies like local authorities and so on. They are part of the state, but are they fully covered? Such a range of things is listed here that I would like some clarification on that.
For example, what about a state-owned bank which is in dispute with its staff about employment? Is that or is that not covered? I do not want to make too much of this point because it is not a substantive one on the main objective but, if we have an amendment before us, it is quite important to understand what the intention of the mover is in relation to its coverage.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am in broad agreement with the amendment, although again I share the reservation expressed just now by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, as to what is meant by the state. Does that mean central government, local government, public bodies or other agents of the state? That needs to be made clear because in some of these areas there might be a dispute with a local authority or even a housing association.
Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament or a local councillor will know that at their Friday evening and Saturday morning surgeries there will be people who come in on all these issues. The question then is where one refers them to. I am not absolutely clear whether the phrase,
“appeals on any point of law”,
is at a higher level or whether it refers to a first-instance tribunal. That may reflect my lack of legal background. However, if one has given advice as a Member of Parliament or as a local councillor, one has to become a little bit of an expert at triage in recommending where one’s constituents should go for more specialised advice. I used to have the social security handbooks so that I could look these things up, and one becomes not too bad at it. One is never an expert, but one needs to be good enough to know where to refer people, and hence I appreciate that the amendment talks about “advice, assistance and representation”. The reference to “advice” is important because we all know that if there is a dispute between an individual and the state or local government, the individual needs help.
I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that this is too difficult for people. Some of us, even the non-lawyers, might have enough experience and legal friends to give us advice, but for most people it is too daunting a prospect. We even know from our surgeries how nervous people can get about going to see their MP because MPs are authority figures. One needs to put them at their ease in order to discuss their issues with them. Expecting people to be unrepresented at a tribunal is simply an impossible suggestion. It is not going to work. People need further help in order to do that. So, while I like the amendment, I have my doubts about the word “state”. However, I hope that it will help the argument along on what is a very important part of the difficulty that this Bill presents us with.
Lord Hylton
I support the principle laid out in Amendment 78, which is in this group, because appeals will almost always involve points of law. However, I urge the Government to think further about the kind of legal advice that is essential to immigrants and asylum applicants at a much earlier stage in the process. They cannot be expected to know when they leave their country of origin everything that is contained within the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, nor can they be expected to know the highly complex law that we now have in this country, much of which is expressed in statutes which refer to earlier statutes.
Therefore, I ask the Government to think deeply, as the previous Administration began to do when they set up the Solihull pilot project, about providing legal advice to asylum seekers at a very early stage before even they have had their principal interview. That project has been going on for more than one year. I hope that it will very soon be possible to draw practical conclusions from it which can be extended to the whole country.
Legal advice for these people does not necessarily have to be given by fully qualified solicitors or barristers who know or can be expected to look up the whole range of English law; it needs to be given by persons who understand the current content of immigration or asylum law.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present during the first, very important debate. I hope that I informed the principal players in that debate that I would not be here for personal reasons —I had to go to a funeral of a dear friend. I am grateful to the Minister for welcoming me in the manner in which he did. However, when I came and heard my noble friend Lord Beecham making his speech, I wondered why I bothered to come back at all.
Lord Bach
That is what I mean—in case there is any misunderstanding about it. I can see how that could be misinterpreted.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, with his Amendment 2, to which he spoke along with his later amendments, Amendments 29 and 78, we get down to the nitty-gritty. I want to talk briefly about Amendment 19, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham. It is the first outing of what I think will be a very important issue in this Committee, which is what should happen to scope of legal aid in particular areas of social welfare law.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the others who spoke in favour of his amendment have been too gentle with the Government on this issue. It is absolute nonsense that there could be any question that anyone who gets to the second tier, the Court of Appeal or even, heaven forbid, the Supreme Court, on a point of law—for example, on a welfare benefits issue—should not have legal can not afford their own lawyer to conduct their case, and I very much hope that the Government put it in the Bill in order to take it out. It is inconceivable that John Smith, as it were, could turn up alone at the Supreme Court with his case and be faced with the Supreme Court justices and the very experienced and brilliant counsel representing the other side. I cannot think of any other Government, of any persuasion, ever having thought of doing anything like that. I am quite sure that the Government of whom the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, were distinguished members would not even have dreamt of suggesting that someone should appear on their own at a case like that without the benefit of legal aid. I very much hope that we do not hear too much more about it.
Some vital case law—on welfare benefits, for example—has been decided at the higher courts as a consequence of the claimants concerned having been properly legally represented. Big social security test cases which reached the higher courts by way of the appeals process include Zalewska, on the lawfulness of the workers’ registration scheme; Hinchy, on the interpretation of the overpayment recovery test; Pedro, on the meaning of “family member in EU law”; and Mallinson, the seminal case on the interpretation of the law on disability living allowance. The idea that cases of that kind, or even those that are less important, should be conducted by a claimant in person is absurd. So I hope that the Government will accept Amendment 2 without cavil. Whether the wording is right is not a matter for tonight, but it is the principle that matters.
We argue in our Amendment 19, which is a probing amendment designed to find out what the Government feel about it, that the law should go wider and that there should be no question of taking out of scope reviews of welfare benefits. The amendment would ensure that individuals seeking to defend their fundamental economic and social rights had the advice that they needed to be able to present their cases and understand the processes that they would be subject to. Our amendment would allow the applicants to get advice before going to a tribunal. The First-tier Tribunals were set up, as we have heard, to consolidate the various tribunals that adjudicate on administrative matters of the state. Admirable work has been done and is being done to try to make First-tier Tribunals as user-friendly as possible—I praise the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, for having played a big role in this, as well as Lord Justice Carnwath, whom we should congratulate on being elevated to the Supreme Court today.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Lord’s mention of Lord Justice Carnwath put me in mind of a fact which none of us has so far mentioned but which I invite him to endorse, which is that the amount of court and tribunal time wasted by having unrepresented appellants has a cost attached to it.
Lord Bach
I agree with the noble Lord and I shall say a little word about that before I sit down.
Admirable work has been done in the First-tier Tribunal to make it as friendly as one can. However, it is impossible—and the Minister has heard this from around the Committee today—to square the circle in that those tribunals still fundamentally are ruling on matters defined and decided through laws, rules and guidance, which is sometimes pretty heavy, that often carry criminal sanctions if violated. It is quite clear when one looks at official statistics on the First-tier Tribunals that the Government are wrong when they say that tribunals can be accessed without advice. You are twice as likely to win an appeal if you have had some basic advice rather than no advice at all. The Minister's team has kindly provided information that allows us to quantify the increase in likelihood of winning an appeal if the appellant has been advised. This is to the First-tier Tribunal. For some types of cases, such as employment support allowance, you are more than twice as likely to win. Given that it allows people to return to work, seeing thousands of cases that would have been won with advice is surely wrong headed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Rather than saying that cases would have been won, would the noble Lord not use the expression “gained access to justice and obtained the benefits to which they were entitled”?
Lord Bach
In my legal career and otherwise, I have always given way to better phrases used by Welsh lawyers and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I do on this occasion too. Access to justice is rather important because you cannot win if you do not have access to justice. One of the worries is that the Bill will ensure that there is no access to justice for many who have had it up until now.
The reason for marked disparities is that appealing on welfare benefits inevitably requires, as my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, have just mentioned, an understanding, whether we like it or not, of complex statutes and rules and guidance that govern how the state evaluates an individual's eligibility for legal aid. Had legal aid not been present in 2009-10, if we apply the success rate for those without advice to those who did receive advice, 51,223 people in total would have lost their appeals. The long-term cost of supporting those people is incalculable. Never mind Second-tier, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; to take out of scope advice on a review to the First-tier Tribunal is unfair and wrong.
The effect of people not being able to exercise their rights is again frankly explained in the Government's own impact assessment. The Government say that the changes may lead to:
“Reduced social cohesion … Increased criminality … Reduced business and economic efficiency … Increased costs for other Departments … Increased transfer payments from other Departments, in particular higher benefits payments for people who spent their savings on legal action”.
In welfare benefit cases, it is not enough to have legal aid at the Second-tier Tribunal upwards. In fact, if you do not have it earlier you are unlikely to ever get to the Second-tier Tribunal or above. Advice is needed when seeking to review, for example, DWP decisions before the First-tier Tribunal. It does not have to be expensive or sophisticated legal advice, but it has to be legal advice.
If advice is given at that stage, hopeless cases, as has been said, can be got rid of. First-tier Tribunals would not be so clogged up in the future. The Committee will remember what Judge Martin of the Social Entitlement Chamber said about unrepresented defendants—that at least 10 per cent of time is wasted in explaining what is going on. Proper cases can therefore go ahead quicker. In particular, many legal issues can be sorted out by the advice that is currently given so that the wrong can be put right before the tribunal ever gets involved.
That is what the present system does, although not perfectly. Lots of people do not take advantage of it and sometimes it does not work, but more or less it works pretty well. People get their advice, which frankly does not cost very much money and lawyers certainly do not get rich on it. The truth is that many cases no longer have to go anywhere near a tribunal. It does not encourage courts or tribunals: it actually avoids courts and tribunals. That is why it is slightly ironic that the Lord Chancellor said today in his Guardian article that legal aid’s,
“broad scope means that problems are dragged straight to the courtroom that could often be solved earlier and more simply elsewhere”.
That comment is not his finest: I would go so far as to say that it is rather absurd. The type of legal aid that he seeks to abolish is exactly the type of legal aid that he should be encouraging and reinforcing because it avoids courts and tribunals rather than encouraging them. In fact it often has some sort of mediating effect, and we know that mediation is an important and proper part of the Government's policy in this field.
The Minister has described himself today as a social democrat and someone who has a copy of The Rule of Law by his bed. If he is a person of that sort, he must see the argument that has been put in the Committee tonight.
Lord McNally
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that summing up. I was well aware of his own deep concern about social welfare law and I am not surprised by the passion with which he deployed his arguments. I was interested that he talked about advice. Quite often as this Bill goes through we will move between what is advice, what is legal advice and what is taxpayer legally paid advice. It may be that some of the areas of concern are addressed by other means.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about tribunals, I am advised that upper-tier tribunals are under a duty in accordance with the overriding objective to make sure that cases are dealt with fairly and justly. That includes,
“avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in proceedings”,
and,
“ensuring, so far as practicable, that the parties are able to participate fully”.
I am also advised that legal aid is not available now under the current system for representation at the Upper Tribunal or on welfare benefit cases, so we are not operating from a basis on which legal aid is as generally available now, as some of the speeches might have indicated.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I might be wrong, but is it not true that legal aid is available for advice for people who attend those tribunals?
Lord McNally
The noble Baroness is an expert. She wrote a precursor to 1,620 pages of advice, so I will accept that. We will have plenty of opportunities for correction if either of us is wrong.
When I started as a Minister I started counting the number of times the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and I disagreed, but I have now stopped counting. Nevertheless, my love for him remains totally undiminished and I know of his own concern and expertise in this area. He mentioned the danger of a pincer movement, but a number of proposals that are currently being considered across government should make it easier for people to receive the right provision or entitlement in areas such as welfare, benefits and education. The most notable of these is the universal credit, which will help to reduce the scope of error significantly, as it makes the whole benefits system simpler and easier to understand. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions as part of its wider welfare reform programme to improve the quality and effectiveness of initial decision-making in social security applications, considerations within the DWP and the system of subsequent appeals to tribunal. That is another aspect.
A number of people have asked about the impact of particular reforms. It has not always been acknowledged that other government actions might be improving the situation in some of these areas. It is always difficult to give the full impact of any particular measure. As the Lord Chancellor points out in his oft-quoted Guardian article—I did not know there were so many Guardian readers in the House—part of the aim is, to a certain extent, to change attitudes and approaches so that we do not become overly reliant on legalistic solutions. There might well be changes, both beneficial and less beneficial, in the outcomes of some of the things that are going on.
I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and others that appearing before a tribunal is daunting for the lay man. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked me a specific question about the cost of legal aid appeals to the Upper Tribunal on welfare benefit matters. I am advised that at the moment we spend approximately £1 million a year on legal aid for advice and representation on welfare benefit appeals to the Upper Tribunal and higher courts. I will come back to Amendment 2.
Amendment 19 deals with Clause 7, which defines what “legal services” and “civil legal services” mean for the purposes of Part 1. Clause 7 provides an overarching definition, but the specific levels of service—for example, legal help and legal representation—that will be available in any particular case will be set out in regulations made under Clause 10. This approach is based closely on the current model, where Section 4(2) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 describes the types of services that can in principle be funded, and the Legal Services Commission’s funding code criteria set out the precise levels of service that are available in any particular case.
The definition of service in Clause 7 is wide enough to cover the things that one would expect, such as advice from a high street solicitor about a case that a person wishes to bring. I can perhaps assure noble Lords that legal advice and assistance in relation to tribunals is a service that is already encompassed in the description of legal proceedings in Clause 7(1). Indeed, “legal proceedings” is defined in Clause 41 as meaning,
“proceedings before a court or tribunal”.
We rely on this for the provision of services, including advocacy, in, for example, mental health tribunals as set out in paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 or in paragraph 9 of Part 3 of Schedule 1. The definition of legal services in Clause 7 is therefore wide enough to include legal help and indeed advocacy in proceedings before a court or tribunal, and this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendments 2, 29 and 78 all broadly concern appeals to the Upper Tribunal and appellate courts on a point of law. Amendment 2 seeks to make legal aid available in relation to,
“appeals on any point of law in the fields of welfare benefits, employment, debt, housing, immigration, education, and asylum”,
where an individual is in dispute with the state. Amendment 29 seeks to make legal aid, including advocacy, available in social security appeals before the Upper Tribunal and appellate courts. Amendment 78 would add a new paragraph to Schedule 1 and seeks to include appeals on a point of law,
“from the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal to the Upper Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court”,
within the scope of legal aid.
The categories of law in question include ones such as welfare benefits where tribunals are used. Legally aided representation is not available for most tribunal hearings because tribunals are designed to be user-friendly, without the need for legal representation. Indeed, legal aid is not currently available for legal representation in point-of-law appeals on welfare benefits. Amendments 2 and 29 seek to extend legal aid even beyond its current boundaries by providing legal representation for these Upper Tribunal appeals.
The Government have considered whether funding remains justified for all appeals, regardless of the area of law in which they arise. In the Government’s view, it does not. Under the present scheme, funding is not provided for cases that are not considered a priority for the scheme, such as defamation or business cases, even where these take place in the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. We consider that the ability of the client to represent their arguments and the importance and complexity of the issues will vary from case to case. The fact that a case is to be heard in a higher court or tribunal does not automatically mean that it will be particularly complex; nor will the forum in which a case is heard outweigh other considerations that determine our priorities for funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to immigration. Since consultation, we have taken on board some of the concerns raised, including those raised during the passage of the Bill in another place on domestic violence and immigration cases. On the introduction of the Bill, we included in Part 1 of Schedule 1 funding for advice in asylum support cases concerning the provision of accommodation. However, our fundamental position has not changed. It is our view that most immigration cases do not require a lawyer. I should make it clear, however—because some of the points made by noble Lord, Lord Hylton, refer to asylum cases—that asylum cases will remain within scope. I can assure noble Lords that funding is being retained, including for advocacy, for a range of tribunal appeals. These include appeals to the First-tier Tribunal under the Mental Health Act 1983 and appeals to the Upper Tribunal in special educational needs cases. Here, we have focused our limited resources on the highest priority cases.
On the question of appeals to the Supreme Court, we will continue to fund appeals to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court where the area of law to which the appeal relates remains in scope. Again, this will allow for our limited resources to be focused on areas of higher relative priority.
Amendment 2 appears to suggest the requirement of an equality of arms with the state in such cases. The principle of equality of arms is clearly important but is susceptible to misunderstanding. This amendment implies that justice can be done only in a particular case where both parties in proceedings have identical representation. This is not a view supported by the law, or by the experience of many litigants who currently appear before tribunals without the benefit of legally aided representation.
The important question is whether an imbalance in representation gives rise to an obvious unfairness in the proceedings. The case law on Article 6 of the ECHR sets out the circumstances in which legal aid will be required to guard against an obvious unfairness in proceedings. In determining this question, it is necessary to consider all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the rights at stake, the complexity of the law, the capacity of the individual to represent themselves and whether there are alternative means of securing access to justice. In many cases, for example before tribunals, the procedure is relatively straightforward and there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the absence of legal representation on one side does not lead to an unjust outcome.
Clause 9 provides for an exceptional funding scheme that will continue to ensure the protection of an individual’s rights to legal aid under the European Convention on Human Rights as well as the rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European Union law. I must emphasise that the threshold here is very high—as the name suggests, they will have to be exceptional cases. However, in cases in which Article 6 of the ECHR is engaged, the exceptional funding scheme will provide an important safety net for those in which an egregr—
Lord McNally
Thank you, Cambridge. This is the value of the House of Lords—there is always an expert around to help you. Queens’ College, Cambridge, comes to my aid.
Lord Prescott
The noble Lord would not have made that mistake if he had not been reading it out.
Lord McNally
This is another moment in history. I have been heckled for mispronunciation by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I stand corrected. The exceptional funding scheme will provide an important safety net for cases in which an egregious inequality of arms would lead to an obvious and unlawful unfairness in proceedings.
We have had to make difficult choices about legal aid. Our reforms to the scope of the scheme are designed to refocus civil legal aid on the most serious cases in which legal advice and representation is justified. In social welfare law, education and immigration, we are reducing the availability of legal aid; but it will remain for cases with the highest priority, and we will continue to spend £50 million on social welfare law.
As I said in the other debate, I realise that noble Lords will want to study some of the things that I read out at speed while referring and cross-referring to parts of the Bill. I think my noble friend indicated that he will withdraw his amendment, and I hope he will, although I am making no promises of massive change. One of the crunch parts of this Bill as it passes through the House will be whether we rightly judged which areas we are withdrawing from the scope of legal aid. The Lord Chancellor and my colleagues in government are confident that we have made the right decisions, hard as they have been in some cases; so, as I say, I hope that the noble Lord will, at this stage, withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I thought I detected in the last few sentences the possibility of some movement in this area, but despite that the final sentence was a killer. I am very disappointed with my noble friend’s response to what I considered to be an overwhelming case. If you cannot get legal aid for the Second-tier Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and above, as of right, we really are in a very parlous position. I assure my noble friend that I shall press him on these matters in the future. I thank all noble Lords for their participation in this debate and say to your Lordships that the state in Amendment 2 is widely defined to include local authorities, government organisations and so on. That is quite well understood when we deal with the concept of equality of arms.
While I listened to my noble friend’s summing up, I was reminded of the one person I know quite well who appeared as a litigant in person in the Divisional Court and won—my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The authority concerned went to appeal, where she was represented by a leading counsel, who is now a High Court judge, and by my son, who is a Queen’s Counsel in his own right, and lost. Fortunately her costs were all paid by the authority concerned. It takes an exceptional person to be able to take a case before a judge as a litigant in person and argue it through. The Government have underestimated just how exceptional that person has to be. For the moment, and subject to what I shall say at a later date, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Public Service Pensions
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I will now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on the reform of public service pensions. Seven weeks ago, I reported to the House that in an effort to secure agreement, the Government were making a new offer to public service workers. Despite some unnecessary interruptions, scheme negotiators have been working hard to reach detailed heads of agreement by the end of the year deadline that we set.
It has not been an easy task, but this Government have demonstrated that they will not shy away from taking difficult long-term decisions in the nation’s long-term interest. We wish to see pensions for public service workers that are fair, sustainable, provide dignity in retirement and are affordable to both those workers and to taxpayers. That is why we committed in the coalition agreement to establishing an independent commission to bring forward proposals for reform. Lord Hutton’s magisterial report did just that. We have stuck closely to the recommendations of the former Labour Work and Pensions Secretary throughout this process.
The case for reform is self-evident. The average 60 year-old today is living longer now than they did in the 1970s. It means people are living in retirement longer—the life expectancy of a 60 year-old was 18 years in the 1970s, but has risen to 28 years today. As a result the costs of public service pensions have risen to £32 billion a year, an increase of one-third over the past 10 years. We have already made some changes that deal with short-term pressures, including changing the basis of pension uprating to CPI, and increasing member contributions by 3.2 percentage points, phased over three years.
Next year’s contribution increase is almost identical to that planned by the previous Government. The precise details of next year’s increase have been set out by departments—all are tiered by income to protect the lower-paid. The Government will review the impact of next year’s increases, including on opt-outs and equality, before taking final decisions on how future increases will be delivered. Interested parties will have the opportunity to provide evidence and views to the Government.
I know that many Members of the House will be concerned about pay and conditions of our Armed Forces. Let me be clear. Members of the Armed Forces will continue to make no contributions towards their pensions and will be exempt from the increases announced at the spending review.
From the beginning of this process, we have committed to ensuring that public service schemes continue to offer a defined benefit pension based on the size of workers’ salary—not dependent on the market performance of a fund, and not available to most people in the private sector. From the beginning, we have been clear that all accrued rights will be protected, in full; and that the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from future risks associated with further increases in life expectancy by linking scheme normal pension age to state pension age.
In November, we improved the offer to a one-60th accrual rate, an increase of 8 per cent that is available only in the event of agreement being reached, together with protection for those 10 years from retirement. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the TUC and the scheme negotiators on both sides for their efforts to reach agreement.
I am pleased to report that heads of agreement have now been established with most unions in the local government, health, Civil Service and teachers’ schemes. It will of course now be for union executives and memberships to decide their response. These heads of agreement deliver the Government’s key objectives in full, and do so with no new money since our November offer. In future, scheme pension ages will match the state pension age, future schemes will be on a career-average basis, and all the agreements are within the cost ceilings I set in November and will save the taxpayer tens of billions over the decades to come.
Because heads of agreement have been reached, the better offer I made in November has been secured by trade unions for their members, including the no-change guarantee for workers 10 years from retirement. The heads of agreement also deliver a number of the key objectives set out by the trade unions during the talks. Negotiations on these heads of terms are now concluded. We and the unions agree that this is the best outcome that can be achieved by negotiation. This is the Government’s final position and we will bring forward legislation to the House. The full details of the heads of agreement in each scheme are today being set out in Written Statements by each department.
The key changes made are as follows. In the Civil Service, we have agreed to revalue each year’s contribution by CPI rather than earnings, allowing an accrual rate of 44ths to be offered. This costs the same as our original offer, but with a configuration preferred by the trade unions. As a consequence, the new scheme will be very similar to the nuvos scheme already available within the Civil Service, except that in future the normal pension age will be linked to the state pension age as it rises. It is therefore disappointing that the PCS has rejected the heads of agreement and walked away from the talks.
I have previously made the point that the local government scheme must be treated differently because it is a funded scheme. The Local Government Association and the trade unions have agreed that the pension age in the new scheme will be linked to the state pension age, and that their preference is to deliver a career-average scheme. Further discussions will take place over the next three months to agree the details. In health, we have agreed to a revised revaluation factor of CPI plus 1.5 per cent. This allows the accrual rate to be improved to one-54th. In education, we have agreed to a revised revaluation factor of CPI plus 1.6 per cent, allowing for the accrual rate to be improved to one-57th, along with modest improvements to early retirement factors.
All these heads of agreement are within the cost ceiling I set out in November, but in a configuration preferred by the unions. Discussions on police, Armed Forces, judiciary and fire service schemes have been a separate process from the start, and proposals will be brought forward in due course.
Let me turn to some other aspects of these deals. All of these agreements include a cap on taxpayer costs at 2 percentage points above or below the scheme valuation. This cap is symmetrical, so employees will benefit if costs fall. As Lord Hutton made clear, with the other aspects of reform now agreed, there is no reason to believe that under normal circumstances this cap will be used. It is there as protection for taxpayers and for workers if extraordinary, unpredictable events occur. In the course of all these talks, unions have stressed the importance of ensuring that their members will continue to be able to receive the benefits of these schemes if they are outsourced. This is the purpose of the fair deal policy, the future of which we have been consulting on. Because we have agreed to establish new schemes on a career-average basis, I can tell the House that we have agreed to retain the fair deal provision and extend access for transferring staff.
The new pensions will be substantially more affordable to alternative providers and it is right that we offer workers continued access to them. In addition, the Government will consider what practical options might be available to reform the terms of access to the NHS pension scheme, in particular for NHS staff who move to a non-NHS “any qualified provider” delivering NHS services. At the same time, by offering transferred staff the right to remain members of the public service scheme, we are no longer requiring private, voluntary and social enterprise providers to take on the risks of defined benefit that deter many from bidding for contracts in the first place.
Replacing so-called bulk transfers of pensions with continued access to public sector schemes means that we continue to protect public service workers’ pensions, manage the risk to the taxpayer and forge ahead with our ambitious plans on public sector reform. I have committed that these reforms will be sustained for at least 25 years. The Government intend to include provisions in the forthcoming public service pensions Bill to ensure that a high bar is set for future Governments to change the design of the schemes.
What does this deal really mean? For our workforce, it means they will continue to receive the best quality pensions available in this country—and rightly so. These pensions could be bought in the private sector only at the cost of one-third of salary. This is a proper reward for a lifetime’s commitment to serving the public. This new scheme is fairer to women too. By moving to career average, we will be giving a better pension in future to those, mainly women, who have low or steady salaries throughout their careers.
The Government have been clear that, because we are living longer, public service workers must work a bit longer and pay a little more for their pensions but, in return, we have also made an important commitment: that at retirement, those on low and middle incomes will get at least as good a pension as they do now. I can confirm today that we have met that commitment. For people who depend on our public services, it means that most unions will be asking executives to lift the threat of further strike action while work is done to conclude the final agreement, and I hope that the remaining unions do the same. For the taxpayer, it means that tens of billions of pounds extra that would have been spent on unreformed pensions over the next 30 years is now available for other pressing demands.
These are reforms that significantly improve the long-term fiscal sustainability of this country and reinforce the credibility of our fiscal stance. The Office for Budget Responsibility will provide a forecast of these savings in its next fiscal sustainability report. For industrial relations, I believe this shows that it is possible to reach agreement through negotiation in good faith, based on clear objectives. That is the right way to approach relations between government and the trade unions. In these difficult times, it is important to show that people can come together to achieve genuine reform, preserving the best of the past but recognising the realities of the future. This is a fair deal for public service workers, an affordable deal for the taxpayer and a good deal for the country. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, it is important to remember that what we are discussing is the reduction in the lifetime living standards of a significant proportion of the people of this country. We are discussing the fact that the real incomes of public service workers will, in retirement, be significantly lower than they had every right to expect when they took up their positions in the public service. When the noble Lord speaks of “reform” of public service pensions, he means reduction of public service pensions, and when he speaks of saving,
“the taxpayer tens of billions over the decades to come”,
he means reducing the incomes of pensioners by tens of billions over the decades to come.
Noble Lords will be aware of the difficult choices that we all face over the question of pensions. The excellent report a few years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and the recent study by my noble friend Lord Hutton have spelt out the consequences of lower birth rates and greater longevity for the provision of pensions. Given that the standard of living of everyone depends on the goods and services produced by the working population, the smaller the working population is in relationship to the whole the more difficult it becomes to provide for the non-working pensioners. The choices that need to be made when facing such a major, secular shift in demography and in the economy should have been the subject of bipartisan national debate. They should have been approached with the clear understanding that what is under consideration is the decision to reduce lifetime living standards.
In his report, oft cited by the Government, my noble friend Lord Hutton stressed the need to approach these issues in a careful and balanced way, with particular care for the impact of any increased contributions on lower-paid public service workers, and the need to sustain high-quality, reliable pensions provision. Having people retire into poverty, dependent on state benefits in their old age, cannot be an answer under any circumstances. In taking up my noble friend’s points, the Government failed on both counts by seeking to impose a steep rise in contributions and a permanent switch in indexation from RPI to CPI, neither of which measures formed part of my noble friend’s recommendations.
The consequence of this arbitrary and authoritarian approach to reducing the lifetime incomes of some of the lowest-paid people in the country was 10 months of stalemated negotiations and then strike action, in many cases by people who had never dreamed that they would ever go on strike. The strike on 30 November, a strike that could and should have been avoided, seems to have brought the Government to their senses. We on this side of the House are pleased that the people who rely on public services, as well as millions of public sector workers, can approach the holiday season knowing that proper negotiations are taking place at last and that a solution that is fair to pensioners and fair to taxpayers may be on the horizon.
We are pleased that the Government have at last recognised the need to protect the lowest-paid from unaffordable increases in contributions, the need to reassure older employees worried about how long they will have to work and the need to ensure that people who dedicate their working lives to our public services can expect a decent income in retirement. It is important that, in any proper national consideration of how best to tackle the changing demographic factors behind pensions provision, the Government should provide the fullest and clearest information on what is proposed and on the consequences for public service workers at all levels of income.
For each of the four schemes under consideration, what are the new proposals for contribution increases? What is the timetable according to which they will be introduced? How do the Government intend to ensure that the new contributions are affordable for lower-paid workers, including part-time workers? What assessment have the Government made of the impact that their proposed changes might have on the number of public service workers opting out of the scheme, of the impact that this may have on future pensioner poverty and of consequential demands on state benefits? In taking steps to increase the pension age, what allowance do the Government intend to make for those in physically demanding jobs where the current retirement age from that particular line of work may indeed be appropriate?
Most importantly, the Government must now realise that a pensions agreement in the public services should be for the long term and should be part of the fundamental relationship between Government and people, whichever party is in power. How will the Government make good on their promise to deliver a deal that is secure and sustainable for the next 25 years? Will they learn from their errors of the past year and understand at last that a properly informed public debate, and an appropriately negotiated agreement with strong bipartisan support, is the only way to achieve a fair and lasting agreement?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, does not welcome the deal that the Government have come to today with the great majority of unions in the public sector. The Government must get a grip on the significant increases in the cost of providing public sector pensions that have simply arisen from the fact that people are living longer. That is why we asked the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, the Work and Pensions Secretary in the previous Government, to look at the current position and identify whether further reform was required. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, set out an overwhelming case for reform, saying that,
“the status quo is not tenable”,
and that,
“Future costs are inherently uncertain”,
and that at present,
“the … public cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future”.
It is based on his recommendations that we have reached an agreement with the unions today.
It is a good deal. It ensures that public service pensions will remain among the very best available. If members retire later, as most of them will, most of them will not see a reduction in the pension that they receive at retirement; indeed, many of them will get more than they would now. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, recognises that. The deal delivers on our objectives to ensure that most low and middle earners working a full career will receive pension benefits at least as good as, if not better than, what they would get now.
I turn to the specific questions that the noble Lord asked me. On the increases in contributions, the scheme-by-scheme contributions for 2012-13 are set out on the respective departmental websites. They follow on from separate consultations that were held over the summer. The average is a 3.2 per cent increase over three years, with 40 per cent of that increase falling in the first year and 40 per cent in the second, building up to the full increase in the third and final year. The projections are that anyone with earnings below £15,000 will face no increase and that those between £15,000 and £21,000 of earnings will have their contributions increased by only 1.5 per cent over the three years. Individual schemes have worked out other particular protections; health, for example, has protected those earning up to £26,000 by having no increase in the first year.
On the question of part-time workers, it is the case that all public service scheme members, whether full-time or part-time, are included, apart from those within 10 years of retirement who are, as I have explained, protected. The lower-paid will not pay more for their pensions. The pension benefits themselves are based on full-time equivalent earnings and it is appropriate that the contributions are calculated, as are benefits, on the same basis. There are approximately 350,000 part-time workers in local government, where alternatives to contribution increases are being considered, and a further 150,000 part-time workers would be partially protected as their full-time earnings are less than £21,000.
On the question of opting out, the general point to make is that there is no reason why members should do so. There will remain a strong economic rationale for them to remain in their schemes, and it is important that all employees in the public sector hear that message clearly. Beyond that, we have committed to reviewing the impact of opt-outs following the increase in members’ contributions. We will do that before final decisions are taken on how future increases are made. It needs to be borne in mind that it would cost a member around 30 per cent of their earnings to purchase equivalent benefits in the private market.
I turn to the question of the increase in pension age and the effect of that, particularly on those in physically demanding jobs. For the armed services, firefighters and police, the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, recommended an earlier retirement age of 60, and we accept that recommendation. For the other schemes, we have agreed that the retirement age will be the state retirement age, the same age when other citizens will receive their state pension. It will be for employers to review the appropriateness of certain jobs for older employees and to make appropriate arrangements for staff possibly to move into alternative roles as necessary. The NHS, for example, has already agreed to set up a tripartite review involving the department, NHS employers and the NHS trade unions which will look at addressing the impact of working longer in the NHS, with particular reference to staff on the front line and in physically demanding roles, including emergency services. I accept that this is an important point but it is one which is already being addressed.
On the final questions of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, around how the Government will be able to deliver a commitment on no further reform for 25 years, the critical point here is that we have set out a position that is not only fair and sustainable for those who work in the public sector but is a reform that is sustainable in terms of the public finances. I reiterate the point that, as the Government address the very difficult fiscal position that we inherited and as we compare ourselves with countries in Europe and elsewhere, this is an important reform that will underpin the fiscal sustainability of the public finances for many years to come. Therefore, I believe that no further reform should be necessary for 25 years. To give substance to this, we intend to include provisions on the face of the forthcoming primary legislation to ensure that a high bar is set for future Governments to change the schemes, as I said in repeating the Statement.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, having listened to the Minister claiming the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton—the architect of the scheme—for his interpretation, and then having listened to my noble friend Lord Eatwell give a different interpretation, I am all the more sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, is not here to give his interpretation. I wish to ask the Minister a question, as in 2008 I negotiated pension agreements with local government workers. That is a different pension scheme from the state one as it is funded by the employers and the employees. We made major changes in that pension agreement which I do not have time to explain. We did that with a struggle but we did not have the strikes that we have witnessed on this occasion. We have learnt that there is a heads of agreement with the unions, and we hope that they will move to some sort of agreement. The Minister mentioned this in his contribution. However, tonight we learn that another letter has been written by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr Pickles, who is well known as the rogue elephant in the Cabinet, which states that the limits to be placed on the employers’ contribution are quite different from what the Treasury is saying. Will the Minister say which letter is operating in these negotiations? I am told that the letter I have mentioned has been withdrawn. Is Mr Pickles in charge or the Treasury as regards the difference between the two schemes? Will the Minister explain that to us?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am happy to try to clear up any misunderstandings on this. As the DCLG has made clear this afternoon, it is in discussion with the unions to resolve any misunderstanding and reassure them that the intentions of the department and of the Government have not changed. It would seem that the unions have read more into the letter that was issued today than was intended by the DCLG. No new conditions are being imposed by the department. In order to iron out any ambiguity, the department will be issuing a new letter to make clear that there is no ambiguity, there is only one deal and there are no conditions. Therefore, I am confident that this can be resolved quickly, but as noble Lords will understand, there have been many deals with a lot of unions and several departments. We must clear up this ambiguity that has slipped in on one particular aspect.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the Government and the unions that have signed the heads of agreement deserve congratulations on having achieved this in this day and age, given the immediate financial pressures and the reality that we will all live much longer and therefore need pensions for a much longer period in our lives. They have achieved an agreement that retains defined benefit schemes—when the private sector has essentially abandoned that and gone on to defined contribution schemes—and have provided protection for those approaching retirement and for those on the lowest incomes. That is a real achievement by both sides and we ought to acknowledge it.
However, I wish to ask the Minister two questions. Can he clarify for us where the negotiations now stand with the PCS? The experience that has been described tonight demonstrates that negotiation has to be the way forward, not strikes. The Minister said that the PCS had walked away. The newspapers used the phrase, “not invited to future talks”. Can he clarify what he sees as the progress that can be made in that regard—preferably progress which does not inflict any more strikes on the long-suffering British public?
Secondly, can the Minister expand a little on an area I find most intriguing: namely, the position of staff transferring from the public service to the voluntary or private sectors or to social enterprises who will retain access to a public service pension? I cite the example of the NHS in that regard. Should we see that in narrow terms, or are we moving towards an arrangement which will allow a much more flexible structure for future public services as technology and demand change, creating the opportunity for movement in and out of different organisational arrangements? Is this the first building block of something larger, or is it just something to be seen narrowly within the terms of this negotiation?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for welcoming this deal. She rightly points out that it means that public sector workers have among the best pensions available in this country, including defined benefit schemes which are not now generally available to people entering private sector schemes. Therefore, I endorse entirely her comments in that respect.
The PCS has not agreed to put the final design of the Civil Service scheme to its executives. It is important to remember that the PCS represents fewer than 5 per cent of the members of the public service schemes and discussions will continue without it. We believe that the final deal—it is a final deal—is a good one and that the remaining unions will recommend it to their members. We are clear that what has been set out today is the Government’s final position.
My noble friend asked about the ability of members exiting a public sector employer to remain in the pension scheme under the “Fair Deal” provision. Implicit in her question was the notion that this may have wider implications. I certainly think that this opens up all sorts of possibilities, whether in relation to the mutualisation of services or the ability of people to come in and out of the public sector.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I echo the opening remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in referring to the constructive nature of the recent negotiations, albeit at the eleventh hour. I hope that the Minister will take care in saying who represents 5 per cent of what. One minute he is talking about the total public sector negotiation and the next minute he picks out a statistic which is to do with the Civil Service. We ought to be very careful not to pick and mix in that particular way.
I hope that the Minister will comment on a general point: namely, now that we have reached where we have got to, it would be very useful for all of us to discourage people from going in for rhetoric such as many Members of the Minister’s party, both in this House and in the Commons, have indulged in. Their slogan can be summarised as, “Private sector employment is productive; public sector employment is unproductive”. It is not just the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Telegraph and the Murdoch newspapers that say that—it is members of his own party in this House and the other House. I do not mean that anyone in this House tonight has said that, but it has been said on other occasions. Such comments are quite ridiculous. People will think that nurses and teachers are unproductive, and that hedge fund managers and second-hand car dealers are productive. Is it not time that, in a modern social democracy or mixed capitalist economy—I do not mind what you call it—we agreed that that is a ludicrous way of dividing people up?
That leads to the point that we must get on with improving pension provision in the private sector. The Adair Turner report on auto-enrolment has been stymied to some extent. Is it not important that we do not have a race for the bottom as regards pensions? I am glad that we have drawn back from that to some extent.
Am I not right in thinking that CPI has been selected instead of RPI because CPI has been growing more slowly in recent years? Would the Government have preferred CPI to RPI if it had been growing faster? I have been around for long enough to know that that is exactly how the Treasury thinks. I ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that there is a position in the final set of correspondence which refers to CPI plus 1.5 per cent or 1.6 per cent, and that that is the rationale for some of the arithmetic, which—understandably, given the Government’s predicament—is based on getting more in for the Treasury, hence the 3 per cent take-away.
Finally, is this not also the time to say, given the huge growth in pension pots for the top 0.1 per cent of people—which is scandalous and is getting up the nose of everyone in the country, apart from that 0.1 per cent—that the idea that we are all in this together is a bad joke, unless that issue is also addressed?
Lord Sassoon
I am sorry—I thought there was a new and welcome procedure whereby Back-Benchers could answer questions on my behalf. That is an excellent idea, but it might require discussion before we do something so radical.
I should first be clear about the interesting analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, on how we have got to this point and what else we should be doing. When he talks about an eleventh-hour deal, it is worth reminding the House that the final deal was put on the table by the Government on 2 November. The agreement today is entirely in line with what was put on the table then, well ahead of the strike action on 30 November.
The question around CPI and RPI broadly relates to the nature of the deal whereby individual negotiations were carried out, scheme by scheme, around the level of benefit accrual and indexation rates. That is why we allowed considerable flexibility for the unions to vary the balance of factors within the total cost caps that were set. That is why a variety of different approaches was taken. There was considerable flexibility within the overall parameters set by the Treasury.
As to the question of what people in the private sector should be doing, perhaps we had better stick to public sector pensions, which are very important and should be what we are talking about.
Baroness O'Cathain
I must apologise to my noble friend for jumping up. It is just that I was slightly goaded by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I want to come back to him about the CPI versus RPI issue, because I have a pretty long memory, too. In the early stages of the Monetary Policy Committee and the Labour Government, there were endless discussions every month about the RPI. One of the reasons that the statisticians wanted to move to the CPI was so that they could get month-by-month comparisons with mainland Europe—the EU. That is exactly why it happened, and then it all started to go wrong. We should have a discussion off the Floor of the House and go to the Library to look at all that. It was fascinating stuff, and an enormous number of people wanted to go for the CPI, as opposed to the RPI.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I should be very glad to have such a discussion, but I have an even longer memory. For many years, I represented the TUC on the Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee, which was abolished by the Treasury when we made a recommendation that it did not like. The recommendation in about 1970 was that we should stick with the RPI for general purposes because—
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am quite entitled to come in for a second time within the 20 minutes. I have been asking a question. Is there not a case for looking at which index should be used, based on considerations other than which one is likely to increase more slowly than the other?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, this was a negotiation between the unions and the employers. It was a choice regarding accrual rates and indexation, and the unions have expressed a preference for going for that measure of inflation, essentially as a way of funding better accrual rates. That was just the nature of the negotiations.
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [HL]
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sassoon
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 1, which leaves out Clause 2(5). This subsection was added to the Bill following acceptance of an amendment in Committee. I will also speak to Amendment 2, which proposes an alternative and—I hope that the House will agree—improved approach to addressing the Committee’s concerns about renewal of insurance contracts. Having considered the amendment accepted by the Committee, we felt it was necessary to come forward with alternative drafting to achieve what noble Lords had in mind through the original amendment.
Taken together, these two amendments will mean that insurance companies are expected to have to show that they told their policyholder that answering questions on renewal was important. However, they also avoid some unintended consequences of including this requirement in its current form as part of Clause 2.
These amendments address something which the Bill Committee touched on extensively in its deliberations. There was much discussion of the implications of the Bill for consumers renewing insurance. Renewal involves entering into a new contract and consumers are therefore under the same obligation as when first purchasing their policy—that is, they must take reasonable care to answer the insurer’s questions, or the insurer may be entitled to refuse a later claim. Noble Lords were concerned that consumers might not recognise the significance of questions asked on renewal, as they may not understand that it is a new contract, and as a result might not take sufficient care to answer these questions.
The Government agree that insurers should take measures to ensure that their consumers are aware of the importance of responding to questions which they are asked at renewal. However, as I mentioned, to ensure that the effect of this change to the Bill reflects the wishes of noble Lords, we felt that it was necessary to come forward with alternative drafting. There are some relatively small drafting points.
The inserted text splits subsections of the current clause which need to run together, and the phrase “make clear” may be a difficult standard. However, most importantly, it leaves no remedy for an insurer who has not included the right wording, even if the consumer’s failure to reply was a deliberate or reckless misrepresentation. I am sure that the Committee did not intend to give consumers a “get out of jail free card” in circumstances where they knowingly and deliberately deceived their insurer. The amendment therefore removes the drafting accepted in Committee stage and substitutes an alternative in Clause 3. That explicitly adds to the list of factors that a court may take into account, when determining whether a consumer acted reasonably, whether the insurer communicated the importance of answering questions on renewal. Both the Association of British Insurers and the Investment and Life Assurers Group agree that that is a more suitable approach.
There are many ways in which an insurer may communicate the importance of answering questions at renewal. The Committee discussed whether wording which explicitly told the consumer that they were entering into a new contract would achieve that. That is indeed one way in which an insurer may communicate the importance of answering questions as required by the amendment.
It might be helpful if I set out for noble Lords current market practice at renewal and the effects of the amendment in this context. An insurer will often send the consumer a letter to say that their insurance is up for renewal. Market best practice is usually to send a list of the facts that the consumer told them the last time. The consumer is asked to read and consider the list, and to contact the insurer if the facts have changed.
In motor insurance, it is common practice for insurers to renew the policy even if the consumer fails to reply. It is now a criminal offence for a motorist to allow their car insurance to lapse without notifying the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and we therefore welcome any practice which makes renewal a simple process for the consumer. If nothing has changed, there is no need for the consumer to reply, but if something has changed and the consumer fails to respond, this is capable of being a misrepresentation. As my noble friend Lady O’Cathain stated during the last Committee sitting, it may be that nothing has changed in relation to your car insurance. Alternatively, you may have been convicted of a new driving offence which you should tell your insurer about. As a result of this amendment, the insurer should clearly communicate the importance of mentioning such changes. If the letter is poorly laid out or in very small print, or if it fails to tell the consumer that failing to mention changes may lead to claims being refused, then a consumer may act reasonably in overlooking it.
In circumstances where the consumer fails to respond because they did not understand the implications, the insurer would be expected to show that they told the consumer how important it was to respond to the questions at renewal time. The insurer would know that it could not just point to the consumer’s oversight. This last important point was teased out in Committee and was, I believe, noble Lords’ real intention. I believe that the amendment addresses the concerns raised by noble Lords during those discussions.
Lord Eatwell
My Lords, as I have stated throughout our proceedings, we on this side of the House fully support the Bill as a measure which makes a major improvement to the relationship between insurer and insured in consumer insurance. We have sought to improve the Bill, making clear elements of the drafting which were unclear or which, on careful examination, did not correspond to the declared intentions of the Law Commission and therefore required amendment. Accordingly, in Committee I proposed the amendment to which the noble Lord has referred and which in due course the Committee passed almost unanimously, the only dissenting voice being that of the Minister himself.
Before dealing with the substance of the Minister’s amendments, I first ask him whether he consulted the Companion before tabling them. Paragraph 8.133 states that,
“an issue which has been debated and voted on in committee can be reopened, provided that the relevant amendment is more than cosmetically different from that moved in committee”.
When we look for the meaning of “cosmetically different”, earlier in the same paragraph it is stated that amendments must not be identical or of identical effect. Consequently, the Minister cannot argue that this amendment has identical effect. If he does, he must withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sassoon
I wonder whether it would be helpful at this stage to confirm that the government amendments have been drafted in full recognition of what the Companion says. As I tried to explain in setting out the rationale for the amendment, I do not believe that it has the same effect because it provides greater clarity and, I believe, delivers what, in Committee, noble Lords wanted to achieve. My understanding of the process is that, if there had been a problem with the technical raising of the amendment, the Public Bill Office would have raised questions on it. Therefore, I believe that both in substance and in form the right things have been done.
Lord Eatwell
I think that the noble Lord is contradicting himself. He said that it was what noble Lords wanted to achieve when they voted on the amendment in Committee, yet he says that it is not identical in effect. That does not seem consistent. However, let us move on.
Turning to the substance of the amendment, I accept that its placement in the Bill is superior to that which I proposed in Committee, and for that I am grateful. However, the intention of the Committee was that insurers would be required to make clear to consumers that when a policy was renewed, it would in fact be a new policy, and consequently the importance of questions asked would be of the same order as when new business was written. As many noble Lords argued in Committee, they were not aware of this—indeed, I believe that the Minister himself admitted that he was not aware of it—and they could well understand a consumer failing to be aware of it too. This lack of awareness might result in the consumer taking insufficient care in answering questions posed by the insurer.
The Government’s amendment does not refer explicitly to the fact that a renewal is a new contract and hence this is not of identical effect. Instead, it proposes the vague test of,
“how clearly the insurer communicated the importance of answering those questions (or the possible consequences of failing to do so)”.
That is a very vague rendition of what was intended by the amendment in Committee. Instead of being explicit, the matter is now to be left to the courts to decide. However, I note that the Minister stated that explicitly telling the consumer that they were entering into a new contract would be “one way” in which the insurer could communicate the importance of the questions asked at renewal. I fully expect that the ABI and the ILAG will draw this passage in Hansard to the attention of their members and that it will form a background to any subsequent court proceedings. On that basis, I shall raise no objection to the government amendment.
Finally, I would be grateful if the Minister would clear up the matter raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and not subsequently resolved. That is the relationship between Clause 5(1) and Clause 5(3). As the noble Lord, who is in his place, pointed out, they seem to duplicate one another and hence, potentially, they are a source of confusion. As we still have a chance to sort this out at Third Reading, perhaps the Government could enlighten us about the reasoning behind this dual oddity of drafting.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I am very glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is not objecting to the amendment. Whether it is something new or exactly the same in a different form does not matter so much, but I am glad that the amendment proposed will not be opposed by the noble Lord.
While on my feet, perhaps I could say a word about the Law Commission and the part that it has played in bringing us to this point. The report was originally published in 2009. It followed three years of intensive research and a great deal of evidence-taking, as one can see from the report. The commission then succeeded in reconciling the many divergent interests and produced, as a result, a draft Bill, which is the Bill before us with only a few alterations. It is unquestionably the most important reform of the law of insurance since the Marine Insurance Act 1906. The draftsman of that Act was Sir Alfred Chalmers, who is always referred to in this part of the law as the “legendary Chalmers” because he was a brilliant draftsman. It seems to me that this Bill is a worthy successor to the Chalmers Act of 1906. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the Law Commission and, in particular, to David Hertzell, who was in charge of the report. I hope that we may have many more Bills from that stable and I gather that there is already one in the offing, but as it relates to some rather obscure matters of trust law I assume that we shall not have the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, taking it through the House.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, I would like to mention one matter as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has referred to the amendments that I put forward in Committee. As I said then, there was basically a pedantic reason for what I did. I thought what I did was slightly better but, quite frankly, it was not a serious problem at all. As they were not automatically accepted in Committee, there is no point in raising the matter again now. I am quite happy that it no longer appears.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and, therefore, share the view of my noble friend Lord Eatwell today in raising again the duplication that there seems to be in Clause 5. I do not think that anyone wants to press the point. In addition to the thank you to the Law Commission and the usefulness of this Bill, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has just referred, I express thanks for the excellence of the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, thank you for that short and focused discussion. On the specific point about the interlinkage of Clause 5(1) and Clause 5(3), I think that my noble friend Lord Goodhart has answered the question. Frankly, if the amendment had come forward again, in the Christmas spirit I and the Government might have accepted it. For goodness’ sake, I hope that it is now too late to table a handwritten amendment, but it was a fine bit of drafting either way.
I would rather stay with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, in welcoming the importance of this small but targeted measure. I echo my thanks to him as chairman of our committee under this special procedure, to the Law Commission, and in particular to the commissioner, David Hertzell. I will not say that I wish I did not have to deal with more Law Commission matters because your Lordships may have seen the fourth, topical Question tomorrow morning, which touches on recent Law Commission work on intestacy. As the Question refers to inheritance tax, it is down to me, so I cannot escape Law Commission matters even this week.
Lord Sassoon
“( ) in the case of a failure to respond to the insurer’s questions in connection with the renewal or variation of a consumer insurance contract, how clearly the insurer communicated the importance of answering those questions (or the possible consequences of failing to do so),”
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach
My Lords, this amendment, short though it is, is important because it allows the Committee to question the Minister and to have a discussion around public legal education. That subject does not appear much in the Bill and we thought it worth tabling a probing amendment. If the Minister is not able to answer all the questions today, I am sure that he will be kind enough to write to Members of the Committee.
Perhaps I may go down memory lane for a moment or two. When I held the position that the Minister’s colleague, Mr Djanogly, now holds, part of my brief covered public legal education. It was based on the thesis that, of course, it is important for people to be able to access justice, but people will do so only when they know that a civil wrong may be or has been done against them. The truth is probably that many millions of our citizens do not know when they have some claim—perhaps not big or major—because some civil injustice has been done against them. They have no idea how the system works.
We very much want to keep the good things in this system, which means that people with a legal claim can get advice and, it is hoped, sort out the claim in that way. We think that legal aid plays an important role in making that system work. However, when we live under the rule of law in a modern liberal democracy, what do we do when people do not have a clue about their rights and responsibilities in this legal sense?
I was lucky enough to chair a pretty powerful committee of independent outsiders at the department on this issue. From outside the ministry, a committee group was led by the brother-in-law of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. He is a very distinguished former Lord Justice of Appeal who has done very good work in many fields, as the Minister is confirming. The committee included people such as Professor Hazel Genn; Richard Susskind, the expert on legal IT and associated subjects who has advised Governments of all colours and none; Michael Smith, a very distinguished solicitor; the chairman of the Legal Services Board; and Amanda Finlay, to name just a few. What we talked about and tried to do something about, and what we as a Government were prepared to put money into, was an attempt to make our legal system better understood by ordinary citizens.
Public legal education is not a very attractive phrase, but we know what we mean by it. The question was where we would concentrate the limited resources that were devoted to such a concept. It seemed to me that there was one place where more work ought be done. Some work had been done in schools, which was excellent, but more was needed. Also, sixth-form colleges and colleges of further education were places where probably there was not much teaching or education even in its broadest sense about a citizen's legal rights and obligations. We thought that this was an important part of trying to establish a proper democracy that lives under the rule of law.
I hope that other noble Lords will join in the debate and ask other, perhaps deeper questions. In the Bill the requirement to provide legal education is discretionary rather than mandatory. Our probing amendment argues that it should be mandatory; there should be an obligation on the Lord Chancellor. What mechanisms does the Minister’s right honourable friend intend to use to secure the provision of information about the law? That is an important point. Online facilities, with the exception of YouGov, are fragmented and of varying quality. How does his right honourable friend intend to work with other departments of state and external actors to ensure that citizens are informed of their rights and duties when interacting with the state and other services?
I think that most noble Lords in Committee will agree that this question could be well directed to the Department for Work and Pensions, because I imagine that we will talk quite a lot about mistakes that have been made by that department. However, it applies also to the Department for Education, the National Health Service, private banks and of course local authorities. Our concern is that the Government have rather put on one side this sort of work, either for financial reasons or because they do not believe that it has much place in the Ministry of Justice's responsibilities.
What is the Government's attitude towards the future of public legal education under our system, and to the goal of educating more of our citizens in the ways of knowing what their obligations and rights are, so that they do not walk around blind to the kinds of rights and obligations that they have in a society such as ours? That is the point of the amendment. I need hardly tell the Committee that of course I shall not press it; it is a probing amendment to elicit the Government's views on the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I declare an interest as president and founder of the Citizenship Foundation, which is the principal educator about the law in schools in this country. We work with more than half of all primary and secondary schools and try to give young people a sense of what it is to be a citizen of the modern, highly complex state. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing forward this amendment and, indeed, I commend the Minister and the Government for an imaginative clause. I do not think that a clause such as this has appeared in legislation before, and I wholly commend it.
I have only a couple of points to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in moving his amendment. The first is that we still live in a system where ignorantia legis neminem excusat, which is all very well if you know Latin and if you know a bit of law, but the average man or woman in the street, let alone the average pupil in any of our schools, is understandably, predictably, woefully ignorant of this extraordinarily complicated society and state that we have given birth to, principally, I have to say, in these Houses of Parliament. I have mentioned before, and I have to mention again in relation to this amendment and this clause, that we have a larger corpus of statute law than any democracy in the world by far and, of course, we are supposed to be a common law system, so it is not as if it stands on its own.
I believe that one of the principal causes of civic disaffection, if I can call it that, in this country, which I think is present and apparent on all sides—and I do not refer just to the riots a few months ago, I refer also to the declining turnout at elections and the declining inclination of people to stand for office in local government and so on—has everything to do with how people, not even consciously, feel that somehow we carry on here in total disregard of them out there. They never get asked, and they never get told, unless there is an election on, when all candidates are deeply keen to engage with the public at large. We have to do something about this. I am delighted to see that this clause is here. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister and other noble Lords say, but I would have thought that the importance of doing something about this is so pressing and so little understood that to have a requirement here rather than a discretion would, on balance, be desirable because there is no time to lose.
I shall give one small example of what a desert there is of accessible information about the law. It is that the Citizenship Foundation publishes the Young Citizen’s Passport, which is a passport to the law that will affect young citizens when they leave the school gates or, indeed, before they leave them, to do with housing, sex, contract and so on. The Citizenship Foundation has sold 2 million copies of this booklet, and that is not a small number. I suggest that that gives an indication of what a thirst there is for accessible, practical information about issues of law that are not voluntary for anybody, but are compulsory for everybody. I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
It was a very good idea of my noble friend Lord Bach to table this amendment, and I do not want to introduce a jarring note because I am sure that we want to be consensual on this matter, as on others, but I make the point that if more people are going to have to represent themselves in tribunals and courts, they are going to need better opportunities to inform themselves about the law and it is not quite clear how that is to happen, not least against the background of reductions in funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Justice and local government for CABs, a matter we touched on earlier this afternoon.
The need is going to be acute, and I fear that it will be the greater because with the reductions in legal aid there is a risk that more of our people will feel alienated from our society. They will no longer have confidence that the legal system will sustain all their legal rights when they find themselves in baffling situations of conflict in which they feel that they may suffer injustice and that there is no one there to champion them. That is dangerous and risks disaffection from the state and the justice system, and would develop cynicism about the law. That is a cultural trend that we may need to anticipate and the Government will need to think deeply about how they might mitigate and counter it.
When the Minister replies to this debate, it would be helpful if he would tell the House a little about how the Government envisage general information about the law and the legal system may be provided. It is not a duty on the Government, as expressed in the Bill, but presumably they are contemplating this at least as a possibility. I certainly think that they should do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, mentioned with legitimate pride the Citizenship Foundation. But we have learnt, I think this week, that citizenship is to be removed from the national curriculum. Once again, that underscores the importance of finding ways to help a new generation of young people to be aware of their responsibilities and rights as citizens. It may well be that there are excellent members of the legal profession who already visit schools and do pro bono work in helping to advance the legal education of our young people. I hope that that is so. Again, I do not know whether the Government have plans to encourage more of such activity.
I think that we can all remember the days when the law reports in the newspapers were very much fuller and the serious newspapers felt that it was their responsibility to communicate the important cases and decisions in the law. I may be wrong but I have the impression that law reports in the broadsheet newspapers are now more perfunctory than they were. Of course, the tabloid treatment of legal issues is almost entirely sensational. There is a challenge as to how more responsible, more thoughtful, more informative and more effective education through the media can be achieved. Information technology must offer new and better possibilities. I do not know whether the Ministry of Justice is thinking of developing its own website or of encouraging others to develop websites that may help to supply the present deficiency.
If we had less law and clearer law, and if we had more law codified in relatively succinct and simple terms, it would be easier for the people of this country to understand it. Finally, I therefore ask the Minister to say something about the Government’s plans to support the Law Commission in pursuing its perennial task of bringing the law up to date and making it relatively accessible and comprehensible for lay people.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the commendation of the Government for putting in the extraordinarily interesting and, I think, very valuable subsection (3) in Clause 1. It is excellent. The only thing that I do not understand is why the word is “may” and not “must”. One starts by knowing that whatever happens in the latter part of this Bill, we are bound to have a situation where the Government will have less money to put into legal aid. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has pointed out, consequently, more people will have to deal with their own cases.
It is very important that there should be an obligation, rather than just the opportunity, for the Lord Chancellor or the Ministry of Justice to have some imaginative ideas to help people who are going to have to do their own cases. The word “must” should be in the Bill. I am somewhat surprised that the Government, having gone so far with this imaginative idea, did not think that it was necessary to make it compulsory.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I support the amendment and congratulate the Government on their imaginative development in relation to this matter, but I too accept that it should be mandatory rather than discretionary. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, mentioned, there is the problem of the unrepresented defendant—the bane of every judge’s life, particularly, if I may say so, that of the circuit judge. Often one found in a perhaps not uncomplicated situation two unrepresented defendants. One would have to spell out to them with bullet points essentially what the civil law is. One would then have to explain that if the claimant could on a balance of probability establish the case, he or she would succeed. If not, the other side, the defendant, would triumph.
However, it is not really the unrepresented defendant, complicated though the situation is, that this matter deals with, but the person who has not made a claim at all and will possibly never make a claim. I think it must have been around 10 years ago that I saw a memorandum from the Law Society. It had conducted a comprehensive survey across the country and found that around 30 per cent of straightforward industrial claims which had every prospect of success were, for some reason or another, never pursued. That is the essential community that this piece of legislation is aimed at. Therefore I commend the Government on their imagination, but to my mind there is no earthly reason why it should not be mandatory rather than discretionary.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it is warming to find a clause in the Bill that has such general approval. Amendment 3 seeks to amend Clause 1(3) to make the power of the Lord Chancellor in relation to the provision of information a duty. This amendment is not appropriate. The duties of the Lord Chancellor under this Bill relate to the provision of legal aid for those who qualify for it in accordance with Part 1. In contract, this subsection is aimed in particular at enabling the Lord Chancellor to direct those ineligible for legal aid to other sources of advice. In the future this may include the provision of referral to paid-for advice through a telephone helpline service. The Government have decided not to implement the proposal at this stage, but intend to run a pilot scheme. The intention is that any individual who is seeking legally aided services but is ineligible for legal aid advice could be signposted to other sources of advice that may be able to assist them in their problem. However, to create a duty in this regard would be too onerous and potentially very costly as a duty implies a far greater requirement to provide an all encompassing service. In a sense, the debate has covered demands for that much broader service, but I still maintain that we cannot make this a bounden duty on the Lord Chancellor. However, it takes us in a direction that is interesting so far as this debate is concerned and, indeed, in the way our legal services are being developed.
Some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and my noble friend Lord Phillips go far beyond the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice and of the Bill about the rights and responsibilities of the citizen in our society. However, I accept that it is sensible to address the need for a better understanding of how the justice system works and allow the citizen a more fully understood access to it.
Lord McNally
He will be very annoyed; that is what his father was called. It is one of the problems of being in the House of Lords that you remember their fathers. I am working with Francis Maude on our transparency agenda. On a number of things that have been, and will be, discussed in this Bill, some of my noble friends talk as if the legal profession was set in aspic. I suspect that we are about to see an enormous change in the legal profession. As in any sector where there is change, it is unsettling, but it could also be very enabling. I wonder whether alternative business structures, whereby accessing a lawyer might not be so formidable as calling on the high-street solicitor but a matter of going to somewhere in your local Co-op, might make a difference in terms of access.
Noble Lords underestimate just how willing people are to use the telephone and, increasingly, their e-mails and computers to get information. One has only to see the impact of eBay to appreciate how confidently people use that kind of technology for everyday use. The idea that people will get their advice via telephones and computers is not so far fetched.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked me what the department was doing. Through Directgov, the public can gain access to a range of information online about the justice system, including legal aid. The introductory page on legal aid on Directgov includes specific information about accessing the community legal advice helpline via the telephone or by completing a web-based online form to book a call back from the helpline in a language and at a time convenient to the caller. Plans are for e-mail advice and community legal advice, and the Legal Services Commission is currently working to enhance the facilities for clients to access advice electronically from the community legal advice helpline via secure e-mail. Initial access to the CLA e-mail advice service will be via the current “contact us, call me back” page on Directgov.
Online general services come in three forms: free web-page services provided by a variety of commercial and not-for-profit organisations such as National Debtline, the Adviceguide from Citizens Advice, and consumer credit counselling services.
I went to the Law Society awards ceremony earlier this year and it was interesting how many of the award-winning companies had online services. Some of them went quite a way down in terms of advice before you pressed the button to start being charged. Again, online services are an interesting development.
These online and digital resources also explain court processes and procedures and how court hearings work, which is particularly important for litigants in person. There are a number of links that demonstrate how comprehensive these resources are. They give advice on, for example, how to avoid repossession, what to do if you get into mortgage arrears and a whole variety of other services.
I am suggesting that part of what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, raised in this amendment, which I welcome because it allowed us to tease out some of these matters, is that a great part of our responsibilities under this section will be carried through by the new technologies. We believe that the public, who in other parts of our life show an amazing capacity to use these new technologies, will find them an important part of understanding and having access to our legal system.
We resist the amendment because we think that this should not be a duty, although it is certainly a direction of travel for the MoJ. We regard the creation of a duty at this stage to be too onerous and potentially very costly as a duty implies a far greater requirement to provide an all-encompassing service. I hope that the noble Lord will accept where our intentions lie and where our direction of travel lies, and at this stage will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bach
I will withdraw the amendment in due course, although I must say that having had the support that I have had around the House I am sorely tempted to have our first vote on this Bill tonight. But as I think that we are probably the only part of the whole of British society that is working at the moment—they certainly are not at the other end—I will resist that very strong temptation.
I am about to find out what Section 4(2)(a) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 says. I believe that it says that the Government have to provide general information about the law—I will find out in a moment—so the praise with which the present Government have been lauded during the course of this debate for having raised this issue for the first time ever may be a little premature. At the same time, it is good to have it in the Bill, but not good to see it as a “may” rather than a “must”. I shall start by saying to the Minister that we may well come back to this on Report, on the basis of what he said.
Section 4(1) of the Access to Justice Act says, under the heading “Community Legal Service”, that the commission—which means the Legal Services Commission—shall,
“establish, maintain and develop a service known as the Community Legal Service for the purpose of promoting the availability to individuals of services of the descriptions specified in subsection (2) and, in particular, for securing (within the resources made available, and priorities set, in accordance with this Part) that individuals have access to services that effectively meet their needs”.
We met those last words earlier today, so I will not mention them again. Subsection (2) goes on:
“The descriptions of services referred to in subsection (1) are … (a) the provision of general information about the law and legal system and the availability of legal services”,
so the Government have done well to put it back into this Bill, but it is a pity that it is voluntary and not mandatory.
I would like the noble Lord to tell us, either tonight or in writing, what is in the budget for this work—what is being spent on it this year and what is planned to be spent on it next year. I hope that the answer is not “Nil”. I rather fear it might be.
Lord McNally
I cannot give precise figures, but I am, as I said, the Minister responsible for digital development within the system and have been witnessing a lot of work going on, concerning how to make websites understandable, accessible and people-friendly. Since we are being swamped with advice, a little bit that has come to me says that, under the Access to Justice Act 1999, the provision of information is part of civil legal aid, but we have decided to take it out of the concept of legal aid because, although it appears in Section 4(2)(a) of the 1999 Act, the Legal Services Commission did not in practice treat it as something that it would normally fund. It was put in the Act, but nothing happened, which is not unknown.
Lord Bach
We spent quite a lot of money on it, and planned to spend more. I think that that is as far as we can take it tonight, but if the noble Lord can supply the figures, if there are any, that would be helpful to the Committee.
I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly short debate. I particularly want to praise the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his role in the Citizenship Foundation. As my noble friend Lord Howarth pointed out, it is wrong to congratulate him this week if citizenship is no longer to play the role that it has done in the curriculum. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will have more to say on that, perhaps even now.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I would simply like to make clear that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was right up to a point: the issue is not decided. There is everything to play for. I say to anybody in this Chamber who thinks that it would be a bad step, please get your pen out and write to Mr Gove.
Lord Bach
As the noble Lord says, there is everything to play for—rather like this Bill, I hope.
At the risk of taking up too much time, I will just quote from the speech of Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, the vice-president of the Law Society this year, who I am sure will be a very distinguished president next year. She has had a great deal to do with the Law Society’s reaction to and comments on this Bill. In a speech to the Northumbria School of Law earlier this month, which I have been lucky enough to see, she said the following, which I think is pertinent:
“But access to the courts is only half the story … the story of those who know that they have a problem, and perhaps know that there is a legal remedy, but have limited opportunity to use the legal system to achieve justice. The other part of the story concerns people who may not realise that their problem has a legal remedy, who have a whole tangle of issues affecting their lives which need to be unpicked to understand what solutions are possible - which may or may not be legal solutions. Very few people who receive legal advice proceed to litigate”.
That point was made before the dinner break. Those are wise words and there is a lot for the Government to gain by making sure people have a better understanding of their legal rights.
I will withdraw the amendment in a moment, but will just say that this is an issue that may be small in terms of the length of amendment, but may be an important issue that we should press the Government on when we come to Report. I seek leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that a person eligible for legal aid advice is able to access it in a range of forms ab initio, including securing the provision of initial face-to-face advice.”
Lord Bach
My Lords, we come on now to an important element of Part 1 of the Bill, which is the mandatory gateway. Although I am sure the Committee knows this very well, I just remind noble Lords that if the relevant area of law is out of scope, there will be no point in ringing up the mandatory gateway, because the client will be told—no doubt very politely—that this is not in scope and that they will have to go elsewhere if they want legal advice. When we talk about the mandatory gateway, it is for the areas of law that remain in scope, such as parts of housing law, very small parts of debt, community care and parts of education. We are talking about a limited field. It is no answer to the areas of law that it is intended to take out of scope.
I start by saying that my experience as a Minister was that the telephone advice centre is a fantastic channel for delivering advice. I am sure that the noble Lord and his colleague the Legal Aid Minister have, as I have, visited telephone advice centres and been impressed. I certainly was in my turn. It can be convenient for those with busy lives, allowing them to access services at their convenience, and it can be—although it is not always—a cheaper way to deliver advice than face to face through a bricks-and-mortar centre. We also have the community legal advice helpline, which is excellent. All of us, I am sure, would be glad to see the work of that organisation continue and expand.
However, there is a “but” here, and it is a big “but”. We on this side of the House do not think that the right way of dealing with the issue of getting advice lies in the Government’s plans to institute a mandatory telephone gateway. We will ask the Government exactly what they intend, but this would seem to mean that anyone seeking to use a service funded through the legal aid and advice scheme would have first to call a hotline that would then direct them to the right service.
Our concerns are these. It is proposed to introduce the mandatory single telephone gateway first for matters of debt, although comparatively few debt matters are left if the Bill goes through in its present form; for special educational needs—that part of education law that the Government have had second thoughts about and that is still now in scope; for discrimination—the only part of employment law that remains; and for community care cases, which, again, the Government quite rightly had second thoughts about. The Government have stated their intention to roll it out to other areas of law as soon as practicable.
It is hard to find much mention of the mandatory gateway in the Bill. You have to look pretty hard, but in Clause 26 the Committee will see that there is mention of various ways in which advice can be given. It is otherwise something that we know about because the Government have spoken a lot about it, but it is not something that appears directly in the Bill. Clause 26(2) is actually the subsection that I am thinking of.
If the Government have stated their intention to roll out this mandatory gateway as I have said, they have failed in our view to answer, particularly in another place, some fairly fundamental questions that need answering before Parliament should sanction such a departure from the present abundance of channels. Perhaps the Minister can illuminate us as to how the Government’s thinking has evolved on this issue, which I am sure they have spent a long time thinking about.
When an individual with learning difficulties, for example, communication and speech problems or mental health problems tries to find help, will they be able to, first, find this new gateway service, secondly, properly access and understand the service and, thirdly, gain full utility from it? Will an individual who may be severely upset or traumatised—a victim of domestic violence, perhaps, or someone who is in extreme debt and feels rather ashamed about it—be willing to speak to a distant person without the comfort of direct, human interaction? Is it really the Government's case that they will all be happy to do that?
How will someone who is utterly impecunious be able to make a lengthy telephone call, in which the caller refers to documents and must wait for interpreters and answer detailed questions, in anything close to an acceptable manner from, say, public telephone boxes, which still exist? For those with English as a foreign language, there may be a particular problem. There might be an interpreter, too; three-way conversations are hardly practicable. It will be difficult to consider documents over the phone. What if the caller is perhaps semiliterate or, in fact, illiterate? They will obviously need personalised help—the kind of help that they get at the moment. What if there is a mass of documents, only one or two of which are particularly relevant? Visually, someone obviously sifts through these papers, as they are using knowledge in a particular form that is relevant, but it could become a nightmare on the telephone.
We think that those fears, which I am sure the Government have thought about, might prove an insurmountable hurdle to a number of those who, quite justifiably and within their rights, need legal advice or help. There are those with communication problems or mental health issues, those with learning difficulties or literacy issues, and those who just cannot express themselves in a particularly articulate way. Those who would be unwilling to use a phone need the immediacy of face-to-face contact and we fear that they may drop out. If the mandatory gateway is the only way through, will they actually get the advice that may solve the problem or get them their rights?
There is an economic argument, too, because if telephone conversations become muddy and too long, with both parties struggling to make themselves understood while sifting through masses of paper and language difficulties, cost-efficiencies look much less likely. We think that there are ways of mitigating these issues, but at the moment there has been no proper debate about this issue. In a way, I am sorry that this debate is taking place in Committee at this time today, but it is still an opportunity for the Government to express their views and for other noble Lords to say whether or not they agree. On how this part of the Bill will actually work, we have little to guide us. We have Clause 26(2), but that gives us little insight into how it will work. I look forward to the debate on this issue in the time available to us.
I end, I hope not too pretentiously, with this comment: when the great writer EM Forster talked about only connecting—“Only connect” was his model for living—he was talking not about connecting two telephone wires but about human interaction. The Government should not discount human interaction when they or lawyers are in the business of giving advice on some of the matters that we have been discussing in this Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I support Amendment 4, which has been comprehensively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I have a number of concerns about the gateway and how people may access it, specifically disabled people in the wider sense. While it makes a lot of sense to limit the access to the gateway to four areas initially, I feel that this could cause some difficulty for a number of people who may be confused about signposting. We are talking about areas of rights and obligations that are complex and specialised and require a great deal of knowledge of the system.
That leads me straight on to staff training. The Justice Minister in Committee in another place said that,
“legal qualifications will not be a contractual requirement”.—[Official Report, Commons, Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill Committee, 6/9/11; col. 294.]
I seek further assurance that, if this is pursued, appropriate training will be carried out.
While I am supportive in principle of simplifying any system—for disabled people especially, the idea of cutting down on travelling, which can be difficult, is very positive—I immediately start thinking of the number of people who might just find this method too difficult to use. Does the Minister have any thoughts on the number or possibly the percentage of people who may struggle to use the proposed system? Whether they be people with a hearing difficulty who might not have access to the right equipment if they are only recently impaired, people whose impairment may make this type of communication difficult, people with language difficulties or people with learning disabilities, the group could be wide and varied. It is not easy to categorise those people who might find some difficulty with this. Also, that presumes that the individual knows and understands how their individual impairment affects them. What about those who do not, or those who need extra help making the initial phone call?
I have also been thinking about those people who might find it difficult to take down an accurate record of what has been discussed, perhaps even to follow the line of questioning. I would like some more detail about how records are going to be kept and what information will be sent to the individual. If they do not agree with the record of the conversation, how will this be monitored? What is the follow-up?
I would like to understand how the system will be evaluated. Obviously, you need a trial system in operation to iron out as many bugs as possible, even if this is the trial system for wider expansion. I know from my work on the Welfare Reform Bill that the assessment process is critical not just to asking the right questions—that is hard enough—but to getting the correct and useful information from the individual and then being able to tie all that data together to get to an appropriate outcome. I receive a reasonable amount of correspondence about face-to-face assessments, where the visual recognition of response and the nuances of conversation are easier to pick up. That is why I am so concerned about the initial assessment being through a phone call.
The Minister mentioned the use of technology. I am a huge fan of technology, and for lots of disabled people it can be used in an incredibly positive way. I do not think that any of us would be surprised at how many young people are using technology now or at the stories in the media about toddlers who think that every TV screen is a touch screen and can flick through the channels—they are almost born knowing how to use this technology. The reality, though, is that older people and disabled people still struggle with different forms of technology. For me it is not just about the access to technology; that is just the first part. The second part is actually understanding how to signpost people to get to that information, and that is difficult for a large number of people.
Baroness Prashar
My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for introducing it in such a comprehensive way. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for spelling out some of the broader implications of this matter. I will be brief as I want to underline just a couple of points. One is that I fear that the single mandatory telephone gateway will potentially reduce access for some of the most vulnerable members of the community. I think that the Government’s intention to deliver legal services through a single telephone gateway and to further provide some casework by telephone fails to recognise the difficulties this will present to many of those attempting to access the system, particularly those with complex or distressing legal problems, as has been spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Bach.
As we have heard, telephone services are, of course, of value to many and their expansion is welcome. However, in my view they do not provide a universal solution to those seeking initial legal advice. When a problem arises, many seek legal advice from providers that they have used before and know and trust. A strong relationship between adviser and client is central to clients providing vital information about their circumstances. Remote mediums of seeking advice are not conducive to building trust with an adviser.
Research by the Legal Action Group has revealed that people in social classes D and E are the most likely to experience a social welfare legal problem, are most reliant on local advice centres for help and are least likely to use telephone advice. It is also the case that those who make initial contact by phone like to follow it up with face-to-face advice. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, those with language difficulties and urgent matters to address prefer personal contact, and there may well be issues with literacy. There are real dangers that driving all advice provision to a telephone gateway will result in a substantial number of those who currently seek face-to-face advice dropping out and not receiving any legal aid at all. Their problems will be left to become more complex and expensive for the state to resolve further down the line. This in the long run will defeat the purpose of the legislation.
My second concern is the Bill’s implications for the sustainability of local legal services which are normally embedded in the community. One can see what will happen to those. With their local knowledge, these organisations not only promote good practice but campaign to improve services. We need more strategic provision for legal advice services drawing on the best practice of local solutions. Throughout this afternoon we have heard that access to justice is a constitutional principle. Initial legal advice provided in an appropriate way is a first step to accessing justice and can avert long-drawn-out legal wrangles. In my view it is therefore imperative that legal aid advice is provided in a range of forms and is accessible to those who really need it.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 114 and 116 and to all the principles that lie behind the amendments in this group. We are discussing a mandatory telephone gateway and whether it can on its own deliver equal and effective access to legal aid. Currently, signposting comes from a variety of sources such as library information desks, council customer services, GP surgeries, councillors’ and MPs’ surgeries, voluntary and public organisations, charities and so on. They all currently direct people to CAB, law centres and voluntary organisations such as Shelter. That system works. In the main, the signposting is of high quality and gets people who need help to the right advice from the most appropriate place.
There is a great danger in a call-centre approach. I hope that that is not what the Government intend, but a call-centre approach is dependent upon speed and low costs as its main drivers. The telephone can be very good, but in this case it would be very good only if: first, individuals can communicate via the telephone—for example, there could be significant levels of documentation to quote from, and there is therefore a strong probability of complexity in an inquiry; secondly, if individuals have the confidence to clearly prepare what they need to say and then say it; and thirdly and crucially, if the quality of the staff is sufficient to answer the initial inquiry in terms of their legal knowledge and ability to prompt the facts to come out in conversation. In conclusion, a telephone gateway should have, as a minimum, law graduates or experienced advice workers taking the initial calls, not unqualified generalists who may fail to pass on a call that should be passed on, or who may fail to diagnose a case because they think it is out of scope, when actually something that is related to it is within scope.
The telephone can never be the only means of accessing legal aid—nor should be electronic variations such as the internet and so on. Sometimes a face-to-face initial interview can be a more effective and cheaper option than the telephone or the web. We should bear it in mind that large numbers of households in the UK do not have access to broadband or the internet and are reliant upon public services such as public libraries and schools for access. Around a quarter of households simply do not have any access to that means of communication. Normally, but not necessarily, very many members of those households will be poor and unable to afford the relevant equipment. Expecting them to communicate across the web could be a significant problem.
Most contact for assessing an initial inquiry is currently face-to-face. I have not followed why, if someone accesses, say, a CAB, law centre or public library, the initial face-to-face inquiry that has already taken place cannot then be referred for another face-to-face discussion. Why should there be the additional cost of an extra loop in the system by generating a computer record that can then be accessed by a range of other people?
I have concluded that we must have a range of providers that can address the needs of all those likely to require help, some of whom may not speak English well. I noted recently research from the USA that shows that one-fifth of people who receive telephone advice do not act upon it because they have not fully understood what the advice actually means.
There is a further issue around cost. Is it cheaper? Figures have been quoted of savings of between £50 million and £70 million. In my view, the cost could prove to be much less than that because the current calculations compare the cost of face-to-face interviews with the cost of a telephone call via a community advice line, but they are not directly comparable because those who use the latter are a self-selecting group who are content and confident with using a telephone.
We need to look at a whole range of issues more deeply. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to undertake further work on the advisability of a single mandatory channel; that further work will be done on the relative costs involved; and that the proposal’s impact on equality and access to justice will be looked at very closely. There are real dangers that some of those most in need of help will fail to secure it through a mandatory telephone gateway.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, have identified, imaginatively and sensitively, extensive groups of people for whom a mandatory telephone gateway would be entirely inappropriate. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the apprehensions expressed this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, both suggested that it would be a false economy to skimp on the cost of the initial advice and assistance. We could end up, perversely, having to spend a lot more because people did not receive the advice and assistance that they needed, it was not comprehensible to them, it failed to match what was appropriate for them or because they lacked the encouragement to explain themselves fully, so their cases were not taken further through the appropriate channels and their personal predicament deteriorated. We must take all those worries seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, touched on the question of training, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about the need for the people who are to provide the service to be of high calibre. Those things are important. It would be helpful if the Minister would say more about what the Government envisage by way of training programmes and the level and standard of personnel who will be recruited to provide the service. We are in a familiar dilemma as we examine the legislation. It is perfunctorily articulated in extremely important aspects. We were asked to take the Government on trust. We are willing to take the Government on trust to the extent that they will explain themselves to us and we know what we are being asked to trust. I hope that the Minister will be able to be helpful to the Committee on those points.
I have two quick questions to put to the Minister. Will this be a freephone service? Secondly, does he envisage that there will be a network of telephones that people will be able to use when they make these calls? It could be a very sensitive matter for people explaining themselves to someone at the other side of the telephone gateway about issues concerning family breakdown, debt and so forth. It is not just that they are painful topics but that it could be positively hazardous for people not to be able to make those telephone calls in circumstances of privacy where they can be confident that they will not be overheard or interrupted. We need to know a lot more detail about how the Minister anticipates that the system will be made to work in practice.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I raise just one or two points about the notion of a compulsory telephone gateway. The first relates to legal professional privilege. Can my noble friend confirm that all communication in the telephone gateways are and will continue to be covered by legal professional privilege, so that we can avoid the risk of cases eventually arriving in court and initial conversations with telephone gateways being used for the purposes of cross-examination when the person accessing the telephone gateway may well have been lacking in confidence and have stated their case in an inaccurate way?
The second matter I wanted to raise is about the group of people—and there are many of them—who contact what I will call informed lay services. That would include people going to citizens advice bureaux, well informed councillors, Members of the Welsh Assembly in their constituency surgeries and, of course, Members of Parliament in their constituency surgeries. It would not make much sense if people who had gone through those routes were then required thereafter to access a mandatory telephone gateway. Otherwise, we will run into the ludicrous situation where people sit in those establishments with their MPs and a call is made to the telephone gateway during the constituency surgery. That would of course be an absurdity. Perhaps the Minister would explain to the Committee what is proposed in such circumstances, the ones that I have described being but examples.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I want to make one point and one point only but I hope to do so forcibly. If it is mandatory for those seeking assistance to go through a telephone gateway, we will cast adrift a significant minority of our fellow citizens who will never use a telephone gateway for the sorts of problems with which they are confronted. It is a small but significant group, and it would be an irony if the most needy people in our society were the very ones who were, in effect, cut off from access to legal help when they most needed it.
I say this from a considerable amount of personal experience working for the Samaritans and for one of the London law centres, and from my life as a young solicitor in a general practice and, indeed, as the director of the first national legal telephone helpline. I emphasise to the Minister that the problem really is not at all obvious. It is a commonplace that the younger generation today is phenomenally computer literate and so on, but there is still a small group of people who are totally lacking in self-confidence and in an ability to analyse their own problems, and they are fearful of being made fools of on a telephone. I could go on describing this group. I quite accept that for the majority of people what is currently proposed is fine but, as my noble friend Lord Shipley and others have said, we must, whatever else we do, have a second route into legal help which does not cut off that most needy group.
Lord McNally
I thank noble Lords for their comments. A number of points have been raised. The helpline is an 0845 number. However, callers can text or call to request a call back at minimum cost, and the call back will be entirely free. There is also an online form which can be sent to the helpline at no cost. The helpline is a confidential service and the legal advice given will be protected by legal professional privilege.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Phillips says, although it is ironic that one of the experiences that he quotes is that of the Samaritans, whose service is based on the telephone. I hear that there will be this needy section of society but I suggest that the range of services mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shipley will capture these people. There are also health visitors and local councillors. If there are such people in our society and if they are disabled in this way in the broader sense of that word, they will get advice. I really think that it is taking the argument too far to say that there must be a system that can identify the individual who is so afraid of the modern world that he will not engage. No system on earth can cover that.
I am not being flippant about what we are addressing now but, when we were involved with broadcasting issues, noble Lords would make a great fuss about some mythical pensioner, who lived in the West Riding, had a nine-inch Bush television and would ask whether she would be able to get the television stations when we switched to 625 lines from 405. We can always take things to the extreme, but the people who were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Phillips and others are those who will be given other sources of advice to enable them to go through the gateway.
I will deal with the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She asked how records will be kept. Recordings and case records will be retained for six years after the contract with the provider has expired. If a caller calls on more than one occasion, the operator will hold on to the information held. She asked whether an advocate can ring on behalf of a client. All clients will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and a caller identified as being unable to give instructions, or to act on advice given, will be referred to a face-to-face advice service and there will be provision for a third party to call a gateway on a client’s behalf.
We have taken on board the issues of people with learning difficulties or mental health issues. Where a client who lacks capacity contacts the specialist telephone advice service, or the adviser believes that they may lack capacity, the advice provider will need to follow relevant professional standards. However, the specialist advice service will be able to discuss the details of the case with an authorised third party.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the question of whether the operating service may not correctly diagnose a problem. Only where the operator service is fully satisfied that it has correctly diagnosed that a case is out of scope will they make a decision. If there is any doubt, they will refer the matter to a legally trained specialist. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked how people will know how to ring the helpline. We will be developing a communication strategy between now and 2013 when it will come online. That was also a question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. That information about the line will be appropriate and specifically targeted to routes that individuals currently use to find out information.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked whether helpline operators will be legally qualified. The answer is no, because they do not offer callers legal advice. They are fully trained to identify key words from a client’s description of a problem to ensure an accurate diagnosis. That means that the client can then be passed on to the appropriate legally trained adviser who is able to give advice on the relevant point of law.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, asked about qualifications. Gateway operators are fully trained. Telephone advice specialists are required to have the same level of qualification as their face-to-face equivalents.
I am well aware from the debate that noble Lords have concerns about the mandatory single gateway and the Government are seeking to give assurances about those concerns. Amendment 4 relates to Clause 1 and would affect the introduction of the mandatory single gateway as set out in the Government’s consultation response on legal aid reform. It is essential that the Government should seek to provide legal aid services in a cost-effective manner that meets the needs of their clients. However, this amendment seeks to fetter the Government’s flexibility to do so by placing the specific duty on the Lord Chancellor under Clause 1 that for those people eligible for legal aid, those legal aid services must be available in a range of forms and that this must include face-to-face advice. This would preclude the possibility of providing, subject to exceptions, legal aid services in certain areas of law only through specialist telephone advice services. This amendment would also conflict with the provisions in Clause 26(1) and (2), which provide that the Lord Chancellor’s duty at Clause 1 does not, where an individual qualifies for legal aid, include a duty to secure that services are made available by the means selected by the individual. The Lord Chancellor may discharge that duty by arranging for services to be provided by telephone or by other electronic means.
The Government explained in their consultation response their intention to implement a mandatory single gateway, based on the community legal advice helpline, initially in a restricted number of areas of law. Clients in these areas would generally be required to apply for legal aid over the telephone or other electronic means, and would then, if they qualify for legal aid, be offered legal aid advice only over the telephone or other electronic means. The areas of law concerned are debt, in so far it remains in scope; community care; discrimination—in other words, claims relating to a contravention of the Equality Act 2010—and special educational needs. There would be an exception to using the mandatory single gateway to the four areas of law covered by the gateway. These would be emergency cases; instances where the client had previously been assessed by the mandatory single gateway as requiring advice face-to-face within the last 12 months and is seeking further help to resolve link problems from the same face-to-face provider; and clients who are in detention, including prison, a detention centre or a secure hospital, and children, defined as those under the age of 18.
In the legal aid consultation response, we also explained that where clients access the community legal advice helplines through the mandatory single gateway in those four areas of law, we expect that those who qualify for legal aid would normally be transferred to the community legal advice specialist telephone adviser. However, both gateway call operators and specialist advisers will assess the specific needs of all callers on a case-by-case basis. This assessment will be based on the personal circumstances of the client and the nature of the issue about which they are seeking legal assistance. Generally speaking, the key consideration is whether the individual client or someone on their behalf will be able to give instructions and act on the advice given. But where it becomes clear that legal representation will be necessary, clients will be given the option to see a face-to-face provider.
Where it is determined that face-to-face advice will be more appropriate for the caller, they will, where possible, be given a choice of face-to-face advice provider either from a list of suitable advice providers or a specific suitable provider known to the client. The Government do not believe that there will be any significant delay to an individual receiving the help they need or any increased bureaucracy caused by the introduction of a gateway. In some cases—for example, where a client does not know which provider will be able to help—we believe that telephone advice is likely to be quicker even where a referral is to a face-to-face provider. The Government believe that the diagnostic and routing service offered by the gateway will be of value to many.
Amendments 114 and 116 would require that where legal aid services are provided by telephone or other electronic means, those services should be provided solely by a not-for-profit sector. I recognise and value the important role that not-for-profit organisations play in delivering advice at the local level. I also recognise the concerns of many noble Lords about not-for-profit organisations and the future provision of advice services. However, seeking to create a type of monopoly for not-for-profit organisations is not the way to address this.
As noble Lords will be aware, it would not be possible for the Government to commit to awarding contracts for telephone services solely to a specific sector, as any services commissioned by public bodies are subject to EU procurement rules. However, not-for-profit and charitable organisations can and already do bid for contracts to provide specialist telephone advice under the existing community legal advice helpline. At present, six of the 15 contracts for specialist telephone advice through the helpline are held by not-for-profit or charitable organisations. Future contracts will continue to provide opportunities for such organisations to bid to deliver specialist telephone advice services through the helpline and the telephone gateway. Of course, such organisations are also able to bid for the telephone operator contract for the helpline. The amendments would also mean that the criminal legal aid telephone advice service, CDS Direct, could be provided only by the not-for-profit sector. Not-for-profit organisations do not currently provide telephone criminal legal aid advice and I am not aware that they wish, or are currently equipped, to do so.
Related to general concerns about the future provision of face-to-face advice services is the decision to limit the initial scope of the telephone gateway to four areas of law, which will have a more limited impact when compared with the original proposal set out in the consultation paper. The Government are confident that implementing the telephone gateway in limited areas of law will enable better monitoring of the impact on clients and providers in order to inform future decisions about any further expansion of the gateway.
On future civil legal aid advice provision more generally, the Government are committed to ensuring that people continue to have access to good-quality, free advice in their communities. This is why the Government have launched the advice services fund and a review of free advice services. They have set aside £20 million—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that it is the same £20 million; I am not announcing yet another £20 million—to support the not-for-profit sector in the short term. The fund will provide immediate support to not-for-profit advice service providers in England to deliver essential debt, welfare benefit, employment and housing advice services. The details of the fund were announced on 21 November by my honourable friend Nick Hurd MP, the Minister for Civil Society.
Lord Bach
I will certainly withdraw my amendment, and I thank the Minister for his very full reply. Speaking for myself, I have to say that I remain entirely dissatisfied by his speech about this very important part of the Bill. I will be as quick as I possibly can be because of the time.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Prashar, for signing the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham and myself and for their excellent speeches, and I thank all other noble Lords who spoke—all of them against the proposal for the mandatory gateway.
A number of important issues came out, which I think the Government really should pay careful attention to. The remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that legal issues will remain unrecognised is a crucial point. The comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, about reducing access to some of the most vulnerable is also crucial.
As far as the freephone service is concerned, I do not know whether the Minister is able to give an answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Howarth. We understand that the current cost of the community legal advice helpline is 4p per minute, but I do not know what the intention is for the future. Perhaps the Minister can tell us now or write about that when he has had the chance to ask.
Lord McNally
I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that. If there is a problem of cost, a person will be able to make a short call or send an e-mail asking for a call back. I will have to seek advice on whether the 0845 number is a free number.
Lord Bach
I am not concerned about that tonight, but the position is not clear yet and we need to be clear. The real problem is the mandatory nature of this provision, which is what worries us. It is not the fact that there will be telephone advice. Such advice is excellent. When the Minister gently chides some of his noble friends for taking the argument too far, surely the Government are taking it too far by insisting on a mandatory gateway. Flexibility is everything in something like that.
The Minister almost gave the game away when he said that someone who was unable to make a telephone call would somehow get advice from someone. No, they will not necessarily. Perhaps they will but they may not. Nor will they get legal advice, which they probably need, from anyone. The Government cannot be as vague about it as they currently appear to be.
What worries us is that the present system does not work badly. I wish to refer to two points made in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that these not-for-profit organisations and solicitors are embedded in the community. They are part of our way of life. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, has a great deal of experience and knowledge in this field. He talked about the right advice from the right place. That is the British way of doing this and it is a system that works pretty well. There is flexibility and various ways in which a person can get advice. It is not that a person has a choice between all sorts of ways of getting advice—the best way for them will be obvious. But to restrict it to a mandatory gateway sounds almost too dirigiste for this country. We should be much more flexible, which is much more in our political tradition. What makes it even better is that it works. The great danger is that in their attempt to change everything, the Government will change this for much the worse. Of course, tonight I will withdraw the amendment but the noble Lord knows that we will certainly return to this issue.