House of Commons
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Don Foster (Bath) (LD)
1. What steps he is taking to promote arts and creative education in schools.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The Government believe that children’s education is enriched through their connection with the beauty provided through the arts. To support this mission, we invited Darren Henley, the managing director of Classic FM, to undertake a review of cultural education in schools and he is due to report shortly. As you know, Mr Speaker, in November we published a national plan for music education worth £200 million over three years.
Mr Foster
I am sure the whole House is looking forward to the Henley review, but does the Minister acknowledge that the expert panel on the curriculum review is concerned that the role of cultural and creative subjects in a broad and balanced curriculum is in danger of being lost? Given the significant reduction in postgraduate certificate in education art and design places and the lack of any cultural subjects in the English baccalaureate, is it not right to be concerned?
Mr Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the E-bac—the core curriculum that we are developing—is sufficiently small to allow space for all kinds of other activities, including those relating to music, art and culture, as well. Certainly, it is the view of the Secretary of State and the whole Government that enriching a child’s education through their experience of art, music and culture is at the heart of good education.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituency is one of the hotbeds of creative activity with a very high percentage of artists and creative businesses, and the schools have followed that through. However, I know from recent visits to primary schools such as Brook community primary school, which has excellent enrichment through the arts, that they are worried about future funding and are already having to make cuts in those areas. Will the Minister explain what the Government’s financial policy is to back up the warm words he just uttered?
Mr Hayes
I mentioned in my first answer the commitment we have made to music. The important thing about that commitment is that we have been very clear over the long term about what schools can expect to receive, and that will help with financial planning. The new music education hubs will help to bring this together. That recommendation very much arose from the original investigation we did. Art is not the study of positive reality; in Ruskin’s words, it is “seeking for ideal truth”. It is that spirit that imbues all this Government do.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Plymouth’s excellent college of art is looking at trying to develop and create a free school aimed specifically at bolstering the arts economy and improving participation in the arts. Would my hon. Friend be willing to meet me and fellow representatives from the college of art to discuss how it can ensure that aspiration becomes reality?
Mr Hayes
Any meeting with my hon. Friend always adds to my grasp of these matters; of course I will happily meet him. It is clear from his question that he shares our view that having a richer mix of school types will allow the development of precisely the expertise he describes.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Britain is a world leader in creative and cultural industries, but at the moment we are seeing in our schools a reduction in music, art and other teaching. Whatever warm words the Minister offers, what is he going to do about it?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will know, because she is a diligent student of these matters, that this Government established a council specifically to look at the creative industries. I have met that council to discuss how we can work with it to improve links between the creative industries and schools and colleges. She will also know that we have allocated in my area specific funding with that council to develop new courses, new apprenticeships and new opportunities with creative industries.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
2. What his policy is on the sale of school playing fields; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Playing fields are an important part of a school’s estate, and sport is a critical element of any school curriculum. The Secretary of State’s consent is needed to sell school playing fields under section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. School playing fields can be sold only if they are genuinely surplus, with all proceeds being used to improve sports or educational facilities. The Education Act 2011 also gives the Secretary of State power to direct that, instead of being disposed of, the land should be transferred to an academy or free school.
Annette Brooke
I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he make sure there is careful scrutiny by both Sport England and his Department of the proposed sale of playing fields at Wareham middle school? There are overwhelming objections locally, including from the district council and the town council, identifying the already overall shortage of playing fields. There is widespread community use of the fields, and there is particular opposition to the site’s being sold for an out of town supermarket and its possible replacement with inferior provision.
Mr Gibb
The short answer is, yes we will. The long answer is that there has not yet been an application from Dorset county council to dispose of the Wareham school playing field. If such an application is made, the Secretary of State’s approval to dispose of the playing field will be required, and he will take advice from the independent school playing fields advisory panel.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister will know that from 1979 until 1997 the Conservative Government sold off 10,000 school playing fields. After the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the number went down to just 226 between 1998 and 2010. The national planning policy framework intends to water down restrictions on the disposal of school playing fields, which is like a burglar returning to the scene of the crime. Will the Minister ensure that there is no watering down of the restrictions on the sale of school playing fields in the future?
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
3. What recent assessment he has made of the provision of youth services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
Local authorities have made significant reductions in funding for out-of-school services for young people this year. However, many authorities are prioritising early intervention to help disadvantaged young people, and are working closely with the voluntary sector to maintain open access youth services. In December, the Government published the Positive for Youth strategy, which sets direction and gives examples of how councils can reform youth services, particularly in challenging and difficult financial times.
Tom Blenkinsop
I thank the Minister for his answer. According to Experian, after the Government’s autumn statement the third hardest-hit borough was Middlesbrough. Due to the Secretary of State’s cuts, 13 to 19-year-olds in Middlesbrough will receive 15% less spending per head for youth service provision after the top-heavy cuts imposed on the town. Are they a lesser funding priority than a royal yacht?
Tim Loughton
As I said, many areas have seen some of their spending for youth services cut, but many areas have actually established new smarter partnerships with the voluntary sector, social enterprise and commercial organisations. The neighbouring constituency to the hon. Gentleman’s is a beneficiary of a myplace, with investment of £4.5 million from the Government. That is a hub for lots of varied activities for young people to take advantage of, helping them with careers, training and many other things.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In 2005, when it was Labour-controlled, Northamptonshire county council directly provided its own youth services and managed to reach only 3,000 young people. Now under Conservative control, the council has commissioned its youth services to the voluntary sector; it regularly gets 20,000 young people involved and is one of the authorities with the best value youth services in the country. Will my hon. Friend congratulate the county council on its foresight and good practice?
Tim Loughton
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning such an example of good practice. Frankly, I do not care who the provider is; it is the way they provide the service and whether they are providing the services that young people want at the time they want them. It is about the quality of the service. They may not be able to do it in Labour-controlled Middlesbrough, but apparently they can in Northamptonshire and I congratulate them on it.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has warned that gang crime is now a significant problem in half of all London boroughs, and similar issues affect cities across the country. Good youth work is critical to a successful strategy to tackle gangs and youth violence, yet not only are youth services being reduced, as the Minister has just told us, but the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warned last week that the charitable sector is facing a £1 billion shortfall and many small community youth organisations, including the Stephen Lawrence centre, are at risk of closure. What assessment has the Minister made of the contribution of reduced capacity in council and community youth services to a successful anti-gangs and youth violence strategy?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady is right to raise the problem of gang culture. The Government take it very seriously. The Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group on gangs, on which I represent the Department for Education, but I have to say that some of the very best anti-gang projects I have seen around the country—including in London in places such as Croydon, with “Lives not Knives”—involve the voluntary sector working in partnership with the local authority. They are going into schools working with the victims of those crimes and their families, spreading best practice and saying, “Not in my name”. The very best response to the troubles we saw in the summer was from young people coming together with voluntary organisations, saying, “Not in my name will this sort of violence happen,” and coming up with constructive and positive examples. That is why Positive for Youth is such an important part of the Government’s policy.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
4. What estimate he has made of the number of additional primary school places needed in the next decade.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Most local authorities are forecasting an increase in primary pupil numbers over the next five years. Based on data published by the Office for National Statistics, the school-age population is expected to rise during the rest of the decade. My Department will continue to provide capital funding to meet that need.
Alec Shelbrooke
Will my right hon. Friend outline to my constituents in Elmet and Rothwell the proposals that are in place for the excellent primary schools in the area, should they need to expand to meet the predicted increase in school numbers?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is fortunate to have many outstanding primary and secondary schools serving his constituents, and those will be able to expand under the changes that we have made to the admissions code. We have also increased the amount of money available to meet what is called basic need—the growth in primary school places—and we have done so by making efficiencies from the old Building Schools for the Future programme, which, while nobly conceived, was often poorly executed.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that in London the demand for extra primary classes is acute—64% of all the additional places required across the country are in London. How can it therefore be right that in the basic needs allocation London got only a third of the funding available when it has two thirds of the need?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady, as ever, makes an effective case on behalf of her constituents. We looked at the original formula that we inherited for the allocation of money to areas where population growth was forcing schools to expand. We changed it, in consultation with London Councils and the Mayor of London. The new formula that we used was fairer to London, and it was welcomed by Jules Pipe, the mayor of Hackney, on behalf of London Councils, and by the Mayor of London, but no formula is ever perfect, and we continue to look to ensure that Lewisham students can continue to benefit.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know, I hope, that the vast bulk of the new entrants for primary school allocations in Peterborough for September 2012 are foreign children whose first language is not English. In his ongoing review of funding, will he concede the resource implications of that and assist a small number of local authorities, such as Peterborough, that face serious teaching and resource allocation issues for children whose first language is not English?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has bravely and rightly drawn attention to the fact that inward migration flows have had a particularly strong effect on his constituents. On the current changes to education funding, upon which we are consulting, we propose to include additional funding for those schools that have a significant number of students who have English as an additional language.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
How many primary school places could the Government fund with the money that the Secretary of State has proposed be spent on a new royal yacht? Does he regret his rushed decision in 2010 to abolish the Labour Government’s primary capital programme and would it not have been better to have reformed that programme to focus on the serious shortage of primary school places?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman should have been careful to look at the charts and to navigate out of rocky waters, because the letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 September clearly stated that I agreed, of course, that the project for a royal yacht—the Future Ship Project 21st Century—was one where no public funding should be provided. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has once again allowed himself to be misled. I support that project because it would provide opportunities for disadvantaged youth from across the country to learn new skills and to take part in exciting new adventures. It is typical of the unreformed elements—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to be educated by the Secretary of State, but I do not think that the yacht will provide additional primary school places, which is the subject matter under discussion.
Stephen Twigg
Indeed, Mr Speaker. The Government have found £1.2 billion for new places, half of which is being spent on new free schools. Although 90% of the extra places that are needed by 2015 are in primary schools, the majority of the new free schools announced late last year are secondary schools. Instead of his dogmatic and ideological preference for his pet project, would it not make more sense to allocate the whole of that £1.2 billion to meet the serious shortfall in primary school places?
Michael Gove
I am grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker, but I always try to answer the questions that I am asked by the hon. Gentleman—I know that that is sometimes a novel approach, but I believe it to be right.
It is also right to remind the hon. Gentleman, as he reminded the readers of The Observer on Sunday, that the last Labour Government wasted money on Building Schools for the Future. As a result of eliminating that waste, we have made £500 million available this year, and £600 million next year, for primary school places for which they never provided. They failed to look ahead and navigate a way through hard times, and now that there is a captain at the helm who knows in which direction to take this ship, I am afraid that we need less rumbling from the ratings who want to mutiny below deck.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
5. What recent progress his Department has made in implementing the proposals in the special needs Green Paper; and if he will make a statement.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
7. What recent progress his Department has made in implementing the proposals in the special needs Green Paper; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
rose—[Interruption.]
Sarah Teather
When all that has settled down, we have established a number of local pathfinders to test the best ways of implementing the key reforms, and are providing support to local authorities in developing local provision for children and young people with special educational needs.
We will publish a response to the consultation on the Green Paper shortly. This will set out the progress we have made and the next steps in taking forward our reforms.
Charlotte Leslie
Given that two thirds of the August rioters have special educational needs—a rate well above the national average—and that a disproportionate number have been subject to school exclusions, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that if a child is subject to permanent or repeated exclusion, they are assessed for special educational needs, so that if such needs exist they are catered for and met, and we can ensure that children such as those involved in the rioting can do basic things such as reading?
Sarah Teather
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know that she feels strongly about this issue, which she discussed with me when we were consulting on the Green Paper. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do with the Green Paper is to focus better on early intervention. She will be aware that, in particular, we are ensuring that the forthcoming guidance on behaviour and exclusions makes it clear that a multi-agency assessment should be carried out if a pupil displays behaviour that does not respond to normal classroom management techniques. We have asked Charlie Taylor to do work specifically on alternative provision and attendance, and all those issues are relevant to the matters raised by the hon. Lady.
Peter Aldous
While the Warren and Ashley schools in Lowestoft provide first-class education for pupils with special educational needs, research by Ambitious about Autism shows that 85% of adults with autism are not in full-time employment. Will the Minister set out what she is doing to improve the transition from education to work for special needs pupils?
Sarah Teather
Again, trying to make sure that we have better transition is something on which the Green Paper and our response will specifically focus. That is why are changing the statementing process. A new education, health and care plan running from nought to 25 ought to enable us to think about outcomes and plan right from the beginning—not just as an afterthought when young people reach 16. We should focus much more on outcomes right from the beginning. In addition, there are a number of projects that the pathfinders are doing for us that look at transition. The Green Paper also highlights our proposals for supported internships, which might make a real difference here.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Partnerships for Schools says that Kirkleathamhall special school in my constituency has problems with access, temperature, lighting and ventilation; most of the teaching spaces are too small, and the full curriculum cannot be provided to secondary- age pupils. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this unacceptable situation?
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
In her answer to the original question, my hon. Friend referred to pathfinders. How will the information that she obtains from them be shared publicly, and how will it inform her work towards legislation in that area?
Sarah Teather
We are trying to go through a process of active learning so that the lessons from the pathfinders do not go into a black box and are not looked at again, but are shared with other local authorities. Local authority groups have come together, so it is not necessarily the case that individual local authorities are working in isolation, but are working with parents’ groups and charities on the ground. We are keen to learn the lessons that they are looking at, and we will make sure that that informs our legislation in future.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
6. What steps his Department plans to take to improve outcomes for children in care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
The Government are thoroughly overhauling the care and adoption system to improve the lives of looked-after children. We have issued revised care planning guidance, and foster carers and adopters charters. The Prime Minister has announced a package of new policy interventions, including the publication of performance tables. We want to see more stable, high quality placements, whether through adoption, fostering or in a children’s home because final outcomes for too many looked-after children have been unacceptable for too long.
Mrs Glindon
Placement stability is imperative for good educational and life outcomes for children in care. With swingeing cuts to social services nationally, what measures is the Minister putting in place to assure the House that we will not see a culture of commissioning the cheapest care, regardless of quality?
Tim Loughton
I think the hon. Lady will find that one area of local government spending that has been safeguarded more than others is the safeguarding of vulnerable children, and it is absolutely right that it should be. The most expensive thing is the expense of failure. The bureaucracy that surrounded safeguarding for too many years meant that too many social workers, rather than spending time out there helping vulnerable children, were spending their time in front of computers, filling in processes and forms. We are doing away with all that through the Munro review and through the work that is going on with Martin Narey and others on adoption and on children in care. We need to make sure that children in the care system, through the advantages that we are now giving them with the pupil premium and many other means, have a better chance of catching up and closing that gap, which has been scandalous for far too long.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Given the huge amount of public money invested in children in care, does the Minister share my concern that too many people leaving care have very poor educational outcomes, which reduce their life chances further? Can we avoid another generation of children in care having the state as the worst parent of all?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend raises a good point, which is why at every stage of the journey of that child who comes into care, we are giving them a leg up and additional support. They will automatically all qualify for the pupil premium to give them a chance of catching up with children who are lucky enough to come from their birth family’s home. We are giving them advantages on the replacement for education maintenance allowance. We are giving special bursaries for those few—too few—who go to university. We need to close that gap, and we are giving them priority access to some of our best schools as well. If we can get them better education by giving them that leg up, they stand a better chance of being able to compete with the rest of their cohort in this country, and that has taken far too long.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Stability is crucial for securing better outcomes and adoption has been a key focus for the Government to date, but what steps is the Minister taking to promote, transparently measure and publicly acknowledge success in increasing not just adoptive placements, but much needed permanency for all looked-after children through special guardianship, long-term fostering and kinship care?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady is right to flag up the importance of permanence. As far as I and the Government are concerned, there is no hierarchy of care here. It is what is the most appropriate form of care for that individual child. For most, it is foster care. We need more good quality foster care placements. For others, it is a residential children’s home. We need more good quality placements. But for others—a small number—adoption is the best form of permanence, as are special guardianship orders. I believe there are more children in care at present for whom adoption has not been considered and for whom it would be the most appropriate course of action, which is why we are spending so much time on making sure that we have an adoption system that is fit for purpose in the best interests of those children.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to raise awareness in schools of domestic and international human trafficking.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
Tackling human trafficking is a key priority for the Government. Last October the Department for Education and the Home Office issued updated practical guidance on safeguarding children who may have been trafficked. This will help practitioners, including school staff, identify children who may have been trafficked and find support and advice. Schools may also cover human trafficking within personal, social, health and economic education if they judge that topic to be relevant to their circumstances.
Mr Bone
I congratulate the Government on what they have done so far, but there are a number of non-governmental organisations and charities that would like to go into schools to make pupils aware of human trafficking, the evil of modern-day slavery, and particularly internal trafficking within the United Kingdom. Would the Minister welcome such moves?
Mr Hayes
My hon. Friend has a noble record on this subject, as co-chairman of the all-party group alongside the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and the former Member, Mr Anthony Steen. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is most welcome. He is right. I wrote in 1998 that there is no doubt that human trafficking is today’s slave trade and that we will not rest until it is dealt with. I will write to charities as my hon. Friend suggests and invite them to do precisely what he proposes.
Mr Speaker
I am sure we would all in any case have remembered the precise phrasing of what the Minister of State wrote in 1998, and I cannot imagine why he would suppose otherwise.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Despite efforts to improve awareness, many trafficked children still wrongly believe that their trafficker is their friend. Given that the Minister has rejected the idea of guardianship for trafficked children, can he tell me who is able to instruct a child’s lawyer in cases where the child is too young, too confused, too traumatised or too afraid to do so themselves?
Mr Hayes
The hon. Lady will know that local authorities retain their responsibilities in this regard and, indeed, allocate a responsible person to deal with such children. I am aware of continuing doubts and problems concerning children being re-trafficked. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—he was too polite to mention this—wrote to the Secretary of State on this subject only a couple of days ago. We will look closely at bringing what the Department does into line with Home Office and local authority practice. We should not rest until this matter is addressed, and we will not rest until children are freed, victims are protected and those who trade in pain and persecution are made to suffer.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
9. How many special schools have converted to academies in (a) North Wiltshire constituency, (b) the south-west and (c) England since May 2010.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Special schools became eligible to apply for academy status in November 2010 and to become academies from 1 September 2011. There are 16 special schools now open as academies in England, four of which are in the south-west, and of these one of the first to become an academy on 1 September 2011 is in North Wiltshire.
Mr Gray
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to praise the Springfields academy in Calne, one of the very first special schools to achieve academy status, but does he agree that, although in Wiltshire we have a very helpful and supportive local authority, elsewhere it might be much more difficult for special schools to achieve academy status? What can he do to remove the slightly tortuous and bureaucratic process that the Springfields academy had to go through in order to make it easier for other schools in the same position?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the case of the Springfields academy, which is an outstanding school that does wonderful work for children with behavioural, emotional or social difficulties and those on the autistic spectrum. I am also grateful that the local authority has been so constructive. As he points out, some local authorities are not so constructive. We are working, gently but firmly, with all local authorities from London and elsewhere to ensure that their schools see the benefits of academy status.
Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)
There are other mainstream schools in Wiltshire that would very much like to become academies. St John’s school in Marlborough, of which I am a governor, has been trying to become an academy for over a year. The Department has been very helpful in the process, but as we approach the last furlong it feels more and more like wading through treacle. Is there anything I, the other governors and the staff can do to get to a decision so that we can move forward with the programme?
Michael Gove
No school is better governed in Marlborough, or indeed in Wiltshire, than St John’s. As a result of my hon. Friend’s impassioned advocacy, I will ensure that the necessary posteriors are kicked.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
10. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of reductions in central Government funding on the provision of out-of-school child care.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that there is sufficient child care locally to meet the needs of working parents, particularly families with disabled children. We want local authorities to keep parents informed about how they are meeting this duty. We are consulting on whether an annual report would enable parents to hold their local authority to account for the availability of suitable child care.
Sarah Teather
There are duties on local authorities to ensure that sufficient child care is available. I remind the hon. Gentleman that substantially more money— £760 million—is going into child care, particularly in early years for disadvantaged two-year-olds. That is new money that goes to disadvantaged areas in particular, where we know that there has historically been some difficultly in relation to early years settings.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Hard-working parents are being hit by a triple whammy with regard to child care costs: they are getting less support to pay for it because of the cuts to tax credits; costs are creeping up; and places are disappearing because of cuts to local government and the removal of ring-fenced funding. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of their choices on parental employment, especially among women, as well as on child poverty?
Sarah Teather
As I just said, substantial new money is going into early years. It is one of the few areas across Government where in fact—[Interruption.] It is two-year olds, but that extra money will of course benefit any of those settings that are working with two-year olds, and most of them will be working with two-year olds as well as older children. It is new money, particularly for disadvantaged areas that might not otherwise have taken two-year olds. I wish that the Labour party, instead of just carping, might sometimes congratulate the Government on putting extra money into disadvantaged areas.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Last Friday I had a meeting with a number of school-based family support workers in my constituency, who are seriously worried about the future of the vital service that they provide. What will the Government do to ensure that such services are not done away with by public spending cuts in constituencies such as mine, where there is a significant amount of disadvantage?
Sarah Teather
It makes sense for local authorities to invest in those areas. That is precisely why we called the new grant the early intervention grant, and precisely why we are now working with children’s centres, for example, to ensure that they are paid by results, focusing on outcomes and on providing the services that the hon. Gentleman mentions, which we know make a real difference.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
11. What steps he plans to improve the quality of teaching in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
Nothing has more impact on a child’s achievement than the quality of teaching that they receive. We are raising the bar for new entrants to the teaching profession, supporting existing teachers to improve and, where teachers cannot meet the required standards, making it easier for head teachers to tackle under- performance.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm what he is doing to allow heads to remove bad teachers and to check on the performance of new recruits, given that teaching in four in 10 schools assessed by Ofsted is rated only as “satisfactory” at best?
Mr Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the evidence points to the importance of teacher quality in a pupil’s education. The Sutton Trust, for example, showed that, during one year with a very effective maths or English teacher, pupils gained 40% more in their education, compared with having a poor-quality teacher. That is why my hon. Friend is right that from September there will be new arrangements to help schools manage teacher performance and new streamlined procedures for heads to tackle teachers about whose performance they continue to have concerns.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that the Sutton Trust has done some very good work on the issue, and it has a new challenging report out this very day, but we all know that the first three years of a teacher’s experience are vital in keeping good teachers in, and passionate about, teaching, so could there be more focus on those first three years, when we lose so many good teachers?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Gentleman is right, and his experience as Chair of the Education and Skills Committee has come to the fore. All the evidence shows that teachers are driven out of the teaching profession by poor behaviour, which is why we are focusing so much on raising the standards of behaviour in our schools; and that the best mentoring and continuing professional development for teachers is peer-to-peer, which is why we are creating 100 new teaching schools, focusing on not only training and new entrants to the profession, but on developing CPD and peer-to-peer training.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
13. How many disadvantaged two-year-olds will be eligible for free nursery care in (a) York Outer constituency, (b) north Yorkshire and (c) England in 2012.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
We plan to introduce a legal entitlement to free early education for about 130,000 disadvantaged two-year-olds in September 2013, and we will extend this to 260,000 children—about 40% of two-year-olds—from September 2014. From 2013, about 700 two-year-olds in north Yorkshire and 300 in the city of York are likely to be eligible. Funding is available to local authorities in 2012 to enable them to build towards that.
Julian Sturdy
I thank the Minister for her response, but what are the Government doing to ensure that local authorities put in place sufficient funding and, importantly, capacity for the expansion in the eligibility of two-year-olds for free places by 2013?
Sarah Teather
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point that building capacity is key in this area, and we announced the figures for the number of two-year-olds who will be eligible in each local authority partly to help local authorities to begin to plan for that. We have put extra money into the early intervention grant to ensure that local authorities are able to build capacity, and we are working with 18 local authorities to conduct trials on how they might increase capacity, looking at examples of best practice so that we can share it with other areas.
Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The whole House welcomes the Government initiative on that front, but what moves is the Minister making to ensure that the poorest children get the very best nursery education, and not just child minding?
Sarah Teather
I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Many child minders are of a high quality, so I would hesitate to sweep all child minders together. Unfortunately, there are issues of quality across the piece that we need to work on. We are consulting on a new basket of measures to ensure that, working with local authorities, we can raise quality. We are aware that there is a particular issue with disadvantaged areas, which often do not have as much choice or as good provision. It is a priority for us to ensure that the two-year-olds who really need this money benefit from it.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
15. What progress his Department has made on work to reduce the administrative burden on teachers.
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burden on schools. We have removed the lengthy self-evaluation form, introduced a streamlined inspection framework, removed unnecessary duties and regulations in the Education Act 2011, and cut the volume of guidance issued to schools by a half. We are reviewing all requirements on schools so that they can focus on raising standards, rather than on unnecessary administrative tasks.
Brandon Lewis
Many young people study in FE colleges. Places such as Great Yarmouth college have made great strides forward with clear and decisive leadership. Will my hon. Friend therefore also outline what progress the Government are making in reducing the administrative burden for colleges?
Mr Hayes
I am always reluctant to list my achievements in this House, as you know, Mr Speaker, at least more than is necessary to keep the House informed of the scale and scope of the progress we are making. Suffice it to say that from June 2010, when I let colleges move funding between adult learner budgets, through the reduction in duties imposed on schools by the previous Government, up to the Education Act 2011, which gives still greater freedoms, we have sought to treat further education as grown up, after it was infantilised by the previous Government.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful for the Minister’s self-denying ordinance, given the imperative that answers be brief.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Government are to be congratulated on reducing administrative burdens on teachers. Does my hon. Friend, and actual friend, agree that the way to improve standards in the state sector is for it to replicate what goes on in the independent sector? We should allow head teachers to hire and fire teachers, select their own curriculum, and select and deselect pupils.
Mr Hayes
What we seek is a system driven by demand, pupils who are helped to make informed judgments by the information that they are given, businesses driving the skills system, and head teachers and college principals being free to respond to local needs. That is our mantra and it is entirely in line with my hon. Friend’s intentions and ambitions.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of the General Teaching Council on the ability of teachers subject to disciplinary proceedings or sanctions to seek redress.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
The closure of the General Teaching Council for England will have no effect on the ability of teachers to seek redress. The new Teaching Agency will uphold GTCE sanctions and consider whether they continue to be appropriate in individual cases. The right of appeal to the High Court remains the same. Teachers who believe that they have been unfairly dismissed continue to have a right to take their case to an industrial tribunal.
Steve McCabe
I understand that 300 cases that have been referred to the General Teaching Council, including that of my constituent, Sally Craig, will not be heard before the Minister succeeds in winding it up and will not be referred to the new Teaching Agency. What will he do to ensure that those people are not denied natural justice?
Mr Gibb
The purpose of the GTCE and the Teaching Agency is not to provide a right of appeal for action taken locally. That is a local decision. The GTCE’s functions were additional to the sanctions available locally. We are removing incompetence from the matters that are referred to the Teaching Agency. It will look only at cases of serious misconduct. Cases that do not reach that bar will not be transferred to the Teaching Agency and will not be investigated by it. The GTCE and the Teaching Agency have never been a second road of appeal for action taken locally.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Following the Government’s moves to get rid of bad teachers, will the Minister assure me that the scheme will not be used to eradicate eccentric teachers, who are often very good teachers, and impose a grey uniformity?
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
17. What recent estimate he has made of the number of children living in homes where domestic violence occurs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
The Government do not collect data on the number of children living in homes where domestic violence occurs, but existing statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, sets out that children who experience domestic violence will need well targeted support from a range of agencies, as prolonged or regular exposure to domestic violence is likely to have a serious impact on children’s safety and welfare.
Graeme Morrice
I thank the Minister, but what are the Government doing to address the issue of domestic violence, and how can we reduce the number of children who are exposed to domestic abuse both as witnesses and as victims?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I found out about the matter at first hand when I spent a week being a social worker in Stockport. I knew that domestic violence was a problem, but the extent to which it is at the core of many safeguarding issues is alarming for all of us. The use of specialist domestic violence social workers is one way of addressing the problem, and of course the Government produced an ending violence against women and girls action plan last March. The Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group, on which I sit, and we are currently consulting on the definition of domestic violence, which has caused some confusion. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to feed into that consultation before it closes at the end of March.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Linked to domestic violence is honour-based violence. Does the Minister have an estimate of the number of children affected by that horrendous practice?
Tim Loughton
My hon. Friend raises a very important and worrying subject. We need to do more work on it and use local safeguarding children boards to help us join up all the responsible agencies. It is another example of where we need genuine cross-departmental and cross-governmental co-operation and joint planning, and the Department for Education and the Home Office in particular are at the heart of ensuring that we address this really horrific problem.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the Government’s strategy on ending violence against women and girls. What steps is he taking to ensure that children, and especially boys, are educated about the absolute unacceptability of domestic violence as part of the personal, social, health and economic education curriculum?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady makes a very important practical point. One of my roles on the inter-ministerial group is to see what input the Department for Education can have in ensuring that children are aware from an appropriate young age of the problems of domestic violence and are taught respectful relationships as part of sex and relationships education and PSHE. There are things that we can do at home, in schools and with the agencies that are there to help prevent domestic violence, intervene and apprehend people who are responsible for that horrendous crime.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Today, one of the powers contained in the Education Act 2011 comes into effect: teachers will no longer be required to give 24 hours’ notice before imposing a detention on a child who breaks school rules. That is a useful new weapon in their armoury in the constant battle to ensure that all children are well behaved and that all students can learn.
James Morris
What advice would the Secretary of State give to parents in my constituency, where the teaching unions are consistently telling them that if their school converts to an academy or co-operative trust, it will lead to less local accountability and parental control?
Michael Gove
I would advise parents in my hon. Friend’s constituency to listen to their very shrewd and effective elected Member, who has consistently pointed out that academy status means not only more resources for students but greater flexibility for teachers and heads and higher standards all round. It is an increasingly welcome aspect of the political consensus that is emerging around academies that so many Labour Members are flocking to their banner.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State give the House an absolute assurance that neither he nor his special advisers have deliberately destroyed or deleted e-mails relating to Government business that he has sent or received through private e-mail accounts?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. As he will be aware, we changed the information and communications technology curriculum just last week, and many of us were brought up when the old ICT curriculum was in place and may not always have been as handy with the cursor as we should have been. However, every single aspect of communications policy in the Department for Education has been in accordance with the highest standards of propriety, as laid down by the Cabinet Office.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
T2. My right hon. Friend may remember our discussions about how to help independent day schools increase the number of places available to our brightest, yet poorest, children. In the light of today’s impressive report by the Sutton Trust, will he re-examine my proposals to open up those schools to access based on merit, rather than on the ability to pay?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a consistent advocate for helping disadvantaged children to access excellent schooling. I am encouraged by the work that the Sutton Trust has done, but it is important that we ensure not only that individual children of merit have access to the best schools, but that all children from disadvantaged circumstances have better education. That is why I want to see private schools playing a larger part in the academies programme.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T4. The Co-operative Education Trust Scotland and other co-operative education bodies are doing fantastic work across the UK to support schools and to embed co-operative enterprise education into their curriculum. How are the Government ensuring that schools promote the co-operative model as a viable option for young people who are thinking about starting their own business?
Michael Gove
First, let me pay tribute to the work of the co-operative movement. Since it started in Rochdale, many of us have been inspired by its achievements. I believe that the academies programme and particularly the free schools programme provide an opportunity for the ideals of the original co-operative movement to be embedded in our schools. The idea that all work together for the good of their community and for the fulfilment of higher ideals is one that Government Members wholeheartedly applaud.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the extensive process that parents and schools go through when undertaking testing for special educational needs for children. What advice does he have for parents in my constituency when schools refuse to test their children for special educational needs?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)
Parents’ views about their child should be central. One thing that we are looking at in the Green Paper is how we can make clearer what should normally be provided in schools and what local authorities should normally provide. It should therefore at least be simpler for parents and teachers to understand whether a child’s needs are greater than those normally provided in the school, and much clearer whether they need a statutory assessment.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. The Prime Minister said before the election that there would be no return to selection at 11, so why are the Government making it easier for grammar schools to expand by taking away the rights of local parents to object?
Michael Gove
We are allowing all good schools to expand. I am an unalloyed fan of all good schools, whether they are comprehensive or selective. No new selective schools will be created under the coalition Government, but all successful schools have the right to expand, and any parent who believes that any school is in breach of the admissions code has an expanded right to complain to the schools adjudicator. Good schools doing a better job for more students: that is what the coalition delivers; I am amazed that the hon. Lady objects.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
T5. Last Friday, I had the great pleasure to visit Paddox primary school in my constituency, which is an outstanding school where significant improvements have been made in recent years. Parents have told me that much of the positive atmosphere at the school is attributable to the drive and ambition of the head teacher, Brenda Oakes. Does the Minister agree that strong leadership provided by head teachers such as Miss Oakes is essential in delivering a first-class education to all our children?
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I certainly agree with that and add my tribute to that school. The early years of a child’s education, when they are learning to read and to become fluent in arithmetic, are key to their success in secondary education and beyond. I would like to pay our tribute to the work that that head teacher is doing. Government Members agree that the autonomy and independence of head teachers, and their ability to run their schools as they see fit, are key to raising standards. That is what all the evidence suggests internationally. That is the drive behind the academies programme.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
T8. As we approach Holocaust memorial day on 27 January, how is the Secretary of State ensuring that lessons from the Holocaust and other genocides, including in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, are taught in free schools, academies and other schools not bound by the national curriculum?
Michael Gove
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point. Let me pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls). His decision to increase funding for the Holocaust Education Trust was one of many good things that he did, and I was honoured to be able to honour a pledge I made before the election to secure its funding. The trips that it offers to schools of all kinds help to ensure that we remember, and that that indescribable evil is never repeated. Let me take this opportunity to affirm the importance of all MPs meeting Holocaust denial and relativisation head on. Any attempt to undermine the singular historic evil of that crime is utterly wrong, and we should unite in condemning it.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
T7. Having opened just last September, the West London free school has had more than 5,000 visits from interested parents, its places are now heavily over-subscribed and it has just applied to set up a new, free primary school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that all goes to demonstrate just how enthusiastic parents are about these new free schools?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a brilliant case. The West London free school was attacked and criticised by many on the left of the political spectrum. Fiona Millar said that the idea would never take place. Now it is the single most popular and over-subscribed school in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, providing a superb education of a comprehensive kind for all children. I recommend it to you, Mr Speaker, for the future.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for his helpful advice. I was not asking for his advice, but I am grateful for it anyway.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide or commission sufficient youth services, but many of them are not now fulfilling that duty. What will Ministers do to make them fulfil their statutory duty?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Tim Loughton)
The hon. Lady is a long and tireless advocate of the promotion of youth services and she has rightly pointed to the section of the Education Act 1996 that places that duty on local authorities. We are looking to rewrite that duty and streamline it to ensure that local authorities cannot shirk their responsibility to ensure that positive activities are available for young people in their area, and that it is clearly understood.
As part of “Positive for Youth”, I have said that we will look closely at what activities for young people are going on in local authority areas and I invite young people to ensure that they are auditing the youth offer in their areas and reporting back to the centre. That is part of “Positive for Youth” and I hope that she will encourage young people in her area to do that.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
T9. British banks employs hundreds of thousands of people and many of them are hard-working young people. Does the skills Minister agree that it would be a fantastic achievement to see an apprentice in every branch of every high street bank, and what can he do to help achieve this?
The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)
There are few greater champions of apprenticeships or learning in this House than my hon. Friend, although I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) sitting next to him, and he is just as worthy a champion. Just this week I will meet banks to discuss exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) proposes. It is right that apprenticeships are seen as a route into the professions, and we will make them just that.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
Stockport council estimates that it is notified of only 60% of looked-after children placed in the borough by other authorities. This is not a problem specific to Stockport and, as the Minister will appreciate, it is very difficult for authorities to plan the provision of resources that will achieve better outcomes for children in care without adequate information. What more can he do to make local authorities meet their obligations?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Lady is right to raise this subject and it is a problem in many parts of the country, especially when children from London boroughs are placed in areas such as my own part of the country. I issued new guidance that came into effect last April, which made it absolutely clear that local authorities have a responsibility to keep children for whom they are responsible for caring as close to home as possible. If children are placed further afield, there must be a good reason, and local authorities must ensure that they maintain the responsibility to monitor how the child is doing. In too many cases, they do not notify the host authority, and I plan to ensure that every authority is reminded of its responsibilities.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Market Field school is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). It caters for children with special needs from both our constituencies and from the Clacton constituency. Will the Minister agree to meet the three of us to consider why Essex county council’s promise—made by the previous leader to the head teacher, Mr Gary Smith—has not been carried out?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question. I hope to speak to the lead member for children’s services in Essex county council later this afternoon and I shall raise the issue with him. If I do not get satisfaction, I will pursue it. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his well-deserved knighthood.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Now that the Secretary of State for Education has accepted Bolsover Labour party’s campaign for a new school at Tibshelf—a most unlikely Minister, I agree—will he tell us who will bear the cost, how much central Government will pay and how much the council taxpayer will have to pay?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman has been a fantastic campaigner on behalf of Tibshelf school and, as he has often pointed out in this House, the school has had to be kept aloft by pit props and is not fit for purpose. We want to ensure that the priority school building programme, to which I think he refers, will provide the resources from the Department for Education’s budget, but we will work with the local authority to ensure that we refurbish the school appropriately. I should stress, however, that final decisions on each school in the programme will not be made until at least next month.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I had a very good morning on Friday when I went to two infant schools. Both say that a larger number of children are coming in with speech and communication problems. What measures will we take in response to Jean Gross’s communications strategy, and how will we make it a priority to support those children at a very early age to resolve such problems?
Sarah Teather
As the hon. Lady says, there is a very particular issue with communication problems and ensuring that we identify them early. That is part of the reason I am working closely with colleagues at the Department of Health to implement significant numbers of new health visitors and to ensure that we commission services better. The education health and care plan, which will integrate services, will, I hope, make a real difference to children in that position.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of my ongoing correspondence with him about Woodlands school in my constituency, which is held up not by pit props but by equally unsightly and unacceptable scaffolding. It seems that the school will be denied any access to the priority school building programme by an anomalous set of circumstances. It does not need extra places, yet the state of the buildings means that it obviously needs priority status and access to funds, but it has been denied that as more than 30% of the buildings are listed. What can the school do? We are due an answer. May we have it soon?
Michael Gove
When we had to close the Building Schools for the Future programme, it was inevitable that a significant number of schools in urgent need of repair would be just the wrong side of where the line was drawn. I know that in Coventry a number of schools are in desperate need of refurbishment. The priority school building programme is designed to ensure that as many schools as possible qualify and we will not be able to make an announcement until next month because we want to be absolutely sure that marginal cases such as this school, as it appears from the information the hon. Gentleman has shared with us, are fairly treated.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Minister is well aware of my support for steps taken to prepare young people for apprenticeships and the world of work, but is he aware that an arbitrary decision about payments due for academic work undertaken in apprentices’ own time towards their qualification might threaten the ability and willingness of small employers, such as Amazon World in my constituency, to take them on?
Mr Hayes
I am aware of the specific issue my hon. Friend raises. I understand that the problems arose under the stewardship of a Minister in the previous Government, but none the less there are ongoing repercussions and I am happy to consider the specific matters raised by my hon. Friend. He will know that there are now national minimum standards as there is a national wage for apprentices and it is absolutely right that the deal an apprentice gets should be fair and proper.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
A university technical college for Dudley would not only transform the education available in the town but help address the skills shortage and rebalance the economy while encouraging young people to pursue careers in high-tech manufacturing. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as pleased as I am that a bid has now been submitted for the Aston university technical college in Dudley. Will he take this bid from me today and ensure that it is approved as early as possible so that we can get the changes made that we need in Dudley?
Michael Gove
I shall take the bid and look on it sympathetically. I know that the Prime Minister, as a Villa fan, would want me to do everything possible to satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is the Minister as concerned as I am that some teachers in schools today qualified only after re-sitting their basic numeracy and literacy tests on multiple occasions—in some cases, more than 30 times—and what steps will he take to ensure that this is not repeated?
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), would the Secretary of State like to congratulate the Holocaust Educational Trust, which works tirelessly visiting schools and educating students in the horrors of the genocide of the second world war?
Michael Gove
“Lessons from Auschwitz” is a model project, and I am so delighted that in the new year’s honours list the chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, Karen Pollock, received a long-overdue award. She is one of the unsung heroes of British education, and her work has been absolutely fantastic. I recommend to all Members the opportunity to attend the forthcoming Merlyn-Rees memorial lecture, which the trust is organising and which will remind us all of the timeless enormity of that evil and of the need to remain vigilant to this day.
Opposition Day
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Individual Voter Registration
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that according to the Electoral Commission there are currently up to 8.5 million electors missing from the UK electoral register and that the shift to individual registration is the biggest change to electoral matters since the introduction of the universal franchise; notes that there was cross-party support for the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, which proposed a phased five-year timetable for its introduction with safeguards to protect against a drop in registration levels, but that the Government proposes speeding up the timetable, removing some of these safeguards and eroding the civic duty on registering to vote by not applying the legal obligation to respond to an electoral registration officer’s request for information as exists for the household registration; further notes that, according to the Electoral Commission, if these proposed changes are not implemented properly there could be a reduction in registration of up to 65 per cent. in some areas, potentially leaving over 10 million unregistered voters, and that this would have a negative impact on the list from which jurors are drawn; believes that the 2015 boundary review process risks being discredited as a result of the unregistered millions; and calls on the Government to reconsider its current proposals that will lead to large-scale under-registration.
The move to individual electoral registration is the greatest shift in our electoral system since the introduction of the universal franchise. As a result, there is the highest imperative on us to get this right. There is wide support for the move to individual registration and an acceptance that the current system of household registration is neither fit for the modern world nor suitably robust against the perils of electoral fraud. The move is supported by the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Reform Society and the main political parties in the House. Our concerns are not about the ultimate objective of individual electoral registration but about some of the proposed means of achieving it.
I would like to make a point that I have made a number of times before about the importance of trying to get cross-party support for constitutional change. I am afraid that I do not agree with the wording in the coalition agreement on individual electoral registration—I will come to that later—but I welcome the process that the Government have adopted and how they are acting on this matter. We have had a draft Bill and a White Paper with pre-legislative scrutiny, and the Deputy Prime Minister has said twice on the Floor of the House that the Government are willing to listen to concerns—so too, when giving evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, did the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for political and constitutional reform and whom I welcome to his place. They appear to be keen to reach consensus before the Bill is finally published.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that when individual voter registration was introduced in Northern Ireland there was a dramatic fall in the level of registration? What will be put in place to ensure that that does not happen this time?
Sadiq Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to remind the House that in 2002, when individual electoral registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a huge fall of 11% in the number of people on the register. I hope that this Government, like the previous Government, have learned the lessons of those changes. I shall come to that point shortly, if he will allow me.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is a genuine inquiry: will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether a significant proportion of that 11% subsequently rejoined the register, or whether very few did, which would suggest that the 11% were not entirely genuine in the first place?
Sadiq Khan
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a good question. The evidence from the experts is that of the 11% who were taken off the register about 5% should not have been on there. There has been increased integrity in the Northern Irish system but there has also been continued instability. Those who were originally taken off but should not have been have not come back on as quickly as we would have hoped. One reason for that was that there was not the carry forward—but I shall come to later.
To be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister, he has already confirmed one concession—that the Government are minded not to pursue the so-called opt-out, which would have allowed people effectively to exclude themselves permanently from the electoral register. We welcome that and are looking for more movement from the Government. In that spirit, we have called this debate—so that the Government can hear, at a relatively early stage in the process, some of the concerns that experienced colleagues on both sides of the House have about the Bill.
I remind the House that it was the previous Labour Government who legislated to introduce individual voter registration, with cross-party support. The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for the phased introduction of a system of voluntary individual registration up to 2015 and compulsory registration thereafter. The full and final move to an individual voter registration system would not take place until after 2015, the intention being to pace the transition, allowing the Electoral Commission to monitor registration levels adequately and guarding against any adverse decline in the size of the roll. There was genuine cause for a cautious, phased introduction. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has already referred to the Northern Irish experience, but when Northern Ireland shifted to individual voter registration in 2002, there was an 11% drop in the size of the electoral roll. In the aftermath of that dip, lessons were learned from Northern Ireland’s experiences which were built into our phased approach, complete with safeguards.
The 2009 Act received cross-party support. The individual voter registration provisions—in particular, the timetable and the phased introduction—came in for particular praise. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who now sits on the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, but who was then the Conservative shadow Minister, said:
“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and…the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening…the Electoral Commission, electoral registration officers and others who will be involved in the implementation of the Government’s current plans are concerned that this should not be rushed, but taken step by step to ensure that the integrity of the system is protected”.
She also made a commitment that
“any future Conservative Government would never take risks with the democratic process. They would take absolutely no risks with the integrity or comprehensiveness of the register or with its accuracy.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108-109.]
The then Lib Dem spokesperson, the former Member for Cambridge, David Howarth, said:
“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 112.]
I am afraid that some of this Government’s proposals renege on the cross-party support for the 2009 legislation, raising suspicions—fairly or unfairly—about the motives behind the shift in policy. Somehow, during that frenzied period of coalition building in 2010, the coalition agreement conjured up a specific commitment on individual voter registration, saying:
“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”
That expediting of the process was new, having been in neither of the coalition parties’ manifestos.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend have any figures showing the number of prosecutions for electoral fraud? Have there been thousands, or tens of thousands, which would warrant such a speeding up of the process?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of electoral fraud, which we must all do our best to fight. I think there were five or six prosecutions in the recent period, which is not at the same level as Northern Ireland, for example, before the changes made there.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
In view of the moderate and measured tone of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments thus far, does he regret telling The Guardian on 13 October 2010 that
“10 million people could lose the right to vote”,
an assertion that has been specifically rejected by the Electoral Commission’s chair, Jenny Watson?
Sadiq Khan
I am grateful for the tenor of that intervention. I stand by that figure, not because it is mine, but because it is the figure given by independent experts. I will come to that estimate and who gives it shortly, if the hon. Gentleman will indulge me.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the shadow Secretary of State is endeavouring to be so constructive; I think that we all want to work together to improve the system in the national interest. Does he agree that the present system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century, and that we should therefore make progress and not let the matter drift for too long?
Sadiq Khan
I would not disagree with a word of what the hon. Gentleman has just said; the system is not fit for purpose in the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) has already mentioned electoral fraud, which is a live issue. We are also keen to ensure that the register is complete as well as accurate, and I will come to those matters shortly.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with electoral registers is that while some local authorities are very good at getting people on to the register, others get only about 80% of their local population? Does he also agree that the situation could get even worse as a result of cuts in local government spending?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. To be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary, he recognised that fact when he gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and acknowledged the concerns about constrained resources. Given that local authority resources are not ring-fenced, an obvious area in which to make cuts would be in the work of the electoral registration officer’s team, often at a time when that work is needed the most. There are examples of excellent practice around the country, but there are also examples of comparable constituencies with very low electoral registration levels.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about electoral fraud, but does he acknowledge the view expressed by the Metropolitan police service that there have been more than 13,000 incidents of financial fraud in which fake entries on the electoral register have been linked to the use of false documents for financial purposes?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The credit reference agencies and the police also remind us that it is important to have an accurate and complete register, because the register is often used for credit checks, as well as by the police and local authorities in the fight against fraud. We want the electoral register to be complete and accurate; if it is not, that can lead to all sorts of problems.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that an accurate and complete register is important not only for an effective and fully functioning democracy, but for ensuring that other parts of our Government are working well, including the selection of juries?
Sadiq Khan
This is my first chance to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) to her place in the House. She has had the most recent experience of fighting an election, and will be aware of the dangers of not having an accurate electoral register. She mentioned one of the important civil functions of the electoral register. She will be aware that the disadvantage for people of deciding not to be on the register is that they will not be able to serve on a jury, which can lead to the make-up of juries becoming skewed. Instead of being tried by one’s peers, a person can end up being tried only by those who are on the electoral register, rather than by a jury reflecting all those who are eligible to be on it.
The original justification for the proposals was not to save money, but that has now been put forward as a reason for speeding up the shift to individual electoral registration. This and the partisan nature of some of the Government’s other constitutional proposals, including the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, make some people suspicious of the motivation behind the Government’s proposals. Adding to the suspicion is the speeded-up timetable in the draft Bill, which is the meat of the motion before us. The draft Bill also proposes the removal of safeguards previously agreed by all the parties.
We are concerned about proposed changes to the civic duty involved in registering to vote. Under the household registration system, failure to comply with the request by an electoral registration officer to complete a registration form could result in a £1,000 fine. Despite few prosecutions, the threat of a fine has itself had a positive impact on registration levels, as has been confirmed by electoral registration officers around the country. The warning, written in a bold large font on the front of the letter from the electoral registration officer, served as a genuine motivation to respond. Our fear, which is shared by others, is that removing the threat of a fine will have a negative impact on registration levels.
Chris Ruane
My right hon. Friend has referred to local authorities that have successfully used the threat of the £1,000 fine to increase registration rates. May I point to the example of Rhyl West, where 2,500 people were registered? The council had a crackdown, which involved placing a warning on the registration form stating that people would be fined £1,000 if they did not fill it in. It explained that failure to fill in the form would result in the chief executive sending a letter to the non-registered person and turning the matter over to his legal department. The level of voter registration went up from 2,500 to 3,500 in one year as a result.
Sadiq Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have seen evidence for what he mentions, and the local authority has confirmed that it increased registration rates from 2,500 to 3,500 because of the use of that threat and a rigorous approach. As my hon. Friend suggests, the removal of the fine will diminish the ability of electoral registration officers to do their job effectively, risking damaging consequences for our democracy and society. Although the penalty for not fulfilling the current legal duty is not often imposed, it is not without effect, as has been said. It contributes to a general sense that registering to vote is a civic duty—a responsibility—and not merely an individual right or a lifestyle choice.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister have both declared from the Dispatch Box that the threat of the £1,000 fine is not being removed, since under their new proposals the offence of failing to respond remains for a household canvass. However, the House needs to understand the proposed changes in detail. There will indeed continue to be a form for the head of the household to complete, which is called a “household enquiry form” or HEF, and a £1,000 fine will remain for failing to comply with the request of the electoral registration officer to complete that form. Whereas completing the household registration form as it stands currently leads to those listed being registered to vote by the local authority on the processing of the form, under the new system the HEF is simply a way of capturing data on who might be eligible to vote in a property. That data will then be used by the local authority to follow up each of the named individuals with a personal approach containing a voter registration form. However, there is no legal duty to comply with a local authority request to complete an individual registration form and there is no threat of a £1,000 fine for not responding. We believe that that is a dangerous anomaly in the proposed legislation, which we fear could have a damaging effect on registration levels.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that although some people purposely do not want to be on the register, large numbers might be excluded from it because they have not been helped? I am thinking particularly of those with learning disabilities. Often, those who might be helping people with learning difficulties have a strange view about whether they should be allowed to vote. It is crucial that everyone in our society be enfranchised and that no one is ruled out because they are not given the support that they should receive to ensure that they are properly registered.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes her point far better than I would have made it. She will be aware of the representations made by Scope and others. There could be confusion at an early stage when somebody completing the household form assumes, as in the past, that they are automatically on the register, without realising that the individual form they receive also needs to be completed. If we take into account the fact that many people have learning difficulties, that for others English is not their first language and that that these changes are being contemplated at a time when the register arguably needs to be at its most accurate, the position becomes very worrying—even more so if we reflect on the diminution of resources to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) referred.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, let me make the point that 19 hon. Members are seeking to speak in the debate. If I am to have any chance of accommodating that level of interest, self-restraint—in respect of Front-Bench speeches and the length of interventions—will be essential.
Mr Jackson
I am mindful of your admonition, Mr Speaker.
I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s views on household registration, given that the Electoral Commission has said that
“The ‘household’ registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy—their right to vote”.
Is he saying that he is in favour of household registration, whose removal is at the centre of these reforms, or not?
Sadiq Khan
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands his own position. The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 was quite clear, as some Conservative Members have said. We believe in individual voter registration. What we do not agree with is having an incomplete or inaccurate register, and some of the currently proposed changes could lead to just that.
The absence of the threat of a fine also undermines the data-matching pilots launched recently, which we also welcome. We support attempts to discover the names of those who are not on the register by using other datasets held by the public sector, but the same obstacle occurs—those individuals will at most receive a personalised approach by the local authorities to register to vote but there will be no legal ramifications if they fail to comply with the local authority request. The Minister has previously said at the Dispatch Box words to the effect that he did not want there to be a threat of criminal conviction for failure to respond to a registration form from an electoral registration officer. Let me address that point. We are open to discussion of whether a system of fixed penalty notices for those who fail to complete their registration form might be more appropriate. The Electoral Commission is also in favour of a system of civil penalties as well as a range of incentives to encourage registration. The Minister will be aware that in Northern Ireland, which already has individual electoral registration, the offence for failing to respond to a request from an electoral registration officer has been maintained. Either way, there needs to be some kind of motivation, backed up with the threat of a sanction, if we are to keep registration levels high.
The implications of the coalition Government’s proposals concern us. Although they might lead to a more accurate electoral register in the sense that people who should not be on it will not be on it, they are also likely to lead to a considerably less comprehensive electoral roll. Recent research by the Electoral Commission shows that up to 8.5 million eligible voters currently are not registered to vote—5 million more than previously thought—and it has warned of a risk of a slump in registration levels from more than 90% to 65%. That equates to more than 10 million eligible voters who should be on the register not being on it.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The issue here is the correlation between the likelihood of a person’s registering on the electoral register and their being in the private rented sector, is it not? The rapid growth of private rented accommodation places people at the highest risk of not having the information necessary to be on the register. Would my right hon. Friend support discussion with the Government about how resources could be directed particularly towards the local authorities with the largest private rented sectors to help to target that problem?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend is right to make that point and her view is shared not only by those who represent areas such as those she has mentioned but by the Association of Electoral Administrators, which believes there could be a 10% to 15% drop in suburban areas and a drop of up to 35% in the areas she has mentioned. The Minister said some very encouraging words when he gave evidence to the Select Committee and I look forward to hearing what he says in his response about resources and how he can target the finite resources he has on the areas that need them the most. Experts are as concerned as my hon. Friend that young people, students and people with learning disabilities and other forms of disability, as well as those living in areas of high social deprivation, are less likely to be registered. Some of those groups are already the most marginalised in society.
Many of us will have experienced examples of stretched electoral registration officers and limited resources, and there is a real concern about the impact of cuts to local authorities and budget pressures on the Electoral Commission at a time when they are needed the most. Those concerns are compounded by the fact that the 2015 boundary change enshrined in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 will take place on the new register composed of individual registrations. Although the draft legislation contains a safeguard—an effort to ensure the 2015 general election is not undermined by a significant decline in registered electors—which we welcome, there is no such safeguard for the boundary review, which will take place later in the same year. Given that the general election and the boundary review are due to take place in 2015, it seems odd to choose 2014-15 as the period for introducing individual electoral registration. It would make more sense to begin the process later or at least to extend the period of its implementation. Alternatively, registration under the current system could be carried forward for the boundary review, as is proposed for the 2015 general election. None of those options should cost any more than the Government’s current plans.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
It is the Government’s and indeed Parliament’s intention to equalise the size of parliamentary constituencies. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that if the changes to those electorates as a result of individual voter registration were, even entirely properly, to be in any way unequal across different locations, that could result in the creation of unequal constituencies and in the Government’s failing to meet that objective?
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. In seats where there is a large number of students there could be a bigger slump than in areas where there is a large number of owner-occupiers. There could be a second major boundary change in five years, if there is a big slump in those on the register. Bearing in mind that the register is used to determine boundaries, the changes could lead to some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. If the formation of new boundaries goes ahead, with 10 million missing voters—not my figures but those of independent experts—it risks another substantial upheaval of parliamentary constituency boundaries to deal with that large loss of voters.
We should not forget that the electoral roll is not used simply for election purposes and for drawing boundaries; the register also performs an important civil function.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The shadow Minister was making a point about the impact of the changes on the next boundary review. Has he been able to estimate the consequences of under-registration on this side of the water? The measures will not apply to Northern Ireland, which has already taken its hit and is recovering, but they could lead to an increased number of seats being allocated to Northern Ireland under the constituency formula, in turn inflating the size of the Assembly, which is based on parliamentary constituencies.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Members laughed during his intervention, but he is right to remind us indirectly of the formula by which seats are divided up. I am sure that when the Minister responds he will address the hon. Gentleman’s point, because an unintended consequence of reducing the number of voters is that the formula may lead to the changes he mentioned.
It will be more difficult for people who are absent from the roll to get credit checks, undermining their ability to apply for loans or mortgages, and it will be more difficult for those trying to prevent money laundering to check identities. The lists from which juries are drawn would be compromised. One of the fundamentals of our justice system—that defendants should be subject to trial by their peers—would be threatened. If individuals are given the right to opt out of registering to vote, by implication they could opt out of jury service, which currently is rightly deemed a civic duty.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
On the point about people being denied a loan or a mortgage if they are not on the electoral register as a result of the changes, is not the simple answer that they can register? The changes would not prevent anybody from getting a mortgage, but they will prevent people from getting a mortgage illegally.
Sadiq Khan
That is one of the benefits of an accurate and complete register, but the changes could lead to debtors, or the police or councils, not being able to chase people because they are not on the register. Council tax benefit and housing benefit fraud is often caught when people are seen on the register. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is individual choice and that consequences flow from that, but he fails to recognise the civil functions and the benefits to society of a complete and accurate register.
The electoral register is used by local authorities, and sometimes Departments, to help them in their duties related to security, law enforcement and crime prevention—for example, checking entitlement to council tax discount or housing benefit. The register is also used to ensure that political parties and candidates can contact electors to try to persuade them to vote or—dare I say it—to get involved in party politics. The Government’s current proposals could lead to a number of unintended consequences that no one wants to materialise.
The concerns are not just coming from the Opposition; the Electoral Reform Society is unhappy that registration is simply a matter of take it or leave it for individuals. The cross-party Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has produced an excellent report, for which I thank the Committee, that calls for it to be an offence to fail to complete a voter registration form, although perhaps only for a period of time during the transition. Like the Electoral Commission, the Committee has rightly called for a full household canvass in 2014, and echoes our concerns about the 2015 boundary changes. We welcome some of the Committee’s other main recommendations.
We recognise that there is a problem with the current electoral register, both of accuracy and completeness, and I genuinely look forward to working with the Government to safeguard the integrity of our electoral system and to improve registration levels in the move to individual voter registration. I hope the motion will be debated in a spirit of consensus and that it will be supported on both sides of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
It is good to be having this debate at, I think, the third time of asking. Before I explain the rationale for our proposals and deal with the motion, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) for the tone in which he has engaged with the debate. I have certainly engaged with it in such a way, and I do not think that he will mind if I point out that his party did not adopt that approach from the beginning. Last autumn, the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader said that we were making registration individual rather than household, and that the Labour party was going to go out and fight against that change, stating:
“One of the most basic decent human rights…is the right to vote.”
I absolutely agree, but I do not know why he wanted to campaign against our proposals.
The shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said at the Labour conference that our proposals were
“a shameful assault on people’s democratic rights”,
and that Labour would expose and campaign against them. I thought that that was nonsense at the time. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Tooting thought so, although he could not say so, and he has adopted a much more sensible tone.
Finally in that vein, in an article on the Labour Uncut website, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), said that the Conservative-led Government had taken the Labour Government’s proposals—these are his words, not mine—and
“infused them with its own distinctive venom.”
I have been accused of many things, but never that.
People got carried away with those remarks, which were rather absurd, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has returned to a more sensible tone whereby we can debate these sensible proposals. There is a lot of agreement on the move to individual registration, which will improve our system, and we can consider our specific proposals and the response that we make to the Select Committee report. I am happy to conduct the debate in that spirit.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
In view of the fact that the Electoral Commission is saying that there may already be as many as 8 million people who are entitled to be on the register but are not on it, is it not, shall we say, counter-intuitive for any of us to discuss proposals that are likely to reduce the number of people on the register? Surely the objective of the Electoral Commission and the rest of us should be to maximise the number of people who are entitled to take part in our democracy legitimately. Individual registration is not likely to achieve that, particularly as it is in response, apparently, to just six prosecutions for electoral fraud.
Mr Harper
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s conclusion, which is that we should try to maximise the number of eligible voters—obviously, people who are on the register are entitled to vote—but I do not agree that individual registration is likely to reduce that number. To return to the matter of Northern Ireland—I shall expand on this later—given what we now know about the register in Great Britain, which is that about 85% of voters are registered, that register is in no better shape than that in Northern Ireland, where individual registration has already been introduced, as have a number of measures on continuous registration, such as data matching, which we propose to have at the same time. There is good evidence that if individual voter registration is introduced properly, with some of those other measures, a register may be achieved that is both more accurate and more complete than the one we have today.
Dr Julian Lewis
In general, I am happy with my hon. Friend’s proposals, but the one thing in the Opposition motion that strikes me is the abolition of the sanction if people do not register. We do not believe in compulsory voting, but up to now we have always believed in compulsory registration. Will he reassure us on that specific point?
Mr Harper
Let me come to that point in a moment, because I want to spend a little time on it, if I may. If my hon. Friend does not think that I have addressed it, I shall be happy to take another intervention from him.
Let me run through one or two parts of the motion that are defective, and which lead me to urge my hon. Friends to oppose it. I hope that I shall do so with the same tone with which the right hon. Member for Tooting introduced it. It is true that we supported the proposals for individual registration in the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, but it is worth reminding the House that the previous Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to include them. They were not in the Bill when it was introduced in the House of Commons, which is why we voted for a reasoned amendment. In fact, they were not in the Bill at all when it left the House of Commons, although by that stage the Labour Government had made a commitment to include them, and they were introduced in the other place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who was leading for us on the issue at the time, said:
“I am glad that at the eleventh hour the Government have, at last, agreed to move ahead with individual voter registration, albeit in what still seems to be a lamentably leisurely time scale. They committed to the principle of individual voter registration many years ago, but a bit like St. Augustine, they seem to be saying, ‘Make me chaste, but not yet.’”—[Official Report, 2 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 695.]
My right hon. Friend made it clear that we approved of the decision to proceed with individual registration, which we thought could be accomplished earlier. We said that it would be our intention to do so, but that is not what the right hon. Gentleman said. On page 47 of our 2010 manifesto we made a commitment to
“swiftly implement individual voter registration”.
It is not fair—or, at least, it leaves out something quite important—to say that there was complete cross-party consensus on that measure.
Chris Ruane
I was one of those who did not want the previous Government to introduce the measure, but consensus was gained and it was introduced. That consensus has now been destroyed for the sake of a single year. The Government have shattered that consensus across the country—not just in Parliament but outside, too. Why do so just for one year? Is it anything to do with the 2015 election and the boundary freeze date of 1 December 2015?
Mr Harper
No, it is not. If the hon. Gentleman will listen, we have introduced proposals having learned from the experience of Northern Ireland, for example in the carry-forward, to make sure that we minimise the risk of any drop in the registered electorate before the 2015 election. Between that election and the drawing up of registers for the next boundary review, there will be another full household canvass. There are therefore good safeguards in the system to make sure that the general election and the 2015 boundary review are held on the most accurate and complete registers possible. I shall say a little more about that later.
I do not think that it is correct to say that the Government have eroded the civic duty of registering to vote. It is not an offence—this comes back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made—not to be registered to vote. It is an offence to refuse to provide information to an electoral registration officer on the household canvass form when required to do so. We do not propose to change that, but I must note that there is some doubt about how effective that is, given that about 15% of electors are not registered to vote. I shall say a little more about that later.
I accept that the way in which we phrased our original proposals, with regard to the opt-out and some of the language that we used—I said this when I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform—could have led people to think that we wanted to weaken the extent to which we felt citizens had an obligation to register to vote. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have both said that we are minded to change that provision when we introduce our Bill. To be fair, the right hon. Member for Tooting acknowledged that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend has half-answered my question. Why are we not making the system as effective as possible, and making people register to vote properly?
Mr Harper
We are retaining the offence of not responding to the household form. The logic is that if someone does not respond, they affect not just themselves but perhaps other people’s right to vote. That is why we have kept that proposal. We then faced the question, in the returning of the invitation to register, of whether we really wanted to create a criminal offence and criminalise people for not registering to vote. First, I start from the position of thinking that that would not be effective. The evidence at best, if I am being generous, is very mixed about whether that is effective. Secondly, we do not want to clog up the court system with a huge number of these cases. In Northern Ireland, where someone correctly said the offence of not returning the individual form exists, the provision has in effect become meaningless because when it was used in court and someone was prosecuted, the court gave them a slap on the wrist with a fine of 1p. The provision has effectively become unusable.
Chris Ruane
The evidence that I gave earlier from Rhyl in my constituency was that in the poorest ward in the whole of Wales—there are 1,900 sub-wards in Wales and this is the poorest—registration went up 2,500 to 3,500 in one year because of the threat of the fine. If the Minister does not want to make failure to register a criminal offence, how about a fixed penalty notice of £70 or £80? If people are determined to stay off the register, that is up to them, but they would face a £70 fine. If that happens time and again, perhaps he would consider making it a criminal offence after two or three times. How about that?
Mr Harper
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that. He made exactly that point at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions on 15 November and my right hon. Friend said that we would look into it. Indeed, I did. Although the numbers did broadly increase as the hon. Gentleman says, they did not do so over a year. The increase in the electorate in Rhyl West from 2,474 to 3,531 took place over a period of nine years—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I have the number of electors registered in front of me. I will not bore the House by reading them out, but the increase took place over a period of eight years, so I am afraid I do not think he has got his facts quite right.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I implore the Minister to look again at this. Clearly, if failing to send back the annual survey is to incur a penalty, it seems illogical not to insist that failing to send back the individual form should also incur a penalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said, some sort of fine that is clearly expressed to people, rather than hidden away in the small print, is a tremendous incentive to return the form. The absence of a penalty seems like a missed opportunity.
Mr Harper
Let me skip ahead to a quotation a little later in my remarks, which is relevant. There is a purpose in doing as the hon. Lady suggests only if it is effective. The evidence from the Information Society Alliance, for example, in its survey shows that compulsory registration —in other words, saying that people have to register or there will be a penalty—does not
“yield registration rates notably above those achieved in countries without compulsory registration.”
So it is not particularly effective. If I were persuaded that it was, I might look at it again. I certainly do not want to criminalise millions of people.
The current system, where failure to respond on the household registration form carries a penalty, is not noticeably effective because, as we now know, 15% of electors are missing. The single biggest reason why people are not registered to vote is that they move house frequently. One of the things that we need to do, which I will come on to, is to look at ways in which we can track people more quickly when they move house and get them registered to vote.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
From the perspective of individuals in households, I am concerned about what appears to be duplication under the new system. There is a household form and an individual voter registration form. This seems to go against the red tape challenge and from an individual’s point of view seems over-bureaucratic. I am worried that that will confuse people.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I will come on to it when I speak about the modified canvass in 2014. Registration officers made the same point about why it was not a good idea to do a full household canvass in the traditional way in 2014 and then immediately write to everybody with an invitation to register. Their view was that as well as being costly, that would end up confusing people, which is why we set out a modified canvass, on which people also have strong views. I shall deal with that in more detail later.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful for the tone of the debate so far. I have a constituency in Southwark where we probably have about a 25% turnover of electorate every year. I am therefore very clear in my view that it ought not to be a criminal offence if people do not send back the form, but that there ought to be an incentive to do so and failure to do so should be subject to an administrative penalty. That changes the culture and means that everybody understands that the obligation is to register—not to vote, but to register and give themselves the right to vote when the time comes. I am clear that we need that culture shift.
Mr Harper
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the turnover of electors in his constituency. I am very clear that we want a consistent outcome from the process and for as many people as possible to be registered, but in order for that to be effective we might need to allow electoral registration officers to adapt their approach, depending on the nature of the constituency. In areas such as his constituency, or Tower Hamlets, which I have visited, where the turnover is 40%, a completely different methodology is adopted, for example by visiting every household in the first instance, rather than sending out forms. Such an approach would not be adopted in constituencies where there was much less turnover. We must allow electoral registration officers that flexibility in order to get a consistent outcome.
I have two more points to make on the motion before saying a little more about our proposals. The right hon. Member for Tooting referred to 10 million people being removed from the electoral register. He originally used that figure in a piece in the comment section of The Guardian on 13 October 2010. The Electoral Commission responded and made it clear that it did not state that 10 million people could lose the right to vote as a result of our proposals. I simply do not think that his claim is a realistic assessment based on any kind of evidence at all. I also gently point out that there is a mistake in the motion when it states that registration rates could fall by 65%. I think that it meant to say that registration rates could fall to 65%, because that is the number that some people have bandied about, but that is not what it says.
The motion relates to the 2015 boundary review, by which I mean the boundary review that will start in 2015 and use the 2015 register. As I have said, after the next general election there will be a full household canvass in 2015, at which those who have moved house since the previous registration will be invited to register. I think there is a good process in place to ensure that that register is as full and accurate as possible.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
On the Minister’s point about the views of the Electoral Commission, did not the chair of the commission say on 15 September:
“It is logical to suggest that those that do not vote in elections will not see the point of registering to vote and it is possible that the register may therefore go from a 90 per cent completeness that we currently have to 60-65 per cent”?
Mr Harper
She did, but she was talking about our proposal to allow voters to opt out by having a simple tick box on the form. We listened carefully to what the chair of the commission said, as did others, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I have confirmed that we are minded to change those parts of our provisions. The thing that she was concerned about that might have a direct effect, because people might tick the box, could also send out the message that we were less interested in people registering to vote. We have already accepted that that could have those consequences, which is why we have said that we will change it, and I think that that acknowledgment has been welcomed by the commission and its chair.
My final point on the motion is about the way it finishes by simply stating as a fact that moving to a system of individual registration
“will lead to large-scale under-registration.”
I simply do not think that there is any evidence to support that proposition. The motion is not quite in the spirit and tone with which the right hon. Gentleman introduced it. When the debate finishes, I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the motion, but to do so in the same constructive spirit with which he introduced it.
Let me say a little more about our proposals. I am happy to take interventions, but I will try to be mindful of your point, Mr Speaker, about the number of Members who wish to speak. I am pleased that the overall shift to individual registration is supported by all parties in the House—it was in all three main parties’ manifestos. The Electoral Commission supports it, as do the Association of Electoral Administrators, a wide range of international observers and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, whose Chair was present for the earlier part of the debate. There is much cross-party agreement on the principle and I recognise that we are effectively arguing over the detail.
The old, or current, system, involving the old-fashioned notion of a head of household who registers everyone else, is a little out of date and, as Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, gives one person the ability to affect other people’s registration. We do not adopt that approach in other areas where people interact with the state, and the Electoral Commission has stated very clearly that the
“‘Household’ registration system means there is no personal ownership by citizens of a fundamental aspect of their participation in our democracy—their right to vote. This is too important to be left for anybody other than the individual”.
The Government agree, and I could not have put it better myself.
There is also a risk of fraud. The issue is not just about the fraud that actually takes place, but the risk of it, and even international observers, when they come and look at our system, note that we are very lucky to have a relatively low level of fraud. That is not because of our system, it is despite our system, and we would not be doing our jobs properly if we left in place a system that was open to fraud, even if we have been fortunate enough not to have had a huge amount of it to date that we know about.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I do not necessarily accept the proposition that fraud is a major issue in Britain, but the reason for making the suggested changes within this time scale—that they were so important that they had to be speeded up—does not get away from the fraud that can be perpetrated, for example, by someone simply turning up at a polling station and saying that they are somebody else. In a flat-share situation, somebody may not have registered, but, if somebody else has and they have moved away, the former can turn up and say, “I’m Joe Bloggs, and here I am.” As long as they are the right gender, they are able to vote, so if fraud is such a major issue should we not look at what happens when people turn up at the polling station?
Mr Harper
That point has been made, and I looked at it when I visited Northern Ireland, which, for historical reasons and for the reasons it introduced the system ahead of us, requires people to have a form of photo ID when they vote. When that was introduced, it meant that many people were not able to vote, but it is now working smoothly. It has been suggested to us that we should adopt that system. The Government have decided not to do so, but we will listen to the evidence, as it certainly happens in one part of the United Kingdom. As far as I understand—I stand to be corrected—it currently works pretty smoothly, and for those electors who do not have their own form of photo ID, such as a passport or driving licence, there is a specific and very simple electoral ID card, with no database behind it, which they can use to prove their identity—and their age, for all sorts of other interesting purposes that to young people are probably more attractive than being able to vote.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the occasions of personation fraud are extremely rare, but that more fraud is thought to exist in postal voting and that, perhaps, more restrictions should be placed on that?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there was a certain amount of fraud in the early 2000s. That is why the previous Government, to be fair and to their credit, tightened up postal voting and introduced the system of requiring identifiers, whereby an individual has to have their date of birth and provide a signature. We can at least be sure that the person who requested the postal vote is the person casting it, but of course it does not give us any confidence in that person being the real, genuine person who lives in that house, as someone may have created a fictitious identity. We can be sure that the person who requested the postal vote is the person casting it, but they could do so on the basis of a completely fictitious identity. Postal voting has been tightened up, and that is good. It is something that we supported and which the previous Government did.
Another reason for speeding up the system is that running parallel systems—the current system and the new system—was likely to be rather confusing and was, I have to say, going to cost a significant amount. We are investing a significant sum in getting this right—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) just lets me finish, we are going to spend £108 million on moving to the system of registration, so we are fully funding the move, and by not trying to run it in parallel with the current system we have saved £74 million, which, given the state of the economy and the public finances that we inherited, a point that I will not labour, is not an insubstantial factor to bear in mind. But it is not at the expense of ensuring that we have a secure and accurate register.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The Minister has mentioned postal voting and how important it is becoming in our electoral system. Why are the Government not prepared to consider a carry-forward of current postal voters on to the new register?
Mr Harper
The reason for the carry-forward was to ensure that people who had been registered to vote but had not registered once under the new system did not suddenly discover that they were not able to vote at the general election. The carry-forward was a check. In an ideal world, one would introduce a new system and not bother having the carry-forward. It was a safety net.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), although postal voters provide identifiers, those do not provide any confidence or evidence that the voter is a real person. They provide confidence that the person casting the postal vote is the person who applied for the postal vote, but they do not get around the problem of people being able to create fictional identities and carry out postal vote fraud. We therefore did not think that it was sensible to extend the carry-forward to postal votes. There will still be carry-forward on the register, so people will still be able to vote, but we will not carry forward people’s absent vote. We do not think that that is likely to cause an enormous problem. The hon. Member for Caerphilly should wait for us to respond to the report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the not-too-distant future, because I think he will be reassured by our answers.
As I made clear to the House in my statement last September, we are focused as much on completeness as accuracy. We instigated and funded the independent research by the Electoral Commission to see what state the current registration system was in. That should make us pause to reflect. When we have discussed this matter previously, there has been a complacent view that everything is fine, that there are not many problems, and that we are at risk of tampering with the system and causing a problem. The fact is that the current system is not as good as people thought it was.
I made the point that in Northern Ireland, where individual registration was introduced and where it now has a number of continuous registration mechanisms, such as putting back the carry-forward and using data matching, the system is now as complete as and more accurate than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. That demonstrates that if we do this well, learning the lessons from Northern Ireland, looking at things such as data matching and carrying out the proposal sensibly by having pre-legislative scrutiny and listening to what people have to say, we will not damage the registration system, as the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd said, but have a more accurate and complete register over time than the one we have today.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
For people such as me who are unaware of events in Northern Ireland, will the Minister inform the House how long equalisation took to take place?
Mr Harper
What the research has shown about the drop in the register in Northern Ireland is interesting. Some of the drop was expected because, after all, part of the point of introducing the system early in Northern Ireland was that it was understood that a number of people on the register there did not exist and we wanted to get rid of them. However, it is not clear that the drop in Northern Ireland was any larger than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, there may well have been a drop in those who were eligible to vote because they did not go through the slightly increased bureaucracy. However, most of that seems to have been fixed by reintroducing the carry-forward, so that people who did not register the first time around are not penalised. We have learned from that. Having had Northern Ireland go first and having learned the lessons from what it has done, we can be reasonably confident that we will not run into the same problems.
I am also pleased that, as the right hon. Member for Tooting said, we have gone about this in a conciliatory way. We published a White Paper last year. We then published draft legislation, consulted on it and asked the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to do full pre-legislative scrutiny on it. The Committee has taken evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including me. It has raised a number of concerns, some of which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Government will respond shortly to the Committee’s report. I urge all hon. Members, particularly those who are interested in this subject, to look at our response because it will address a number of the issues that were raised. Hon. Members can be confident that we will not run into those difficulties. For example, we have already mentioned the carry-forward, and we will not require people to re-register all their details every year if they do not move house. They will simply have to confirm that they have not moved. In Northern Ireland, people have to go through the whole process every year.
I have referred a few times to data matching. We have examined other public databases in a number of local authorities to see how successful we can be in finding people who are not registered to vote. We are in the process of finalising our assessment of that programme, and the Electoral Commission will also be doing so having worked closely with us. I am confident that it will demonstrate that we can use those extra data, as happens in Northern Ireland, to improve the register.
Younger people have been mentioned, and we want to ensure that we allow people to register online in a secure way, which will particularly help younger people. To pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), it will potentially also help people who are disabled and find it easier to use electronic methods. I absolutely agree with her that people with learning disabilities are entitled to register to vote and to cast their vote. From my experience of working with Scope and attending its reception immediately after the election, and of talking to people with learning disabilities, particularly younger people, I know that they are just as able as anybody else to understand the issues involved and make decisions, and nobody should tell them that they should not. I wanted to put that on the record in strong support of what the hon. Lady said.
Bob Stewart
As the head of a household almost filled with very young people, it seems to me that the key to getting an understanding of who should be voting is the head of household registration form. When that form is filled out, it gives the key to who is living in the household, and then we can ensure that they are voting. I hope that that will be very much part of the system in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Just before the Minister responds, may I very gently remind him—I am sure he is bearing this in mind—that a very large number of Members want to speak in this debate? I am already going to reduce their time limit to eight minutes, so I hope that he may be reaching the point of being about to conclude.
Mr Harper
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is your rather clever way of telling me not to take so many interventions and not to be quite so generous to colleagues, so I will listen to you very carefully and move on. However, I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that we will continue to use the household registration form.
I wish to give an example of how I believe we can improve things. On my visit to Northern Ireland, I visited Grosvenor grammar school in the Belfast East constituency and met the excellent head teacher, Mr McLoughlin, together with the head of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. I had a look at one of the outreach exercises there, in which people go into schools and work with 16 and 17-year-olds to get them on the register in time, so that when they turn 18 they can vote. I saw 164 16 and 17-year-olds get registered to vote. Interestingly, Northern Ireland now has a higher rate of attainers—16 and 17-year-old soon-to-be voters—being registered on its system than we do in Great Britain. The lesson of that is that if we allow electoral registration officers to be more innovative and sign up voters directly, rather than relying on the head of the household, we can do better than we do today. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, notwithstanding the fact that he is not in favour of the procedure. I have already mentioned that we have said that we will change the opt-out provision.
The final point that I wish to put on the record is about the transitional arrangements for 2014-15. I have said that we will undertake a modified canvass in 2014, and I explained in response to an intervention some of the rationale behind that. I have explained why we do not want to run a full canvass and then write to everybody shortly afterwards. The clear advice that we received from administrators was that that would be confusing and not very effective, as well as coming with a very large bill.
I believe that given what I have said, and given what will be in our response to the Select Committee’s report, which Members will see in the not-too-distant future, they will be reassured about how we are addressing the issue. Today, they can do what I asked them to do at the beginning of my remarks and vote against the motion in a constructive spirit and with confidence that we are listening carefully to the concerns that have been raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before we continue the debate, I point out to all hon. Members that the time limit now in operation for Back-Bench speakers will be eight minutes. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind in respect of the frequency with which they take interventions, because with an eight-minute limit, we will still not get all speakers in, and I am keen to do so if at all possible.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The Electoral Commission has said that the current proposals would be the biggest changes in registration since 1832. That reference to the 19th century is apt. In the 19th century, electoral change enfranchised men—much of it was geared around property ownership, but it was nevertheless progress. In the 20th century—I believe it was in 1920—the vote was extended to women. The 20th century will be remembered for that. The 21st century, however, could be remembered as the time when the Liberals and the Conservatives kept or chased 16 million British voters off the electoral register.
Chris Ruane
I have got the message, and I understand it: the message is about political gain. The Minister is right that his proposals should be judged on the impact they have on registration rates. We will hold him to that and I am glad he said it. He said his proposals would lead to a more accurate and more comprehensive register. We will be watching every step of the way.
I should also point out how the previous Labour Administration operated on crucial constitutional and electoral issues in their 13 years and beyond in office.
Chris Ruane
No, I will not.
The previous Administration operated in a consensual, co-operative, non-partisan way. I shall give three examples. We had a sufficient majority to foist first past the post on the devolved Assemblies and Parliament, but we did not do things the way Labour might have wanted. We were consensual and adopted proportional representation. In around 2000, Labour introduced PR for European elections. That meant Wales went from having five seats to one seat. Labour introduced PR for local government in Scotland. That was against Labour’s electoral best wishes, but we introduced it. We were consensual.
On registration, in 2001 Labour introduced a rule that took thousands if not millions off the register. We said, “If you don’t sign the register two years in a row, you go off it, even if we know you are still in that house.” We did that so that we could have an accurate register.
In 2009, we gained consensus on individual registration. I am in favour of individual registration if we have a comprehensive register to start with. Anything less than that will result in a greater and faster fall in the number of people who are registered. This Parliament has a reputation—it is known around the world as the mother of Parliaments—but if this coalition Government introduce legislation that ends up with 16 million people off the register, we will be laughed at around the world.
In 2009, when Labour introduced individual registration, we learned the lessons from Northern Ireland. We realised that there were 3.5 million off the register. The time scale that we came up with—a five or six-year period up to 2015—was sufficient to increase the number of registered voters. There was consensus and agreement on that. In the meantime, we improved data matches, commissioned more research and had stricter electoral registration officer invigilation. In 2010, we put an extra 400,000 people on the register.
We can compare and contrast that with what the Conservative-Liberal coalition has done. It has brought that date forward from 2015 to 2014, pushed back the date of the next election to 2015, introduced an opt-out, and changed the wording from “civic duty” to “lifestyle choice”. This is not happenstance: the Conservatives have a bigger and bolder vision. They failed with the poll tax in the 1990s to drive millions of poorer people off the register, but they are taking a second bite at the cherry. The Liberal Democrats should watch out. They might think they are doing well out of this, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) had one of the lowest registration rates in Wales, with 54% registration rates in Bronglais ward. It is an issue that affects Liberal Democrats as well as Labour, so they should be warned.
The Electoral Commission dropped two bombshells. One was that the number of unregistered people in the UK was not 3.5 million but 6 million, which will rise to 8.5 million. That was no bombshell to me, because I had met Experian 18 months previously and was told it was6 million. I gave that information to the Electoral Commission and people there almost laughed at it. They have commissioned research and they say that my 6 million is not the same 6 million as theirs. That means it could be even more, but the fact remains there were 6 million in December 2010, rising to 8.5 million by April 2011. The profile of those unregistered people is black and ethnic, young people living in houses in multiple occupation, the low paid and the unemployed. There are 6 million missing now, and potentially an additional 10 million if these proposals go ahead.
The proposed legislation will have unintended—or perhaps intended—consequences. I ask the Minister, who is jabbering away, what consultation he has had with the police on these issues, because much of the reduction in registration that will result from his legislation will be in areas with high levels of crime. I know that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police are not happy with the proposals. What consultations has the Minister had with the judiciary? These proposals will have a direct impact on jury service, as juries are selected from the electoral register. People will not be judged by a jury of their peers, but by a jury of some of their peers—often richer peers. The credit reference agencies use the electoral register, and the changes might push people towards loan sharks. Charities and fund-raising organisations are also concerned.
Chris Ruane
The freeze date for the next Boundary Commission review is December 2015. There will be a carry-over to the general election in May 2015, but there will be no carry-over to the 1 December deadline so we could see a reduction from 90% registration rates to 60%—an extra 10 million of the poorest people not on the register. If we think the boundary review is bad this time, it will be 10 times as bad in December 2015. I warn the Liberal Democrats again: they have bitten off more than they can chew and should think carefully.
I ask the Minister to listen not to me—he probably thinks I am biased—but to the Electoral Commission, and to the Electoral Reform Society which has described these measures as “catastrophic”. I ask him to listen to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the academics. All those bodies and people have massive reservations about these proposals.
The Minister mentioned developing countries. If we saw a developing country trying to shift a third of its poorest voters off the electoral register, we would send in observers in a heartbeat. We will become the laughing stock of the world if the Minister and his coalition partners introduce the legislation as proposed.
Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and I also welcome the aim of Members on both sides of the House to improve the system of electoral registration. It is important that everybody who is eligible to vote is on the electoral register, but I believe that the motion is misguided and, in parts, wrong. We all want the most accurate and up-to-date register of electors possible, with a system that is fit for the 21st century and offers better protection against fraud. We need, however, to be moderate and constructive in our tone and approach. I do not want to follow the direction taken by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), although I admire the tenacity shown in his speech.
I welcome the speech given by the shadow Secretary of State. It was moderate, much better than the motion, constructive and a determined attempt to breach the gulf that the motion suggests can be found in the House. I strongly support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister, who was constructive, positive and extremely moderate.
I believe that we should support all the principles behind individual elector registration. First, giving individuals control of their electoral registration is an important extension of the right to vote, individual responsibility and participatory democracy. Secondly, requiring electors to provide proof of identity will be an effective way of preventing fraud and anomalies in elections. Thirdly, we must prevent people from being added to the electoral roll who do not have the right to vote. Those are key questions that we are endeavouring to address through this reform.
I have concerns about the current system, which is outdated and potentially open to great abuse. The number of people who are not registered to vote is a worry. Millions of people across the country supposedly do not register to vote, either through choice or because they have not been adequately pursued by the electoral registration officers to return their forms by the deadline, and the Electoral Commission has given us a list of figures that shows how many millions are missing from the register.
Other issues distort the completeness of the register. I know that some people are left on the register when they have not returned a form, which is also a real concern. I have seen many cases of people being added to the register for a property they have moved into without the previous residents being crossed off. I regularly canvass across my constituency and I find at each session that many households in each road and block of flats are not on the register. An increasing number of people contact my office who are not on the electoral roll and that is unacceptable, as we want people to be on the roll so that we maximise their opportunities to participate.
I do not think that enough is done to pursue those who do not register to vote and I believe that that is detrimental to the democratic process. If people do not register, they are wasting their opportunity to vote and be part of the democratic process. If, ultimately, they do not want to turn out on election day and vote, that is their democratic right and choice. Although some councils are good at pursuing unregistered households, or those that have not returned their form, many others are not, and that needs to improve.
The next issue I want to raise is the potential abuse of the system. At present, there is no requirement for people to provide any evidence of their identity to register to vote, which leaves the system open to potential fraud. I am anxious about the number of people who are on the register but should not be, such as those who have been added by the head of the household. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the issue of proof of identity when someone goes to the polling station, which he mentioned in his excellent speech, and the need to ensure that the person who is entitled to vote is the person who has turned up claiming to be eligible.
I believe that under the current system insufficient checks are made to ensure that those who do not have the right to vote are not registered. I know of examples of that from across my borough. Some visitors, temporary residents and those who are here illegally are on the register. It has also been suggested that in urban areas, some landlords are the only person on the register for properties they rent out. That is unfair and wrong.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that in a random sample of 80 of our constituency cases involving those applying for citizenship, 15% were already on the electoral roll with no entitlement to be on it?
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a strong point. We have experienced that in my constituency as well; it is another area that we need to tighten up. I am grateful to him for his comment.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that people from Commonwealth countries do not need to be UK citizens to vote?
Mr Evennett
I am grateful for that comment. It is a fair point, and I note it and agree with it.
Giving individuals control of their own electoral registration is an important extension of the right to vote. We had a detailed history lesson from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd about when people got the vote, in what century and so forth. I think, though, that it is people’s responsibility to make the effort to ensure that they are on the register and that they participate. The current system is undoubtedly outdated, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, and dependent on somebody completing a form on behalf of everyone in the household. In this day and age, that cannot be acceptable. People should have the individual right to register.
I welcome the constructive comments that we have heard today about how to improve the proposals from my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that he will listen to and take many of them on board and implement the change to the betterment of our democracy, which is the whole point of this approach. The Electoral Commission has been calling for the introduction of IER since 2003 in order to reduce fraud and give individuals
“clear ownership of their right to vote”.
Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, executive director of Democratic Audit, said: “I welcome the proposals”. He thought that the change was long overdue.
The evidence suggests that electoral legislation will improve the completeness and accuracy of the electoral roll. I passionately believe that it will. We heard about Northern Ireland. Of course, there was a drop-off in the initial stages, but since getting under way it has returned to a reasonable registration level—and probably a better one than we have experienced here.
It is true that there is a huge turnover in rented properties. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether housing associations can be more helpful and involved in the promotion of IER. They have a role and could help to ensure that the register is more accurate. I am thinking, in particular, about literature and encouraging people to participate by getting themselves on the register.
I hope that the Government will assure us that there are sufficient resources for electoral registration officers to publicise the change and undertake the tasks. Maladministration should not get in the way of democracy. I also encourage the Minister to look at the necessary legislation and encourage councils, where possible, to improve data sharing between departments. The accuracy of the electoral register would improve if social services and council tax departments could advise their electoral registration departments of any changes so that the latter can pursue them with the relevant households.
My own council, Bexley council, is considering a “tell us once” policy in respect of all administrative changes, and I urge other councils to try to do the same. It would certainly help if people, when they move or have social services changes, can inform the council once, rather than having to contact endless numbers of departments. I believe that that would improve the electoral register.
I welcome the Government’s conciliatory, constructive and moderate approach to this issue and the commitment from my hon. Friend the Minister that care will be taken to introduce the new system without losing voters from the register. I welcome the sensible change that will take place over the year and the fact that, we hope, there will be more people on the register and more people wanting to vote. It is part of our job to encourage people to participate more in the democratic system, so we need not just to get them on the register but to get them out and voting. I hope that changing to individual registration might be one way forward.
Duncan Hames
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of individual voter registration provides an opportunity to work in schools to get young people on the electoral register earlier, even if they still have to wait until 18 for the vote, so that they have the opportunity to practise registering twice before it really matters?
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Education is very important. When I visit schools, I try to encourage everyone in the sixth form to participate, get on the register and vote when the time comes.
Today’s motion does not do justice to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). We are looking to improve the system and I welcome the Government’s proposals to do just that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I rise not to oppose individual registration but to ask Members from all parts of the House not to throw away household registration without understanding the benefits it brings. No system brings perfection, but in the words of the great Joni Mitchell, “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.”
I would suggest that in my constituency and other urban areas such as south London under-representation on the register among young people will be made worse by the quick introduction of individual registration. That was brought home to me at the last election. As I walked through Mitcham town centre on election day 2010, large numbers of young people came up to me and said, “Oh, hi Siobhain! I just wanted to say that we’ve been out to vote.” I thought, “Great!”—I did not ask who they had voted for; the point was that they had been out to vote. It made me think about mums as electoral registration officers as often it is the head of the household who puts those young people on the register, and getting those young people to sign a form to get on the register, which requires their name, address, date of birth and national insurance number, will be a difficult feat that will take several years.
I ask the House not to despise our experience of actual elections. Who was it who told us that the Child Support Agency did not work, if not our individual voters and constituents? We all know how difficult it is to get people to register and to vote. We also know the practical difficulties with all the mail that we receive in our households every day, where somebody can come along, pick it up and throw it in the bin. Where there are four, five or six electoral registration forms, how successfully do we really believe each one will actually be completed?
Much mention has been made of the 11% reduction in the electoral register in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland as a community is so far removed from my constituency as to be another continent. We have a different turnover of people on the electoral register; we have a different, multi-ethnic make-up. Who is it who does not vote? It is, yes, young people and people with private tenancies or in houses in multiple occupation; but it is also some—but not all—ethnic minorities. If we look at America, which has individual electoral registration, as well as a difficult history of voter representation among some communities, we see that registration among the under-25s is about 58.5%, while six in 10 of those who rent privately are not on the register. Conversely, 80% of those with an income of over $100,000 a year are registered. Therefore, those who are rich are two thirds more likely to be on the electoral register than those who are poor.
We get rid of the annual canvass at our peril. At the moment, with one electoral form per household, only 65% of people in even a wealthy borough such as Merton in my constituency return their forms without the canvass. That figure later goes up, to 97%, because of the canvass and the encouragement, and also because of the threat of fines. That is what gets those forms returned and gets the canvass up, and at the moment we are asking for one form from every household. We are not asking for multiple forms.
Data matching is presented as the holy grail that will sort this issue out. However, as we have discovered from the investigation done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the electoral register is the most accurate of all our databases. Electoral registration officers have told us that when they cross-reference with the Department for Work and Pensions register, it tells them what they already know. It does not tell them what they do not know. Indeed, each of the Government’s six pilots to look at individual registration has faced increased costs, of between 50% and 100%, for electoral registration officers. I ask all Members here this evening: how likely are their councils to increase their funding by that amount, at a time when they are reducing spending on social services, education and all the things that our constituents come to see us about?
There is talk of fraud in electoral registration, but I would suggest that our problem is not an inflated electoral register but one whose figures are too low. My anxiety is not related to party considerations. I will fight in my constituency to win as many votes as I can get; like most Members, I love elections. I love the fight, and the arguments about the issues. That is what encourages us to get involved, and it is our role to get as many people as possible on to the register. However, if we do anything to alienate those groups in our society that are already alienated, we will bear the brunt of that action. The riots that we saw last summer will be repeated if more people begin to believe that they have nothing invested in the system.
I believe that registering and voting involve a social contract. People register to become part of the system and, in return, they can claim the benefits that they are entitled to, and they can get a library card, a driving licence or whatever. If we undo that social contract, we will find it very difficult to put that genie back in the bottle and get more electors on to the register. Individual registration is fine, but the Government should not get rid of household registration until they are absolutely sure that the young men and women of 18, 19 and 20 in constituencies such as mine will register to vote without the benefit of their mum registering them.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I welcome this debate, and the consensual approach that has been taken by those on both Front Benches. That approach was not taken by the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who is no longer in his place, but I pay tribute to him for speaking with great passion on these matters. He genuinely cares about them, and he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of just about all the 1,900 electoral districts in Wales. He is attempting to set up an all-party group on this subject, which I think will attract widespread support in the House.
I hope that the debate will encourage the Government to take all the necessary measures to ensure that we have a register that is as complete as possible, that leaves us less open to fraud, and that, critically, enfranchises those who have not had ownership of their vote in recent years. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but we are all mindful of the recent report from the Electoral Commission, which showed that at least 6 million people who were eligible were not registered in December 2010. That figure could grow significantly if this matter is not handled with care.
We have heard concerns expressed over the potential for fraud. There is consensus over individual electoral registration, and it is important to reiterate that IER is not about a choice between integrity and completeness; if it is done in the correct way, it can be a means of achieving both. During the consultation on IER last year, my noble Friend Lord Tyler and I—on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Back-Bench committee on these matters—reiterated our party’s support for individual electoral registration, but we also highlighted our concerns over implementation, and we continue to do so. In particular, we believe that the legal requirement to register should remain.
I was pleased to hear last autumn that the Government will be looking again at the opt-out suggestion, and that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has reiterated that intention. I hope that the Government will continue in that vein and reflect on the legal requirement to register. I commend to the House the debate in the House of Lords that my noble Friend Lord Rennard conducted last Thursday, in which he observed that one of the main strengths of the existing registration system was that it was based on a legal requirement to register. That is also the view of electoral registration officers.
Prosecutions under the current offence are of course minimal; there were only 144 in the past year. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned the civic duty to register, and I would suggest that that is strengthened by phrases being included on the registration form. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd also mentioned this, giving an example of people being told that they had to register every year by law, and being informed of the penalties for not doing so. I am not suggesting that we should extend the £1,000 penalty, but having a fixed-term penalty is a suggestion worth reflecting on. Without it, we run the risk of thousands of people not bothering to register. Whether those on the list choose to exercise the franchise is quite another matter and not what we are discussing today. I do not believe that there is a consensus on removing the legal requirement. The Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform—I see in his place its Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—made that point very strongly.
The Government could be described as making—I hesitate to say this—a liberal argument for removing any sense of compulsion, but I feel that this duty is more of a burden to the state and the local authorities that have to chase the data than to any individual. There is little feeling now that compulsory registration is a burden for householders. I do not believe it would be a burden for individuals, but what we risk doing is undermining an important civic duty that, critically, will have knock-on implications in areas where we rely on electoral registration data, such as for jury service, as the newly elected hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) was the first to point out. Jury service was not even considered as part of the Government’s impact assessment.
The key point, I feel, is that the worst possible time to remove the legal requirement is when we are changing the system we use. Individual electoral registration can be adopted without removing a legal requirement to register; indeed, it can be enhanced. In that spirit, I agree with the Select Committee’s recommendation of making it an offence to fail to complete the voter registration form, which could then be reviewed at the end of five years.
The second area of potential contention is the annual canvass—a canvass that will, if anything, be even more important in 2014. We must ensure that the changes to the system of registration are communicated and that, as usual, as many people are added to the register as possible. I would like to hear more from the Minister about what he means by the amended canvass. He has talked about putting in place a new system under which every voter will be contacted, but there is something special about the full household canvass. In particular, how will the Minister get to those hard-to-reach groups? He has indicated a willingness to look further at the issue of the 2014 canvass, but I want to reiterate how important this is for those hard-to-reach groups. It is important for them to have the ability not just to vote, but, as we have heard, to access credit. One of the first items checked by credit references companies is whether someone is on the electoral register.
I have mentioned and commended the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd who has on many occasions highlighted the example of one ward in my constituency. This ward combines the huge challenge—the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), like me, a former student of Aberystwyth university will understand this—of comprising a large student community, a huge number of houses in multiple occupancy and areas that are designated “deprived”. [Interruption.] I apologise, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is another who will know this for the same reason. IER will fail those constituents if they are not given the chance—indeed, the incentive—to register.
Without reopening the whole issue of the redrawing of constituency boundaries, with which my colleagues with Welsh constituencies are coming to terms, I have to say that the spectre of the system of voter registration—not a move in the population or a decline in the population determining the size of a constituency—remains a big concern. Our Back-Bench committee also has concerns about ending the transitional stage in 2015. Clearly, given the importance of a complete register to the 2015 boundary review, it would also make sense for the transitional phase to encompass both that review and elections to the devolved Administrations and local authorities in 2016.
I think there is a growing consensus on those concerns, but I commend the Government for their work on data-matching pilots and I am encouraged by what we have heard about the experience of Northern Ireland in respect of schools. We need to use the enrolment process in universities to sign up students. The Government are undertaking a welter of other schemes, involving the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Passport Office. I believe that the Government are in listening mode. They have listened to date and have taken heed of many of the concerns we have raised. I hope that that will continue. We will support the Government tonight, but on the basis that the listening approach will continue.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I want to raise two specific concerns, the first of which is that although some of the changes are welcome, they are characteristic of a Government who are too frequently looking through the wrong end of the microscope and thus finding the wrong solutions to the wrong problems. The second concern is about making major changes to electoral registration while substantial changes are to take place as a result of boundary reorganisation. No part of the UK will be hit worse by this than my country, Wales.
There is surely consensus that the preferred outcome is that all adults who are entitled to vote should be registered. Everyone should be on the electoral roll and have the opportunity to cast their vote at elections. The principle of individual electoral registration is positive—that electors should take upon themselves the responsibility to register to vote in their own right rather than under the aegis of a household. All relevant people should be willing and able to register and should have the same opportunity to do so. However, there might be a disconnect between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome in that although relevant people may register, they might not all actually do so. The Minister said that the Government hoped to learn lessons from Northern Ireland, and I look forward to seeing some of the resulting changes in the Bill. However, I believe that when the changes were introduced in Northern Ireland in 2002—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) might wish to correct me—there was a fall of 11% in registered electors, and it has taken more than 10 years to rebuild the figures.
According to the White Paper, an estimated 3.5 million people of voting age across England and Wales were not on the electoral roll at the most recent estimate. The Electoral Commission reported in December 2010 that 6 million people were not registered across the UK. It is unclear to me how IER, which creates a greater barrier to registration, will achieve a closer parity to ensure that as many people as possible are on the electoral roll.
If the White Paper is to be believed, then fear of electoral fraud is the major reason for a change to individual electoral registration and for this happening before the next Westminster election. The White Paper refers to the findings of an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe report regarding the recommendation of an identification requirement to safeguard against fraudulent registration. However, the OSCE was informed of that problem by representatives of political parties when they gave evidence, so this is a circular argument. We tell the OSCE there is a problem, it writes a report saying that we have identified a problem and then we use its report to justify action. That is not evidence-based decision making.
From the testimony provided in the White Paper, it seems that fear of fraud rather than actual fraud is the problem. The attitudinal survey quoted in the White Paper is evidence not that the current system is not working but merely that media stories have raised awareness of the possibility of fraud. Those are two very different things. Perhaps for my party more than anything else I am concerned that the proposals, which aim to tackle what appears to be limited electoral fraud, might lead to unintended consequences.
Electoral registration has greater relevance than ever following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which the Minister drove through last year. The Act will create constituencies designed to have voter numbers within 5% of a UK constituency mean that is predicated upon the number of electors on the electoral roll rather than in the actual adult population. That is the key point. As we have consistently said in our criticisms, the formation of these new constituencies ignores community, historical and geographical links. We saw that last week in Wales, where some of the proposed constituencies are not very practical.
We are also worried by the size of some of the proposed mega-constituencies in Wales of more than 1,500 square miles, which is an incredible size. Apart from that, to be fair, the Boundary Commission for Wales has done a good job, especially in Carmarthenshire. My point, though, is that non-registration becomes crucial because not only are non-registered people disfranchised and unable to vote but their non-registration increases the actual population of the constituency. Full registration must therefore be the principal aim of any change in registration, and it is very unclear from the Government’s proposals to date how the changes will bring that about.
The same is true of suggestions that a voluntary registration scheme should be introduced. The Electoral Commission estimates that a voluntary registration scheme, as suggested in paragraph 74 of the White Paper, may see a significant drop in the number of relevant adults on the electoral register, from around 90% to as low as 65%. That would clearly not assist in full registration, and given the introduction of the new population link for constituency boundaries, the impact of the change would be significant and would require the electoral map to be wholly redrawn once again to reflect the changes and ignore those we might describe as the non-people, as well as potentially disfranchising more than a third of our adult population. As we already know, electoral participation is skewed towards particular parts of society and to lose the participation of those who are more transitory or migratory, and less interested in politics, would have a strong impact on our society and our politics.
I have been very good by butchering my speech to keep it within eight minutes. I conclude by noting that I hold deep reservations that the measures proposed in the White Paper will not assist in increasing the number of adults on the electoral register, and may have negative unintended consequences on voter registration and constituencies. Electoral registration is an issue that must have cross-party consensus and I hope that that can be achieved before any changes are introduced.
Mr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
We have heard a lot this afternoon about lack of registration, but I am particularly keen to talk about the number of fraudulent applications on electoral registers. As a consequence, I welcome the Government’s plans for an overhaul of the electoral registration process.
Ever since the introduction of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which allowed postal voting on demand, we have witnessed abuses across the country. Under election law, anyone from a Commonwealth country can vote in a general election if they are resident in the UK, but names can be added to the electoral roll and people can become eligible for a postal vote without anyone checking their identities or whether they are actually in the country. At the last election, the Metropolitan police examined 28 claims of major abuses across 12 London boroughs against accusations that political activists were packing the electoral roll at the last minute with the names of relatives living overseas, or were simply inventing phantom voters.
During my election campaign in 2010, we saw an increase in the number of postal vote applications from homes in multiple occupation. It was certainly a contrast to the number of voters in single-family homes. I have also received many anecdotal comments from constituents who witnessed the fact that there were duplicate names and mass entries on the register from houses and flats with a small number of bedrooms. I have discussed the issue with my local authority, which has confirmed its active interest in such irregularities.
I stress that I have no criticism of the professionalism of the electoral returning officer and her staff. They find themselves in a position where they have to follow the registration process, which includes sending two forms to households and if no response is received following that up with a canvasser. In some cases, local authorities remove the names, but Barnet allows names to roll over to the following year. The Government’s proposals will remove that uncertainty and we shall know exactly who is in the property and when.
In September last year, I raised with the Leader of the House the problem of individuals who make multiple applications at different addresses by registering at a property they own but at which they do not reside. He said in his response:
“It is an offence to provide false information to electoral returning officers, and if that happens I hope they would pursue it. As my hon. Friend will know, we are introducing individual electoral registration, which will reduce the opportunity for fraud because people will have to provide some evidence of identity before they are added to the register.—[Official Report, 8 September 2011; Vol. 532, c.561-2.]
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the hon. Gentleman address the point that his Government’s assessment of the proposal admits that fraudulent over-registration is rare?
Mr Offord
The Government can say that, but I can only speak on behalf of my constituents; we have found evidence to the contrary.
I have reported some of my suspicions to the Metropolitan police but their response was a scratching of their collective head. I reported the accusations to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan- Howe and received a response from Detective Chief Superintendent Richard Martin of the specialist crime directorate who advised me:
“As you correctly state it is within the will of the Police to investigate issues relating to Electoral Offences…In exercising this discretion the Commissioner must take into account the public interest in pursuing a criminal investigation.”
The list cited by DCS Martin for lack of action by the police included
“whether an alternative remedy is available, whether an investigation has been undertaken by a regulatory body or governing profession, whether civil as opposed to criminal proceedings would lead to a more appropriate solution, whether the matters have become stale, the extent to which criminal proceedings may amount to an abuse of the legal process, the proportionality of instigating a police investigation having regard to the stigma which attaches to a criminal conviction”.
All those mean that the police will not take any action.
The Government say that, in addition to trust and security, ensuring that the electoral register is as complete as possible is central to the credibility of our electoral system and the basis of our democratic process, and we all agree on that here today, but the current system for registering to vote relies on trust that those who register are indeed eligible.
As Labour Front Benchers have tabled the motion, they need to answer some questions, particularly about a candidate in the Greater London authority elections who resides in Westminster, in Westbourne Grove, and registers himself on the electoral register with his girlfriend at his permanent residence, but has continued to allow himself to be registered at a second property he owns in the London borough of Barnet that is inhabited by his tenant. If that is not legally wrong, it is certainly morally wrong, and it is dishonest to mislead voters into presuming that the candidate lives locally.
Where would Labour Front Benchers say that that person lived? For sure, many Members of the House have access to two properties, and the law states that people who have two homes are allowed to register at both addresses, but it is an offence to vote more than once in a general election, although such people may vote in both areas at local elections. The Representation of the People Act also states that the person may register only at an address where they are freely able to return. That means people such as students living at their parents’ home, or even MPs returning to a family home in their constituency who have a property in London. It does not include landlords who rent out their properties and then decide that it may be electorally advantageous to them to maintain their entry on a second electoral register elsewhere from their permanent residence.
I shall vote against the Opposition motion—not solely on partisan lines, but because the measures outlined by the Government will address concerns of which I have experience. The proposal that every elector will have to register individually and provide identifying information that will be used to verify their entitlement to be included on the electoral register is vital. Only once their application has been verified can a person be added to the register.
In addition, the Government’s proposal to change electoral registration legislation to put in place a framework that reflects more closely how people choose to engage with the Government and create flexibility for the system to keep pace with technological developments is another initiative that I welcome. That will help to make registration easier, more convenient and more efficient, opening the way for other methods of registration, such as telephone and online. Those are all areas that younger people are particularly keen on. The idea of completing a paper form that comes through the door each autumn or when people move house is as antiquated as electoral law itself.
These measures will help to restore trust in the electoral system, which has been eroded in the past decade by legislation that was perhaps well meaning, but which was wide open to abuse. I believe that that is what most of us here want, so I shall support the Government on the issue.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House for necessarily being out of the Chamber at about 4 o’clock. I apologise in particular to the Minister, who is always most courteous in such circumstances.
If the House has any sacred duty, and that is arguable, it is that we should ensure that the British people are able to elect those of us who come to this Chamber. That is one of the most important things that any of us in the House can stand up for and fight for. Today, we have a chance to do that, but we need to consider one other thing. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) was right to talk about abuse of the electoral registration system, but the biggest abuse of that system is not the five or six cases nationwide that went to court on fraud charges, but the fact that all of us in the Chamber have at least 10,000 people in our constituency who are not on the register to vote. That is the biggest abuse, and it is the most important thing to put right when we look at individual voter registration.
Siobhain McDonagh
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the ICM poll for the Electoral Commission, which has been cited as the basis for much of the legislation, barely 2% of people thought that registering to vote was very unsafe, and that 20 times as many people were satisfied with the way in which they registered to vote as the number who were dissatisfied?
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend makes her case eloquently, and she is a great champion of ensuring that members of the public in her constituency and elsewhere are on the register. We need to support that sentiment, and only we in the Chamber can do so.
We do that partly through the activities of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, which I am fortunate to chair. It is an active Committee, and some of its members are in the Chamber: my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who spoke on behalf of the Committee when I was absent due to ill health when this matter was last debated.
We have worked together, and we have worked with the Government, to try to make the proposal better. Given the exchanges that have taken place, the House is in severe danger of doing the job that members of the public elected it to do. The Government have submitted a pre-legislative proposal to the Select Committee, which is how things should happen. The Select Committee responded with non-partisan efforts to determine a better Bill and to make better proposals, some of which have already been heard by the Government. Today, we are having a measured debate. There may not be a great drama if we tend to agree on a number of the issues, but that is what the House should do when proposed legislation is introduced, so that we end up with better legislation.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech and an important contribution to the debate. Will he comment on the concerns, particularly in urban areas, about the change to individual registration without safeguards? Those of us who represent such areas will have far more people to represent, often with far greater problems.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend, as always, is well ahead of me, and I shall come on to those points.
Something that unites everyone in the House is the feeling that individual voter registration is right. We have heard concern from Members from all parts of the House that unless the measure is implemented effectively we could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I do not think that anyone wants that to happen. Listening to us in the House and making sure that this is done properly will ensure that the measure—what the Electoral Commission called the “biggest change” in the franchise since the introduction of universal suffrage—is implemented effectively so that everyone can benefit, rather than partially or going off at half-cock and getting it all wrong.
Our anxiety in the Select Committee fell into several parts. The blockbuster came when we heard from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the fact that if we did not do this right, not only might 10,000 people on average in every constituency not appear on the register, as only 90% of people would register, but that that figure could drop by a third, making the situation even worse, perhaps going down to 60%. That was a shock to the Select Committee and to members of all parties represented on it. I know that that is not the Minister’s intention, and that he will keep listening to ensure that as many people as possible are on the register.
Our anxieties—I shall put them to the Minister again—covered a number of areas. First, I pay tribute to him and to his colleagues for listening to what we had to say on the opt-out: the tick box saying “Don’t bother me any more. I don’t want to be registered. Leave me alone.” The fact that the Government listened to those representations very early bodes well for future amendments.
Secondly, on the issue of registration and whether non-registration should be an offence, I ask the Government to think again. We heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said about the evidence from Rhyl. He made a compelling case that there may well be a better way to deal with the matter. Perhaps it is not by means of a £1,000 fine or by taking up half the space of the form with bold red capitals, but maybe it is. I ask the Government to take the matter away and think again. There are people who need a little encouragement, a little nudge to register, and across the House we should consider the best way to do that.
My third point concerns the full household canvass. I do not know whether the Minister said anything about that, but I hope he is keeping an open mind as the process develops. One of the particular concerns of the Committee were the areas that already have high rates of under-registration. We need to consider whether there is something we can do across the board or in those specific circumstances to ensure that something is done in areas that are brought to our attention as having a large unregistered population. I hope the Minister will look at that.
Another point that came up repeatedly was the funding of electoral registration officers. I will not get into the subject of local government expenditure and reductions, but we cannot put a price on democracy. If additional resources are needed or existing resources ought to be ring-fenced, we would all commend the Government for thinking further about that. I say no more than that. I do not offer a magic solution. I do not propose any more than was suggested in Committee, but I hope that electoral registration and returning officers locally are given the sort of support that will enable thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of people to participate in our democracy, as is their right.
I guess colleagues have very much in mind yet another redistribution of parliamentary seats and boundary changes. If there is a catastrophic fall in the numbers of people on the registers, all of us, regardless of party, nation or region within the United Kingdom, will again face the merry-go-round of boundary redistribution. All I will say to the Minister is that if this debate is an exemplar of the way we can conduct our business in the House and reach as close to consensus as we can, perhaps the way in which previous Bills have been dealt with is an example of how not to do it. Let us not inadvertently have a rerun of the boundary changes under which we are all labouring now, with the accidental reduction of a register causing yet another boundary change. I hope that lesson can be learned, otherwise Members in the House will be representing numbers rather than places and people.
Finally, I commend the Government and my Front-Bench team for the way we have managed through the parliamentary process—of course there have been the ding-dongs, the public exchange of insults and so on—to make a better proposal than we started with. I hope very much that the Government, who have listened, will continue to listen and that we will have a piece of legislation that we can be proud of and that introduces individual voter registration in a way that we would all want.
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)
I would like to cover a couple of elements connected with the prospective legislation though perhaps not the main business. The Minister makes eye contact with me, so I am sure he can imagine what one of those elements will be. First, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and his Committee for the work that they have done, although I take issue with one aspect of that, to which I shall return as the second of my two points.
My first point relates to multiple property owners. The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord) referred to this issue, but it has a particular resonance in constituencies such as mine where many properties are second or holiday homes. I pay tribute to a local campaigner, Mr Angus Lamond, who stood as an independent candidate for Cornwall council in the first elections to that new authority in 2009. He stood in a coastal ward with a high number of such properties and noticed that their owners were being targeted in a particular way to get them out to vote. According to the Electoral Commission’s guidance, it seems that many of them should not have been on the local electoral register, because we are talking not about people who divide their time relatively equally between two places, but about those who spend a few weekends or a few weeks in the summer in their properties and who are, according to my definition, in no way resident in the community. Some of those people have had second homes for many years and play an active role in the community, for example by fundraising for the local lifeboat, but as a general principle it ought to be the people who live in the community who get to vote, particularly in local authority elections.
I have been told that it is perfectly legal for people to be registered in a number of places and to vote in other local elections on the same day by postal vote. I would like us to consider whether that is right, because by allowing that we are effectively saying that those who are fortunate enough to own more than one property can have more of a say in what goes on in this country than those who are not, and I find that very difficult. If we are to have a system that recognised that some people genuinely live in two parts of the country for different parts of the year, whether because of their business lives, family circumstances or studies, I do not have a problem with making them specify which home they regard as their primary address. If one is talking to our great friends in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for capital gains purposes—famously, some former Members might have juggled the property they registered with HMRC as their normal residence—one should have to specify where and in which community ones lives.
If we are to have an electoral system based on constituency mandate—I, of course, favour a more proportional system—that mandate is very important and should be the same for local and national elections. Is there really a problem otherwise? Two of the constituencies in Cornwall were decided at the last general election by small majorities: one changed hands with a majority of 66 and the other was won by fewer than 500 votes. I am in no way criticising the duly elected Members of Parliament for those constituencies, who I am sure won fair and square; I am merely making the point that we are talking about sometimes very narrow margins of victory.
Sheila Gilmore
I am not convinced that the current proposals will address the problem that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I wonder what his view is of the coalition Government’s decision not to go ahead with the system proposed by the previous Government, which would have enabled such cross-checking. Under the current proposals, so long as an elector provides their local electoral registration officer with their identifier, they could still register in more than one place, which I think is what he believes to be a problem.
Dan Rogerson
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I have discussed this with the Minister informally and in meetings, including one that involved the constituent I mentioned earlier. I am seeking to urge the Minister to do all he can to provide local electoral registration officers with the tools they need for cross-checking so that they can be confident that the people who are presented to them are resident in the community. In the best-case scenario, we have people who are on the register and who scrupulously ensure that they vote in two places only in local elections and only in one place in general elections. Of course, some of them might vote in both places in a general election, or even in three or four places. Realistically, what electoral registration officer will have the wherewithal to indentify where an elector’s other properties are and to get hold of the marked register for those places in order to perform that cross-checking? I am genuinely concerned about that and hope that the Minister will take my comments on board and look at what can be done.
There are further connected issues. If we as a Government are moving towards more consultative referendums locally on planning and local plans, I can see a slight diversion of interest in an area between those who have a second home and those who are trying desperately to secure an affordable home when it comes to what the local plan says about, for example, the provision of affordable housing and where it might be located.
The same thing might be said of a referendum under the Localism Act 2011 to vary council tax upwards in order to provide local services, with local authorities quite rightly having to make the case to the electorate on such issues. People who are not so involved in the services in an area may still have a view on having to pay for them. The flipside of that argument is no taxation without representation, but that does not apply to council tax. With business rates, people have a big stake in a local community, but they have not had the opportunity to vote in local elections for a long time, and we should see people who have the luxury of a second property as being more in line with people who operate a business in that area, rather than as a resident paying council tax. I urge the Minister to ensure that that question is addressed as we move forward.
My second point, on which I disagree slightly with the report by the Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, is about the edited register, which does a huge amount of good for business. We have heard already about tackling credit card fraud, and the agencies that pursue it often use the edited register. The Salvation Army and others do fantastic work in reuniting separated families, and it has told me how much it relies on the edited register to do so. Many other practitioners in the field reunite people who have been adopted with their birth parents, and other family members who have lost contact with each other.
Work is undertaken on dormant assets and matters of probate, and the people involved all make use of the edited register, so I hope that when the Minister comes to legislate he will think carefully about how that aspect of the register is treated. I accept that for reasons of safety people should be able to opt out, and we have that safeguard in place already, but when the edited register meets so many demands in society it ought to be a provision that we retain. Charity fundraisers, a category that I did not mention, also make great use of the register, so before we throw it out we should look at what it achieves.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) on the importance of a canvass in the run-up to a general election, and many have made the point that a 2014 canvass would help a great deal with preparations for the next general election. So, although I shall happily support the Government tonight, I urge the Minister to consider carefully the key issues of the edited register and second-home voters.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am going to reduce the time limit to six minutes in an attempt to get everybody into this part of the debate, which is due to end at 6.40 pm for the Front Benchers’ winding-up speeches. We may have a little latitude.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, which gives us the chance to consider what sort of democracy we want in this country. There is, as several Members have said, a distinct choice when it comes to how we see voting: it is either a civic duty or, at the other end of the spectrum, a consumer choice. The current system is clearly based on the principle of civic duty, but I note the Minister’s earlier description of the second form as an invitation to register, and the Government’s proposals move us significantly towards the consumer choice end of the spectrum.
Notwithstanding the Government’s back-pedalling on the opt-out, which I welcome, there remains substantial concern across the board about the impact of their proposals on the number of people who will be knocked off the electoral register. We know who those people are: they are those who are more mobile, younger people, those from black and minority ethnic communities, and those who are poorer.
I recognise the case for individual voter registration, but I am not convinced that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, particularly if it is implemented in the way the Government plan. Household registration is effectively a census. It is a statement of all those who live in a house and are eligible to vote. Individual registration, without the efforts to secure the registration of every individual being substantially enhanced, is an unambiguous move towards consumer choice. Far from strengthening registration efforts, the Government’s plans will weaken them.
Let me share a tale of two constituencies—mine and that of my neighbour, the Deputy Prime Minister. Mine is in the heart of the city, it is multicultural, and it has large council estates, houses in multiple occupation and two universities. Already, 17% of households have nobody on the register. The Deputy Prime Minister’s seat consists largely of Sheffield’s leafy suburbs and is the only traditionally Conservative seat in south Yorkshire. It has only 4% of households with nobody on the register. Assuming that we both had an average constituency of 74,000 registered voters, the Deputy Prime Minister would represent 77,000 people and I would represent 89,000. If we sank to a level of 60% registration and the boundaries were redrawn, I would represent 123,000 people —nearly twice as many.
Taken with the boundary changes, the effect of this system is clear: in 2015, people in seats such as mine will be substantially under-represented and people in seats such as the Deputy Prime Minister’s will be over-represented. That will be exacerbated in 2020. The Deputy Prime Minister has, rather extravagantly, compared his ambitions for our democracy with the Great Reform Act of 1832. However, this is the Great Reform Act in reverse. That Act increased representation in our cities. The drift of the Government’s agenda for our democracy will reduce representation in our cities.
I will mention one particular sector of voters, young people, who were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). In many households that I canvassed in the lead-up to the general election, it was clear that there were young people on the register who would not have been on it if it had not been for mum and dad putting them there. Because they were on it, they said, after discussion, that they would vote, although not necessarily for me.
One section of young people that has raised its concerns directly with me is students. I understand why the Deputy Prime Minister might not be keen on students voting in quite the same numbers at the next general election as at the last. At the university of Sheffield, there is block registration of all eligible students in university accommodation. That will end with the proposed legislation. One student officer at the university, Harry Horton, made a strong case that he asked me to raise. He pointed out that students often move houses on an annual basis, and sometimes even more regularly. Students also often live in houses in multiple occupancy. When registering to vote, any member of the household can fill in the form on behalf of the whole group and register everyone together. That makes a difficult process much easier and ultimately increases turnout in elections. It is easier to convince one person to do a job than eight.
The same sort of case can be made for all the groups that are likely to lose out as a result of the Government’s measures. I do not have the time to go through them. I say simply that if the Government do not think again, it will be no wonder if the legislation is seen by many as gerrymandering—putting party advantage before democratic benefit.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
May I add my plaudits to those of hon. Members who have gone before? I do not wish to play Yoko to the John of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) in this love-in. However, I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has brought forward this proposal. As a newly elected Member of Parliament, I think this is exactly the way in which legislation should be introduced and discussed. It should be done in a considered way in order to develop legislation that works for people. The reason we are here is to have legislation that improves the lot of our country.
The Minister has been generous with his time. There has been a huge amount of pre-legislative scrutiny in the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and he has been incredibly generous in discussing the issues that we have raised with him in a number of grillings. Not only that, he has gone away and thought about the issues and come back to the Committee with changes and amendments. That has helped the work of the Committee. I also pay tribute to our Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North. He has managed to unite a group of MPs with wide-ranging views on this issue in the report. I commend it to all colleagues.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), in the kind of speech that we have become accustomed to expect from him, prayed in aid the Electoral Commission in saying that this policy was a throwback to ancient times and a terrible thing. The reality is that in all the deliberations and discussions of the Committee and among all the people who gave evidence to us, not one person said that they did not believe that individual elector registration was the right thing to do. We should bear that in mind.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who made a considered and conciliatory argument. I appreciated the tone of his speech. The constituents who are avidly watching this debate in Burton and across the country will appreciate that this is an incredibly important issue. It is to our credit that we are conducting this debate in the way that we are.
In the few minutes that I have, I want to talk first about the principle. It cannot be right that in 2012 we are clinging to a patriarchal or matriarchal system in which the head of the household is responsible for whether people are registered to vote in general elections. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is no longer in her place, talked about the relationship between people and the Government as a contract. She went on to say that the relationship was not between a person and the Government, but between their mum and the Government, because it was their mum who had registered them.
Opposition Members have talked about the increasing number of people who are not registered to vote. I gently point out that it was under 13 years of Labour Administration and under the current system that those numbers increased. I argue that individual voter registration —giving people a connection with, a right to and responsibility for their vote—could, if it is used properly, connect with people at an early age and encourage them to take an interest in whether they should vote.
I urge the Minister to take on board the potential of new technology. I recently registered to change the photograph on my driving licence. The 18 months or so since I had become an MP had taken a toll and I needed to change the picture. The Government gateway was an amazing tool. I went on, registered and gave some basic information, and three days later my new photo driving licence arrived with my photograph and my signature. That kind of technology could be hugely helpful in getting people to register to vote.
One issue is people registering on the electoral register to commit fraud. I point, of course, to the recent report by the Metropolitan Police Service, which analysed 29,000 pieces of information that had been found on forged and counterfeit documents. Forty-five per cent. of the addresses were on the electoral register fraudulently. It is clear that people are using the ease with which one can get on the electoral register to commit fraud.
I urge the Minister to continue to listen. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is grateful for his changes to the tick-box system, but we have some concerns about the roll-over in 2014. We ask that he consider the recommendations in our report on the use of specific, targeted resources in areas where there is low registration, to ensure that everybody has the right to vote.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Under the Government’s proposals as they stand, people who do not register individually by the end of autumn 2015 will find themselves removed from the register, and therefore ineligible to vote. That will have a particular effect in Wales, because the Welsh Assembly Government elections and all-out council elections will both take place in 2016. What happens in the autumn of 2015 is therefore crucial, and taking liberties with experimentation at that time does not seem the best way forward. However, given that the Government propose that programme, I should like to suggest some ways in which matters could be improved.
It is obviously very important that every effort is made to ensure that individual registration is carried out effectively and does not result in a drop in registration from 90% to 65%, which is what the Electoral Commission has suggested may happen. We are proud of our reputation as a well respected democracy, and we should ensure that our voter registration percentage is as high as possible.
I certainly welcome the use of cross-referencing, with the use of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for example, to help identify those who have not registered. However, we need far more than that to make a success of the reform. As the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has stated:
“The Government should publish a detailed implementation plan alongside the introduction of legislation”
for individual elector registration, so that electoral registration officers and the Electoral Commission can comment on its feasibility. We need to know what measures the Government will take and what resources they will use to maximise voter registration and ensure that some of the most vulnerable groups in the most deprived areas are not disfranchised.
It seems very confusing that the household will send back the household survey form, and then people will also have to return individual forms. A lot of people will think that they have already registered, and there will be plenty of complaints about both the bureaucracy and cost of the process.
How will the Government maximise registration and prevent a dramatic drop in registration rates? We need both sanctions and incentives. Several Members have mentioned sanctions, and there is no doubt that without a proper sanction, whatever form it might take—my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) suggested a fixed penalty system—there will not be sufficient incentive to register to vote.
I am horrified by the proposal to do away with the annual canvass. The Government should be doing precisely the opposite and providing funding for councils to do extra work and a thorough job. Such funding needs to be ring-fenced, particularly in the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. If the money is not ring-fenced, it will clearly not be used for that purpose. Furthermore, additional funds need to be allocated to councils with a large number of difficult-to-register people, for instance in wards with transient populations or with large numbers of people from groups among whom voter registration is known to be low.
We want to know what plans the Government have to make a success of individual voter registration. The Minister mentioned school visits, but we will need much more than that. Such visits may be a way to encompass 16 to 18-year-olds, but when we talk about young people we can mean those up to the age of 30 or so, many of whom are not registered to vote. We need a raft of awareness-raising measures and a proper, professional advertising campaign. We need to use every single means that there is—the internet, television and so on—and be really determined. It is no good having a half-hearted campaign.
We need people to have a lot of opportunities to register, whether at the supermarket or where they buy their lottery tickets. The Government need to put some thought into where people can register to vote. We need online registration, obviously, but also online advertising. We also need a painstaking door-to-door canvass, because the canvassers will have to return to houses again and again to get all the individual forms. They may meet mum on the doorstep, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, but mum will say, “Well, I’ve got to fill in all these forms, and I’ve got to find so-and-so, and I’ve got to find his national insurance number.” She will have to fill in all the forms, and maybe she will have to ring a couple of her children to find out their NI numbers—I am sure she will remember their dates of birth. The extra process may mean canvassers going back more than once to collect forms. We therefore need the input of an annual canvass.
Councils themselves also need incentives and sanctions to a certain degree. It is very odd, therefore, that there will not be any monitoring of overall registration levels by the Electoral Commission. There is no doubt that such reporting provides councils with an incentive to improve and people with an opportunity to ask electoral registration officers why the registration percentages are not very good in their area. It is very disappointing that that will not take place.
I hope that the Minister will work towards better implementation, getting plans out very early and ensuring that there are sufficient resources; £104 million is only 50p per person, which is hardly the cost of posting a couple of items, never mind people going around and knocking on doors. The matter needs some attention paid to it, and I hope that he will take that on board.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
This is probably the first Opposition day debate that I have attended in which the Opposition substantially agree with the Government. That is quite strange, but I am not responsible for the Opposition’s debate selection.
The Minister is a talented, urbane and civilised chap, if I may say so, and he is far too polite to point out the confusion on the Labour Benches. Members will remember that not long ago we heard the comments of the deputy leader of the Labour party at the party conference. With her customary exaggeration and hyperbole, she said that the Government’s proposals would
“push people off the electoral register—deny them their vote, deny them their voice. The numbers are going to be huge”.
That was palpably nonsense, because that was never the point of the change.
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) got to the nub of the issue by showing the Labour party’s proprietorial approach towards certain groups of voters—“We know what’s best for you. You’re our voters, and we think the proposals will unnecessarily affect your exercise of the franchise.” That is simply not the case. Today, from some speakers we are hearing politics over principle. It ill behoves them to take that approach, given that when their party was in government it absolutely refused to do anything about the under-registration of military personnel or overseas voters, for example, despite months and years of protestations from Conservative Members. Those are both groups of people who are legitimately entitled to vote in elections. Let us not, in our rush to a consensus, ignore the reality of the 13 years of the Labour Government and their record of under-registration. Hon. Members will know that in 2008 one national newspaper managed to register the name Gus Troobev, an anagram of “bogus voter”, on 31 different electoral rolls in one day.
In Peterborough, for reasons that Members may know, we have had a close acquaintance with electoral fraud, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the issue of personation. In one ward in Peterborough, we now have four separate CCTV cameras in four polling districts because of the threat of personation. In particular, I draw his attention to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and subsequent legislation, which prescribe the actions that presiding officers can take in polling stations if they fear a case of personation. That does not touch directly on the current change, but it is nevertheless a very important issue, and we have had serious problems with it.
The Minister will know that Operation Hooper, the investigation that took place into postal vote fraud at the June 2004 local elections, took four years to be resolved and resulted in the imprisonment of six individuals, three Labour and three Conservative. It cost Cambridgeshire constabulary a huge amount of money, and the cost to an ordinary voter of electoral fraud is another issue to consider.
If the proposals are some sort of wicked Tory plot, which they are to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who is rather excitable but passionate, it is a strange plot, because it involves substantial consensus among the academic community, including Dr Toby James of Swansea university, Stuart Wilks-Heeg of Liverpool university, who has been mentioned, and others. The proposals have involved much consultation; flexibility and pragmatism; the data-matching pilots, of which Peterborough city council is one example; transitional arrangements; an exhaustive and detailed Select Committee investigation; and the promise of funding. In addition, the Government have admitted that certain proposals needed to be nuanced, such as the opt-in, opt-out proposals.
Let us remember that in 2008 the Council of Europe stated:
“It does not take an experienced election observer, or election fraudster, to see that the combination of the household registration system without personal identifiers and the postal vote on demand arrangements make the election system in Great Britain very vulnerable to electoral fraud.”
At the time of the 2009 legislation, even Peter Facey, of Unlock Democracy, said:
“We still have 19th-century regulations for a 21st-century situation.”
It is vital that we have eventually reached a consensus, despite references in the debate to the boundary changes. Those references were erroneous because effectively all that matters in respect of the boundary changes is the electorate on the enumeration date of 1 December 2010. Those changes are irrelevant to the substance of this debate.
There is a consensus on voter registration. It should have been brought about many months if not years ago, but I am glad that Labour Front Benchers have had a damascene conversion and understand that the Government’s proposals are about clarity and integrity and, to be fair, the fact that people can choose not to vote, which we must respect. The Government have listened and are going in the right direction, and I look forward to the details of the legislation.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The fight for the franchise and the struggle for citizens to exercise a democratic voice through the ballot box stretch deep into our history. Before and beyond Magna Carta, there has been a battle to establish a just and fair settlement. From the Chartists and the suffragettes to the lowering of the voting age of 18—there are now arguments for votes at 16—there has been an ongoing struggle to ensure that everyone in this country has an equal voice at the ballot box, whatever their class, gender, age, ethnicity or creed. That struggle continues throughout the world, to the far reaches of the planet. The events of last year’s Arab spring remind us—as other events in the world have and will again—how the right to a voice and the right to vote are hard won.
The principle of individual voter registration, therefore, is one that all hon. Members can support; the issue is how the principle is translated into action. The Government suggesting that there should no longer be compulsory registration was a breathtaking departure. I am pleased that the Minister today echoed the Deputy Prime Minister by saying that he is minded to move away from that approach, but if he is so minded, why does he not just say that he is moving away from it and spell out how he will do so?
The removal of any enforcement coupled with a speeded up timetable will result in fewer people registering to vote. According to the Government’s impact assessment, the transition to individual voter registration could result in 7 million or 20% of voters disappearing from the register.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
It is good that the Government plan to use HMRC and DVLA data to boost registration, but does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector could be helpful too? For instance, credit reference agencies, which help people to get mortgages, could help to identify voters for registration who might otherwise be missed?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall touch on later in my speech.
The danger is that younger voters, poorer voters, voters from ethnic minorities and mobile city dwellers are the most likely to fall through the net. The register is used not only for credit referencing but for jury service, local government and other public service finance settlements, and future constituency boundaries. It is important in our civic society, not just for voting. It is therefore crucial to this Government’s legitimacy and credibility that a measure as sensitive as individual electoral registration is progressed carefully and in a way that does not disfranchise individuals.
There is cross-party agreement on the principle, but delivery needs to be cross-party and consensual too. Transitional arrangements need to be put in place that will not cause significant upset. For example, voters who currently have postal votes should not be compelled to register for those votes on a tight time scale if they do not immediately move to individual registration. Proper transitional arrangements should be put in place to support people rather than coerce them.
The move to IER should be seen as an opportunity to extend the franchise, not to limit it. Indeed, I think the Minister was taking that line in his opening remarks. Any change to IER should be accompanied by an intensive campaign to ensure that the register is as near complete as possible. Such a campaign will require innovative approaches, such as the automatic addition to the register of people who pay council tax or are council tenants, and those who are in receipt of benefits or who have driving licences. Information from credit referencing agencies could be used, and perhaps students could be registered at the age of 16 by schools and colleges. The Minister helpfully drew attention to best practice in Northern Ireland, which needs to be built on in other parts of the UK. What about the use of election day registration, as happens in an increasing number of US states? The Minister shakes his head, but we are talking about making the register as complete as possible, and the opportunity to vote throughout an election period would significantly widen the franchise at the point of its greatest relevance to citizens. It is therefore worthy of consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) drew attention in her passionate contribution to the importance of the annual canvass in ensuring that members of the public are properly registered. Jean Basell, a constituent of mine, has done excellent work over many years as a canvasser in north Lincolnshire. She says that without the annual canvass, there will be a significant fall in the number of people registered, and she is somebody with experience of going from door to door in all weathers to lead the canvass.
The Electoral Reform Society was established in 1884. The words of Sir John Lubbock, its founder, should ring in our ears as we contemplate the changes. He said:
“I trust that Great Britain, the mother of Parliaments, may once more take the lead among the great nations of the world by securing for herself a House of Commons which shall really represent the nation.”
We have a duty individually and collectively to move forward in a way that preserves that ambition and integrity.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
This debate, which is on voting in this country, is one that is naturally at the heart of our democratic process. In the past, electoral fraud was a small, minor problem, and few people worried about it, but in my view that has changed. The prevailing view is now that electoral fraud is much more widespread than it once was. The numbers being investigated and convicted show that we are certainly going downhill at a rate of knots when it comes to accountability.
In the past, the electoral register was accurate, and fraud was not a major problem. Anyone committing fraud would have needed the bravery to appear at least twice, and perhaps even three times, at the polling booth before they were caught. From what we can tell, that did not happen very often. Today, as a result of postal votes on demand, people can vote without ever having to see anyone. That has led to an unknown number of people listing fictitious residents at their properties and voting by post on their behalf.
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the hon. Gentleman explain his source for his last assertion—that large numbers of people are registering multiple times—because his Government’s review suggested that there was a negligible amount of such behaviour?
David Morris
I am speaking from personal experience. I have stood in three seaside resorts and have come across situations—including in the 2010 election—in which voters have died six months prior to their votes being cast.
Listing fictitious residents has led to an unknown number of people—
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Presumably he has contacted the police about that.
David Morris
This has led to an unknown number of people listing fictitious residents at their properties and voting by post on their behalf. The vital failsafe in our system—namely, going to the ballot box in person—has been removed. This means we need a new failsafe, and I think that that is agreed on both sides of the House. There are various ways we can do this and I know the last Government saw ID cards as the answer. I do not.
I support fully the proposal to have individual voter registration. It is simple, cheap to administer—unlike ID cards—and fits in with the existing system, because it works on the same principle. Individual voter registration requires very few changes to our system, and we know from Northern Ireland that it works. But in today’s debate, some hon. Members have got two different issues muddled up. One is the issue of fraud that IER seeks to address, and the other is how we encourage more people to go to the ballot box. Making fraud easier will undoubtedly boost turnout, but it will not encourage more real people to vote. People do not bother to put themselves on the electoral register because they do not feel engaged, and do not want to vote. Similarly, there are millions of people on the register who do not want to vote. We need to make those people feel that their votes count.
It is not surprising that people cannot be bothered when 70% of our laws are edicts from an unelected Government in Brussels. People feel as if they cannot make a difference whichever way they vote, and that is the issue that we need to address. I really believe that repatriation of powers from Brussels, devolving more decisions to local councils and electing more police commissioners will help to engage people in the democratic process, but this has nothing to do with individual voter registration.
Individual voter registration is about reducing fraud and building confidence in the system. Today, once again, we see that electoral fraud and confidence in the system seem to be an entirely secondary considerations. They must be our central considerations, not least because people will have less confidence in the system if they feel they will be outvoted by electoral fraudsters. How many people will bother trudging to the ballot box when they rightly or wrongly believe that their views will be overridden by the fraudsters?
Maintaining the status quo will continue to undermine our system, so we do need to encourage more people to the ballot box, but the way to do this is with greater democracy. We need to stop electoral fraud, and the way to do this is to make people register individually.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I want to address one or two issues that have not yet been fully addressed. Reference has been made to the use of data matching to find out where people are so that letters can be sent to get them to register. It is very important that we assess how effective that is, and I hope that the Minister is minded to bring forward the reports on that at the earliest possible opportunity and that we have access to that information when we debate the proposed Bill.
Data matching will not be easy. It is said glibly, “We will have data matching”, but the Select Committee was told that some of the exercises have proved to be a lot more difficult than people anticipated. In Southwark, for example, 25% of Department for Work and Pensions records could not be reconciled with the records held by the local authority. That does not surprise me, especially in a place with a lot of flats and tenements. Addresses in Edinburgh, for example, can be recorded in a number of weird and wonderful ways. Traditional approaches, such as numbering each flat 1, 2, 3 and so on, have been replaced by abbreviations such as PF1, PF2 and so on. Someone might apply for a benefit and put their address as 3/1, but another person might record that address as PF2. Data matching is not, therefore, a magic implement, and we must have the opportunity to assess whether it has worked.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) suggested that the issue of the boundaries is irrelevant because the register has been set for the current boundary review. Indeed it has, but the problem will arise in 2015, when the register used for the boundary review will not be the one used in the preceding general election. The Committee has suggested that it would be sensible to use the register as it stands at the general election earlier that year, because it contains the carry-over. That approach would run the least possible risk of our ending up with another set of boundary changes based on a low level of registration. While a low level of registration is not inevitable if we really work at it, the Northern Ireland experience tells us that it is likely to happen at least in the first instance. Whatever happens in the more distant future, I hope that the Government accept that particular recommendation.
Mark Durkan
Northern Ireland has had more frequent and relatively positive mentions in this debate than in any other debate in which no Northern Ireland Member has sought to catch the Speaker’s eye. In respect of the snakes and ladders experience that Northern Ireland had with individual electoral registration, I encourage Members to note that registration efforts post-election tended to be especially difficult. The Minister has said that he will rely on a canvass in 2015 after the general election, but registration post-election often means that people assume that because they voted at the election they do not need to register. That is one of the lessons that need to be learned.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which supports the point that I was trying to make.
I am also concerned about the issue of postal voters. I am not suggesting that the system is perfect because voters already have to overcome certain hurdles. The signature issue clearly causes problems, especially when signatures change, and people’s votes have been discounted for that reason, but people—especially older people—have been used to getting a postal vote regularly for some time. I am sure that coalition Members have gone door-knocking and have encountered people who say, “I think I have a postal vote, but I’m not sure.” We are usually very reassuring, saying, “Don’t worry, it will come.” During an election campaign, we might say that they are coming out next week. The problem is that many people in that situation will not appreciate that to get their postal vote they will have to go through the individual registration process. Yes, they will be left on the register, at least until May 2015, but they will lose their postal vote. If they lost their postal vote, many of them will simply not be able to register their vote, and that is a very important point.
Given that we have certain safeguards in place for postal voting, and we are allowing the general carry-over, I do not see it as such a big change to suggest that we carry over the postal voting aspect of people’s registration at that stage. As the system beds in, that will probably become less necessary, but at this initial stage there is a great risk that people will discover that they are unable to vote in the next general election—not to mention the boundary issue.
What we really need to do on registration—and no one has done it well enough, although some local authorities are better than others—is to look at imaginative ways to get more people registered. Registration differs so much across cities—even across a ward. I was out door-knocking only yesterday and in one street of terraced houses almost everybody was on the register. Just around the corner, I found a block of six flats where only two households were registered. The two places are not fantastically different sociologically, but flats tend to have higher turnover, and that is the important difference. If we crack that problem, it will make a tremendous difference, but individual voter registration alone will not do it. In fact, the opposite is true, because it will be difficult to get people in multiply occupied flats to register.
The best electoral registration is where local authorities put a lot of resources into doing it and target, not necessarily everybody—a universal door-knocking exercise is not necessary—but those places where there are known to be deficiencies. We know where they are, and that would build up registration, which should be the priority at the moment. On top of that, I hope that the Government accept the recommendations made by the Select Committee on the proposed Bill.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, particularly because this has been a debate between experts. I am not suggesting that Members are not experts in the subjects of other debates, but we have all won elections so we should know what they are about.
As other Members have said, the tone was set correctly at the beginning of the debate by the shadow Secretary of State and by my hon. Friend the Minister, who engaged in a constructive dialogue on the principle on which we are all agreed of individual voter registration.
I want to take a different approach from other hon. Members, although I support much of what they have said and have listened to the practical comments about the definition of a public duty and so on. I fully understand that, but it must be right in this day and age when we rely so much on democracy and the individual voter casting their own vote in secret that we should expect that that voter takes—and learns—responsibility by registering. I take a certain degree of umbrage at what was said by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), although I know where she is coming from. She talked about mums doing the registering, whereas in other cases fathers do it and in others those whom everyone calls the heads of household do it. As an ex-teacher, I would ask how someone learns—
Eric Ollerenshaw
I will, if the hon. Lady will let me finish. How will someone learn that voting is important and that it is the responsible thing to do if someone else starts the process and puts them on the register? How will they feel that it is important? I am sure that we have all stood outside polling stations doing important things during elections and have seen that a significant number of people who are registered to vote do not have a clue about what to do, what to tick or cross or where to do it. I take on board the points made by the Minister about Northern Ireland and the education system. Perhaps we should debate on another day what we should do in our education system. As an ex-history teacher I might suggest that part of the problem is the fact that narrative history has gone, which means that many of our children have no idea about the amount of effort that went into getting the right to vote. Where do we start to instil the sense of responsibility? I agree that we should start with registration.
I said I would give way to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.
Siobhain McDonagh
I do not want to affect the time left for others who want to make speeches, but I am happy to have a chat with the hon. Gentleman afterwards.
Eric Ollerenshaw
I am always willing to have a chat afterwards, particularly with the hon. Lady.
My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), talked about fraud. I know that Labour Members have said that there are only one or two examples, but I have a suggestion for the Minister. I know that he is a listening Minister, as has been proven by this debate, on certain points. There are higher allegations of fraud in particular areas. There is not a massive amount of proof but, according to the polls, a third of the population believe that there is something dodgy about the way we vote. I commend the Minister for saying that we must try to prove to people that this system is as safe as we can get it and that individuals must therefore be responsible for registering, so that they cannot say that somebody else filled in the form for them. That message is vital. I think that somewhere there are draft proposals that people who act as proxies should by definition be registered voters. I fully support that, but I urge the Minister to go back to the old system for proxies.
With proxies, there has always been the allegation that something dodgy is involved because somebody has someone else’s vote. Before 2000, when certain laws were made a little more lax, when someone went to get a proxy they had to have a witness. Once we dropped the witness from those forms, anybody could allege anything because the party worker or candidate could get a proxy off someone and nobody else would know. It was a complicated process and the neighbour was usually the witness, but at least a third party was involved in what was seen as the most tricky element of the system. I urge the Minister to consider reintroducing that.
The issue of fraud was raised with me at the last general election. It did not affect my seat, but, in a certain seat, somebody said that they had gone to vote but somebody had already voted for them, so they came back and rang the different parties in desperation. My party advised them to go along and ask for a tendered ballot. Interestingly, the polling station did not have tendered ballots and some of the polling officers did not even know what one was. I have spoken to a number of people involved in elections who do not know what tendered ballots are and I suggest that we need some education on that. If anyone who believed that someone else had voted for them was automatically given a tendered ballot—I think they are pink, for some reason—those ballots could be stacked up and would provide proof in the polling stations of the level of accusations about fraud in that area.
As I understand it, there is a lack of information for parties, electoral officers in polling stations and the electorate about the ability to ask for a tendered ballot. That is one small practical suggestion that might deal with accusations and counter-accusations of fraud. We could then ask electoral registration officers to add up the number of tendered ballots in various areas, which would give us a better idea of where police investigations were needed and of the extent to which it was believed that fraud was going on. I shall vote against the Opposition motion this evening, because we need as soon as possible to get individual registration and responsibility for the most important act in a democracy—that of voting.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
I apologise to the House, the Minister and my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for not being in the Chamber for the opening speeches. I had made Mr Speaker aware of that.
Today’s debate goes to the heart of our democracy, because it is about people going to a polling station and casting their vote. We need to strike a balance between protecting against electoral fraud and not further disfranchising large sections of society from the formal political process. I have three concerns about the Government’s proposals: the rapid timetable for change; the erosion of the civic duty to register; and the long-term deterioration in the accuracy of the register.
We have already heard from numerous colleagues the astonishing figures for the number of people missing from registers, generally made up of the most vulnerable in our society. The Electoral Commission has raised serious concerns about the effect of the rapid timetable for the introduction of individual voter registration on the completeness of the electoral register. Its dire warning is that under voluntary individual voter registration, the electoral register could go from its current level of completeness down to as low as 60% or 65%. That would mean an astonishing 10 million plus voters falling off the register. We have seen what happened initially in Northern Ireland.
I fear that social divisions could widen, but that does not need to be the case. Individual voter registration could, without the haste with which the Government are seeking to introduce it, take away that threat. I am concerned that, despite the previous agreement of all political parties that the previous Government’s timetable was a sensible approach, the draft legislation proposes to remove the safeguards and simply to bring individual voter registration into force by 2014.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) wants to make a speech, so let me merely say that the principle of voter registration as a method of preventing electoral fraud and providing proper safeguards is what most of us are looking for, but the Government proposals are unfair and unforgiveable and need to be rethought.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
We know that some 5 million people who are eligible to vote have not registered to do so, and the Government’s proposed reform will allow another 5 million-odd people to be knocked off the register. These reforms, plus the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, are a blatant example of gerrymandering of the type that the former leader of Westminster city council, who is now a fugitive from justice living in Israel and who was knighted for her dishonourable action, carried out on a magnificent scale in Westminster.
Some 10 million people will not be on the register because of a number of the Government’s proposals. If the Minister makes the following promises, my party will be able to support him: first, that the signing of the electoral register will not be optional; secondly, that door-to-door canvassing of properties that fail to reply to the electoral register will take place in 2014; thirdly, that postal and proxy voters who do not provide new personal information or send back new forms will be allowed to vote in 2015—as we know, the majority of such voters tend to be elderly—and, fourthly, that anyone who does not fill in the form properly, or who opts out, will be included in the 2015 boundary review.
The Labour party proposed that IER should be introduced in 2020, but only after the Electoral Commission has established the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the register. The Government should not abolish the Electoral Commission’s role, and the changes should not go live in 2015. The current proposal will reduce the numbers on the electoral register to as little as 65% of the population. That is the prediction of the independent Electoral Commission. As a result, millions of people will be disfranchised.
Those who will lose the ability to vote are likely to be the young, those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, the disabled and those in social and private rented accommodation. This is a partisan move, and if the Government have their way, for the first time in its history the electoral register will become unrepresentative of the population as a whole. It is imperative that people beyond Parliament recognise just how insidious these proposals are: never before has the very fabric of our democracy been at risk. Every democrat has a duty to defend it.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Today’s debate has been a good one, with contributions from about 20 Members, and no one has spoken against the principle of individual electoral registration. Some Members are entirely happy with the Government’s proposals—I am thinking of the hon. Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths)—but a number of Members on both sides of the House have expressed reservations. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), among many others.
Significantly, Members’ concerns are reflected in the opinions of many others outside the House who share our belief in the importance of representative democracy. The Electoral Commission, in particular, has made trenchant but very constructive criticisms, and the worries that Members have expressed today are increasingly expressed by those who recognise that the devil is in the detail of the Government’s proposals. As Members have said, we are discussing a huge change to our voting system. This is an issue that deserves to be understood and widely debated the length and breadth of our country. It is far too important to be the preserve of academics and political anoraks.
The Opposition believe that there is a very strong case for individual electoral registration in principle: it can reduce electoral fraud and is in tune with the modern structure of today’s families. Indeed, the previous Labour Government,’s proposals for the introduction of IER commanded a cross-party consensus. Unfortunately, the Government have ended any idea of a bipartisan approach towards constitutional reform, and their plans for IER have placed a question mark over the future integrity of the electoral register.
In the Government’s IER White Paper, electoral registration is seen no longer as an individual’s civic duty but as
“a matter of choice for the individual”.
At present, if the head of a household fails to co-operate with an electoral registration officer and does not return a completed electoral registration form, they can be fined £1,000. The Government say that that will remain—indeed it will—but crucially the obligation will not apply to individuals, yet this is all about individual electoral registration. Instead, individuals will now be invited to join the electoral register if they are so inclined.
We can easily visualise an ERO—if, indeed, there are EROs in the future—knocking on the door of someone’s home. A busy young mum comes to the door in the middle of making her children’s tea. The registration officer asks that young mum if she would like to fill in a form to be on the electoral register by writing down her date of birth and national insurance number. The busy mum explains that she is in the middle of making the kids’ tea and asks the ERO whether she really has to fill in the form. The ERO says, “No, it’s a matter of personal choice.” The predictable reply is, “Fine, in that case I won’t bother. I have to make the kids’ tea. Goodbye.”
Come the general election, that young mum believes that she has an opportunity to shape the country that her children are growing up in. She wants her children to have the best possible education and to have jobs when they grow up, and she wants her family to live in a safe community. She has taken the trouble to read all the parties’ manifestos and she has given careful thought to how she is going to cast her vote. She then goes along to her polling station on election day, but when she gets there she is told that she cannot vote because she is not on the electoral register.
Our fear is that millions of young mums will be excluded from the democratic process because they are not on the electoral register. All the evidence suggests that the young, the disabled, members of the black and ethnic minority communities, those who frequently move and people living in private rented and public housing will be the people most likely not to be on the electoral register under the Government’s proposals. These are the people who are threatened with disfranchisement.
The impartial Electoral Commission has predicted that if the Government do not change their plans, in some areas the number of people on the electoral register could be as low as 60% of the population. The number of people on the electoral register also determines the shape and size of our parliamentary constituencies. Members do not need reminding that we are going through a parliamentary boundary review. In 2015, there will be another boundary review, and if the electorate has been significantly reduced in certain areas, we will see further boundary changes that will have a big impact on inner-city and less prosperous areas of the country.
The electoral register is a foundation on which our representative democracy is built, so it is wrong that it is being put in danger by these proposals, but, as Members have highlighted, it is important for other reasons too, and I will refer briefly to two. First, credit rating agencies regularly refer to the electoral register when deciding whether to provide a loan or mortgage to an individual or family. If someone is not on the electoral register, their chances of securing a loan are diminished. Secondly, in our legal system, juries are drawn from the electoral register. If our electoral register comprises a disproportionately large number of white, middle-aged, elderly and middle-class people, the likelihood is that our juries will reflect that. At a time when it is so important that we build trust in our criminal justice system and the rule of law, it is imperative that we have juries in which people can have faith and confidence.
I welcome the Government’s confirmation that they intend to drop their permanent opt-out option—that is one less drop of venom—but we will look carefully at what the Government actually propose in their Bill, and I have to say that they will need to make many more changes before their plans are acceptable. Before they publish their IER Bill, I urge them to stop and listen to the many informed voices now urging them to change their proposals. In particular, I urge them to heed the advice of the Electoral Commission, which has argued that there should be a full household canvass in 2014. It is right about that.
At the same time, the Government should use the opportunity to explain to electors that the system is changing and publish a detailed implementation plan when they introduce their primary legislation. Moreover, they should ensure that a consistent electoral service is provided to all parts of the country and that sufficient resources are provided to guarantee that as many people as possible are on the electoral register.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has produced an excellent report on IER. I congratulate the Committee on its work and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), on his first-rate speech this evening. I now urge the Government to act upon the Committee’s eminently sensible proposals, and I would like to refer to one of those proposals in particular. As well as broadly supporting the Electoral Commission’s views, the Committee has recommended that the Government allow postal and proxy voting to be carried forward to the 2015 general election. I think that makes sense, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Finally, above all else I urge the Government to recognise that being on the electoral register is a civic duty and not a lifestyle choice. Surely every Member in this House believes that our parliamentary democracy needs the active participation of the people of this country in the democratic process. Surely we should do all we can to have as many people as possible on the electoral register. The essential point is that people can choose whether or not to exercise their right to vote only if they are on the electoral register. I therefore urge the Government to listen to the genuine voices of concern and ensure that their Bill reinforces our democracy, rather than undermine it.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Heath)
I, too, welcome the opportunity to have today’s debate and, generally, the tone of the debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David)—I think: he was a bit recidivist in places—for, generally speaking, the way they approached the issue.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, for his comments. As he set out, what has happened in this case is, to some extent, the model of how we ought to approach legislation, where the Government put forward their proposals, ask for detailed consideration, ask experts and those in the House with a particular interest to make their comments, and then respond, positively wherever possible, to those suggestions. That seems to me to be the iterative process that we have followed in this instance. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was supported in that view by other members of his Committee, such as the hon. Members for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore).
Let me deal with one issue that the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised. The Government will very soon issue a detailed response to the points raised by his Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who has responsibility for constitutional reform, has agreed to look again at whether there is any way of improving the proposal for the 2014 canvass, noting that the Electoral Commission has suggested moving the 2013 canvass to early 2014. Again, that is a recommendation that he will consider carefully.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East, asked how the effectiveness of data matching will be assessed. That I absolutely agree that the information should be brought forward for the benefit of the House when it considers the proposals in detail, which will include not only the Government’s assessment, but the Electoral Commission’s assessment, which it is preparing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) made one of the most important points in this debate when he said that the choice is not between integrity and completeness. That is absolutely right: we need both. Indeed, that is where the Government have continually placed the emphasis in this matter. It is right that we should move to a system of individual registration. Our current system is outdated and far too vulnerable to electoral fraud—the point raised by the hon. Members for Hendon (Mr Offord), for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) talked about international election observation missions. I have been on many such missions in other countries—indeed, I have led them—and have consistently found it embarrassing to point out that we have none of the safeguards that we insist upon for other countries to keep our system free from fraud. There is a genuine threat to what we have in this country. I am therefore grateful that there is, or appears to be, general support for the move to individual registration. I accept that concerns have been raised about the detail of some of the proposals—many hon. Members have touched on those points—but the encouraging tone of this debate and the general agreement on the value of individual electoral registration are to be welcomed.
The message obviously did not quite get through to some colleagues on the Opposition Benches—whether their text messaging went awry, I do not know. Clearly the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)––whose speech I have heard many times now––for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) do not entirely accept that principle. So be it. They are entitled to disagree with the manifesto on which they stood, if they wish.
Let me address some of the other points that were raised. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) said that some councils do a much better job of electoral registration than others. Perhaps we ought to look more at why some councils fail in that task, whereas others do not. He thinks that there are insufficient checks on personation, which that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is looking at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion talked about the position in areas with lots of students and people in houses in multiple occupation. It is interesting that the research shows that the biggest determinant of incompleteness in the register is actually length of residence. The completeness rate is only 26% among those who have been resident for less than a year, compared with 91% among those who have lived in their properties for over five years. That is where we need to concentrate our efforts.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) talked about second home owners. The important thing in this instance is that electoral registration officers should actually apply the law. Very often the problem is not that the law is incomplete, but that people do not apply the law as it stands.
One point that has been raised repeatedly is about the civic duty to vote. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government believe that there is a civic duty to vote, and there is no change—[Interruption.] I do apologise: to register, rather. Let us be clear: the Government believe that there is a civic duty to register—in fact, there is a civic duty to vote as well, but the point today is about the civic duty to register. It is because we have listened to the points that have been made that, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary repeated, we are thinking again about the so-called opt-out provision, which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central described as back-pedalling. It is not back-pedalling to put forward a proposition, listen to the response and then adapt proposals to meet those responses. We will never have a grown-up Parliament if we cannot do that without people criticising the process.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe is normally very moderate in the way he presents his case to the House, but I am afraid that today he was a little edgy on this issue. He simultaneously said that we should learn from Northern Ireland, where there is no canvass, and then talked about the crucial importance of the canvass—a slight inconsistency. Of course we must learn the lessons from Northern Ireland, because there are important lessons to be learned. Indeed, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) raised one of them in an intervention, when he talked about the canvass immediately after an election.
The overall position of right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate is that they want individual electoral registration, but not at the expense of the completeness of the register. We understand that, which is why we are determined to do everything we can not only to maintain the register’s completeness, but to go further and ensure that we reach those parts that have not been reached before. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is working overtime to look at ways to address that issue and ensure that councils that are perhaps not as assiduous or competent in reaching the electors in their areas are encouraged to do so.
We must be careful when we talk about this issue not only to avoid plucking figures from the air or assuming that we can quote any old figure and it will be believed, but so as not to be as patronising as I felt some contributions today were to some of our electorate, by assuming that young people simply will not register if their mums do not tell them to do so. That has not my experience when talking to young people in our schools and colleges, and it has not been the experience of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean in Northern Ireland, where this system is already in place and where there is a higher level of registration among young people attaining the age at which they can register than there is in Great Britain.
I am optimistic that we can get this right. We must continue to listen, and to bring forward our proposals. I hope that the legislation will go ahead and be successfully implemented, and that we will then continue to monitor it to see whether it is effective. That is what the hon. Member for Nottingham North was talking about, and that is the way in which the process ought to work, particularly in areas as crucial as voter registration and the electoral system in this country. I ask hon. Members to reject the motion before us today, but I ask them, as my hon. Friend the Minister did, to do so in the right spirit, and to take a constructive view of how we can move forward together to get this right.
Question put.
NHS (Private Sector)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes there is an important role for the private sector in supporting the delivery of NHS care; welcomes the contribution made by private providers to the delivery of the historic 18-week maximum wait for NHS patients; recognises a need, however, for agreed limits on private sector involvement in the NHS; notes with concern the Government’s plans to open up the NHS as a regulated market, increasing private sector involvement in both commissioning and provision of NHS services; urges the Government to revisit its plans, learning from the recent problems with PIP implants and the private cosmetic surgery industry; believes its plan for a 49 per cent. private income cap for Foundation Trusts, in the context of the hospitals as autonomous business units and a ‘no bail-outs’ culture, signals a fundamental departure from established practice in NHS hospitals; fears that the Government’s plans will lead to longer waiting times, will increase health inequalities and risk putting profits before patients; is concerned that this House has not been given an opportunity to consider such a significant policy change; and calls on the Government to revise significantly downwards its proposed cap on the level of private income that can be generated by NHS hospitals.
It is a year this week since the Health and Social Care Bill was introduced in this House. Unlike the Government, we wanted to mark the anniversary, and having this Opposition debate seemed the right way to do it. It is being held because the Government have effectively sidelined this elected House from the debate about the future of the national health service. No single issue matters more to the people who put us all here, but what the future holds for the hospitals in our constituencies is no longer up to us. Instead, it is the unelected House that is right now carving up England’s NHS through back-room coalition deals. Ministers are making a series of desperate concessions in the other place to try to preserve the pitiful levels of support that remain for this unwanted and unnecessary Bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me summarise this scandalous situation. Here we have a Bill that nobody voted for. It was not in either the Tory or the Lib Dem manifestos, and it was ruled out specifically by the coalition agreement, yet it was rammed through this elected House so that the real decisions could be taken down the corridor in the unelected House. It is truly an affront to democracy that our nation’s most valued institution should be treated in this way. It thus falls to the Opposition to let this House take a view this evening on the far-reaching amendments to the Bill that are now being tabled, which Ministers were clearly too scared to table in this House.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As we are debating the role of the private sector in health, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the former Labour Health Secretary who said “PFI or bust”, and should he not have said “PFI and bust” given the way Labour ran PFI?
Andy Burnham
No, I would not agree. I shall explain the policy that our Government adopted on the private sector and how different it was from that of the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supports. In making our argument we will expose the terrifying gap between the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on the NHS and what he is doing in reality. People will recall the efforts that went into rebranding the nasty party. The Conservatives were at great pains to tell us that they would be pro-environment, a bit less tough on crime and pro-NHS going forward. Many photo calls were arranged to send those messages to the public, but it was poor old NHS staff who featured far more than huskies or hoodies in being brought in to promote hastily made political promises. We were told there would be real-terms increases for the NHS, a moratorium on accident and emergency department closures, thousands more midwives and, famously, no top-down reorganisation—four promises made in opposition: four promises broken in government. I still have not worked out how a Prime Minister can go from agreeing there should be no top-down reorganisation with his coalition partners after the election to bringing forward just weeks later the biggest top-down reorganisation ever in the history of the NHS. How does that work? Perhaps Lib Dem Members will enlighten us this evening.
Our evasive Prime Minister is the master of making statements that sound good at the time only to turn out to be meaningless in practice. Tonight we will focus on his most outrageous yet. On Monday 16 May last year, under pressure to reassure people about the Health and Social Care Bill and in the middle of the enforced pause, the Prime Minister said, in a speech:
“That’s why, when I think about what our NHS will look like in five years time, I don’t picture some space-age institution, a million miles away from what we have now. Let me make clear: there will be no privatisation”.
Those were his words—“no privatisation”.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
indicated assent.
Andy Burnham
The Minister of State says that is right, and he is free at any point to get up and challenge what I say or to prove how he can make that statement. I will give him the opportunity to do so soon.
The Prime Minister could not have been clearer—“no privatisation”. Similar statements were made during the pause by the Deputy Prime Minister. On the Marr programme on 8 May, he promised that safeguards would be brought forward in the health Bill. He said:
“What you will see in this legislation are clear guarantees that you are not going to have back-door privatisation of the NHS.”
He followed that up on 14 June with this promise:
“Patients, doctors and nurses have spoken. We have listened. Now we are improving our plans for the NHS. Yes to patient choice. No to privatisation. Yes to giving nurses, hospital doctors and family doctors more say in your care. No to the free market dogma that can fragment the NHS.”
Those statements from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister were significant for two reasons. First, they revealed an understanding at the top of Government about how, more than anything else, fears about privatisation and the market in the NHS were driving professional disquiet about the Health and Social Care Bill—a Bill that was sold as putting doctors in charge but that had a hidden agenda of breaking up the structures of the national planned health system to allow a free market in health. Secondly, they implied that major changes to address those concerns would be made to the Bill and that there would be a return to the existing policy of the managed use of the private sector within a planned and publicly accountable health system.
Let me be clear. As our motion states, we believe that there is a role for the private sector in helping the NHS to deliver the best possible services to NHS patients, and that was the policy we pursued in government. Without the contribution of private providers, we would never have delivered NHS waiting lists and times at historically low levels, but let us put this in its proper context. Our policy was to use the private sector at the margins to support the public NHS. So, in 2009-10, 2.14% of all operations carried out in the NHS were carried out in the independent sector and spend in the private sector accounted for 7.4% of the total NHS budget. I would defend those figures, because that helped us to deliver the best health care to the people of this country.
Furthermore, we supported a system allowing foundation trusts to generate income at the margins of their activity from treating private patients but with a clearly defined cap to protect the interests of NHS patients at all times.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the cap was not clearly defined but was very variable according to the hospital, and will he now say that it was wrong for the previous Government to set the cap at over 30% for the Royal Marsden hospital, which is a centre of excellence?
Andy Burnham
I agree that the cap varied according to historical levels of private sector activity within the different trusts. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that, but he must agree that it was clearly defined in respect of every individual NHS hospital. They had a clear number and local people were able to hold them to account for that number. Where hospitals had large numbers, the cap froze their level of activity at the level when the cap was introduced.
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
Just to be clear, could the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is in the interests of NHS patients in a particular hospital for that hospital’s capacity to generate additional revenue from the private sector to be limited by a cap?
Andy Burnham
I will explain that very clearly. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have read the impact assessment to the Bill, which warns of the risk of lengthening NHS waiting lists if existing capacity is made available to private patients. It says that if additional capacity is provided, there might be no effect on NHS waiting lists. That is why this is dangerous, because all the progress that Labour made on reducing long NHS waits would be put at risk by the careless and cavalier policy of simply abandoning the principle of the cap, which has stood us in good stead.
Andy Burnham
I shall give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health once more and then to the Minister.
Mr Dorrell
I apologise to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Could the right hon. Gentleman explain more clearly than he has so far why a hospital should reduce capacity at the same time as it is increasing revenue?
Andy Burnham
That is not what I said. I understand that the preferred policy was to have no caps or limits, but even if a generous and liberal cap was introduced there would be a major risk that hospitals under financial pressure would give beds, theatre time and appointments to private patients, enabling them to jump the queue and giving a much worse deal to NHS patients. That is the risk that the cap was designed to mitigate and that is why we support it.
Mr Simon Burns
Could the right hon. Gentleman explain the logic, under his Government, of having a cap on a minority of trusts—foundation trusts—while he as the Secretary of State and his Government did not impose a cap on the majority of trusts that were not foundation trusts?
Andy Burnham
There is a simple explanation. The right hon. Gentleman will remember, as I do, the debate on the foundation trust legislation. There were worries that if hospitals were made more independent and were not directly managed by the Department they would put the treatment of private patients before that of NHS patients. The cap was introduced to mitigate that risk. He will know that we had a policy that all trusts should become foundation trusts in time—a policy that his Government have adopted—so that the cap would apply to all NHS hospitals in time. I think that answers his question.
Andy Burnham
It did not, and I would expect a Minister not to make misleading statements like that in a debate of this kind. It did not propose the removal of the cap: it said that more freedom would be given to NHS hospitals with a modest loosening of the cap. That was my policy as Health Secretary. We did not propose removal of the private patient cap.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend know whether the private operations will be charged at tariff? Is there a limit on the charge hospitals can make? Will it be at tariff or at a premium on tariff? Would that not be a way of increasing the amount of resources coming in? Less work would be done on the NHS.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We have not had those safeguards; there has been no explanation from the Government of any safeguards that will be introduced under this liberal measure. This evening, we need to probe exactly what they have in mind. During the pause, they said that they would restrict any competition on price in the NHS, yet they are bringing forward a measure that would allow NHS facilities to be used for the treatment of private patients with no guarantee that the private sector would not try to undercut NHS tariffs. Those are precisely the questions that the Government have to answer.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental change in the Bill is that the Government are imposing a new form, Monitor, which directly applies competition regulation in NHS delivery of services and undermines the principles and rules for co-operation and competition—PRCC—that arbitrate between commercial services and the NHS, which controlled the market?
Andy Burnham
That is exactly the point. The proposal has to be seen in the context of the health system the coalition Government want to create. They want a broken-down system where one hospital is pitted against another, where there is a duty on the Secretary of State to promote the autonomy of NHS organisations, so that they are out there on their own, having to stand or fall on their merits, with a clear incentive to drive up income gained through a relaxed private patient income cap. I shall come to that point in a moment.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Ministers are shouting, “Choice”, but is my right hon. Friend prepared to reflect on the merits of the private sector, both in the UK and abroad, in the efficiency of the service that it delivers?
Andy Burnham
When the Bill was introduced, great claims were made that it would improve NHS efficiency. That was one of the reasons the Government gave for subjecting the NHS to a huge top-down reorganisation; they wanted to make the system more efficient, but they made a mistake that many people make over time. They claimed that the NHS is inherently inefficient when in fact international evidence shows the exact opposite: the NHS model is the most efficient health care system in the world. That is because control of the system is democratically accountable, and national standards can be set through bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and entitlements can be set at national level. If that control is removed, we will see the emergence of a much less efficient health care system, like the many market-based systems.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The motion
“notes with concern the Government’s plans…increasing private sector involvement in…commissioning and provision of NHS services.”
In Dover, our hospital was run down over the 13 years until 2010 and is now a shell. Why should the GPs not be able to commission another provider if the foundation trust will not fulfil its long-standing pledge to build a hospital and provide proper services for my constituents?
Andy Burnham
My argument would be that if those decisions are to be made, the people who make them should be accountable to the hon. Gentleman and the House, whereas the Bill that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is introducing proposes to push those things away. There will be an independent commissioning board that GPs and clinical commissioning groups will not be able to overturn; it will make the decisions. That is a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
Before the last election, we proposed a modest loosening of the private patient cap in response to pressure in another place when we were debating the Health Act 2009, but compared with our modest reforms, the Government’s plans are off the scale. Instead of private sector activity at the margins, the Health and Social Care Bill places market forces at the heart of the system. The private sector will not support the NHS, but will replace large chunks of the service in commissioning and provision.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I should be interested to learn—as I am sure would the whole House—the right hon. Gentleman’s definition of modest loosening. In the four years between 2006 and 2010, the amount of money going to the private sector rose from £2 billion to about £12.2 billion. Does the right hon. Gentleman simply oppose the 49% cap or will he pledge to reverse it if he returns to government? What exactly would the cap be? Would it be 30% or 12%? Please let us know.
Andy Burnham
May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion? Its request to the Government is not unreasonable; it asks them “to revise significantly downwards” the cap they have proposed.
Andy Burnham
I remind the Health Secretary that he is the Secretary of State, not me. It is for him to bring forward proposals. Forty-nine per cent: in that proposal he is saying that NHS hospitals can give equal priority to the treatment of private patients—that it can be as legitimate an objective for an NHS facility, paid for by the taxpayers, to be used equally for the treatment of private and NHS patients. I put it to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) that I am not prepared to accept a cap on that scale. It could lead to an explosion of private sector work in NHS facilities and I do not think that is in the best interests of NHS patients. I would be prepared to accept the Government’s bringing forward proposals that fulfilled a modest loosening of the cap, to give the NHS more freedom at this difficult time, but I am talking in single figures. I am not talking about a doubt-digit, 50% cap—a recommendation that hospitals devote half their resources to private patients.
Mr Simon Burns
Will the shadow Secretary of State kindly answer the questions put by my right hon. and hon. Friends about what modest means? [Interruption.] If I might read it out, the 2010 Labour manifesto says:
“Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom to expand their provision into primary and community care, and to increase their private services—where these are consistent with NHS values, and provided they generate surpluses that are invested directly into the NHS.”
There was no mention of a modest increase; it was open-ended.
Andy Burnham
The Minister is not listening. I answered his question. I proposed a small increase in the cap—in single figures; a couple of per cent, as I am on record saying at the time, to give NHS hospitals more freedom to generate more income, to be put back into improving standards for NHS patients. Can the Minister honestly look me in the eye and tell me that 49% is not a world away from the NHS that he inherited from our Government?
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The manifesto that we put together in 2010 did not envisage a health service where the Health Secretary had given up control. It envisaged a health service where the Health Secretary would still have control and could set a cap for foundation trusts.
Andy Burnham
That is absolutely the point. The Government want to create an NHS where Ministers can no longer say what can or cannot be done, so we have GP practices, such as Haxby in York, sending letters to their patients saying, “We have decided that we are not going to fund your minor operations any more, but by the way, we are now providing those operations. Here’s our price list.” That is absolutely disgraceful, but it is a glimpse of the NHS that will emerge if the Health and Social Care Bill goes through. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we must consider the wider context, within a system with competition at its heart and where every hospital is on its own and they are fighting each other. That is the context in which this 49% proposal needs to be considered. It represents a break with 63 years of NHS history and a “genie out of the bottle” moment. That is why we ask the House to reject it.
Tom Blenkinsop
My right hon. Friend is making a strong point. The Minister says that the cap was flexible during our term, but that was under principles and rules for co-operation and competition rulings. That meant that the servicing out of the contract was based on care quality. Unfortunately, the Bill does not have any area dealing with quality of care; it is purely about price. It is about allowing Monitor to apply the pure regulatory format of the Competition Commission as it exists in other utility markets.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend anticipates me. I shall come to precisely that point in a moment, and it will backs up his point that the Bill is akin to the privatisations of the 1980s.
Andy Burnham
Just hang on and listen. Nothing has been done to the Bill to bring together the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s promises that there would be no privatisation. There has been no substantial change since the pause.
Let me come directly to whether the Bill represents a privatisation of the kind that we saw in the 1980s. In doing so, I shall refer to a report from the King’s Fund, which I recommend to the hon. Lady. The Government have failed to introduce measures that they promised, months after the pause, so it is still considered appropriate for a body as respected as the King’s Fund to make a fairly shocking comparison that, indeed, the Bill is similar to the privatisations of the Thatcher Government. The report says:
“The Government’s proposals draw heavily on the regulatory framework developed in telecoms and utilities regulators …Interestingly, Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley’s own ideas for the reform of the NHS, developed while in opposition, were born out of his experience of the privatisation and regulation of utilities in the mid-1980s when he was Principal Private Secretary to Norman Tebbit.”
There we—[Interruption.] Okay, there we have it. That is the view of the King’s Fund—this is a privatisation along the lines of those we saw in the 1980s.
To back up that point, the King’s Fund quotes from a speech that the Secretary of State gave in 2005 to the NHS Confederation. He said this of the 1980s privatisations:
“The combination of the introduction of competition with a strong independent regulator delivered immense consumer value and economic benefits.”
There are two problems with that statement. First, there are real questions about whether gas, electricity, water and rail customers feel that they have had immense value. Secondly, it is troubling that the Secretary of State for Health, of all people, considers the delivery of health care directly comparable to telecoms and utilities.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying in 2007 that he celebrated the role of the private sector in the NHS?
Andy Burnham
This is getting a little tedious. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the motion, which indeed does the very same thing? It recognises the fact that there is
“an important role for the private sector”
in the delivery of good NHS care and celebrates the role that it played in helping us to deliver the lowest ever NHS waiting times. Before intervening in future debates, he might like to read the motion that the House is considering.
Let me quote the Secretary of State’s interesting 2005 speech to the NHS Confederation, which set out the essential ingredients that we now see in his Health and Social Care Bill. His plan was to
“maximise competition, transfer risk to the private sector…appoint a strong, pro-competitive regulator…set out clearly the standards which have to be met and how operators will be held accountable for them…be clear about how and by whom universal service obligations are to be met…ensure high quality information for customers”
and have
“more customers rather than fewer.”
That is, do not have a few monopolistic health authority purchasers. The Secretary of State is nodding in assent that that is, essentially, his Health and Social Care Bill. This is, of course, the basic framework that the House of Lords is considering, despite the Deputy Prime Minister’s claim to have rejected
“the free market dogma that can fragment the NHS.”
A phrase leaps out of that 2005 speech that, in the light of recent events, needs to be challenged. It is
“transfer risk to the private sector”.
While acceptable in theory, I wonder whether recent experience with the private cosmetic surgery industry has led the Secretary of State to reconsider whether and how, in the health context, that can be delivered in practice. In an NHS based on commercial contracts, would there not always be arguments about legal liability when things went wrong? Would it not be much harder to control quality and costs in such a way, rather than through the current planned and managed NHS system that we have?
Mr Redwood
On the point about implants, why did the NHS under Labour buy the same difficult implants that the private sector bought?
Andy Burnham
The point that I am making is about how to manage the system, how to ensure proper regulation and how to ensure that NHS providers and the system work in the interests of NHS patients. If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that there would be the same control managing the system through a series of fragmented commercial contracts, I would be interested to have that debate with him. Frankly, I do not believe that he is being serious, if that is his point.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I have been contacted by constituents who access their cancer and cardiac care from Barts and from the London hospital. They fear that as a result of the Bill their health needs will be deprioritised in favour of private patients who can afford to pay. What would my right hon. Friend say to my constituents about their fears?
Andy Burnham
I wish I could allay the fears of those people, but when there is a proposal placed at the heart of the NHS for hospitals to devote half their facilities—their beds, their appointments—to private patients, how is it possible to give that guarantee to those patients, particularly when the Government are relaxing the waiting time standards that we did so much to establish in the NHS, with the two-week wait for cancer referrals and 18 weeks for elective operations, and a four-hour wait in A and E? How can we have that confidence when, effectively, the Government are taking those safeguards off the public and giving the green light for a massive expansion of private sector treatment in NHS hospitals?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend have any answer to the question whether private providers with obligations to their shareholders will inevitably face a conflict if risk is offloaded to them when their responsibility to their shareholders is naturally to ensure the best possible financial outcome for them?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this proposal brings that conflict right to the heart of the NHS. At the moment, NHS hospitals have a paramount and overriding duty to the treatment of NHS patients, but considering a health care system whereby services would be delivered through a series of commercial contracts brings that conflict of interest into the health care system—shareholders on the one hand, patients on the other. That is why there is such deep disquiet among health professions about these proposals. It is why those professions applied so much pressure last year, and the pause was ordered. It is why, I am afraid, they are still unhappy today—the Government have not addressed their concerns.
Mr Lansley
Before the right hon. Gentleman continues with this wholly erroneous line of discussion, will he reflect on the fact that the Bill introduces, for the first time, a transparency in accounting between NHS activity and any private income in any foundation trust, which he did not put into legislation? The Bill introduces a transparency that there can be no cross-subsidisation between NHS resources and any private activity. It introduces a legal requirement for any foundation trust to explain to the public at its annual meeting how it has used any private income to the benefit of NHS patients. Will he reflect on the fact that the primary purpose of a foundation trust is to provide NHS services? For it to do anything that was to the detriment of NHS patients, involving private patients, would be contrary to its primary purpose and unlawful.
Andy Burnham
There are a lot of questions there. The Secretary of State discusses the safeguards, but he has introduced them precisely because he has made a major break with 63 years of NHS history. He needs them because he wants a different health care system in this country, in which much more work is done by private providers and in which the commissioning of services is largely handed over to the private sector. That is why he has had to introduce those safeguards. We had a health service that was planned, managed and publicly accountable, but he is throwing all of that away.
Dr Poulter
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very generous. Does he not agree that the two hospitals with the highest patient cap—the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton—use the money that they make through private income very effectively, and put it back in to make them centres of excellence for all patients, particularly their NHS patients?
Andy Burnham
That was the policy of the previous Government, but the cap was clearly defined. It was a tight cap, and it reflected historical levels of work. What we are talking about is a liberalising measure to enable the private sector to double if not quadruple the amount of work that it is doing, which is why we are debating the motion.
I shall pose a question for the Health Secretary, who mentioned safeguards. If it is all fine to create a different NHS in which we have many more private contracts, might not the NHS risk register have something to say about the risks of creating such an NHS and the additional challenges of delivering health care through a system based on commercial contracts? Might it not lead to a diversion of spending on lawyers and consultants, away from patient care? Is there not a great irony, as we have heard the Health Secretary bemoan a lack of ability to intervene in the recent situation while, at the same time, here he is promoting a Bill that removes his ability to do so on a much wider basis? He wants to hand over his ability to intervene to the independent NHS Commissioning Board. The irony of his position will not be lost on many people listening to the debate.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I have attended this debate to try to ascertain the direction of travel of Labour policy and to try to gain an understanding of its philosophy and underlying principles. I am somewhat confused, because you seem to be all over the place. Do you believe that health care is a commodity—[Interruption.] I apologise; I meant the right hon. Gentleman. Do you believe that health care is a commodity or not? Do you believe that access to health care is a right or not? The answers to those questions underpin the policies that you will introduce, I presume, in the next couple of years.
Andy Burnham
I do not know whether those questions were for me or for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but let us assume that they were for me.
I introduced the NHS constitution, which enshrined for the first time the basic rights of NHS patients. I am proud to have done so, so I do not need any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about what we should do to improve health care in this country. I said in the motion that I am prepared to go back to my policy before the election in which we said that we would consider loosening the private patient cap. That is the policy that I have introduced to the House tonight. I am not prepared, however, to accept the wholesale abolition of that control to create a situation in which NHS hospitals can devote half their beds to private patients. If he is happy with that in his constituency, let him make the argument for it, but I am making an argument for a very different NHS from the one envisaged by Ministers.
Tom Blenkinsop
Is not the real question for the Government why on earth they have written the Competition Act 1998 into the Bill? Why have they written the Enterprise Act 2002 into it, and why have they allowed European competition law to create the haemorrhaging of a socially provided service under category B legislation? Why have they done that? What is the point? It can only be to loosen enterprise within the NHS for competitive purposes so that the private sector can come in.
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Bill was really about clinical commissioning, as the Government said at the beginning, and putting GPs in control, that could have been done through existing NHS structures. They could simply put clinical teams in charge of existing PCT structures. It could be done without any hassle or cost, but no, they completely broke down and rethought the whole system, because it was an ideological reform. Doctors oppose the measure, because they saw through the Bill, and saw it for what it was: a privatisation plan for the NHS.
Let me give three examples that demonstrate why the Prime Minister has not lived up to his “no privatisation” claim. The first is a letter sent by the Department on 19 July last year to NHS and social care leaders entitled “Extending Choice of Provider”:
“The NHS is facing a period of significant transition and financial challenge. But this is not a reason to delay action to address patient demands for greater choice”.
It went on to require all PCT clusters and clinical commissioning groups to identify three community services by 31 October that would be subject to an “any qualified provider” tendering process. That is significant because it exposes the ideological agenda behind the Bill and explodes the myth that it is about putting doctors in charge. If that was the case, logic would demand that it should be for doctors to decide whether or not any underperforming services could benefit from open procurement. That mandating of compulsory competitive tendering, even before Parliament has given its consent to the Bill, reveals the real direction of the policy. We simply ask how that can possibly be consistent with the Prime Minister’s promise of no privatisation.
The second example is the Department's guidance document to CCGs entitled “Developing commissioning support: towards service excellence”. I shall quote from the beginning of the document, which gives a clear statement of intent:
“The NHS sector, which provides the majority of commissioning support now, needs to make the transition from statutory function to freestanding enterprise.”
It could not be clearer, which is why members of the British Medical Association council called the document a “smoking gun”, confirming their fears of a stealth privatisation. The document confirmed that the Government envisaged large-scale privatisation of services to support commissioning—jobs that are currently carried out by public servants. It puts into practice the comments made by Lord Howe on 7 September 2011 at the Laing and Buisson independent healthcare forum:
“The opening up of the NHS creates genuine opportunities for those of you who can offer high quality, convenient services that compete favourably with current NHS care. If you can do that then you can do well. But you know that won’t be easy, the NHS isn’t a place to earn a fast buck...they will not give up their patients easily”.
On commissioning, he said:
“Commissioning support is an absolutely critical area for CCGs. Some of it will come from the PCT staff who will migrate over to the groups but there will need to be all sorts of support at various levels…There will be big opportunities for the private sector here.”
With reference to that second example, I ask the Secretary of State how on earth is that policy consistent with the promise made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of no privatisation?
That brings me to the third example, which we have discussed tonight. Just before the Christmas recess, the plan, which threatens to change the very character of our hospitals, was sneaked into the House of Lords. I do not seek to argue that that provision would change the NHS overnight, but in the context of a competitive NHS, where there is an obligation to promote the autonomy of hospitals, I believe that it would completely change the character of our hospitals and the way they think and function over time. The effect of a cap at this scale—a staggering 49%—means that hospitals could give equal priority to private patients. It sets the NHS and private sector in direct comparison with each other, and creates the conditions for an explosion of private work in NHS hospitals.
It is such a liberal provision that the Government’s amendment will have virtually the same impact as abolishing the cap completely, and it is a world away from the current situation. It fails to protect the interests of NHS patients by giving equal priority to other patients. Indeed, it creates a conflict of interest, as trusts could even seek to push patients into their private beds.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been extraordinarily generous in accepting interventions. When he discusses privatisation of services, does that include services taken on by charities, social enterprises and mutuals?
Andy Burnham
I am not against services being taken on by charities, voluntary providers and, indeed, the private sector. I have never set my face completely against that, but I see clear limits on the involvement and the role of the private sector in the delivery of NHS services. I see the private sector supporting the NHS, working at the margins, providing innovation and support. The Health Secretary sees the private sector replacing large chunks of the NHS, set up in direct competition with it, which is a very different policy. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he was elected to the House to support such a policy. Do not the constituents of Dover quite like the NHS that we have, and want it to continue as it has for its first 63 years?
I want briefly to mention the impact assessment. It gives this specific warning if hospitals loosen the private patient cap without creating additional capacity:
“there is a risk that private patients may be prioritised above NHS patients resulting in a growth in waiting lists and waiting times for NHS patients. This is the eventuality that the PPI cap was originally introduced to prevent.”
In other words, there would be a return to that traditional Tory choice in health care—wait longer or pay to go private.
That sums up the big difference between this Government’s approach to the private sector and that of the previous Government. In our system, the private sector was encouraged to throw its lot in with the delivery of the best possible NHS standards of care to NHS patients. By contrast, the world view of this Government sees private health care as a way out of the public NHS, trading on its failures as a means of boosting the private market.
The next question that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer is whether the 49% plan can possibly be consistent with the Prime Minister’s promise of no privatisation. We make a reasonable request this evening. We do not reject out of hand any change to the existing PPI cap on foundation trusts. Voting for the motion does not imply opposition to the entire Health and Social Care Bill. But we do reject a 49% cap, which is tantamount to abolition, and we call on the Government to revise it significantly downwards. Voting for the motion will send a signal from the House that the Government need to rethink.
In conclusion, I give notice that we will continue to oppose the Bill outright, and we will put everything we have got into that fight. Let me be clear. The Prime Minister should withdraw his “no privatisation” promise or he should withdraw his Bill. He cannot have it both ways. If the Bill is passed, I do not think there is any question but that it will lead to the privatisation of large chunks of commissioning and NHS provision. The truth is that this is an illegitimate Bill. Nobody voted for it, and it is a Bill that the Health Secretary has mis-sold to the public and professions. He claimed that it was about putting doctors in the lead, but doctors can see it now for what it is. From here on in, we on the Opposition Benches will call it what it is—a privatisation plan for the national health service.
We have called the debate tonight to bring these dangers home to a much wider audience. Time is running out for the NHS and I will give everything I have got to protect the NHS that I believe in. This is worth fighting for because the NHS stands for something different in a world where large parts of our national life have been taken over by profit and money. Recent events have shown the dangers of mixing medicine with the market. People see health as different from other areas and overwhelmingly support the NHS as it is. By and large they trust it and see it as one area of national life where the money motive has not taken over. They want it to stay that way and they look at social care as a warning, showing how a fragmented system can drag standards down. Nye Bevan said there would be an NHS for
“as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it”.
This is the moment of greatest threat to our health service and I tell the Health Secretary and the Government straight tonight to drop this illegitimate Bill or face the fight of their lives. I appeal to Members in all parts of the House who have worries about where the Government are going with the Bill to send a direct message to the Government and to vote as their constituents would want them to—for an NHS that will always put patient care before profits. I commend the motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)
We start 2012, and what is the Labour party’s priority? Is it to welcome the NHS improvements in performance, as reported before Christmas—that waiting times are low and stable, that there are now 90% fewer breaches of mixed-sex accommodation standards than at the same time last year, that hospital infections are at their lowest ever levels, or that there are more doctors and fewer managers in the NHS than at the election? No, none of those was Labour’s priority. Was it to welcome the increase next year announced just before Christmas in NHS funding for primary care trusts, or since Christmas an increase in the funding available this year direct to clinical commissioning groups to enable them to meet the needs of their patients? No, it was not that.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I know that the Secretary of State was at Salford Royal hospital last week, where the abundance that he is describing does not seem to be around. That hospital—he went there to talk about nursing—will have to lose many hundreds of its nurses. It seems strange to us that we do not seem to see the abundance that he talks about and it certainly was not apparent at Salford Royal.
Mr Lansley
That is exactly the same question that the hon. Lady asked during oral questions. The Prime Minister and I did indeed go to Salford Royal hospital and we were tremendously impressed by what is being done there but, like other hospitals across the NHS, as part of a process of using resources more effectively and as part of the consequences of a transfer to supporting patients more in the community than in the acute sector, that hospital is changing the way it manages its services, and it is delivering cost improvements. We make no bones about that.
We delivered £4.3 billion of cost improvement in the NHS in the last financial year. We are aiming to do more this year. We delivered £2.5 billion, according to the deputy chief executive of the NHS, in the first two quarters. Every penny saved by reducing costs in the NHS is available to be reinvested in the NHS. That is why we are in a position to improve the performance. The hon. Lady did not talk about how that funding is becoming available through savings on central costs—for example, £150 million extra funding this year announced since Christmas for support for the integration of health and social care.
Was that Labour’s priority? No. Did Labour come to the House and say, “We want to welcome the way the NHS has achieved an increase in the flu vaccine uptake,” or the simple fact that flu activity at this stage is at its lowest level for the past 20 years? No, none of that. The hon. Lady talked about Salford Royal and the way nurses are engaging in some best practice—
Mr Lansley
No. I am still answering the previous intervention. Nurses are engaging in best practice to improve the quality of care for patients in Salford Royal. Was that the basis upon which the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) chose to come to the House to talk about the things that matter to patients—the quality of care being delivered to patients? No, it was none of those things.
Mr Lansley
No. I answered the hon. Lady’s question.
Labour Members came to the House not to pursue the priorities of patients or of those who work in the NHS, but to pursue Labour’s priorities. They are not in 2012; they are not even in the 21st century. They are back in the past. Talking of the past and somebody who lives in the past, let us listen to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris).
Grahame M. Morris
The Secretary of State has quoted a series of statistics. Does he welcome the 29% increase in patients waiting more than 18 weeks since May 2010 as a result of dropping targets?
Mr Lansley
Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman. The average time that patients waited for in-patient elective procedures in the NHS according to the latest data was 8.4 weeks, which is exactly the same as at the time of the last general election. For out-patients it was 3.9 weeks, compared to 4.3 weeks at the election. For diagnostic tests, despite the fact that the NHS has performed 440,000 more diagnostic tests, the average waiting time is 1.8 weeks, the same as at the election. Long waits? The hon. Gentleman did not say that according to the latest data published the number of patients waiting more than a year for their treatment went down 40%, compared with what we inherited from the Government at the time of the last election.
The motion is all about Labour’s going back to the past. I am staggered. It is almost like revisiting Barbara Castle’s antipathy towards the private sector, or that of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the only former Labour Secretary of State now, even including himself, that the right hon. Member for Leigh seems to agree with.
I will ask the House to reject the motion, but in a way I am asking the House to reject those sentiments all over again, because we have been here before with this debate. Far from the House not having had an opportunity to consider issues including the private income cap, I remember having exactly this debate on Report. We were very clear about that. We discussed it when the White Paper was published, we discussed it when the Bill was debated on Second Reading, when it was in Committee and on Report, and it has been debated again in another place. I hope to use this opportunity to trample on some of the myths that the right hon. Member for Leigh and his friends are propagating about the Bill.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I have received information from inside King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust that priority is being given to private cancer patients in both diagnosis and treatment. Will the Secretary of State either confirm or deny that that is a fact?
Mr Lansley
If the right hon. Lady has any such evidence, she should give it to me. Let me explain that at the moment any individual member of NHS staff would be acting contrary to the NHS staff code of conduct if they saw a conflict between private sector and NHS activity and gave priority to private patients to the detriment of NHS patients. Technically speaking, under the legislation we inherited it is not explicitly unlawful for a foundation trust to do that but, as I explained to the right hon. Member for Leigh, a whole series of specific safeguards relating to the relationship between private and NHS activities was introduced into the Bill in another place. It makes it clear that the principal purpose of a foundation trust is to benefit NHS patients and NHS services. To do anything that is to the detriment of NHS patients will be unlawful. There are specific safeguards stating that foundation trusts cannot cross-subsidise between NHS activities and services and private services. If the right hon. Lady has information of a particular instance, she might as well give it to me.
Dame Joan Ruddock
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. Does he not understand that a person who has this information is terrified of putting it into the public domain—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but he is wrong. We are talking about someone’s job and livelihood. I simply asked him whether this is correct or not. Does he know?
Mr Lansley
I have no knowledge of what the right hon. Lady describes. Let me remind her that those working in the NHS have a responsibility to disclose anything that that they think is to the detriment of their patients’ interests, and under legislation on public interest disclosure they have protection. I announced just before Christmas that in the latest contract for an enhanced advice line there should be a whistleblower advice line.
Kate Green
I note what the Secretary of State says about staff who have concerns being encouraged to express them, but in the case of Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust, where a private company has just been commissioned to provide orthopaedic pain relief services, the staff had absolutely no knowledge that that commissioning was going on. How can he be sure that staff will be able to raise concerns when there is such a lack of transparency?
Mr Lansley
What the hon. Lady describes is precisely what has happened time and again under the legislation we inherited, which is not transparent. Primary care trusts were not accountable or transparent and an enormous amount of activity went on with tenders that involved the private sector and was not conducted in the way that we want, which is on the basis of a tariff and on the basis of which provider is best able to deliver the highest quality.
Let me deal with the first of the myths propagated by the right hon. Member for Leigh: that we have some kind of privatisation agenda. We do not. As I recollect, the only time any Government had a specific objective to increase the role of the private sector in the NHS was when he was a Minister, his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) was a special adviser to the Department for Health and Patricia Hewitt was Secretary of State. That was when they were saying they wanted to increase the role of the private sector to 10% or 15%, and the Health and Social Care Bill contains specific provision not to allow such discrimination in favour of private providers in future.
Andy Burnham
The Secretary of State says that he has no proposals to increase privatisation. Will he confirm that he has sent a letter through the Department asking clinical commissioning groups to identify three community services that will be subject to a compulsory competitive tender?
Mr Lansley
No, because it is not compulsory competitive tendering. It will extend access to any qualified provider—
Mr Lansley
It is not. The right hon. Gentleman, having been Secretary of State, ought to understand the difference between compulsory competitive tendering and any qualified provider. Under compulsory competitive tendering, it is the primary care trust that gets to choose who provides the service, but under any qualified provider it is patients who get to choose. One example is access to wheelchair services. Voluntary sector organisations, such as Whizz-Kidz, are setting out to provide a better service. From its point of view, that is not competitive tendering. Wherever Whizz-Kidz provides the service, patients in that area—[Interruption.] If he wants to have a conversation with other Members, he may by all means do so, but I will sit down.
I answered the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I am afraid that it proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between competitive tendering processes, which have been the stuff of primary care trusts—in the past it was they that decided who should provide services—and giving patients access to choice so that they can drive quality. Unlike competitive tendering, which was generally price-based tendering decided on cost and volume, under any qualified provider it is not about price, but about quality.
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. Friend mentioned the provision of wheelchair services, which we have been looking at in Kent when considering how commissioning can be taken forward. Whizz-Kidz offers really great and radical ideas. Is it not the case that the Labour party would have condemned disabled people to the same standard-issue NHS wheelchairs rather than allowing them real choice across the spectrum?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely why on that basis, using the any qualified provider approach, the chief executive of the NHS can set out the ambition that a child who needs a wheelchair should get it in a day. In the past they would have to wait and then would not necessarily get the wheelchair they wanted, or in any reasonable time scale. This is about driving improvement and quality. Many NHS providers will respond positively to that and deliver the quality, but if they do not we ought to be in a position to believe that what really matters in the NHS is the quality of the service provided to patients. That used to be what the Labour party believed in, which I suppose was why its last manifesto, written when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State, stated:
“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs.”
That is a complete description of what we are setting out to do. It is a description of the any qualified provider policy and something that he has now completely abandoned, and he has abandoned patients in the process. It is absurd.
The objective of the Bill and of the Government is simple: continuously to improve care for patients and the health and well-being of people in this country, and that includes improving the health of the poorest fastest, and to ensure that everyone, regardless of who or where they are, enjoys health outcomes that are as good as the very best in the world. That is what we are setting out to do.
The motion states that the private sector already plays an important role in providing that care. Indeed, once upon a time the Labour party was in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman said in May 2007:
“Now the private sector puts its capacity into the NHS for the benefit of NHS patients, which I think most people in this country would celebrate.”
Like my hon. Friends, I do not understand where he is coming from. The motion tries to face both ways, stating that Labour agrees with the private sector but also wants to have less of it. It agrees that the private sector can make a valuable contribution, but wants to stop it doing so. What matters to patients is the quality of care they receive, the experience of their care and the dignity and respect with which they are treated. Whether the hospital or community provider is operated by the NHS, a charity, a private company or a social enterprise is not the issue from the patient’s point of view. From our point of view, we should not make that the issue. The reason it will not matter is that, whoever is the provider of care, the values of the NHS—universal health care, paid for through general taxation, free and based on need, not ability to pay—will remain unchanged. No NHS patient pays for their care today; no patient will pay for their care in future under this Government. On that basis, I can absolutely restate what the Prime Minister said: under this Government and on our watch the NHS will not be privatised.
Tom Blenkinsop
With all due respect to the Secretary of State, I am afraid he cannot say that. We heard the excellent example of Whizz-Kidz, which is a fantastic organisation, but he cannot guarantee that it will get the contract, because Monitor, as we all know from the Bill, has primary control over who gets the service, and it will apply competition law, purely and simply. There is absolutely no guarantee that the third sector or co-operatives will get in, and in any case there is no guarantee that care quality will be applied in the decision.
Mr Lansley
Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I hardly know where to start, given the degree of ignorance associated with that point. Monitor does not decide who gets the service; patients and commissioners do, and the clinical commissioning groups determine how they commission the services. Quality is absolutely at the heart of the Bill, and at the heart of how we structure the statutory duties of all organisations concerned, but the hon. Gentleman goes on about the application of competition law. Actually, there is no extension of competition law in the NHS and no extension of EU competition law as a consequence of the Bill; it simply enables the NHS to have a health-specific regulator so that the application of competition law and EU competition rules, in so far as they apply because the Bill does not change their application at all, is carried out by a health sector regulator.
Myth No. 2 is that the impact of a wider range of providers in the NHS will drive down the quality of care, but we will give patients more choice and more control over their health care. If people are given clear information about the quality of different providers, they will, with their doctors and nurses helping as their commissioners, choose the provider that is best for them, and the Health and Social Care Bill means that all providers will compete on the quality of their services, not on the prices that they charge.
There will be no incentive for doctors to encourage their patients to opt for the cheapest option, because there will be no cheapest option; there will only be the best-quality option.
Mr Lansley
No, it is nothing to do with Monitor in those circumstances; those whom I have mentioned will make the choice.
The more choice there is, the more innovation there is, the more new ideas there are and the more pressure there is on all providers from all sectors constantly to raise their game for patients. The evidence supports that.
Andy Burnham
I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman very carefully, and he made a statement a moment ago about there being no privatisation—that privatisation will not result from the Bill. Is he saying to us that his Health and Social Care Bill will lead to no additional privatisation of commissioning or provision in the national health service? It is a very clear question.
Mr Lansley
There will not be any transfer of responsibility for services from the NHS to the private sector; the NHS will continue to be responsible. The balance in the NHS—[Interruption.] No, I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He is trying to interpret “privatisation” as every service currently provided by an NHS provider being provided by an NHS provider in the future, but whether services are provided by the NHS or by a private enterprise, a social enterprise or a charity will be determined by patients choosing who is the best-quality provider. So that is not privatisation; the service remains free, and it remains an NHS service. It is guaranteed to patients in exactly the same way, and there is no presumption in the legislation—in fact, it excludes any presumption—in favour of a private sector provider as against an NHS provider.
The right hon. Gentleman is in absolutely no position to make any criticism of that, because he served in a Government who introduced independent sector treatment centres. They went through the process of giving the private sector contracts that were not available to the NHS, with an 11% higher price on average and a guarantee that they would be paid even if they did not necessarily provide the treatment. The net result was £297 million spent on operations that never took place, and the private sector walked away with that money, so he is in absolutely no position to make any criticism, because we are going to exclude such practices. The contracts that the Labour party gave to the private sector when he was a Minister are exactly the contracts that our legislation will exclude.
Henry Smith
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the previous Administration, private sector involvement in the NHS went up by 78%?
Mr Lansley
Interestingly, under the so-called extended choice network that the Labour Government introduced, the number of elective operations conducted in the private sector went from, I think, 16,000 in 2005-06 to 208,000 in 2009-10—an enormous increase. From the right hon. Gentleman’s point of view, it was marginal capacity that did not really matter, but the point is that patients said that they thought it provided good quality care. In a Care Quality Commission survey, some 96% of NHS patients using independent facilities said that the elective surgery they received was “excellent” or “very good”. The figure for NHS facilities was 79%. On the NHS Choices website, nine of the top 20 highest-rated NHS-funded providers were run by the independent sector; there were no independent-sector hospitals in the bottom 20. The general proposition is that the private sector is worse in the NHS, but there is no evidence to support that.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Royal College of Surgeons conducted a study of the quality of care, and its general conclusion was that the quality of clinical care offered to NHS patients by private sector providers was as good as the care offered by the NHS. So what is his point? He used the private sector, patients used the private sector and patients were happy. What is his point?
Andy Burnham
We did, and I have celebrated it already, because it delivered the lowest-ever NHS waiting lists, which I celebrate again. But I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman, and I get the impression that he is completely confused. He cannot admit that his Bill will lead to more privatisation, but that is at its core, and people listening to this debate would have more respect for him if he came to the Dispatch Box and made an argument for what he is trying to do—to create a market in health care. Is he just floundering around? He is no longer able to say what the Bill is really about. It is about more privatisation, so why does he not try to make an argument for what he is trying to do, instead of avoiding the issue?
Mr Lansley
When the right hon. Gentleman finds that his argument is not working, he resorts to abuse. It is very simple: the Bill is not about privatisation. Patients will have access to NHS-funded services; the commissioners of those services will be NHS commissioners who are accountable to the NHS through statutory bodies, and they will not be able to transfer that responsibility to the private sector. Provision will be determined by the choices that patients and their doctors and nurses make about who is the best-qualified provider, and that choice will be made on quality, not on any other basis.
On the simple fact that we are looking to use competition within a tariff system, studies from Imperial college and the university of Bristol have recently shown that when it is introduced quality increases. Indeed, research from the university of York’s centre for health economics suggests that, if anything, the use of such competition has tended to support a reduction in the inequalities of access and care, rather than to lead to greater inequalities.
Let me provide some examples, bearing in mind the path that the Labour party is looking to go down. The Eastbourne Wound Healing Centre, a social enterprise set up by a nurse and an occupational therapist, specialises in wound healing. Patients who go to their clinic often have wounds that have not healed over three years, but more than eight out of every 10 of them have those wounds healed in just six weeks. Should we prevent patients being seen there because it is not actually owned by the NHS?
The City Health Care Partnership in Hull provides palliative care at home for patients and does not put profit before patients. One carer said that
“this clinic is so different, the focus is about how the illness is affecting you and what can be done to support you through it.”
Should we stop it doing that?
Another example is Inclusion Healthcare, a social enterprise in Leicester, which the hon. Member for Leicester West might know. It provides specialist health care to the homeless. Jane Gray, its director of nursing and development, stated:
“We’re providing a better service than we did in the NHS. We’re able to innovate and shape our services without constraint.”
Should we shut it down? Would that reduce inequalities? No, it would make them worse.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I endorse entirely the Secretary of State’s criticism of the previous Government’s bias towards the private sector. I would be grateful if he clarified an issue in respect of the integration of health services. Does he agree that, particularly at the secondary and tertiary level, the question is not so much about privatisation because if the NHS was to lose its preferred provider status, the gradual loss of many aspects of secondary and tertiary services in, for example, an acute general hospital might undermine the viability of the hospital?
Mr Lansley
The position is very clear, as the hon. Gentleman should know from the debates that we have had. Continuity of access to services through the NHS is one of the central responsibilities of commissioners and of Monitor. If there is any threat to the continuity of those services, they can step in and take measures to ensure that the services continue, including by agreeing funding beyond the tariff to make that happen. If the extension of any qualified provider could lead directly to the loss of access to essential services for patients, the commissioners and Monitor do not have to go down that path. They can make those judgments.
I caution the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about hanging his hat on the NHS as preferred provider. Before the last election, the right hon. Member for Leigh said that the NHS should be the preferred provider. His philosophy said that the NHS should be allowed to get it wrong twice before the private sector gets a look in. From the patient’s point of view it is, of course, a very cheerful thought that they will be surrendered to the policy of NHS as preferred provider.
Curiously, in March 2010, before the election and at the same time as he said that his policy was the NHS as preferred provider, the right hon. Gentleman published the “Principles and rules for cooperation and competition”, which he seems to be very fond of and which we are maintaining. That document stated:
“Commissioners must commission services from providers who are best placed to deliver the needs of their patients.”
It also stated:
“Commissioners and providers must not take any actions which restrict choice against patients’ and taxpayers’ interests.”
The reason that the right hon. Gentleman published that document was that he knew that the policy of NHS as preferred provider was already going to be the subject of a legal challenge and that it would not survive that challenge. That is why he restated exactly the principles of co-operation and competition that we intend to incorporate directly and without amendment into the way in which Monitor does its job.
Mr Lansley
No, I am going to move on. There has to be time for people to contribute to the debate, so I do not want to go on for too long.
The Health and Social Care Bill will, for the first time, ensure that private and voluntary sector organisations have to meet the same exacting standards and be regulated in exactly the same way as NHS organisations when they provide NHS services. Because that extends to any organisation providing NHS services, whether it be private or voluntary, it is disingenuous at best and possibly disreputable for the right hon. Member for Leigh to draw any comparison with the PIP breast implants scandal. There is no comparison between the position of a private company working in the private sector providing private services and the role of a private company operating inside the NHS under NHS controls. He knows that there is no comparison. In the NHS, the patient will be wholly protected. It is our intention to ensure for the first time—this did not happen under the Labour Government—that when a private sector provider operates in the NHS, it has to provide equivalent indemnities to its patients as would be provided through the NHS. That did not happen when the independent sector treatment centres and other things were brought in. There will be better protection. The private sector operating outside the NHS is a different matter.
Myth No. 3 is that raising the cap on private income will lead to a worse deal for patients. The paradigm example is the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Its private patient cap is set at 31%. That is because in 2002, 31% of its income was derived from private sources and that was the basis on which it became a foundation trust in 2004. Its current private patient income is 25.8% of its total income. The fact that it has a cap does not mean that it goes up to it. In fact, its private patient level has come down slightly. The effect of setting the cap at 10%, as suggested by the right hon. Member for Leigh, would be to take about a fifth out of the income of the Royal Marsden. The Royal Marsden, like Great Ormond Street, is a classic example of how having a thriving private income from research, joint ventures and patients coming from overseas can get a hospital to a place where it can also consistently be recorded as one of the most excellent hospitals in the NHS, where NHS patients get the best care. It has on one hand the highest level of private patient activity—or, strictly speaking, private income—and on the other hand the highest standard of NHS care. The two things are entirely compatible.
Andy Burnham
May I just ask the Secretary of State to correct what he has said about the statements that I made? I did not say that I would reduce the Marsden’s cap. I said that we would allow a small increase on the existing cap that is linked to trusts’ own historical levels of private work. It would help the debate if he would be careful to get my position right. I was not talking about an across-the-board, blanket 10% cap, I simply said that some trusts with a much tighter cap of 1% or 2% were asking for a little extra leeway, which I said should be provided. I am not proposing a 10% cap across the board.
Mr Lansley
I think I could be forgiven for not understanding what on earth the right hon. Gentleman was talking about, since he did not put it in his motion and my colleagues had to ask him three or four times before they got anything close to an answer—he was saying “10%, or in single figures, we’re not quite sure what it would be”.
We have always been clear that there is an inherent unfairness in some foundation trusts having a cap set at the maximum 31% and others having it set at 1.5%, as all mental health trusts did when they were allowed to become foundation trusts. Technically, all NHS trusts have no cap at all, and some of them use that flexibility. Great Ormond Street, for example, is an NHS trust, not a foundation trust, and it uses that freedom, mainly to treat patients from overseas. Are we to stop that happening? I ask the right hon. Gentleman where he would set the cap for Great Ormond Street. I will give way to him if he will tell me.
Andy Burnham
I am not defending the existing policy. The cap was set for each trust individually to reflect historical levels. The reason trusts such as the Marsden and Great Ormond Street have a more generous cap is the large amounts of private work that they carry out. [Interruption.] Yes, but if and when they become foundation trusts under the Secretary of State’s policy, they will have caps reflecting their historical levels of work if he adopts my suggestion. I have proposed that each individual cap be modestly loosened, but he proposes an across-the-board 49% cap applying to all NHS hospitals, effectively meaning that every NHS hospital could devote half their beds to the treatment of private patients. Will he confirm that that is the effect of the policy that he is bringing forward?
Mr Lansley
Answer came there none. The truth is, we are doing exactly what the right hon. Gentleman and his party intended to do. At the election, Labour said in its manifesto:
“Foundation Trusts will be given the freedom to expand their provision into primary and community care, and to increase their private services—where these are consistent with NHS values, and provided they generate surpluses that are invested directly into the NHS”.
That is what we are doing.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Lansley
No.
We are giving foundation trusts freedom to generate revenue from other sources that can be invested directly into the NHS. When Moorfields, for example, sets up a clinic in the middle east in a joint venture, should we say, “No, you’re not allowed to do that, because it might imperil your ability to support NHS patients”? Actually, it will help their ability to do so, with NHS Global encouraging the NHS.
I believe in the NHS and in the ability of NHS hospitals and providers, which in the past have had their horizons limited, to move beyond those horizons and deliver much better care. That can include turning them into international providers of choice in joint ventures across the world, and even joint ventures in this country, whether in research or the provision of additional services. However, as I explained to the right hon. Member for Leigh in an intervention, under the Health and Social Care Bill the principal purpose of any foundation trust will be the provision of NHS services. Doing anything that would be to the detriment of its provision of NHS services would be unlawful. Foundation trusts cannot cross-subsidise from NHS services into private services.
Mr Lansley
No.
Individual staff in the NHS have a duty not to allow their private activity to be to the detriment of their NHS activity. Foundation trusts will have an obligation to be transparent in accounting for the two sources of income, and they will have an obligation to report at their general meeting how they have used their private income to benefit their NHS patients.
I am afraid that what the right hon. Member for Leigh says is a tissue of nonsense. The 49% amendment was introduced only to make it abundantly clear that if the principal purpose of a foundation trust is the provision of NHS services, by extension that would not be consistent with the balance of its activity being private rather than NHS activity—hence 49%. There is no specific intention that NHS foundation trusts should increase their private income to any specific degree.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Is it not true that the cap is “up to” 49%? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best decisions are made not at the Dispatch Box by plucking numbers out of the air, but by patients, clinicians and hospital trusts?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party appears to be going backwards. Its 2010 manifesto said:
“We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care”,
but tonight’s motion says that Labour has abandoned that policy. I quoted earlier the Labour party’s commitment to giving patients the choice of the best available provider. Its policy tonight is to abandon patients, including the 81% who told a survey that they want to exercise choice. Labour’s manifesto said it would give foundation trusts freedom to expand and increase their private services. It has now abandoned that policy.
Why does Labour do that? Why did it abandon those policies? Perhaps it is because the Labour party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade unions. Labour is interested not in patients or the NHS, but in the trade unions, because its policy is all about the protection of trade union interests—vested interests. The guarding of the vested interests is the remaining activity of the Labour party, but it will diminish over time.
Let me tell the shadow Health Secretary very simply what we are setting out to do. Under this Government, the power to choose will increasingly lie in the hands of patients, doctors and nurses, and incentives will encourage all providers to integrate their care and improve the quality of their care. The result is not a fragmentation of the NHS or inequalities, but better, higher-quality care, and integrated NHS care that offers everyone the very best care available. We will use choice—patients’, doctors’ and nurses’ interests in delivering that choice—and the best quality provision to deliver better outcomes for patients. That is why I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have very limited time and I wish to get quite a lot of Back Benchers in, so I am going to start with a six-minute limit. I may have to reduce it, but I am going to try to ensure that we get everybody in.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
To respond to some of the misrepresentations of the Opposition, I worked for the NHS for some 12 years and hold it in the very highest regard. I am here to defend the NHS against privatisation, and I make no apology for doing so to Government Members or anyone else for that matter.
It is fitting to pay tribute to all those who work in the NHS and who make it such a tremendous institution. I also pay tribute to members of the British Medical Association consultants committee who took part in Bevan’s run to mark their opposition to the dreadful Health and Social Care Bill as part of the “Drop the Bill” campaign. They ran 160 miles in six days from Nye Bevan’s statue in Cardiff to deliver a postcard to the Department of Health in Whitehall to call on the Secretary of State to drop the Bill.
In the limited time available, I should like to address the point in the motion about the cap and to address Government Members’ misrepresentations. The private patient income cap, which was set up under the previous Labour Government in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, which established NHS foundation trusts, was a protection against the need for profit overtaking the needs of NHS patients. With all hospital trusts set to become foundation trusts by 2014, a meaningful cap on the amount of resources that can be directed to the care and treatment of private patients becomes even more important.
The passage of the Health and Social Care Bill—it is in the Lords at the moment—can only be described as a shambles. It is an incredibly unpopular measure. There could have been agreement on, for example, clinical involvement in commissioning, but that could be achieved without this incredible disruption to the service. I certainly believe that it is harmful to the future existence of the NHS. There is no mandate or basis for it in the Conservative or Lib Dem manifestos or in the coalition agreement. This NHS privatisation plan might be better described as an NHS privatisation paving Bill—
Grahame M. Morris
With all due respect, I have very limited time and I am not going to take any interventions.
Any utterance about the nature of the NHS reforms planned by the Secretary of State during the general election campaign was heavily disguised. He weaved a tangled web in private health care during his seven years as Opposition spokesman on health. A few moments ago, he mentioned Labour’s involvement with the trade unions, but it is the involvement of the Conservatives with private health care interests that should be the subject of scrutiny.
NHS professionals, staff, the public and experts alike have all rejected the ethos of profits over patients, but the Secretary of State will not be deterred. He has defended his move by claiming that foundation trusts have a core legal duty to care for NHS patients. However, at the same time he is telling these trusts that they must make a profit to survive, and that if they run a deficit, they risk failure. That could mean being taken over by another trust or, as we have seen in the case of Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon, being taken over by a private sector provider.
We have not seen the Bill’s risk assessment, but as a member of the Public Bill Committee, I saw the impact assessment, and in point B95 it confirms that rather than improving services at hospital level through performance management, poor providers
“may need to contract or exit completely.”
That has created the ultimate Catch-22 for foundation trusts, with a conflict between patients and profits. A further Government proposal to scrap the provision in the 2006 Act which allows failing foundation trusts to return to NHS control puts further pressure on the need for trusts to pursue profits and has been opposed by the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson.
I urge hon. Members to vote for the motion to ensure that patient care is placed before private profit and to send a clear and strong message to the Government that they must think again about their plans to ratchet up privatisation in our beloved NHS. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has often quoted Nye Bevan, but to quote Robin Cook,
“If he believes that the spirit of Nye Bevan supports his changes to the NHS then there is a wheel missing from his ouija board.”
Mr Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris). He and I are both members of the Health Committee and, surprisingly perhaps, we more often find ourselves in agreement about the objectives that we are trying to deliver than is obvious from the nature of the debates across the Floor of the House.
I shall focus my remarks on the speech by the shadow Health Secretary. I have some quite good news for him—he was a far better Secretary of State than he himself appears now to believe. As Secretary of State, he did not allow himself to fall victim to the kind of prejudices that have been ventilated this evening. Tonight, he fell into the old trap of eliding two concepts and pretending that they are the same. The two concepts are, on the one hand, privatising the health service, and on the other, involving the private sector in the improvement of care available to patients. As Secretary of State, he was well able to distinguish between those two concepts and pursued policies of involving the private and voluntary sector when there were opportunities to improve care for patients. He now prefers to forget the fact that during his time as a Minister we not only heard plans for involving the private sector in improving the care delivered to patients but saw an open-minded attempt to bring in the private sector to improve the process of commissioning in the health service. That was what world-class commissioning was designed to deliver. We are now asked to turn our mind away from all those ideas.
I, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, am in favour of tax-funded care for patients. I am in favour of equitable access to high-quality care, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and like the shadow Health Secretary. I am also, however, in favour of plural provision, looking for the best solution for patients and the best value for taxpayers. In that respect, I am, as the shadow Health Secretary used to be but apparently no longer is, a straightforward Blairite. This was the breakthrough that Tony Blair taught the Labour party that it now appears to have forgotten. It was Tony Blair who advocated the introduction of private hospitals into the delivery of care and Tony Blair who stressed the importance of the third sector in finding new ways of improving care for patients, yet it is now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who has to pick up the Blairite torch that has been so unceremoniously dropped by the shadow Health Secretary.
It is worth reflecting, is it not, on whether this Blairite consensus is the inevitable consequence of the principle of commissioning—
Andy Burnham
If the policy that the Secretary of State is pursuing is a continuation of our policy in government, why do the Government need many hundreds of pages of legislation and a new Bill?
Mr Dorrell
The right hon. Gentleman is in danger of creating another consensus. Indeed, there is a debate about whether the Bill moves things forward as far as the rhetoric suggests. I am on the record many times saying that the claims made for the Bill by, if I am honest, both the Government and the Opposition spokesmen are grossly overstated. It introduces greater engagement by clinicians in commissioning and greater engagement by local authorities in commissioning through the health and wellbeing boards, and those are good things. I agree, however, with the tone of the right hon. Gentleman’s last intervention: the new world is not quite as far removed from the old as he sometimes likes to suggest and as he suggested in his speech.
Let us focus for a second on what it means to have commissioners in the health service. When the shadow Secretary of State has more time one day, I would like to hear him talk us through the process, which he would, on occasion at least, advocate, of turning down a good idea that is brought to a commissioner to improve care for patients and good value for taxpayers because that idea comes from the private sector. I hold no brief for the private or public sector in the delivery of care; I hold a brief for tax-funded equitable access to higher quality care from whomsoever provides that care. That is what I mean when I say that I am a straightforward Blairite and I look forward to welcoming the shadow Health Secretary back into the fold.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I want to speak in support of the motion and argue that NHS hospitals are not private businesses and should not be turned into private businesses, pitted against each other and competing for the most lucrative procedures.
Many of the dangers inherent in the Government’s plans have been displayed in the saga about PIP implants. In that case, tens of thousands of women have been left worried sick about implants received in surgery in private clinics. There are, of course, serious questions about regulation of the products used in private clinics on those tens of thousands of women. Indeed, it has emerged that the PIP implants were effectively counterfeit goods below medical grade, and I understand that some of the gel used in them is designed for use in mattresses.
On 23 December, the Health Secretary’s initial response to the scare affecting tens of thousands of women was that his current advice was that there was
“no need to routinely remove these PIP breast implants. In the meantime we would recommend that all patients who have questions about their PIP breast implants should seek advice from their implanting surgeon.”
As we have heard since, however, some women who had that surgery could not even contact their original surgeon and many clinics demanded hundreds of pounds even for a scan—money that the women involved just might not have. Last week, many private clinics said that patients must pay in cash to have the implants removed.
I did not feel that the initial advice would reassure the women involved, who were left with all their fears and concerns over Christmas and new year, so I asked fellow members of the Health Select Committee to consider an inquiry into the saga and the issues of regulation that it raised, and I am glad that Committee members agreed and that there will now be an inquiry. We have to remember, however, that reviews and inquiries move slowly for people worried sick about their health. I believe that the NHS should stand by these women, which it reluctantly now seems to be agreeing to do.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency passed the products despite their being substandard or, as I said last week and previously, effectively counterfeit. I thought that the point was well made in an article by the health writer and commentator Roy Lilley. He wrote that
“women who have PIP made breast implants are the victims of a crime”,
having
“spent fortunes on enhancements that have turned out to be counterfeit and possibly…injurious to their health… The NHS would not turn away a patient convulsing from consuming counterfeit vodka. Neither should it turn these women away.”
This saga raises many issues about not only the quality of implants but regulation—or the lack of it—in private medicine. That is key to this debate. More issues have been raised in recent days about the ability of surgeons who practise cosmetic surgery in private clinics. Apparently, they are not always trained or skilled enough to apply to be consultants or even to practise in the NHS without supervision, but they are skilled enough to operate alone in cosmetic surgery and private clinics. To what standard do those private clinics operate? What about the many other products implanted in surgery—hips, knees and heart valves, for example? How well regulated are those products and how can we be sure of their quality? I hope that the Health Committee inquiry can tackle some of those regulatory issues.
The concerns raised recently about the cosmetic surgery industry prompt many questions about where we will be if the Government continue with their Health and Social Care Bill. Last week in a letter to The Times, 14 consultants, general practitioners and public health experts wrote:
“The government proposes a vast increase in private provision of health care just as we are told that existing private providers are unable to supply adequate records of what they have been doing and are charging exorbitant sums to consult their records for those women seeking information on what happened to them.”
They continue to warn that the Health and Social Care Bill, now in the other place,
“provides much less protection for patients should their provider fail than is available to people booking package holidays.”
We have to think about that, because the implications are frightening for the future of the NHS.
The other major area of decline is waiting lists—this has been touched on in the debate—which are already getting longer, to the detriment of NHS patients. We must question what will happen when up to half of hospital beds are being used for private patients. In 1997, this country had a Conservative Government and NHS waiting lists were shockingly long. I was out campaigning in the 1997 election with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and I met a man who had been told that he would wait two years for vital heart surgery. He was worried that he would die while on the waiting list. That was the reality of the NHS then.
After 13 years of a Labour Government and while campaigning in my constituency in 2010, I met a man who told me about a totally different experience of the NHS. He visited his GP on Monday and was sent for blood tests. On Tuesday, he was told that he could have serious problems and was admitted to a north Manchester hospital for further investigation. They had a specialist surgeon there who operated on him on Thursday and told him that the surgery had saved his life—four days to save a life in the NHS after a Labour Government had run it for 13 years versus a desperate two-year wait back in 1997 under a Conservative-run Government.
The Health and Social Care Bill challenges the NHS’s founding principle that access to services should be based on need, not ability to pay. I know that my constituents do not want these changes. Many of them have asked me to be here for this debate and to vote for the motion. I am happy to do so.
In conclusion, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) in mentioning the brave participation of Dr Clive Peedell and David Wilson in running 160 miles in six days to draw attention to the growing campaign to drop the Health and Social Care Bill. It is time the Government listened.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am grateful to be called, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had three reasons for writing to Mr Speaker requesting to take part in this debate. The first is that I genuinely wanted to hear, in this Opposition day debate on the NHS, what the Opposition’s plans really are for the future of our health service. The second reason is that I want to describe the experience that my constituents went through, over 13 years of a Labour Administration. Finally, I want to talk about how already, in anticipation of the Health and Social Care Bill becoming law, clinicians in Crawley are working to deliver a better national health service.
I do not mind telling the House that I am forgoing an invitation to a dinner this evening, so great was my desire to hear exactly the official Opposition’s view on the NHS. What I have heard this evening is incredible—or, so that I am not misunderstood, not credible. It is amazing that a party that massively increased the PFI programme during its tenure, spending billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in an inefficient way through the national health service, should come to the House this evening and try to claim that what we are trying to achieve in the Health and Social Care Bill will somehow privatise the national health service. Let us be quite clear: this Government are committed to providing a national health service that is available regardless of the ability to pay. The difference, I contend, between Government Members and Opposition Members is that they are ruled by some sort of centralist dogma that says that if the Department of Health has not willed it, it cannot happen, whereas the Government are trying to introduce a pragmatic approach, in which outcomes are far more important than the strict processes that a dogmatic system for delivering health care should produce.
I said that I wanted briefly to mention the experience of the NHS during what we are often led to believe were the golden years of the health service, under the previous Government. Those years were not so golden for my constituents, because in 2001—a decade ago—we regrettably saw the downgrading of maternity services at Crawley hospital. Crawley is a growing town; indeed, its motto is, “I grow and I rejoice”. However, there was not much rejoicing when its maternity services were taken away and transferred almost 10 miles up the road to East Surrey hospital, where there is now increased pressure on maternity services, as it is having to cope with the increased number of people from not only east Surrey, but the north-east of West Sussex.
To add insult to injury, in 2005 Crawley hospital saw its accident and emergency department closed. Again, it was moved miles up the road to East Surrey hospital, even though there is little public transport between that hospital and Crawley—a growing and ageing town, with increasing health needs and major transportation links, not least the nation’s second biggest airport, London Gatwick—and single-carriageway roads. At best, that is inconvenient for patients and for families wishing to visit them in hospital; at worst, it is potentially fatal. That is my constituents’ experience.
Barbara Keeley
The hon. Gentleman is making a defence of A and E and maternity services, but does he not recognise that, despite the promises made by the current Secretary of State during the election campaign, many hospitals have, for clinical reasons, done the very same thing? They include Salford Royal, which has lost its maternity services, and others in the north-west, even though the Secretary of State promised that that would not happen to them. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that those things are going on now?
Henry Smith
The principal reason behind the closure of the accident and emergency unit at my local hospital was the European working time directive, which had a massive impact across the national health service. The NHS as an institution will of course evolve, the better to serve patients up and down the country. That is absolutely right.
That brings me to the third point that I wanted to make: the opportunity that the Health and Social Care Bill will provide for greater localisation in decision making on the future of health care services. I am delighted that the clinicians and GPs in Crawley have already come together to form a GP commissioning body, which is very ably chaired by Dr Amit Bhargava. It is brimming with ideas for innovative ways in which patients can be provided with much better services. For the first time in many years, decisions about the future of health care in Crawley are being made by Crawley clinicians, in conjunction with their patients and in the light of their patients’ needs. The group is working in conjunction with the local authorities—West Sussex county council and Crawley borough council—which, incidentally, will be providing oversight of some of the private sector contracts in the national health service, as envisaged in the Bill. The provision of that democratic oversight for the first time will achieve a localisation of services that is more relevant to the needs of the local communities, as well as a far greater degree of oversight.
I reject the motion before us, and I welcome the Health and Social Care Bill. It will be better for patients and better for democratic oversight. Ultimately, we should be talking about, and delivering, better outcomes for health care in this country, not remaining wedded to an outdated dogma which does not deliver services as efficiently as it could and should deliver them.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The NHS is rightly the most valued institution in this country. It has an impeccable track record of continuing improvement and innovation going back more than 60 years. The staff on the front line and those in the support services who are disparaged by Conservative Members as somehow irrelevant to the success of the service have never been frightened to face up to the challenges of change. They are, however, sick and tired of the constant demands of know-it-all politicians on all sides for endless reorganisations, restructuring and re-profiling. That is why they were so disappointed after the Prime Minister had told them that there would be no more top-down impositions from on high; they and the British public were, quite simply, misled.
The fears around privatisation are a reflection of yet another change to the structure of the NHS, and it is a very unwelcome one. The Secretary of State tried to rubbish the trade unions tonight. He did not mention all the other professional bodies in the NHS that are opposed to the changes. The only people who seem to be in favour of them are those in the Tory party, and their friends in the Liberal Democrats. None of the people who are delivering the services want the changes to happen. That includes the GPs that the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) was talking about. They might well be doing good work in Crawley, but the key is that they do not want to have to do it in that way. The general public are also worried about the changes.
The Secretary of State said that we should not look back, but if we do not learn the mistakes of history, we will repeat them. We need to look at the situation that prevailed a long time ago. The working people in this country in the first half of the last century were desperate for a health care system. People came back from the devastation of world war one to a worldwide influenza epidemic. They were living in desperate conditions and working in massively unsafe workplaces. They were bringing up families whose lives were blighted and shortened by the diseases of poverty: tuberculosis, rickets, malnutrition and pneumonia. Their conditions of life at home and at work had changed little since the days of Dickens, yet we saw yet another world war where money that could not be found to build a decent society in peacetime was miraculously produced to kill millions in wartime.
At the end of that war, the men and women of this country were determined not to continue with that and were not going to put their faith in a Government and a private sector-driven economy that had failed them so badly. They turned instead to a Government who, despite the biggest debt crisis ever, determined that the health and well-being of this country’s people was paramount. That is why Labour built millions of homes for people, why swathes of industries that had been disgracefully run down by the private sector owners were nationalised, and why we, the Labour party, built the NHS to ensure that never again would the quality of a person’s health care depend on the depth of their wallets.
People quite rightly felt bitter about the way they had been treated for decades. That was perhaps best summed up by Nye Bevan, who set up the NHS, when on 4 July 1948, two days before the NHS came into being, he said:
“no amount of cajolery and no attempts at ethical or social seduction can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me.”
As expected, the Opposition did not like that, and Mr Churchill labelled Mr Bevan “the Minister for Disease”. Equally as expected, Nye Bevan was having none of it. Speaking from the platform of the Durham miners’ gala, he reminded people of the reality of life under Tory rule when he said—
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman is quoting history, so I wonder whether he would agree that Nye Bevan could be seen as the pioneer of private sector involvement within the NHS, given that he accepted that more than 4,000 pay beds should be part of the NHS in order to ensure bags of investment in facilities?
Mr Anderson
Of course, the reality is as envisaged by my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, who has accepted that there is a role for the private sector within the health service, but the debate is about how big it should be and how much control there should be of the health sector. [Interruption.] May I carry on?
As I was saying, Nye Bevan responded to Churchill’s criticism by saying:
“Who should be called the Minister for Disease? I am keeping mothers and children alive when he half starved them to death.”
That is the legacy with which the Conservative party is lumbered. It is the burden round the neck of Conservative Members when the people of this country get worried about private involvement in health care. I have no doubt that Conservative Members will not agree with me, but it was right and proper when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) drew an analogy between this privatisation and that of the utilities. We should look at the results of those privatisations: unfettered and uncontrolled expansion, with our energy supplies now controlled by foreign companies; huge, uncontrolled price increases; millions of people in fuel poverty; no control over the security of supply; a national grid not fit for purpose; and an incoherent strategy to face up to the challenge of climate change. Those are all the result of giving away our vital services to the highest bidder. People are quite right to say, “Why would it be any different in health?”
The people of this country do not want the NHS to become a copycat version of the American model—a model that costs twice as much as ours to run, yet leaves 20% of the population out in the cold when they are ill. Our NHS has a tremendous track record, dealing with millions of people every week. Our life expectancy levels have risen rapidly, especially over the period when the previous Government reversed the years of underfunding that were the trademark of the last Tory Government. Public satisfaction rates were at record levels when we left office 18 months ago.
This present Government have broken their promise to the British people. They have lied to the staff who work magnificently to deliver our NHS. They are intent on breaking up the NHS and replacing it with a system based once again on a programme that puts profits before patients. If Conservative Members really believe in privatisation, they should ask the people what they want. The people have woken up to the reality of the Conservative party; they realise that once again the NHS is not safe in Tory hands—even though they are wearing the yellow gloves provided by the Liberal Democrats. Patients, as the figures clearly show, want no further privatisation of our NHS.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Far be it from me to presume to criticise the wise counsel of other Members, but it is absolute nonsense to think that the NHS has always been a monolithic system of public provision. It is absolute nonsense to think that private health providers always think only of profit instead of providing a good service or that services delivered by a public body are necessarily less costly or always better than those delivered by a private provider. It is nonsense to think that choice and competition are never needed, that diversity is bad or that reform or improvement—I prefer that word—is not needed. Sensible, pragmatic, evidence-led arguments can be made for mixed provision, for improvement, for choice and competition, for the involvement of the private sector and for diversity. That is not the problem.
The problem is that pragmatism and evidence count for very little because for the past eight years health policy in this country has been in the grip of an unspoken ideology. Put very simply it goes like this: the Government have no real business in providing health services but should buy them from health providers in a market. Some will be private providers that will make a profit, some will be voluntary bodies or social enterprises and others will be the fragmented, dissected pieces of the old NHS—foundation hospitals, trusts and the like. All can be branded as NHS providers if we want and all can have the NHS logo. The differences between them all will become increasingly blurred and of no consequence. Some people believe it should not matter which of these bodies delivers health services so long as the taxpayer and not the patient pays and the Government keep out of the provider business. That idea is rather like what exists already in other countries, except that generally in those places it is insurance, not tax, that funds the system.
And it is not privatisation. Ministers can truthfully say, “We are not privatising the NHS.” It is marketisation. What is happening is that the Government are buying health in a market, either national or local—an external market. They are gradually giving up on providing health services and in my view clearly mean to do so. It is a beautifully clear, coherent ideology that is rarely explicitly set out, defended, discussed within parties or put to the electorate. Indeed, to do so might be electoral suicide.
Stage by stage over the past eight years that ideology has been progressed. If one assumes it and holds it in mind one can understand why hospitals have to become foundation hospitals independent of the state—that was a Blair idea—and why it was necessary to create a bigger private sector by offering it preferential terms, which was another Blair idea. One understands why services formerly run by primary care trusts, such as community nurses and the like, are being forced to become social enterprises and why it is suggested that NHS hospitals might do up to 49% private work and that private hospitals can do as much NHS work as they like. One also understands why the Health and Social Care Bill abolishes the Government power to start a new hospital, why there is such unseemly haste to extend “any willing provider” and why the Secretary of State, even at the cost of peace in the Lords, does not want the word “provide” back in the list of his powers. If anyone is unpersuaded regarding any of that, let them turn it the other way around and point to one—just one—recent policy initiative that clearly shows that that market solution is not the endgame and the ultimate goal.
I do not believe that ideology is in itself bad, and this ideology has the virtues of being clear, consistent and radical, but in my view it is basically wrong because a health market cannot ensure that health services integrate well—the Future Forum spotted that—or that scarce NHS funds are spent in the most efficient way, as previous Treasury reports have shown in abundance. It cannot ensure that people get the services to which they are entitled and it cannot ensure that health inequalities are properly addressed. It clearly cannot easily make the strategic planning decisions needed to sustain services, encourage training and organise research, which is precisely why these issues have been so problematic in the Bill and why we are going to find slimming down the financially challenged hospital sector so painful and so uncontrollable in its consequences.
I am not here to argue against this market ideology, because, frankly, few have the honesty to argue for it openly. It is not the official Labour policy or the official Liberal policy. I do not believe it is even the official Conservative policy. It was smuggled past all of us, including the general public, shrouded in vague pragmatic talk about choice, diversity, reform and independence, but we should have no doubt: it is ideology. How else can we possibly explain the headlong pursuit at pace of a set of reforms that complicate and make riskier the huge £20 billion efficiency programme? How else do we explain the overloading of bodies such as the Care Quality Commission and Monitor, whose inadequacies, if not apparent now, will soon become painfully apparent after the Mid Staffs inquiry reports?
Andrew George
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be worth revisiting the issue of whether the NHS should be pre-eminent as first provider or in some other role before we finally make what may be a catastrophic error?
John Pugh
My fundamental point is that this is not evidence-led pragmatism. If we join up the policy dots, we see pure, simple, unalloyed faith in the market system to deliver health in this country. Time after time, in issue after issue, ideology trumps pragmatism and prudence.
The Labour motion is a potpourri of varied sentiments, some of which are true and some of which are confused, and some, given the history, that it is surprising the Opposition have the gall to table at all. However, we should be genuinely grateful to them because they have given us an opportunity—a platform—to name the beast, to define real choice and to cut to the quick.
Chris Mullin, in his excellent “Diaries”, describes a discussion with a fellow Member of this place, a Yorkshire MP, “a mild-mannered fellow”—I do not know who that would include—who in 2005, prophetically, said of the Labour party:
“We’re opening the door…Whatever safeguards we put in place, whatever assurances we give will be absolutely worthless once the Tories are in power…I think we will lose the next election. The Tories will come to some sort of understanding with the Lib Dems—”
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I agree with a substantial number of the points made by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh). The Government claim that their proposals are just an incremental extension of the Labour Government’s involvement of the private sector, bringing private patients into NHS hospitals. In fact, they are nothing of the sort; they are dramatically different in nature and scale. To justify them, the Government grossly exaggerate the contribution the private sector has made.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) has left the Chamber, as in 1997 when I took over from him as Secretary of State for Health, the NHS was carrying out 5.7 million operations. By the time Labour left office, the figure was 9.7 million—4 million more than when he was in charge. Of those 9.7 million operations a year, 9.5 million were being carried out in NHS hospitals and the private sector was doing 200,000, or 2.1% of the total. So much for its massive contribution to improving the service for ordinary people.
The private sector cherry-picked operations and patients, yet now we have the proposition that things will be franchised out; it was to be to “any willing provider,” but now it is to “any qualified provider.” Recent events suggest that it will be to any willing profiteer—to people who are good at the sales pitch and say that they can keep costs down and are superior to the NHS. They will be the people who use the cheapest breast implants and when things go wrong expect the national health service to bail out the patients they have harmed. They are a bit like the bankers: they are in favour of competition and a free market, but when things go wrong, they say, “Will the taxpayer please bail us out?” That is what we are seeing.
We also see in the proposals that the NHS hospitals should in future be able to undertake up to half the work on private patients. The right hon. Member for Charnwood talked about increased revenue. This year sees the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens. He had a character called Mr Micawber, and he would have noticed that it is not the revenue that counts, but the revenue against the cost of providing the service. If the cost of providing the service to private patients is greater than the revenue that comes in from private patients, we are running at a loss and the NHS is subsidising them.
I say that about the Royal Free hospital, which does a very good job in serving my constituency. It just so happens that I have its figures, because I asked for them. In the last year for which figures are available, the Royal Free hospital took in £17.3 million in revenue from private patients. According to the figures it gave me, the cost of providing those services was £15.6 million—an apparent gain of £1.7 million. However, it went on to say that “costs are estimated” and
“not all costs are split between private and NHS patients in this way”.
The costs are not clear. It might look as though the income is clear, but I then asked what the private patient debt is from those people.
Frank Dobson
No, I do not have time and others want to speak.
The answer is that, over the past five years, private patient debt has never been lower than £6.4 million, against an income of £17 million. They are not exactly subsidising NHS patients out of the private sector income at the Royal Free, because they do not have enough income to subsidise them.
I recall years ago, when I was shadow Health Minister, running a campaign on this issue. The Tory Government said that they would change the rules and introduce a system, backed up by the National Audit Office, as it is now called—then, it was the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office—that ensured that any private sector contribution produced a surplus. No such arrangements were put in place, and I challenge the Minister to identify what the position is with all those private patients in NHS hospitals. How many are running a surplus and how many are running at a loss?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I will reduce the time limit to four minutes to try to get everybody in.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), but he was rather disingenuous about my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). My right hon. Friend said—I think we all agree about it—that where the private sector can add value for money and add value to patient care that always has to be a good thing, as well as something that I think Members on both sides of the House agree on.
My right hon. Friend made the point, which was also well made by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), that this is not a debate about whether the private sector is a good thing or a bad thing in the NHS; it is a good thing, clearly, where it improves care for patients and offers high-quality patient care. The debate is about whether having a cap on the role of the private sector in foundation trusts is a good thing.
It appears that the private patient cap is set arbitrarily and varies from trust to trust. On the basis of what we know, it is difficult simply to argue that having the private sector heavily involved in the workings of a trust is necessarily a bad thing. We know that the 30% private sector activity at the Royal Marsden is hugely beneficial—not only to the private patients, but to those patients looked after by the Royal Marsden who are NHS patients. We see the same at the Royal Brompton, Moorfields and many other hospitals with a relatively high private patient cap. At those hospitals, the money raised from private activities and the private sector is pumped back into the hospital to improve research and to provide high-quality patient care for all NHS patients at those hospitals. Simply saying that having the private sector involved in a hospital to a larger extent is a bad thing because it compromises patient care is plainly not the case. Some of the best hospitals make the case that, in fact, a cap set at a high level is right. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, at hospitals such as the Marsden, even when they could set 30% private activity, they use only a proportion of that cap, because what they look at first is their primary duty to their NHS patients and their primary duty to provide high-quality care.
It is difficult to argue for a cap set at an arbitrary level, because what everyone in the NHS is interested in, and what we in Parliament are interested in, is producing high-quality patient care. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood was absolutely right. Tony Blair believed that, and it was at the heart of his health care reforms. In that respect, the Government are carrying forward the mantra of patients’ best interests.
I have discussed a little the fact that an arbitrary cap does not work, and is not in patients’ best interests. I have also discussed the benefits that involving the private sector in hospitals can bring to NHS patients. The good thing about those hospitals, particularly the Royal Brompton and the Royal Marsden, which are centres of excellence, is the fact that private sector involvement improves the quality and the output of medical research. That is another reason why those hospitals are pioneering examples of high-quality patient research, which benefits patients, particularly in the NHS. This is a good motion, as it endorses the role of the private sector, which can be a good thing as long as it is for the benefit of patients. However, it is a bad thing to impose arbitrary caps that do not benefit patients.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
There is no escaping the fact that the role of the private sector in the national health service is one of the most contentious issues to arise when discussing or debating the health service. Some people would suggest that there was no appreciable difference between the policies of the Labour Opposition and the Conservative Government, especially on the use of private companies to deliver services.
I believe that there is a huge chasm of difference, which has been borne out by this debate. It comes down to this: what we saw under previous Labour Governments was the private sector being used to add grit to the system. It operated in the system with strict limitations, and it was deployed, for example, to drive down waiting times from 18 months to 18 weeks. In tandem with targets, the private sector offered a means of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the NHS, delivering choice and quality to patients. That is where our policies and those of the Government diverge.
It is clear that the intention of the Conservative-led Government is completely different. The NHS is under siege from the Government, who regard the private sector as a means to undermine and weaken the NHS. For all the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary about their love of the NHS, I would assert that their actions have shown only that they do not fundamentally believe in the principles, values and ethos of the NHS. Those actions attack its very purpose and everything that people hold dear in that world-revered service.
The Government are pushing ahead with their Bill in the face of widespread opposition. Along with the majority of health professionals and the British public, I believe that the Bill should be stopped. Let me make it clear: nothing that I have heard from Health Ministers is reassuring for anyone who has fought to save the NHS. When the Government talk about a regulated market for the NHS people are, and should be, filled with fear.
There will be an increasing role for the private sector, and organisations can be both providers and commissioners. Any A-level business student could explain that that leads to a conflict of interest, and it contradicts and inhibits the notion of introducing genuine competition in the NHS, if that was the intention. I think that the Health Secretary may be mixing up words beginning with “c”. Instead of “competition”, I believe that the word he has been looking for is “cartel”. However it is dressed up, there is one thing I am certain of: allowing such a situation to develop is not in patients’ best interests. There are many questions that need answering. With the private income cap set at 49%, what guarantees are there that hospitals will be able to deliver choice and meet waiting times? What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that private providers will not cherry-pick the best income-generation services, leaving cost-intensive services such as—
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the cap will do nothing to help the problem of health inequalities and that it will in fact exacerbate the problem?
Rosie Cooper
National health services should be provided on the basis of need, not the ability to pay, so I agree.
I was saying that cost-intensive services such as accident and emergency services may well be threatened. How will the overall capacity of the health care market be managed effectively? How would the Government ensure that the proposal did not impact on the ability of hospitals to deliver urgent care?
We have had to proceed very quickly, but there are some major issues to consider. In conclusion, I urge Members to support the motion for the simple reason that it shines a light on how, once again, the Government are developing policy based on ideology and not on what is best for patients. The people’s trust was hard won and the Government have broken that trust yet again. It is another example of ill conceived, poorly developed, incomprehensible policy that we have come to expect from the Government, which leaves Members, the medical profession and our constituents with more questions than answers. A commentator said that the NHS was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I believe that the way to save it is to kill the Bill.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
We have heard much this evening from Opposition Front Benchers about celebrating the role of private providers, but the message that goes out from so many of the Back-Bench speeches is one of fear and alarm. It is the single message “public good, private bad”, and it tries to tarnish every private health care provider with that notion.
I want to use my brief remarks this evening to pay tribute to the staff of the newest NHS facility in my area who are working hard to tackle health inequalities and offering a great service to busy people in my constituency, but these hard-working health workers work for a private sector provider. When they are providing their service in an NHS facility, they must feel mystified and rather let down, I suspect, to be constantly criticised by the Labour party.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who is not in her place, when she said in 2008 that the private sector has much to offer in tackling health inequalities. That is what that NHS facility run by Care UK is doing in my constituency—tackling health inequalities, helping busy, highly mobile young people who cannot register with a GP to get the service that they need, and helping shift workers, migrant workers and those whose working day starts too early for them to get to the doctor during normal hours.
The Junction health centre in Clapham junction, a busy transport hub, opened in March 2010. It was commissioned in 2007-08 and provided by Care UK, a private sector provider but an NHS facility, working to agreed NHS standards. Yes, the Opposition should take pride in having commissioned it. Instead, we see them rowing back from that previous sensible pragmatic position. The facility in my constituency is an excellent example of partnership working, and it is providing care for my constituents. They judge it as an NHS facility. They do not worry about who is providing the care. They worry about the quality of the care and service being provided, and they are voting with their feet.
The target that the facility was set was 2,000 patients by March 2012. There are already well over 3,000. Many of them were not registered with a GP before. The facility is registering homeless patients. How much more universal a service can there be than that? It deals with unregistered walk-in patients—more than 30,000 last year, and in many cases people who would not otherwise have got to see a GP. This is all good. But what do we hear from Labour Members? They talk it down. A previously consensual position on private sector provision is now incredibly polarised around an ideological position that suits this Parliament. Alan Milburn was right when he said in 2009:
“Quality should be the only yardstick, not the type of provider.”
The thousands of people who have attended the Junction health centre in Battersea over the past two years are being well served by hard-working and dedicated health professionals. It might suit the Opposition for narrow party reasons to denigrate the efforts of those health workers who work on behalf of the NHS, but I want to pay tribute to them publicly and say how glad I am that they are providing this much needed and greatly appreciated NHS service, free at the point of delivery, to my constituents. I oppose the motion.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Private sector involvement in the NHS will always be an emotive and contentious subject. As members of the party that founded the NHS, we on the Labour Benches are clear that there are, have been and always will be times when the private sector can and should provide an important function in supporting the delivery of NHS care, but recognising that role is in no way comparable to opening up the NHS to full-blown privatisation, which is the clear intention of the Government’s shambolic Health and Social Care Bill, which is quickly acquiring the same level of popularity as the poll tax. There is a world of difference between using private providers to support the work of the NHS and privatising the NHS. This legislation and the Government’s desire to set free the ravages of the market on what we believe to be the country’s most treasured institution commands no public support and no democratic mandate.
The reality is that the NHS, as a publicly owned and publicly funded world-class health care service providing medical care free at the point of need, is one of the defining institutions of our society and one of the most important hallmarks of our national identity. Established in the aftermath of the greatest conflict our country has ever faced, the NHS was built by a tired nation and an exhausted people from the wreckage of the second world war. They knew that it would help to build a better country and that it could not be done by the private vested interests that so bitterly opposed its creation, and they were right. Every Member of Parliament must recognise that to the people we serve and to our country as a whole the NHS is more important than any of us, collectively or as individuals, and that it is much more important, more trusted and more respected than any one of the political parties represented in the House.
Politicians across the House must recognise that they damage the NHS at their peril. The public do not want the NHS to be opened up to the market, because they know where that leads: the wealthy customer will take priority over the patient in need. The Government know that the public would never have voted for any party with that objective at the heart of its health policies. For that reason, the privatisation of the NHS is being undertaken by stealth. It was a former Conservative Secretary of State, Michael Portillo, who told the BBC’s Andrew Neil last January that the Conservatives
“did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do because people are so wedded to the NHS.”
He was entirely right. The Prime Minister knows it, the Secretary of State—the architect of so many privatisations when he worked for Lord Tebbit—knows it, and the Liberal Democrats know it.
We in this Chamber are often too slow, too ungracious and, frankly, too partisan to pay tribute to those outside our own parties when tribute is deserved, so I now commend the four Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against the Bill on Second Reading. They did so not simply because it was not in the coalition agreement and has no democratic mandate, and not just because they recognise that the NHS is bigger and more important than any of us or the fortunes of any political party, but because they recognise that the Bill paves the way for the privatisation of the NHS. May I just say “Ahoy” to the Education Secretary, who has just entered the Chamber? To paraphrase the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), for whom I have a great deal of respect, those Liberal Democrats at least did not want to become the architects of the NHS’s demise.
We have heard many promises from the Prime Minister on the NHS, none of which, sadly, is backed up by his or his Government’s actions. He promised real-terms increases for the NHS, but in his first year in office he delivered a real-terms cut. He promised no top-down reorganisation, yet he delivered the biggest and most unwanted reorganisation since the NHS’s creation. Most sickeningly of all, he played fast and loose with the trust of health campaigners across the country when he promised a bare-knuckle fight against hospital and ward closures. Now the Department of Health talks openly of nationwide hospital closure programmes, and wards and services are being lost all over the country.
It is essential to listen to health professionals on matters of health service reconfiguration, but it is deceitful to pretend to oppose those reconfigurations, to trade on the hopes and fears of ordinary patients and to say one thing in opposition and do another in government. But it is perhaps the Prime Minister’s assurance of “no privatisation” in the NHS, given in May last year, that illustrates that pattern of behaviour most clearly.
Last year, Mark Britnell, one of the Prime Minister’s hand-picked health advisers, told a conference of private health care providers:
“In future, the NHS will be a state insurance provider, not a state deliverer.”
He continued:
“The NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years”—[Interruption.]
I advise those Government Front Benchers who are chuckling—perhaps the bars have closed early—to dwell upon the phrase “no mercy”.
With the shambles of a Bill plunged into crisis, the Prime Minister was forced to demonstrate that he was across the detail of the Bill, and in a speech at Ealing hospital he said:
“Let me make clear: there will be no privatisation… These are red lines we will not cross.”
Yet just before the Christmas period, perhaps ignorant of the Prime Minister’s guarantee or based on the fact that there is no mandate for the changes and the Government are not in the habit of ever doing what they say they will, the Secretary of State tabled amendments to his health care Bill that would allow NHS hospitals to devote 49% of their beds and theatre time to private patients, opening the door to an explosion of private work in NHS hospitals and inevitably resulting in longer waiting times for ordinary NHS patients and widening health inequalities not just between but within different communities throughout England.
I therefore call on the Government to answer this simple question: how can it be right to allow the wealthiest in our country to use publicly funded services, paid for by the taxes of those most in need, to jump the NHS waiting lists that are now growing under this Government?
That is a Mickey Mouse policy, and speaking of Mickey Mouse I should say that Members who have been to Disneyland or any other holiday park for that matter—perhaps on a Tory party policy seminar—will have seen fast-pass systems in operation. The fast-pass system works in exactly the same way as the Government hope 49% private sector involvement in the NHS will: everyone pays to get into the theme park, the queues are too long so the richest pay more to beat them, and eventually all but the poorest buy the fast pass and the queues become as long as they were in the first place. The only difference is that everyone ends up paying double for the same queues they were suffering at the beginning.
The Prime Minister may not want to admit to the privatisation of the health service, and he may not be able to acknowledge that his attempt to change his party, based on a cosmetic change of attitude to the NHS, was never real and was always hollow, but the inescapable reality is that his Government, through the Health and Social Care Bill, are taking a sledgehammer to Britain’s most valued public service by not simply allowing but encouraging, as a matter of principle, a private sector free-for-all in England’s health service.
That is why in a speech in November last year the Prime Minister stated that he wanted the NHS
“to be a fantastic business for Britain”—
a line strangely omitted from the official transcript of the speech—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), chunters from a sedentary position, but he himself told “Newsnight” in January last year that the Prime Minister’s Bill would turn the NHS into a “genuine market”.
Labour Members believe that the NHS is an unprecedented force for good in our society, the mainstay of so many of our communities and the guarantor of a fairer, better society. We believe it speaks to who we are and what kind of nation we aspire to be. It is not the Prime Minister’s to sell, and it is not for sale.
Only a few months after becoming a Health Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), representing the Liberal Democrats—he is not in his place—told reporters from The Daily Telegraph:
“I don’t want you to trust David Cameron…he has values that I don’t share.”
The Minister was right then, and if we listen the to the rank and file membership of the Liberal Democrats we find that that is what they believe now.
The inescapable reality is that the Liberal Democrats find themselves in a constitutionally and historically unique position. They can now determine the future of the NHS in England, as either a world-class public service treating people equally, providing medical care to those who need it and free at the point of use, or as a fragmented, US-style health system, that will see publicly owned hospitals, publicly funded services and health professionals employed by the public purse giving up 49% of hospital beds and theatre time not to those who need them but to those who are most able to pay for them. That is an enviable responsibility, and Liberal Democrats Members can stop that creeping, stealth privatisation of the NHS. The Minister was right to distrust his Prime Minister, and his party colleagues can stop this attempt to take a wrecking ball to the NHS as we know it.
After the gold rush, the NHS might never be the same again. That is why the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, told the “Today” programme last week:
“What we will see with private providers is a fragmentation of the NHS, with no accountability…we will see the diminution in the quality of care. And unfortunately what we are seeing with the breast implant scandal is the future of the NHS, it will be destroyed.”
Tonight, the Secretary of State has dissembled and fumbled his way through an attempted defence and explanation of the Bill, but he could not provide it. He does not know what he is for, what he is against, what he is replacing or what he is introducing. It is no wonder that the medical profession neither believes nor trusts him. He either does not know what his policy is or he is afraid to say. The country deserves better. This is now a bare-knuckle fight and the Government must think again.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns)
To begin on a conciliatory note, I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on his first speech from the Front Bench as a junior shadow Health spokesman. I did not agree with a single word that he said, but I congratulate him on the way in which he spoke.
I have no idea what new year resolutions the Labour party has made, but perhaps I could suggest one: to get their facts right. Having listened to the endearing speech of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), the same speech that I have heard on many occasions from the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the slightly bizarre speech of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and the speech from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), I have to say that they really have got it wrong. It is wrong to seek to misrepresent by repeating a fallacy.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell) on his lucid exposé of the contradictions in the arguments of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Battersea (Jane Ellison) for their thoughtful contributions. I listened carefully and with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) but, to be honest and frank, I was not carried by the strength of his argument on the issues.
I fear that many of the contributions of Opposition Members that my hon. Friends and I have had to listen to have given a series of misrepresentations and misinformation. I remind them that for 36 years, just over half the 64 years of the national health service, it has been under the stewardship of the Conservative party. We have never sought to privatise the health service and we never will privatise the health service.
Frank Dobson
The Minister suggested that I had used figures that were not factual. If they are not, he should know that they all came from parliamentary answers signed by him.
Mr Burns
I did not in any shape or form suggest that the right hon. Gentleman’s figures were wrong. I argued that his arguments and his philosophy were wrong. They are based in a time that is pre-Blair, let alone Blair, which I know is now anathema to the Labour party. Ironically, one might say, as I think did my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, that Government Members, in this respect, are all Blairites now.
Rather than pour scorn on an invented problem, the Opposition should welcome the healthy relationship between the national health service and private providers—a relationship that is mutually beneficial, that has existed since 1948, that is better for patients and, I hesitate to remind the right hon. Member for Leigh, that flourished under his Government. The previous Labour Government expanded the involvement of the private sector in the provision of NHS care in a way that no previous Conservative Government had done. Labour’s general election manifesto of 2010, which was written by the current Leader of the Opposition, said:
“We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care”.
Rather more surprisingly, given the nature of today’s debate, the Labour manifesto also stated:
“Patients requiring elective care will have the right, in law, to choose from any provider who meets NHS standards of quality at NHS costs.”
To reinforce that, it went on to promise to remove the private patient cap on foundation trusts. In addition, on 8 February 2010—at No. 10 Downing street, no less—the now Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who I believe is a close personal friend of the right hon. Member for Leigh, hosted a meeting with non-NHS providers to examine their future role in delivering NHS services, among other public services. There is a certain irony and nerve in Labour’s bringing this motion before the House tonight.
I remind Members of the benefits of extra income to the NHS, which are so clear as to be self-evident. Any and all money made by the NHS is returned straight into care, not to the Treasury. The principal purpose of NHS providers has always been to serve NHS patients, and that will not change. In fact, trusts say that changing the cap will help them do that better than ever. The Labour party knows that. In 2009, the then Health Minister, Mike O’Brien, said that to cap the number of private patients would be nothing but a sop to militant Labour MPs. It now seems, though, that they are all militant Labour MPs.
I know that he has not been the flavour of the month for a while now, but as none other than Tony Blair once said, the private sector
“has got a valuable role to play in delivering NHS services.”
Even the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) called for greater use of the private sector.
I wish to take a second to look at the last Government’s record on using the private sector. Through choose and book and through giving patients the right of the choice of provider, the number of patients treated as NHS patients in the private sector escalated. Under choose and book alone, the number of procedures increased from only 11 in 2000-01 to more than 208,000 10 years later. By May 2010, more than 7% of all NHS-funded first out-patient appointments were booked with independent sector providers. In monetary terms, between 2006 and 2010, £12.6 billion was spent in the private sector on NHS health care.
Let us pick an example at random—say, independent sector treatment centre contracts. “Wonderful things”, said Labour. “Cutting waiting times”, it said. What happened? Private companies were paid even when they had not treated any patients; hundreds of millions of pounds were taken from the public purse and wasted; and the NHS was barred from competing with private companies, even if it could offer a better service. What is more, seven of those ISTC contracts were signed while the right hon. Member for Leigh was a junior Minister at the Department of Health—hardly a glorious record.
My hon. Friends and I had a while in opposition, and I know how uncomfortable the Benches on that side of the House are. They make people itch—itch to disagree with everything that is said by Government Members. However, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is wrong to scaremonger about the role of the private sector in the NHS. As he found out in government, because his Government greatly expanded that role, there is a responsible role for the private sector not at the expense of the NHS but working with it. On that basis, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
Question put.
Business without Debate
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Early Reading
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I am grateful for the chance to introduce this debate. I want to praise and promote the inspirational Imagination Library in Rotherham, thanks to which, each month, more than 13,600 young children receive a book sent directly to their home and addressed to them. I want to press the Minister to work with us to assess and fully evaluate the Imagination Library. In the meantime, I also want to press him to extend the scheme to three special groups of children who start life facing some of the biggest hurdles and who could benefit most from this scheme.
I am glad to see the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), in his place. If I had to choose one of the Education Ministers to answer the debate, it would be him. We might disagree with much of what he is doing, but I have watched closely over 18 months how thoroughly he has mastered what I regard as one of the big six Minister of State jobs. He and I were elected and entered the House together in 1997, which set me thinking this evening. In almost 15 years as an MP, one of the very best things I have done has been as a dad, when our son first went to primary school. Every Friday afternoon during that reception year, for nearly an hour at the end of Friday afternoons, I read with children in my son’s class—one to one, outside in the corridor, perched on those small chairs. Some, at the start, could read fluently and had a big appetite for books, but we spent a whole month with one little girl teaching her to recognise two letters, an R and a D—the initials of her first and second names. The difference lay in what had happened to those kids at home before they came to school.
It hit home how important early reading was to giving a child a good start in life and at school—and the importance of learning at home, not just in school. As I have gone on and looked harder, it has become clear that this conclusion is strongly supported by academic studies as well as anecdotally. The Institute of Education did a report in 2008 into pre-school, school and family influence on children’s development, and it noted that
“the quality of early years HLE (home learning environment) promoted intellectual and social development in all children”
and that reading at home was an important part of cultivating that environment.
What parents do is much more important than who they are. The Institute of Education report came to an important conclusion:
“The case study findings on pupils who ‘succeeded against the odds’ showed that what they had in common was higher scores on the early years home learning environment”.
That evidence is borne out by the evidence of international studies as well, including some of the institute’s own work comparing early years reading programmes across Europe. The Minister himself has recognised that. Last year, on the number of pupils who still did not reach the expected reading level at the age of 7 at key stage 1, he explained:
“It is vital that all children learn how to read early in their education”
and that
“we need to do more to ensure that our children have the skills as early as possible, to develop into confident, enthusiastic readers.”—[Official Report, 24 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 61WS.]
Given the clear link between early reading, the home environment, a child’s development and successful learning, let us keep in mind this stark fact: one in three young people do not have books of their own. Last year, the National Literacy Trust, in “The Gift of Reading”, a report that established that fact, underlined the importance of children having books that they see as their own and
“the clear relationship between receiving books as presents and reading ability”.
Teachers in Rotherham report that there are children who, without the books they receive from the Imagination Library, would have no books at home at all.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend makes his case eloquently. I rise to speak not only as something of an early years reader myself, but as someone who has seen the work of the Imagination Library in action in my constituency in Luton. I know that he will speak about this, but I just want to mention the sponsorship given by Wates, the construction company, which worked with us on the Building Schools for the Future programme, the partnership with the local authority and the fact that kids in my constituency are getting 60 books by the age of five, growing with their learning and learning to love reading, which is making such a big difference in my constituency.
John Healey
My hon. Friend has been a strong supporter of the scheme in Luton right from the outset. I pay tribute to the council for helping it get off the ground, and to Wates and its foundation trust, as the Building Schools for the Future partner in the borough, for providing the funding to make that happen. I think around 2,000 children in Luton—but a number growing every month—are now receiving books in that way.
As Labour in government, we set up the Bookstart scheme, which took some useful steps in providing all young children with the opportunity—the gift—to read at home. However, the Imagination Library takes a running leap over the limitations of the Bookstart scheme by ensuring that all children, wherever they live and whoever they live with, regularly receive their own books directly at home. Something similar was first started in the United States by Dolly Parton, who has backed our book scheme in Britain. I am proud that the first Imagination Library in this country was set up in Rotherham, and is now run right across the area. I pay tribute to Roger Stone, our council leader, who took the idea forward with great vision and determination. As you know, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) is a good friend of mine. However, when I tried to see him while he was Education Secretary, it was less my links and more the fact that our council leader promised to bring Dolly Parton with him that opened the doors to his office on that occasion. Indeed, they report in the Department that the permanent secretary had never been so keen to attend a meeting with the Secretary of State—and, of course, have his picture taken with Dolly Parton.
I also pay tribute to Alison Lilburn, who now runs the Imagination Library in Rotherham for us, and to Natalie Turnbull, who runs the national Imagination Library, making the links with Luton and a small-scale scheme supported by primary schools in two wards in Wigan, as well as Scotland, where work is beginning through local authorities to ensure that every looked-after child has access to the scheme. In Rotherham, we now have more than 13,600 children, all aged between nought and five, receiving a book a month. Those signed up to the scheme at birth will have received their own library of 60 books in total by the age of five, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) said. Importantly, nine out of 10 of our Rotherham youngsters are signed up to the scheme, which goes from strength to strength each year. It has been running for four years now, but no child will have completed the full five years of the programme before the summer of next year, 2013. It is therefore still too early to draw conclusive evidence about its long-term effects.
However, Rotherham has seen a year-on-year improvement in young pupils achieving a good level of development at the foundation stage, with 50% in 2009 and 58% in 2011. Within that improvement, children enrolled in the Imagination Library have outperformed those who are not enrolled by more than 6.5%. Above all, our Rotherham scheme shows the power of a parcel arriving with a child’s name on it and their own book inside. It sparks a kid’s imagination from the very earliest age, giving every young child a better start in life and a better chance to read.
Teachers, parents and—most importantly of all—children love the scheme. It fires a desire in the child to read, but it often fires a determination to do so in the family as well. I was with a group of parents and their young kids in Rawmarsh about 10 days ago, and one of the dads was telling me how excited his son was whenever the postman arrived. He thought that every parcel was for him; it was like Christmas every month. One of the mums said that whenever her daughter got a new book, she would bring it directly to her and demand that she read it as soon as it arrived.
Some of the teachers across Rotherham report similar experiences. Anita Butcher is a lead teacher in one of our children’s centres. She says:
“Many of the children in our area are brought up in low income homes where English is an additional language and parents have poor literacy skills. Without the Imagination Library gifting scheme it is very unlikely that these children would experience books within their home environment, leaving them at a distinct disadvantage when starting school.”
Another of our lead teachers is Sarah Lyall. She counters the sense that we sometimes get that learning and education are purely instrumental, saying:
“Once this foundation to reading has been installed you have children on the right path to a whole world of imagination, awe and wonder.”
Donna Mackinnon is the foundation stage co-ordinator at Wath Victoria primary school. She reports on the way in which the school has started to use some of the same books that the Imagination Library is sending to the children’s homes, saying:
“The children started to talk to their parents/carers about how we had used the books and were then asking for them to be read at home. The book lending scheme at school is now used by significantly more children…This has developed directly from the Imagination Library texts being sent into the homes of our children.”
What about the cost? The Rotherham Imagination Library, which is funded by the council, cost about £300,000 to run last year. The scheme costs £2 per child per month, and that covers the cost of the books and the postage. That is £24 for each child each year, or £120 over the full five years. Let us compare that to the average spending on each child in the country during their primary school years. Last year, it was £4,139.
I shall now turn to my direct asks for the Minister. First, I ask him to take a serious look at our Rotherham scheme and to work with us to evaluate fully its potential to be widely followed across the country. Secondly, I ask him to look hard at how the scheme could be extended, and to make a start by backing the young children who start life facing the biggest hurdles. They include children who are in care, babies born to mums who are in prison and children whose parents are serving in our UK armed forces.
Our experience and the academic evidence show that getting our kids to love reading often happens at home before school, but children in care can miss out on that. Once they fall behind, many never catch up. Long-term looked-after children’s achievements are far lower than those of others. In this country last year, 58% of students—almost three in five—gained five A to C grades at GCSE, including English and maths. For children in care, however, the figure was one in eight. In March last year, there were 65,620 looked-after children in England, of whom one in five—about 18%—were under the age of five. With the cost at £2 per child per month, extending the Imagination Library to benefit every child under five in care could be expected to cost less than £300,000 for the books and postage. Of course, signing up the children would be straightforward, as local authorities are the legal guardians of looked-after children; this is what is being done in Scotland and it should now be done in England.
As far as mums in prison and their babies are concerned, there are seven special mothers and babies units in women’s prisons around the country with a total capacity of 75 places. It is hard to get firm figures on the numbers born in prison each year, as many of the babies do not stay there long, but the Imagination Library would offer a small contribution to both the mother’s and the child’s start in life.
That brings me finally to forces children. Forces families move around a lot, with their children’s education often disrupted by their parents’ postings. Imagination Library books follow the kids, so the scheme is a great fit for the lives of service families. There are about 120,000 children whose parents are in our armed forces, most of whom live in the UK. If the proportion under five is similar to that in the general population, about one in four of those—about 30,000—will be armed forces children under five years old, so extending the benefit of the scheme to every child under five with a parent serving in the forces would cost about £750,000 a year. Indeed, the Education Secretary has recognised this special case, saying:
“Service children…face unique challenges and stresses.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 71WS.]
He has pledged £200 a year as a pupil premium to the school of every such child. A much smaller sum—£120 over five years—would give all children in forces families a boost in the vital earliest years as babies and toddlers. I would like to see the Government make this extra modest effort to reward the extra sacrifice that forces families make for the rest of us. Ministers say that they are on the side of Britain’s servicemen and women. Extending Rotherham’s book scheme would be a simple way of showing it.
Finally, I would like to say to the Minister, “Come and see for yourself. We will make you welcome in Rotherham. You can meet Roger Stone, our council leader, and if you are serious about extending the scheme, we might even be able to arrange for you to meet Dolly Parton as well.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this debate on a subject that could scarcely be more important, and thank him for his kind words in his introductory remarks. We entered the House at the same time in 1997—in the last century—and if I recall correctly, we agreed that we would pair for voting purposes. Alas, after 14 and a half years, this is our first pairing in the House—and it is a pleasure to be on the other side for this debate. I watched the right hon. Gentleman’s ministerial career under the last Labour Government with huge admiration and not a touch of envy.
It is clear there are still too many children failing to learn to read properly. The figures speak for themselves: only 73% of all pupils on free school meals and only two thirds of boys eligible for free school meals achieve the expected standard in reading at key stage 1; more than 83,000 seven-year-olds achieved below level 2 at key stage 1 this year; and one in five 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with reading. Even worse, 9% of 11-year-old boys achieve only level 2 or below at key stage 2, which means a reading age of seven or younger.
Looking just at white boys eligible for free school meals, 60% are still not reading properly at the age of 14, and the reading ability of GCSE pupils in England is more than a year behind—this is right across the age group population—the standard of their peers in Shanghai, Korea and Finland, and at least six months behind those in Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and Australia. Overall, over the last nine years, England has fallen in the programme for international student assessment tables from 7th to 25th in reading.
We know that children who cannot read are more likely to become disengaged and behave badly in school, creating a vicious circle of underachievement and isolation. A recent report by the Centre for Social Justice showed that between half and three quarters of children permanently excluded from school display significant literacy problems. As the author of that report said,
“many display challenging behaviour to hide the fact that they cannot read.”
There are still too many children who grow to adulthood without learning the basic literacy skills they need to be successful in their adult lives. Army recruiting officers recently revealed that hundreds of would-be soldiers are being turned away because they cannot pass the most basic literacy and numeracy tests as they do not have a reading age above that of an 11-year-old. As a report by Civitas has stated:
“Weak reading lies at the heart of the educational apartheid between the advantaged and disadvantaged, and England’s low social mobility. The inability to read properly is the single greatest handicap to progress both in school and adult life.”
Tackling literacy is an urgent priority for this Government. We are determined to improve the teaching of reading in primary schools and to help all children from all backgrounds to become fluent and enthusiastic readers and to develop a lifelong love of reading—and that is not just a Government priority. A range of charities and organisations are doing excellent work in supporting literacy and encouraging children to read. Tesco now provides books as part of its vouchers for schools initiative, and only last week McDonald’s and the publisher HarperCollins announced that they are linking up to give away copies of Michael Morpurgo’s “Mudpuddle Farm”—which I have not read, I hasten to add—with children’s meals.
We welcome initiatives that make it easy for children and parents to access and share good books and that encourage them to read more. Anyone who cares about reading should welcome that approach. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the work he has being doing personally in Rotherham to promote reading and on the work he is doing with the Imagination Library. I also thank the Imagination Library for what it is doing around the country.
The Government fund the book gifting programme delivered by Booktrust to the tune of £7.5 million. That programme gives books to all families with children of six to 12 months as well as to three to four-year-olds and four to five-year-olds. The books come with advice about sharing books and about stories and rhymes. In 2012, it will reach more than 2.5 million babies, toddlers and children. We will continue to reflect on the appropriate shape of book gifting in the coming years in terms both of the models of delivery and of the groups that can benefit the most. Local authorities remain free to work with book gifting schemes such as the Imagination Library and Letterbox Club to provide the support that they consider is most appropriate to their community’s needs.
I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech and I will look at the evaluation of the Rotherham Imagination Library programme. Cost is of course a factor in the current climate. A quick calculation based on the figures he presented shows that his £300,000 would extrapolate to roughly £45 million a year, which is not an insignificant sum in the current climate. However, I would like to take up his invitation to return to Rotherham. I stood for election there in 1994 with mixed success, and it would be a pleasure to return and see the scheme in action. Any scheme that can promote a lifelong love of books and reading is hugely valuable, and we will say more about this issue and how to develop that lifelong love of reading in the coming year.
For children to love reading, they must be able to read. That is why we are placing such strong emphasis on promoting the use of systematic synthetic phonics, which international evidence has shown to be the most effective way for children to learn to read. Synthetic phonics is equally effective for children of all abilities, from all backgrounds and for boys and girls alike. We also know that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in reading. It should be taught as part of a language-rich curriculum, so that children can develop their vocabulary and comprehension at the same time. Grasping the mechanics of reading early on allows children to go further and to begin to read quickly with comprehension and understanding.
To ensure that children have that building block, from June, a year 1 phonic screening check will help teachers to confirm whether individual pupils have grasped the fundamental skill of phonic decoding, and will identify which children may need extra help. The check will consist of a list of 40 words and non-words that a child will read one to one with their teacher. The pilot for the check took place last year in around 300 schools across the country. It was independently evaluated by a team from Sheffield Hallam university, and showed that three quarters of the schools taking part felt that the check assessed phonic decoding ability accurately, while the vast majority of schools—90%—thought that most aspects of the check’s content were suitable for their pupils. Most important, half of the pilot schools indicated that the check had helped them to identify pupils with phonic decoding issues of which they were not previously aware. The check will provide a national benchmark for phonic decoding, allowing schools to judge their performance on a local and national level.
Only 32% of pupils in the pilot for the screening check met the expected standard, which was set by teachers themselves. That shows that some schools will benefit from reviewing their phonics teaching to make sure it is systematic, with sufficiently high expectations being set for their pupils. It will also help to give parents confidence that their child has learned this crucial skill, reflecting research that found that 73% of parents thought a year 1 reading check was a good idea.
To support teachers before the check, and so that all schools have access to high-quality resources, we have introduced match funding of £3,000 per school. That funding, together with our new catalogue of well respected phonics products and training, will support schools in choosing and purchasing the appropriate resources for their pupils. We are considering running a new procurement process for inclusion in an updated catalogue in the spring.
To ensure that teachers have the necessary skills and training, we have reviewed, under Sally Coates, the qualified teacher status standards. It is now an explicit requirement that teachers of early reading should demonstrate a clear understanding of the theory and teaching of systematic synthetic phonics. As a consequence, the Training and Development Agency for Schools, together with the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers, is working to ensure that all university teacher training faculties are improving the training of teachers in this area. I listened with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman said about his experience of a primary school teaching a child the basic sounds of the alphabet, which is a key part of learning to read, with no exposure to literature and books at home.
Finally, Ofsted has published a new inspection framework that draws a closer link between teacher quality and the overall grade schools receive. That new way of inspecting schools will allow Ofsted to spend more time in the classroom, and I am very pleased that, for the first time, Ofsted inspectors will listen to pupils reading aloud to check their rate of progress, with a particular focus on the weakest readers in the school.
We hope that those measures will help all children to master the essential and life-changing skill of turning words on the page into images, information and ideas in their heads. Nothing could be more important than children developing a lifelong love of reading. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he is doing in Rotherham, and I look forward to joining him there in a few months.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Democracy
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
On 1 November 2011 the Government launched a consultation, “What can a mayor do for your city?”, asking local communities to contribute their views on the powers that directly elected mayors should be able to exercise in the 12 largest English cities outside London—Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield.
That consultation concluded on 3 January 2012, and I am today announcing our response.
In our consultation, we proposed that rather than seeking to impose a “one size fits all” approach, there should be a bespoke approach. Section 15 of the Localism Act provides for powers to be devolved to authorities subject to the approval of Parliament. Where a mayor is elected we would expect that mayor to come forward with his or her own request for the powers they seek to take.
In parallel with this consultation we have begun to negotiate with cities and their local enterprise partnerships bespoke city deals to support economic growth in their area.
The responses we have received to our consultation reinforce the view we have taken that a bespoke city-by-city approach to the decentralisation of powers is the right way forward.
Accordingly, where any mayors are elected in the 12 cities we will continue the bespoke approach to devolving powers that we are already pursuing in the context of city deals, but with the mayors themselves having an important role in the process of decentralising powers.
I have today placed in the Library of the House, copies of the Government’s response to its consultation paper “What can a mayor do for your city?”
Ministerial Visits (Burma)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would like to update the House on my visit to Burma on 5-6 January.
This was an historic visit; the first by a British Foreign Secretary since 1955. It was an opportunity to show that we recognise the efforts of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the Government to drive forward important reforms. I also wanted to set out clearly to the Government the changes that we would want to see before we could support lifting EU sanctions.
I met the President, the Foreign Minister and the Speaker of the Lower House. I welcomed progress made so far, including the dialogue between the Government and Opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi and the changes in the law that allowed her party to register for the forthcoming by-elections, the initial releases of political prisoners, and the moves towards greater media freedom. I informed them of the allocation from the Department for International Development of £10 million of existing aid for microfinance for the Burmese people, and announced an additional £2 million of humanitarian aid to benefit people in Kachin State, the site of some of the worst ethnic conflict.
I set out clearly with all my interlocutors the steps which would be needed before a more fundamental shift in our relationship could take place. These are: the release of all political prisoners in time for the by-elections on 1 April; the free and fair conduct of those by-elections; and humanitarian access to conflict areas, particularly in Kachin State, alongside a clear process of reconciliation. I made it clear that if these three conditions were met the UK would support the easing of the EU sanctions.
I was assured by the President that the reforms would continue, that further political prisoner releases would go ahead, and that by-elections would be free and fair. He was confident that the Burmese Government would soon achieve ceasefires nationwide, and acknowledged the need for humanitarian assistance in conflict areas.
I raised with the Foreign Minister the discrimination suffered by the Rohingya community, who have been denied citizenship and access to basic services and rights. We will continue to press the Burmese Government on this issue.
I held two meetings with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, and assured her of the UK’s continued support for her efforts to promote reform and democracy in Burma. She repeated her core priorities: the release of all political prisoners and an improvement in the rule of law; and the need for the by-elections to be free and fair as well as progress on the complex ethnic situation.
I met representatives from other opposition groups, including the 88 Generation leaders and former political prisoners. I also met a range of representatives from ethnic communities, including the Kachin, Rohingya, Shan, Rakhine, Chin, Mon, Karen and Karenni to hear more about their concerns and aspirations. We will continue to stay close to these and other ethnic groups to ensure we remain seized of the issues they face.
I am delighted to say that following my visit, there have been significant further developments on some of the issues I raised with the Government.
On 12 January, the Government and the Karen National Union signed a ceasefire after 63 years of conflict. There is still a long way to go to rebuild fully trust between the parties, but this is an important step in the right direction.
I also warmly welcome the release of a significant number of political prisoners on 13 January. Exact numbers are still being verified but those released include Generation 88 and ethnic leaders. This is another positive step on the road to reform in Burma.
The British Government will continue to follow developments in Burma closely. We will support progress, while remaining vigilant on human rights issues, especially in areas affected by ethnic conflict.
Visa Applications in Iran (Correction)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I would like to correct an answer I gave during a Westminster Hall debate to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), Official Report, 11 January 2012, column 129WH, who asked to which embassy in Iran should a family of Iranian origin living in Britain who wants to invite a family member to an occasion here, or the other way round, address its inquiries. We regret that the closure of our embassy means that Iranians will now have to travel to another country to obtain a visa for the UK. We remain committed to engaging with the Iranian people, even though we do not have an embassy in Tehran. But our visa centres in UAE and Turkey will be open for Iranians, and we continue to welcome applicants. Iranian nationals wishing to submit an application for a visit visa only can do so at any visa application centre worldwide. Iranian nationals may submit applications for all visa categories in the UAE, at Abu Dhabi or Dubai, and in Turkey at Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Bursa or Gaziantep. All applications must still be submitted online and attendance at the visa application centres remains by pre-booked online appointment only. More information on this can be found on the UK Border Agency’s website. Those wishing to travel to Iran should contact the nearest Iranian embassy for advice.
Police (Financial Management Code of Practice)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I am today presenting to Parliament a revised financial management code of practice for the police service in England and Wales to reflect the Government’s reform of policing through the introduction of police and crime commissioners. The code provides clarity around the financial governance arrangements within the police service in England and Wales and builds on the policing protocol issued by means of the Policing Protocol Order 2011. Copies of the code of practice are available from the Vote Office.
This code is issued under section 17 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and section 39A of the Police Act 1996, which permit the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to police and crime commissioners (“PCCs”) and the Mayor’s office for policing and crime (“MOPC”), chief constables and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. As set out in section 17(4) of the 2011 Act and section 39A(7) of the 1996 Act, PCCs, the MOPC, chief constables and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner must have regard to this code in carrying out their functions.
This new code will apply to the MOPC and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner from today. The existing financial management code of practice for the police service in England and Wales, issued under section 39 of the Police Act 1996 and presented to Parliament on 24 October 2000, will continue to apply to police authorities outside London until their replacement by PCCs on 22 November 2012. From that date, this new code will apply to PCCs and chief constables.
The Detainee Inquiry
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Kenneth Clarke)
On 12 January 2012 the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police Service issued a joint statement on the outcome of two investigations into members of the Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service. They also announced that allegations made in two specific cases concerning the alleged rendition of named individuals to Libya and the alleged ill-treatment of them in Libya were so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now rather than at the conclusion of the Detainee Inquiry.
The Government stand firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf. We have always been clear that the Detainee Inquiry will not be able to start formally until all related police investigations have been concluded. We will need to consider the implications of the joint DPP and MPS statement, in consultation with Sir Peter Gibson, the inquiry chair, and will make a further statement in due course. We remain committed to drawing a line under these issues.
Ministerial Cars
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening)
I am publishing today details of the cost to Departments of Government cars provided to Ministers by the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) during the year 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011.
Spend for the period 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 was £3.8 million. This includes £0.7 million of spend during the previous Administration. In 2009-10 the spend was £6.7 million. This represents a 44% reduction in the amount Departments spent on the ministerial car service compared to the previous financial year.
Costs from 1 April to 12 May 2010 relate to the previous Administration.
From 12 May 2010, the costs incurred by non-Cabinet Ministers, while new arrangements for a ministerial car pool were introduced, include unavoidable costs associated with contractual termination notice periods. To reduce the cost of the Government car service to taxpayers, the ministerial car pool was introduced in September 2010 and, from that date, replaced the allocated service for non-Cabinet Ministers in line with the ministerial code published in May 2010.
The second table highlights the reduction in the number of Ministers who have access to a GCDA allocated car and driver. The number has reduced from 78 to 13.
Department | 1 April 2009- 31 March 2010 Total: | 1 April 2010- 12 May 2010 Total: | 13 May 2010- 31 March 2011 Total: |
|---|---|---|---|
Cabinet Office | £362,790.25 | £23,798.89 | £138,536.33 |
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills | £694,236.23 | £63,433.26 | £240,771.45 |
Department for Education | £489,193.30 | £54,254.64 | £213,629.44 |
Department for Communities and Local Government | £488,276.10 | £52,639.04 | £268,952.57 |
Department for Culture, Media and Sport | £305,397.32 | £25,631.37 | £65,108.55 |
Department for Energy and Climate Change | £303,129.83 | £34,967.45 | £131,272.97 |
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | £275,989.34 | £18,188.74 | £76,846.27 |
Department for International Development | £256,656.35 | £33,212.22 | £174,565.37 |
Department for Transport | £282,979.08 | £25,025.57 | £137,948.56 |
Department for Work and Pensions | £506,726.45 | £54,728.65 | £205,961.00 |
Department of Health | £475,490.38 | £52,962.64 | £205,052.81 |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office | £368,534.31 | £38,162.32 | £145,430.57 |
HM Treasury | £462,989.33 | £50,812.21 | £223,472.38 |
Home Office | £514,593.50 | £74,002.64 | £257,297.36 |
Law Officers’ Department | £188,130.75 | £19,993.43 | £107,078.42 |
Ministry of Defence | £106,342.80 | £15,846.51 | £23,572.12 |
Ministry of Justice | £320,429.90 | £35,079.33 | £229,214.80 |
Northern Ireland Office | £77,850.84 | £8,611.98 | £58,789.66 |
Scotland Office | £107,812.75 | £8,638.61 | £49,807.46 |
Wales Office | £150,504.20 | £18,260.88 | £113,691.38 |
£6,738,053.01 | £708,250.38 | £3,066,999.47 |
Department | Number of allocations at 31-03-10: | Number of allocations at 31-03-11: |
|---|---|---|
Cabinet Office | 4 | 0 |
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills | 7 | 1 |
Department for Education | 6 | 1 |
Department for Communities and Local Government | 6 | 1 |
Department for Culture, Media and Sport | 3 | 0 |
Department for Energy and Climate Change | 4 | 0 |
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | 2 | 1 |
Department for International Development | 3 | 1 |
Department for Transport | 3 | 1 |
Department for Work and Pensions | 6 | 1 |
Department of Health | 6 | 0 |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office | 4 | 0 |
HM Treasury | 6 | 1 |
Home Office | 6 | 1 |
Law Officers’ Department | 2 | 1 |
Ministry of Defence | 1 | 0 |
Ministry of Justice | 4 | 1 |
Northern Ireland Office | 2 | 1 |
Scotland Office | 1 | 0 |
Wales Office | 2 | 1 |
78 | 13 |
Grand Committee
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)
My Lords, before the first Motion is considered, I remind noble Lords that, in respect of each item of business today, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee do consider the statutory instrument in question. The Motion to approve the instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the normal way. I also remind noble Lords that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will break immediately for 10 minutes.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Jobseeking and Work for Your Benefit) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Jobseeking and Work for Your Benefit) (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2012.
Relevant document: 34th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I must start with the formalities: it is a requirement that I confirm for the Grand Committee that I consider that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I am happy so to confirm.
The Department for Work and Pensions is fully committed to supporting the Government’s commitments to the rehabilitation of prison leavers. Our main aim in the cross-government work to reduce reoffending is to increase employment outcomes for ex-offenders and prison leavers. We will do this by using the work programme—the biggest single payment-by-results welfare-to-work programme that this country has ever seen—as the primary vehicle for help and support.
We recognise that offenders face significant barriers to employment. The Government believe that there is a strong social and economic case to provide additional employment support at the earliest point to individuals who leave prison without employment. Most prison leavers have much greater difficulty in finding and retaining work than unemployed people with no criminal conviction. This can be due to a number of factors, including: employer prejudice against people with a criminal conviction; problems with accommodation; high prevalence of health conditions—especially mental health; motivation; and low educational and skills achievements. These factors all contribute to high rates of unemployment among prison leavers, which in turn increases social exclusion and has a detrimental effect on other issues, including reoffending levels and long-term benefit dependency.
That is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 August last year the Government’s intention to bring forward the work programme entry point for prison leavers to immediately on release from custody for those claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Currently, offenders are mandated on to the work programme after nine or 12 months on jobseeker’s allowance, depending on their age, although they are able to volunteer for the programme early—after three months. From March, all prison leavers who make a claim for jobseeker’s allowance can be mandated on to the work programme immediately on release from prison.
The regulation changes will provide the legal framework to allow prison leavers to be mandated on to the work programme immediately on release. This will give them the appropriate support at the point that they need it most, by taking those referred to the work programme out of the coverage of the “treated as available and actively seeking employment” provisions in the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996. The “treated as” provisions excuse the prison leaver from having to be available for or actively seeking work for the first seven days without this impacting on the prison leaver’s eligibility for jobseeker’s allowance.
Under current legislation, the earliest that prison leavers can be mandated to participate in the work programme is the eighth day after leaving custody. During the first seven days, when the prison leaver is treated as available and actively seeking work, the prison leaver cannot be attached to the work programme. Regulation 2 removes this seven-day period for those who have been given notice to participate in the work programme. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 provide the legislative framework necessary to mandate JSA claimants to participate in the work programme. Those who have not been given notice to participate in the work programme will still be provided with a seven-day period under the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996. As an example, those prison leavers who are aged 16 and 17 and claim jobseeker’s allowance under special circumstances will not be mandated on to the work programme immediately on release.
To ensure that prison leavers who are attached to the work programme will still benefit from the seven-day period, where they are treated as being available and actively seeking employment, Regulation 3 of these draft regulations amends Regulation 5A of the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011. This means that prison leavers will benefit from the support provided by the work programme provided immediately on release, but will still be excused from having to be available for or actively seeking work for the first seven days from release without this affecting their eligibility for jobseeker’s allowance. We fully recognise that prison leavers will need to settle back into the community and re-establish their basic needs, including accommodation.
I would expect that during the first week after leaving prison, the primary focus of the work programme provider will be to support those activities that will provide a secure base from which later work preparation and job search activities can ensue. This would not, however, stop the work programme provider and the prison leaver working directly on employment issues straightaway if they both thought it appropriate.
I am happy to say that, in order to facilitate this change and mandate prison leavers on to the work programme, we are proposing that the Jobcentre Plus adviser would take the claim for jobseeker’s allowance in prison to start entitlement immediately on release, allowing mandatory referral to the work programme. Jobcentre Plus will only discuss claims for jobseeker’s allowance with prisoners on a voluntary basis, as at present. There will be no mandatory interviews with prisoners.
Where a prisoner opts not to make a jobseeker’s allowance claim while in prison and subsequently turns up at the job centre office within 13 weeks of leaving prison, then they will be mandated to the work programme from their date of claim. This change will essentially bring forward the activity that Jobcentre Plus currently conducts at the new jobseeker’s interview following release. The claim will be put in hand to be triggered immediately on release. This will help to contribute to putting prison leavers on to a sounder financial footing, enabling them to resettle more quickly, concentrate on finding a job and reduce their chances of reoffending.
In introducing this additional support for prison leavers through the work programme, we are working closely with other government departments, in particular the Ministry of Justice and its executive agency, the National Offender Management Service. We also have the support of the Scottish Prison Service. The support and co-operation of these partner organisations will be crucial in our efforts to implement this help and support our Jobcentre staff working in prisons.
To this end, we currently have around 140 Jobcentre Plus advisers in all prisons that require their service. Their work focuses on prisoners’ needs, both upon induction and in pre-release from prison. Jobcentre Plus advisers work alongside the Prison Service and other organisations providing support to offenders in prison. Taking jobseeker’s allowance claims from prison leavers who voluntarily opt to obtain the benefit will be an extension of their current work in the prison.
I would like to cover briefly the other element of these regulatory changes. The previous administration introduced the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work for Your Benefit Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2010 to provide a legal framework for a pilot in certain Jobcentre Plus districts. These regulations allowed the Secretary of State to select claimants in specified pilot areas for participation in the work-for-your-benefit scheme if they met certain conditions. They also provided for the loss or reduction of benefit if persons selected failed to participate without good cause. The regulations came into force on 22 November 2010 and are due to lapse on 21 November 2013. The Minister for Employment’s Statement to the Commons on 19 November 2010, which I laid before this House on 22 November 2010, confirmed that this scheme would not go ahead. As a result of this decision, no jobseeker’s allowance claimants were selected for participation in the scheme. The Minister for Employment had previously made it clear that the work-for-your-benefit pilot scheme would not proceed and that the regulations for the scheme would be revoked when the opportunity arose. Regulation 4 revokes the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Work for Your Benefit Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2010. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, which has our support. Enabling prison leavers to be referred to the work programme immediately upon release, rather than at the earliest after seven days, is to be welcomed. As the Explanatory Memorandum recites, those in employment are much less likely to reoffend, and the importance of this first week is acknowledged even though, as the Minister said, the focus will be on reintegration and securing a base rather than work preparation and job search. From the Explanatory Memorandum, it also appears that the JSA claim process will be conducted in prison so that entitlement can begin on release. Again, the Minister covered that. It is proposed to make use of the provisions of what I think is now Clause 96(2)(1) of the Welfare Reform Bill. What will the position be in the interim before the Clause 96 provisions can be brought into effect? What payment will be due to individuals between release and the otherwise first payment date?
The Minister might be relieved to know that I do not propose to reiterate the detailed inquiry about the work programme which was taken up in the other place. However, when is it expected that the Government will be releasing comprehensive data on its operation, about referral levels, categories, outcomes, cost et cetera? It would be helpful if the Minister would say a little more about the process of these additional referral opportunities. Will this become the main approach for those leaving prison? I note from the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s confirmation that 16 and 17 year-olds will not be referred by this process. Will he say a little more about why? How many prison leavers have been referred to the work programme at day eight to date—from what the Minister said, it may be that the answer is nil—and certainly within 13 weeks of their claim? We understand that there is going to be a new category in the work programme. I am not sure whether it is just for those day one referrals rather than perhaps day eight referrals, week 13 referrals or any others.
In particular, will the Minister confirm that this will not be an automatic process that will squeeze out other programmes? I am sure that, if he were in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would talk about some of the programmes of which he is aware. I certainly remember sessions where we had presentations—I think that the Forestry Commission was engaged in employing people even before release from prison. These were imaginative programmes that really made a difference to people, and I would not wish to see these opportunities trump them and squeeze them out.
Subject to any points arising from those questions, we support the order and wish the Government well with this initiative.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
I add to the welcome that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has rightly given to these regulations.
I am particularly interested in this aspect of the work programme because I am a non-executive director of the Wise Group in Glasgow, which has for some years been running a programme called “Roots Out of Prison” that has been extraordinarily successful. The Minister rightly pointed to the fact that other aspects of the public service and the voluntary sector need to help if these projects and this work are to be successful. The Scottish Prison Service was exemplary in the way that it encouraged Wise Group employees, who were reformed former convicts who had been trained by the Wise Group, who went into Barlinnie prison in the first iteration of the project. Inside the prison, those Wise Group employees, working on a voluntary basis, engaged in capturing the interest of some people who were about to be released. I was not aware that the jobseeker’s allowance regulations made that first seven-day period a bit of a difficulty—I do not know how they got round that—but all that I can say is that it was a splendid project that worked to everybody’s benefit.
As the Minister or someone else said, the first seven days are crucial. The people who are waiting to meet disaffected offenders, particularly young offenders who may have completed their first sentence, when they come out of the door at 7 on a Thursday morning, are usually the drug dealers. The drug dealers know that that is when the prisoners are let out, and they say, “Come with me to the pub and I’ll help you”. Then of course the prison leaver is back into a cycle of recidivism. Somebody should be there to welcome the prison leaver and take them somewhere, or talk to them before they come out about their housing benefit and getting accommodation. Local authorities could help some of these ex-convicts to find places where they can immediately go to live. Then the whole system would be more positively pointed at people who are in a very vulnerable set of circumstances.
Lord Freud
Well my Lords, it is very nice to have that support, and I am looking forward to lots more of it. There were a range of questions and I will try to deal with as many as I can. Where I cannot, I will of course write.
Picking up points from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I think that he catches me, as he always does, on a technicality around Clause 96. We were looking to use Clause 96 in this way but, having looked at it again in legal terms, we have concluded that it is not necessary to rely on that particular amendment and that this regulation is adequate. Therefore, we do not have the timetabling issues that he was concerned about.
I have to disappoint on the numbers. We simply do not have the information on how many prisoners have been referred to the work programme to date. We will start to collect that information, clearly, when this programme comes into effect.
On the question of when more general data on the work programme are coming out, we are planning now to provide a level of information on the attachments and referrals to the work programme next month, although because of the back-ended way that payments are made, the figures on actual job outcomes will probably not come out until the autumn.
The reason that 16 and 17 year-olds are not referred is that the work programme is available to those from age 18 and over—that is just how it is structured. One of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was urging was to look at ways of using this in an expanded way, as it is only for JSA whereas there is also ESA for youngsters. Clearly, if this starts to work I will certainly be looking very closely at the other areas where we can expand it.
On the question of squeezing out other programmes, we would expect the work programme providers to work with other local initiatives, especially when they have established a track record. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, talked about the experience of the Wise Group, which would clearly be very valuable. The Ministry of Justice has a range of pilots going on at the moment, experimenting in this area using social impact bonds—in Peterborough there is a rehabilitation payment and in Doncaster there is a justice reinvestment pilot. There are also community pilots. There is an enormous level of activity going on in this area, for the obvious reason that it is one where we need to make a lot of improvements.
I can confirm that the programme is entirely voluntary and that those who want to claim—both those who claim in prison and those who claim up to 13 weeks after release—are all in that same group of payment by results. This is a new category and we are looking to negotiate the terms and to get that new category with the work programme providers. The total amount of earnings that providers can make for a successful placement is £5,600 for an extended period. We all understand the structure of the work programme.
I think that I have covered all of the questions—
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Indeed, the Minister has, and that has been very helpful, but I want to clarify a couple of points. I think he said that the programme is voluntary. Is it voluntary whether or not somebody claims JSA? It would be voluntary because if there are other programmes associated with prisons going on, such as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, instanced, the referrals or the route to go via the work programme would not preclude those continuing. Where does the decision-making lie in respect of that? Is it for the individual as to which programme they attach themselves to or seek to get the benefit of, or is it the decision-makers at Jobcentre Plus—the providers? How does that all work? Although this clearly has great potential, it would be a pity if it squeezed out those good examples that already exist.
Lord Freud
My Lords, to be blunt, it is voluntary to make the claim for JSA in prison, then once you do that as a prisoner there is immediate mandation. To the extent that voluntary charitable endeavours have been doing this with their own funding, this will displace some of that. However, I think that those who are experienced at this work will find a way to continue and to start earning money. This is stopping being a charitable endeavour now and becoming something that the state is willing to pay for, so I expect some readjustment of who does what. Clearly, there always will be that, but I would expect people who are experienced and have a track record in this area to be very well placed to continue to do it.
The transition from prison to the community is a key transition point in the journey from crime to resettlement. We have a much too large benefits bill in this country and prison leavers are significantly more likely than the average person to claim those benefits, so it is essential to put in the work and support required to get them back into the workplace so that they can start to pay their own way in society. The figures suggest that those individuals who are in employment are between one-third and one-half less likely to reoffend, so we could make a real difference by providing help not just to those individuals but also to society as a whole.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I started off wholeheartedly supporting this but now my support is slightly qualified, as, I expect, is the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, in relation to the Minister's response on the issue of mandation. I can see that it is voluntary whether someone claims JSA or not, but if you have no other source of income, that is not a particularly helpful designation. Once you do, you have the inevitable route in the work programme and there may be a chance of existing providers being wrapped up in that but there is no certainty. That seems to be a great pity if it risks destroying the experience of good programmes that are out there. I accept that that is not universal and I accept that they may be driven in large measure by charitable organisations but there is real work involved. I enter my qualification without necessarily withdrawing support for the regulations.
Lord Freud
There is a genuine dilemma when you go from a cottage industry, where there are individual examples of really excellent work, to trying to provide a universal, lock-down service to everyone in the category. I do not want to sugar-coat this—it is very easy to over-sugar-coat—as I think there are going to be changes in the provision here, and there may be some groups that have been in very good individual work that does not translate into the universal service that we are aiming for. I think there is every opportunity and every incentive for those who have been affected to remain in this part of the provision. Rather than worrying about individual groups and their position, it is much more important to deal with what is a running sore and a long-term tragedy of not looking after these people properly. That is what this is doing and I hope that most of the good provision is wrapped in, but clearly that cannot be guaranteed. I think this is vital and I hope that it is the smallest of cavils from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but you cannot change things without changing things—tautology is very useful sometimes.
With those words, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (Dissolution) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Rawlings
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (Dissolution) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 36th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, in 2005 Parliament passed the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. The Act turned the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, an arm’s-length body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, into a statutory corporation. The commission, or CABE as it is more commonly known, was originally created in 1999 to replace the Royal Fine Art Commission as England’s champion for promoting high standards in architecture and urban design. Part 8 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act also provided that CABE could be dissolved by affirmative order, and it is an order under those provisions that we are considering today.
The order provides for the dissolution of CABE. It transfers the remaining property, rights and liabilities of CABE immediately before the date of dissolution to the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. The order also makes provision for the final report and accounts for CABE, and contains consequential repeals and revocations.
The dissolution of CABE is an outcome of the comprehensive spending review of October 2010. While we recognised the important role that CABE has played in promoting well designed buildings and public spaces, we judged that the most pressing need was to protect and maintain other parts of our culture and heritage. As a result, we reluctantly decided to withdraw CABE’s DCMS funding after 2011-12. CABE was jointly funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government and, in the light of DCMS’s decision, DCLG indicated that its funding for CABE would cease after 2010-11. Therefore, CABE was unable to continue as a public body, and a controlled closure was implemented. The majority of CABE’s operations ceased with effect from 31 March 2011 and it was mostly wound up by 30 September 2011, when its remaining staff and commissioners left.
Some of CABE’s activities, principally design review, are now being carried out by the Design Council CABE, a subsidiary of the Design Council. This is being funded initially by a DCLG grant of £2.75 million a year for two financial years 2011-13. As a result, on 1 April 2011, 19 CABE staff transferred to the Design Council under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
In addition, on 30 September 2011, Engaging Places, the built environment education programme that CABE ran with English Heritage, was transferred to the architecture centre Open City Architecture, together with one full-time permanent member of staff and a one-off grant of £100,000 from DCMS.
CABE did excellent and valuable work for DCMS in the past; the decision to withdraw funding was not taken lightly and should not in any way be taken as a criticism of CABE's performance. Indeed, I would like to pay tribute to CABE’s work; it helped to raise the standards of design in housing, health and infrastructure buildings, schools, town centres and public spaces across England. Since 1999, CABE reviewed the design of over 3,000 of the most significant development proposals to come forward during a period of architectural renaissance in England. I am happy to say that the records of these are now preserved at the National Archives, providing a fascinating snapshot of major schemes in the first 10 years of the new millennium.
In this year of the London Olympics and Paralympics, it is worth recalling CABE’s role in helping the Olympic Delivery Authority to make certain that good design and value for money were at the heart of the project. CABE ran a special London 2012 design review panel and contributed to the design development of 26 schemes and the Olympic Park. The Olympic Delivery Authority believes that CABE’s advice was vital in making sure design quality was delivered.
Although the department would have liked to continue to fund CABE’s work in driving up the quality of design in the built environment, in the present financial situation it seemed more important to protect the wider culture and heritage sectors. Hence the dissolution order before us today. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation.
The future of CABE has been the subject of some controversy since the coalition Government came to power and I, for one, very much regretted its demise. At the time, it felt like it was just too easy for Jeremy Hunt to offer it up for sacrifice in the first round of spending cuts without really appreciating the arguments as to why advice and guidance on architectural standards and living space was so necessary both for the industry and consumers of design. I am very well aware that CABE’s work and advice were not universally popular, but this is not surprising in an area such as architecture, which is notoriously controversial. However, I believe that, overall, CABE’s legacy is an overwhelmingly positive contribution to design standards in this country.
I talked about CABE’s demise, to which the Minister also referred, but of course part of CABE’s function has now been rescued by the merger with the Design Council, which, in the circumstances, I accept was the best that could be achieved. As I understand it, the merger has effectively already taken place, so the order is, in effect, a tidying-up exercise. However, what is not clear to me—perhaps the Minister could clarify this—is why the assets and functions are being transferred back to the department rather than to the Design Council. What is the legal status of the merger with the Design Council? Is a separate order being prepared that will set out the new role for the Design Council in embracing some of CABE’s functions?
A cynic might suggest that the drafting of the order delivers the complete abolition of CABE with no future legal requirement on the Government to facilitate architectural advice and standards, whereas I had understood that the settlement—a more constructive merger with the Design Council—would maintain those functions at a national level. Also, as the order stands, it would be open to the Minister to cease funding the CABE activities that will now take place within the Design Council without any further reference to Parliament. Is that what is intended? Perhaps the Minister could shed some more light on the processes taking place here.
As the Minister mentioned, if there is one thing that we have already learnt from the Olympics, it is that the UK has some of the finest designers in the world and we know how to create iconic and stunning designs that are also practical and sustainable. Unfortunately, our record on housing design is rather more woeful. The new proposed planning framework is understandably causing consternation that more poor-quality estates that clash with the local environment will spring up, against the wishes of local communities. Surely this is where an organisation such as CABE, even under its new arrangements, could help by working with local authorities and communities to help them to understand the advantages of quality, well built homes, effective landscaping and attractive use of space. Can the Minister confirm that this is the type of role envisaged for the Design Council in the future, that it will be written into its terms of reference and that adequate funding will be provided to ensure that this can be carried out?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on these issues and, on the assumption of a positive response, we will support the order.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her contribution and for her questions. I quite understand that she regretted the demise of CABE, whose contribution she respected, as we all did.
On where CABE’s responsibilities lie, some of them now lie with the Design Council and some lie with DCMS. They have been distributed, as I think it says in the order.
On the merger with the Design Council, it is very important that the two elements of the leading bodies come together so that local communities are given greater opportunities to have their say on these areas and on the look and feel for the future. The Design Council has been strengthened by bringing in the valuable skills, knowledge and expertise from CABE to create a one-stop shop that will provide a service to industry, councils and local communities. Without the prospect of further funding for CABE from other sources, the remainder of CABE had to be wound up and the organisation dissolved and any remaining property, rights, including those relating to employees, and functions are to be transferred to the Secretary of State. The general proposal was agreed in principle by Ministers in all three departments affected, and the legal status for the dissolution of CABE was agreed in Cabinet in February 2011.
On the transfer of CABE’s statutory functions, while the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act allows for the transfer of CABE’s statutory functions to another organisation, we decided that this was not necessary or appropriate. However the royal charter of the Design Council has been amended to incorporate functions similar to CABE’s. This allows the Government to provide funding under the authority of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act to the Design Council for carrying out similar activities to those carried out by CABE.
The noble Baroness asked about CABE’s legal status. That has already been taken care of by amending the Design Council's royal charter and the transfer of undertakings and agreements between CABE and the Design Council. The assets and liabilities will remain with the DCMS and the rest have already been transferred to the Design Council.
Despite DCMS's difficulty with the spending review decision, architectural design remains an important priority for the Government, as the noble Baroness said. Part of CABE lives on in the Design Council and Spaceshaper and Engaging Places were found new homes. Above all, the draft planning policy framework demonstrates that the Government attach great importance to the design of the built environment. Our objective for the planning system is to promote good design that makes attractive any usable and durable places, which is a key element in achieving sustainable development. In addition, both the construction strategy and the housing strategy reflect the importance that the Government place on the role of good design. If I have missed any points, I will of course be in touch with the noble Baroness.
Lord Storey
I want to put on record my particular regard for CABE. I saw at first hand how it made a tremendous impact on the quality of architecture, design and open space in Liverpool. The sense of realism and dedication ended in developments that were at the cutting edge.
Although I am delighted that to some extent the work will continue in the Design Council, my great concern, which the Minister has allayed to some extent, is that we do not want to live in a society where our surroundings and architecture are of poor quality. We do not want the bog standard. We want our design and architecture to be cutting-edge. I am sure that that will continue.
I do not know the details, but one of the other areas of CABE’s work with which I was terribly impressed was how it was able to work with English Heritage. That partnership of heritage and architectural environment was hugely important. It was good to see those two bodies coming closer together. I hope that that is also something that we are aware of.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Storey for speaking on this order. I could not agree with him more that we do not want to see poor quality architecture. I know that developments that have happened in Liverpool such as Tate Modern and others have been of a really high standard and very exciting.
The noble Lord raised another point regarding CABE and English Heritage. It was decided that merging CABE with a heritage body was not appropriate because CABE’s impact rested on its wide freedom to offer independent advice and support directly to third parties. Merging it with a body that has statutory responsibility for protecting the historic environment would have compromised that. I hope that the noble Lord understands that. He was right to mention the importance of CABE in the quality of the work done.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 33rd report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, increasing trade and investment is essential for generating strong, substantial and balanced growth. The United Kingdom has been influential in making sure that trade liberalisation is central to the European Union’s growth strategy. In the absence of a multilateral deal, free trade agreements are the main vehicle for doing this. The European Union is pursuing an ambitious range of free trade agreements across the globe and the European Union’s South Korea Free Trade Agreement is the most ambitious trade agreement ever concluded by the European Union. It will be good for Europe and good for Britain, boosting the United Kingdom’s economy by an estimated £500 million pounds a year.
South Korea is the European Union’s fourth largest export market outside Europe, despite the high barriers to trade: industrial tariffs averaged 6.6 per cent, agricultural tariffs averaged 48.5 per cent and there were extensive regulatory barriers. The free trade agreement eliminates the vast majority of these barriers to trade. The agreement will boost growth and create jobs across the economy. It is estimated that the agreement will bring £17 billion of opportunities to European Union goods and services exporters, of which £2 billion will accrue to the United Kingdom. This is why almost all European Union and UK business groups support this agreement.
The United Kingdom is well placed to benefit. South Korea is already a valuable trading partner for the United Kingdom. In 2010, bilateral trade was an impressive £6.5 billion. South Korea is the UK’s seventh largest export market in Asia, and in 2009 the United Kingdom was the largest single investor in South Korea, but we want to strengthen this relationship further.
The free trade agreement will create opportunities where the United Kingdom has a distinct competitive advantage: in legal and financial services; in ICT, where UK firms can take their world-class technology and cutting-edge designs to South Korea; in automotive components; in whisky; in pharmaceuticals; in aircraft engines; and in low-carbon technology, to name just a few. The agreement will dramatically increase our access to a market of 50 million people, with growing disposable incomes and an appetite for British goods.
Following the free trade agreement coming provisionally into force on 1 July 2011, the United Kingdom Government have been working closely with UK businesses and the South Korean Government to ensure that the United Kingdom extracts the full benefit from the deal. BIS and Foreign Office Ministers have hosted a range of events with UK business and the Government of South Korea. UKTI is working hard to promote the deal, including through its report on 100 opportunities for UK companies in Korea.
The coming into force of the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement provides the United Kingdom with a tremendous set of opportunities. It will boost UK growth, and create UK jobs through enhanced two-way trade and investment. It will strengthen our strategic relationship with an important global player, and it will lay the ground for future trade agreements between the European Union and other parts of the world. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Edmiston
My Lords, if I may, I will make a few comments and I declare an interest as an importer of Far Eastern cars for the past 35 years, some of which were Korean—in fact, we imported Hyundai. We indeed were a beneficiary of “free trade” in those days. It was not free trade, but we had import duty free status for a period of years while industry in the Far East was growing. My perception is that this agreement may be more beneficial to Korea than to us. I am concerned as to whether we should be encouraging people to set up assembly facilities here. For instance, Toyota and Honda have set up facilities here. Does it prejudice their situation when Korean cars will come in duty-free? What impact does that have? I am concerned about that aspect of it and if the Minister can make some comments about that, it would be useful.
The second issue I have some concern about is that having been involved in a legal dispute in Korea, their legal system has—if I may put it this way—a few question marks over it. If British firms dealing in Korea were to be encouraged to use an international court, that might be very helpful. Those are my comments.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I thank the Minister as well from this side of the Committee, and on behalf of the other part of the coalition, for making that brief statement on the Korea trade agreement. As she quite rightly said with a positive tone in her voice, which was justified, this is a really important agreement with a really important country. As we see from the documentation, the free trade agreement between the European Union and Korea is the most comprehensive free trade agreement ever negotiated by the EU. Enormous progress has been made on the learning curve, in the EU, in other countries and at the WTO. I believe I am right in saying that some of the UK members of the negotiating team on behalf of the EU, through the European Commission, were particularly complimentary about how progress was made in those detailed discussions with their Korean counterparts.
However, it is not all late in the day for this. It is still early days, as this agreement started provisionally only in July and is running until agreement is reached finally, once these orders have been ratified by the parliamentary process. It remains to be seen exactly what will happen. In the UK, there is a problem that we should all really work hard at, both in government and elsewhere, such as in industry—not to resolve it completely, which is probably impossible, but to mitigate it in the future. That problem is that the United Kingdom normally has a trade deficit with most other advanced territories in the world. There are some exceptions to that, which I will not go into in detail because otherwise I would speak for too long, but that is the reality. Of course, we make up for that overall position of net deficit in physical goods and exports by our invisibles and other matters in the City and elsewhere, which cover that position. Normally, we hope that those give us at least a reasonable current-account position even if not an overall surplus, which happens from time to time.
That is the reality. Even after the devaluation of the past five or six years, which has been in the 20 to 25 per cent range, we still find that is so. I believe that I am right in saying that the latest trade figures were, once again, the widest ever or they may have been the widest for quite a few years. I did not have time to look in the Library for those figures, but it is either one or the other. Either way, it is disturbing that after yet another devaluation post-war in the United Kingdom—some of them formal devaluations; others in the market place only—we are still not exporting enough in terms of physical goods and services. Korea will be sending more to us, and the amount that we will send to Korea will be less, except, of course, in services and in what legal and accounting firms and others can contribute to this trade agreement.
Will the Minister outline which groups in the UK did not support this free trade agreement? She said that most groups had supported it. Some £500 million of benefits per year to the UK is a modest figure in comparison with our objectives in the Far East. I hope that she is optimistic about a rate of growth. Finally, will she indicate to the Committee the Government’s understandable apprehensions about whether tensions now between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea will affect some of these aspects of growth and trade between the UK and the EU as exporters to Korea? What is the situation in Korea with regard to trade and business?
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Minister for her statement. I am not opposing this statutory instrument, but I am, like a number of noble Lords, interested in the value of UK trade with Korea. The impact assessment shows a £0.2 billion deficit. Those are the figures under the heading:
“Value of UK trade with Korea”,
on page 10 of the document. In goods, there is nearly £1 billion excess on imports. In services, we have some advantage.
The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, was right to describe the boosting by £500 million a year as somewhat modest. While I do not want to pour cold water on the enthusiasm of the Minister in this area—I note what she said about BIS and Foreign Office Ministers hosting events, which is a good initiative—I would be interested in hearing from her whether BIS and UKTI will give any special assistance to business exporters and potential exporters of both goods and services.
The point that the noble Lord, Lord Edmiston, raised is that these are both—aggressive might not be the right word—enthusiastic and successful exporters. We should not underestimate that. Again, I do not want to sound as though I am opposing the concept of free trade: I am not. But we ought to be cognisant of the nature of competition and understand the importance of giving every assistance and encouragement to our own exporters both in goods and services.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I would like to thank noble Lords for their contributions today. I did rather expect that I would hear from someone with experience and expertise in the motor industry like my noble friend Lord Edmiston. Let us start by recalling that the free trade agreement is an excellent deal overall for the UK—worth £500 million a year in UK GDP. As well as eliminating South Korean automobile tariffs, the free trade agreement contains the most ambitious disciplines ever negotiated by the European Union to tackle non-tariff barriers. South Korea will now accept international standards as being equivalent to Korean regulations, saving considerable time and expense retesting EU cars once exported to Korea.
At the same time, Korean car producers must comply with all EU rules and standards, and the free trade agreement prohibits the introduction of any new unjustified barriers to trade. As well as the EU market access committee, a working group on automotive trade will be established to monitor and increase regulatory co-operation. Furthermore, the European Union has secured a range of provisions in response to the industry’s concerns, including a slower phasing of tariff reductions and a bilateral safeguard clause, which will protect any industry from harm due to the free trade agreement. For these reasons, we believe that the EU has secured a possible outcome and an excellent deal overall.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Again, I do not want to dispute the £500 million boost that the Minister referred to—I am sure that we welcome that—although the figure is fairly modest. However, over what period of time is that forecast to take place?
Baroness Wilcox
That is a very good question, to which I shall give an answer. On the £500 million each year, that will come into force over time. I hope that that is of some help to the noble Lord.
Lord Edmiston
Is the Minister aware of certain practices that used to exist in South Korea? It may be that this does not happen any more, but in previous years anyone who drove a non-Korean-manufactured car could look forward to a visit from the tax inspector and a thorough investigation. There were various means by which South Korea managed to keep a very high percentage of local cars in its market. Is the Minister aware of other practices of that nature?
Baroness Wilcox
We are aware of difficulties that have happened in the past. When the noble Lord reads about the matter in Hansard, I hope that he will realise that we have put in place various restraints and careful practices with which we will ensure that the Koreans have to comply if we are to trade with them. We hope that they will want to trade with us even more than we will want to trade with them. I realise that the motor industry is a very sensitive issue, but we have a range of actions that we may take if we see that there is danger of unfair trade taking place.
The EU-South Korea free trade agreement is ground-breaking in its approach. We have reached an agreement that responds adequately to EU concerns on such things as diesel emissions and post-market surveillance of safety standards. We have tried where we can to write as many things as possible on to the face of the agreement to ensure that, if we feel that there is unfair practice going on, industry in this country can quickly tell us and we can quickly return to see whether we can quickly sort out the problems.
Local Better Regulation Office (Dissolution and Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Wilcox
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the Local Better Regulation Office (Dissolution and Transfer of Functions, Etc.) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 36th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, there are two main purposes of this order: to dissolve the Local Better Regulation Office and to transfer its continuing functions to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. The legislation that is amended by this order comprises: the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008; the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967; the Superannuation Act 1972; the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975; and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The order achieves three equally important things: first, greater transparency within the delivery of better regulation policies; secondly, greater accountability within the process of formulating better regulation policy, which, in combination, gives rise to ensuring that a strong voice for regulatory reform can be heard, supported and championed at the heart of government; and, thirdly, the opportunity to realise savings in public expenditure. In the specific instance of the LBRO dissolution, these savings are modest; however, they contribute to the greater efficiencies to be realised through our wider public bodies reform programme.
I feel it is important to reassure my colleagues from the outset that the primary authority scheme, currently being effectively led and run by the Local Better Regulation Office, will continue seamlessly when this order comes into force. The LBRO is a small unit with fewer than 30 employees, but its effectiveness has led stakeholders to hold the primary authority scheme, and its other work, in high regard. The Government wholeheartedly support the continuation of this work; indeed we propose to extend it, and intend to bring forward separate legislation to do so.
Delivering regulation in the right way supports business growth and it is right therefore that we should maximise the opportunities that good regulation can bring. This Government remain focused not just on reviewing the volume of regulation, but on ensuring that the way in which regulation is delivered is appropriate, effective and efficient. Improvements in the delivery mechanisms for regulation are of vital importance to the businesses that experience the enforcement of these regulations on a daily basis. Good regulation supports economic prosperity and consumer protection. The Local Better Regulation Office has been driving improvements in these areas since it was established as a non-departmental public body via the introduction of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act three years ago.
Regulation provides essential protections to society and brings invaluable benefits. A fair, efficient regulation system sees an expectation of equal treatment for all those affected by regulation, allowing our businesses the freedom to grow and to prosper with an understanding of what is expected of them and what they are expecting from regulators. Good, sensible, proportionate regulation is also consistent and appropriately targeted. I feel it is right that our businesses expect good regulation as the norm. Within this environment, we need to remain aware of the need continually to drive improvements, to ensure consistency and, as a Government, to lead quality regulatory reform, creating a supportive environment in which our businesses can grow and prosper.
In October 2011, the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced proposals for reform of 901 public bodies, to increase accountability, to cut out duplication of activity, and to discontinue activities that are no longer needed. The proposals are a fundamental part of the commitment made by the coalition Government to increase radically the transparency and accountability of all public services and to reduce the number and cost of public bodies.
This is a part of a wider programme of public sector reform aimed at giving a better deal for taxpayers, which is essential in these times of austerity, ensuring resources are targeted where they are needed most and using transparency to help the public hold the Government to account. The reform process aims to reinvigorate the public’s trust in democracy and also to ensure that the Government operate in a more efficient and business-like way.
The review of the LBRO considered two main issues: first, whether all the current functions of the LBRO were still required and, secondly, how these functions could be best delivered, including whether the LBRO met the tests for continuing as an arm’s-length body. The review considered LBRO’s three core functions of administering the primary authority scheme; simplifying the national framework for local authority enforcement; and directly supporting local authority improvement. The first two were identified as being of clear and continuing value. However, delivery of those functions via a non-departmental public body was not felt to be the most appropriate or effective organisational structure.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive statement. In the beginning she said that there would be greater transparency and accountability. I noticed the assertion but I am not sure that I necessarily saw the evidence of that. This is an interesting NDPB and the impact assessment or the review showed that it was one that was highly regarded, which I think is important. When the Minister talks about greater transparency and accountability in a body that is being absorbed into BIS, I think we are entitled to some validation of that statement.
The Minister also said that the primary authority scheme will continue. However, paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“In line with the conclusions of the BIS led (public bodies) review of LBRO, the power to direct local authorities, and the power to enforce service improvement will be stopped. However, the power to issue guidance to local authorities will be retained, as will the requirement that local authorities must have regard to that guidance”.
Therefore, while I hesitate to use the word “disingenuous”, I think that the Minister did not give quite the whole story when she said that the primary authority scheme will continue. The primary authority scheme will not continue in its present form; it will be modified. Instead of there being a power to enforce, there will simply be guidance issued to local authorities. Given that that aspect of the operation of the LBRO was highly regarded, that is a not unimportant issue that requires some clarification.
Before moving on to the comments of the Federation of Small Businesses, I want to make one other comment. What assurances can the Government give that the better regulation delivery office will retain the independence and technical expertise that the LBRO had? Can the Minister assure us that the office’s important work will continue with the same vigour within BIS? It needs to be strengthened rather than weakened.
Interestingly, the Federation of Small Businesses has articulated concerns about the abolition of the LBRO, which it says plays a “vital” role in tackling regulatory burdens:
“LBRO must not be scrapped but overhauled if small firms are to truly see a reduction in regulation”.
The Federation of Small Businesses has also said:
“Raising the standard of inspections and making the process of inspection a positive experience is the cheapest and fastest route to improving the overall perception of the regulatory burden. The FSB believes the Local Better Regulation Office (LBRO) has a pivotal role to play in this process”.
I think that the Government have quite a way to go to convince everybody that the better regulation delivery office will be as good as the Minister has asserted.
There has also been a bit of an argument about the representative steering group. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Responses on the question of the proposed membership were evenly split, 50-50. The basic proposition to establish the group was supported, half the respondents agreed with the proposed membership, but others wanted to see the balance changed”.
The role of the representative steering group will be important. Given the assurances on transparency and accountability, I would welcome an assurance that the notes of the meetings of the representative steering group will be published.
I eagerly await the Minister’s response to some of those questions.
Lord Borrie
My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene at this point. I am very disappointed with the order and its accompanying Explanatory Memorandum. It is very useful to have the Explanatory Memorandum, but an examination of it reveals—as my noble friend Lord Young has shown—that it makes a number of points that stress almost the opposite of the objectives and successes that the Minister has claimed for this order. For example, the Minister talked about the greater transparency, accountability and strength that will be provided. However, I am not sure that there will be greater transparency when the body is transferred inside a government department, where its work and effort will no longer be as clear as that of an NDPB. The savings that are claimed are said to be modest, which is not a very great strength for the change, while the response rate for the consultation on the order is also said to be low.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, I support my noble friend on her proposals regarding this order. Whereas I sympathise with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that this is government fashion, behind that fashion lies a fundamental democratic principle. There are a lot of us who believe that one of the problems with the proliferation of the creation of these bodies over the last 10 to 15 years is that the democratic accountability of what they do was lost.
I can give an example to the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the difference: were this order not to be passed so that this organisation were kept in place, when he stood up to ask the Minister a question about the activities or the proposals that he has concerns about, she would, quite rightly, have said that it was not a matter for her but for this body. In future, when he has a concern about what happens, because it is within the department, she will be accountable for the activities of the people concerned. I know that, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, it is the fashion of this Government to abolish as many of these bodies as possible, either entirely or bringing their activities within the relevant ministry, and I have some sympathy with his view that the Bill tried to attempt too much and that far too many bodies were initially included, but my fundamental belief is that wherever possible these bodies should be democratically accountable. That is particularly the case here.
I have three questions, one of which has been touched on by noble Lords on the Labour Benches. First, one of the things that are clearly emerging is that a lot of the bodies being abolished, or whose activities are being brought within the relevant department, have a lot of property assets. In this case, is there a significant property asset that will be released or sold, and do we know its value? Secondly, the Minister indicated that from April most of the staff within the organisation will be transferred to employment within the department. Have they signed up to do that or do we just hope that they will? My third point follows up the point that both noble Lords made about the representative steering group. The document indicates that there was a 50:50 split in the consultation over what should happen. Where do we think we are? What is the timing of the decision to decide what that representative steering group should be?
Baroness Wilcox
I am trying very hard to make sure that I can answer as many questions as possible. It does not seem that long ago that I was standing in this Room—perhaps it was a couple of years ago—at the birth of the LBRO. At that time, I wondered whether we needed another organisation. Here I am now saying that we do, but that we are going to keep it to ourselves and I am going to be responsible for it, whatever it does. I thought that I had made a very long and detailed speech to try to cover as many points as I possibly could this time round, but obviously all I have done is to provoke people with expertise in this area to come back at me with questions. I hope that I am going to be able to answer them.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the Federation of Small Businesses. Small businesses want to see greater benefits. One is that we have announced that we will make assured guidance available to them: a benefit of the primary authority. He also asked about the primary authority. The power to direct remains in the case of the primary authority; it is in other guidance where the power to enforce will be removed. He also spoke about the RSG minutes. We have not yet considered publication of the minutes, but we will look at that proposal. It was not raised in consultation, but I see no reason why they should not be published. If there is no great objection, I do not see why he should not have what he has asked for.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that the savings will be very modest and will not in themselves address the deficit. That is not quite what we meant. The savings, which will be £6.4 million over 10 years, are not insignificant given the financial situation we find ourselves in. I hope I was very clear in my statement that we want to make sure that the excellent work that the LBRO has done continues, but any money at all that we can manage to save by reorganising should be saved. We hope to be able to continue with the same people and do the same work while cutting the overhead costs.
The noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Razzall, talked about the representative steering group’s split responses. The role of the RSG was supported by 80 per cent of respondents and any split responses reflected a debate as to the membership, with many of the respondents actually wanting to be on it themselves. That was the real balance of the argument there.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on accountability, the RSG will represent a balanced range of stakeholder perspectives and aim to strike the right balance between the regulators and those whom regulation seeks to protect; to provide advice on the strategic direction and approach of the organisation; to provide oversight of the operation of the primary authority to ensure that due process is followed; and to have its membership reviewed regularly and refreshed to open up engagement and encourage new perspectives. It will be no more than 12 individuals, not operate as a formal body and not oversee day-to-day operations of the BRDO, which we hope will add even more to the great work that it has already done.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, talked about the property assets. In answer to his question, no—lease transfers will be consolidated with other BIS estates. Sadly, we do not have very expensive property assets that we can get rid of. I note that the noble Lord supported what I introduced today in this regard. On his question about whether employees have agreed to come, yes, all the employers in post at the date of transfer have agreed to be transferred to the department and will continue to work from Birmingham for the foreseeable future. The noble Lord also asked about business sign-up. As he suspected, business had some concerns. We have certainly attempted to listen to those; the operational independence in the primary authority is an important element of that, and keeping the business reference panel is also important. Businesses have questions, but are broadly supportive of the proposals. We will of course continue to listen to their questions and worries as we go forward.
Consistency and continual improvement in the regulatory landscape are essential if we are to progressively strive to provide an even stronger, more supportive environment in which our businesses can strengthen, prosper and grow for the benefit of our whole economy. The needs to support greater transparency and accountability, to create a more effective regulatory policy on development and to provide a strong voice for regulatory reform at the heart of government are not in dispute. This order underpins those objectives, and I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I may have misheard the Minister when she said that the power to direct local authorities will remain. That is what I thought I heard, but I would like some clarification, because the Explanatory Memorandum is quite clear that the power to direct local authorities goes and the power to enforce service improvement will be stopped. What then remains is just a question of guidance to local authorities, so I would like some further clarification.
Baroness Wilcox
I thought that the answer I gave was that the power to direct remains in cases of primary authority and it is other guidance where the power to enforce will be removed. I shall see whether I can get a clearer response for the noble Lord.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
In that case, I think the Minister needs to clarify the memorandum.
Baroness Wilcox
The powers of enforcement are in Part 2 of the Act, and they remain. In the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, Section 7 is repealed, if I have that right. If that is not clear—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Perhaps I can try to be helpful, because I do not want us to take up more time than we need to, but that is not quite what it says in the Explanatory Memorandum. I notice that the Minister’s officials are nodding. Perhaps the best thing that the Minister could do is to write to us and clarify the situation.
Lord Razzall
Perhaps the Minister could specifically explain, when she writes, how what she said relates to paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which seems to suggest that,
“the power to direct local authorities, and … to enforce service improvement will be stopped”.
It does not seem to reflect that, but that is actually what it says.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I am always reluctant to say that I will write because it sounds like a cop-out. I always try if I can to get the answer on the day, but I am obviously not giving as clear a response as is required by your Lordships. I will, of course, write, if that is acceptable.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the power to direct local authorities to comply with guidance is repealed; the power to enforce the primary authority remains. That is what I thought that I had made clear in the first place.
Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Special Educational Needs (Direct Payments) (Pilot Scheme) Order 2012.
Relevant document: 36th report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, when we discussed the general principle of testing the use of direct payments for special educational provision on Report on the Education Bill back in November, I am glad to say that there was a broad welcome for the measure from all sides of the House. However, there was a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that the detail would merit further scrutiny and that the affirmative resolution procedure would be the right way forward. That was a suggestion that I was happy to adopt, and I am glad that we have an early opportunity to discuss this important order today.
I also put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for the attention that he has personally paid to this issue since November and for the helpful exchanges that he has had with my honourable friend Sarah Teather. I also thank the Special Educational Consortium for the way in which it has worked very constructively with officials to look at some of the detail. We have benefited from its advice as well.
As noble Lords know, we said in the Green Paper, Support and Aspiration, that we want to give every child with a statement of SEN or in a new single education, health and care plan, and their family, the option of a personal budget by 2014. That will help give families more of a say in decisions about the support services they use. We have already set up 20 pathfinders to look at improving assessment processes and developing personal budgets for parents. What we are not currently able to do is test the contribution that direct payments for special educational services could play in empowering families. We can do that for health and social services, but not for education. By passing this order, we will also be able to trial direct payments for educational services as part of testing personal budgets across health, social care and education which, if we want to bring all the services together in a more integrated way, seems to be the logical next step. We propose that the pilot should initially run for 14 months until March 2013, with the option to extend for a further two years after that point, if necessary. This is in line with the Green Paper pathfinder testing period.
During our debate in November, noble Lords sought reassurance on a number of points. Let me try to deal with each of them. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, sought reassurance on the potential impact of direct payments on services to other children and young people with disabilities and SEN. The issue was also raised by the Special Educational Consortium during its discussions with officials from the department. We recognise the importance of this issue not just in terms of the viability of services, but also as an equalities issue. So we are clear that the benefits that direct payments may deliver to those who choose to receive them must not be achieved at the expense of other service users.
That is why we have included the requirements set out in paragraphs 11(c) and 17(f) of the order, which require the local authority to consider the potential for any adverse impact on other service users before entering into any individual agreement on a direct payment and to stop making direct payments should that become apparent at a later date. We recognise that there needs to be a careful balance struck between achieving our aim to give families greater choice and control and protecting existing services. We will need to work through this issue, as and when it arises, with the authorities taking part in this pilot.
In response to questions raised about securing a direct payment, we have sought to give greater clarity to the process for agreeing a direct payment and the provision that it can be used to purchase. We have linked the offer of direct payments to the making of a new or amended statement or the carrying out of a learning difficulties assessment to ensure that the question of whether direct payments will be made does not affect the existing statement and assessment process.
In addition, we have included a requirement to reach agreement about the goods and services which are to be secured by means of the direct payments and a requirement to obtain the written consent of the proposed recipient and, if different, the parent or beneficiary. The written consent must specify the agreed provision and the amount of the direct payments, including whether they are to be paid in a lump sum or in instalments.
Following questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, about support to families, we have included requirements in paragraph 19 of the order for authorities to make arrangements for a person receiving direct payments to obtain information, advice and support and provide them with written information about organisations that may be able to offer advice and assistance in connection with direct payments. This is an important point, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for raising it.
Pathfinder authorities will need to work with independent organisations to test how this advice and guidance can be delivered most effectively. A key objective of our Green Paper pathfinders overall is to explore how the voluntary and community sector can be used to improve access to specialist expertise and to introduce more independence to the system.
We have learnt from the individual budgets for disabled children pilot, which began under the previous Government, that, with effective support, advice and information, personal budgets can be accessible to families of all backgrounds. We will work with the authorities taking part in this pilot to ensure that they benefit from the experience of those individual budget pilots. To this end, we have included the individual budget pilot authorities in this pilot scheme alongside those taking part in the Green Paper pathfinder programme.
Overall, we are clear that there is much to learn and work through in the implementation of direct payments for special educational provision. This pilot scheme will allow us to do this as a coherent part of the testing of the reforms being undertaken by our Green Paper pathfinders. This includes the work that they will be doing on personal budgets, of which direct payments are just one method of delivery, and their wider work on the new single assessment process and education, health and care plan. We have made available to both Houses a section of the Green Paper consultation response relevant to personal funding and direct payments.
Finally, I would like to repeat the reassurance I gave during our debate on the primary legislation. The pilot scheme will need to be subjected to proper evaluation if we are to learn from it. We are working on the detail of that evaluation at present, but I can confirm that we intend it to be undertaken by an independent research company and to form a distinct but coherent element of the wider evaluation of the Green Paper pathfinder programme. I am happy to repeat my commitment to sharing those findings as we go along.
To sum up, I think that the previous time we debated this we all agreed on the direction in which we are keen to travel, but we certainly recognise that a number of difficult questions and issues are still likely to arise as we go along that way. I believe that this order provides a framework within which we can explore and, I hope, find ways to address those questions while ensuring that appropriate safeguards for families and the public purse are maintained. I beg to move.
Lord Rix
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and his ministerial colleague Sarah Teather, the Children's Minister, who I previously met last autumn along with a delegation from the Special Educational Consortium to discuss in more detail the statutory instruments in relation to direct payments for special educational needs in the various pilot areas. I welcome the constructive and positive dialogue and correspondence with the noble Lord, his ministerial colleagues and various officials in his department. I believe that the statutory instrument, as laid, is much improved as a consequence of that process.
However, there remain a number of points on which I continue to seek clarity. For example, I seek assurances that if people with a learning disability are the recipients of direct payments, it will not lead to a reduction in the level of resources available for the provision of their education. I believe there is a genuine risk of this. In the field of social care, I am aware that personal budgets have sometimes been used by local authorities as an opportunity to try to reduce their costs. We must not allow this to happen with direct payments for SEN, which is why it is so important to get the statementing process right.
I also welcome the Government’s inclusion of paragraph (10) in Schedule 1 to the order, which requires local authorities to agree the amount of direct payment with the recipient in advance and to obtain their consent in writing. However, it is important to bear in mind that many statements of SEN and learning difficulty assessments are not sufficiently well written to allow proper calculation of the cost of the services they describe. For example, a statement may say, “Regular input from a speech and language therapist”, when it should say, “Three hours input from a speech and language therapist per week”. It would be impossible to calculate an amount that correlates to regular input, and in practice this would be down to negotiation between recipients and the local authority. In these cases, parents or young people might agree to accept a direct payment that is not sufficient to purchase the support which is actually needed. Therefore, I would like the Government to consider how they could ensure that the provisions set out in a statement of SEN are properly quantified and specified before a direct payment for that statement is agreed upon.
The Minister will also be aware that concerns were previously raised, as he remarked, about the impact of direct payments on the SEN services provided by local authorities for other children and young people in their area. I am uneasy with the requirement in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 that if an “adverse impact” is made on these services, the local authority would stop making the direct payments. This could potentially lead to unintended consequences. For example, what steps will be put in place to safeguard the interests of the children concerned if a direct payment is suddenly ceased? What guarantees are there to ensure that the resources allocated for the provision of SEN are not misdirected elsewhere? What steps will be taken to ensure that local authorities do not deliberately underfund direct payments so that the payments can be withdrawn soon after? I also seek assurances that the evaluation of the pilots will fully consider these issues.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns raised about this order during today’s debate, and I hope that officials in his department will be prepared to continue working with representatives from the Special Educational Consortium as we move forward on this matter.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I very much welcome the order, which will provide considerably greater flexibility for families. Certainly, feedback on individual budgets in other areas has indicated a much greater level of satisfaction on the part of users and their families, so the order is very much to be welcomed. I am particularly proud of the work that my right honourable Liberal Democrat friend Sarah Teather has done on this area. I think that she has taken a great step forward in realising the Prime Minister’s objective of making the UK a very family-friendly country. We have a long way to go, but this is a good step in the right direction.
I would like to ask the Minister about assistive technologies and communication aids, but before doing so I had better declare an interest as a voluntary patron of the British Assistive Technology Association. The association is not just a trade organisation. As well as manufacturers of pieces of kit that help people with both sensory and physical disabilities, the association contains members who are part of the third sector, including organisations that buy pieces of kit to help people and advise on their use and professionals who work in that field. I do not ask these questions on their behalf, but this is how I know about the issues—I just want to explain that.
I notice that both the Explanatory Notes and the Minister’s speech referred to services rather than to pieces of kit. Sometimes, bits of machinery and bits of kit—or stuff—can contribute just as much as services, or the delivery of expertise by experts, to the quality of life of people with physical and sensory disabilities. The good thing and the bad thing about these pieces of kit is that the manufacturers are constantly improving them, so they are getting better and better all the time. Therefore, more and more ways are being found of helping people with disabilities to lead a very full life and to communicate. Of course, communication aids are so important because they provide people with a voice who did not have one before. Can you imagine what it is like not to be able to speak? People in this House would not like that at all. As these things are constantly being improved, it is often better not to buy them but to lease them so that, when improvements become available, the equipment can be given back in return for something better. Of course, sometimes the equipment becomes out of date and you cannot get spare parts any more, so you want to upgrade.
Therefore, I want to know from the Minister whether that sort of thing can be covered within these personal budgets. Can parents—or the young people themselves when they reach 16—choose to purchase equipment? Can they choose which equipment they want to purchase? Can they lease the equipment? Can they take on a service agreement to ensure that they always have the equipment available so that, when it breaks down, they can get someone round to sort it out so enabling them to keep their voice or their ability to get around or their ability to communicate with other people or their ability to work or to learn? All these things are very important to the lives of the people that we are talking about, and these pieces of kit help them tremendously.
I hope that the Minister will be able to help me on that.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for writing to me personally to give me maximum notice of this debate, which has been brought on fairly quickly after the new year. I am not complaining about that. We asked the Minister to make debating the order a priority in the parliamentary timetable when the order-making power was inserted into the Bill on Report so that the proposals could be given the fullest opportunity to show their worth. It is therefore good that we have this early opportunity of scrutinising the order. Like the department, we want to get on with the pilots and evaluating them in order to understand how much substance, if any, there is in the concerns that have been expressed. It was nevertheless considerate of the Minister to give me maximum notice.
The Government have been very accommodating in the approach that they have adopted in the development of the order. In response to representations, they agreed that it should require the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. The sunset horizon has been reduced from five years to two years and the pilots will be undertaken only in pathfinder authorities or those that are piloting direct payments in health.
Some further safeguards asked for have also been introduced. In response to representations from the Special Educational Consortium, the order has been reworded with a view to ensuring that the receipt of a direct payment in no way threatens the statutory right of the child to receive the educational provisions set out in their statement and that the viability of specialist SEN services is not threatened by direct payments taking resources out of the system. Nevertheless, I confess to retaining a degree of scepticism about the Government's ability to ensure all of that and as to what will be the effect of direct payments in practice.
I hope that the Minister will not feel that, having been absent on the occasion when the order-making power was added to the Bill, I have turned up as a bit of a wet blanket as regards the general consensus established on a previous occasion and that he does not wish that I had stayed away again this time. I do not wish to be a wet blanket but just like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I wish to draw attention to a number of concerns that need to be bottomed, which I believe the Minister is as keen to bottom as anybody.
Education is a universal service for all children. What will be the effect of resources being taken out of the system by way of direct payments? What will be the effect on other children with SEN who do not have direct payments? Will they see services reduced? What will be the effect on the ability of schools, colleges and local authorities whose responsibility it is to educate disabled children and children with SEN to plan for the coherent delivery of the relevant services?
I understand that all relevant statutory duties, such as the duty to provide or arrange special educational provision contained in Section 324 of the Education Act 1996, remain in place throughout the pilots. I also understand that the order includes a requirement in paragraphs 11(c) and 17(f)(i) that local authorities consider the potential adverse impact on other services that they provide or arrange for other children and young people in their areas and that they stop making direct payments if it becomes apparent that the payments are having such an impact. But direct payments take money out of the system. How can the Government be sure that this will not threaten the viability of specialist services? How can they be sure that giving responsibility to the parent instead of the local authority or school will not undermine the legal right of children to receive the provision that they are entitled to? The Government may say that they do not want these things to happen, but how can they ensure it?
There may be unintended consequences too. Some schools and local authorities may wash their hands of difficult children by encouraging parents to take a direct payment. Parents and young people may be encouraged to take a direct payment when assessments are unclear as to what they are entitled to, thus putting their ability to purchase the necessary support at risk. What if parents do not use the direct payment for the purpose for which it was intended? Parents do not always behave as responsibly as we would like. Of course, the local authority might be able to take them to court, but that is surely not where we want to end up.
The Special Educational Consortium is concerned that the Government have not fully considered the impact of resources for this universal service being taken away from schools and local authorities and being held by individuals. Careful thought will need to be given to the impact of parents or young people holding the budget. Direct payments held by parents and young people will inevitably interact with school and college finances and employment policies. This may have implications for the way schools and local authorities plan for the education of children with special educational needs. For example, if a parent employs a teaching assistant to work with their child in school, who will be responsible for managing that teaching assistant? Who ensures that the child’s teacher works collaboratively with the teaching assistant? Who is accountable for the education outcomes for the child, and ultimately how will schools’ ability to plan provision for all children with SEN be affected? Safeguards to ensure the sustainability of specialist support services, particularly for children not eligible for direct payments, need to be copper-bottomed.
There are other concerns, such as how the Government will ensure that the provisions set out in the statement are properly quantified and specified before a direct payment is made. I will not go on listing them in more tedious detail now. The department is aware of these concerns from the Special Educational Consortium. They clearly place a premium on the evaluation of the pilots for bottoming the extensive range of issues to which this order gives rise.
I was greatly encouraged by the way in which the Minister was seized of the importance of evaluation when the order-making power was inserted into the Bill on Report and, most important of all, that he clearly saw the importance of approaching the evaluation with an open mind and not with a preconceived idea about what should come out of the pilots. The fact that the department is also working so co-operatively with the Special Educational Consortium on the development of the order and, I hope, with the development of the pilots is very much to be welcomed and is very encouraging. Undertaken in that spirit, I greatly look forward to the results of the evaluation.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for sharing with us the correspondence that his fellow Ministers have had with others because that was very helpful in updating us on progress. As a result of the Education Act 2011, the Secretary of State now has the power to create pilot schemes to test the use of direct payments for meeting special educational needs in education settings. During the passage of the Bill, the Government accepted that this important proposal should receive the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny and that it should be done by the affirmative resolution procedure. The Government introduced that at that stage. In his opening remarks today, the Minister very kindly gave me some credit for that idea, but it was not really due to me: it was a holy trinity as the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, had the same idea. Unfortunately, they could not be present on Report, so I actually spoke the words and got the credit that the Minister has given me. A holy trinity and not one part of the deity alone was responsible for this proposal, and I am delighted that the Government welcomed it.
On Report, I and others welcomed the greater personalisation of education provision for children and young people with special educational needs because it is right. However, there are some particular risks in the use of direct payments in education, particularly in schools. This is a major change in the way that education is delivered, and it is right that it is being carefully considered. I know the Special Educational Consortium has been working closely with the Minister’s officials. I am very grateful for and appreciative of the hard work that his officials have put in and the understanding that they have had in trying to mitigate some of the worries that the Special Educational Consortium and others have had about aspects of the Bill.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Like other colleagues, I thank the Minister for his statement and for sending me a copy of the letter from Sarah Teather with some of the Green Paper responses. I very much welcome in principle the idea of extending direct payments to families, children and young people and the potential for empowerment, choice and control that that gives.
I have a number of overarching points to raise with the Minister as well as in relation to the detail of how the instrument is worded. First, will the Minister say something about when the draft guidance to the pathfinder authorities will be published? The devil really is in the detail of how this scheme will be implemented. Had we had that guidance today, perhaps some of our questions might have been answered. Going forward, I think that the guidance will be critical.
Secondly, can the Minister say a little more about how he sees this pilot fitting into the wider scheme of personal budgets for families of disabled children and those with special educational needs, to which he, and others, referred? As we know, the Labour Government began the pilots for families with disabled children and the current Government announced in September last year the 20 pathfinders to which we have referred today to test the Green Paper proposals, including personal budgets and testing the healthcare element particularly of direct payments through the personal healthcare budget pilots. How far does the Minister see the pilots that we are discussing today, in those pathfinder sites, being integrated with the pilots already going on in relation to social care and healthcare budgets? The instrument is framed as if this is something separate, but a family with children with special educational needs will also very often have health needs—they may also have a physical disability. Does he envisage that these will be integrated so that the families themselves will be able to look across the range of services—of social care, health and education? How will that work? It is really very important that with direct payments for educational services, or those that could be purchased from an educational budget, the families themselves should have some flexibility about how the whole range of resources might be available.
Thirdly, the extent to which this achieves the objectives to which the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, referred—a positive impact on families—will depend in part on the availability of alternative providers for the kinds of goods and services that the families might seek. What expectation or requirement do the Government have on local authorities actively to stimulate that market and support emerging providers in the voluntary sector, so that families seeking to use direct payments have real choice and there are options out there for them?
Finally, as an overarching point, as the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Rix, have mentioned, there is a real concern about the total quantum of resources available here. Will the total amount of resources be sufficient to fund adequately the direct payments for those families or young people who seek to use them while not compromising the level of services available to other children?
On some specific issues in the instrument, paragraph 3 in Part 2 says that local authorities must consider the request for direct payments and paragraph 13 refers to the decision by the local authority that it is free not to make direct payments after a request by a family or young person. On what bases can the local authority decide not to make a direct payment? If the technical requirements are there and have been adhered to, such as the written consent and so on, what will be the criteria that the local authority has to consider in deciding whether to make a direct payment? This concerns the balance between the powers of the local authority to make those decisions as against the entitlement of families.
Secondly, how extensive or limited will be the ability to use direct payments and what do the Government envisage? Paragraph 10 says that,
“Before making direct payments, a local authority must … agree … the qualifying goods and services”,
to be served by direct payment. What does that mean in practice? Will the local authority have to agree not just the general but the specific service, or the specific piece of kit? Will it have to agree the provider and the cost? If all of that has to be agreed between the young person or the family and the local authority, there is not much flexibility left for anybody to do anything different. So what is the flexibility envisaged in how the direct payments will be operated?
Thirdly, the degree of control given potentially to the local authority in the instrument seems to provide very broad caveats for the local authority not to have to make direct payments. If the local authority feels that direct payments might have “an adverse impact” on other services or if it is not compatible with the efficient use of local authority resources, it can decide not to go along with direct payments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, while one wants to see powers that ensure the value for money and correct use of direct payments, those are very broad caveats that will allow a local authority not to go down the route of offering direct payments.
I say this because, as a Member of Parliament for many years, I had a number of experiences in relation to adult social care in which I felt that local authorities were very specifically not informing people about the potential to have direct payments. They were making it extremely difficult and took a general view that making direct payments available to some people was against the grain in terms of the efficient use of their resources. Looking at the responses to the Green Paper, I see that 19 per cent—which must largely be local authorities—replied that they had concerns that making direct payments to some individuals would in general almost certainly have a negative impact on the efficient use of resources and so on.
In relation to the monitoring review that the local authority is required to undertake—and it is right that it does—it would have been preferable had there been some reference to the local authority undertaking the review alongside the recipient or beneficiary of direct payments. A very top-heavy approach is envisaged in the statutory instrument with all the powers for decision-making resting with the local authorities. It is an interesting contrast to the way in which the Government have approached the balance of power and control between schools and local authorities, for instance. Here, we see the local authority being given all the control.
My fourth, and most important, point is about information, advice and support. It may well be that there will be some parents who are well able to take on the local authority to exercise the potential to use direct payments effectively, but there will be other families who cannot do that on their own. The quality of advice, information and support is very important. I also note that if the payment for advice and support comes from a third-party organisation, it has to come out of the direct payment. I wonder where that will leave families. Is it a payment for any advice and support in addition to that being given for the service? What implications will that have for the total quantum of resources?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad welcome for this order and for the helpful suggestions that were made. I would never think that the noble Lord, Lord Low, was a wet blanket. The questions that he raises are proper questions in that they are the same questions that in our different ways we have all been grappling with over the past few months. The key issue is how we get the right balance—this is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford—between wanting to increase choice for individual parents, families, children and young people and wanting to do that in a way, in this most sensitive of areas, that does not undermine the provision for other children. Getting that balance right is what these pilots are intended to address.
The general answer that I have to a large number of the questions that have been raised is that the purpose and point of the pilot is to try to get answers to the questions that noble Lords have raised. We will know the answers to the points about the balance, what will happen in certain circumstances, what it will mean for different providers, how we know that in some cases local authorities might not want to approach this with an open mind and all the rest of it only once we have this pilot. The evaluation will help us to understand that, which is why, as a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Touhig and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, made clear, the evaluation is so important and why in the same spirit as we have tried to approach this whole process we will make sure that that evaluation is shared widely.
Some specific points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who I must now think of as the three in one, if that is not inappropriate in the Moses Room. He asked whether we would look at the experience of parents and young people as part of the evaluation, whether we would look at the impact on local authority-commissioned SEN services and how calculations of direct payments are made. When we finalise the details of the evaluation, those are all things that I am certainly happy for officials to look at. We expect interim findings from the valuation in April this year and then September this year, with a final report available in March 2013. That would be before the order needed to be renewed, if indeed it did.
On the point about guidance raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which was a fair question, officials will share a draft of the advice to pathfinders with the Special Educational Consortium. I will make sure that other noble Lords with an interest will also see it. We will do that in the coming weeks and we would welcome views because we need to get that guidance absolutely right.
Baroness Walmsley
What is the mechanism for challenging a local authority’s decision about this? Let us say that a local authority says either, “You, Parent A, are not capable of handling an individual budget, therefore we are not going to give it to you”, or, “We are not going to give you an individual budget because we think it would have a damaging effect on our ability to deliver services more widely”. There are two possible reasons there where they may make that decision. Is it the local authority ombudsman to whom the parent would go if they were not satisfied with that decision, or is there some other challenge mechanism?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Yes, my Lords, there is, and my noble friend raises a good question. It seems that the order allows the local authority to review the decision that is taken. I may need to write generally on the arrangements for the review of decisions. Our view is that we have sufficiently robust arrangements for the purposes of the pilot, so they are in place, but I think I will need to follow up with my noble friend on precisely what they are. However, on the kind of issue that my noble friend spoke about—whether it has worked properly and whether a fair process has been carried out—we certainly think that, again, the evaluation will enable us to see whether the processes that have been put in place are working. If I have more particulars, I will write to my noble friend on that.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
The wording of the order, as far as I can see, simply says that if the local authority decides to refuse direct payments or in a review to change the current situation—to reduce the funding, or whatever—the beneficiary or the family can ask it to look again. However, after that, there is nothing as detailed on any recourse to any independent authority. Perhaps the Minister could say a little more about that. Can he also answer my question about the criteria on which a local authority can refuse in the first place to decide that a particular family’s request is not going to be acceded to?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Some of the criteria are set out in the order—for instance, paragraphs 6 to 8 on when the local authority is not satisfied that the recipient is suitable and paragraph 11 on the effect on other services. The question that underlines this comes back to this central tension, which the noble Baroness quite rightly raised, between the duties and responsibilities on the local authority to continue to discharge its statutory duties, the budgets and everything that goes with that, and trying to arrive at a situation where there is more flexibility for individuals and their families. Given that the local authority ultimately has the statutory responsibility and the budget, we have to have a system in place whereby the local authority does not find itself exposed either financially or in other ways in a way that it cannot afford or deliver. From that point of view, that is the whole basis of the system that we currently have. We might get to another point—with our SEN Green Paper and further legislative steps—but until then it is within that framework that we have to operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, also asked a question about how these pilots integrate more generally into the work that is carrying on with the pathfinders and the work that is going on with health and social budgets. This pilot on direct payments is being undertaken as part of the broader pathfinder programme in 20 areas made up of 31 local authorities and their PCT partners. They are working together—or we hope that they will work together—to test the use of personal budgets including direct payments for health care and special educational provision alongside the development of the new education health and social care plans. The pathfinder programme is managed by a joint working group across the two departments; the whole recruitment phase to select the pathfinders and their support and evaluation teams is also a joint venture. It is probably also fair to say—this is a broad point that links to the noble Baroness’s questions—that the local authorities and others with whom we are working on these pilots are approaching it with an open mind, trying to see whether it is possible to introduce personal budgets and direct payments and to see what it would look like. It is clearly the case, as the noble Baroness very rightly said, that there may be some local authorities and others who do not particularly relish the thought of change, but the ones in the pathfinder, with whom we will be working to test these issues, will, we think, engage with that constructively.
Lord Low of Dalston
At the risk of detaining him, may I ask the Minister a further question not unrelated to those which have just been raised where there is a dispute between the parent and the local authority? My question is not about whether to make a direct payment but more about the quantum. Has the department considered the implications for the special educational needs tribunal and whether some provision needs to be made for people to appeal to the tribunal about the quantum of provision? It is not to be imagined that there will be total unanimity all the time between parents and local authorities on what the level of direct payment should be. At the moment, there is provision for parents to appeal to the special educational needs and disability tribunal about the level of provision being made. Since the direct payment is the analogue of that provision, is there going to be an opportunity for parents to appeal to the tribunal where they wish to dispute the level of direct payment the authority is willing to make?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I do not believe that there will be a direct right of appeal to the tribunal in connection with direct payments—I guess that there would in terms of the overall provision, as is currently the case.
I am conscious that I may not have picked up all the detailed questions, for which I apologise. Because I want to address all these concerns, I will go through this with officials tomorrow and, if I have failed to pick them up, I will come back. It is generally the case—which I hope noble Lords will find reassuring—that we will go forward in the way that we have since September through November; we are committed to working closely with the Special Educational Consortium and others with expertise in this area to get these pilots right. I think I am right in saying that, some of these proper detailed questions not withstanding, there is support for these pilots. I hope that we can go forward with them. I will share the evaluation with noble Lords as it comes forward over the next months. With that, I hope that we can agree this order.
House of Lords
Allotments
Baroness Sharples
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the provision of allotments is sufficient to meet demand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, it is local authorities that have a duty to provide allotments. Nevertheless, the Government are working with voluntary and community sector organisations, including the Federation of City Farms & Community Gardens, the Allotments Regeneration Initiative and the National Society of Allotment & Leisure Gardeners, to promote the importance of allotments and to encourage and support local authorities and other landowners to make more land available for food growing.
Baroness Sharples
With a countrywide shortage of plots and a growing list of applicants, who in some cases have waited many years, does my noble friend know why councils do not follow the good example of Christchurch in Hampshire, which is developing an allotment strategy consultation to help everyone concerned?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I am sure they can do that without any intervention from Parliament. As I said, local authorities are responsible for the provision of allotments and for encouraging their own communities to look at the sort of strategy that the noble Baroness has suggested.
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the undertaking given by the previous Government when a similar Question was asked, to the effect that they would stop the practice of councils dumping contaminated soil on allotment land and then renting that land out to handicapped people who are not in a position to resist? Will the Minister move immediately to stop this outrage?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a point on which I am not briefed. I am bound to say that it goes a bit wider than I had expected. However, if that is happening and it is true that local authorities are dumping contaminated soil on allotments, that is an outrage because people are growing vegetables and produce for eating. I will make some inquiries and come back to my noble friend.
Baroness Parminter
Given the huge benefits to individuals and communities of food growing and the welcome explosion in interest in doing so, does the Minister believe that the final form of the national planning policy framework, unlike the draft, should recognise the key role of local authorities in promoting food growing?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the final form of the national planning policy framework is still being realised. Of course, the Localism Act contains a number of provisions that would help local communities to do precisely what the noble Baroness has suggested. There is a community right to challenge, so voluntary and community bodies can challenge on bits of land to suggest that they take them over. There are the neighbourhood planning provisions, where local neighbourhoods can come together and identify land for use that they think is sensible, and allotments might come under that. There is also the community right to buy, where again local communities can identify land that they consider to be an asset and if it comes up for sale they are in a position to make a bid for it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Will the Minister tell me whether there are many problems such as the one in my village, where the allotment holders were encouraged to grow everything without any water supply? They did so successfully for many years. However, as we have had a few very dry years it has not been possible recently. Now they want to put in a water supply, and apparently, in order to make it practical for the allotment holders to fund the water supply, they need a long- term lease on the property, which I believe is owned partly by the local church. However, the lease is not the main issue, but rather a total disagreement about who should provide water to an allotment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, again, the question put by the noble Baroness is quite localised, because I suspect that there are some allotments which are provided with water. That must be a matter for the local authority to which she refers, and I should think that the allotment holders would be in a very strong position to ensure that they received or found that water.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, given the importance we all clearly give to the growing of food and the knowledge of how food is grown, could the Minister give us any indication of how many schools have allotments, and whether there are many others that are preparing to follow their example?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I cannot give an exact reply to the noble Baroness about numbers. There is, however, strong encouragement for schools not only to work allotments but to have their own facilities in their schools to encourage children to grow food, and many schools do that. Defra is already encouraging that. There is a strong element of enthusiasm and encouragement to make sure that schoolchildren understand where food comes from, and that it does not just come out of a plastic packet.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, clearly this is principally a matter for local authorities, but there is a great deal of best practice to be spread, and I am sure that both the Government, the Opposition and all members of this Chamber can assist in spreading best practice. I am very proud to be a patron of Thrive, a charity which works with disabled people and gardening, and encourages them to have healthy lifestyles and gardens. I would encourage not only the Minister but all Members of this House to get out and spread best practice, because in these straitened economic times, eating healthily and health and well-being are of the utmost importance.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, we can certainly agree with all that the noble Baroness has said, and I congratulate her on giving so much support to this particular aspect.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is aware of schemes such as Landshare, which, in places where allotments are scarce, are a tremendously useful resource. Those who have additional land that they can no longer manage themselves are encouraged to advertise it on a website, so that local people can come and dig it over and use it themselves, thereby expanding the use of land whose owners can no longer manage it.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that is an extremely good scheme. Of course, one of the things that may affect that is the nature of the agreement with the local authority, if that is who owns the plots, as to how they can be used. There are already examples of land being subdivided, and plots being subdivided where people find them too large. That is excellent, because it means that more people can get involved.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, although of course I accept that this is largely a local authority matter, does the noble Baroness agree that allotments in cities are a very important part of the overall urban ecology, and that there are often small plots of derelict land which could be made available? Will she encourage local authorities in cities to view the possibility of small amounts of land being turned over to food production where there is a local community willing to set them up?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that takes me back to an earlier reply. In future, under the Localism Bill, as regards plots of land such as the noble Baroness has described, if local communities think that that would be a good use for them, they can identify that and, under neighbourhood planning, make sure that that happens. I do not think that there is anything against what the noble Baroness has put forward. Indeed, there should be a lot of encouragement for it. However, land in London is very expensive.
Schools: Grammar Schools
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be the impact on local parental choice of allowing grammar schools to expand their pupil intake.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, through the revised schools admissions code we seek to give all schools, including grammar schools, greater flexibility in determining the number of places they wish to offer to their communities. This should help to ensure that parents are increasingly able to have the offer of a place at a good and popular school, whatever its type.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that it is now the Government’s policy that existing grammar schools can expand their size or create satellite schools in neighbouring areas? Is he concerned that well run state schools could be forced into a battle for survival as nearby grammar schools attempt to cherry-pick the best performing pupils? What advice would he give to parents of children who fail the 11-plus or would prefer their children to attend non-selective schools, and who are no longer able to object to grammar school expansion under the new schools admissions code?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, first, the Government have not changed the rules governing satellite sites and the possibility of that. They are the same rules that were in place under the previous Government and the admissions code does not affect them. With the admissions code generally, we are trying to get to a point where it is possible for all kinds of schools—where there is popular demand for them and where there are good and strong schools—to be able to grow in response to parental demand. We did not think that it was right to exclude from that greater freedom the small number of selective schools in the system.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that many of us who had the advantage of a grammar school education believe that the destruction of the grammar schools is to be deeply regretted? Therefore, will he accept that the policy that he has enunciated today will give modest encouragement to many people, and rightly so?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I think, and hope, that the policy I have enunciated today is a consistent and pragmatic approach to how we can try to get more choice into the schools system for all kinds of schools. This change to the admissions code makes a modest contribution to that, but we think it is right that that should extend to grammar schools, as it does to all other types of school.
Baroness Walmsley
Will my noble friend join me in congratulating Bradford Girls’ Grammar School, which has decided to abandon selection, to become an academy and accept the statutory admissions code, and thereby to return to its roots—providing a good education to all girls locally?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am very happy to join my noble friend in extending congratulations to that school and to all others. I am glad that they are able to take advantage of the freedoms that the Government have provided to choose academy status and to decide what they think is the best way forward. Clearly, we know that a large number of schools—I would point, obviously, to some academy schools—have done extremely well without selection. The Government’s priority is to make sure that children on free school meals are given a decent education and that we address the gap between rich and poor.
Lord Flight
My Lords, does the Minister agree that able children should be able to go to academically good schools, whether they are grammar schools, academies or new independent schools, and that it is not only the right thing for them but in the national interest to make sure that the ability is coming up to run key aspects of the nation’s life?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend. The point of what we are trying to do is to make sure that there is a decent education system that can stretch and provide a good education for children of all abilities and aptitudes, including the bright and academically gifted. As it does, we are trying to increase the provision of university technical colleges and studio schools for children who are of a different bent.
Lord Grocott
Would not the Minister acknowledge that these really were the bad old days? A decision was made whether children, at the age of 11, should go into a form of education that would in most cases determine their life chances thereafter—their income, capacity to join professions and a range of other possibilities? The other not half but three-quarters of children, or in some cases even 90 per cent—the percentage varied almost randomly according to which local authority area you happened to live in—were told, at age 11, “This is how the rest of your life will operate. We’ve made a judgment. You’re not as able as the rest, and therefore your life chances will be diminished”. We do not want a return to those bad, bad old days.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the point I was trying to make is that we want a system that provides opportunities for children irrespective of their background, gives them the chance to get on, whatever their age and stage, and gives them repeated chances to get on. To that extent I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord said. For some that will be an academic route; for some it will be a technical route; for some it will be a vocational route. We want to move away from the idea of one size fitting all and have a more diverse system that responds to what children need.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Does the Minister accept that there are those who attended selective schools who did not find them helpful? I ask him to remember that when, at the age of 13, I was asked by my careers teacher in a girls’ grammar school about my ultimate aim in life and I said, “To become a Labour politician”, I was asked whether I was being deliberately insubordinate.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am not sure that how the noble Baroness has turned out would have been affected by any educational system.
Electoral Register
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent Electoral Commission report on the accuracy of the electoral register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have funded research by the Electoral Commission to discover how deep the problems with the existing system are. It shows that the register has become significantly less complete during the past 10 years. The register is around 85 per cent accurate and, as of December 2010, was 85 to 87 per cent complete, with around 6 million electors missing from the register compared to an estimated 3.5 million in 2000. The data show that the current system is not as good as many people thought it was. These findings show that now, more than ever, it is important that we take steps to improve registration rates as part of the move to individual registration. This includes looking at how we can most effectively reach those groups most likely to be missing from the register.
Lord Rennard
Does the Minister agree that we need talks between all the parties, the Electoral Commission and others so that we have confidence that we are handling the transition to individual voter registration in such a way as to ensure that many more people are not missing from the voter register in future? Given the consensus shown in this House in last Thursday’s debate, does he agree that the sanctions which currently apply to households and make most of them conform with the process should continue to apply to individuals?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, my noble friend asks several questions. We value the independence of the Electoral Commission as an umpire for this system. We recognise that the integrity of the system depends on the trust and confidence of all parties involved. We noted the calls from around the House, including from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, last Thursday, for a new all-party group to ensure that confidence is maintained. I have fed that in to fellow Ministers.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I welcome the response from the Minister on cross-party talks and very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. Does he agree with the assessment of the Electoral Commission that the approach being taken by the Government towards implementing individual registration risks even more millions of eligible voters falling off the register?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Electoral Commission’s estimate that there might be as many as 10 million electors missing was very much a worst-case analysis. We are proceeding from that basis and have to ensure that we achieve a much better result than that. As the noble Lord will know, experiments with data-matching have been achieved. We are considering how one might “nudge” people as they visit the benefit office or apply for a driving licence, and in various other ways, to think about their civic duty to register.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Minister mentioned various ways of ensuring that people stay on the electoral register. One of the groups missing comprises those in private rented accommodation. Will my noble friend the Minister take forward the specific suggestion I made in last Thursday’s debate: that we ask the Post Office to include on the application form for redirecting mail a question about whether customers want to go on to the electoral register at their new address?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we took that on board and it is one of the many matters being considered. I stress that the people who fall off the register most rapidly are those who move. They are closely associated with people who are young, unmarried, students, and often those in private rented accommodation. That is the area on which all these efforts have to focus.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, did my noble friend note that in the debate on Thursday there was unanimous support from all sides of the House for the obligation to register and for a penalty if you do not do so? That strong view was also held by the Electoral Commission, which believes that if the signal is given that registration is no longer an obligation, without a proper penalty, there will be a disastrous fall-off from the register which is already woefully inadequate, as the Minister has already indicated.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I was well aware of the sentiments expressed on Thursday. The Government are looking at whether the current offence of failing to return the form from the household should be extended to making it an offence for an individual not to register. We would prefer not to extend the offence, but that is a matter for consideration and no doubt for debate in both Houses.
Lord Tomlinson
Does the Minister accept that if any objective observer looked at our system of election registration in the way which we have the pretension of looking at the electoral systems of many other countries, we would find it very difficult to persuade them that the basis of a democratic election, the electoral register, constituted a free and fair election? Would the Minister consider consulting the international body, the Venice Commission, to see how it, on our collective behalf, advises newly emerging democracies to conduct elections using electoral registers that are much more significant than our own?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Electoral Commission has conducted a number of studies of international comparisons. I would merely point out that the OSC electoral monitors have criticised Britain for retaining household registration, and thus very strongly supports the move—as do all parties—from household to individual electoral registration.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, will the Minister look at the situation in Australia, where there is compulsory voting and the register is highly accurate?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not sure how highly accurate the Australia system is. People move in Australia, too, particularly in cities, and young people tend to avoid these things. I am not sure that there would be sentiment for compulsory voting as a basis in Britain, but perhaps we will test that as we take the Bill through the House.
Lord Empey
Is the Minister aware that a significant number of women living alone find themselves at risk by going on to the register? They can be targeted in certain circumstances by thieves and robbers. Could there not be a case for having a register where certain people have the ability not to have their address on the published register, but on one that is available to electoral officers in a polling station?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I was not aware of that point and will take it on board.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister tell me what progress the Government are making on ensuring that the owners of second homes do not register electorally at those properties?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I suspect that a great many Members of this House are registered in more than one property. I certainly am since we have lived both in Yorkshire and in London for a very long time. The questions of what is a second home and what is a holiday home very delicate. I am conscious that in south-west England this is a particularly sensitive issue.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, why are the Government so keen on removing the offence?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, perhaps I may be precise and make it clear that the Government are not removing the offence. The offence is the failure to return the form for the system of household registration. If we were to make it an offence not to register on an individual basis, that would be extending the offence. We will return to this when the Bill is being considered in both Houses.
Health: End-of-life Care
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures are in place to inform people of the steps they need to take to ensure their wishes regarding medical treatment at the end of life are respected if they lose capacity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Department of Health makes annual resources available to the NHS and local authorities to implement the Mental Capacity Act. These resources are for them to inform and support people who may have lost or be about to lose capacity about their wishes regarding treatment and care. The department’s end-of-life care strategy provides further guidance in this area.
Baroness Greengross
I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Advance directives are now well established in this country, and it is accepted that patients’ wishes in this respect should be followed wherever possible. What systems does the NHS use to record the existence of advance directives and to ensure that they are accessible to doctors as well as available to them so that patients’ wishes can be respected? Where patients have made an advance decision in this regard, what evidence does the Department of Health have on the degree of adherence to their end-of-life medical preferences?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the department does not hold information about the degree of adherence to advance decisions, but I can tell the noble Baroness that there are a number of systems available in the NHS that enable patients to record their preferences for care at the end of life and the choices that they would like to make, including saying where, if possible, they want to be when they die. We know that there is widespread use in the NHS of the Preferred Priorities for Care tool that supports decisions about preferences.
We have also supported the piloting of electronic palliative care co-ordination systems to ensure that a person’s wishes and preferences for care are taken into account and to improve communication between the professions and organisations. The Information Standards Board is currently considering a proposed standard setting out a core data set to support the implementation of those systems.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, what evidence do the Government have regarding the number of elderly people in the population who have taken advantage, as I have, of signing an advance directive and lodging it with my general practitioner to specify what forms of treatment I would and would not wish to have if I became incompetent? What is the present position of the legal right of an individual to specify while competent a proxy who could fulfil a similar role if the individual in turn became incompetent?
Earl Howe
Unfortunately, my Lords, we do not hold information about how many advance decisions have been made out or pursued; those statistics are not collected centrally. However, I am aware that lasting powers of attorney, which the noble Lord will know came in under the Mental Capacity Act, are growing in popularity and number. The numbers are rising, although I do not have those statistics in my brief. We are encouraged by the fact that people are now aware that they can delegate to a loved one—a family friend or whoever—to take decisions in their best interests should they lose capacity later on.
Baroness Bakewell
Given that people on the whole now know that they have a right to decide when treatment can be withdrawn, and to ask for that to happen, what advice is in place for medical staff who, faced with such a decision, still hesitate to carry out the wishes for fear of prosecution?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the end-of-life care strategy that we are pursuing, published by the previous Government, highlighted the need for a cultural shift in attitude and behaviour related to end-of-life care within the health and social care workforce. The noble Baroness is quite right that this is an issue. In partnership with the national end-of-life care programme, we have taken forward a number of initiatives to develop the workforce’s understanding. We have commissioned the development of an e-learning package, which is turning out to be popular, that includes advance care planning and communication skills. Core competences and principles for end-of-life care have been developed, and a number of pilots have been taken forward in that area. A document called Talking About End of Life Care: Right Conversations, Right People, Right Time has been published and was completed early last year. There are a number of initiatives in this area.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Does my noble friend agree that the new NHS commissioning arrangements are such that they give an opportunity for advance directives to be collected and collated in a coherent way by general practitioners? Will he also confirm that, whatever advance directives are given, the need to provide comfort to patients remains a duty on clinicians?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
My Lords, in considering better enhanced provision for end-of-life care for those who have lost capacity, will the Minister note that our opinions and attitudes change with the perspective of time? A young boy may consider that upon reaching the age of 60 or 70, life would not be worth living. I think that a 60 year-old—and most of us here—would differ from that opinion. It is very important that advance directives—living wills—should be considered and should be important. However, they should be tempered with proper questioning and proper care.
Earl Howe
I agree fully with the noble Lord. Advance care planning is not a one-time issue, it is an ongoing process. It requires regular reviews of a patient’s wishes and assessments of their needs. Support, training and education for staff in understanding that, and taking forward care planning, are being made available through the end-of-life care strategy. People’s wishes and needs change throughout life, and that is to be expected.
House of Lords: Car Park
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I would like to make a brief statement.
Following the remarks made in the Chamber last Wednesday, I thought that it might be helpful to say something about the new arrangements in the Peers’ car park. As noble Lords are aware, on 29 November the Administration and Works Committee agreed that there should be a three-month trial of new access arrangements in the Peers’ car park. The new arrangements were designed to improve vehicle security measures, and it had been my intention that the Administration and Works Committee should review the trial at the end of the three months.
However, I have heard the concerns of noble Lords about the new arrangements, and have therefore asked Black Rod to produce an interim report for the committee to consider at its next meeting on 7 February. Black Rod is recording a variety of data on vehicles using Black Rod’s Garden Entrance and entering the Peers’ car park at different times of the day, and is keeping a log of concerns raised by Members, so I would encourage Members to contact Black Rod directly about any concerns that they might have. The information gathered will be presented to the Administration and Works Committee on 7 February so that the committee can consider whether to proceed with the trial, and whether, if it does continue, any modification should be made. Following this, I will report back to the House.
Finally, I would like to echo the remarks made by the Leader of the House last week, that the Floor of the House is not the appropriate place to discuss security matters. For this reason I do not propose to take any questions at this stage.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
“(a) they are not specifically excluded under Schedule 1, and”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness should be aware that domestic matters will come later. I have, if not by my bedside at least on my bookshelf, the splendid volume The Rule of Law by the late and most distinguished Lord Bingham. I was struck by one quotation in that book from the chapter on dispute resolution, in which the author made a case with compelling clarity. He stated:
“Legal aid is a service which the modern state owes to its citizens as a matter of principle. It is part of the protection of the citizen’s individuality which, in our modern conception of the relationship between the citizen and the State, can be claimed by those citizens who are too weak to protect themselves. Just as the modern State tries to protect the poorer classes against the common dangers of life, such as unemployment, disease, old age, social oppression, etc., so it should protect them when legal difficulties arise. Indeed, the case for such protection is stronger than the case for any other form of protection. The State is not responsible for the outbreak of epidemics, for old age or economic crises. But the State is responsible for the law. That law again is made for the protection of all citizens, poor and rich alike. It is therefore the duty of the State to make its machinery work alike, for the rich and the poor”.
Lord Justice Jackson, on whose report the Government rely heavily for much of the Bill, particularly Parts 1 and 2, was implicitly very supportive of that definition. He was certainly very clear that the scope of and eligibility for legal aid should not be reduced.
The Bill seeks, in effect, to turn on their head some provisions of the Access to Justice Act 1999, particularly those parts to do with the availability of legal aid, which commanded all-party support. The Access to Justice Act indicated which services the Community Legal Service would not provide and Section 4(2) of that Act provided that legal assistance would be available in all other areas. This Bill seeks to reverse that position and make legal aid provision a matter of exception rather than of course. It is that aspect that these amendments address. Their effect would be to reverse the way that the Government are putting matters. Instead of listing only matters that would be eligible for legal aid, they exclude everything except those matters that are contained within the clause.
There will be a further debate, which my noble friend Lord Bach will initiate, about the procedures to change how the clause we are currently debating might be amended if it stands. However, to fix at a particular point in time an exclusive list of areas of law that should be eligible for legal aid is profoundly mistaken. After all, the law, like society itself, is not static. When I qualified as a solicitor 44 years ago, there were whole areas of law that are now justiciable and part of everyday life which were not recognised at all. There was effectively nothing in the way of equality legislation or legislation affecting discrimination or disability. There was little, if anything, explicitly around the human rights or environmental agendas. Employment law was effectively in its infancy. I well remember the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and, for a time, giving lectures on what was then developing as employment law. In all these areas, legal assistance, legal advice and legal aid ultimately came to be provided.
We cannot say at this point that similar situations will not arise in future and that there will not be similar changes in the law which should give rise to a right to legal aid provision. The presumption that the Bill makes is that legal aid is not to be available. We on this side submit that that is the wrong presumption. The presumption should be that legal aid should be made available unless it is decided, for reasons of economy or other reasons, to exempt particular matters. That has happened in the past under the previous Government and I have no doubt that there will be occasions when it might be justifiable in the future. However, I submit that the Bill is antithetical to that very clear call, cited with such approval by Lord Bingham, for legal aid and access to justice to be available to all in significant areas of public policy and every-day life. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, Amendment 21 would have the effect of removing Part 1, Schedule 1 and bringing within the scope of legal aid, civil legal services available for all categories of law except those excluded in Parts 2 and 3. Broadly speaking, these amendments seek to reinstate the approach to the scope of civil legal aid under the Access to Justice Act 1999—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, readily acknowledged that—which provided that most categories were in scope of funding except for those limited matters set out in Schedule 2. As noble Lords will appreciate, this would significantly impact on the savings and fundamentally defeats the object of the reforms. We have never hidden the fact that the aim of these reforms is not just to save public expenditure, given the position with the public finances, but to encourage alternatives to a legal settlement of disputes, not least through mediation. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is attempting to reverse the trend on the part of many in our society over the past 20 years to see litigation—and tax-funded litigation, at that—as the first option, and we have gone about this in a way that moves away from the 1999 Act.
The Government have undertaken a comprehensive review of legal aid, have published impact and equality assessments and received nearly 5,000 responses. We have taken into account the importance of the issue, the litigant’s ability to present their own case, including their vulnerability, the availability of alternative sources of funding, and the availability of other routes to resolution. We have never hidden the fact that this is a change from the 1999 Act, but one which retains access to justice while coming to terms with economic reality. We have prioritised funding so that civil legal services as set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 will be available in the highest priority cases; for example, where a person’s life or liberty is at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or where children may be taken into care. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
With all respect to the Minister, that is not a very satisfactory reply. In the first place, to suggest that the whole purpose of these changes is to avoid litigation as the first option mistakes the nature of the system. It is not only legal aid and representation that will disappear under these provisions but legal advice and assistance, which often prevent cases going to court. In many cases such measures avoid what I and many observers fear will happen; namely, a significant increase in litigants in person. That is likely to lead to considerable delays, the clogging up of the courts, will be inefficient and, for that matter, costly. The noble Lord airily cited the 5,000 responses received to the consultation paper. He did not tell us how many of those responses supported the thrust of the consultation paper. The suggestion is that about 90 per cent of respondents were very much opposed to the proposals.
In any event, there is another issue. The Government are in effect tying their hands and those of their successors on what might ultimately be thought to be desirable to be brought within scope. That will now require primary legislation to amend the Bill, if it is enacted, on those points. No utility is served by that process. It is always open to Governments to change eligibility if they choose to do so and to take matters out of scope, but we are now seeing an attempt to fix the situation as it now is—to imprison the present system in amber, as it were. That makes change unnecessarily difficult should the situation in society as a whole change and require further alteration.
This matter goes to the heart of the Bill, along with the next amendments to be moved by my noble friend. In the circumstances, I will not push this to a vote at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Faulks
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked me to give the House his apologies for his unavailability today. The amendment concerns Clause 8(2), which gives the Lord Chancellor the power to modify Part 1 of Schedule 1 so as to omit services from the scope of legal aid and assistance. I have considerable concerns about that power.
First, this allows for still further reductions in the scope of legal aid by means of delegated legislation. Your Lordships' House is currently debating the scope of legal aid. For example, we are shortly to consider the withdrawal of legal aid for clinical negligence. The power would allow the Lord Chancellor to remove areas from the scope of legal aid without proper debate on the Floor of the House. There should surely be the opportunity for such debate if the Lord Chancellor is inclined to restrict in future the scope of legal aid.
Furthermore, although the Lord Chancellor can remove legal aid from the scope in areas he thinks appropriate, he is not given the concomitant power to restore legal aid. There are two circumstances in which he or his successor might want to do that. The first is if there was an improvement in the economy. The cuts in legal aid are, as the Minister has repeatedly said, needed as a result of the Government's overall strategy. Should matters improve, there should be an opportunity for the Lord Chancellor to restore legal aid within the terms of the Bill.
There is another reason. However well planned the cuts are—I know that much criticism is made, particularly by the party opposite, of the lack of an impact assessment—it is difficult to be absolutely confident about the effect. For example, I do not think that the party opposite had any idea of the extent of the take-up of conditional fees when it introduced changes in the Access to Justice Act.
I suggest, further, that the uncertainty about the effect of legal aid was acknowledged by the Government themselves in last year's Community Legal Service (Funding) Amendment Order 2011. The Explanatory Memorandum stated that,
“the LSC will monitor the situation to ensure that they are aware of any market shortfall and the Government will work closely with them so that that they are able to respond promptly, effectively and appropriately”,
should this materialise. The Lord Chancellor should be able to respond in a like manner should there be some egregious examples of market shortfall or the establishment of legal aid deserts. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee said in paragraph 20 of its report that if the Lord Chancellor is to have the power to take away by delegated legislation, he must also have the power to provide.
The amendment is intended not to be destructive but to improve the Bill so that, within the constraints considered necessary by the Government, there should none the less be a proper reflection of the principles of access to justice. This amendment and others in the group should help to achieve this. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should remind the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 23 to 27 for reasons of pre-emption.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 23 and 27, which are very much on the same lines as the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I find it absolutely astonishing that the Government should, in Clause 8, have an arrangement whereby they can delete legal aid but they cannot bring it back. It is particularly astonishing because a number of judges who know what they are talking about—two Supreme Court judges who have been judges in the Family Division and the present president of the Family Division—all say that this is a false economy. I very well understand that it is absolutely necessary to cut the legal aid bill. However, if the Government cut it in the wrong way, as I suggest they are doing and as I shall say in the debate on later amendments, they cannot put it back if it requires primary legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has already said, the whole purpose of these amendments is not to destroy the Bill but to allow the Government, or indeed a subsequent Government, a degree of flexibility so that they do not have to use primary legislation to achieve their purpose. Therefore, I very much support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. At present, as has already been pointed out, the Bill authorises the Lord Chancellor to omit the services under Schedule 1 but it does not permit him to extend his powers by adding to the services in Schedule 1. Any extension of the power would therefore require primary legislation. By contrast, the deletion of existing services would, under Clause 132(5), require only the affirmative procedure, which is quicker, simpler and cheaper than primary legislation.
From long service on the Delegated Powers Committee, I am satisfied that it would be acceptable to use the affirmative procedure to use Clause 8(2) to delete services that now exist under Schedule 1. We should recognise that as desirable. From that, it follows that we should make it as easy as possible to reconstruct the provisions that have been cut and that ought to be restored when the financial situation permits. That would be done most swiftly by including in the Bill the ability to introduce powers to add new services by the affirmative procedure, as well as a power to remove existing services. That will cost nothing today but it will help to satisfy those of us who accept that some reduction is needed now but who do not want it to continue when the reduction is needed no longer. In some years to come, that will be the case.
Therefore, if we are to go ahead with the Government’s proposal, it is essential to add to it the requirement that the Government accept that in the future, when it is possible on economic grounds to do so, existing provisions can be added and not just deleted by the affirmative procedure in both Houses.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, I wonder what on earth could, in fact, be a valid reason for objecting to the spirit of the amendments in this group, in particular the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. If, as I fear, some parts of the Bill remain unchanged by amendment and legal aid is withdrawn from some areas, it is almost certain that it will be shown in due course that legal of aid was essential for the smooth running of our benefits systems, our legal system and our society. I suspect that there will be a public sense of unfairness when the extent of the proposed cuts is more widely known. I suspect that at that stage there may need to be, as others have already said, some rapid amendment to the existing system.
Who knows whether our economy may once again prosper? Further money may be available to spend, not just on more lavish opening ceremonies for the Olympics, royal yachts or high-speed railways but on the needs of people who are poor and disadvantaged. It is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility, as history has often shown, that a new field of law will develop rapidly and that legal aid will need to be extended to a different category that has not been anticipated to require it. Flexibility, as others have said, so that further primary legislation, which is costly and time consuming and inevitably involves considerable delay, can be avoided, ought surely to be embraced by the Minister with enthusiasm. I look forward to seeing it in a moment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, the problem for many lawyers is that we so often look into the past. Common lawyers in particular try to piece together what has happened before. Consequently, we tend always to look for evidence to support our interpretation of events. I certainly share that problem, but I have also had some experience of running an independent local radio company. During that time I realised the great difference between businesspeople and lawyers. Businesspeople have to take decisions about the future, and they can do that only on limited information.
In this instance, the Government have had to take a decision; it has been forced upon them. To adopt a phrase first used by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, 50 years ago, “The Visigoths were at the gates”. It was therefore necessary to decide how best we can cut the deficit and how, in this instance, legal aid should share that burden. This is an issue which I think I raised with Ministers before the Bill came here—I certainly referred to it in my Second Reading speech—and I have had further discussions since. When taking decisions about the future, one has to have flexibility when the future happens. One has to be able to adopt what was decided at one moment in accordance with experience.
This is an instance of that. Some of the prognostications that we have heard from the lawyers around this place—and there have been a lot of “mays” and “what is likely to happen” and so on from lawyers—might happen in the future, in which case the provision of legal aid will have to change. The changes might be positive and legal aid granted more widely. It is therefore essential that the Lord Chancellor has the power to add back into the scope of legal aid matters that prove not to be profitable in the way that the Bill envisages. There are not the alternatives that the Minister speaks of for dealing with various legal issues and the very important question of access to justice. That is why I am speaking to Amendment 25 in my name. This is a very positive way in which the Minister can demonstrate that the Government will be flexible in this area, will listen to the concerns that are voiced in the Chamber and will adapt the Bill accordingly.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I support strongly the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the other amendments in the same spirit. It is important in considering the merits of the amendments that we bear in mind the purpose of a civil justice system. I suggest that a country is not entitled to regard itself as civilised unless it has a proper, workable system for the administration and attainment of civil justice. I spent my professional life working in the civil justice system. Of course, the criminal justice system has its own imperatives, but a civil justice system whereby individuals can obtain remedies or resist attempts to obtain remedies against them is of critical importance if our country is to retain the status that it has earned over many years of being a civilised country in which it is a pleasure to live.
Lord Scott of Foscote
I beg your pardon. That might have sounded like a peroration but I am afraid it was only a beginning. Cutting down on legal aid might be very necessary for cutting the deficit, but it must not be allowed to get to a stage where it imperils the adequacy of the civil justice system.
A plethora of litigants in person is not an ornament to a civil justice system but a reproach. I was a judge for many years, and on many occasions litigants in person appeared before me, sometimes as plaintiffs and sometimes as defendants. It is never a satisfactory means of conducting a trial. Every judge wants to come to the correct conclusion if they can, and every judge must bear in mind that one party is going to lose and must leave the court feeling that he or she has had justice. Where there is a litigant in person, the judge cannot avoid appearing to be on the side of that party. The litigant in person usually does not know how to put their case or the best arguments for the propositions that they are advancing, so the judge will step in and examine them on behalf of the litigant in person. That is fine for the purpose of obtaining justice but does no good in persuading the party on the other side, who has listened to his or her lawyers attempting to argue against the judge, that this is an appropriate means of obtaining a just result. That is the effect of producing a state of affairs in which one or other party cannot afford access to justice through the remedy of employing lawyers to appear in the case.
It is of very great importance, if the Minister is to have the power to remove areas of eligibility for legal aid or to add areas where there should be legal aid, that both those forms of executive law-making should be associated with the requirement for an affirmative resolution from each House, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested. Without that safeguard, these amendments are essential. If they are not agreed, that safeguard at least should be included.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. There is no greater crime than for a barrister to interrupt a judge mid-speech, so I am covered in a white shroud as I appear before him.
I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in this amendment, and in the other amendments. They tend to flush out a rather important question: is it the intention that this is a continuation of the erosion of legal aid, and that the idea of turning it back is never to be considered? Are we talking about the withering on the vine of legal aid? If so, you would not have in mind the opportunity of the Lord Chancellor to reinstate legal aid or to put it back in place as a result of evidence of shortcomings. If the intention is simply to reduce legal aid inexorably, of course you would not bother having that bit as part of the powers of the Lord Chancellor.
The piece of law to which I want to speak is that of unintended consequences. We know that it is only in the experience of the absence of legal aid that we will see its impact. I want to reinforce what others have said, that it will be in the sucking of the sweetie that one will be able to work out whether the consequences are so serious that the Lord Chancellor might want to reinstate legal aid or to put it into a place where it had not previously been. I strongly urge the Minister to look again at this and to have that reciprocal part of the power so that it will be possible to put legal aid in place, or to reinstate it where it has been removed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Like other noble Lords, I wish to support what has been said by all speakers so far in this short debate. We are talking not merely about reinstatement of legal aid but about adding to legal aid issues that have not yet been considered. In the first debate this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to his experience, which I share. When I and many others in this House started practising the law, there were many things that we had not envisaged that we now take to be absolutely basic rights. For example, equalities legislation, the equality of women and the right to equal pay in the workplace for equal work had barely started when I was called to the Bar in 1970. We must, therefore, keep the door open for such issues to be added to legal aid.
The final point is a question to my noble friend the Minister. Why are the Government opposed to addition or reinstatement? The only informed speculation, if I can call it that, which I have heard on the reasons for this provision is that Ministers feel that they would avoid being lobbied by outside interest groups if this were a one-way-only provision. Surely being lobbied is something that we expect and welcome in political life in this country, and Ministers of the Crown and their officials should be robust enough to resist if the lobbying lacks merit. If the Minister is to resist the spirit of the amendments this afternoon, the House would be grateful for a coherent set of reasons why.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, I was exhilarated, enthralled and deeply flattered by the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to my existence 50 years ago. It is surprising that he should remember that I was there at all, let alone the hackneyed clichés that I was given to in those days.
I shall speak to this amendment, and to Amendment 23, if I may. Their effect would be to give the lie to the canard, which may well be suspected by many people, that the Government are a liquidator of legal aid. The first part of Schedule 1 is the remnant, remainder and rump of what was once a splendid system created in 1949. I make no apology for reminding the House that in 1949 the financial condition of Britain, having fought and won a dreadful war, at massive expense, was even more parlous than it is today. Yet the Government did exactly that. They sent John Maynard Keynes to the United States to negotiate, on very hard terms, a massive loan that had harsh conditions, the last instalments of which were repaid only some six or seven years ago. That was the situation and it would have been easy for the Government of the day to have said, “Justice is a magnificent thing—it is a noble ideal—but in our weakened condition we simply cannot afford it”. They did not say that, to their eternal credit. The first point to be made is that the amendments give the lie to the idea that the present Government are trying to reduce legal aid and that they are a liquidator of everything that legal aid fundamentally represents. That is neither the attitude nor the intention of the Government.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, should not the governing principle be that every single one of our citizens, regardless of their income or personal resources, should have available to them legal advice and representation should they find themselves in a situation of dispute and where they have a reasonable case to pursue through legal channels? Is that not a fundamental liberal principle? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, articulated it very finely and much better than I can, but this has to be our benchmark.
Of course, I recognise that this group of amendments is designed to salvage what can be salvaged and to limit damage. However, we ought to differentiate quite carefully between the purport of the amendments in this group, because they are not all saying the same thing. I support Amendment 24, tabled by my Front Bench, because the effect of it would be that no further areas could be taken out of scope other than by new primary legislation. The way that Parliament deals with secondary legislation does not provide adequate opportunity for debate about very important and contentious matters. Therefore, it would be a proper safeguard that there could be no further attrition of legal aid—we would not take any additional areas out of scope—without Parliament thinking deeply about it, taking care about it and being fully aware of what it is doing.
On the other hand, Amendment 24 would allow areas to be brought back into or added to the scope of legal aid by order. That is acceptable because you are not taking away people’s legal rights, you are enhancing them, and there must be a presumption in favour of that as a matter of principle and that Parliament would therefore not be required to give such proposals the same intensive scrutiny as it ought to give to proposals to take areas out of scope. I agree with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu that there may very well be instances where Parliament would wish to act fast to bring an area back into scope. Therefore, Amendment 24 is preferable within the group.
Perhaps the Minister will again defend the Government’s breach of liberal principle in taking whole areas out of scope of legal aid with the argument that it is imperative to save public expenditure. I noticed that the Lord Chancellor, in that very interesting article he wrote in the Guardian just before Christmas, said that:
“Legal aid in England and Wales costs vastly more than other common law variants—twice as much per head as New Zealand’s system for example”.
However, I understand that the cost of civil legal aid in New Zealand is not significantly higher per head. It is of the same order as it is in England and Wales, and it is in fact in the criminal legal aid area that the New Zealand system is so much more economical—they spend less per head on criminal legal aid but not on civil legal aid. However, although the Government justify what they are doing by reference to the comparison with New Zealand, they have not chosen to seek economies in criminal legal aid, but in civil legal aid. The Government need to examine these figures and, I hope, explain their economic rationale rather more fully than they have so far.
I am sure the Minister has had the opportunity to see the study entitled Unintended Consequences: the Cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms by Dr Cookson of King’s College, London, in which he examines the possible knock-on effects—the higher spending that may be incurred for other government departments and indeed for the Ministry of Justice—as a result of the polices in this Bill. The Minister has been extremely helpful to the Committee in writing to us very fully to explain why the Government have adopted the policies that this Bill would enact. If the Minister would be kind enough to write to us with a detailed refutation of the arguments that Dr Cookson, a distinguished academic, has put forward in criticism of the Government’s case that it will be making a net saving to public expenditure, I am sure that that would be very helpful.
I am very far from saying that the sky should be the limit in terms of what we spend on legal aid. I would entirely agree that where there is waste, it should be taken out. However, the assault should be on waste, not on scope. If the principle is that every citizen should have equal access to the law, then it is not proper for the Government to say, “But if the conflict or dispute that might be litigated is in one particular field, then the citizen is not to have access to the law for a dispute of that kind”. It is fine to do all you can strenuously to reduce unnecessary costs, but do not breach the fundamental principle.
I would finally say that while it seems to be almost common ground around the House that it is necessary to reduce the legal aid bill, with respect, it is an absurd proposition to say that we cannot afford what we are spending. I repeat: we do not need to spend every penny of it, because there may well be waste in the system and it may be possible to reform it to make it more economic while maintaining access to justice. However, to say that a total of £2.2 billion spent on legal aid, which is only 1 per cent of the social security budget, is something that as a country we cannot afford—a country that prides itself on being a liberal society, and on the rule of law—seems to me to be wrong. This is a moral and a political choice, not a matter of economic exigency.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I would very briefly reassert the fundamentalism of access to the law. Equality before the law is one of our basic claims. If in fact it does not exist, it damages not only the law and the rule of law but democracy itself.
This group of amendments is interesting. Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which leads the group, simply removes subsection (2) of Clause 8, which will mean that any change in the scope of legal aid would have to be by primary legislation. Our amendment, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and to which my name is added, seeks to even things up by saying that not only can the Government omit or change by deletion the scope of legal aid, but can add to it. The third position is that of the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Beecham, who in their amendment reverse the tables, saying that you cannot remove from scope but you can add to it.
I must confess that I would, if the world were a perfect place, prefer the first amendment, Amendment 22, which would require all changes in scope to be by primary legislation. However, living on a pragmatic globe, I suspect that the best we may do is at least to have equality as between diminution of scope and addition to it. Hence Amendment 25, which incidentally is mirrored by Amendment 23, spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I would just add this point, which has not been sufficiently clarified or emphasised. Whether something is in or out of scope is not, in my book, most significantly a question of finance. If we are the most legislated democracy on earth—do not forget that we pass about 14,000 pages of new statute law a year—it behoves us, in this Parliament above every parliament, to ensure that what we do has fairness of application in the real world. Above all, I put it to my noble friend Lord McNally that there has been a unanimity of view from those who have contributed to this debate that, as things stand, the exclusions from scope are going to cut so deep that the consequences will be social and political unless they are reversed speedily. For that reason alone, if I were sitting in the seat of my noble friend, I would want to be able to add back speedily. I promise him that if this Bill goes through as drafted, scandals will arise, which the Government will want to rectify swiftly. Therefore, I hope that the Government will move on this.
Lord Clinton-Davis
As a former Member of the other place and as a Member of this House, I am deeply suspicious of secondary legislation. The onus of proof that secondary legislation is absolutely essential must rest on the Government. There are too many instances where people do not vote on the issues which arise because they happen perhaps late at night or in circumstances where it is not regarded as absolutely essential that Members should attend. Whether that is right or wrong does not matter. What is important is that the Government should resist the temptation to indulge in secondary legislation wherever possible.
The onus of proof rests fairly and squarely on the Government. In my view, they have not begun to do that. They disregard entirely the essential nature of that duty. In other words, they are saying that it is not important. I think that it is vital that Parliament conducts itself properly and scrutinises legislation where possible. I do not think that we should resort to secondary legislation, except where it is proven to be absolutely essential.
Lord Bach
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Howarth in particular for supporting our Amendment 24. Of the alternatives set out so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Amendment 24 is the preferred amendment. But I want to make it absolutely clear from our Front Bench that our real quarrel is with the Bill as drafted. In the mild words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, it is astonishing to find Clause 8(2) in modern legislation. It goes without saying that we believe that this is a non-party issue. Right around the Committee, it has been suggested that on this the Government have got it seriously wrong. If I am a little harsher on the Government than noble Lords have been so far, it is because this is an essential and very important part of this Bill. It is crucial that the Government move on it, if not at this stage, then later. I very much hope that on this group, the Minister can help us by implying that the Government are thinking of changing their position.
The Bill represents an attack on a number of crucial areas of civil legal aid. If the Government get their way, the whole edifice of social welfare law will be severely damaged, perhaps to destruction. The restrictions on private family law are poorly thought through and the proposed taking out of scope of clinical negligence, which we are to debate shortly, seems more ridiculous as every day passes.
We all agree—we certainly do—that there must be some cuts to legal aid. But there should not be these cuts, and any cuts should not be so fast or so far. I pose again to the Minister a question to which I have had no response up till now: why on earth is all criminal law seemingly off limits? Is there no waste, nothing that could be rationalised, in that area of law which, I remind the Committee, takes well over 50 per cent of the whole legal aid budget? The answer is apparently not, because the Government have announced that there will be no moves on criminal legal aid until 2015 at the earliest. I pose the question again: why?
The present position, as I understand it, is that a government can, to a limited extent—I shall be frank in saying that I am not sure to what extent—alter by order what is in and out of scope; for example, by amending the funding code as felt appropriate. But what the Bill asks us to accept is a quite new proposition; namely, that the Government should have the power to omit services from Schedule 1 by order. However, there is no suggestion, of course, that they should have the power to add services by order. Again, the question that all noble Lords have been asking the Minister is: why not? Why this imbalance, this tilt, against legal aid? My own view is that the answer is a bit depressing. It is that, to put it mildly, the ministry has a rather small-minded, extraordinarily partial view of legal aid; it does not much like it and would rather be rid of it than defend it. It does not see it as central to access to justice, let alone the rule of law, and is rather looking forward to cutting more. What other impression can one possibly get from the way in which this clause is drafted?
It is often said, particularly in this House, that the real argument against allowing a provision like this is not for now but for a future government who may not be troubled by the same principles as are supposed to exist in all modern governments of whatever complexion. However—and I hope that this does not sound too harsh—my own reason for not allowing this crude power to omit legal aid to the Government is just as much to do with what I fear is the present Government’s careless attitude towards legal aid as with some rogue government in the future.
Right across this Bill, or right across Part 1 at any rate, the cavalier manner in which it is proposed to decimate social welfare law, to remove clinical negligence from scope and to restrict the definition of domestic violence on the one hand and have too wide evidential criteria for it on the other all tend to suggest that, on the importance in our society of the availability of civil legal aid for ordinary citizens to access justice, the Government really do not have the enthusiasm that they should have. I believe that this view is shared by many inside and outside this Committee. How then can it be right to entrust the Government with the new extensive powers that they propose? Legal aid could be further diminished by order, but nothing could be added to it except by primary legislation. Just to state that proposition shows how wrong it is.
No one apart from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has referred to the two important reports that have been published for our benefit. One was from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which discussed this issue and came to the following conclusion:
“The Committee has concerns about clause 8(2), and those concerns were not allayed by the explanation in the memorandum that this was merely an updating provision. However, there is precedent for a power of this type to be delegated and subject to affirmative procedure (whether the power is to add or to remove from the Schedule), and on that basis, we do not find it inherently inappropriate. But we draw it to the attention of the House because it is not limited to routine updating and may legitimately be used to make substantial omissions from Schedule 1.”
The Select Committee on the Constitution said this about Clause 8(2):
“Under the Bill the Lord Chancellor will have a power to modify Schedule 1 by omitting further services from the scope of civil legal aid (clause 8(2)). Orders made under clause 8(2) will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This provision should be amended to enable the Lord Chancellor not only to omit services from the scope of civil legal aid but also to add services to the scope of civil legal aid.”
I do not want to quote from the Government’s response to both those committees’ reports. Perhaps the only advantage was that of consistency, because the two paragraphs were the same in each case. If noble Lords look at those paragraphs they do not make a convincing case, or indeed any case at all, against the amendments that have been raised in Committee today.
This is another part of the Bill where the Government must move. I very much hope that the Minister will show signs that the Government have listened to the unanimous view of these committees on this matter today.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and particularly my noble friend Lord Faulks for introducing it. There is a little bit of the political bruiser in me that always wants to take the noble Lord, Lord Bach, full on, particularly when he is in piety mode. He was part of a Government who carried out six reviews of legal aid in its last five years, brought in real cuts, and had an actual manifesto commitment to cut legal aid.
Lord McNally
As I said at the very beginning, we were faced with circumstances where we had to make hard choices. The noble Lord sticks to the mantra, “Not these cuts, not this place, not now”.
A number of telling points have been made by the contributions today. To clarify a point that my noble friend Lord Faulks asked for, the regulations under Clause 8(2) would be subject to the affirmative procedure in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. However I take full note of the point that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made, that strong and experienced legal opinion has advised against this one-way street which is built into the Bill. I also take on board—which is why I want to come back to this at the end—the question of primary legislation as against secondary legislation.
I also take note of the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about the need for flexibility and future-proofing, which my noble friend Lord Thomas also referred to. The importance, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, pointed out of the adequacy of the civil justice system, is something that is constantly in our minds in trying to determine our priority, and I take on board the warnings that we have had about the dangers of litigants in person.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked whether the aim was to see legal aid wither on the vine. That is certainly not our intention. Like previous speakers, the noble Baroness argued again the case for having some guard against what she termed the “law of unintended consequences”, although the term “sucking on the sweetie” must be some aspect of Scottish law rather than English law. As a non-lawyer, I would not know. However I agree that “sucking on the sweetie” may well be the test of all legislation.
My noble friend Lord Carlile called for us to keep the door open. He was right to say that all Ministers must be ready to take lobbying; that is not in doubt.
Lord Clinton-Davis
What I said was that secondary legislation should be introduced only where essential, and the onus of proof is on the Government.
Lord McNally
I did hear the noble Lord’s speech. I was merely pointing out that as a parliamentarian I, too, have worried about the overreliance on secondary legislation, which is a point that I would concede to him.
There is no doubt that there is great strength of feeling about these amendments. I assure the Committee that the Lord Chancellor has noted the concerns; my noble friend Lord Thomas and others had a meeting with him earlier in the week when they put this case very strongly. With the leave of the House, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Bach, intimated this in his wind-up speech, in the full light of the points made in this debate and by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Select Committee on the Constitution, both of which have been referred to, may the Justice Secretary look at these matters again and give serious consideration to the amendments—not all of which mesh together—so that we can bring back proposals regarding this clause for further debate on Report? Given that assurance that we are taking this matter away in a constructive way, I hope that noble Lords will agree to not to press their amendments today.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It is a matter of happenstance that I am dealing with this amendment. The other amendments are in the same spirit, although to slightly different effect. I do not wish to intrude on the spat between the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Bach. My concern, in this amendment, is not so much the detail, which we are going to develop in due course in argument, but more the question of principle, which I would suggest, and others all round the Committee have suggested, is at the moment embodied in this clause in a most unsatisfactory way.
I am, however, very grateful for the conciliatory noises made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and for his assurance that what has been said in this debate, and what has been said in the various committees that have considered this clause, will be noted by the Lord Chancellor. I very much hope that, when this matter comes back on Report, those concerns can be reflected by the Minister. In that guise, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
“Clinical negligence(1) Civil legal services provided in relation to the obtaining of one or more expert reports in clinical negligence proceedings.
(2) In this paragraph—
“clinical negligence proceedings” means proceedings which include a claim for damages in respect of clinical negligence;“clinical negligence” means breach of a duty of care or trespass to the person committed in the course of the provision of clinical or medical services (including dental or nursing services);“expert report” means a report by a person qualified to give expert advice on all or most of the matters that are the subject of the report;“proceedings” includes any sort of proceedings for resolving disputes (and not just proceedings in court), whether commenced or contemplated.”
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, we now to come to the first of 60 or so amendments dealing in detail with Schedule 1. It is safe to assume that all of those amendments would be likely, in one way or another, to add to the cost of legal aid. The amendment now before your Lordships is different. It is true that Amendment 28 would add £6 million to the legal aid bill, but, coupled with Amendment 139, to which I shall also be speaking, it will save the taxpayer at least three times that amount, and probably a great deal more.
It is because of that special feature that I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on 16 November and asked to see the Lord Chancellor and the Minister in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons. I received a very courteous reply from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on 1 December, for which I am grateful. It refers to the point which I had raised in some little detail, but, if he will forgive me for saying so, it does not actually answer the point. It is a point, I hasten to add, which is not my point, but is a point which has been made by Lord Justice Jackson. I would not normally refer to the views of a member of the judiciary in moving an amendment, but as he is the author of the report on costs in litigation which forms the whole basis of Part 2 of this Bill, it seemed right to make an exception in this case.
So what, after all that, is the point? As I suspect your Lordships know all too well, clinical negligence cases are currently funded in two ways: either by legal aid or by conditional fee agreements—CFAs—supplemented in almost every case by “after the event” insurance. The purpose of taking out the “after the event” insurance is, of course, to cover the claimant against an adverse order for costs. The premium is paid by the claimant, as one would expect, but since 2000, when the 1999 Act came into force, the cost of the premium has been recoverable from the defendant—usually, although by no means always, the National Health Service—whether the claimant wins or not. That is the whole point.
It was hoped that in that way the cost of legal aid would be reduced. But of course it has not worked out, as these things seldom do, exactly as intended. The reason is the huge increase in the cost of taking out such insurance. It is now a major element in the cost of bringing clinical negligence proceedings. It is also a cost which, as I have said, currently falls on the National Health Service, one way or the other, and is therefore ultimately borne by the taxpayer.
Therefore, the Government’s original intention, as one can well understand, was that the cost of ATE premiums should cease to be recoverable from the National Health Service. That was clear enough; whether one agrees with it perhaps does not matter. However, the Government then listened to representations and decided to make an exception in the case of expert reports. They had a principle but then made an exception. The point was made very clearly by the Minister in the other place, Mr Jonathan Djanogly, when he said:
“One particular aspect of clinical negligence cases is the significant up-front costs involved in obtaining expert reports. Following consultation, the Government are seeking a tightly drawn power in the Bill to allow the recoverability of after-the-event insurance premiums in clinical negligence cases”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/11; col. 710.]
Perhaps even more clearly, on 2 November he said:
“Such reports, which can be expensive, are often necessary in establishing whether there is a case for commencing proceedings, which raises particular issues if recoverability of ATE insurance is abolished. In responding to these concerns, clause 43”—
Clause 45, as it now is—
“provides, by way of exception, for the recoverability of premiums in respect of ATE insurance taken out to cover the cost of expert reports in clinical negligence cases”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 1027.]
I imagine that we would all agree that, if clinical negligence claims are not to be covered in toto by legal aid, there should at least be legal aid to cover the cost of expert reports, including legal advice, without which a claim for clinical negligence simply cannot get off the ground. I suspect we would all agree with that. The trouble is that the Government have set about achieving that result in the wrong way. You have only to look at Clause 45, which is the subject of the other amendment to which I am speaking, to see why. In a lecture given in Cambridge on 5 September last year, Lord Justice Jackson did not mince his words. He described Clause 45 as,
“the most expensive and inefficient mechanism which it is possible to devise in order to achieve”—
the Government’s “policy objective”. Those words are repeated in the recent report of Professor Cookson of King’s College in paragraph 8.3.4.
In the article in the Guardian to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred, the Lord Chancellor said that it was his ambition to simplify and deregulate civil litigation. We would all say amen to that; nobody could seriously quarrel with it. However, if we look at Clause 45—starting with “unless” at line 29—we find the exception to which the Minister in the other place referred in the passages which I have read out. How is that exception to be achieved? The Lord Chancellor must make regulations concerning all manner of things, including the contents of the policies and the maximum premiums to be charged in any policy. The subject matter to be covered by these regulations takes eight sub-paragraphs and 20 pages of text. One can only imagine what the regulations themselves would look like if the subject matter is as lengthy as that. If the Lord Chancellor wants to simplify and deregulate civil litigation, surely Clause 45 is not the way ahead. It would be far simpler and better to allow legal aid to remain for the very limited purpose of obtaining reports in clinical negligence cases.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment so comprehensively moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, to which I have added my name. It would go some way towards rectifying the alarming situations that may be faced by individuals who have been disabled due to clinical negligence.
Many people involved in cases arising from clinical negligence by a public authority are among the most destitute. These cases will frequently involve parents or other family members bringing cases against public authorities as a result of traumatic injuries sustained by their children or other relatives. Considering the inequality of arms that inevitably arises, having access to expert reports is vital.
What is perhaps most distressing in cases centring on charges of clinical negligence is that individuals will come up against the state, with its teams of lawyers, during proceedings. Never is an inequality of arms more blatant than in those situations. This is somewhat ironic when we would all agree that the state should have a responsibility to ensure that an individual has the means to hold it to account.
To put this debate into context, there are about 1 million adverse accidents in the NHS every year. About 10,000 of those lead to action being taken against the NHS—in other words, about 1 per cent. These figures gainsay the claim that we live in a compensation culture, at least in this context. People who make these claims may have suffered grievous harm at the hands of a public authority, and they have every right to legal assistance in seeking redress.
What is more, and as the Unintended Consequences: the cost of the Government’s Legal Aid Reforms report, published last week by King’s College, made clear, charging ahead with these reforms would be economic nonsense, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said. The report states that the proposed changes surrounding clinical negligence cases will cost the NHS some £28.5 million, which is nearly three times the amount to be saved by the Ministry of Justice—about £10.5 million. The figures may be slightly different but the ratios are the same.
Moreover, the Government have not yet specified how they intend to deal with the problems that will arise if legal aid is withdrawn from these cases. As the Bar Council has argued, the Government seem to assume that most clinical negligence claimants will receive representation under a conditional fee arrangement—that is, from a no-win, no-fee solicitor. They also seem to assert that the cost of funding expert reports will be paid for by the retention of recoverable “after the event” insurance premiums. If, however, the Government succeed in implementing these proposed changes to Part 2 of the Bill, clinical negligence cases, which are frequently among the most complex, will present too much risk, preventing most solicitors taking on cases on a no-win, no-fee basis. The difficulties involved in establishing liability will simply be too great.
What is more, under Part 2, after-the-event insurance premiums will no longer be recoverable from defendants, and a number of insurers have said that they will pull out of the ATE market. As the Bar Council once again made clear, it is highly unlikely that ATE insurance will be available for expert reports—hence, victims of negligence will be unable to establish whether their case has merit.
In these proposals, the Government appear to have lost sight of their duty to protect the vulnerable from further harm. Moreover, they have failed to provide a robust alternative to counter the inevitable damage to justice that would ensue if the proposals in the Bill went through unchecked. The Government must retain their responsibility to protect the vulnerable, and I hope that they will listen to the criticisms made in this debate.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, all the amendments in this group are directed towards the retention of legal aid in clinical negligence cases. This is an area in which I have practised as a barrister for the past 20 years or so, acting for both claimants and defendants; I continue to do so.
I should emphasise that in making these few remarks I am not against Part 2, which brings into effect the Jackson reforms. Litigation costs have become wholly out of control, particularly in smaller cases, where legal costs tend to dwarf the sums at issue, and litigation has far too often become concerned about legal fees and the recoverability of insurance premiums rather than what should really be at the centre of the dispute.
However, we should acknowledge that if Part 2 becomes law, difficult cases will be less attractive, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has rightly pointed out. There will be no success fee recoverable, nor ATE premiums, and there is a significant risk that complex but meritorious cases will be uneconomical for legal practices to pursue. The paradigm case which concerns me—and, I dare say, many other noble Lords—is that of a brain-damaged baby. Of course, there are other entirely worthwhile and difficult cases, but such cases are particularly complex and often need many experts to tease out whether there is a case on liability or causation. Without legal aid, individual litigants or solicitors will have to carry investigative costs of many thousands of pounds before, in many cases, deciding that there is no claim to be pursued. There will, however, be quite a number of cases where entirely meritorious claims will simply be unfeasible, so that those who have to bring up brain-damaged babies will be unable to have the consolation and substantial financial assistance which a successful claim may bring as some slight mitigation to the hardship which the child and the child's family will have to undergo for the rest of that child's life.
I understand that the Government have acknowledged that there is potential injustice in the removal of legal aid for such cases. What answers have they put forward in what I acknowledge as being a constructive exchange of views in this area? The first is that CFAs should be available. I am unconvinced of that. Availability would be theoretical only. At the very best, some of the largest firms might take on the occasional case on the basis that they could bear the risk of funding it, but no individual will be able to do so. The second answer given is that exceptional funding within the terms of the Bill will be available in such cases. That is on the basis, as I understand it, that funding will be forthcoming in circumstances where there would be a violation of an individual's convention rights if there were to be no legal aid.
I pointed out at Second Reading that clinical negligence cases very rarely involve any human rights violations. To that argument comes the rejoinder that the relevant article of the convention is Article 6—the right to a fair trial—and that if the circumstances are such that Article 6 is violated, exceptional funding will be forthcoming. The problem with that answer seems to me to be that the jurisprudence from Strasbourg concerning the circumstances in which the denial of legal aid or other state support would constitute a violation of Article 6 is considerably lacking in consistency and coherence. I do not see how anyone could advise their client with any confidence that the refusal to provide legal aid would constitute a violation of Article 6. That means that the exceptional funding answer is remarkably insecure. If it is really the case that the refusal to provide legal aid in such cases constitutes a violation of Article 6, I venture to suggest that there may be some difficulty in justifying the declaration of compatibility with the Human Rights Act which has been signed in relation to the Bill.
If there is indeed an intention to provide funding for the sorts of cases that I am discussing, why not place the provision of such funding in the Bill rather than rely on the vagaries of exceptional funding and potential challenges by way of judicial review or otherwise if a determination turns out to deny access to legal aid in such cases? I appreciate that in the other place the Minister, Jonathan Djanogly, made some reassuring remarks in this area, but they went nothing like far enough to inspire the sort of confidence that is needed that these claims can be pursued.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, my name is one of those that have been put to Amendment 30. I set no particular store by this amendment, save to say that it is one of the attempts to deal with the issue that has been eloquently described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and by my noble friend Lord Faulks, with whom I agree entirely.
Looking around the Committee this afternoon, I see a dozen or so Members of your Lordships’ House who had to deal with constituency surgeries on a regular basis while in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who earlier spoke very eloquently, has had the same experience as me of dealing with constituency issues in quite a remote rural part of Wales. Clinical negligence relating to perinatal damage does not choose its location. It is just as likely to arise in rural Montgomeryshire or in rural Caernarvonshire. Indeed, I have certainly seen people in years gone by who have come to a constituency surgery devastated by what they believed had happened to their child while the child was being born in a neighbouring hospital. In the case of Montgomeryshire, this was almost always over the border in England, but that may be beside the point.
The people who come with these problems are often not only overwhelmed by the care of their children, but also by the future they face: the lifetime of having to look after a damaged child to whom of course they are generally entirely devoted and to whom they will give the whole of their life or the child’s life—whichever lasts longer. They are often, too, people from poor circumstances. In many cases, they have no experience of dealing with lawyers and are frightened of lawyers. They have read in the newspapers that the medical profession—and I hope I will not offend any of my many friends who are distinguished members of the medical profession—is chronically defensive in its approach to allegations. They will not be aware that the chair of the National Health Service Litigation Authority has made it clear that, in her view, legal aid for clinical negligence should continue because it is a way of ensuring that medical practice is carried out responsibly and with reasonable care.
It may be that in some big cities there are firms of solicitors who would take on cases of this kind pro bono, at least in the first stages, because they can afford to carry that excess. However, that does not apply in the small towns of rural Wales and the shire counties of England. People whose child has been damaged at birth may only know of, let alone know, one solicitor, who may be in a small practice somewhere in their neighbourhood. It is right that people in that situation be able to at least explore bringing legal action to see whether there is a course of action that may be effective in relation to the injury that has occurred to their child. In some cases, if disbursements can be expended on expert evidence, it will be shown that there is a strong case of negligence, and most of those strong cases will be settled in due course—often for very large sums of money.
The proposals in the Bill run the risk of depriving parents in that situation of the remedy which they will discover only if they and their solicitors are allowed to spend the money to obtain expert reports as early as possible. There are amendments which suggest that there should be co-operation over expert reports and that other measures should be taken to limit the costs. I applaud those proposals. I suggest to the Minister that the Government include, in any concessions that in my judgment they will be bound to make in due course on this subject of perinatal injury to children, ways of ensuring that money is not wasted on a multiplicity of expert reports, but that the right reports are obtained as early as possible. In my judgment, the case for legal aid at the early stage of potential perinatal damage claims is absolutely unanswerable. The Government would be seen to have lost their human face if they refused to amend the legislation to reflect those concerns.
I say to the Minister, however, that perinatal negligence is not the only area in which were legal aid to be removed great injustice would be caused. One can think of endless examples of poor negligent treatment in hospital which result in devastating injuries: the loss of limbs, the loss of eyes, brain damage, and so on. They fall into the same broad category as the perhaps emotive example of perinatal injury. I therefore suggest to Ministers that they should consider permitting legal aid to continue in cases—I do not say that this formulation is perfect but it reflects the spirit of what I mean—where a severe injury has occurred in a clinical setting. If those involved in such cases were permitted to receive legal aid, the injustice envisaged in the amendments would be resolved.
ATE insurance and CFAs have their place, which may be in some of the types of cases I referred to—but not right at the beginning. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said clearly, the cost of insurance premiums for even quite small cases is out of proportion to the claim. Potential claimants dealing with severe injuries that occurred in a clinical setting may not be able even to contemplate the prospect of whatever element of cost they might face through the insurance system. It does not provide an answer to all cases.
I urge my noble friend to answer sympathetically the huge burden of representations that have been made by those who have knowledge and experience of conducting these cases or experiencing their consequences directly. They make an overwhelming case.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 30A, along with that of my noble friend Lord Faulks, who spoke clearly and persuasively to it, and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who apologises for his inability to be here today. He sent me a note in which he rather pithily justified the contents of the amendment—which, it has to be said, is more modest than the one so eloquently moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, at the start of the debate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made two points. He stated that,
“in many cases a report”,
from an expert,
“will be sufficient to produce a settlement … where this is not possible, its contents will enable solicitors to decide whether the case can or cannot be taken on a C.F.A.”.
These are two great virtues. Even those in this Committee who have had nothing to do with clinical negligence claims—I congratulate them because these cases are grisly affairs and perhaps the most unsatisfactory and anguish-making aspect of litigation—will know that the expert’s report is absolutely crucial to everything to do with the case. It currently determines whether you get legal aid, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said, in future if the reform goes through it will determine whether you get effective coverage under a conditional fee agreement.
I will give the vivid example of a case notified to me by Emma Braithwaite, a solicitor with the National Health Service Wales Shared Services Partnership. Noble Lords may not know that Wales is way ahead of us in trying to find a via media between conflicting issues in clinical negligence cases. Amendment 99A attempts to address the general picture. This particular case was finalised by the payment of damages by the NHS of £4,500. The costs, which NHS Wales had to pay, were £95,897. Roughly half the amount—£44,000—went on legal fees. The case was conducted under the conditional fee system. The balance was mainly experts’ fees.
The case was always small; it was never a case in which large damages would ever be contemplated. The initial offer from the NHS was £3,000, which as I said, settled on £4,500. In a nutshell that explains why we will spend more time on clinical negligence than many who are not lawyers can readily understand. However, it makes it absolutely clear that we need to introduce effective, practical reforms that will make this whole area of litigation fairer, cheaper and speedier. That is why Amendment 30A is in this group.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support Amendment 28. I have received a number of briefing letters from all sorts of organisations in connection with this Bill. One of the most frequent issues is clinical negligence, which the Government propose to remove from the scope of legal aid entirely. A few cases may fall within the exceptional funding test, but that could have massive impacts on some of the most serious cases of clinical negligence, particularly those involving very badly injured children. I understand that significant numbers of parents already receive support from legal aid around clinical negligence on behalf of their children.
The Government’s stated intention, however, is that those cases should be brought on a conditional fee—the no-win no-fee basis. That is not the right way in which to handle such cases, as they often need extensive medical reports, running into thousands of pounds, just to establish whether there is a case. They often have to be held in abeyance to try to assess the long-term consequences for a child. In those circumstances, I am advised that it is not commercially practical to run such cases on a no-win no-fee basis. That is the view of organisations that have made representations, such as the Bar Council and the Law Society.
The Government’s proposed solution of allowing the recovery of insurance premiums related to the costs of disbursements has been widely criticised as not being terribly workable. I also understand that the Government claim that up to 100 per cent of some types of legal aid proceedings will be brought back into legal aid by means of the exceptional funding test. However, the test is deliberately narrowly drawn and its legal and practical implications remain completely unknown.
I support Amendment 28 because it spells out in detail exactly what is meant by clinical negligence proceedings. It seems to me that the Government should take this issue very seriously, particularly in view of the representations that have been made right across the board from all kinds of organisations that really know what they are talking about because they are involved in the day-to-day application of the law in this area. Will the Government please consider what they are proposing with regard to clinical negligence? In my view, it is highly unpopular with organisations that know what they are talking about and with the many people who have had experience of trying to raise issues on behalf of injured children, particularly those injured as a result of clinical negligence.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, at the beginning of the debate was both thorough and persuasive. There is nothing that I wish—or would be able—to add to the basis of his arguments. It is widely believed, and I am one of the believers, that post-accident insurance premiums have been an unsatisfactory element of legal aid in the past. It is therefore very undesirable that that should be continued specifically through Clause 45. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, made it clear that Amendment 25 is highly preferable to the Government’s Clause 45. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see fit to accept that conclusion.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 36A, which deals with the position of children in medical negligence cases. I am not a lawyer and so I speak with some trepidation, having heard so many noble Lords who are experts in the field of legal matters.
The proposals to remove clinical negligence entirely from the scope of legal aid will have an enormous impact on the most serious cases of clinical negligence, especially where catastrophic injuries to children have occurred. A freedom of information request to the Ministry of Justice revealed that in 2009-10, 870 medical negligence cases in the name of children were supported by legal aid. Under the proposals in this Bill, 640 of those cases would no longer be supported by legal aid. Whenever I have raised this as an issue, I have been told—as have many Members—that the Government’s view is that these matters can be dealt with through conditional fee arrangements. We have heard from my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Carlile, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, about the complications and why this is likely not to provide a satisfactory response.
Cases that are brought for children are often very long—sometimes complicated matters can last six or seven years—and cases that are not quite so complicated can still last for 34 months and longer. This is a terrible situation for families and parents to consider and contend with. Of the £17 million medical negligence cases funded by legal aid, less than a quarter are children’s cases. I understand that the majority of these involve perinatal injuries. These are particularly difficult cases and success is very uncertain.
When we are talking about the technicalities of legal aid and all that is involved in it, we should remember that clinical negligence cases affect not only the child in question but the parents and the whole family. Having a child myself who was wrongly diagnosed with a psychosomatic illness, which was in fact a very virulent form of bone and tissue cancer, I understand something of the trauma felt by such families. We did not proceed to litigation as the stress of doing so was, we felt, too great for us to cope with. We were an emotionally strong family in the fortunate position of being both strong for each other and able to afford the additional costs that occur to families in such situations. Others are not always so lucky. For families with a number of other children needing parental attention, the difficulty for parents to retain their employment can be a problem. I have seen many situations where the stress on families of looking after such children is so high that it has brought about a breakdown between parents.
The process of litigation with the support of legal aid is traumatic enough, but for a child to be denied that right must add hugely to the burden on the child and the family. I do not believe generally that the state should do things for people that they can do for themselves. I do believe, however, that a civilised society should provide a safety net for the most vulnerable.
I also do not believe in wasting public money or spending it unwisely. As we have heard today, independent research on behalf of the Law Society has found that the knock-on effect of the proposals in this Bill for legal aid in clinical negligence cases will cost almost three times the Ministry of Justice-predicted savings. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships that this issue will be reconsidered and that the Ministry of Justice will produce a financial impact assessment so that decisions will be based on sound information.
Lord Clinton-Davis
The noble Baroness has spoken from personal experience of this issue and I hope that the Minister will take into account everything she has said.
Representations on this issue have come from many sources: the Law Society, firms of solicitors practising in this area, and the National Health Service Litigation Authority. I have received—as have many noble Lords, no doubt—a letter from a firm of solicitors called Withy King, which raises two particular issues. It asks:
“What is being done to address the increase in medical negligence in the NHS and what steps are being taken to minimise the risks and ensure patient safety?”.
The Minister should address this issue. It also asks:
“What is being done to ensure that the NHSLA handles litigation appropriately, settles claims quickly, makes payments when they are due and is generally fit for purpose?”.
Again, it is incumbent upon the Minister to address this issue.
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for being absent for part of his speech. He may have addressed these issues himself—I do not know. I had to make an urgent phone call so I apologise. There is no doubt that the issues raised by Withy King are complex, but they are essential. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will focus his attention on the points it has raised, which arise out of professional experience, and that is most important.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 36B, as does my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson, who has sent a message to apologise that she has unfortunately been delayed, despite making every effort to get here for the opening of this debate. I hope the Minister will reflect on all the comments that have come from around the House. We have heard some very eloquent speeches packed with information. The real problem here is: what are the unintended consequences of this change and who is going to be harmed by it?
One problem is that those who stand to lose the most in clinical negligence are indeed those harmed at birth, and children, because they are unable to be advocates for themselves, and their parents are often in more financially straitened circumstances than others. In Wales we have a disproportionate number of people who are at a lower income level and have therefore been eligible for legal aid. Therefore, we have instigated a system called Putting Things Right, which has already been alluded to, which allows a speedier and more cost-effective means of resolving claims below £25,000 in value without the need for litigation.
However, the problem for patients in general is that they entrust themselves to the NHS and they expect to receive care. When things go wrong, this may be because medicine is shades of grey, but when there is clinical negligence there really is the need for some support—not in terms of redress, because you cannot undo what has gone wrong—but to help people cope. But the problem is that they are also dependent on the NHS itself for their ongoing support and care, which puts them in a different situation from those harmed by others generally, who can avoid contact with the system that has harmed them.
Baroness Mallalieu
My Lords, a number of noble Lords have spoken who have experience both of the legal and the medical sides of such cases. I am not one of them—it is outside the scope of my field of practice—but I am conscious that this debate on clinical negligence has produced some very powerful arguments, and more very powerful arguments are likely to be produced in the debates on Schedule 1 which are to follow it.
Noble Lords clearly will be arguing what I imagine will be described as special pleading for a number of deserving areas. After clinical negligence I know we are moving on, among other arguments, to those in relation to children, the disabled, disabled children, victims of domestic violence, victims of human trafficking, those who are in need of a guiding hand through the labyrinth of our welfare system, and those whose cases involve complex issues of law which often—indeed almost always—require expertise to present them fairly. Those are just some of the areas to follow. So my sympathy for the Minister, in listening to this particular debate, is great. However, it seems that the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is the very least that could be conceded. I am not by any means sure that it goes far enough, for the reasons which I will come to in a moment, and which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, set out very clearly.
The Minister will have a difficult time at the end of the debates on these particular additions—as parts of the House will seek to make them—to Schedule 1. He could just stop his ears and refuse to concede on anything, and if he does I suspect that he will leave civil legal aid in tatters, and leave the civil justice system almost wholly to the well-off—to those who can afford to pay. He could pick one or two of the special cases—perhaps clinical negligence, which is very strong, or some of the others, about which we are about to hear. He could pick cases to concede on the basis of who shouts the loudest. He could pick cases that have the strongest or most numerous advocates in debate, those that are likely to attract a bad press for the Government, those that are likely to command public sympathy or—perhaps even more likely—those whose advocates manage to twist his arm most severely between Committee and Report stages in this House.
I respectfully suggest that the Minister should look first at just how much will in reality—particularly in the light of the King’s College research—be saved by each one of these proposals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said, in some cases it seems that the gain simply is not worth the candle and that legal aid is ultimately the cheapest option and should remain, albeit with the careful scrutiny suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for areas where money could clearly be saved.
Once the Minister has done that and has looked at each of the special areas to see whether the financial argument stands up, surely he must look at those remaining areas to see whether alternative access to justice could be maintained by other means—by mediation; by some form of alternative dispute resolution; or, in clinical negligence cases, by CFAs. We have heard from people closely involved in that area who say that those means will not be available in relation to clinical negligence.
Having done that examination, I am sure that the Minister will find areas where, in his own mind, he has a very real doubt about whether a satisfactory alternative exists and whether he is, by persevering with the Bill in its present form, going to leave people to make their own arrangements without financial help, expert guidance or advocacy and where the result is that the consequences of no legal aid will leave citizens who need the help of our civil justice system with no realistic means of access to law.
I am quite sure that neither he nor the Lord Chancellor would wish to do any of that. When he comes to examine fairly each of the arguments on this aspect and the ones to follow, I hope that he will be open minded in his approach to what is to be done. As I understand it, fairness is the principle that our Prime Minister has said all the cuts which the Government propose are to accord. I cannot believe that that means that civil justice should henceforth be the prerogative of those with means. Unless the Minister, whose judgment I respect and admire, is personally satisfied in each case that an adequate alternative provision is available to such people, I hope that he will take the matter back to his department, take out a red pen where necessary and put his foot down.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I rise in the hope of commanding your Lordships’ attention for two reasons. First, my name is on one of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton. Secondly, since I was unable to be here last week, I want the Front Bench to know that I am back. I have listened with care to the speeches that have been made, and obviously I express my support in particular for the arguments on children’s clinical negligence which were raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton. I also want to say to my noble friends that when they come across an amendment with the names Newton and Tebbit on it, they are in trouble. I am sorry that my noble friend is evidently not able to be here today. We are friends but no one who knows us both will think that we always come from the same perspective. Here, we are united.
I need not repeat the points that have been made in debate, not least the very important points made by a number of my noble friends, including my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lord Carlile and—not to minimise any other speeches—the very constructive remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I share the view that this is one of those areas where it is highly likely not only that the game is not worth the candle but that the costs to other departments will be greater than any savings to the Ministry of Justice. That simply cannot be a sensible way to approach the problem of the deficit as a whole.
Without rehearsing all these arguments again, I hope that I am right in detecting in the air today a move away from what my noble friend Lord Carlile memorably described at an earlier stage as “irritated intransigence” from the other end of the building, and that we will get a constructive approach. We have certainly heard a lot of constructive speeches; I think that they deserve—if I may say so to my noble friends on the Front Bench—a constructive response. Leaving aside the Newton-Tebbit point, if I were them and looked at the totality of the names on the amendments in this group, I would decide, if I may coin a phrase, that concession was the better part of valour.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was right to draw attention to the unwillingness of members of the medical profession to admit fault. I have a son who was brain-damaged at birth. The evening after he was born, I spoke to the consultant gynaecologist, a very famous individual, who reassured me that that there was no reason to suppose that anything had gone wrong. But when the diagnosis of cerebral palsy was made, and my wife and I decided that we ought to pursue the possibility of a clinical negligence claim, we found—I am not sure that it is really surprising, though it is very shocking—that the file had gone missing, and it took a considerable time to obtain it. We know that clinical negligence claims take a very long time to pursue. Part of the reason for that is the intransigence of the system—it is very human; it is very understandable—and we have to be realistic about that.
In the interests of being realistic, I should like to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, à propos his Amendment 30A, in which he favours the appointment by the NHS Litigation Authority of a single expert witness who would produce a report. We can see the attractions of this in the interests of economy, but if there is mistrust between the claimant and defendant, as there so very often unfortunately is, I wonder how much confidence claimants will have in such reports commissioned by the defendant, the NHS Litigation Authority. That is particularly so if the expert witness appointed by the NHSLA finds that there was no negligence, which may indeed be correct, but can we expect the claimant to accept that that is so?
We all agree that it is unthinkable that legal remedy should not be available for victims of clinical negligence, but I believe, as do others far more authoritative than I, that this is a field in which legal aid must be retained. For example, if you are looking to solve part of the problem by disbursement-only ATE policies, it appears that they are simply not commercially viable. I am advised that, based on an ATE insurer’s real figures, for the average cover of £2,000 needed for preliminary investigations—which does not include the high investigation costs of cases such as catastrophic birth injuries—the premium would need to be of the order of £11,000. So it simply will not work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was right to put it to us that this, at minimum, is an area in which legal aid must be preserved.
If the Government’s proposal to remove ATE recoverability were to be accepted, there would be an increase in the number of unscreened cases, because ATE insurers are pretty risk averse and pretty sceptical. For very good business reasons they do not want to see unviable cases going through. They are therefore part of the mechanism, part of the system, that enables the bad cases, the weak cases, to be screened out. I understand the NHSLA shares that view.
Finally, I will quote to the Committee, if I may, a paragraph from a paper by the NHS Litigation Authority, which is impressive. Its view ought to carry weight with the Committee. It says:
“Ironically, whilst a so-called perceived ‘compensation culture’ (which does not actually exist currently when it comes to healthcare) is said to be one of the drivers for reform, the proposed changes will do more to promote the unsavoury aspects of a ‘compensation culture’ than deter them. For example relinquishing the degree of quality control afforded by the legal aid system for clinical negligence will throw the market open completely to non-specialist and less scrupulous solicitors and claims farmers. There would in all likelihood be an increase in this type of activity.”
That is powerful evidence that I am sure the Government have considered, but that the Committee also ought to consider.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The noble Lord made a perfectly reasonable criticism of one aspect of this amendment. First, he commended the NHSLA, but does he not accept that the amendment says,
“a list maintained by the NHSLA and AVMA”,
which is an independent body that exists to see fair play done?
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am second to none in my admiration, indeed my gratitude, for AVMA, which helped me and my family at a very difficult stage of our lives. I am deeply appreciative of them. If the list of expert witnesses was to be maintained both by the NHSLA and by AVMA, rationally speaking that is a list that should command confidence. None the less, in the emotionally fraught circumstances of a dispute, particularly where a baby has been damaged at birth or where some other catastrophic injury has taken place, it is asking a lot to expect people to trust witnesses and reports that are to be commissioned—the noble Lord’s amendment would require that—by the NHSLA.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I hope the Government do not think that this debate is special pleading, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, feared. There are a number of reasons for that. First, clinical negligence—at the moment, exceptionally in personal injury cases—already attracts legal aid. It is currently within scope. Secondly, there are considerable difficulties in proving clinical negligence. When a car accident happens, almost anyone, given proper evidence, can determine who is responsible. Clinical negligence is a very different field. It is very difficult to prove causation. If you can prove causation—that the condition of the claimant has been caused by the clinician concerned—you then have a further hurdle to surmount: whether that clinician has exercised the proper standards of care as known at the time.
I vividly remember a case in which I was involved where it was established that the arachnoiditis was caused by an injection into the spinal cord by a clinician. Arachnoiditis affects the limbs of a person and causes considerable paralysis. We could establish causation, but by the standards of the time it could not be shown that the injection was negligent.
The third matter that I draw to the Committee’s attention was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—that there is currently quality control in the provision of legal aid in clinical negligence cases. There are panels provided by the Law Society or Action for Victims of Medical Accidents, and it is only to solicitors who are on those panels that legal aid certificates will be granted. That ensures that there is a proper approach to the issues that arise in clinical negligence cases, and a proper conduct of those cases. For all those reasons, this is not special pleading; clinical negligence deserves consideration quite separately from all the other matters that we are raising under the first schedule.
I would like the Government to consider at what level legal aid can be granted. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Carlile referred to the possibility that legal aid should be granted in serious cases that have an impact upon the lives of people. For example, if a case is worth only £4,500, which has been referred to, that may not be one in which public money should be involved—certainly not to the extent of £95,000. However, if, as so often happens, the lives of people and members of their families are altered for good, surely a humane society should provide legal aid to cover the cost of litigation in those circumstances?
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this has been a very thoughtful debate, and that owes much to the fact that so many of those who have participated have experience, either legal or medical, of cases of this kind. They are certainly among the most difficult that either clinicians or lawyers have to deal with. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to the rather alarming statistic that 10 per cent of National Health Service patients in any year suffer from clinical negligence. That ought to concern all of us, especially those with responsibility for the health service.
However, it is also right to point out that this does not give rise to a spate of litigation. In view of the numbers of people who must suffer from clinical negligence, the fact that only around 10,000 or 11,000 cases a year receive legal advice, and of those only about 3,500 proceed to receive legal aid for representation, completely contradicts the assumption that there is a compensation culture—certainly in this area of law and, many of us would argue, generally. There is no compensation culture. However, it is a measure of the scale of the need for representation that of the successful legal aid cases—some 1,500 cases adjudicated in, I think, 2009-10—the average period during which these cases were pursued was as long as 55 months. That might partly be a reflection of the complexity of the evidence, or partly of the fact that you cannot really settle a case until the prognosis becomes clearer, until a client’s needs are defined, particularly in the case of children who suffer perinatal injuries or other forms of clinical negligence. Obviously their future lives cannot be predicted with any certainty at too early a stage. However, it also owes something, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, to the reluctance of authorities—the NHS bodies and, I suppose, private bodies—to admit liability.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that one of the causes of delays is that in complicated cases—we have been concerned with perinatal injuries—there are a number of different experts who have to report? One expert is not enough; you have an obstetrician and you may have a paediatric neurologist, a neonatologist, a neuroradiologist, a midwife and possibly even a geneticist. Trying to make sure that all those experts bring their expertise to bear at the same time and co-ordinate can itself be a reason for delay and therefore for the complexity of these cases.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, that is right. In addition to that issue, which goes to matters of causation and, potentially, liability, there is also a range of experts whose evidence is needed in determining the future needs of the patient in terms of care, education and support. The point is to underline that these are, necessarily, often complex cases, and they need careful investigation and support before they can be either settled or adjudicated.
The Ministry of Justice has estimated the savings from its proposals at some £10 million. That figure will not go far towards matching Mr Gove’s suggestion of a new royal yacht as a timely gift to Her Majesty the Queen to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee and it occurs to me that the £250 million allocated by Mr Pickles for weekly waste collection would cover the sum in question for 25 years, but all that is beside the point. The reality is that the cost to the NHS will be considerably greater than £10 million. The recent King’s College report that some noble Lords have referred to suggested that a figure of £28 million would be the cost to the NHS of the Government’s proposals. That is surely something that none of us wishes to see. It would be caused by the availability of success fees where hitherto legal aid cases have not attracted such fees, and by meeting the cost of “after the event” insurance—again assuming, as a number of your Lordships have questioned, the availability of ATE. If ATE were not available then of course even more injustice would be done because it would be impossible to bring cases. But there must be a real question about the likely existence of a market for ATE insurance. Furthermore, under the Government’s proposals, there would be the 10 per cent increase in general damages. All of that clocks up to a figure substantially more than what would be saved.
In addition to the financial aspect, there is the real impact on people who require assistance. The King’s College report also indicated that there would be a reduction of 75 per cent in legal help and 65 per cent in legal representation from the admittedly not very large number of cases that are actually brought. That is a significant reduction. Although the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is not replying to this debate, he threw out the figure of a 17 per cent reduction in legal aid expenditure in discussing a previous amendment. However, the cut in civil legal aid generally would be 30 per cent, not 17 per cent. The Government propose saving some £285 million out of something like £900 million or £1 billion. Even the figure of 30 per cent looks modest, though, in relation to the cut that would be inflicted on a number of people who would be entitled to legal aid and representation in this most difficult area of law.
The effect of what is being proposed here is another example of cost-shunting on to other government departments. I have a Question for Written Answer about whether consultations have taken place with other departments by the Ministry of Justice about the impact of the proposals in the Bill on their budgets and whether that has been agreed. In due course no doubt the noble Lord will reply to that and we will see then what is to happen. We have not ventilated the question of a risk register under this Bill as we have in respect of another and I hope that we do not have to go down that road, but it is clear from the evidence that there will be a significant burden on other departments and therefore the net saving to Government from these proposals, if any, is likely to be minimal.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in congratulating those who have taken part in what has been a very serious debate. The Committee has benefited from experience: the experience of those who have practised law in this sphere; the personal experience of my noble friend Lady Eaton and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport; and the experience of those who had formerly been Members in another place—my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have had to deal with issues such as this in the course of their constituency work.
A number of your Lordships asked that Ministers would listen. In a debate of this profundity it is only appropriate that we should reflect on the many contributions that have been made, contributions which carry forward a number of the concerns that were expressed at Second Reading. As well as compensation, clinical negligence also raises the point which was reflected on by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis: the importance of standards for those who provide medical treatment. Related to that, the Department of Health is currently consulting on our duty of candour proposals, with the intention of implementing these through contractual changes. These proposals will make sure that providers of NHS care are more open with patients about harmful adverse effects. We would expect the duty of candour to apply to NHS patients treated, typically, in hospitals, where at least moderate harm results. The proposals specify that,
“There must be appropriate investigation undertaken to establish the facts of an incident”,
and that,
“New information that emerges during an investigation … must be shared with patients and their carers/families within 5 working days of its inclusion in any incident report”.
We would expect that claimants’ solicitors could use a duty of candour when investigating potential claims. This might act as a lever to identify when NHS providers are non-compliant. Providers could also use these requests as an indicator for a potential claim being made, prompting early action to resolve the matter before claims are made. Overall, we believe this should facilitate access to justice and help speed up settlements. There is a general acceptance that the way in which the NHS handles claims has improved significantly over recent years, but, as I have indicated, it is important that we continue to ensure that we have the highest standards and the best practice in dealing with incidents such as these when they occur.
The amendments which have been spoken to have as their common theme the extension, in one way or another, of legal aid in cases involving clinical negligence. We recognise that many of these cases raise serious issues, especially where damages are required to meet future care needs. My noble friend Lord Carlile talked about particular parents who are overwhelmed not only by their current care responsibilities but also by the knowledge that they face—well into the future in many cases—continuing care responsibilities to their children. These are serious issues, which can lead to very substantial claims for compensation. We also recognise that some litigants will be vulnerable because of disabilities resulting from negligent treatment. My noble friend Lord Faulks acknowledged that the Government have recognised the seriousness of these particular issues, because clinical negligence claims are not being treated like personal injury claims, or indeed like other torts.
My noble friend Lord Faulks also indicated that the Government had sought to engage constructively to address these issues, although he expressed very serious concerns and reservations about the different proposals that have been brought forward to try to address them. I will try to deal with these in the course of my reply. He indicated, for example, some scepticism as to whether the conditional fee agreement could replace legal aid. Figures from the NHS Litigation Authority show that in 2010-11 approximately 82 per cent of clinical negligence cases where the funding method was known were funded by means other than legal aid, such as conditional fee agreements, “before the event” insurance, legal expenses insurance and private funding. We considered the fact that there are viable alternatives to legal aid in this area when coming to the view that legal aid would not be justified in these cases and that—as has been a frequent refrain in these debates—limited funding should be targeted in other areas.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Does my noble friend not understand that a poor litigant simply cannot afford any ATE premium in order to get to the point of knowing whether there is a claim to be made?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the point that we are making is that while the ATE insurance premium is being abolished generally, in the event of a CFA being agreed in a case of clinical negligence, the Government are retaining the recoverability of ATE insurance premiums. These are very rarely paid up-front. I understand that it is almost an insurance of insurance. If the claimant loses, the premium will not be recoverable from the claimant. It is often the case, too, that if it has been recovered from the other side, there is an increase at that time to take account of those cases in which the insurers will not get their premium.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I need to answer that; I do not think that is right. The position of a poor claimant is that they cannot afford to put themselves in hock for the premium. It is all very well saying that they can pay it later, but if they lose they have to pay it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I think the position is that if they lose they do not pay it. That is what we are retaining in cases of clinical negligence. In short, poor people will not have to pay up-front for the necessary expert reports in clinical negligence cases.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The problem is that you cannot get a conditional fee agreement unless you have a case, and you cannot get insurance unless you can show that there is a case. In clinical negligence, you do not have a case unless you have the medical reports. That is the problem. The Government’s solution, as put forward in Clause 45, does not solve the problem at all.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, we certainly believe that going down this road will mean that poor people do not have to pay up-front for their necessary expert reports. Indeed, that is why we draw a distinction between our reforms as they affect clinical negligence and the reforms that affect claims for damages in other areas.
We are working closely with the NHSLA and other stakeholders to discuss how the commissioning of these reports can be improved so that joint expert reports can be commissioned wherever possible. That would involve the NHSLA commissioning and sharing expert reports on liability with claimants at an early stage. There is a lot of agreement that that is what we should be doing—trying to get it at such an early stage. That, in turn, will help to encourage the early notification of claims.
My noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, expressed some concern about whether there would be a market for ATE insurance if it was not recoverable in other areas. We certainly recognise that these concerns about the funding of medical expert reports have been expressed, but the reality is that claimants usually take out ATE insurance. We expect the ATE market to adapt to the new arrangements. As my noble friend Lord Faulks accepted—although he queried whether it should have been done earlier, rather than during the passage of legislation—a working party has been set up to consider the recoverability of ATE and to ensure that premiums for expert reports reflect the risks involved. ATE insurance brokers have been asked to contribute to this working group. It is a concern to which we are alert and one that we seek to address.
Furthermore, we wish to reassure the Committee that we will be introducing qualified one-way cost shifting, which will be available in personal injury claims and, therefore, will by definition apply in clinical negligence claims. Qualified one-way costs shifting will mean that, in the majority of cases where damages for clinical negligence are sought, the claimant is not at risk of having to pay a winning defendant’s costs. We have therefore protected the claimant’s interests to ensure that they are not denied access to justice for fear of having to pay the defendant’s costs if they were to lose.
One of the main areas of concern in respect of expert reports is those cases concerning babies who suffer obstetric brain injury. This has been reflected in a number of contributions. While we consider that in most clinical negligence cases funding will be available through a combination of conditional fee agreements and ATE insurance, we have always recognised that there may be obstetric injury cases with high disbursement costs, which are currently funded by legal aid but for which it may be difficult to secure conditional fee agreements.
My noble friend Lord Faulks expressed concern as to whether the provisions in Clause 9 with regard to these exceptional payments, which we will debate later, would be fit for purpose and meet the task which we wish them to achieve. It is because of this that we have sought to make funding available. The safety net would be in the form of an exceptional funding scheme, which will ensure the protection of an individual’s rights 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. In considering whether exceptional funding should be granted in cases engaging Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the director will take into account general jurisprudence set out by the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6. The jurisprudence takes into account the following relevant factors: the ability of the client to present his or her own case; the complexity of the matter; the importance of the issues at stake; and all other relevant circumstances. It is important to put this into context. Our impact assessment estimates that we will continue to spend £6 million of the £16 million we currently spend on clinical negligence cases on exceptional funding cases. We estimate that the vast majority of this £6 million—
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he help the House as to whether it is the Government’s position that a cohort of cases such as brain damage cases, which are exceptional to the family but do not raise exceptional points of law, would nevertheless be regarded, if there was no legal representation, as a violation of Article 6?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it would not be appropriate to second guess, as it were, what the director of legal aid casework might decide on any individual case. Suffice to say that the purpose of having Clause 9 in the Bill is to take account of cases where the client would find considerable difficulty in presenting their own case and where there is, indeed, a complexity—these are not necessarily cumulative—in the important issues at stake. The fact that we estimate that some £6 million would be spent in dealing with these complex and lengthy cases is indicative of the fact that we do take—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I apologise for interrupting my noble and learned friend again but does he regard it as satisfactory that cases falling within what my noble friend Lord Faulks described as a cohort should be determined not on a merits-based approach but on an administrative law approach? If an aggrieved party wished to challenge a decision of the director of civil legal aid, and what the Minister is saying applies, it will have to be necessary for the aggrieved person to show that the director of civil legal aid was Wednesbury unreasonable, which has only the remotest connection with the merits of the case. Is this really the system that the Government wish to inflict on people whose babies have suffered devastating perinatal injuries?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
We do not wish to inflict the scenario which my noble friend indicates. The scale at which we believe the exceptional funding will be used is indicative of our expectation that exceptional funding will be available to assist these very profound cases. No one is disputing the seriousness of this. However, the amount of money that is being made available is not insignificant by any stretch of the imagination—£6 million out of the £16 million that is sought to be saved overall—which indicates that this measure is not just incidental but tries to address very directly the proper and sensitive concerns that have been raised.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My noble and learned friend referred to Clause 9 and to exceptional cases. He will be aware that a specific category of special exceptional cases is delineated in that clause: namely,
“advocacy in proceedings at an inquest under the Coroners Act 1988”,
where there is a “wider public interest determination”. Are the Government prepared to consider whether in this very sensitive type of case there could be a subsection inserted into Clause 9 which deals with the very difficult issue of clinical negligence instead of leaving it under the broad wording of subsection (2)?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I thought that I was going to be diverted down the tracks of coroners’ inquests. However, I take the point which my noble friend makes. We believe that the relevant provision already covers the matter. He draws a comparison between measures within the same clause. We will have an opportunity to return to that matter when we come to Clause 9. It is only right that I should consider the point, which I am sure was made with helpful intent.
The question of relative costs has been raised and one or two noble Lords have pointed to the reservations made by the NHSLA. It is fair to point out that as regards the King’s College research which has been referred to, the Department of Health has confirmed that in the context of the reforms as a whole, which include all the Jackson reforms, the costs to the NHS are expected to reduce substantially and not to increase. It is important to look at the matter in the context of the overall impact of our reforms: namely, that the costs will decrease.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has sought to contrast what he believes will be the cost of his amendment with the costs he believes will be incurred under Clause 45(2). He will be able to reply shortly. He quoted my honourable friend the Minister, Mr Djanogly. I think that the noble and learned Lord recognised that Clause 45(2) is a clear attempt to address the concerns which are shared not just by him and me but by the Committee as a whole. His view is that it would be more expensive to go down this route than to adopt his amendment. One of the differences between our proposal in Clause 45 and the use of legal aid for clinical negligence is that it would be restricted to those who are otherwise eligible for legal aid where the ATE power of recoverability will provide access to justice to everyone.
I think that the noble and learned Lord acknowledged my next point when he gave his figures. We do not readily recognise his figures. We feel that the costs of the ATE market as adjusted would not give rise to the costs which he indicated. I noted all his figures very carefully, but I probably was not quite keeping up with them. He said that he did not expect me to comment on the detail of his figures today but asked me to provide an answer. That is the least one can do, given the amount of work that the noble and learned Lord has clearly put into this. As I say, we do not readily recognise the case that he put forward. However, we must undoubtedly reflect on the issue. It would not necessarily make sense to embark on something which led to considerably greater cost when the overall object of the reforms is to reduce cost. I hope that with the assurance I gave at the beginning that we will reflect seriously on all the important issues that have been raised, the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, as was to be expected, the debate has gone far wider than the limited purpose of my amendment because this is the first opportunity that we have had to consider clinical negligence as a whole, and there are other amendments in this group.
So far as my amendment is concerned, everyone has accepted that expert reports are the key to the problem. The question then is: what is the best way to fund expert reports? I am especially grateful in that connection for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, given all his experience in this field. My impression was that his view is the same as mine and, indeed, that of Sir Rupert Jackson, whereby Clause 45 is not the way ahead. That is the purpose of my amendment. I am also especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for saying that the amendment is only the minimum required. On that I entirely agree. If clinical negligence generally is to be covered, my amendment will fall away, but it is the essential safeguard if there is not to be wider coverage by legal aid of clinical negligence cases.
Of course I will not press the amendment because I cannot do so until I know the Government’s answer to the figures that I have put forward. However, if those figures turn out to be correct, as I believe they will be, then Clause 45 is not the way ahead and it is far better from the point of view of saving money for the taxpayer to adopt the limited degree of legal aid required for expert reports. I look forward to the answer to the figures I put forward and, in the mean time, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Social welfareCivil legal services provided in relation to a benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—
(a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,(b) the Jobseekers Act 1995,(c) the State Pension Credit Act 2002,(d) the Tax Credits Act 2002,(e) the Welfare Reform Act 2007,(f) the Welfare Reform Act 2011, or(g) any other enactment relating to social security.”
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I should like also to speak to Amendments 35 and 89. These amendments relate to the ability of claimants, the majority of whom are disabled, to appeal against decisions on their entitlement to welfare benefits. The intention behind these amendments is to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Bill as it stands would remove social welfare cases from the scope of legal aid, which would have an adverse and disproportionate impact on disabled people in particular, and would leave them unable effectively to challenge decisions when they are let down by the system.
Legal aid is currently available to assist individuals with a range of welfare benefit issues, from navigating complex benefit administration to reviewing and appealing against official decisions. When appealing against such decisions, advice is available to clients before appeal and tribunal, but legal aid does not cover legal representation—and there is no suggestion that it should. A number of noble Lords have already made the point that the welfare benefits system is complex, and more than half the welfare benefit assistance that is funded through legal aid relates to disabled people. However, despite the best efforts of all involved in a claimant’s initial application, mistakes are frequently made, and these are well documented.
The need for such legal aid is best demonstrated by the fact that nearly 40 per cent of all appeals against work capability assessment decisions are upheld. In addition, between October 2008 and February 2010—a period of just 17 months—60 per cent of disabled people who appealed were eventually found to qualify for employment and support allowance, even though they had initially been assessed as having no factors that would affect their ability to work. The proposals in the Bill would, every year, deny specialist legal advice for complex welfare problems to more than 130,000 people, of whom nearly 80,000 are disabled. Without legal aid, the ability of people to appeal against a decision would be undermined because the rules for benefit eligibility are extremely difficult to understand.
To give just one example, the complexity of the extensive legal precedents determining the criteria for being classed as virtually unable to walk make professional legal advice vital for anyone even thinking of appealing against a welfare benefit decision. We all recognise the need to make economies but the Government’s own impact assessment puts the spending on legal aid for welfare benefits at just £25 million, compared to a total legal aid budget of £2 billion. This is a relatively minor saving but it would have a major effect on large numbers of vulnerable people who need help with appealing when mistakes have been made about their entitlement to benefits. I also argue that failure to provide timely legal advice to assist disabled people who are put on the wrong benefit is a false economy that will almost certainly result in additional demands being placed on services such as the NHS, rather than delivering the savings that the Government are hoping for.
To make matters worse, the Bill is being considered at the same time that the Government are undertaking a dramatic overhaul of the welfare benefits system. With a reform on this scale, there will be a new and unfamiliar set of complexities to navigate through for both claimants and officials. During the transition, there is bound to be an increase in the number of inaccurate benefit decisions made and a consequent need for legal advice to challenge these.
I share the Government’s desire to reduce the number of appeals against decisions, but this reduction must not happen because the loss of legal aid prevents disabled people from challenging decisions. I therefore commend these amendments to the Committee as a means of securing justice for some of the most vulnerable people in our society whose needs are constantly overlooked. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments so ably moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I recall her impressive speech on these matters at Second Reading. Some of us sat through 17 sessions of the Welfare Reform Bill in Committee and, in session after session, we came across the potential loss of important and valuable benefits on which many vulnerable disabled people depend.
Some of the changes will not be easily understood, and some will be seen as depriving this cohort of people of essential resources that would at least compensate for their disability or enable them to live with it. When they lose or are in danger of losing such benefits there will clearly be a strong feeling that they have been badly treated. If there is any dubiety in law with regard to the way in which they are losing, they will want to challenge that.
I put it to noble Lords that to introduce these two pieces of legislation simultaneously—tonight we are dealing with the legal aid Bill; tomorrow we are back to the Welfare Reform Bill on Report; and on Wednesday we are back to legal aid—given the combined effect that they may have for disabled people, is absolutely wrong. There should at the very least be a facility for those who may be deprived of benefits which are so important to them to challenge that in law during the opening period of the implementation of the Welfare Reform Bill. If, in due course, when things settle down, there is a need to change things, all well and good, but I remind noble Lords that the degree of benefit fraud in the context of disability is minimal. Therefore, it is a question of depriving people of resources to which they have been entitled, the loss of which will make a significant difference to their lives.
The Government should seriously look again at the cost implied by the amendment and the implications of the legislation to find a way in which disabled people and other vulnerable people affected by the Bill can at least have the basic right to challenge it in court.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I intervene briefly not to support every last dot and comma of the amendment—not least because I have not heard what the Minister has to say about cost, which we cannot completely ignore—but to indicate my general sympathy with the concerns that have been expressed by the noble Baroness and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I indicated earlier my concern about the Bill extending to the social security area for a number of reasons. First, the Welfare Reform Bill, whatever its merits—I am a strong supporter of it as a whole—creates a certain amount of turbulence, to put it mildly, for a lot of people, including many disabled people and carers. They have great concerns, which may well lead them to want to challenge some decisions. They ought to be able to do so.
Secondly, there is an interrelation here with the concerns expressed about the absence of sufficiently effective proposals to come anywhere near replacing the availability of legal aid, or at least legal advice, in such cases. We know from a debate in the House only shortly before Christmas that citizens advice bureaux are feeling acute pressure in their ability to maintain, let alone enhance, their level of service. This may have come up earlier, before I was able to be present, but we know that law centres are also feeling acute pressure from expected losses of money from the legal aid changes. From the point of view of claimants in the social security field, as one or two people have said—including me on previous occasions—there is a double or triple whammy here: you do not get help from one quarter; you are steered to another quarter; but that quarter itself is being starved of resources and unlikely to be able to help you.
I make no apology for repeating things I have said on previous occasions: there is an absence of apparent—I choose my words reasonably carefully—joined-up government. Ministers have effectively said that they do not know what is the overall financial effect of this, because they know what is saved to the Ministry of Justice, but they do not really know what are the costs elsewhere.
I doubt whether they even know what will be the net effect on the Ministry of Justice. It is well known to anyone who knows anything about tribunals that the less help and advice that people have in social security tribunals and related matters, leading them to represent themselves, the more time will be taken at the tribunal trying to sort out what are the issues. Cases will get taken to tribunals which would not have been had people been well advised beforehand. There will be costs to the Tribunals Service in the Ministry of Justice that I am not sure are allowed for in the costing that the Ministry of Justice has ascribed to the savings on legal aid. We need more convincing answers on this than we have so far had. I do not want to see the amendment pressed to a vote tonight, but I hope that Ministers have their ears open on this one and will look carefully at the reality, as opposed to the optimistic forecasts of the original estimates of savings in this field.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, so I am keen to come in at this point.
I support the amendments proposed powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. I shall focus on Amendment 32 but say just a few words on Amendment 35. Although I would not want to confine advice and assistance for social security claims before tribunals to disabled people, if it was to be confined to a single group, there is a strong case for that being the group, because of the high proportion of those who are affected who have additional needs over and above legal needs which affect their ability to exercise their legal rights.
That is brought out very well in the briefings we have received from Citizens Advice and Scope’s report, Legal Aid in Welfare: the Tool We Can't Afford to Lose. I also received a case study from Charnwood CAB, which is local to my university. I will not read it out because it is rather long and complex, but someone came for help because of the interaction between decisions on disability living allowance and income support. Then they ran out of time in appealing and were going to get in a real mess. It was only with the help of the citizens advice bureau that they were able to lodge an appeal. The CAB pointed out that that cost the taxpayer no more than £167 excluding VAT—since October, it would have cost £150.
That exemplifies the more general point of Amendment 32, which would put social security law back into scope. As the noble Baroness said, like it or not, social security law is complex and will remain so however successful universal credit is.
The Government's suggestion that people can turn to Jobcentre Plus or the benefits advice line for help with such cases has been described as incongruous by the president of the First-tier Tribunal, his honour Judge Martin. It is utterly incongruous when one considers that it is their mistakes that have so often given rise to the need for legal advice in the first place. According to Liberty, Community Links advice service recorded that in 2010, 73 per cent of benefit-related cases handled by its staff arose from errors made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The president of the First-tier Tribunal also pointed out that the emphasis on the user-friendliness of the tribunal system misses the point, because the tribunal has no role to play in assisting claimants to decide whether to bring their appeal or to help them prepare their case. The experience of CABs and other agencies and research by the LSE shows that often the role played is to stop cases getting to the appeal tribunal, so, in a sense, saving the Government money, because the advisers know whether there is a case worth pursuing or not.
As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said, the other suggestion is that people can turn to CABs, law centres and so forth. However, as the noble Lord said, these are under immense pressure. Not only that but sometimes people ask how what is happening now compares with what was happening in the 1980s, when we had social security reform and cuts. At the time, I was working at the Child Poverty Action Group. One thing that is making things much harder now is that in the 1980s local authorities were expanding welfare rights advice services, and they were able to help people to deal with the turbulence of social security reform and the changes being made. Now, local authorities throughout the country are cutting back on welfare rights advice services, and this is happening when law centres, like CABs, are under pressure. Therefore, that is not the answer either.
As has already been said, removing legal aid for help with social security law would be damaging to some of the most vulnerable people in society at the best of times, but doing so when we are facing the most radical change in social security law in 60 years, as the Government themselves bill it, could be seen as bordering on the vindictive.
I want to turn to a rather limited but important aspect of this issue. On our first day in Committee, the Minister and I had an exchange about whether legal aid was available for cases coming before the Upper Tribunal and the higher courts. I am sure that, like me, the Minister went away and did his homework. My homework confirmed that I was right: legal aid is available for advice before one gets to the Upper Tribunal. However, I was only partially right because in some cases it can also be available for representation. I sought advice from Roger Smith of Justice, who is a former colleague of mine, and this is what he said:
“Legal help is, of course, currently available for advice. The position on representation is a bit more complicated. Legal aid for representation is not available as routine for social security cases in the Upper Tribunal but has been available for further appeals to the courts. Legal aid for court representation will be withdrawn under the Bill.
Legal aid is available for certain specified appeals to the Upper Tribunal, basically where legal aid was available prior to the establishment of the Upper Tribunal but this does not include social security”.
Nevertheless, he continues:
“The Access to Justice Act allows funding in exceptional circumstances where proceedings are otherwise out of scope … and, therefore, can cover representation at Upper Tribunal cases. This is the provision that is used to provide representation in inquests but it covers all proceedings”.
The Child Poverty Action Group confirmed that it had legal aid for a social security case in the Upper Tribunal, even though, admittedly, it was hard to get.
Roger Smith also drew my attention to a very useful article in the CPAG’s Welfare Rights Bulletin by the group’s solicitor, Sarah Clarke. She points out that legal aid for social security matters at higher courts is being withdrawn despite the fact that the Ministry of Justice puts no savings on this at all. In fact, at our first sitting, the Minister said that this would save £1 million. In public expenditure terms, £1 million is so well within the margin of error that it hardly counts as public spending; it can simply be written off. The article is helpful. It says:
“In the future, social security claimants who find themselves faced with an incorrect Upper Tribunal decision, or who win their case at the Upper Tribunal but find themselves on the receiving end of an appeal by the DWP, HMRC or a local authority, could be facing the courts and the costs risks attached on their own or not at all. It also means that the big social security test cases which reached the higher courts by way of the appeals process, such as 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, will not be funded in future.
In view of the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the importance of what is at stake for the applicant and others, and the fact that many social security claimants are vulnerable and may be disabled or may not have English as a first language, and therefore are particularly disadvantaged in presenting their cases, it seems possible that, particularly in cases before the higher courts, a lack of legal aid could breach the rights of claimants under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights”.
Given that an appeal to the Upper Tribunal has to be on a point of law; given the complexities of that law and how much is at stake in terms of the livelihoods of some of the most disadvantaged members of our society; given that, as Justice points out, even if the Supreme Court had agreed to a case because of its complexity and its importance, legal aid would not be available because the Government say that it is not complex or important enough; and given that the savings are so minuscule that the Ministry of Justice does not even normally record them, can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government are withdrawing legal aid from this small yet important category of cases, and can he please justify this to the Committee?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I am in entire agreement with what has been said by my noble friends Lady Doocey and Lord Newton and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I should be very grateful if, in responding on these amendments, my noble friend Lord McNally would tell the Committee whether in respect of later amendments that seek to ensure proper funding for CABs and advice agencies there is going to be a positive answer, because that will have a major effect on my whole approach to this part of the Bill.
It does not need repeating that cutting legal advice in relation to social welfare claimants is, on the face of it, utterly bonkers. First, the people seeking that advice are the most vulnerable in our society. I wonder how many people who are now in this Chamber have ever sought assistance under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or the Welfare Reform Act and so on. There is a whole forest or jungle of social security law, and I ask anyone in this Committee who thinks that, because it is for the common man it is simple, to have a look at any of the legislation. It is a nightmare. I have given a bit of legal advice in law centres in my time. It was a nightmare when I did it as a young solicitor but it is a treble nightmare now. Someone said recently that the CAB advice manual for social security law ran to a couple of hundred pages, but it now goes well into the thousands.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There are 7,500 pages, and the devil of it is that a lot of these statutes interrelate. In many cases, finding a way through this stuff is, believe me, a job for a lawyer and not a job for the harassed citizen. Do not let us be carried away by the telephone helpline. It will help in all sorts of cases but in very many it will not. That is because, first, the complexity will outrun the knowledge of the person on the phone. Of course, the answer is that they should then refer the person to someone else, but I have to tell your Lordships that these advice lines—and I have experience of them too—are very powerful instruments. The second reason is that it is a commonplace that people find it very difficult to explain the facts and so on in relation to these social security measures face to face, let alone down a telephone line.
Therefore, I hope that we will be honest with ourselves and that the excellent civil servants, the excellent Bill team and the excellent Front Bench spokesmen will recognise that this is not territory with which we are familiar. I suggest that we need to be a little humble before we say categorically that the status quo after the Bill comes into force will be sufficient to enable hard-pressed, often bemused and sometimes desperate people to access the benefits that we have legislated for them.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, let us face it, the next group of amendments covers almost exactly the same area as this one. I shall reserve what I was going to say until we reach my amendment in that group. However, in view of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Wigley about running all these Bills together simultaneously, I wanted to point out that—believe it or not—in the Moses Room this afternoon, going on in parallel with what was going on in this Chamber there was a Motion about jobseeker’s allowance. Aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill are interwoven in an appallingly complex way.
We have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, a very clear case as to why the whole exercise is going to be costly. I agree with the sympathetic point he was making for the Government: any change made to these forms of welfare help is almost by definition bound to involve extra cost and extra complexity, because it is yet another layer added to the thousands of pages that have to be understood by the professional expert. Then, one appears to be busily taking away, or making it much less easy to access, the professional help we have had in the past. There is also the point made that the CABs, which have been so marvellous in the past, are going to be shorter and shorter of money. The whole thing is becoming really worrying and I hope that the Government will reflect on this.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Lister, I often feel that after the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, has spoken, there is not very much to add. However, all noble Lords who have subsequently spoken have indeed made very valuable additional contributions. I would like to say a few words because this is a debate of absolutely central importance in our consideration of the Bill. We should all be extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for moving as she did the amendment that she and colleagues have tabled. She raised an interesting and important point—among many others. Since such a high proportion of those who receive legal aid to support them in welfare benefits cases are disabled people, this policy may be in effect discriminatory against disabled people. That in itself is something that we ought to reflect upon. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us whether or not this is the case, and if he thinks it is not the case, how he explains that.
The noble Baroness also reminded us of the high success rate of appeals and of appeals made by disabled people. Of course, the proportion of successful appeals is higher when people have been advised, when people appear personally in court, and when they are accompanied. If the Government are going to take away legal aid from welfare benefits cases, it raises the question of whether they want people who are entitled to receive benefits to do so. I believe that they do. I cannot believe that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party do not want people who are genuinely and properly entitled to receive welfare benefits to do so. However, the reality is that if they take away legal aid in support of those cases, they are ineluctably going to prevent very significant numbers of people who should receive those benefits from doing so. I ask them fairly and squarely this question, and again I would like the Minister to respond specifically to this point: do they want all these people to receive benefits, and if they do, how do they suppose that they are going to receive those benefits?
Ministers at the Ministry of Justice have been pretty blunt hitherto in saying that they consider welfare benefits cases to be of lower importance than other categories of case which will continue to be in scope of legal aid. I would like to know—and again I ask the Minister to tell us in his reply—exactly why the Government believe that welfare benefits cases are less important than other categories of cases that they have determined should remain eligible for legal aid. I think that for people in poverty, welfare benefits are extremely important, and those people would be interested to know the Government’s explanation of their policy, just as we would be.
Of course, there are going to be growing numbers of these people. This is partly because of the recession, which is increasing unemployment and the hazards of life, and making much, much more difficult the personal, domestic, and financial circumstances of very many people. There is also going to be an increased number of people who wish to appeal against decisions that they should not receive welfare benefits, on account of the transition to the new incapacity benefit, employment support allowance, personal independence payments, and the whole panoply of welfare reform upon which the Government have embarked. This is undoubtedly going to lead to confusion, to administrative complexity, and to a higher error rate on the part of staff whose job it is to determine eligibility for welfare benefits. We are going to see an increasing number of appeals that people will very properly want to be able to make. The Government therefore need to have very good reasons indeed for why they are going to make it harder for people to pursue these appeals successfully. After all, they are expecting, by their own admission, to make savings to the public purse of only some £25 million net—a trivial saving, absolutely trivial, in the context of overall public spending.
What is going to happen to these people who do not get legal aid? They will try to go to other sources of advice, but the charities which might advise them are not going to be in a position to do so, as they have been telling us. The citizens advice bureaux in particular have been warning us very earnestly that they will not be in a position to provide the advice that they have been able to provide with the support of legal aid and local authority funding—neither of those, in large part, are going to be available. Would-be appellants—claimants—may then be driven to other kinds of private adviser. I dread to think what sort of advice they may receive from those sources. We are very aware in the immigration field that some extremely dodgy and dubious people offer advice who are frankly exploitative of people when they are in very great difficulties.
We will see an increase in self-representation: people will go to the tribunals to try and make their own case. The notion, to which the Government are so attached, that the tribunal system is a user-friendly, accessible, informal alternative to the court system, is a pipe dream. Of course it is highly desirable that there be more informal, more economical, more user-friendly systems of justice available. Again and again, attempts have been made to achieve that but, again and again, the system becomes less informal, more complex and more arduous to navigate, and people need expert help to find their way through. It is unrealistic of the Government to suggest that the tribunals system is somehow going to be there and that it will be all right for people to represent themselves.
The consequences of a policy that will result in people not being able to make their appeals in order to obtain the benefits that they should be able to obtain will include increased unemployment, particularly among disabled people, because if they do not have the tailored support that they ought to have, their chances of securing employment, with the odds already stacked against them because of their disabilities and in this very difficult labour market, will be further reduced. We will find more people in debt and suffering ill health, because poverty will mean that people will not be able to afford a proper diet or heating and will have to cope with anxiety about their poverty. We will see more cases of poor physical and mental health. All these predicaments will produce costs to other government departments. I fear that we will also see a greater resort to criminality as people despair and feel that there is no longer a just system available to them. I do not think that there will be savings to the public purse; there will be additional costs to the public purse. Above all there will be a great cost for all of us to pay in national shame.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Howe rightly said a few moments ago, other amendments later in our proceedings will return to the general question of legal aid. I will reserve some of my remarks for that later group of amendments, as my noble friend indicated that she, too, would do. However, I would be sorry to see the amendment proceed without as many voices as possible being raised around your Lordships’ House in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said today. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, intimated, this is of central concern. The noble Baroness was right about this at Second Reading and she was right to bring this amendment before the House today. I hope that the Government will reflect on the arguments that were laid before us.
At Second Reading I mentioned that an organisation of which I am a patron, the National Association of Child Contact Centres, had written to me expressing concern about the number of volunteers who are withdrawing from voluntary service because of the pressures that we are placing on them. That, in tandem with the reduction of resources being made available to Citizens Advice and other voluntary organisations because local authorities have to cut back on their funding, should cause all of us to stop and ask the kind of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, properly put to us earlier. I am sure that the Minister shares many of these concerns. He would not want to see—any more than any noble Lord would want to see—people with spina bifida, autism, cerebral palsy or any number of physical or mental disabilities placed in a position where they cannot get proper or adequate representation or advice in order to pursue their cases. I hope that he will be able to tell us whether he has had direct discussions with organisations such as Leonard Cheshire Disability and Scope; and I hope that before coming to a final conclusion on these issues he certainly will.
My noble friend Lord Wigley was right to remind us at the outset of the increase in the number of complex questions that are now being placed before people who are dealing with disabilities. During my time as a constituency Member of Parliament I, like my noble friend—although we had very different constituencies; one in rural Wales and one in the heart of the city of Liverpool—was confronted again and again, just as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was when he worked as a volunteer in legal aid centres or on telephone lines, with complex and difficult questions. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, reminded us that these days the advice runs to more than 7,000 pages in a handbook. It is impossible to deal with these questions when, as we heard, they are incredibly complex and changing day by day, even as your Lordships consider them.
I was struck by a leading article in a Sunday newspaper that commented on the anachronistic nature of your Lordships' House. It went on to say, thank God for these anachronisms because last week in debates on the Welfare Reform Bill it was the anachronistic House of Lords that stood up for the voiceless and powerless people for whom no one else would speak. I suspect that your Lordships will have to perform the same role again.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I support Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. It is generally acknowledged that attempts by government to simplify the welfare system are to be welcomed because the systems are complex and difficult. Despite the fact that legal aid has been available for appeals against decisions on entitlement, we have seen a very significant lack of take-up of the benefits to which people are entitled. Under the Government’s proposals, that legal aid will no longer be available. It is accepted by the Legal Services Board that dispute resolution and advice in social welfare law requires legal and technical competence. We know from Scope that 39 per cent of appeals against work capability assessments are upheld. Without legal assistance, people simply will not be able to meet the challenges that will enable them to retain the benefits to which they are entitled.
There will be 3.2 million people affected by the change to DLA alone, and 1.8 million will migrate from incapacity benefit to DSA or jobseeker’s allowance. People in those cases may be ill, seriously stressed, living in profoundly difficult circumstances, illiterate or incapable of dealing with correspondence. They may not recognise the importance of attending various assessments or may lose out simply because of their vulnerability. If a family loses the benefits to which it is entitled and cannot access professional help, inevitably there will be very serious consequences such as more children going hungry, not having enough warm clothes for the winter and not having heat in their homes. Parents will have to make appalling choices.
The consequence may be situations in which individuals go to tribunals in cases in which, had they received legal advice, they would have known that they did not have a valid case. A tribunal costs approximately £293. The cost of legal advice to help people in this situation is of the order of £150 to £200. As noble Lords said, there are serious concerns about the consequential increases in the number of cases going to tribunal. Put simply, there are very good financial reasons to continue to provide the current, low-cost legal help.
Lord Bach
My Lords, client A was a single mother aged 20 with two young children. She had no permanent home and was living with her mother. She had no income other than a crisis loan and suffered from mental health problems. She had been awarded employment and support allowance, but this was suspended when she was admitted to hospital and missed a medical assessment. She was then informed that she was not entitled to employment and support allowance. The Leicester community advice and law service lodged an appeal on her behalf. The DWP agreed to reinstate her claim while the advice and law service explained her medical problems to the department.
Client B was also a single mother. She suffered from bipolar disorder and received employment and support allowance and other benefits. She had debts totalling £2,500, including overpayments of benefits and arrears owed to utility companies. The advice and law service assisted her in making successful claims for disability living allowance and associated benefits, thus increasing her income by more than £100 per week. Her housing benefit had been suspended. The service challenged the decision and housing benefit was reinstated and backdated, thus avoiding an escalation of rent arrears that ultimately would have led to the loss of her home.
Both cases took place in my home city of Leicester, but there will be examples from every city, town, village and hamlet in the country. What do the two stories have in common? First, both clients were helped by the same advice agency. The crucial point is that they were helped using legal aid. Advice was given and lives were changed. If this Bill goes through in its present form, this sort of life-changing advice would probably never have been given. Those two clients who had real legal problems would not have been legally helped.
It does not take much imagination or knowledge of the world to know that events in both cases would have gone downhill fast if advice had not been given. Not just the mothers themselves but, one suspects, their children would have suffered. The state would have had to pick up the pieces at a much later stage when much more damage would have been done. If the Bill goes through, welfare benefit advice will be out of scope, not just at the beginning but at the end, too. The costs of the Leicester law service organisation that took up this case are negligible. We have heard about the small costs of each case of this type. They are tiny compared with the social and real financial costs if there had been no early intervention.
How can the Government be so stupid to think that what they are proposing can do anything but harm? I speak with all the strength that I have in support of the amendment moved so passionately by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, who has given a lifetime’s service to disabled people. I agree with other noble Lords who have said that her amendment is central to what we have to debate and decide on in this Bill. Her amendment would return to the scope of legal aid: advice and assistance on eligibility for welfare benefits, applications for welfare benefits, and appeals against the decisions of granting authorities. Although the expertise of the noble Baroness, as has been said around the House, is in helping disabled people, her amendments, as she would be the first to say, cover a much wider group in society than merely those who are disabled; they cover all citizens who find themselves in that position.
The amendment is identical to that tabled in another place in Committee and on Report by my party. The first time—in the Public Bill Committee—the amendment was defeated on Division by the government parties, but on Report the Liberal Democrat Members of the Public Bill Committee tabled an amendment to the same effect. Unfortunately, because of a heavily guillotined timetable, and, I am sad to say, filibustering by those who should have known better, no debate and thus no vote was held. It is possible that had the vote been taken in another place, we might not have this question quite in the form it is in today.
There is rightly great strength of feeling from all sides of the Committee about the removal of advice on welfare benefits. There is a real fear that it will lead quickly to a downgrading in the efficiency of a system that, while not perfect, has worked pretty well over 40 or 50 years, and which, crucially, has been supported by all Governments of whatever complexion and by all major political parties in this country. There is consensus that the state has an obligation to provide this sort of help for the poor, for disabled people and for those who need help—it could be any one of us in certain parts of our lives—because it is both practical and humane.
There is great concern that if the Bill goes through as it stands we will lose that and, as my noble friend said, be diminished as a country in how we conduct ourselves. That is why this issue is so central. It will drive tens of thousands of litigants-in-person to try to deal with complex issues that they might not fully understand or be able to communicate. Thousands of people will be left without a lifeline. Those who have real cases will have to join a queue because tribunals will take so long to reach their cases. Then people might find themselves completely destitute: their homes at threat, relationships breaking down, and their children helpless. There will be that drive downwards that we see so often.
Lord Newton of Braintree
There is something that the noble Lord has not mentioned, which could be an important factor, bearing in mind his reference just now to children left helpless and some of his earlier case studies relating to single-parent families. I cannot remember the figure but there is a huge cost for every child taken into care. I would like the Minister to tell us the cost of each child taken into care as a result of the knock-on effects that could arise from these proposals. It costs tens of thousands of pounds every time, and I do not believe that all that has been taken into account.
Lord Bach
I am grateful to the noble Lord as he is absolutely right about the social and financial costs of abolishing this sort of legal aid. It is impossible to say what they will be, but they will be huge, which I should have thought was fairly obvious.
The outcomes that we have talked about in this debate are not beyond the realms of probability, nor can anyone say that they would be unexpected. It is up to us in this Committee, and in the House perhaps on a future date, to decide whether the outcomes that have been described would cross the basic line of British decency that it is our obligation to defend. As part of that decision-making, we must look at whether these particular cuts are economic in the first place. Would they achieve even the Executive’s highly limited narrow goals of saving money?
The ministry plans to remove entirely funding for welfare benefits from scope. It claims that that will save £25 million a year. That sum normally goes to dealing with 135,000 cases per year. The advice is delivered, not altogether but pretty much through third-sector not-for-profit agencies such as Citizens Advice, law centres and many other advice centres. Advice goes to those seeking reconsiderations of decisions by the DWP and related agencies and to those appealing decisions before the First-tier Tribunals and then the Upper Tribunals. We have heard who receives the advice. Women are disproportionately users of this advice, as are ethnic minorities. As the noble Baroness indicated, 69 per cent—a very high percentage indeed—of those receiving advice are ill or disabled in some way.
As for who gets more complex advice—that relating to grounds for appeal—the published data for First-tier Tribunals show that of the 50,000 or so benefits-related cases heard a year, 90 per cent relate to disability-related benefits. That is hardly a surprise. For all its sins, jobseeker’s allowance is a simple entitlement for which to calculate eligibility. When there is a degree of subjectivity in deciding on the impairment caused by disability, agencies are more likely to make mistakes and thus require decisions to be appealed.
What does the advice funded by legal aid deliver? Colleagues in another place tabled a series of Parliamentary Questions to establish the percentage of people who win their appeals before tribunal with and without advice. The figures provided by the ministry show that in 2009-10 in welfare benefits-related cases, people were 78 per cent more likely to win if they had advice than if they did not have advice. For ESA the figure was even higher. People appealing employment support allowance decisions were more than twice as likely to win with advice than if they did not have advice. I point out what is obvious: those winning appellants are all legitimate claimants. They are not scroungers; they are not feckless—for the main part they have probably suffered some form of disability. They have been denied their rights by an emanation of the state, by the Executive, and they are legitimately challenging that decision.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Would the Minister agree that the statistics he has just—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
It is just habit. Would the noble Lord agree that his statistics suggest that where there is advice, meritorious claims are brought forward and money and time are not wasted by tribunals in hearing litigants in person?
Lord Bach
I agree absolutely. It seems to follow because the people who practise this kind of law—and we know that they are not particularly well-paid lawyers—are very careful, on the whole, to give advice on the position in law and not necessarily what the claimant wants to hear. It is right that people with hopeless claims do not go forward and those with meritorious claims do go forward—as they should do.
These are legal problems—let us make no mistake about that. The truth is that the welfare benefits field, as we have heard all round the House from great experts, is very complex in many cases and people need help with these matters before they can decide the right thing to do.
Judge Robert Martin, the head of the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, gave evidence to the Justice Committee inquiry some time last year. The 7,500 pages I referred to in an intervention are the reference material that was issued to the tribunals and which is now spread over six volumes. He made that point to the Justice Committee. He was asked by the chair, the right honourable gentleman Sir Alan Beith:
“Will it bring more people into the tribunal because they have not been advised that their case has no chance of success in the tribunal”?,
which I think is the question the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked me. Judge Robert Martin said:
“Yes, because a general public awareness of tribunals is very low. Very little is put into public education of the law and how to seek redress for grievances. There is this risk that we will see many people who have been drawn to the tribunal believing it is the most appropriate forum to solve things, whereas it may be just a mistaken conception about the tribunal”.
He continued:
“Legal help is so important in that triage function of sifting out cases which can be redressed but not through the tribunal or the court, and assisting those cases where the tribunal or the court can assist to have the case prepared in a way that maximises the chance of success”.
That gives the answer from someone who is, as it were, at the coal face. He went on to say:
“With the removal of legal help, we will have to spend a lot more time explaining simply what the tribunal is about rather than getting to the heart of the matter”.
This Bill is at its worst in this particular part. I argued at Second Reading—and I argue again today—that it is unconstitutional in that it removes access to justice for a large number of citizens, it is immoral because the state should not try to save a fairly small amount of money by targeting the poor and the disabled by removing their legal rights, and it is financially crazy because the savings will be non-existent. As benefits mistakes are not remedied, the problems will grow and the cost to the state will explode.
We are very proud of our legal system in this country and we encourage, quite rightly, foreign citizens to litigate their cases in British courts. They do so because of the extreme fairness and expertise of the British legal system from top to bottom. It is ironic, is it not, that we should be asking foreigners to litigate their serious cases in our courts because of the greatness of our system, while at the same time we seek to reduce some basic rights in law for our own citizens who are the least able to look after themselves?
Lord McNally
My Lords, Amendments 32 and 89 seek to bring welfare benefit matters into the scope of legal aid funding, first, by deleting the exclusion for welfare benefits in Part 2 of Schedule 1 and, secondly, by adding social welfare as an in-scope category in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
The amendments are contrary to our reform programme in which we are focusing our resources on the highest priority cases. Currently legal aid is available for legal advice but not representation in relation to decisions on welfare benefits at the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. While we recognise that many people rely on welfare benefits, these cases are primarily about financial entitlement. In our reforms we have concentrated on the fundamental issues of liberty or safety. Given the need to prioritise funding, we have decided to remove legal advice for welfare benefits from the scope of the legal aid scheme.
Lord McNally
I am only one and a half pages into my reply. I do not mind. Carry on.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Can the Minister explain why poverty is a less fundamental issue than liberty or safety?
Lord McNally
I am going to go on to this. I must say to the noble Lord that it would help if I can get further than just past page one. I will deal exactly with the issue that he has raised. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Howe, indicated, we will have a series of debates on a number of specific individuals who will be affected by reforms.
A number of noble Lords have cited their own experiences, either professional or personal, so I shall in part answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, by giving a personal experience of my own. In 1976 I sat in the Cabinet Room in Downing Street with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister—Denis Healey and James Callaghan—and during the course of a two or three hour meeting the pound fell from 1.95 to 1.45 against the dollar. By the time it hit 1.45 we had sent for the Governor of the Bank of England and decided to call in the IMF. Like many events, it has left a political scar, which is this: if you lose control of your own economy, all the concern for the poor and the disabled and the disadvantaged is as nothing because you cannot help them if you are not in control of your own economy.
Many of the debates that we have heard in the past few days, including this one—and probably the one tomorrow—have addressed the kind of issues that we have heard today. As I look around the House, I know that on all Benches there are people who have devoted their lives to the betterment of the citizens of this country. No one party has a monopoly on that. However, it is right to say that we have had to take hard decisions in difficult circumstances. I hear that £1 million is within the margin of error and that £20 million is trivial, but in a department like mine those are the figures that we are having to face and deal with. Therefore, although I understand some of the—
Lord Howarth of Newport
I am sure we all accept that it is imperative that the Government do not lose control of the economy, as the Minister puts it, but it is a question of how you gain control of the economy. Why do this Government prefer to deprive people of legal aid in their appeals for welfare benefits in order to save £25 million—they think, but very good reasons have been put by noble Lords all round the House as to why that saving would be illusory—while being prepared to spend much larger sums on freezing council tax, which will largely benefit more affluent people, or on weekly refuse collections? It is a question of priorities.
Lord McNally
Politics is always a question of priorities. We keep on having this Second Reading debate. If we want a bit of knockabout, it has taken the Shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition 18 months into this Government to accept the cuts that the Government are imposing. We can have a knockabout if you want. We started this debate some months ago and what we are talking about is a department that is making its contribution to a roughly 20 per cent cut in public expenditure. That kind of adjustment was necessary—and I think has been successful—to retain the confidence in our economy which others have lost, and which has allowed us to borrow at lower interest rates and keep that readjustment within manageable terms.
Of course, as each department brings its proposals forward, tough choices are made. I am sure there are people in local government who are having to make tough choices, and when they make those tough choices people will extrapolate the consequences of those tough choices—but let us not pretend that there are alternatives to those tough choices. It is also interesting. I am not sure where we are on this. I could not intervene because my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace was in charge of that.
During the medical debate, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, stood up and with a perfectly straight face, and supposedly making an argument on his side, cited a case where £90,000 was spent—£45,000 on legal fees and £45,000 on advice—to produce £4,500 of compensation for the person offended. It did not seem to occur to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but it did to me as a poor, innocent, non-legal layman, that there is something wrong with a system that absorbs £90,000—
Lord Beecham
That was hardly a representative example of cases. In most cases—although necessarily costs in clinical negligence cases are higher than the average—they are nothing like that proportion.
Lord McNally
I never even suggested that. However, I am suggesting that we are talking about processes where the response of the Opposition, and sometimes my noble friends, seems to be yet more lawyers, yet more litigation—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I thank my noble friend for giving way, but I must just reply. First, the whole point of my alarming case was to show how desperately needed reform was. Secondly, it was to support the amendment because were aid available to get expert reports right at the beginning, you would know at the outset whether the case was a runner and some of these crazy expenses would be knocked out.
Lord McNally
It still seems barmy to me. Likewise, with regard to the 7,500-page volume mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in 13 years of Labour Government, did nobody think, “What kind of system are we producing that requires that kind of detailed explanation and advice?”? It seems to me that the approach is not reform, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, but forever putting another layer of wallpaper on an already dirty room. We are about reform and one of the things that we are reforming—again, it would be interesting in wider debates to hear where the Opposition is on this—
Lord Bach
If the Minister’s best point is that the volumes on welfare benefits increased in the years of the Labour Government—as no doubt they did in the years of the Conservative Government before, and have done for 30 or 40 years as the system has got more complicated—that is a pretty poor argument for taking out of scope social welfare law, frankly.
Lord McNally
That is not my best point. The best point is that we are having, supposedly, a national debate about welfare dependency and welfare reform. It may be a bit unsettling that a number of reforms are taking place at the same time, but my understanding is that the welfare reforms before this House are attempting to simplify a much overcomplicated process and that that had the broad support of the Opposition. I do not think we are going to win this argument, some of which we will return to.
Amendment 35 seeks to bring into scope legal aid for advice and assistance for appeals to the First-tier Social Entitlement Chamber in respect of welfare benefits that are payable under social security legislation as a result of disability. The intention of the amendment appears to be for legal help and representation to be provided for welfare benefit appeals in the First-tier Tribunal for those with disabilities. Currently, legal aid is available for legal advice only in relation to decisions on welfare benefits in the First-tier Tribunal. Legally aided representation is not available for tribunal hearings because they are designed, as has been said, to be user-friendly without the need for legal representation. Therefore, we believe that this amendment would increase the cost of legal aid by expanding it into areas where it is not currently available.
We recognise that this amendment is concerned about the impact on those with disabilities who are appealing to the tribunal. While we recognise that those with disabilities may face additional obstacles, the tribunal is a relatively informal venue. The tribunal itself will comprise a medical practitioner and a disability expert as well as a tribunal judge when considering disability living allowance appeals. Given this and the need to prioritise funding, we have decided to remove legal advice for welfare benefits from the scope of the legal aid scheme. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their support on these amendments.
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said and I cannot pretend I am not disappointed by the response. There is no doubt that we need to get a higher proportion of benefit decisions right the first time round but I have not seen anything to convince me that this is going to happen any time soon.
Huge numbers of mistakes are made in decisions on benefit, and these have catastrophic effects, not just on the person trying to claim the benefit, but on their entire family.
I will give you one example. Somebody that I have known for 30 years has incredibly complex problems with her back following an accident. She had worked all her life, and was forced to claim benefit. She is so badly damaged, having had multiple operations, that she is incapable of standing for more than three minutes at a time. She spends the majority of her life lying down to take the pressure off her back, and is on incredible amounts of medication. Initially she was assessed as having no problems whatever, and that she could work. While she is a highly articulate person, she is terrified of authority, and so without being pushed by a number of us, and having recourse to legal aid, because she had no money at all, she could never have appealed that decision, which was clearly absolutely wrong.
I therefore really worry about what is going to happen if this goes through. I really hope that the Minister will reflect again and consider bringing back some hope at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bowness
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the present role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and whether they have plans to increase awareness of its work.
Lord Bowness
My Lords, I am a member—together with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and colleagues from another place—of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE. The question tonight is about the OSCE and not the Parliamentary Assembly, although there is a connection to which I will return.
Noble Lords here tonight will know the history of the OSCE, but for the record, and to emphasise the breadth of its membership and activities, I will briefly outline its structure and history. Its origins go back to the early 1970s and the East-West détente, and the formation of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which became the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1994. In the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 the participants agreed commitments in three security dimensions—political and military, economic and environmental, and human rights—and also agreed 10 principles to govern relations between the member states and their peoples.
There are 56 member states, from Vancouver to Vladivostok, including the largest and the very smallest nations: the USA and Canada in North America, through all Europe to the Caucasus, and into Eurasia, Russia and Kazakhstan. Even the Holy See is a member. The highest decision-making body is the Meeting of Heads of Government, or summits. These are infrequent, the last being in Astana. The Ministerial Council meets once a year unless there is a summit. The last was in Vilnius, last December, at the conclusion of the Lithuanian chairmanship, that role having being taken up at the beginning of this year by Ireland.
The Permanent Council, attended by our Permanent Representative, discusses and decides upon current developments in the area. It meets weekly in Vienna, as does the Forum for Security Co-operation, the chairmanship of which rotates among the member states on a four-monthly basis.
The Vienna Document requires states to share information on their military forces, equipment and defence planning, and provides for inspections and evaluation visits. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights is involved in the implementation of OSCE commitments to democracy, rule of law and human rights, and plays a particular role in the monitoring of elections. The High Commissioner on National Minorities addresses the problems of ethnic tensions in member states, and works with the states to improve legislation related to such issues. The Representative on Freedom of the Media acts as a watchdog to promote compliance with OSCE values on freedom of the media.
The OSCE is also involved in areas of vital interest to the United Kingdom and its European Union partners. A list of its operations and missions is a roll call of actual or potential trouble spots: Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It is involved in all these vital areas. Important work is done on the ground in activities essential to any state governed by rule of law and democracy, and to all the states in the region, such as control of the spread of illegal arms and border control.
In 2010 the local office in Kosovo, which I visited in November last year, was involved in the following activities: monitoring community rights; property rights, including resolution of problems arising from returning refugees; human rights; rule of law issues; development of the police service; anti-trafficking training; good governance and support for the Kosovo assembly; support for the electoral process; assisting the media regulator; promoting police and public partnerships, and many other initiatives.
The organisation has relations with other international and regional organisations and with Asian and Mediterranean partners for co-operation. The organisation and the Parliamentary Assembly have already been involved in monitoring elections in Tunisia, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, took part.
A Conflict Prevention Centre works on problems which include Moldova and Transnistria, and Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. The Office of the Co-ordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities works on the problems of hazardous waste, energy security and sustainable development in places where—particularly in Soviet times—there appears to have been rather less concern for the environment and the damage caused by industrial process.
Lastly, a Department of Management and Finance provides financial management and administrative advice to participating states.
I believe that there is a considerable lack of knowledge about OSCE and what it does, not just in the wider world but, with great respect, also in Parliament itself. I therefore pose some questions to Her Majesty’s Government. Do the Government consider the OSCE to still be a relevant organisation? Do they believe that an organisation based on consensus can work, when the position of Russia on issues such as Georgia makes resolution almost impossible? Do we co-ordinate our efforts in OSCE with our European Union partners? Surely it is a forum where the elusive CFSP could begin to work. Apart from our budgetary contribution, how far are we prepared to go in funding secondees to assist in the work of OSCE? A 2010 report showed that we provided 48 people. How many are financed now by additional finance beyond our budget?
Why is it that we hear so little from Her Majesty’s Government about OSCE, about our position in that organisation and the policies that we seek to promote in it? Since May 2010 there has, as far as I can see, been only one Written Statement following a ministerial meeting. No separate Statement was issued after the Astana summit. The 18th ministerial meeting in December in Vilnius did not even merit a Statement, written or otherwise, to either House of Parliament. The most we have is a blog on the FCO site by my right honourable friend Mr David Lidington, and I thank him for it—any information is welcome—but is a blog, however good, an appropriate way to inform Parliament?
If Her Majesty’s Government are convinced of the importance and relevance of the OSCE, surely Statements, written or otherwise, should be made to Parliament after every summit and every ministerial meeting, formal or informal; and from time to time Parliament should be brought up to date with the proceedings of the Permanent Council and the Forum for Security Co-operation. With weekly meetings of both in Vienna, it is difficult to believe that there is nothing in the course of a year which merits some report to Parliament.
This is where I square the circle with membership of the Parliamentary Assembly. As a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, I would find it much easier to fulfil the role of the Parliamentary Assembly, which includes, though not exclusively, assessing the implementation of OSCE objectives, discussing subjects addressed at the OSCE Ministerial Councils and summits, contributing to the development of OSCE and its institutional structures and relations, and co-operation between the existing institutions of the organisation.
The Parliamentary Assembly has problems about the way in which its business is transacted and the use of the time available, but that is for the Parliamentary Assembly to resolve. Without the information, there is no point in putting the time to better use. I believe that Her Majesty’s Government could help these objectives to be better fulfilled if Parliament and the public were better informed about OSCE activities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, on initiating this debate. I know that it is normal to congratulate those who have initiated a debate, but in this case he really has broken important new ground. I very much agree with the thrust of what he said, although I find it hard to distinguish between the work of the OSCE as a whole and the work of the Parliamentary Assembly. I prefer to see them as part and parcel of a wider issue.
I have been on the Parliamentary Assembly since the previous election and I have attended two meetings in Vienna and Belgrade. In the next month or two, there will be another meeting in Vienna. In my discussions with colleagues, there is little awareness of the work of the OSCE. It might almost not exist. The first time I told people that I was off to the OSCE in Vienna or wherever it was, most people asked, “What is that?”. Even Members of this House and the Commons asked that and I had to explain. There is something the matter with an organisation, which involves a lot of good work, effort and money on the part of its member Governments, if its work is so little known and regarded.
At the first meeting in Vienna about a year ago, I was quite astonished. The OSCE local office in Belarus had just been closed by the regime and we were looking forward to hearing the OSCE official who had been in charge of Belarus. He was due to give us a report on the situation prior to his expulsion, but he did not turn up and we were unable to discover why. In terms of his own ability, there was certainly no reason for him not to come to the meeting, but something in the OSCE bureaucracy stopped him.
I very much appreciate a lot of the good work that has been done by the OSCE, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred in some detail and which I shall not repeat. The local offices do good work. Clearly, election monitoring is very important and involves a lot of the organisation’s time and energy. The OSCE produces regular bulletins and reports on the situation in many countries about which there are concerns that are invaluable for keeping members of the Parliamentary Assembly informed of what is going on.
I was also appointed to a group of four parliamentarians who looked at the situation in Moldova. We had one visit to Moldova and to the Transdniestrian part of Moldova, which was a useful approach. We are going to continue with that and do some follow-up work. Having said that, I am still aware that one has to explain very hard to people what we are doing and why we are doing it.
In terms of the effectiveness of the organisation, the OSCE operates from three centres—Vienna, Copenhagen and Warsaw—which seems a little excessive for an organisation of that size. I am not totally clear why it has to be done in that way. I have two main criticisms. First, there is a lack of connection between what the OSCE does and the Parliamentary Assembly. Very little of the work of the OSCE and its many facets come before the Parliamentary Assembly, which is the one body that can properly scrutinise what is going on. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we have got into this position. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Assembly really has one main function: to scrutinise, monitor and oversee the work of the OSCE, the local offices, election monitoring and so on. It is very hard to get feedback on that at the Assembly meetings. This disconnect does not seem proper. I very much hope that the Irish presidency will be able to do something about that.
Surely we need proper accountability by the OSCE to the Parliamentary Assembly. I cannot understand how it can work unless there is such accountability. After all, we and the Commons are here in order for the Government to be accountable to Parliament. I cannot see why we have a Parliamentary Assembly that does not have a similar form of accountability. After all, it happens in the European Parliament. Even the Council of Europe seems to have more accountability than there appears to be in the OSCE.
My key point is that every organisation needs to have within itself the ability to assess on an ongoing basis its efficiency and effectiveness. We do not do it as well as we might at Westminster but we certainly do it. I should like to feel that the OSCE had some form of mechanism that did the same thing, otherwise we have no sense that the money is being spent in the best possible way or that the work is being done as efficiently as possible. We should look at the outcomes to see whether our priorities are right. It is a general proposition that organisations should assess their efficiency and effectiveness, but it certainly applies to the OSCE.
I should say that I have enjoyed my attendance at the Parliamentary Assembly and learning about the OSCE. Despite my criticisms, it does a lot of good work. I should like to know more about it. It is an odd comment to make that I have learnt more about the OSCE from the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, than I did in many days of attending Parliamentary Assembly meetings, looking at my e-mails and so on. There is something the matter. Noble Lords might say that that is my fault, but I do not believe that it is. I believe that something is amiss when we have to have a debate such as this to learn about an organisation on whose Parliamentary Assembly I serve.
As I said, I believe that the OSCE does good work. It has the supreme advantage that it includes the United States and Canada, which the Council of Europe does not. We get a broad spectrum of countries that can bring their experience and strength to bear on the many difficult issues in some countries, such as breaches of human rights, problems with elections and so on. I congratulate the OSCE on its good work but I would like to see better scrutiny and more accountability.
Baroness Stern
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in expressing very warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for securing this short debate. His experience of intergovernmental organisations is extensive and it is too rarely that this House has the benefit of hearing and learning from that wide experience.
My knowledge of the OSCE in no ways matches the noble Lord’s but it goes back a long way. I first became involved nearly two decades ago through the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, or ODIHR for short—an acronym I shall continue to use, although it does not sound as enthusiastic as it might. It is the OSCE’s work in relation to democracy, human rights and the rule of law about which I want to make a few remarks this evening.
In the mid-1990s, that office was headed by a very distinguished British public servant, Audrey Glover, who was a former legal adviser to the Foreign Office and a most eminent contributor to human rights and the rule of human law. This was the time when the newly independent countries of the former Soviet Union were beginning to reform their legal systems and prison systems. ODIHR was in the forefront of that work and did a great deal of good.
Over the years, the work of ODIHR has developed in line with the changing times. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, pointed out, much of it is concerned with how far elections are free and fair. For example, last Thursday, 12 January, an OSCE report was released on the state Duma elections held in Russia in December. That report noted that although the elections were technically well administered, the election administration was not independent. The count was characterised by frequent procedural violations; there were instances of apparent manipulation, including several serious instances of ballot box-stuffing; and there was undue interference by state authorities at different levels. Therefore, the election was slanted in favour of the ruling party. I am sure the Minister would agree that having an independent report like this in the public domain is invaluable and that probably only the OSCE could produce it.
A fair and impartial legal system is the bedrock of a state run according the rule of law. For some former Soviet countries, it has been a hard struggle, a struggle that is still going on, to achieve that. I am sure the Minister would also agree that a conference held in Ukraine last month about strengthening the independence of Ukraine’s judiciary, where specific and pragmatic suggestions for change were made, was important not just for Ukraine but for the rest of us in Europe.
Next week, ODIHR is organising a visit to Croatia for officials from the Ministry of the Interior and the security services training school in Tajikistan to learn about the methods of teaching on human rights and countering terrorism used by the Police Academy of Croatia. I imagine that we can all see the advantages of such a programme, and once again the OSCE is the organisation best placed to arrange it. However, in case this sounds a little theoretical, I want to bring in a little personal experience.
A year ago, I attended a number of events organised by the OSCE office in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, to coincide with UN Human Rights Day. I much appreciated the efforts of our excellent and hard-working embassy there to arrange my participation and to support the events. One of the events was a very big meeting to consider a report of the ODIHR election observation mission on the 2010 parliamentary elections in Tajikistan. The meeting was well attended by large numbers of what might be called “ordinary people”: that is, not officials or young people with laptops, but elderly women who looked as if they had had to walk a long way to get to wherever they picked up transport eventually to reach the capital and a lot of men who obviously came from a lifetime of agricultural work. A very passionate discussion took place and it was clear how much democracy mattered to these people.
On my second visit, which was this year, the OSCE office allowed me to attend a meeting of the non-governmental organisations they worked with and supported in the law enforcement and justice sector. These organisations tried among other things to provide legal representation to arrested people, to raise concerns about ill-treatment and to visit prisons—not easy or very safe work. The support from the OSCE was enormously important to them and made it possible to do that work, otherwise it would not have been done.
Why is this important and why should the UK support it perhaps a little more energetically than it does at present? The promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law is in the interests of all of us, and the work of the intergovernmental organisations that support it has made a huge difference to the shaping of the post-Soviet world. The OSCE brings to that reshaping two important factors: first, it has a broader remit than the Council of Europe; and, secondly, it brings together security and human rights. That conjunction is vital if we really want a more secure world.
The OSCE calls its human rights work the human dimension, and the human dimension is indispensable for real security. Additionally, its work is very important in countries that are not in the Council of Europe: the countries of central Asia, for instance. For them, the OSCE provides a forum where they can interact with European colleagues on an equal footing through regional and international events, allowing them access to expertise and best practices that they would not otherwise encounter.
What is Government’s policy on seconding British expertise to the OSCE and in particular to ODIHR, where people from the United Kingdom made such a contribution in the past? Are we still enthusiastic about seconding people? Do we encourage groups to come here to see good practice: for example, in dealing with violence against women, where we have some of the best services and approaches in the world which those involved would be most willing to share, or in detention monitoring and security sector reform? Does the FCO offer UK expertise to ODIHR when it is looking for help with training, such as in human rights and the rule of law? How far do the Government see the OSCE’s work in human rights, democratisation, the protection of minorities and resolving conflict as a valuable part of the achievement of UK ambitions in these areas? If indeed the Government value that work, could they perhaps develop ways of showing that enthusiasm a little more than they do currently?
Lord Patten
My Lords, it is reasonable and fair from time to time to point a finger at any organisation. Rather like the small child who had the unfortunate experience of watching Lord Randolph Churchill canvassing and pointed his finger and said, “Mama, Mama, what is that man for?”, it is quite fair to point a finger at an organisation from time to time and say, “What is that organisation for?”. There will be more of that later on in my speech.
It is also very important to judge the OSCE against the things to come in 2012; 2012 may see more dangerous moments than have been seen at any time since the end of the Cold War, the events of 9/11 included. The litany is long and scary: Iran, North Korea, India-Pakistan and the side-winds of withdrawal from Afghanistan, Syria and the flashpoints around Mediterranean. Add to that not just that Russia at the end of December fired a salvo of two Bulava-30 intercontinental missiles from the White Sea to hit its targets on the Kamchatka peninsula, nearly 5,000 miles away, at exactly the same time as China formally confirmed for the first time in a statement from its Ministry of National Defence that it had also successfully fired from a submarine some Julong-2 ballistic missiles in the face of the imminent Taiwanese elections, and the atmosphere for 2012 can be seen to be pretty turbulent, to put it delicately, at a high level.
All these issues arise in the middle of severe economic difficulties in Europe and the US that affect our capabilities in everything from conflict prevention and resolution to hardcore defence. The West must not fail in economic regeneration, for the old USSR failed as its old economic system failed and lost as a result military and economic power, which are simply inseparable.
Yet the new economic reality demands difficult but necessary cuts in capabilities of all sorts. We see this with the United States. I do not know the current view of the United States Government on the OSCE, but President Obama issued new strategic guidance on 5 January this year, coincidentally just after those Russian and Chinese missiles started flying. His announcement demonstrated that, just as we in the UK once faced up to the need to withdraw from east of Suez, so the US is now pulling back a bit, for reasons that I fully understand, from west of Suez. It is quite clear and quite deliberate. This is not only in the face of the difficulties of funding the most capable armed forces that the world has ever seen—the Pentagon being much larger than that of the next 10 countries combined—but, I sense, because President Obama sees himself as a Pacific president and not as a European president. Unfortunately—and I think this applies right across the political spectrum in the United States—the US also sees most European countries as not even, when the going was good, fulfilling their defence responsibilities to the extent of, let us say, spending 2 per cent of GDP per annum, with the honourable exceptions of France and of the United Kingdom. Not only that but the forces that they do have left are not deployable. My right honourable friend Philip Hammond was right to say earlier this month in the US:
“Too many countries are failing to meet their financial responsibilities to NATO, and so failing to maintain appropriate and proportionate capabilities”.
Less diplomatically, I would say that most NATO countries are getting a free ride. It is because of that and because of American disillusion that we see, Dover beach-like, the slow, almost unnoticed, withdrawal of once very detailed and intense American involvement in Europe. Their attention is going elsewhere. I do not see this as declinist in any way; I simply see it as realistic and reasonable on the part of the United States. We must set the OSCE against this background. I do so declaring my interests as recorded, but also I have nothing in the way of foreign affairs expertise to declare—no membership of even the smallest think tank.
How should we see the OSCE? It is itself a creature of the Cold War, as my noble friend Lord Bowness said in his splendid introductory speech, but now boasts 56 members, ranging geographically in a pretty contorted way from the US all the way through to those “-stans” in central Asia. None of the countries at either end of this geographical arc is exactly European, although the core of the membership most certainly is. No longer is the OSCE a Cold War forum for better East/West understandings as it once was. It now has—and I have done my research—three self-styled dimensions: politico-military, economic and environmental, and human.
Conflict resolution, for example, is part of its remit, and I applaud that. It does excellent work. However, it is interesting watching the delightfully titled—and I do not make this up—“chairperson in office” at the head of the OSCE. That is what he is called. The rest of his title is Irish DPM, Eamon Gilmore. When presenting his 2012 priorities last week in Vienna on 12 January, he ranged over an extraordinarily lengthy and sprawling shopping list, from protecting freedoms of expression in the digital age to money-laundering and back again. It is very hard to get one’s hands and arms around these concepts as always necessarily being integrated. Discussion of money-laundering must be very interesting indeed, and I imagine sometimes quite amusing, when Governments of member countries like Belarus or Montenegro are brought to account.
The big question in asking what the OSCE is for is whether we would today invent such a geographically extraordinary, democratically diverse and sometimes very unfocused organisation that is largely unknown to most politicians and opinion-formers, let alone to the general public. We would almost certainly not invent it in its present form, despite the good work that has been done, which I do recognise; it has, for example, brought Russia to the bar of world opinion over the Georgian situation, tried to help resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and all the rest.
Am I going to say that it should be abolished? Again, probably not, at least not at the moment, on the grounds that it is there; that it brings together all sorts of good countries, indifferent countries, bad countries, and some very bad countries indeed from Europe and central Asia, in the spirit of jaw-jaw being better than anything else; and that it tries to encourage the setting of better standards and freedoms, even if these are much more honoured in the breach in the case of Belarus and a number of the aforementioned “-stans”.
Does it need reform, and does it need more focus? Surely the answer is that someone has to get a grip on this organisation, reform it and give it some focus so that one can point one’s finger at it. I will then readily understand what this organisation is for. To get greater credibility, even though it is a consensus-driven organisation, it might have to face up to suspending some of its freedom-repressing members until they decide to reform themselves rather than benefit from the cloak of respectability that is thrown around their shoulders from simply having OSCE membership bestowed upon them. It is politically very poorly led. No one is getting a grip on it or giving it a political lead.
I end on this point. In March this year, NATO, which is in high-profile difficulty, as many of your Lordships will know, hopes to begin to try to resolve at the forthcoming Chicago summit of NATO countries some of the difficulties that are facing it. OSCE’s difficulties are of a much lower profile. As a number of other distinguished speakers have already said, it has such a low profile that most people do not know that it exists. However, it too needs the treatment of such a summit, or of some similar mechanism, urgently to resolve what it is really for. I do not know the answer to that at the beginning of 2012.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, once again the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has done the House a service in raising this Question for Short Debate about the future of the OSCE. We would all like to thank him and my noble friend Lord Dubs for the work that they do on its parliamentary assembly.
As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, many people, including many parliamentarians, have probably never heard of the OSCE and there is always a temptation—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is going in that direction—to see the organisation as some kind of redundant hangover from the Cold War, an organisation that has outlived its time, a fossilized relic of the past. You can think of all the phrases. On this side of the House we would certainly agree with him that the Government should be asking the OSCE to justify itself. There should be more information in this House and in the other place about the activities of the OSCE and the value that it is creating. However, from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, it is clear to me at least that it would be wrong and misguided to rush to the judgment that the OSCE should go. We say that because it is a multilateral organisation—we are committed supporters of multilateralism—working in one of the most difficult and troubled areas of the world. The Deputy Prime Minister does not get many tributes these days, but he deserves a generous tribute for his decision to attend and speak at the OSCE’s summit in Kazakhstan just over a year ago.
We live in a dangerous world where, if anything, the trends are against multilateralism and commitment to multilateral organisations. Emerging powers such as China put much more emphasis on their own sovereignty, not on working together in multilateral organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to the trends in the United States to focus on the Pacific and, with the necessity for huge defence cuts, pull in its horns in Europe. It seems to us that that means that we should tread warily in dismissing the value of the OSCE, given the work that it does.
It feels like a long time since the collapse of the Soviet Union and since the OSCE’s members signed up to the Paris charter in which they declared their belief in a,
“new era of democracy, peace and unity”.
We know that that lofty ambition has not been fulfilled. Vladimir Putin has redefined democracy in Russia as something he calls “sovereign democracy” and we do not know quite what that means. There has been a war in Georgia between two OSCE members and there are many other troubles throughout the region.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that we can be critical of the OSCE’s work and say that it is inadequate, but it is doing something to deal with human rights abuses, democratic flaws and the absence of the rule of law in some of the most difficult areas possible. Of course the responses are inadequate. If you have an organisation where 56 participating members have to agree and one of them is the mighty Russia, it is going to be difficult to get things done. However, the role that the OSCE plays in the areas of election monitoring, human rights and media freedom is a valuable one. It is a bit better than a case of “stick with nurse for fear of something worse”. There is a real role for this organisation.
From this side of the House, we would like to know what the Government think about the possibilities of making the OSCE more effective. My noble friend Lord Dubs asked some relevant questions about the relationship between the organisation and the assembly that is supposed to monitor it. He asked what steps have been taken to review its efficiency and effectiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked whether we support it, whether the Government are prepared to back it with resources—I am thinking of staff secondments in particular—and whether we are prepared to use our diplomatic efforts to build alliances within it. For instance, do we work in it within an EU framework as we now do in many international organisations?
The OSCE could be more effective in partnership with the European Union. My noble friend Lady Crawley gave me the latest edition of the magazine that we get from Azerbaijan, which referred to my noble friend Lady Ashton’s visit there quite recently when she talked about the EU working with the OSCE Minsk Group in trying to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We have leverage over the EU as well as being members of the OSCE. How are we working to try to make those interventions more effective? The EU has real leverage that it can bring to bear in terms of its budgets, its trade access and of course visas.
The work of the OSCE is more relevant in the Balkans where there is enlargement fatigue regarding the EU. If we think that we are not going to be able to get enlargement in the next decade or so, we need to continue to support the OSCE. More than that, we can see within the region that many troubles are likely to flare up in future. We have seen in the recent Duma elections in Russia the need for proper election monitoring. We saw the role that the OSCE played in monitoring the farcical elections in Belarus. If anything, these problems will mount in future; they will not go away. It will therefore be important, from the perspective of noble Lords on this side of the House, to feel that the Government are taking this seriously and have a strategy for making the OSCE as effective as possible.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, if the world were straightforward, and all states were democratic, I am sure that we could have a number of effective, well organised and well respected international organisations.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for initiating this debate, I should say that I was reminded how far back we all go. Some of us will remember the Helsinki Declaration and the Final Act of 1975, and the extent to which that set of criteria—particularly the human rights dimension—was part of the way in which democratic states gained leverage over socialist states. Dissidents within those states felt empowered because they were able to quote at their rulers the standards which they had signed up to. I remember in particular some extremely brave former dissidents in Prague, whom I got to know in the early 1990s, who told me how they used to quote these things at length at the secret policemen who were inspecting and searching their apartments when they were holding meetings there. I also remember, as a former think-tanker and, at one point, the secretary of the British-Soviet Round Table, the extent to which the fact that the Soviet elite wanted to be thought of as civilised Europeans gave us some degree of leverage over their behaviour.
After that, when the CSCE became the OSCE in the early 1990s, there was a brief period of tremendous optimism that it would become a core organisation for a post-socialist Europe. Those hopes were disappointed, but nevertheless I would argue, and Her Majesty’s Government would argue, that it remains a useful organisation—even though it so often operates in the margins of international relations—with the constructive ambiguity of providing modest leverage to improve the behaviour of states which are perhaps less democratic and less concerned about the rule of law than many of us would like.
I should declare an interest. I spent some time working with my former employer, the London School of Economics, in a series of training courses for Kazakh officials before they took over the OSCE chairmanship. It was a useful exercise, partly because we saw a large number of Kazakh officials who were interested in the role of the OSCE and how it affected Kazakhstan’s role in the world. Therefore, this is all part of a process at the margins, in which we begin to inform each other about our different domestic standards.
However, the nature of the organisation, which, as noble Lords have remarked, is based on consensus, is that all progress is slow and major change is rare and hard earned. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that, if there are good arguments for remaining an inclusive organisation, which I would suggest there are, then pulling states such as Russia along with us—let alone Ukraine, Belarus or Uzbekistan—takes a great deal of effort. One sometimes feels one is not achieving very much, but it is the nature of diplomacy that persistence is required to achieve slow progress on this range of issues. One often feels that very little progress is being made—as indeed it did feel in the mid-1980s—but eventually one makes real progress.
Noble Lords have mentioned that there are three dimensions. There is the security dimension, on which a Written Ministerial Statement was laid in both Houses on 25 November 2011, advising of the British decision to take legal and proportionate countermeasures against Russia in response to Russia’s suspension, in 2007, of participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe verification arrangements. On the second dimension, which is the economic and environmental dimension, most of the work is quiet and expert, and a matter of missions coming and going, but, as noble Lords have suggested, it is nevertheless useful work. Much of our debate so far has been about the third dimension, the human dimension in all its complexity, including in particular the work of ODIHR in inspecting elections.
I am informed that the OSCE is much better known among the public and Parliaments of those member states east of Vienna. It is not as well known in Britain, partly because we need the OSCE less. I inquired about this and am happy to remind noble Lords that there was indeed an OSCE mission to observe the British general election. That is quite right; there had to be. There was an OSCE mission to observe the previous US presidential election, which I understand did not manage to agree the quality of its report. The OSCE mission to oversee the Duma elections will be repeated to oversee the Russian presidential elections. I imagine that a number of us will look forward avidly to that report when it comes.
Some noble Lords asked for much greater efficiency and effectiveness in the organisation. Of course, we would all like that. However, when one is moving with a number of very reluctant member states—I have spent a lot of time since 1989, as well as before, arguing with senior Russian officials—one can only move slowly. One also needs to be careful to preserve the autonomy of the secretariat. The United Nations itself is not a perfect or efficient—or often effective—organisation. Nevertheless, it is a useful organisation. We all recognise the limits within which we have to operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked a range of questions, which I will try to follow. On his question about whether the OSCE has joint EU operations within it, I am informed that it was one of the first bodies to which the EU applied joint action post-Maastricht. The United Kingdom supports that. However, nearly half the membership is now drawn from the membership of the EU, and one has to say that on a number of sensitive issues there is not entire consensus within the EU. The relations that some EU members have with Russia, for example, are very different from those that the UK would wish to have. The amount of pressure that is put on Russia in view of its role in some of the frozen conflicts with which the OSCE is dealing varies from EU member state to member state, so what we are able to agree in the EU context about OSCE policy is not always as coherent as the United Kingdom would wish.
Therefore, we have a mixed record on frozen conflicts. The Minsk Group, the group that deals with Georgia and the various consultations that deal with the Moldova-Transnistria conflicts have not made as much progress as we would have wished. Progress in the Balkans has been rather better. I remind noble Lords that the largest of all the OSCE field missions is the mission in Kosovo, which continues to work. Progress in the Balkans has been a great deal more encouraging.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked how far we are prepared to go in funding secondees. We currently fund three civilians in OSCE field presences but have no further plans at the moment to finance additional secondees. The 2010 report suggested that we were funding some 48 national secondees. I can confirm that, as of the beginning of last year, we were indeed funding 48 UK national secondees and contracted staff, of whom three are funded by the UK Government through the FCO budget and the others through the common budget.
The question of how much the Government should report to the two Houses on the OSCE is one that we take on board. Perhaps there should be more Statements to Parliament. That is something that we will take back and consider. With hindsight, we recognise that noble Lords might have welcomed a Written Ministerial Statement about the Astana summit in December 2010, where the British delegation was led by the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Vilnius Ministerial Council in December 2011.
Perhaps there is an argument for greater visibility but much of the useful work of the OSCE is done partly because an enormous amount of political capital is not made out of it. We regret that there is on occasion a degree of rivalry between the Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE’s secretariat as such and we would very much like to see the Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE secretariat working more closely together. We encourage members of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to bring what they have learnt back into the British debate. I recall that on one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Judd, did his work on Chechnya through the Council of Europe Assembly and brought that back very actively into the British Parliament.
I think that the OSCE operates from four centres, not only from three. I think that there is also an office in The Hague. I will check that and will write to the noble Lord, but that is one of the necessary ways in which international organisations have to operate. The EU, after all, has offices scattered through the majority of member countries. However, I agree strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that only the OSCE could have provided the quality of report that it did on the Duma elections. This is not in any sense a perfect organisation but it provides useful work. It works by consensus, which is both its strength but also its weakness as it means that decision-making is ponderous when each participating state has an effective veto on most substantive action.
This Government believe that if the organisation did not exist there would be a significant gap in the family of international organisations, particularly in respect of wider European security issues. We will therefore support fully our Irish colleagues throughout this year in their chairmanship in office in our own right and, as appropriate, in concert with a large number of like-minded partners which we have within the organisation. The nature of the OSCE all but excludes earth-shattering new developments and agreements. Nevertheless, it plays a valuable role in European security in promoting the values which we and many of our partners share.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness O'Loan
“Children affected by civil and family law proceedingsCivil legal services provided to a person having dependent children related to—
(a) private family law;(b) any benefit, allowance, payment, credit or pension under—(i) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,(ii) the Jobseekers Act 1995,(iii) the State Pension Credit Act 2002,(iv) the Tax Credits Act 2002,(v) the Welfare Reform Act 2007,(vi) the Welfare Reform Act 2011, or(vii) any other enactment relating to social security;(c) all areas of employment law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(d) all areas of housing law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(e) all areas of debt-related disputes not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(f) all areas of immigration and asylum law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(g) all areas of clinical negligence law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(h) consumer law;(i) all areas of consumer law not otherwise covered in this Schedule;(j) appeals to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority;(k) reviews or appeals under sections 11 or 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; or(l) appeals to the Supreme Court.”
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, which seeks to restore families with dependent children to the list of those eligible for legal aid and advice in respect of a range of legal issues that can be fundamental to the ability of a family to function. The proposed changes in the Bill, and in other Bills before your Lordships’ House such as the Welfare Reform Bill, which was referred to before the break, will have a disproportionate effect on those families in our society who are the least advantaged, most marginalised and most deprived. The number of those who would benefit from the amendment is necessarily limited by the terms and conditions under which legal aid and advice is available, but they may well be the people who are least able to contemplate the complexities and mysteries of conditional fee agreements, of lawyers, and of the costs of the ATE insurance premium in cases that they may have to fight.
We in this country have to make many decisions about how we spend our money. In November last year, the Government affirmed their commitment to spend £200 million on an airstrip in the south Atlantic, for St Helena island, which has 4,000 inhabitants. As we contemplate our reasons for doing that and observe similar expenditure, we should ask ourselves: what would be the consequences of removing access to legal aid from the poorest and most marginalised families in our country? The Minister spoke earlier today of the hard choices faced by government. They are infinitely harder for those upon whom these choices and legislative changes will fall.
Some 650,000 of the poorest people will be deprived of the access that they currently have through solicitors, CAB law centres and other advice centres that are estimated to provide services at a cost of between £150 and £200 per case. Justice for All, a coalition of some 4,000 organisations, has estimated that approximately 140,000 children will be affected by the proposed measures as legal aid is withdrawn from the adults who care for them, and that at least 6,000 children will be deprived of legal aid altogether. It is also estimated that 57 per cent of those who will no longer be able to access specialist advice on welfare benefits are disabled—about 78,000 people. Where those disabled people are part of families with dependent children, or where dependent children are living in a family, they will encounter even more marginalisation as a result of the consequential difficulties of access to specialist advice.
The Coalition: our Programme for Government stated:
“The Government believes that strong and stable families of all kinds are the bedrock of a strong and stable society”.
We know from the recent Save the Children report that 45 per cent of parents living in severe poverty are considering cutting back on food to pay energy bills. Many families with very low incomes, lacking job stability because of the area in which they live, facing deprivation on a scale of which most of us have little experience and living in overcrowded accommodation, nevertheless provide a stable and strong base from which to launch their children into the world as active, contributing members of society. When they face legal challenges, they should be supported, because it is the right thing to do and also because if we do not, they may find themselves unable to maintain their family lives and will inevitably become a cost to the state.
I want to say a word about private family law. Great concern has been expressed about the fact that private family law cases have been excluded from legal aid provision. Not all cases of family breakdown are susceptible to mediation or even to the type of collaborative law project discussed earlier. There will inevitably be cases where legal aid and advice is required by families. Concerns have been raised about cases in which a child is unlawfully removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another, and about cases in which a spouse has suffered prolonged violence during a relationship or has other problems, such as extreme poverty, illiteracy or even as simple a thing as no one to mind the children. That person may not have the capacity personally to challenge the other in the courts to try to recover the child. If it has to be done before the courts, under the proposed arrangements, it could result in two spouses both personally conducting their cases in court—surely a recipe for all sorts of failure in the delivery of access to justice.
Legal aid is not being withdrawn for international child abduction cases. The effect of moving a child from Barnstaple to Belfast may be as difficult as moving a child from Barnstaple to Brittany. In such cases, the safety of the child may be at risk. There is the risk of psychological and emotional damage because of their inability to contact the second parent, or the risk that the parent who looks after the child ensures that the child has a distorted and damaged view of the action of the other parent.
To make a blanket provision excluding all private family law cases is neither proportionate nor necessary. The ultimate result will inevitably be a significantly enhanced burden on the individuals concerned and further involvement of the various statutory agencies, which carries its own cost.
We discussed benefits just before the dinner break. I therefore do not intend to say any more, other than that benefits are not something extra to a family's income, they are the family's income. They are that which enables the family to function, and there are good financial reasons to continue to provide the current low-cost legal assistance which has been available to date.
In cases of employment, as with civil litigation, access to legal aid permits a screening of cases, which facilitates the handling of such cases in a reasonably effective manner. The removal of access to pre-tribunal advice will have consequences similar to those which are being predicted consequential to the removal of legal aid for civil litigation. People will bring actions before tribunals without advice and, because of their lack of knowledge of tribunal procedures and employment law, there will undoubtedly be delays, additional adjournments and a necessity for the tribunal chair to ensure that litigants have equality of access in the absence of appropriate representation, particularly where the respondent is legally represented, as is the case in most employment tribunal applications. The cost of providing this service will inevitably rise.
There is a significant risk that the removal of legal advice in such cases could result in an awareness that employees have much reduced opportunities to assert their legal rights, with a consequent lowering of general standards of protection in employment. Those who face serious exploitation or discrimination at work may ultimately end up unemployed and on benefits. That could be the beginning of a downward spiral for many families—a situation in which today they could be successfully protected through the tribunal process.
Although housing advice is being retained for those at imminent risk of homelessness, there will nevertheless be situations in which people have serious housing benefit problems or other housing-related issues. One example given by Justice for All involves a woman who had previously attempted suicide and her 11 year-old daughter. They were living together and both were receiving psychiatric help following the suicide attempt. They were subjected to a campaign of harassment by newly arrived neighbours. There was verbal abuse, poison-pen letters, and endless complaints about the puppy which they had happily owned but which had to go because of complaints about noise. Shelter, using legal aid, was able to get them rehoused. People in this situation have been known to feel, as this lady did previously, that their only escape lies in suicide. What would this woman have done had she not been able to go to Shelter for help?
Many people in this country are living on the minimum wage, which amounts to less than £200 a week, or on benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, where the weekly benefit is £53.50 for a person under 25 or £67.50 for a person over 25. I ask noble Lords whether they could live on even £67.50 a week, after housing benefit of course. People in this situation live from day to day and from week to week. Planning ahead is not really possible. Meeting the costs of sudden illness or a reduction in working hours, which is happening to many people across the country, is a burden too far. Pay-day loans and other debt solutions are an unwarranted and disliked solution in such circumstances. They simply tie the borrower into the debt spiral, often with massive rates of interest, and the borrowers know this but they have nowhere else to go.
Debt causes stress and illness, and it leads to conflict and tension in families. People who find themselves in intractable difficulties despite their wish to work need help, such as that offered by money advice agencies, to access benefits to which they are entitled, to make a manageable agreement to repay their debts and ultimately to avoid losing their homes. If such advice and help is not available in the early stages, the consequences are almost inevitable. The cost to the public purse of the splitting up of the family is equally predictable in terms of sickness, housing costs, welfare benefits and access to medical services.
I want to say a brief word about immigration, which I have also included in the amendment. Trafficked persons and children would have no access to legal aid under the Government’s proposals. Refugees would not have access to advice about cases involving bringing members of their family to safety, and there would be no legal aid for many immigration judicial review cases, thereby reducing the accountability of the UK Border Agency.
Clinical negligence we have discussed at length, and I shall say no more other than that the King’s College, London, report is fairly persuasive that the ultimate cost could be £18 million, consequential upon the increased costs of ATE insurance.
There are compelling reasons to provide legal aid and advice for those families who would qualify in these circumstances. Acknowledging these issues, the Government have announced £20 million of funding to support people affected by the cuts. However, this is limited to the current financial year. There will be no capacity for sustainability in this measure. CAB research, which has not been challenged, has shown that for every £1 of legal aid advice and expenditure, the state potentially saves £8.80.
It is very clear that the attempts to remove access to justice from the most marginalised and deprived of our families will cause immense damage. Families with dependent children face not only the challenge of trying to make money stretch and to remain healthy, but also the challenge of producing the citizens of the future. If those children grow up knowing that their parents have no access to justice, how can they believe that this society cares for its weak and its vulnerable? How many families will splinter under the combined weight of lost jobs, lost expectations, reduced benefits, rising interest rates, and our failure to provide them the access to justice which will enable them to be, in the Government’s words,
“strong and stable families … the bedrock of a strong and stable society”?
I beg to move.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 33, which seeks to retain legal aid in cases where a child will be affected by the outcome of a case brought by a parent or guardian. Many children are affected by civil law problems and family cases involving their parents or guardians, even though they themselves are not the applicant or claimant. The Government have said that,
“where children are involved, legal aid will still be provided”.—[Official Report, 7/7/11; col. 343.]
However, this is not in fact the case under the proposals in the Bill. I know that the Government recognise the importance of legal aid funding in a range of cases where children’s interests are paramount, which is good news. There are, however, still areas that cause grave concerns to many charities and organisations across all parts of society, and which unfairly affect children. They are: housing; welfare; immigration; domestic violence; clinical negligence; criminal injury compensation; and education. This will probably be due to their parents’ lack of financial resources and ability to navigate the legal system. Their parents may also be hindered by disability, language barriers, poverty, and mental health issues. These are no good reasons for children to be penalised.
Almost 150,000 children under 18 will lose the civil law and family law protection provided by legal aid. They are currently helped by legal advice or representation in court to deal with problems that are no fault of their own. Children are the named party in 6,000 cases per year that will no longer qualify for legal aid, and are financially affected by more than 140,000 cases per year involving their parents. The amendment would ensure that where dependent children will be affected by a case their parents are being represented in, legal aid will continue to be available subject to existing rules on financial suitability and the viability of the case.
For welfare benefit advice, currently 135,000 advice sessions per year are funded by legal aid. Under the Bill’s proposal, however, legal aid’s support for benefit advice is being abolished. In tribunal appeals where the applicant has legal advice, 55 per cent of all Department for Work and Pensions decisions to cut benefit are found to be wrong and are overturned. About 36,000 children are affected each year who come from the lowest income families, for whom losing the benefits they are entitled to will make a significant difference to their lives. As I have often said, childhood lasts a lifetime and the adversities children go through when they are young will in most cases stay with them for ever and affect their adult lives.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I have a number of anxieties about the impact of the Government’s proposals on children in painful and difficult situations. If the Minister can reassure me that my anxieties are misplaced I shall be more than pleased. However, I suspect that they are valid and that a number of amendments in this large group would be helpful.
First, I am concerned about inequality of arms. Wealthy people will be able to go to court armed with their lawyers while people on modest incomes will not. They will therefore appear either as litigants in person or cave in and be defeated because they lack the legal advice and support that would allow their case to be heard on a fair basis. Secondly, legal aid is to be confined to cases of physical or sexual assault. Surely that is too narrow. It will leave unhappy children in inappropriate residential and contact arrangements, split off perhaps from siblings and grandparents. We should surely widen the range of circumstances in which legal aid is available in support of children in those situations.
Thirdly, I think that there will be a perverse incentive. If an allegation of abuse would be a gateway to legal aid, some parents may be tempted to up the ante. In particular, we should be concerned that there may be cases where there has been some violence during the breakdown of the marriage or relationship but there is not a longstanding history of violence and there is no persuasive reason to suppose that there would be patterns of violence in the future; the violence has been generated by the crisis in the failure of the relationship. I do not think that it is in children’s interests that contact arrangements should be determined by such a factor. Of course, it will increase the private law workload of CAFCASS.
Fourthly, there is possibly another perverse incentive if a trigger for legal aid is to be the existence of a formal child protection plan. Some parents may be tempted to allege child maltreatment when other forms of help would be more appropriate and better for the children. Clogging up the child protection system could be disastrous. Again, more private law cases could spin over to the children’s social care workload which is already staggering following the Baby P case and will be under immense pressure with the cuts to come. There will be more formal child protection investigations and more case conferences, often when a more consensual approach would be more in the interests of the child. I fear that there will be increased and prolonged bitterness between parents.
Finally, while the Bill does not propose changes to legal aid for children and parents involved in public law care, clogging up the system with private law cases and litigants in person will have an adverse effect on the speedy resolution of such cases in the courts. That will be harmful, particularly to young children for whom it is very important to have a speedy return to permanent family arrangements, whether with parents, relatives or adopters.
Baroness Eaton
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 34 standing in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Newton of Braintree and Lord Cormack and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
The reductions to the provision of legal aid as proposed in the Bill will leave 40,000 children and 69,000 18 to 24 year-olds struggling with serious legal problems relating to employment, education, welfare benefits, homelessness and debt. Children and young people affected by these changes are among the most vulnerable in our society, with 80 per cent, as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, of young people reporting civil legal problems also facing challenges and great disadvantages.
The cost of legal aid for children is small compared with the total amount spent on legal aid. The cost of fully protecting all children up to the age of 18 from the cuts to legal aid would be £10 million, which is the equivalent to the cost of imprisoning just 71 young offenders. For young people aged 18 to 24, the cost is £40 million, less than half the weekly cost of youth unemployment. The cost of not providing appropriate legal advice is far greater. We know that when young people do not get advice their problems increase. There are well researched links between civil legal problems and crime. Many young people who have been arrested have higher levels of housing problems, debt and benefit problems, all of which are key factors influencing reoffending. Fifty-five per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds arrested were experiencing at least one difficult to solve civil justice problem.
There is substantial evidence of an adverse impact of legal problems on young people’s mental and emotional health, with 34 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds not in employment, education or training reporting stress-related illness as a result, and more than one-third going on to use National Health Service services. Citizens Advice estimates, as we have heard before, that for every £1 saved by the removal of legal aid, the Government will spend £8 dealing with the social, judicial and health issues that will result.
Recent figures from the Ministry of Justice give a breakdown of the types of cases for which children and young people use legal aid to help deal with their problems. The top four legal issues for children and young people are debt, housing and welfare benefits, asylum and immigration. Help with legal representation is most often given for housing, immigration and clinical negligence. Eighty per cent of young people reporting legal problems also face other disadvantages, including sole parenthood, having a mental health issue, being a victim of crime, or exclusion from education, employment and training.
It is disturbing to note that many children and young people in the United Kingdom meet the criteria for vulnerability. Thirty per cent of households headed by a 16 to 24 year-old live in poverty and 36 per cent of people presenting as homeless in the three months January to March 2011 were aged 16 to 24. The latest unemployment figures show that 20.2 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds are unemployed. In 2010 approximately 225,000 young people aged 16 to 24 lived alone.
These are very serious issues for society. We have to ask why so many young people are in such a vulnerable position. However, for us today the issue is to recognise the needs that these children have and the help that legal aid can give in enabling them to turn their lives around. The Government’s proposals will remove from the scope of legal aid most cases concerning education, including disputes about exclusion, school closure issues, bullying cases, disputes about poor educational standards, disputes about grants and loans, and cases about choice of school. Only education cases involving discrimination and special educational needs will qualify for legal aid support but then only for telephone advice.
These plans will leave 29 per cent of children who are currently represented in their educational needs cases without legal representation in court. Pupils with special educational needs are eight times more likely to be excluded permanently or for a fixed period than other children. There is a strong correlation between exclusion from schooling and falling foul of the criminal justice system. Removing legal aid support that enables children to challenge exclusion may have more children turning to crime, which would lead to future youth justice costs for the Government.
I fully appreciate the Government’s desire to reduce the UK deficit, but in order for any savings to contribute to this reduction, the reforms must not generate consequential costs or the shunting of costs to other government departments. The Justice Select Committee in another place reported that the magnitude of these knock-on costs had not been estimated. I sincerely hope that, on the basis that these proposed savings of £270 million from the legal aid budget will not achieve the aim of reducing costs, the Minister will consider seriously the effect of proposed savings on the vulnerable children involved and the additional cost to the public purse of implementing the changes unamended.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I support Amendments 33 and 34. I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, to present his apologies as he is unable to be here to take part in this debate. I will also speak to other specific amendments that are in my name.
Of course I recognise the need to save money, but equally we must remember the importance of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child in family cases, as set out in Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989, which is still good law. My amendments are all practical and based on practical and personal experience of how family cases work. In this part of the Bill there is a real danger that the welfare of the child may be downgraded and even overlooked if these amendments and subsequent amendments that affect children are ignored by the Government.
Amendments 33 and 34 show how children are affected by civil and family law proceedings, either indirectly or directly, and recognise that children have separate interests to their parents—it hardly needs to be said that they are obviously far less well equipped to represent themselves and their interests. There is a serious gap that will, from time to time, need to be plugged.
Amendments 33 and 34 refer to one group in particular: children who are involved in immigration proceedings. There are five possible situations that may affect children on immigration issues: they may be facing separation from their parents because of a decision to remove a parent where the child has British citizenship; they may be facing separation because of a decision to remove the child from the United Kingdom although the parents may be here; children who are refugees or whose parents are refugees may be unable to join or be joined by their parents; or they may be unaccompanied asylum seeker children applying for an extension of discretionary leave to remain. I shall deal with victims of trafficking who are also covered by immigration issues under Amendment 61A.
I will move on to Amendments 39, 40 and 41, to speak about child abduction both internationally and in England—or in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will know that children who are abducted from one part of the United Kingdom to another country outside the United Kingdom will almost always come under the international Hague convention, because some 90 countries support it. However, internal child abduction also arises on a regular basis and is an equally important risk in parental disputes. To my dismay, there appears to be no provision to support the children and the parent who has lost the child through child abduction. Ninety-one per cent of the members of Resolution, the family law solicitors, say that abduction is a real risk in the cases which they and their clients are dealing with.
I shall cite a case which was referred to earlier this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan—she dealt with Belfast and Barnstaple, while I have Cornwall and Cumbria, but it is all exactly the same story. If a child is taken from Basildon to Belfast—which is in fact under a different legal system, but within the United Kingdom—or indeed from Cornwall to Cumbria, where it is the same legal system, there is a very real danger that that child may never see the left-behind parent again, and the left-behind parent will not have the chance to look after and take an interest in that child.
It is absolutely crucial that the left-behind parent gets to the court quickly, to get the relevant orders to know where the child and the parent—usually the mother—are living, and to get orders for the child to be returned to its home. It is necessary to make immediate and urgent applications to a judge. However, there is no provision for this, although there is provision, as there has to be, under the Hague convention. Amendment 41 deals with the various orders that are required to be made for the left-behind parent to get to the court. I hope that this is inadvertent on the part of the Government. I hope that they have simply overlooked this particular specialist form of family law, where the child is seriously at risk in most cases if she or he does not have a chance to retain a relationship with the father.
Amendment 42 is rather specialised; it refers to cases where a vulnerable adult—often a woman who has been badly treated by her partner—goes to court for a protection order, and has to face the man who she says has been abusing her, and who will be cross-examining her. It is an extremely unsatisfactory situation, and for the woman—or occasionally the man—who is the victim to have to be cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator, is a form of extra abuse.
I move to Amendment 51, which is, if I may respectfully say to the Minister, particularly important. It deals with the issue of mediation. I am totally in support of mediation. It is the most sensible arrangement you can possibly have as far as it goes. However, the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, gave an interesting lecture some time ago in which he criticised the Government for treating mediation as the panacea for all ills, pointing out that it only went so far. Indeed, it does only go so far. I am totally supportive of the good intentions of the Government on mediation. However, Resolution—I come to it again—assess that 41 per cent of its cases are incapable of mediation. There are occasions when the mediator throws up his or hands in horror and says, “I cannot possibly mediate in this case”. It is perfectly obvious that forced mediation is no mediation at all.
Perhaps I may respectfully say that the Government have failed to take on board that there is a group of parents who for a variety of reasons—including drink, drugs, mental health issues or, if I can use the phrase, sheer bloody-mindedness—will not agree to anything. Over the years I tried those cases again and again. The only way that we ever got the chance of a settlement or a proper, sensible outcome, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, will also say, was by two lawyers banging the heads of the parents together. For some of those intractable cases, they got a result. Collaborative law is another way of getting such a result.
I will not go through Amendment 51 at this hour, but I would ask the Minister to look at each paragraph of the amendment for the circumstances in which it would be the mediator and not the parties who would say, “This case is not fit for mediation. It needs to go to court and it needs lawyers”. I make no apology for reminding the Minister that the welfare of the child is paramount. In these cases, it is the child who suffers.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the Norgrove report on family law. In that report emphasis was placed on that very narrow line between public and private law where risk to the child overlapped the two. How on earth will the judge deal with the really serious risk factors where two parents are unfit to make sensible decisions about what should happen to their child; where social workers cannot be brought into the case if they do not agree and judges do not have the power to make social workers start care proceedings; and where guardians are not all that easy to find? CAFCASS is doing an excellent job these days but it is at the limit of its ability to cope. If judges feel that the lawyers are not there to try to settle the case and deal with the worries and needs of the children, he will have to bring in a guardian, which will cause an enormous delay and the child will suffer.
I should like the Minister to take on board the fact that parents are creating the problems. They are not solving the problems, and they are not able to solve them without a combination of the judge, the lawyers and, often, the guardian. In the absence of lawyers, I do not know how this group of private law cases will manage.
As to Amendment 51, there are also situations where one parent—very often the mother, often for no good reason—refuses to have contact with the other parent and absolutely refuses to turn up to mediation. The mediation would not get off the ground and the case would have to go to court. The child is being deprived of a parent and, without lawyers, the judge would have great difficulties. That is quite apart from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the clogging-up of the courts. I know from my experience that a case involving two litigants absolutely intending to fight would not take less than a week. Absolutely rightly, the Government are keen to speed up public law cases. They are very keen to get adoptions dealt with quickly. Private law cases will clog the courts to the exclusion of public law and adoption cases.
Finally, Amendment 52 deals with the potential cross-examination of the child by a parent. Where the child is making allegations about the way in which the parent has behaved and there is no legal aid, the parent against whom the allegations are made may find himself cross-examining his own child, which is another form of abuse of the child. It would be extremely serious if that took place. I ask the Minister to reflect on these situations—which are not intended to open the floodgates, but intended to deal with specific problems that are very real and cannot just be ridden over as if they do not matter.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, this group of amendments contains tremendous overlap. It is for that reason, among others, that your Lordships will see a number of our names on one another’s amendments. I am very happy to follow my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, because we could not have a greater expert in what happens in courts. I am sure that we have all taken in everything that she was discussing just now.
I shall concentrate on the amendment that I have tabled, which is to do with young people with disability. As it stands, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will lead to some 75,000 young people under 25 losing legal aid each year. This amendment would provide particular protection for young disabled people.
Young people with a disability have usually received special protection and additional access to services in recognition of the fact that they may, and probably will, need additional support. The amendment would ensure that they continued to be able to access legal aid up to the age of 24. The definition of disability is that used in the Equality Act 2010, which identifies a person as having a disability if they have a physical or mental impairment and if this impairment is expected to have a substantial and long- term adverse effect on their ability to perform normal day-to-day activities.
Other amendments to the Bill seek to protect access to legal aid for all children aged up to 18, but there is a significant precedent for extending additional protection to young people up to the age of 24 and particularly to young people with disabilities. The Connexions service, which was set up to provide help and advice to young people aged 13 to 19, extended this help to young people up to the age of 24 who had a disability or learning difficulty, encompassing those with a statement of special educational needs, mental health difficulties, autistic spectrum disorders, dyslexia, ADHD and physical, sensory and cognitive impairments.
We also know that disabled young people are more likely to experience legal problems than other young people or older people with disabilities. Data from the Civil and Social Justice Survey showed that 56 per cent of under-25 year-olds with long-term disabilities had experienced problems compared to 35 per cent of all young people. It also found that young disabled people were more likely to experience legal problems than older people with a disability—51 per cent compared with 37 per cent. Disabled young people in general were more likely to experience multiple legal problems, in particular problems relating to housing, debt and welfare benefits.
JustRights, a coalition of more than 30 organisations in the children’s, youth and legal advice sector co-ordinated by the Law Centres Federation and Youth Access, has provided me with a case study which shows how legal advice can be vital in helping young disabled people to access their rights.
Chantelle was 18 when she came to the law centre for help. She had been born with cerebral palsy and had great difficulty walking. Her parents had to drive her to college and were worried that they could not afford to buy her a car and that she would be unable to attend university. They had applied for disability living allowance for Chantelle, but had been refused. The law centre helped Chantelle appeal against the refusal, gathering evidence from her school and her hospital specialist and representing her at the benefit tribunal hearing. Chantelle was successful in her appeal and was awarded the low rate of the care component of DLA and the higher rate of the mobility component. She swapped her mobility payment for a Motability car and passed her driving test. Chantelle now has a place at university and will be able to drive herself there each day, making a huge difference to her independence and quality of life, and probably her ability not to be dependant on other forms of public support. We know that advice provided early in cases such as Chantelle’s is cost-effective, and saves money in the long run through preventing the costs of problems spiralling.
I support all the amendments in this group. I hope that this particular modest amendment will receive a sympathetic hearing and acceptance by the noble Lord, the Minister, and I hope that he will give equal consideration to the equally important amendments that others are proposing.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I speak to Amendments 80A, 82A, 82B and 82C. Perhaps I may first say how delighted I am to be speaking after so many passionate speeches about children, children’s welfare, and children’s rights by so many noble Lords, because children are a touchstone as to how we treat those who need help. My Amendment 82A simply adds to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and she has spoken to that so I will not deal with it.
Before I speak to this group of amendments in my name I would like to add briefly to the concerns expressed so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Before the dinner break, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, talked about the costs of taking children into care. He implied that there are—and I know that there are—huge costs in terms of finance and of social adjustment and academic achievement.
There is also a group of people whom we have not talked about this evening but whom I want to talk about: family-and-friends carers who can prevent children going into care and make sure they are well looked after. I want to make a plea for those people. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was good enough to meet me and the Family Rights Alliance and a young family carer to discuss this. I hope he will be sympathetic. In a Green Paper on legal aid reform, the Government announced that they propose to withdraw legal aid from private law children applications. This will include applications by family-and-friends carers. A number of organisations concerned with the interests of children living with family-and-friends carers have raised anxieties about the impact of these proposals because such carers might in future be prevented, through lack of legal aid, from applying for the relevant order to provide permanence for a child, particularly when the other party in the proceedings, who is alleged to have failed in their parenting task, may be their son or daughter.
Following consultation on the Green Paper, the Government announced that a private law application would be retained within the scope of public funding, where the application was with a view to protecting the child who is at risk of abuse. This is not really the point. Clause 11 of the current Bill deals with the availability of public funding where the child is at risk of abuse. However the Government have made it clear that they will by regulation require that evidence of abuse is provided by the applicant in order for the application for public funding to be successful. This has its own limitations. The effect will be to prevent family members taking action to protect children when they are first at risk of harm—for example, when they are first subject to child protection enquiries. The 12-month time limit referred to in the Government’s response to consultation could also prevent a family-and-friends carer applying to court to take on the care of a child who is within the care system for more than 12 months. These potential carers will therefore not qualify for public funding to apply for residence or special guardianship orders because they fall outside the 12-month time limit. It is essential that family-and-friends carers with such an order have access to public funding to be legally represented at such applications. It is vital that the Government do not introduce such restrictions to legal aid, and I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this, if not now then later.
I turn to my Amendments 80A, 80B and 82C. These seek to retain access to legal aid for young people aged up to 24 in social welfare cases. As it stand, the Bill will lead to nearly 26,000 people aged under 25 losing legal aid for social welfare cases each year—for example, over 9,000 for debt and 9,000 welfare benefit cases. The figure for employment cases is almost 2,000, while the 500,000 housing cases cost about £1.5 million.
The coalition has made commitments to support children and young people. For example, the recent Positive for Youth paper states that:
“This Government is passionate about creating a society that is positive for youth. Young people matter. They are important to us now, and to our future, and we need them to flourish”.
The MP Dr Julian Huppert supported this by saying that the Liberal Democrat youth policy included a commitment to providing young people with access to specialist support and advice on legal aid and responsibilities.
Young people’s alienation from the legal system and, in turn, from mainstream society needs to be addressed. Research, which has been quoted before, has shown that many young people view the legal system as there for their punishment rather than for their protection. Reform of legal aid provides a golden opportunity to create a more modern, client-centred system that does not serve to exclude this important section of society.
Protecting access to social welfare legal aid for all children and young people under the age of 25 would cost just £5.8 million a year. In comparison, the Prince’s Trust estimates the weekly cost of youth unemployment at £20 million. Protecting legal aid for young people with disabilities and for care leavers is likely to cost a very modest amount. I wonder if the numbers for these groups have been costed along with the other costs associated with them.
We know that many of the children and young people who seek help with social welfare problems are highly vulnerable and are unlikely to be able to navigate the legal system without help. Recent research shows that 80 per cent of 16 to 24 year-olds with civil justice problems fall into at least one vulnerable group—for example, they may have a disability or mental health problems, or they may have been a victim of crime. Half of the young people seeking advice are not in education, employment or training.
The Government’s recently published youth policy, which I quoted earlier, says that disadvantaged and vulnerable young people can be at risk of poor outcomes and need additional and early help to overcome the challenges that they face. Changing the Welfare Reform Bill may mean that more young people with disabilities face social welfare problems. The Bill removes the youth condition for qualification for employment and support allowance, which allowed disabled young people to qualify automatically for the contributory form of benefit. That means that many more disabled young people could potentially face means testing, although of course the House discussed this last week. The Bill also seeks to replace the disability living allowance with the personal independence payment, which will require a face-to-face assessment to qualify. This may lead to young people needing help to understand the new benefit regime.
With youth unemployment now over 1 million, this group of young people will be in particular need of support over the next few years and we cannot afford to abandon them. However, advice services for young people are already being cut. Local authorities are trying to spend 38 per cent less this year than last year on Connexions, the national information, advice and guidance service for 13 to 19 year-olds. Research by Youth Access, the national membership organisation for young people’s information, advice and counselling, found that 42 per cent of their members faced the risk of closure this year. Advice for children and young people can help stop problems escalating, generating considerable long-term cost savings. A new report by Youth Access on the impact of advice shows that removing legal advice from vulnerable children and young people may save money in the short term but actually cost more in the long term.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 79B, and also speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who has just spoken very fully about them.
I do not want to detain the House any longer than necessary. My Amendment 79B is merely designed to ensure that the needs of children, and the cases where they need access to legal aid, are included in the section of the schedule about inequality, which without the amendment excludes mention of children. I am sure that the August riots last year alerted us all to the unemployment situation of youngsters, which has been referred to by many noble Lords, and also the alarming alienation from society of too many of our young people.
Many times, in this House, in connection with other Bills, I have quoted the fact that the only raw material that every nation has in common is its people, and woe betide it if it does not do everything it can to identify, nurture and develop the talents of all its people. If it does not, it only has itself to blame if it fails. That means particularly that, in the interests of tomorrow, we must identify, nurture and develop the talents of our young people, because they are our tomorrow.
This weekend I shared the joy that I am sure many other Members of this House share, as I was with an 11 year-old grandson. During the weekend, I reflected that it simply is not reasonable to expect children and young people to negotiate an adult legal system without legal advice, assistance or representation. I also reflected that it is very important to understand the impact of brain development on the competence and problem-solving ability of young people, because that part of the brain develops last. Therefore, their ability to make complex decisions that will affect their future, or ensure their best interests, is the last to emerge. If we are being serious about the long-term future, it must be wrong to do anything wilfully that interrupts that whole process. This particularly applies to children’s access to the very complex legal situations that have been described so graphically by many noble Lords.
I notice that in October 2010, Sarah Teather, the Minister of State for Children and Families, said that the best interests of the child would be a primary consideration in all government legislation. Many other noble Lords have mentioned this Bill’s links to the Welfare Reform Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill and the education Bills. I wonder, and ask the Minister, whether, in the preparation of this clause, there has been full consultation with all the other departments involved about the parts of those Bills that have an impact on children in the light of what the Minister said about the best interests of the child being the primary consideration. As I have listened to what has been said so graphically around the Committee this evening—and I am sure that the Minister has, too—I question whether the measures that the Government are proposing really are in the best interests of the children of this country.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, there are 13 amendments in this group. The Committee will be relieved to know that I intend to speak to only one of them. The thing that links all these amendments is what my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss described earlier as the paramount interests of the child. That is at the heart of what all of us who come to the debate have in mind.
My noble friend Lady O’Loan, in moving Amendment 33, the amendment to which I should like to speak, said that the key issue here was how this legislation and these proceedings would affect the family and the child. I was struck by a letter that appeared in the Times last week, signed by the most reverend Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Southwark. He joined those who have spoken so eloquently in your Lordships’ House this evening in stating that the Bill will, in his words,
“affect thousands of children whose parents are involved in civil cases”.
He went on to warn that,
“the result is likely to be increased long-term public costs and greater suffering”.
The Government have consistently and rightly talked about the importance of responsible parenting in a child’s development. Indeed, when the Prime Minister discussed the structures necessary for giving children the best start in life, he identified them as “strong and secure families” and “confident and able parents”. Yet how can a parent be expected to remain secure or confident when they face debt that could lead to their utilities being cut off; a discrepancy over benefit payments that could leave them unable to pay for the weekly shopping; or even a compensation claim over an injury leaving them unable to work—all without adequate advice or representation? It is perverse that the Government should, on the one hand, rightly emphasise responsible parenting, and then take away the very mechanisms for securing families’ basic legal remedies on the other. The challenges posed by the Bill will be felt sorely enough by individuals in the vast range of situations already mentioned in your Lordships’ House today and in previous debates, some of which I referred to in my Second Reading speech. Such challenges will only be exacerbated for those with dependent children for whom they need to provide and care.
The experience of those working on the front line underscores the fact that for many parents civil legal aid is no less than an essential component in securing legal redress for their families in some of the most serious and threatening cases. It was the magnificent Lord Bingham who once remarked:
“Legal aid is a service which the modern state owes to its citizens as a matter of principle”.
But principle, along with access to justice, seems to have become an early casualty in our sharp-elbowed Britain. The national charity, Housing Justice, emphasises:
“Housing cases involving families and children are frequently lengthy and complicated, so legal aid is vital if justice is to be done”.
It further remarks:
“It is imperative that children in particular … do not have their misery prolonged because of the difficulty in getting legal redress”.
The House needs to consider today the genuine human suffering that thousands of children will face as a direct consequence of restrictions to their parents’ legal aid entitlement.
As we have heard from my noble friend and many others during the debate today, and from people within the charitable sector, the hardship likely to result will be compounded by the simultaneous changes to the social security system. Many of those changes are complex and will leave many of the most vulnerable families more in need than ever of legal support. This has on more than one occasion been described as a “pincer movement” against the United Kingdom’s poorest. Depressingly, it reinforces the impression that we are not all in it together and that only those with sharp elbows will survive.
In researching the likely effects of the Welfare Reform Bill, the Catholic Church’s social action arm, Caritas Social Action Network, heard from a client of the admirable Cardinal Hume Centre in Westminster, only a stone’s throw away from this place. This lady, a single mother of three children, who is currently studying, was asked about the likely impact on her family if she fell victim to the new provisions on the recovery of benefit overpayments. Her response was simple:
“My kids and I would suffer”.
She went on to state:
“I would struggle to buy anything apart from food”.
Were she to find herself in this situation, as many individuals and families are likely to, she would have to face it without the professional advice or support that such complex and technical issues may well necessitate. She would ultimately be left with the choice of trying to challenge a decision herself, balancing this with her studies and with raising her young family, or she would have to take it as a hit without dispute, consequently being left with just enough to put food on the table. I dare say that in some cases parents will be left struggling to do even that. How is this in any sense a fair or just state of affairs?
A very similar case has been drawn to my attention by Caritas in the northern diocese of Salford. It involves another single mother, training to become a beautician, who received a letter regarding an error in her benefit payments which stated that if she did not repay an amount owed her current benefits would stop. In the event, she was able successfully to challenge the decision and continue her training, but once the 135,000 benefit cases each year are taken out of the scope of legal aid how many like her will be left without any suitable recourse? Of course, the impressive work undertaken by the charitable sector will mitigate some of the impact. However, as I said in the earlier debate about disability, from the experience that I have had during my time as patron of a charity dealing with children’s issues I know that it is already overwhelmed, and will be increasingly overwhelmed in the future, especially with the cuts to local government funding and the funding that comes in turn to those voluntary organisations. The sheer volume of cases, many involving a significant degree of complexity, will inevitably leave families falling through the gaps.
I particularly want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Caritas community worker's commentary on the case which I have just mentioned. That caseworker says that the mother,
“is trying to develop a positive future for her family through gaining qualifications that will hopefully lead to employment but the stress of her situation could have harmed these goals”.
The removal of support in such cases will not be a mere inconvenience to parents; it will be a genuine challenge to their best efforts to create a safe and supportive environment for their children to grow up in. In the long run this will, of course, result in significant costs to the state, in economic as well as human terms, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham and others. Many noble Lords have indicated that they are familiar with research from Citizens Advice, which highlights that for every £1 of legal aid expenditure on benefits advice as much as £8.80 could be saved in public expenditure. In cases involving children who suffer as a result of their parent’s case, the true cost may be far higher. That is penny wise but pound foolish.
Finally, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the devastating effects that the withdrawal of legal aid for immigration cases will have on children. Another study from the Cardinal Hume Centre relates to a client with twin girls, aged three. Legal aid was essential to resolving the immigration issues that had created immense difficulties in securing housing and left her at risk of being split from her children. It seems hard to justify denying support in such situations, which would appear certain once again to result in human suffering and, ultimately, public costs.
As highlighted by noble Lords promoting this and the other amendments, there are many areas beyond benefit cases and immigration cases in which children will be hurt by the provisions of this Bill. I commend the report Not Seen and Not Heard, by Sound Off For Justice and Just Rights, which outlines in detail the worrying scope and scale of all this.
It was Churchill who once said that you measure the degree of civilisation of a society by how it treats its weakest members. Surely that is the test that we should apply when considering the ramifications of the provisions of the Bill. I hope that when he replies to these 13 amendments the Minister will give us some assurance that he will go away and consider further some of the arguments that have been advanced.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I will be brief but I have six big guns to call in aid. I support Amendment 34 in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton and the sensible proposals of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about child abduction and mediation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned the comments of my right honourable friend the Minister for Children, Sarah Teather, about the best interests of the child. She was of course talking about the child’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Big gun number one is Article 4 of the UNCRC, which states that the Government must take,
“all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures”,
to ensure the realisation of rights protected under the UNCRC, and must also apply,
“the maximum extent of their available resources”,
to this purpose. This convention right is engaged by the Bill. It is one of the important general measures of the convention.
Big gun number two is Article 6 of the ECHR, which states:
“It is central to the concept of a fair trial, in civil as in criminal proceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively before the court … and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side”.
The Children’s Commissioner stated the blindingly obvious in her letter of 6 January to the Secretary of State. She said:
“Children, by virtue of their age and capacity, will not be able to present their case effectively in the majority of proceedings”.
I share her concern and that of the Joint Committee on Human rights that,
“the ability of the Director of Legal Aid Casework to grant exceptional funding is insufficient to make rights practically effective due to the need”,
to speed things up. She also stated that,
“children without legal advice and assistance will encounter difficulties even in accessing a determination by the Director”.
Big gun number three is Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which provides that states parties,
“shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child”.
Article 12 states in particular that the child shall,
“be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or appropriate body”.
Big gun number four is the whole of Article 3 about the best interests of the child, which has been quoted by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is also enshrined in UK law in the Education Act 1986.
Big guns numbers five and six are the Hague convention and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As she has already fired her fiery cannonballs at my noble friend, he does not need my bit of buckshot to add to them.
Those are international convention obligations to which we have signed up voluntarily. We now need to step up to the mark and honour them. If we do not, we will be taken to the international court. It is as simple as that.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
I shall speak in support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in particular on Amendment 41, which deals with child abduction. I saw the Minister wave his white hanky, which I hope is a sign of peace. If we are to look after what is in the paramount interest of a child, in most circumstances, that means contact with both parents. In the absence of legal aid, the parent who does not want to have contact effective—who wants to frustrate contact—will simply up sticks and go off with the child. If that happens, it is extremely important that measures are taken instantly to return the child because, if not, the child will become accustomed to living in the place to which it is abducted and it will be much more difficult to get it back. Absence of legal aid will encourage people to do that, which is of great concern.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, the Minister has had a powerful display of the House’s feeling on these matters. It is of note that not one person has spoken during Committee in support of the Government's position. Perhaps that is not surprising. When we consider issues that refer to children who have not been responsible for poor conduct but have found themselves in difficult and painful positions, the House has always spoken with one voice to protect the child and ensure that their rights are upheld. That is something that all sides of this House have always agreed and acted on in unison. I, for one, am not surprised that we have had powerful speeches from all Benches about the paramount interests of the child and the need to ensure that legal advice and support is available.
If the Government's proposals succeed, as the House knows, they will mean that more than 210,000 fewer private family cases will qualify for legal help; 45,000 fewer private family cases will qualify for legal representation; and 68,000 children will be affected by legal aid being removed for family contact and finance disputes. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke about the importance of family contact, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton.
The reason that there is unison on that issue is that any noble Lord who has participated in family cases knows the difficulty that such contact cases promote. Of the 68,000 children who will be deprived of legal aid, the majority fall within the poorest sector of society, because 95 per cent of those in receipt of civil and family legal help are in the bottom income quintile. That means that they are most in need of help, support and succour. The social implications are considerable. Fifty-seven per cent of the members of Resolution who were surveyed believe that parents risk losing contact with their children in at least half of its cases. That amounts to more than 4,000 children according to the lawyers surveyed alone.
The rise in the number of litigants in person for whom mediation is unsuitable and legal aid is unavailable will add more pressure to the court system, which is facing the closure of 40 per cent of courts. Ninety-nine per cent of those asked said that cases take longer when parties represent themselves, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave graphic examples of what will happen when a case takes a week. At the moment, more than 90 per cent of private family law cases are settled. The 10 per cent which go to law are the most intractable and most difficult.
Family law is slightly different from many other forms of litigation. Most family lawyers worth their salt see their job as damage limitation because, when a family breaks down, everyone loses and there are no winners. Therefore, if a case has to go to court, we are dealing with even greater failure. The court has grown accustomed to relying on lawyers who, in this area, are not rich fat cats. Over half of those surveyed who practise family law earn less than £35,000 and a fifth earn less than £25,000, which is less than the UK’s median annual salary. We are dealing with people who are trying to give succour to families.
The wide spectrum of law that has been spoken about—welfare law, family law and housing law—all interact. Stephen Cobb, chairman of the Family Law Bar Association, put it succinctly when he said that without access to justice—by which he meant effective access—for broken families, wider society would pay a very high price indeed. That is what we have heard echoing right around the Chamber from virtually every single speaker today.
The Family Justice Review has identified that in a significant number of cases serious child welfare and safeguarding concerns are raised when families appear in a private law court case, and those can trigger investigations by local authorities and result in public law proceedings. Statistics in the NSPCC’s report of November 2011, All Babies Count, show that around 20,000 children are living with a parent who has used class A drugs in the past year—we are talking about babies under a year old—around 100,000 live with a parent who is a problem drinker, and around 150,000 live with a parent who has a common mental health problem. One in every two cohabiting couples will have split by the time their children are five years old, and at least half of these children will face a parental breakdown. Not all couples will require a courtroom but, for those who do, many vulnerable adults will have no access to justice in private law and will be left with a choice of mediation or litigation in person—litigation which will add to, not detract from the difficulties that the family is likely to face.
For all the reasons that have been given powerfully by every single speaker, I seriously ask the noble Lord to think again. I respectfully suggest that the Government’s approach to this issue lacks foresight. It lacks full consideration of the consequences of the Bill for families for whom legal funding is not available, legal advice is not affordable and mediation is unlikely to be suitable. The cost of mediation is currently estimated by the Government to be between £6,000 and £10,000. If the Government’s own figures are right, the research indicates that it is likely to cost £48 million to undertake the mediation proposed. If half of those cases do not succeed in reaching a settlement, we will be left with dealing with them in the court in a way that is unlikely to be helpful if legal advice and support are not made available.
One of the benefits of having had such powerful speeches and it now being so late is that the noble Lord will have one relief: namely, that I do not intend to deal with each and every speech seriatim. I know that that at least is something which will make him smile, although I suppose that nothing else from this debate is likely to. I invite him to take away from this debate the strong expression made by every single speaker that what this Government are proposing is unjust, wrong, and should no longer continue. The noble Lord may think that he will get rejoicing not only in the ranks by further waving the white handkerchief. If that wave is to say he concedes, I can tell him that there will be much rejoicing in heaven.
Lord McNally
My Lords, even at this late stage of the night, the mere appearance of the noble and learned Baroness at the Dispatch Box brings a smile to my face. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, does not feel any jealousy.
Lord McNally
Of course, having listened to a debate dominated by what I acknowledge is a great deal of expertise and experience in this area, I will go away to ponder and think about what has been said, and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. At this time of night, like the noble Baroness I think it is better if I put on the record our approach and we can then resume on Wednesday.
Amendments 33, 34, 39, 40, 41, 51, 52, 79B, 80, 80A, 82A, 82B and 82C all concern legal aid for children and young people, or people with dependent children. Others refer to the use of mediation in family cases. While—as I have said—I acknowledge the expertise and experience on display today, and while I understand what motivates these amendments, I ask the House in turn to acknowledge the economic realities behind the difficult decisions that we have been forced to take.
As the House is well aware, the Government’s approach has been to look at every area of law where legal aid is provided, and to consider whether it should continue, and in what form. In developing our proposals, we have considered carefully a number of factors, including: the importance and complexity of the issue; the litigant’s ability to present their own case; the availability of alternative sources of funding; and the availability of other routes to resolution. We have used these factors to prioritise funding so that civil legal services will be available in the highest priority cases; for example, where people’s life or liberty is at stake, where they are at risk of serious physical harm or immediate loss of their home, or for domestic violence remedies, or where children may be taken into care.
A number of noble Lords have drawn inferences that this is a cruel and uncaring Government; as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, a government for the sharp elbowed. Let me just put on record at this stage and remind noble Lords that even after our reforms are in place we will still be spending £120 million of funding per year for private family law, including domestic violence; an extra £10 million per year on mediation; £50 million on categories of social welfare law; £6 million on clinical negligence; and £2 million on education. That is why I sometimes bridle at suggestions that we are destroying the legal aid system. We are trying to manage an overall cut in legal aid that will still leave us with—as I have said before—one of the most generous legal aid systems in the world.
Amendment 33 applies to all civil and family proceedings, and seeks to bring into scope civil legal services for many areas of law that are excluded where the individual has a child who is dependent on them. The intention appears to be that this group of people should receive civil legal services because of the potential impact on their children of the withdrawal of legal aid. The amendment would retain funding across the board for people with dependent children, without regard to the relative priority and alternative methods of resolving disputes, and would lose the bulk of the £170 million of annual savings, as most family law cases involve a respondent or applicant who has dependent children. It would also significantly impact on the £110 million saving in other areas of civil law. We have not sought simply to retain legal aid for any case where the individual has a child. Doing so would mean expending limited funds on a range of cases: some important, some not as important and some where alternative ways of resolving the dispute would be preferable. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
Amendment 79B would bring all civil non-family matters within scope for children, with the exception of work relating to breach of a statutory duty, the making of wills, trust law and business cases. Amendment 82C seeks to bring into scope civil legal services covering welfare benefits, debt, housing and employment for those aged 24 or under or who are represented by a legal guardian. Amendment 82B seeks to bring into scope civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings where the person is a care leaver under the age of 21 in wide-ranging civil and family areas specified in the amendment. Amendment 79B would mean that nearly all civil cases would be brought into scope if the applicant were a child. It is worth making it absolutely clear that in civil cases, claims brought in the name of a child are usually conducted by their parents acting as the child’s litigation friend rather than by the child themselves. This accords with the normal rules of civil litigation. The civil justice system as a whole does not generally require children to act on their own behalf.
I turn now to the rest of the amendments in the group. Providing blanket funding for all cases where the child or young person is the applicant would be costly, unnecessary and might create perverse incentives for parents to attempt to bring civil litigation in their children's name purely to secure funding in otherwise out-of-scope areas of law. The Government recognise the importance of funding in a range of cases where children's interests are paramount. This is reflected in the decisions that we have reached. As a result we have protected funding in areas that specifically involve children. We have retained legal aid for child protection cases, civil cases concerning the abuse of a child, and for cases concerning special educational needs assistance. We have also made special provision so that legal aid will be available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings.
There will also be an exceptional funding scheme that will ensure the protection of an individual's rights 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. Each case will be decided on its own facts, but in cases where Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged, the ability of the client to present their own case, the complexity of the issues and the importance of the issues at stake will be relevant factors when a decision is taken on whether to grant exceptional funding. Therefore, where a child brings an action without a litigation friend, this will be an important factor in deciding whether they have the ability to present their case.
Amendments 80 and 80A seek to bring into scope civil legal services for any person who is under 24 and has a disability. They include but do not limit themselves to particular areas of scope that are excluded. Amendment 82A seeks to bring into scope civil legal services in relation to advice and proceedings for any person who is 24 or under and has a disability or lacks mental capacity. We have considered the point that the amendment makes about legal aid for those with disabilities. The equality impact assessment published alongside the Government’s response to consultation sets out our analysis of the potential effects that the reforms may have on people sharing protected characteristics in accordance with the public sector equality duty set out in the Equality Act 2010. We have acted consistently with that duty, one requirement of which is to have due regard to the impact on groups of different ages and those with different needs, such as disabilities. While we have identified the potential for the reforms to have greater impacts on some groups, we believe that those impacts are proportionate and justified by the need to meet our objectives, including the pressing need to make savings from legal aid.
Lord Howarth of Newport
As this issue came up in an earlier debate, will the Minister explain to the Committee how it is that his policies that he acknowledges will have an impact on disabled people are not discriminatory and therefore legally offensive?
Lord McNally
They are not legally offensive. We have been honest right from the first day I answered questions. I go back again to this, which is something that the noble Lord in his many, many interventions never acknowledges. If you are making cuts in such an area that is directed at the poorer sections of society, of course, you will affect the poorer sections of society. But what will also affect the poorer sections of society is if you lose control of the economy and are forced to bring in further draconian cuts over which you have no control. We will return, as we have done, through six or seven parallel debates with the same briefings and research from the same organisations. We have a fundamental difference of opinion on how to tackle these problems. I am not even sure that the noble Lord is quite on message at least with the latest pronouncements from his Front Bench in the other place about what we are facing in these matters. I suspect that we will have further discussions on this.
The Bill contains important safeguards for children and adults who lack capacity and who require treatment for mental health issues. Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 provides that legal aid may be made available for cases arising under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including cases concerning medical treatment of patients or those who lack capacity. Furthermore, paragraphs 9 and 15 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide for legal aid for advocacy for mental health cases before the mental health tribunal. Paragraph 4 provides for advocacy before the Court of Protection where there is to be an oral hearing and the case will determine the vital interests of the individual: medical treatment, including psychological treatment; life; liberty; physical safety; the capacity to marry or enter into civil partnerships; the capacity to enter into sexual relations; or the right to family life. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Schedule 1 provide legal aid for advocacy for an onward appeal to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on a mental health or capacity issue that is within scope.
As I have already mentioned, there will also be an exceptional funding scheme that 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.
Amendment 34 applies to all civil and family proceedings. It seeks to bring into scope civil legal services for many areas of law that are excluded for any child party or child represented by legal guardian. I will address the amendment on the basis that the term “legal guardian” means the child’s guardian of the type appointed by CAFCASS. We are already retaining legal aid for child parties in family proceedings which we have prioritised. This part of the amendment is therefore unnecessary. Otherwise the amendment retains funding across the board for children in all civil disputes without regard to their relative priority or alternative methods of resolving them.
As I said, the Government recognise the importance of funding in a range of cases where children’s interests are paramount. That is reflected in the final decisions we have reached. As a result, we have protected funding in areas that specifically involve children. We have also made special provision so that legal aid is available for children who are made parties to private family proceedings.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
I understand that the Minister is trying to give a full response, but in his valiant reply he said that the international child abduction cases were difficult and complex and that domestic abduction cases were not. Will he think again on that issue, not least because the complexity of the issues relating to abduction is similar in both domestic and international cases? Quite often the parents are greatly distressed, very confused and in need of the quick, experienced lawyer who is able to navigate the system. Many lawyers find abduction cases difficult and international cases are not very dissimilar. Will the Minister take back to the department that the belief that domestic cases may be easier than international cases is not quite as it may think it is.
Lord McNally
That is always the problem. If you say that one thing is more difficult it is implied that the others are easier. No, I was not implying that. I take the noble and learned Baroness’s point. One of the more difficult areas is where there is a break-up of a family and a loss of contact. I shall read what has been said and take it back.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Perhaps I may add to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has said. I have listened with interest to what the Minister is saying to us, but he suggested that the police would intervene even without going to court. Will he check as to whether the police are prepared to act in the absence of a court order? My experience, which is now six years out of date, was that the police were not prepared to act unless there was a court order. It would be very helpful if the Minister could find out about that very practical and basic point because it adds a great deal of force to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has said.
Lord McNally
I promise the noble and learned Baroness that I shall go into the Lord Chancellor’s room tomorrow and say, “Baroness Butler-Sloss has asked me to ask you to clarify what you told me”. It is a very serious point. My briefing states that the police would help. She has made a relevant point about whether they would do so without a court order. I have never pretended that my knowledge on these matters was only six years out of date. In fact, my expertise is right up to date because I am learning all the time. I take on board what both noble and learned Baronesses have said, and I will try to explain to the Lord Chancellor that when I stand at the Dispatch Box I am facing a considerable amendment of experience and expertise which, dare I say it, he does not always face in the other place.
Amendment 41 is also open to the argument that it would extend to applications to prevent the child being moved by the parent with whom he or she resides and so put back into the scope of legal aid a very common type of family dispute. It is hard to estimate what effect this would have on our savings, but it would inevitably run into many millions of pounds. However, I will go back. As we know from other aspects of this thing about the rights of fathers—the noble and learned Baroness gave some of the horrific statistics about family break-up—we are touching a very sensitive area and I will raise these matters with my right honourable colleague.
Amendment 51 seeks to guarantee the availability of legal aid, subject to the means and merits test, for every family dispute that is not resolved by mediation. In considering the effect of this amendment, it is important to remember that both privately paying and publicly funded clients are already required to consider mediation before bringing proceedings. Given those existing requirements, it is difficult to see how this amendment would do anything other than maintain the status quo, retaining legal aid for all or most family cases. That would completely undermine our targeted approach to legal aid reform. We have to reduce expenditure on legal aid, but we also want less reliance on litigation as a means of solving problems. This amendment would do the opposite. If the fact that mediation had not resolved the parties’ differences were to become a route to legal aid, it would have the unintended consequence of discouraging people from paying more than lip service to the mediation process and reducing genuine engagement with it.
The Government’s position is clear. We believe that it is right to encourage families, where appropriate, to resolve their disputes without going to court. Accordingly, for most divorces, child contact applications or ancillary applications to divide up the family assets, legal aid will no longer be available. We want to prioritise mediation, which can be cheaper, quicker and less acrimonious than contested court proceedings. Legal aid will therefore remain available for mediation in private law family cases. We estimate that we will spend an extra £10 million on mediation, taking the total to £25 million a year.
However, we accept that mediation might not be suitable in every case, such as those involving domestic violence. Legal aid will remain available for private family cases where there is evidence of domestic violence and cases where a child is at risk of abuse. We will be turning to the matter of domestic violence on Wednesday. I want to make clear that funding for victims of domestic violence seeking a protective order will remain available as at present; that is, we will continue to provide civil legal aid where a person is applying for an order for protection against domestic violence, such as a non-molestation order or an occupation order. We will also continue to waive the financial eligibility limits in these cases. Again, 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 the rights to legal aid that are directly enforceable under European law.
Amendment 52 is aimed at providing legal aid for any adult party in family proceedings where a child party may give oral evidence, presumably to prevent cross-examination of the child by the alleged perpetrator. I understand the concerns which the noble Baroness who moved the amendment is trying to address here, but we are seeking to ensure funding for the most vulnerable in society. We do not think that to automatically extend funding to an alleged perpetrator fits well with this. It would be a mistake to assume that the only means of protection for the prospective witness is funding representation for the prospective questioner.
The situation which the noble and learned Baroness seeks to address can already occur in the courts. Should a victim of abuse face questioning from their abuser, judges have powers and training to manage the situation, to make sure that the court’s process is not abused and that hearings at which oral evidence is given are handled sensitively. In family proceedings, for example, the court is specifically empowered to limit cross-examination—it can have questions relayed to the witness rather than asked directly—and can use video links and intervene to prevent inappropriate questioning.
That brings me to the end of that list. I am not waving a white handkerchief and making specific concessions, but I take the point made by the noble and learned Baroness in closing that this has been an array of experience and expertise that we would do well to consider, and this we will do before we bring these matters back on Report. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who started this debate, whether she will now withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Loan
I thank the Minister for his comments, and I am glad to hear that he will reflect further upon this very wide-ranging debate, in which the consequences of the proposed legislation have been so well articulated on all sides of the House. I am not persuaded by what the Minister has said—that it is right, necessary or proportionate that there should be a whole-scale removal of the availability of legal aid to families with dependent children, when there is such a huge range of issues of vital importance, such as basic family income.
The Government suggest that we may save £270 million, but we know already that those figures are very questionable. Careful analysis suggests that the consequences of this part of the Bill will be a much greater involvement of social services, housing authorities, welfare services, the criminal justice system, education services, and, I fear, ultimately the health service.
The Minister has not persuaded me that the drafters of this Bill have had sufficient regard to the needs of the child and of the family to which the child belongs. We may need to return to the matter on Report. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw.