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
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
1. What recent progress he has made towards securing the release of Shaker Aamer from Guantanamo Bay.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The British Government remain committed to securing Shaker Aamer’s release and return to the United Kingdom. I raised his case again with Secretary Clinton during my visit to Washington on 12 December. My officials are currently exploring the new US legislation on detainee transfers for the implications for this case.
Jane Ellison
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer and for the continued efforts of the Government on Mr Aamer’s behalf. Obviously, it has been 10 years so I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could say more to the House about what he considers to be the roadblocks to release and whether he has given any consideration to asking international bodies, such as the United Nations, to support the British Government in their efforts to release Mr Aamer.
Mr Hague
This is a matter for the United States, not for international authorities. My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties; there have been no transfers out from Guantanamo since the National Defence Authorisation Act, passed in 2010, all but precluded transfers from Guantanamo Bay. The Act has recently been renewed for 2012, with some amendments, which is why we are looking at its implications. We have asked about Mr Aamer’s health and welfare, and have been assured that he is in reasonable health, has access to medical treatment and is not held in solitary confinement.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the outcome of the International Conference on Afghanistan in Bonn; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Bonn conference, which I attended last month, reaffirmed the international community’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan after 2014, through economic support, a plan for funding the Afghan national security forces and a clear set of principles for reconciliation. The Afghan Government committed themselves to progressing their development priorities and upholding their human rights obligations.
Susan Elan Jones
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his response. Can he tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that women’s human rights are maintained when UK and US troops are drawn down?
Mr Hague
We gave a great deal of attention to that at the Bonn conference. The ministerial champion for tackling violence against women and girls overseas attended the civil society events, and I am pleased to say that 50% of the Afghan delegation to the civil society forum were female and a leading female civil society representative presented views at the main conference. The importance of the rights of women and their involvement was centre stage at the Bonn conference, and we assisted in that process.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The Government’s stated policy objective in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda and other extremists bases from which they can attack the UK and other British interests. In a letter to me of 6 December, copied to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, referring to the threat from al-Qaeda, said that
“while the threat is not on the scale it once was…it does nevertheless remain a serious concern.”
Does that, which can only be interpreted as a downgrading of the threat in Afghanistan, have any impact on the timetable for withdrawal?
Mr Hague
We hope all the time that we are making progress against the threat in Afghanistan, and there is no doubt that in recent times al-Qaeda has suffered very serious damage and setbacks in Afghanistan and its vicinity. That threat is not over, as my hon. Friend was saying, but our efforts to improve security in Afghanistan continue, and it is a combination of our assessment of that threat and the need for continued political progress in Afghanistan to stabilise its regions. It is our assessment of a combination of all those factors that leads to our decisions on troop levels, with a decision for 2012, which we recently announced.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The developmental teams that will remain after the British military ceases operations in Afghanistan are in danger of becoming top targets for insurgents. Did my right hon. Friend receive any indication from his American counterparts that they envisaged retaining some military capability in strategic bases in Afghanistan after 2014?
Mr Hague
The military position after 2014 is under discussion. Indeed, I discussed it this morning with General Allen, commander of the international security assistance force, and important decisions will be made at the NATO summit in Chicago in May next year. We do not envisage that development work in Afghanistan will be without security after 2014. As my hon. Friend knows, we are building up Afghan forces, which are several hundred thousand-strong, in addition to the potential for military co-operation from other states. The position on that will become clearer after the NATO meeting in Chicago.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The threat from al-Qaeda and the training that takes place in Pakistan is high. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Pakistani authorities to reduce the threat of al-Qaeda crossing the border into Afghanistan?
Mr Hague
We are always in discussion with Pakistan about that subject, and I have many discussions with the Pakistani Foreign Minister about it. We have regular contact at military level, as well as between the Prime Minister of our country and the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistan’s own long struggle against terrorism is always high on that agenda, and we should recognise the efforts that it has made in that regard: huge numbers—perhaps 30,000 people—have died as a result of terrorist activity in Pakistan over the past 10 years. We look to Pakistan to maintain those efforts.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
4. What his role would be in a national emergency.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I would support the Prime Minister and the Government in their response, particularly in an international dimension.
Mr Bone
The Foreign Secretary might have a problem with that. Is it true that under Government contingency plans if the Prime Minister were killed in a terrorist attack it would be the Foreign Secretary who took charge of the Government until the Queen could choose a new Prime Minister?
Mr Hague
I can assure my hon. Friend that continuity of government plans are in place to deal with any catastrophic destabilising incident. I know that he has asked the same question of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, and the answer is the same: we do not consider it appropriate to talk about these plans in public, but I can assure him that arrangements are in place for any such contingency. I cannot guarantee that there will be a place in the bunker for Mrs Bone, I am afraid.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of economic conditions in the EU.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
The crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect throughout Europe, which is why this Government are arguing vigorously within the European Union for action to promote growth by deepening the single market, boosting trade and cutting red tape.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that it is important that policies are enacted at EU level to encourage economic growth? Measures designed to help drive sustainable economic recovery, such as exempting micro-businesses from the burden of red tape, would have positive implications for all Government Departments across the 27 member states, including his own.
Mr Lidington
I agree completely with my hon. Friend, which is why the agreement at the December European Council for an exemption from European regulations for micro-business was particularly welcome, especially as that will apply not only to new European legislation but will prompt a review of the existing acquis in respect of micro-businesses.
Mr Spencer
Can the Minister assure the House that the principles of the Prime Minister’s veto will be followed through, and that any attempt by the EU to impose a tax on this country’s financial services will be vigorously resisted?
Mr Lidington
A financial transfer tax would require unanimous agreement by all 27 member states, which is something that the single market Commissioner, Monsieur Barnier, has confirmed to me. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we would not agree to the imposition of such a tax.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the EU economy of the recent behaviour of the Hungarian Government? Has he reminded that Government that there is an expectation that all EU members adhere to normal democratic norms?
Mr Lidington
We are certainly concerned about any developments in other EU member states which might lead to even greater economic instability than we currently see. I have talked about the concerns expressed in a number of quarters with regard to Hungarian legislation with my Hungarian opposite number and with the Commission. As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the Commission is due to release the results of its assessment about now. The Hungarian Government have said that they will consider carefully and constructively the comments that the Commission makes, whatever they are, and I believe that that is the right way forward.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It has been reported that the Foreign Secretary advised the Prime Minister before the European Union summit in December that if it is a choice between keeping the euro together or keeping the Conservative party together, it is in the national interest to keep the Conservative party together. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary regards the unity of his party as more important to the national interest than the success or failure of our largest trading partner?
Mr Lidington
I really had hoped that the hon. Lady would have something a bit better to say than that. What the Government are determined to do is to support our allies and neighbours in the eurozone in their efforts to restore economic stability to their currency union, and also to press for the measures to promote job creation and economic growth which the whole of Europe desperately needs. We are not prepared to take lectures from the Labour party that signed away £7 billion of the British rebate and denied the people of this country the referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which it had promised.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the gloom about the consequences of an early break-up of the euro has been greatly exaggerated, bearing in mind the very positive economic experience for eastern European countries from the break-up of the rouble zone—very similar to the euro—in the early 1990s?
Mr Lidington
I have to say that it is unusual to find my right hon. Friend looking to the example of the former Soviet Union for inspiration. We have looked across Government very carefully at what the consequences of a eurozone break-up might be, and one of the key differences between now and 20 years ago is that the economies and the financial systems of Europe are much more closely interlinked now than they were then. It is certainly our judgment that it would be damaging to the British national interest were a collapse of the eurozone or a prolonged recession in the eurozone to take place.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The credit ratings of a number of eurozone states have been downgraded this week. The bail-out fund is now considered to be far too small to do its job. Mario Monti, Italy’s unelected Prime Minister, said yesterday that there would be a backlash against austerity unless Germany provides more support to Italy. The crisis becomes deeper every day. Is it not the case that recovery for many of those countries can come only when they can recreate national currencies, devalue and start to grow again?
Mr Lidington
With respect to the hon. Gentleman—his views on the subject are utterly consistent and I respect them—that is a matter for the peoples and Governments of those sovereign countries. From our point of view, what is needed is for the eurozone countries to implement in full the deal that they agreed to in October last year, and for Europe collectively at 27 to move forward urgently with deepening the single market, boosting global trade and cutting red tape and regulation on our businesses. That is the way to growth and jobs.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
6. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on bilateral relations with Brazil of that country having overtaken the UK as the sixth largest economy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
The continued rise and success of emerging powers like Brazil present a great opportunity for our bilateral relationship. This Government have already shifted resources there. The Foreign Secretary will be leaving this evening for a visit to Brazil. In November I opened a new consulate-general in Recife in Brazil’s fastest growing region.
Jo Swinson
With the world’s fifth largest population and sixth largest economy, Brazil is an important economic power and a key market for expanding British trade, so the Foreign Secretary’s visit is welcome. It is also an increasingly important diplomatic power, so what can the Government do to encourage Brazil to play a positive leadership role on global issues such as climate change, human rights and democracy?
Mr Browne
That precise point will be central to the Foreign Secretary’s talks with the Brazilian Foreign Secretary in Brasilia tomorrow, but as an illustration of the seriousness with which we treat this relationship, let me tell the House that last year there were 14 ministerial visits to Brazil, whereas in the previous three years combined there were just 10 ministerial visits. So we are affording Brazil four times the amount of ministerial attention that the previous Government did.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our trade at £5.2 billion in 2010 offers scope for considerable increase? What more can his Department do, particularly through UK Trade & Investment, to forge better links with the Brazilians in order to increase that trade?
Mr Browne
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The economies of Latin America and Asia are growing fast and becoming increasingly important, which is why the British Government are determined to double trade with Brazil in the lifetime of this Parliament and why we are expanding the network of diplomatic and trade staff across Brazil, including opening a new consulate-general in the north-east of the country in November.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Palestinian National Authority on rocket attacks on Israel.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I met the President of the Palestinian Authority yesterday. We are extremely concerned about the recent escalations of violence, including Israeli air strikes on Gaza and rocket attacks by Palestinian groups on Israel. We condemn any actions in which civilians are hurt or killed and have called on all sides to show restraint and avoid a spiral of retaliation.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that response. In order to move to a two-state solution in the region, did he stress in his conversations yesterday the importance for Palestinian unity of recognising the Israeli state and bringing an end to the rocket attacks?
Mr Hague
Of course, that is extremely important, particularly when one considers the number of rocket attacks—it is reported that 758 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel in 2011. We certainly discussed Palestinian reconciliation and the fact that any Palestinian Authority constituted as a result must be able to work with Israel towards a two-state solution. I strongly welcomed the initiative of His Majesty the King of Jordan in bringing Palestinians and Israelis together in recent weeks for discussions. That is a positive development that we want to see continue.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s reply to the previous question. With Hamas raining many hundreds of missiles upon Israel, can the Government do more to try to stop weaponry being smuggled through tunnels into Gaza, and does he agree that the more missiles come over, the harder it is to make peace?
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary met the Palestinian President yesterday. In my later discussions with the President, he was at pains to emphasise the urgent need to make substantive progress in the coming days in the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary mentioned are taking place in Jordan. In the light of this urgency, when did the Foreign Secretary last speak with his Israeli counterpart and what steps are the British Government taking to ensure that ongoing Israeli settlement expansion is not allowed to be a reason for these crucial talks to be derailed?
Mr Hague
I also spoke yesterday to the Israeli Government, to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Meridor—I speak sometimes to him and sometimes to my counterpart, Mr Lieberman. On this occasion I called Mr Meridor to stress the need for Israel to respond positively in the negotiations and put forward its own proposals, and I made the case, as I have often done in this House, that Israel needs to make a more decisive and generous offer than we have seen for some years in order to be able to make progress. The Israeli Government are in no doubt about our views and we urge both sides to continue with these talks and not to be so wedded to the 26 January deadline that the opportunity to continue the talks is lost.
Mr Alexander
I welcome the tenor of yesterday’s conversation with Deputy Prime Minister Meridor. In an earlier answer the Foreign Secretary mentioned the reconciliation process within the Palestinian community. Alongside the immediate prospects for the latest round of talks, will he give the Government’s assessment of the possible implications of a deal reached between Hamas and Fatah? Given Hamas’s stated position on Israel and the peace process, will he also give an undertaking that any internal political agreement reached within the Palestinian community needs to be assessed in terms of the external political implications on the prospects for peace in the wider region?
Mr Hague
I agree with that. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is very important that the Palestinian Authority are constituted in a way that allows them to conduct negotiations with Israel. That includes, importantly, recognising the previous agreements entered into by the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and that is a key point, so we hope that that will be continue to be the position of the Palestinian Authority. Of course, reconciliation is meant to pave the way for elections among Palestinians, and we cannot at this stage pre-judge or predict the outcome of those elections.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is right to call for temperance on all sides, but does he agree that it is unacceptable for senior officials and members of the Palestinian Authority to continue to attend cultural events at which individuals call for the end of the state of Israel, and that it is wrong for those officials to support sporting events named after “martyrs”—people who have murdered innocent Israeli citizens?
Mr Hague
We do not support any delegitimisation of the state of Israel. We are friends of Israel, and we support the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but we believe that that peace and security is best served by urgent moves towards a two-state solution, and that always guides our policy.
Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)
8. If he will make representations to the Government of Israel on the increase in demolition of Palestinian homes in the west bank in 2011.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
I do make representations on the demolition of homes, and I will continue to do so. I was in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories last week, and it gave me an opportunity to see some of those who are subject to demolition orders, including the Bedouin community outside Jerusalem, and to visit such people in the Negev as well. I had the opportunity also to raise those issues directly with Israeli Ministers.
Mrs Riordan
Is the Minister aware that the number of Palestinian homes demolished by the Israelis last year rose by 38%, and that the number of displaced Palestinians doubled? Does he agree that that is hardly the sign of a Government intent on peace settlements on the basis of the 1967 borders, and that it would send a signal to the Israelis if the UK Government supported the Palestinian bid to join the United Nations?
Alistair Burt
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s remarks, I am very conscious of the numbers, as indeed are many Members because of the representations that have been made to us. It is a very serious issue, which we take up regularly with the Israeli authorities. The movement and settlement of people is a hugely divisive political issue, and it is one reason why we have pressed both sides to move towards a settlement, because that is the only thing that will ultimately ensure that all those who live in Israel and in the Palestinian territory can live in peace and security.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the demolition of Palestinian homes and the continued construction of settlements on the west bank, not to mention the construction of new houses in East Jerusalem, will make it increasingly difficult to establish a viable Palestinian state and, in turn, make it impossible to reach a two-state solution?
Alistair Burt
I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s concerns, and that is why we have repeatedly made clear to all our view that we regard illegal settlement building as contrary to the interests of peace building. It is a matter that must be addressed. It is vital to the division of land in the area, and that is why we constantly raise it.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
How many Israeli settlements does the Minister think need to be built on Palestinian land before the chance for peace is destroyed?
Alistair Burt
The numbers are not a matter for the United Kingdom. What we do say, and say very clearly, is that building on occupied Palestinian land is illegal in international law and has been held to be so in some cases by Israeli law. That is why we regard the issue as an obstacle to peace, unless it is dealt with. It is vital that it is part of the negotiations, and that is why we wish very well the current efforts being made in Amman.
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
Following the recent leaked internal EU report expressing concerns about the west bank, will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Israeli Government—and I understand that there is fault on both sides—that the construction of housing units in and around Jerusalem is counter-productive to the peace process?
Alistair Burt
The issue of East Jerusalem is particularly difficult. For there to be a viable two-state solution and a shared capital, it is essential that East Jerusalem retains its Arab character. That is why we are so concerned about the settlement building there. The Government of Israel are well aware of our concerns, which we make very clear. I repeat to the House that, as we all know, this matter must be included in the overall settlement, the basics of which we hope are being discussed by the parties with great intent in Amman at the moment.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Last week, Israeli forces cut off access to the village of Khan al-Ahmar, a Bedouin community just outside Jerusalem where a school was built using international donations. Is that an example of something that must be unacceptable? Given the international character of Khan al-Ahmar, what representations can the UK Government make to get the Israeli Government to change their mind on the matter?
Alistair Burt
By happenstance, I was at the village and saw the obstruction of access take place. It was an unannounced visit as far as the authorities were concerned. Effectively, an Armco barrier was built across the access road that leads to a major highway. It was not immediately clear where the alternative access could be, except via a hill with an extremely steep gradient behind the village. That very lunchtime, I was able to make representations to the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, about the circumstances. This is precisely the sort of thing that raises concerns among the international community and makes it difficult for the Bedouin in that area to feel secure.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
9. What steps he plans to take in response to recent reports of human rights abuses by the Government of Russia.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
We will continue to raise concerns about human rights with Russia at ministerial and official levels. We shall sponsor a number of observers at the forthcoming Russian presidential election that is due in March.
Mr Raab
I thank the Minister for that answer. With the US Senate due to approve the bipartisan Magnitsky Bill, which will impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on those responsible for gross human rights abuses, and with similar proposals in the Netherlands and Canada, will he look at the case for bringing forward an equivalent Bill in this House?
Mr Lidington
As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) in Westminster Hall the other day, if the American Bill, which I understand is at committee stage in the Senate, eventually becomes law, we will look closely to see whether there are lessons on which we might draw. My hon. Friend will know that we have powers in this country to ban any person from coming to the United Kingdom if there are grounds for concern about their character, conduct or associations.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
When the Minister is making representations in Moscow about human rights in Russia, will he raise with the Russians, who have a pivotal role at the United Nations, the human rights abuses in Syria, because if Russia unblocked its present position at the United Nations, it would allow real pressure to be brought on the Syrian regime?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We obviously talk a great deal to Russia about the situation in Syria. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, within the past few weeks, has talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov about Syria, including to pass on our great concern about the systematic abuse of human rights in that country.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
Although the respect for human rights in Russia may be considerably greater than in it was in the Soviet Union, does not the terrible treatment of Mr Magnitsky, his death in custody and the refusal of the Russian authorities to recognise responsibility for what happened suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister should follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and not wait until the United States has reached its conclusion, but do everything in our power to follow a similar course of action?
Mr Lidington
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we have powers in existing law to ban people from coming to this country on the grounds that their presence would not be conducive to the public good. He also knows that successive Governments have followed a practice of not commenting on individual cases. His concerns about the abuse of human rights in Russia are, however, well made. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and all Ministers, when they meet Russian counterparts, always make a point of raising human rights matters.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
10. What representations he has made to the President of Colombia on protection for trade unionists and human rights activists in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with President Santos during his visit to the United Kingdom in November. I chaired a discussion between the President and non-governmental organisations, which included the security of human rights defenders in Colombia, and the President reiterated his commitment to improving Colombia’s human rights situation.
Yvonne Fovargue
There is real concern that people are still being imprisoned in Colombia for trade union activity. What assessment has the Minister made of that situation, and what representations have been made?
Mr Browne
I share the hon. Lady’s observation that there are real concerns about human rights abuses in Colombia. We do not pretend otherwise, and we actually spend a lot of time and money on trying to improve the situation. The President has made that point, and he acknowledges our concerns. It is fair to recognise that improvements have been made in recent years, but many further improvements still need to be made and we are actively working to try to bring them about.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not the case that the greatest human right of all is the right to life and that under the Administration of President Uribe and now that of President Santos the demobilisation of the FARC guerrilla group, reducing it from tens of thousands to 9,000 today, has brought about a new era of peace and prosperity in Colombia that is good not only for Colombia but for Latin America and for our bilateral relations?
Mr Browne
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The murder rate in Colombia has fallen dramatically. It is still very high by European standards, but it is nevertheless a lot lower than it previously was. I am delighted that the Colombian President signed a joint declaration on human rights when he was in London a couple of months ago, and we had the opportunity to talk about how we can enhance Colombia’s prosperity and trade opportunities, which are also important for its development.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
11. What support the Government are giving to the development of democracy in Tunisia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
Having delivered bilateral support in Tunisia during the election process through help on voter outreach and through the United Nations Development Programme generally, the United Kingdom continues through its Arab Partnership to support efforts to rebuild democracy and freedom of expression in Tunisia and strengthen economic reform.
Alistair Burt
It is a good line. The Arab Partnership is interested in working with the Tunisian authorities on what they are looking for by way of re-establishing government. It enables us to draw on resources right across the UK—for example, institutions, NGOs and organisations such as the Local Government Association —that have expertise to offer. The hon. Gentleman certainly makes an interesting suggestion. It has not been raised directly with me in my visits to Tunisia, but I will certainly take it back with me.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Anybody who has been to Tunisia recently will have been impressed by the enthusiasm for the new democracy and the ideals of the revolution, but many challenges remain, particularly in the economy. What material resources and assistance are the UK Government therefore giving the constituent assembly in the drafting of the new constitution?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to put the focus on the economy. When we talk about the changes that have taken place in the Arab world we concentrate on the political, but unless the economics are right they will undermine the political changes that have been made. The UK provides support multilaterally through the G8, the Deauville partnership and the European neighbourhood partnership, and we have offered support for capacity building right across the board, including on constitution drafting and issues affecting economic reform.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Loathing of corruption was the immediate catalyst of the Arab spring, but the Tunisian Association for Financial Transparency states that the British Government need to do more to assist the current Tunisian Government by providing information, particularly about finance in the British overseas territories and the transactions of the previous Tunisian Government. What discussions has the Minister had with the current Tunisian Government about access to the British overseas territories and their finances?
Alistair Burt
I have had no discussions in the terms that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I know that one part of the assistance that we are already actively providing is to the anti-corruption unit in the Tunisian Government. It has already taken advice and support from the UK on that matter. I will consider what the hon. Gentleman says specifically about the overseas territories, but so far that issue has not been raised with Ministers.
Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)
12. What assessment he has made of political progress in Burma; and if he will make a statement.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
14. What assessment he has made of his recent visit to Burma; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I draw the House’s attention to the written statement on my visit to Burma, which was published yesterday. Last week, the Burmese Government and the Karen National Union signed a historic ceasefire. The following day, there was a significant release of political prisoners, which will contribute to greater democratic participation in the parliamentary by-elections. If that momentum can be maintained, we are clearly moving into a new phase in our relations with Burma.
Mr Gyimah
As my right hon. Friend says, the release of 651 political prisoners by the Myanmar Government is a major political statement and certainly one that is to be commended. What confidence does he have that all political prisoners will be released in time for the elections in April this year?
Mr Hague
The importance of the timing of last week’s announcement is that yesterday—16 January—was the date for any candidates to register to participate in the 1 April elections in Burma. The release of so many prisoners is therefore an important move ahead of those elections.
My hon. Friend is quite right to ask about other political prisoners. Our assessment is that of the 651 prisoners released on Friday, between 270 and 283 could be considered political prisoners. That means that political prisoners remain, although it must be said that there are definitional disputes over what a political prisoner is between the Burma Government and opposition groups. However, we of course look for the release of all political prisoners in Burma while welcoming that move as a major step forward.
Dr Huppert
All Members of the House support the release of the political prisoners and share the concern that there are still so many. However, I understand that the released prisoners have not been pardoned, but simply had their sentences suspended. What assurances has the Foreign Secretary had that they will be pardoned and kept out of prison rather than being re-arrested shortly?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right about the details, although that seems to be the effective way for the President of Burma to secure the release of the prisoners—the laws allowed him to act decisively to release a large number of prisoners. Of course, let me make it absolutely clear that the improvement in relations between Burma, our country and many other countries would come to a very rapid halt and go into reverse were those prisoners to be taken back into custody, but the President of Burma said to me when I was there 10 days ago that Burma’s progress to democracy is irreversible, and all the Ministers I met said that all political prisoners would be released.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I welcome the changes and developments with the Karen people, they are far from the only ethnic minority within Burma with which there have been a lot of tensions and difficulties, as the Foreign Secretary will know. Despite progress in some areas, there has been an increase in attacks on other peoples. What discussions did he have on other ethnic minorities and what pressure is he putting on Burma to ensure that every ethnic grouping is included in the democracy that we hope is developing there?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is quite right: although what has happened in relation to the Karen people is important, other ethnic conflicts continue. I held a meeting with ethnic representatives from around Burma in Rangoon on my visit there and raised this wider matter with the Government at all the meetings I had with them. I also announced an additional £2 million of humanitarian assistance for displaced people in Kachin state, where fighting continues. It is important for the Government of Burma to understand that resolving the conflicts more widely around the borders and ethnic areas remains important.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Opposition join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming the release of political prisoners in Burma although, as he has acknowledged, many hundreds of men and women remain in prison there for their political beliefs. Will he tell the House what he did to push the Burmese regime to allow greater access for the world’s media, particularly in the run-up to the elections in April, now that restrictions have started to be lifted?
Mr Hague
I made the point to Government Ministers there that part of the essential opening up to the rest of the world is access for media representatives. Indeed, on my visit I was able to facilitate that access for the first time and to ensure that BBC correspondents could go to places or get invited to press conferences to which they would not previously have been invited. Each international visit helps to prise open to a greater extent the media’s access to Burma. We will continue with those efforts.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
Will the Foreign Secretary join me in extending continued support to the pro-democracy campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi?
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
13. What steps he is taking to support the unlocking of Libyan assets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
The United Kingdom continues to play a leading part in working with the Libyan authorities on the recovery of assets through the alleviation of sanctions. On 16 December, the United Nations was able to lift the sanctions on the Central Bank of Libya and on the Libyan Arab Foreign bank, which released some £6.5 billion worth of assets in Britain alone for the use of the Libyan people.
Mr Reed
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In October last year, the Foreign Secretary noted in a letter that
“the countries of the Arab League will play an important part in providing the support the Libyan Government requires to rebuild the Libyan economy”.
Will the Minister tell us what recent assessment he and his Department have made of the contribution of the Arab League member countries to the economic recovery in Libya to date, and what form he expects it to take in the future?
Alistair Burt
The Arab League, in conjunction with the rest of the international community, played a vital part in ensuring the freedom of the people of Libya, and that support continues to be evident. The Libyan Government are establishing themselves and building their capacity to handle the recovery of assets and to determine the way in which they can be used. Accordingly, they are in discussions with ourselves and with Arab League partners, which are being effective. This is a process in which we are all engaged.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the problems with liberal imperialist wars is that once they are over, we lose interest in their victims. I have already drawn attention to the United Nations report on the plight of the 7,000 prisoners who are being held by the current Libyan Government in the most appalling conditions and undergoing torture and many other dreadful things. What are this Government doing about that?
Alistair Burt
This Government do not lose sight of the victims of this conflict. The conditions of those in detention have been raised by Ministers on visits, and directly with the Libyan Government. It is a matter for them to be able to create the processes to determine the future of those detainees. The commitment to human rights is absolute, regardless of how those in Libya were taken prisoner, captured or anything else. The United Kingdom stands four square behind that, and so does the national transitional council, which has made clear its own concerns, as well as its determination to deal with the issue of detainees through appropriate free and fair judicial processes as quickly as possible.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
This week, I am visiting Brazil as part of our efforts to transform our engagement with emerging powers in Latin America. I will also co-chair the UK-Caribbean ministerial forum, which will reinvigorate our historic ties with those countries.
Margot James
Islamic fundamentalist violence has been increasing in Nigeria for more than a decade, and has now erupted beyond the northern region. What does my right hon. Friend think can be done to counteract this threat to Nigeria and to sub-Saharan Africa as a whole?
Mr Hague
We are focusing on that threat. We are sharing with Nigeria our expertise on counter-terrorism policy and on legal frameworks. We are also providing assistance with specific capabilities such as managing the consequences of a terrorist attack. In all of this, we are in close touch with our partners in the European Union and the United States. We are also supporting programmes in the north of Nigeria to address the root causes of insecurity, such as poverty and social inequality.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary give the House his assessment of the calls by leading members of the Free Syrian army for the Arab League to refer the issue of Syria to the United Nations Security Council? In the light of the difficulties encountered by the Arab League observer mission, and on the basis of the aforementioned discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov, does the Foreign Secretary believe that there is any realistic prospect of the Russian Government altering their stance on Syria?
Mr Hague
I think that it would be right for the Arab League to bring its concerns and any decision that it makes at its forthcoming meetings—it has two coming up, on the 19th and 22nd—to the UN Secretary-General and UN Security Council. Over recent weeks, I have encouraged the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Mr al-Arabi, to bring Arab concerns directly to the Security Council, because I believe that the time is long overdue for the Security Council to be able to speak on Syria with a united voice. The right hon. Gentleman will recall—his question partly referred to this—that when we last tried to do so, on 4 October, our resolution was vetoed by Russia and China. I am not optimistic that the situation with regard to Russia’s attitude would be different at the moment, but we will continue to discuss the matter with Russia. It would help if the Arab League were to come to the UN directly with its concerns.
Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
T2. Will the Foreign Secretary assure the patriotic Falkland Islands that any posturing by the Argentine Government will be met with a very firm response?
Mr Hague
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. The view across and in all parts of the House on the Falkland Islands is firm and consistent: we believe in the self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands, and it is their self-determination, of course, that they wish to remain British.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
T4. In line with the recent report by the UN rapporteur on torture, will the Minister condemn the practice by Israel of holding children in solitary confinement, and will he make representations for the release of the 106 children who remain detained within the Israeli military prison system?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt)
We welcome the fact that Israel has recently changed to 18 the age of majority in those territories for criminal jurisdiction, but we have made, and continue to make, representations in relation to children’s rights—the right of audience, the right to interpreters and the like—and from the Dispatch Box recently I said that the practice of shackling children was wrong.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T3. Under the Government’s excellent new human trafficking strategy, the Foreign Office is required to have country business plans obliging ambassadors and high commissioners to take appropriate local action against human trafficking. What action has been taken?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise this matter. We have highlighted to our posts around the world the key commitments in the human trafficking strategy that they can help to deliver. Those include engaging with foreign Governments to ensure that common challenges are identified, and encouraging them to work with us to address those challenges. We have asked each of our posts to identify a single point of contact on human trafficking, and we are working in consultation with colleagues across government and with non-governmental organisations to bring together all the work that is already going on, including on the specific local challenges in each country. He can therefore be assured that our posts across the world are working hard on this.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
T5. What assessment have the Government made of recent calls by the Qatari leadership for Arab states to intervene militarily to stop the bloodshed in Syria, and would the Foreign Secretary support such action?
Mr Hague
That is one view—and an important view, of course, coming from the leadership of a state such as Qatar. As I mentioned in reply to the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), the Arab League is meeting on the 19th and 22nd, so we should not presume that this is the view of the whole Arab League. Although we continue to increase the pressure on the Assad regime and strongly support the Arab League’s work, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have not called for military intervention in Syria, the consequences of which would be far more difficult to foresee than in Libya and the legal authority for which does not exist. As things stand, therefore, this is a distinct case from that of Libya.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
T8. The Foreign Secretary’s previously referred to visit to Brazil this week is welcome and continues his much-needed drive to make trade the cutting edge of British diplomacy. As the balance of world economic activity shifts to the east and the south, would he agree that a blinkered approach to trade inside the European Union is not only very last century but painfully lacking in ambition?
Mr Hague
We need both actually. Given the flat economies in the eurozone and the fact that exports to the eurozone have fallen over recent years, it is doubly important that we develop our export markets across the rest of the world. However, there is also a strong case for driving growth within Europe, through free trade agreements with the rest of the world, by pushing forward the single market in services and digital services and by removing regulatory barriers to growth. The Prime Minister will very much be pushing that agenda at the European Council on 30 January.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
T6. Will the Secretary of State tell us what steps, if any, are being taken to prepare for the possible implications of Iran’s seeking to close the straits of Hormuz?
Mr Hague
As the Defence Secretary pointed out in his speech in Washington a short while ago, any such attempt to close the straits of Hormuz would be illegal and I believe that it would be unsuccessful. It would also be damaging to Iran—to its own economy and its own situation. I think it is important for Iran to desist from statements on this subject and to engage instead with the offer of negotiations with the E3 plus 3 countries. In the meantime, we are working ahead of next week’s Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels to extend sanctions on Iran, including an oil embargo on a phased basis. Work on that is going on now to increase the peaceful pressure on Iran to negotiate.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
T9. What progress is being made on the forthcoming constitutional referendum in Zimbabwe, which will be a prerequisite for free and fair elections in a country that has had more than its fair share of violence and intimidation in elections in the past.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham)
I certainly share my hon. Friend’s concern about continuing persecution, particularly of Movement for Democratic Reform MPs. There was the dreadful case of the recent arrest of Lynette Karenyi allegedly for insulting the President. Obviously, the immediate priority for Zimbabwe is preparation for the referendum on the constitution and making sure that the road map to credible free and fair elections is in place.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
T7. What steps are the Government taking in the coming year further to strengthen the parliamentary systems in our overseas territories?
Mr Bellingham
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) for participating in the mission to observe the British Virgin Islands elections in November. We believe that having observers is good practice for open democracies like ours and the overseas territories. This is highly relevant to the Turks and Caicos Islands where we hope to have elections later this year if the milestones continue to be met.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
While my right hon. Friend strives to halt the tragic loss of life in Syria, will he also be mindful of Harold Macmillan’s advice that one should never underestimate the capacity of a middle eastern state to replace a bad Government by an even worse one—or, may I add, by no effective Government at all, which could create even greater bloodshed?
Mr Hague
It is not only middle eastern states that do this from time to time. I very much take what my right hon. Friend says, but I have to point out that there has been, I think, a better trend than that during the last year, which can be seen if we look at events in Libya and Tunisia and at democratic developments in Morocco and Jordan. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend’s warning is well taken: we always listen to the words of Harold Macmillan and to his.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to read the reports from the Carter Centre, the European Union, the United Nations and the Catholic Church of the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the recent conduct of the presidential elections there and the barely credible reports of a 100% turnout in some areas, which led to President Kabila being declared the winner and the British ambassador attending his inauguration? What representations is the right hon. Gentleman making to the DRC Government concerning those elections and the future of democratic elections in that country?
Mr Bellingham
On the positive side, there was far less violence in these elections than there was in 2006. Furthermore, most voters who wanted to vote could and did vote. I agree, however, with the hon. Gentleman that there were a number of serious irregularities throughout the electoral process. That is why we called on the DRC authorities to investigate them properly and fairly. It is vital that lessons are learned.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
As we discovered during events surrounding the invasion of Iraq, it is essential for states to act only on hard evidence. In relation to Iran, will the Secretary of State encourage not only Iran itself but the whole international community to listen carefully to the International Atomic Energy Agency this time?
Mr Hague
Yes, it is very important to listen carefully to what is said by the International Atomic Energy Authority. As my hon. Friend will know, it was a report from the IAEA which, in November, referred to the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme and the concern that was felt about it. That has fortified our determination—the determination of countries throughout the European Union—to adopt the measures that we will be discussing next week although, as my hon. Friend has said, they must always be based on hard evidence.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the current crisis in Pakistan and its possible implications for our country?
Mr Hague
We have been making a continuous assessment of political events and tensions in Pakistan over recent weeks and days, and we are in close touch with a variety of Pakistani leaders. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi was in Pakistan for several days last week and met many of the leading figures there. We are friends of a democratic Pakistan—across the House we are friends of a democratic Pakistan—and we look to all concerned in both the political and the military leadership to work together to ensure a democratic and constitutional future for their country.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I know that the Foreign Secretary will share my disappointment at the news that the overseas territories have been refused permission to enter a vessel in the diamond jubilee river pageant in June. Will he assure the House that they will be granted full recognition and participation in the diamond jubilee celebrations?
Mr Bellingham
I want to praise my hon. Friend for his indefatigable support for the overseas territories. As he knows, we will shortly publish a White Paper which will discuss how we can reinvigorate our relationship with them, and obviously we want them to participate fully in Her Majesty’s jubilee celebrations.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations can play an important role in encouraging the Burmese to maintain the progress that he described earlier?
Mr Hague
Yes. That is particularly true given that Burma will have the chairmanship of ASEAN in 2014. One of the points that we made to other ASEAN nations at the United Nations General Assembly last year, before Burma’s appointment, was that the country must be pushed in the right direction—the direction in which it is now moving—if it expected to have the chairmanship, and those nations seem to be working well together.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
What steps can be taken to limit the shipment of arms and munitions from Iran in particular to militant groups in Palestine?
Mr Hague
We are very concerned about the shipment of arms by Iran, and about Iran’s consistent support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, but there has been evidence over time of arms shipments from Iran to other parts of the region as well. We will always express our concern about those actions, and will always encourage other countries in the region to live up to their own legal responsibilities to intercept illicit armed shipments. That is certainly happens, but we will always encourage those countries to ensure that it continues.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
What assurances did the Foreign Secretary seek and secure from the Burmese Government that there would be free and fair elections in April?
Mr Hague
That main assurance I sought was that at least a large tranche of political prisoners, but preferably all of them, would be released before the date on which candidates should register for the elections. I warned the president directly that the elections would not be considered free and fair if most political prisoners were still in prison and unable to stand. That is why I am pleased that so many prisoners were released a few days before the deadline for registration. We will now have to judge the circumstances in which those elections take place—to judge whether there is free debate in the media and out in the country—but I can certainly say on the basis of my meeting with the committee of the Mutual League for Democracy that there is real enthusiasm and determination to ensure that such free debate does take place.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
At this sensitive time in relations with Iran, will the Government still do what they can to encourage Iran to improve its record on religious persecution—for instance, in the case of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, who apparently faces a death sentence unless he is prepared to give up his Christian beliefs?
Alistair Burt
My hon. Friend and many other Members have made representations about this matter, and there was a very good debate about it in Westminster Hall last week. We will continue our representations in relation to Pastor Nadarkhani. History tells us that efforts to make people of faith recant their faith are doomed to failure: the faith endures, and the name of the faithful is remembered long after the torturers are forgotten.
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise to any Members who may be disappointed, but the appetite for questioning the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues is invariably insatiable.
Mr Speaker
And unassuaged, as the hon. Gentleman helpfully points out from a sedentary position.
Point of Order
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 12 January, the Russian embassy published on its website a highly personal and inaccurate attack on me. The attack related to a debate the previous day on human rights in Russia and the treatment of Sergei Magnitsky, in which several Members of all parties spoke. I believe this is the first time that a foreign embassy accredited to Her Majesty’s Government has so attacked a Member for carrying out his parliamentary duties. Clearly, the Russian embassy is not covered by the rules of privilege or free expression in Parliament, but I hope, Mr Speaker, that you do not think this is a welcome development, and that Members must be able to say what they think about other countries without coming under pressure or intimidation from embassies and accredited diplomats.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. I certainly agree that no Member of the House should be intimidated in exercising his or her undoubted right to free expression in this House. I might add that although my own imagination is moderately vivid, the idea of the right hon. Gentleman being intimidated by the Russian embassy or anybody else is beyond it.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
They send you bottles of vodka and take you to a Japanese restaurant.
Mr Speaker
If there are no further points of order, or sedentary heckles by the hon. Gentleman, we shall move on to the ten-minute rule Bill.
Sexual Offences (Amendment)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to create an offence of paying for sexual services of a person under the age of 21 years; and for connected purposes.
In talking about this subject, I shall turn directly to the issue of drugs, on which I have frequently spoken before in the House. It is a key issue in respect of the problem the Bill addresses, and I think the Bill will have a positive impact.
Legislation has many purposes, one of which is to change people’s behaviour. Many previous Governments have passed far too much criminal justice legislation that attempts to send messages and give signals to society. This Bill does not attempt to do that; rather, it attempts to change behaviour, which is a far more effective strategy.
There are three main ways in which teenagers, both boys and girls, get drawn into prostitution; one of them is trafficking. The Bill does not deal with that topic in detail, but it has been well aired in this House in recent times. As a result, there has been a flurry of legislation, but it needs to be used far more effectively—both the Government and the police must deliver.
This Bill’s measures would not have a major impact on trafficking, and they should not be considered as an answer to that problem. Instead, they should be seen merely as a minor assist. Trafficking is, however, one way in which teenagers get cajoled into prostitution.
Abuse and drugs are far more significant factors, however, especially with younger teenagers, and the Bill will make a greater impact in dealing with them. Those two factors—sometimes in combination—tend to lead to the dysfunctional behaviour of 16, 17 and 18-year-olds entering the world of prostitution. Sometimes that happens through coercion and sometimes it happens through desperation, although an element of both is often involved.
I wish to start by discussing the issue of abuse. Until the previous general election, I was the Member of Parliament representing Rampton, the largest secure hospital for women—the only secure hospital for women—in this country. I have visited it and talked to staff on numerous occasions, so I am aware that one incredible reality of the women there is that, of course, they are there because they acted in hugely abnormal and horrific ways, and they will often be there for life, but all the evidence suggests that they were abused as children. That is a fact and a reality; it is not an excuse.
In my work on tackling drugs—for better or for worse I have conducted a huge amount of field research, both with organisations and with constituents—I have found that, without question, 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who are getting addicted to drugs are doing so because of major trauma in their lives. A range of major traumas is involved, but the correlation we should always look at first is with abuse as a teenager, be it psychological, physical or sexual. The use of sex becomes a way of generating income within the drug community. It tends initially to be a way of buying or trading drugs, which becomes endemic and then spreads to become a way of obtaining cash, through sex with strangers; this predominantly affects women, but it also affects young boys, too. The problem for the 16, 17 and 18-year-olds who find prostitution to be an easier route to quick money than burglary or robbery and to be more profitable than the easier option of shoplifting is that this dysfunctional activity then traps the addict, much more so than those other behaviours, in a way of life that they cannot get out of.
I am not here to make a moral speech about prostitution. There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, but my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying. I wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21. In essence, that will take all the teenage years out of the real threshold and will change the behaviour of people who are paying. I am not making moral judgments about what people do as adults.
My Bill seeks solely and simply to raise that threshold. I think that doing so will have a huge impact because the age group involved—older teenagers—must be given the space in which to turn around their lives. Our current legislative framework makes them the victims as, in reality, the powers available to the police, even though they are often wisely and deliberately not used, are to arrest and criminalise young people, which worsens their life chances and their chances of turning around the situation.
Explicitly changing the threshold, as well as changing the behaviour of those who are paying, will create space to allow the various agencies to work and turn around the situation for those 16, 17, 18 and 19-year-olds. That situation can then be transformed, particularly for those who have a drug dependency or who have suffered abuse. Such input, as they develop into adults, will make a defining difference in many cases. We have all seen the kinds of people who are the victims in our constituencies; we all know that they can be anyone and that they can be concentrated in areas where there are particular problems. The correlation to major trauma, however, and to abuse and the provision of the support and ability to impact on those young kids—that is what those boys and girls are—are wholly missing from the process.
I propose this Bill as a small contribution that, for some of them, would have a significant impact. It would raise the threshold for those who choose to pay and remove a reasonable number of those teenagers from the industry, creating space so the agencies who wish to work with them can do so positively and allow them to turn around their lives.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I rise to speak about the motion on the Order Paper, although I have nothing specific to say about the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—[Interruption.] Let me explain, Mr Speaker—
Chris Bryant
I am opposing the motion on the Order Paper, because it reads:
“That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend”
and all the other stuff that my hon. Friend mentioned. I do not think that we should be giving leave to bring in any more Bills, as there is absolutely no point in assenting to yet another Bill being brought in. If it is to be successful and to be brought into law, by Prorogation it will need to have gone through all its stages in this House and all its stages in the other House. We know perfectly well that the Deputy Leader of the House—who is in his seat and will, no doubt, assent to this—has absolutely no intention of ensuring that there will be time for the Bill to have its Second Reading, let alone to go into Committee. Consequently, I cannot see that there is any sense in it.
I merely point out that there are 109 private Members’ Bills on the Order Paper and only three are from—[Interruption.] I hear an hon. Gentleman say that that this should be a point of order, but it is not. The motion on the Order Paper states that we should give the Bill the right to go forward, and if hon. Members are going to agree to its going forward, they should ensure that there is time for it to do so and for it to do something substantial. There is a means of doing that.
There are 109 private Members’ Bills on the Order Paper—several have come from Mrs Bone, it is true—and only three have come back from the Lords and therefore stand any chance of becoming law before Prorogation. They are the Live Music Bill, which has already been through all its stages in this House, the Contaminated Blood (Support for Infected and Bereaved Persons) Bill and the Building Regulations (Review) Bill. Only two are in their remaining stages, which will take place this Friday, and could possibly become law, unless the Deputy Leader of the House were to say that the Government would give time in some of the next few days, when we are, frankly, slightly less busy with Government legislation. That would enable us to enact some of the private Members’ Bills.
Alternatively, I hope that, as a lot of Members want to legislate on specific matters that would be of significant advantage to our constituents, the Backbench Business Committee will consider making time available on Back-Bench business days for private Members’ Bills. As we discussed in last week’s debate, I do not believe that this House should just be representative—it is important that we do the representing. We cannot do the representing as Back-Benchers if private Members’ Bills just stack up on Fridays. There are 64 this Friday and I guess we might get to debate two of them in any kind of substance, and the rest of the Bills will not even be heard on a day when we are sitting.
If hon. Members want to agree to this going forward, I say to them sincerely that they should ensure that there is more time for private Members’ Bills, because sometimes they make some of the best legislation. [Interruption.] The Whip, who should be silent, is trying to accuse us of not having given enough time, but in my time as Deputy Leader of the House we got more private Members’ Bills on to the statute book in one year than this Government will in two full years in one Session. Frankly, he can go back to his silence.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Mann, Fiona Mactaggart, Natascha Engel, Mrs Louise Ellman, Gavin Shuker and Siobhain McDonagh present the Bill.
John Mann accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 March, and to be printed (Bill 272).
Backbench Business
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Future of Town Centres and High Streets
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the future of town centres and high streets.
Let me begin by thanking the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), and her fellow colleagues on the Committee for granting this debate. I thank also hon. Members and Friends who supported the request for this debate at that Committee.
We all have at least one if not several town centres or high streets in our constituencies. I know that many right hon. and hon. Members share my passion for our town centres. For me, that passion was developed during my time as a local councillor and council leader, when I had responsibility for town centres during the deepest and darkest period of the recession. Our town centres are focal points for shopping and meeting friends and colleagues, as well as for accessing entertainment, leisure, culture, public services and transport among other things.
The economic and social contribution that our town centres make cannot be understated. High streets make up 13% of UK economic value and 14% of total UK employment. Unfortunately, over many years the position of our high streets and town centres has been eroded to varying degrees. Many of the stronger retail chains have squeezed out the individual small businesses from many high streets but are now retrenching owing to the economic conditions. They are becoming dependent on fewer and fewer stores and consequently are withdrawing from many of our town centres.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate, as well as on setting up the all-party group on town centres. Does he agree that one way of regenerating town centres is, as happens in my constituency, to give tax incentives to areas that are trying to regenerate themselves and to independent shops and small businesses so that they can set up, as opposed to only the chains coming into every high street across Britain?
Mr Jones
I certainly think that we at least need to put our town centres and high streets on a level playing field with other parts of the retail industry. We need to be as innovative as possible to make sure that taxes are as low as possible for people who want to operate on our high streets.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on his success in securing the debate. Dudley town centre has seen better days; it is just a few miles up the road from the Merry Hill shopping centre. Does he agree that Dudley town centre would be ideal for one of the pilot studies resulting from Mary Portas’s review? Does he agree that the Minister should select Dudley for one of the pilots and that the Minister ought to come to Dudley so that I can take him around the town centre and he can see for himself the problems we face?
Mr Jones
Dudley is an important area and the hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for it, but I think it probably ranks somewhere behind my constituency in relation to this matter.
In the last few days alone, we have seen some long-standing store chains, such as Blacks Leisure, Peacocks and Barratts, all enter administration. In the words of Mary Portas,
“our high streets have reached a crisis point,”
a statement with which I am sure many people up and down the country will agree.
A number of factors have led to the decline of our high streets, although the main reasons are undoubtedly the steady rise of out-of-town retail shopping malls, together with the dramatic impact of the arrival of internet shopping, which has soared. Back in 2007, it accounted for 4.8% of retail sales, but last November it was found to account for 12.2%. That is a challenge to our town centres, and it will be greatly exacerbated by the increased use of mobile phone technology, which is broadening the internet spectrum.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. May I share with him the experience of my local town of Leek, where the totally locally Leek initiative has been developed by independent shopkeepers? The idea is that if everybody who lived in Leek spent £5 each week in a local shop rather than on the internet, it would be worth £4 million to the local economy. Does he agree that we need initiatives such as that to promote local high streets?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend eloquently lays out the reasons why many town centres are falling on hard times. Has he noted Mary Portas’s remarks about the motor car? In market towns, and in rural areas, a car is no luxury, and it is essential for the vibrancy of those towns that there is adequate parking. What does he feel about that and, in particular, Portas’s remarks about a league table for car parks?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an extremely sensible point. For far too long, we have not thought about the people who want to drive into our town centres and we have not considered the quality and availability of car parking. We have certainly not considered its cost, which I shall come to later. It is extremely prohibitive and is one reason why there is not a level playing field for our town centres in relation to their out-of-town competitors.
In my constituency, Nuneaton town centre has fared reasonably well, and better than many. There is a property vacancy rate of about 6% while the national average is 11.1%, although the factors I have mentioned account for a vacancy creep that is happening at different rates across the country. Many of the factors in my analysis of the reasons for decline may be a little simplistic, but what we do to arrest that terminal decline is far from simple.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Is he aware of a study by Transport for London showing that the average retail spend per month is £373 for people who walk to their high street but only £226 for those who take their car? Similar studies show that those who cycle or take the bus or train spend more than those who drive.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable suggestion, but there is a difference between travel in the London area and the situation in other regions of the UK. I can certainly say that far more people who shop in my local town centre in Nuneaton drive there than use local transport, so we have to be pragmatic.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that people who do not go to the town centre at all because they cannot walk or drive spend nothing at all?
Mr Jones
That is a sensible if not obvious point, and it is important.
As for how we address that decline, I welcome the review that the Government have instigated and their decision to commission the Portas review, which has not just brought the views of Mary Portas, a recognised retail guru, to the high street but has served to stimulate much-needed debate on this crucial issue. I was delighted that Miss Portas took time when researching the report to hold a discussion with the all-party group which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) mentioned, I chair. The meeting was nearly as well attended as this debate, which highlights the importance of our town centres and high streets to parliamentarians and their constituents.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he welcome what is happening in Wellingborough and Rushton, where the Government’s economic policies are being enforced with great gusto? We have free car parking, and a new Marks and Spencer is opening in Wellingborough. A multi-billion pound project is hopefully about to open in the Rushton area providing jobs and local availability for shopping.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I agree that my hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the neighbourhood planning provisions in the Localism Act 2011 give local communities a greater say for the first time in helping to shape the sort of town centres that they need and want?
Mr Jones
That vision is certainly significant and, along with the national planning policy framework provisions such as the “town centre first” policy, it is extremely important. I shall come on to that in a moment.
I shall go through some of the Portas proposals in more detail but, before doing so, I should like to quote the final words of the review:
“Those are just my ideas. What are yours?”
I hope that it is in that spirit that right hon. and hon. Members will use the focus of today’s debate to feed into the work of the Portas review through their own constituency experience, which should serve to inform Ministers’ thinking before they make their response and implement any policies following that crucial review.
I will briefly mention one or two points from the five groups of recommendations in the Portas proposals. I very much welcome the idea of a town team. Many constituencies have town centre partnerships or business improvement districts, and I was personally involved in setting up a town centre partnership in the town of Bedworth in the neighbouring North Warwickshire constituency when I was council leader. The concept of the town team represents a shift in thinking.
Dan Byles
As my hon. Friend and neighbour has mentioned the town of Bedworth in my constituency, may I take the opportunity to thank him for doing that work when he was leader of the council? Bedworth is one of those towns that are linked to a larger town in the borough, and was sometimes considered, for want of a better word, the slightly poorer neighbour by the council.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. With regard to the local shopping on offer, Bedworth is an extremely important player, even if it is not as large or always as vibrant as Nuneaton.
Town centre teams would give more teeth and opportunity for more detailed public-private sector engagement, which could go beyond the operational, micro issues, that town centre partnerships and BIDs deal with, and cover strategic issues, helping to shape the vision for our town centres. The proposal would allow landlords to become investors in town teams or super-BIDs, and would seek to strengthen that vision for town centres with the possibility of leveraging in further private investment. The all-party group secretariat, the Association of Town Centre Management, very much advocates that approach and is convinced that there is real will on the part of the private sector to make a major contribution to this.
Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that if we are trying to attract investment, the proliferation of betting shops taking over premises from the closure of banks and building societies, which has happened in Deptford high street in my constituency, is a disincentive and spoils the diversity of our high streets, which is so important and which we need to hold on to or bring back?
Mr Jones
Betting shops are an important part of our town centres and high streets, as I am sure the right hon. Lady would acknowledge, and they offer valuable employment. However, the proliferation of betting shops has been caused to some extent by the provisions of the licensing legislation in relation to the number of machines that such businesses can have. That needs looking at and Mary Portas refers to it in her report.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
In addition to the proliferation of betting shops, there has been a proliferation of high-cost credit lenders on our high streets, which prey on some of the most vulnerable members of society. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Medway council, which has established a cross-party working group to look at how the council can get involved in ensuring that the licensing of those money-lending shops is controlled and reduces the possible damage to the most vulnerable members of society?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) responds, let me say, first, that he has been speaking for 14 minutes. I am sure many Members have been greatly enjoying his speech, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been enjoying it, but there are nearly 50 Members who wish to speak and to whom a time limit applies, so I hope he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion. Secondly, the frequency with which he gives way is a matter for him, but he might want to bear that in mind. Thirdly, interventions are too long.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that guidance. I will try to keep my remarks brief and to keep interventions to a minimum.
Starting new enterprise is crucial on our high streets, particularly with many of our chain stores retrenching. We need to reinvigorate our independent shopkeepers. Street markets and indoor markets are an important route to doing that. In my constituency we have an award-winning street market on Wednesdays and Saturdays which often has more than 150 stalls. As in the case of car parking, which I shall come to shortly, local authorities must be careful to make sure that markets are not just cash cows and income generators for the local authority, but are there for the benefit of the local community and the local town centre.
That brings me to ways of allowing businesses to flourish. Lower taxation and less regulation are the keys to unlocking that potential, although we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Through deregulation—for example, the deregulation of pedlars—we could end up with a situation where pedlars can turn up and trade alongside market traders, without paying any rent or rates. The market traders who have traditionally been on our high streets will find themselves at a disadvantage.
Car parking is a major issue. There is a case study in the Portas review that mentions Swindon, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) will probably elaborate on that. Although I acknowledge the restraint on both Government and local government budgets, further direct action on car parking charges must be explored. It would be fantastic if a pilot scheme could be run to see whether we could bring in free short-stay parking that would have the effect that we are looking for. The pilot should be run in a constituency, and I would make the argument for that to be my Nuneaton constituency, but other right hon. and hon. Members probably have other ideas on that.
There is also an inherent unfairness in how the business rates regime applies to town centre car parks and out-of-town-centre car parks, and we need to look at that carefully to ensure that we allow our town centres to operate on a level playing field. As Mary Portas rightly pointed out, we need to look carefully at planning in our town centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned the national planning policy framework, and we must ensure that the “town centre first” policy and the sequential test are retained in the framework. I also think that it is important that office development is included, because although we must not deny out-of-town development, we must ensure that it is proportionate and meets the needs of a particular area.
I note your comments about time, Mr Speaker, and appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. By bringing the matter before the House, I sincerely hope that we will have a positive debate, that our views will prevail and that the Minister will go away loaded with positive ideas from Back-Bench Members that can be fed into the Government’s review. I firmly believe that the British people instinctively wish to see our high streets and town centres not only survive, but flourish and prosper, as they form one of the unique components that make up the UK.
Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Mayor of London, who today announced £177 million of targeted regeneration investment for town centres and local high streets, of which Brentford and Isleworth will receive £4.8 million?
Mr Jones
That is fantastic news, and just the sort of support that our town centres and high streets need. It is extremely important that we support our high streets and town centres not only as Members of Parliament, but as individuals, and that at all times we promote their cause so that they are there for hundreds of years to come, as they have been for us all thus far.
Mr Speaker
Order. In view of the level of interest, and as has been made clear on the Annunciator, I have imposed a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate. The state of our high streets and town centres is important not only for our local economies and for providing jobs, but for strengthening our local communities. I think that setting up the Portas review of the high street was an inspired decision by the Government, although Members will not be surprised to hear that I have concerns about how the Government are supporting the retail sector.
Retail is our country’s largest private sector employer and accounts for 20% of the UK’s gross domestic product. The sector accounts for 40% of employment for the under-20s and pays 28% of all business rates. Now that the Government have achieved a youth unemployment level of over 1 million and failed to replace the public sector jobs that have been cut with private sector jobs, we can see how important the sector is to the health of our economy.
The retail sector’s prospects for 2012 are not good. Hardly a day goes by without another high street brand going into administration; Peacocks has already been mentioned. Consumer confidence is exceptionally low. Although that is clearly impacting on the larger retail multiples, it is also having a devastating impact on independent retailers, a group of businesses that do not always have a voice—or rather, are not always heard—in debates about the economy. That is why I believe that commissioning the Portas review was an inspired decision. It inevitably shines light on the smaller retailers that provide the diversity and quality customer service that enhance our high streets.
There has been much press coverage of Rochdale’s town centre in recent months, not least because McDonald’s has decided to leave, and because we have a disproportionate number of charity shops. In reality, however, our town has a great retail offer. Businesses such as Chantilly, 25 Ten, Denis Hope, Bragg and the Number Ten Gallery are perfect examples of the high-quality independents that enhance Rochdale’s high street, but Rochdale, like towns throughout the country, needs the Government to act more quickly and responsibly.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is terribly important to point out that the issue is not just about retail, but about attracting people into town centres. Beckenham used to be a wonderful place to go, but it is getting shoddier and shoddier, and we need more funding to make such areas good places for people to go—even if they are going there not to spend any money, but just for social reasons.
Simon Danczuk
I agree, and the Portas review makes the point that town centres are not just about retail, but about being a community magnet that brings people in for a variety of reasons. One problem is that the Portas review was delayed for months, and came to us late, but it is also disappointing that the Minister has decided not to respond until the spring.
The review makes a host of recommendations, practically all of which I welcome, but it also pushes a disproportionate amount of responsibility on to local government. We all know that towns such as Rochdale have received devastating cuts from this Government, so it will not be easy for local authorities to implement some of the recommendations, such as discounted business rates. Local councils can help with national market day, and set up town teams, as Members have said, but it is for central Government to take responsibility for the major issues affecting our town centres.
On planning, as the review recommends, the Government must put the town centre first, and following their consultation on the national planning policy framework, I get the impression that they will. I believe that they will make that change to the draft NPPF.
But the Government need to go further than the review, and we would benefit from looking at how credit insurance works in the retail sector, and at how the lack of credit insurance for wholesalers and suppliers makes it difficult for businesses to manage cash flow and, ultimately, to survive. A Government scheme to assist suppliers with credit insurance would certainly help.
The review makes some welcome recommendations on business rates, and Mary Portas is right to highlight the adverse impact of business rate levels on our high streets. In Rochdale, retailers that are closing have cited high business rates, but the Government have just introduced the biggest hike in such rates for 20 years—an increase of 5.6%. That is just not sustainable for small businesses on our high street.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also a problem with bank lending to enable high-street shops to invest and bring their businesses up to the standard that we all expect in this day and age?
Simon Danczuk
That is absolutely right. Bank lending is a real problem for small businesses, and one that the Government need to address in terms of the larger economic situation.
Returning to business rates, I also highlight the problem with the Valuation Office Agency. I recently had a Rochdale bar owner attend my surgery, describing how the VOA had told him that it assumed his takings would be about £179,000 per year—a figure that he could only dream of achieving. I know from my own dealings with the VOA that its performance leaves a lot to be desired. Not only is it difficult to deal with, it is also slow to act. Thousands of businesses in Greater Manchester have appealed against the new business rate valuations, yet the VOA admitted that in 2010 it could deal with only 3% of the appeals made, leaving a massive backlog that still needs clearing. The VOA is now refusing to publish what percentage of appeals are successful—presumably to discourage businesses from challenging its valuations. We should not underestimate the impact that business rates and the VOA are having on the high street. I urge the Government to give those issues more urgent attention.
I started by mentioning consumer confidence. We cannot underestimate the adverse impact that our country’s economy is having on our high streets. For all the tweaks and adaptations that can be made locally, it is the level of unemployment, the fear of becoming unemployed, the lack of credit for small businesses and high inflation that will make or break our high streets.
To conclude, the Portas review provides worthwhile recommendations on which the Government can act, but there needs to be urgent action, and the Government need to recognise the effect that their economic policies are having on our high streets.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate about the health of our high streets and town centres. I will risk making the passing comment that to see so many colleagues here to take part in a debate with a one-line Whip suggests that there is not a lot wrong with the health of our Parliament. It is an encouraging sight. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for triggering this debate, and Mary Portas for producing an excellent report on our high streets and town centres.
High streets and town centres have been under assault for many years from out-of-town shopping centres. Perhaps that horse has now bolted, but there is the new threat of internet purchasing. That is, in part, a generational thing. In the place where I live now there are four families, as three of our grown-up children and their spouses have joined us in our little community, which was described, when I became a Minister in 1996, as an evangelical community on the edge of Dartmoor. That sounds very alternative, but it is nothing like that. With three families of a younger generation, it seems that the delivery vans arrive several times a day as a result of their internet shopping. We grandparents are not really doing it, but the younger generation are. This is a very new assault on the high street.
That is why I strongly support what is perhaps the key recommendation of the report—that a new vision for the high street must recognise that it is not just about retail but about culture, community and leisure. We must make a visit to the high street or the town centre like a day out. It should be a pleasurable experience, and not just about retail.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those who make purchases on the internet take the trouble to visit the high street and look at the product that they wish to purchase, only to go home and buy it more cheaply on the internet? Without the high street, that market simply would not work.
Mr Streeter
I think that that is right, although my daughter and son-in-law spend most of their time browsing not in the shops but online, and make their purchasing decisions in that way. Either way, of course, is good. High streets will never compete with the internet or out-of-town shopping centres on retail alone. That is the important point that the report tells us.
My constituency of South West Devon has three shopping centres: Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge. Most of those communities will be well known to colleagues in this House. Over the nearly 20 years in which I have been privileged to represent those communities, I have seen the ebbs and flows of the high street. It is right to say that local people want to support their town centres, but it is important that the offer from them is right and attractive.
Mary Macleod
Does my hon. Friend agree that market days have a role to play in the high street to give shoppers something different? On Saturday, he is welcome to come to the Turnham Green terrace market day in Chiswick, in west London.
Mr Streeter
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is absolutely right. However, if I had a choice between being in Devon or Chiswick on a Saturday, I know which one I would choose. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I suspect that most of my colleagues would say exactly the same thing.
I thought that it would be helpful if, drawing on this excellent report and my experiences over the past 20 years, I came up with the five golden rules for regenerating our town centres and high streets. The first is to have local leadership. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) spoke eloquently about what the Government should do, but let us talk about what the local community should do. Bottom-up local leadership is crucial in sparking the regeneration of our town centres and high streets. I give the example of Ivybridge town council, which already has in place a neighbourhood plan and has engaged the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment to come up with a brand new vision for the town centre.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr Streeter
I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind. I have given way twice already, and I have an awful lot to say.
Ivybridge town council is very keen on the report that Mary Portas has produced and hopes that the Government will formulate a number of policies to make it a reality. Local leadership, particularly from the energetic town clerk of Ivybridge, Lesley Hughes, is a crucial part of taking forward the regeneration of our town centres. Two of the other areas that I have mentioned, Plympton and Plymstock, are suburbs of Plymouth and do not have their own town councils, and we can see a real difference in how they grip the need for a new vision.
My second point is about the buy-in of the other local authorities involved. Whether they are district councils, county councils or unitary authorities, it is very important that all the relevant authorities are involved in bringing forward new visions. They need to be brought together on issues such as land ownership, parking, highways and various other powers.
We have heard talk of the important part that business rates can play in town centre regeneration. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is listening to me right now, and I say to him that the Government need to encourage and incentivise local authorities to make more creative use of business rates collected locally to underpin and support local businesses and new economic development in their communities. Let us find ways of doing that.
Thirdly, I wish to mention car parking. I have been through 20 or 30 years of town planners, architects and academics telling us that we need to build sustainable communities with the car designed out of them. I am sorry, but it has not worked. Whether it is right or wrong, the people of this country have chosen the car. For most of us, in our rural communities, the car is absolutely essential. In many parts of my community there is not one bus a day but one bus a week, and if someone misses it by two minutes they are in for a long wait. It is essential to provide space for car parking in the regeneration of our town centres and high streets, and for that parking to be either free, very reasonably priced, or free for a certain period. We are all lazy.
I also support “pop and shop” schemes whereby people can park outside a shop for a few moments even in a pedestrianised or semi-pedestrianised area, to pick up their dry cleaning, get cash out of the bank, buy the grandchildren an ice cream or whatever. I am afraid that the idea of designing out the car is now old-fashioned and has to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Car parking must be at the heart of what happens.
Fourthly, we need flexible planning. In the west country we have a lot of rural areas and a lot of rural planning authorities that have done a great job of preserving our countryside for many generations. However, I say to them that we do not want our town centres or high streets to be museums. We need much more flexible planning laws. I agree with Mary Portas that we should change the law on use classes to make it much easier to change from one high street use to another. I suspect that planning officers in many parts of the world need a paradigm shift. In too many places, their default position is to say no and then try to justify it. I hope that our planning guidance, which has somehow got stuck somewhere in the system in the past few weeks, will be introduced early in this new year to encourage and incentivise local planning officers to allow new life to be breathed into our high streets. We need much more flexibility, because our high streets must not be left as a museum.
While I am on the subject of planning, it is worth saying that sometimes English Heritage does not help us. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) will agree that the decision to list Plymouth civic centre as some kind of historic and beautiful building, when it is probably the ugliest thing outside Dudley, is absolutely disgraceful. [Interruption.] Have I got myself in trouble there? I think I probably have.
Fifthly, landowners and developers need to be brought into the equation, and they need to be much more creative. I shall finish by returning to Ivybridge, where there is a development called Glanvilles Mill that is full of empty or half-empty shops. We need much more creativity in establishing a new development to bring Ivybridge into the 21st century.
I commend the report to the Government, and I hope that at the end of the debate the Minister will tell us that he supports it completely and will bring in a lot of new policies to make it happen.
Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I am sorely tempted to throw my notes away and to join the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) in castigating English Heritage, but I shall resist.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and all those Members who approached the Committee, of whom I was one. The debate is a reflection of their wisdom, because this issue clearly excites interest on both sides of the House and across the country, largely because everybody has a local high street and a local town centre—not just Members of Parliament, but individual citizens. The importance of the welfare of high streets and town centres cannot be overestimated.
The issues around town centres and high streets are perennial. I join others in welcoming the Government’s commissioning of a report from Mary Portas and her work. The report introduces some new language, and anyone who reads it can tell that it has been written not by a planning professional or a civil servant, but by somebody whose main qualification is in the business about which they are speaking and whose enthusiasm is patently transparent. That runs through the whole report. I am not quite familiar with a few expressions in the report—I do not know what she means by a “three-dimensional retailing experience”—but we can forgive that kind of hyperbole when the essence of what she addresses is so critical to the health of so many of our communities.
I notice that the Government say they will have their response out by the spring, which I think means the day before the House rises in the summer, whatever date in July that might be. I hope the Minister takes into account what people say and how important this issue is. I sometimes worry about Ministers’ responses to Backbench Business Committee debates. They accept motions—although there are no specifics in today’s motion—but spend all their time during their speeches explaining why they do not agree with them. I hope that that will not be the case today.
High streets and town centres mean different things in different parts of the country—they mean different things in urban areas, semi-urban areas, towns and villages—but in both this country and around the world, the common denominator is that the local market, however we describe it, is a key ingredient of the local community. In many ways, it defines the local community. As others have said, it is not just a place of trade and exchange, but a place of social interaction and opportunity, a meeting place and a centre for all kinds of activity, not merely retail.
There are many different aspects of the high street debate. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Devon that the threat is no longer from new out-of-town developments. Time will tell whether we have sold the pass on that and whether we allowed too many developments in previous years with which the traditional local ribbon high streets must contend, but the threat is not from new developments.
Robert Halfon
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful speech. He says that local retail centres are not a threat, but all the retail centres in Harlow are very popular and have a huge advantage because they have free parking. People can park outside the door and go about their daily business at the retail centres, whereas many shopping precincts—not just in Harlow, but all around the country—are paved over and very difficult to park near, and many have parking charges. Does he agree that free parking would make a huge difference, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) suggested?
Jim Dowd
I shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I do not think that the threat comes from new developments, the construction of which seems largely to have abated, as the hon. Member for South West Devon pointed out. The fear is that we have already created too many of them, and that they will still have an effect on the traditional town centres and high streets.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our high streets have a wider role in supporting local supply chains and increasing local resilience? In some areas, there is still a threat not only from out-of-town developments but from large distribution depots, which are merely displacing jobs rather than creating new ones.
Jim Dowd
That is indeed true.
I was involved in producing a report a few years ago, and we discovered that, in the large retail sector, it takes £150,000 worth of turnover to support one job, whereas the comparable figure for small and independent retailers is £100,000. So, small and independent retailers are much more likely than large ones to produce employment. They are also much more likely to be used by people locally, and the value stays within the local community rather than being exported to a national centre elsewhere. They are also of much greater value to the community in terms of social cohesion as well as retailing.
Some 10 years ago, I was approached by the Independent Retailers Confederation at an event here in the House, and we had further discussions. I then tabled an early-day motion relating to retail crime and under-age purchasing, which highlighted the fact that although those issues apply to all retailers, they present a bigger challenge and have a greater effect on small retailers than they do on the large multiples. I know that some Members take a proprietorial—almost parental—interest in their early-day motions, e-mailing and writing to everyone to ask them to sign them. I take a much more hands-off approach, however; I table them and send them off to find their own place in the world. So, I submitted the EDM with only my name on it, but within a week, it had attracted about 88 signatures.
I spoke to some of the Members who had supported my motion, and it became clear that although there had been an all-party parliamentary retail group for many years, there was a strong feeling that its work did not reflect the interests of small and independent retailers. I am not criticising its work at all; I think that it is a valuable adjunct to the work of the House and the interests of its Members. It is fronted by the British Retail Consortium, which is an estimable organisation that does a good job of representing its interests. However, the consortium effectively represents large retail traders and multiples. That is perfectly legitimate, but the idea that it represents small and independent businesses is just plain wrong. We need only to look at its membership lists to discover that fact. It includes some online businesses that have no trading premises, but, apart from those, its idea of a small trader with only one outlet is Harrod’s or Fortnum and Mason. They are not small retailers, by anyone’s definition.
We then formed the all-party parliamentary small shops group. I am particularly indebted to the hon. Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), and to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), now the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, as well as to the right hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). We undertook to establish an inquiry, along the lines of that of a Select Committee, into the future of the high street. It was the first report of its kind, and it attracted a lot of attention. We made a number of recommendations, most of which were ignored. Some, however, were enacted, and some were partly enacted. There is, however, a wealth of information, material and advice on the future of the high street, of which Mary Portas’s report is just the latest. There is also the all-party small shops group’s report from seven years ago and reports from the Evening Standard and various community groups and academic organisations. I hope that the Government will take long-overdue action and relentlessly pursue a policy in the interests of retailers of all sizes and the communities that they serve.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on showing great leadership through his work on the all-party town centres group and in securing this debate. The group goes from strength to strength under his chairmanship. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to take place, because hardly a constituency in the country is not affected by this issue and there is hardly a high street not in need of improvement and enhancement.
Many Members have referred to their own high streets and constituencies, and I shall be no different because I represent the market town of Dartford, which, despite a planned regeneration project, has to contend with all the difficulties that every high street in the country has to deal with. However, I also represent Bluewater, which is one of the largest out-of-town shopping centres in Europe, so a special range of challenges affects the local area.
I have found that high streets do best when they adapt to changing times and offer something different from out-of-town centres, but that difference can be part of their strength. That is often overlooked by high street managers. Out-of-town shopping centres and high streets are not the same but offer alternative experiences. We should not lose sight of the differences between the two, and so we should not approach them and their needs in the same way.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the report written by Mary Portas, and there is much to commend in that report, but I disagree with some aspects of it. Sadly, Mary Portas is very disparaging about out-of-town centres, yet that negative approach is misplaced. She asserts that out-of-town centres have a negative social and environmental impact on the areas where they are situated. That is simply not my experience. I am not sure what negative impact they have on the environment in which they are situated. On the social impact, in my experience, they have a positive, not a negative, impact on the local area. When I visit Bluewater shopping centre, I see families enjoying meals out, cinema visits and socialising with others. This is a good thing for the local area and is part of the positive social impact that Bluewater, for example, has had on my local area.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I am glad to hear about the families enjoying themselves at Bluewater, but does my hon. Friend not agree that if they are enjoying themselves there—or, indeed, at Cribbs Causeway or other out-of-town shopping centres—in the way that he described, it means that they are not doing so in the town centres?
Gareth Johnson
Yes, but I do not feel that it is an either/or situation. Many families can enjoy both the high streets and the out-of-town shopping centres, but in different ways. Very often, out-of-town shopping centres can be destinations that people enjoy.
Robert Halfon
I invite my hon. Friend to the Harvey shopping centre in Harlow. It is a wonderful shopping centre integrated with shops in the local town centre. Does he not agree, though, that the answer to his conundrum is to have a level playing field, as I mentioned earlier, so that high streets have the same rights as shopping malls and out-of-town centres?
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend extends a kind invitation but he need not have because I have visited Harlow shopping centre many times. It was a very pleasant experience, but I do not agree with the assertion made by some—not by him—that we can make high streets better by making out-of-town shopping centres worse. That is simply not the case. We need to ensure that both shopping destinations are vibrant.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member think that although the high streets might offer certain qualities and a particular type of shopping experience to shoppers, they also need the prices and the bargains? I do not do any of the shopping—my wife does that, and she always looks for the bargains, as I am sure is the case with every hon. Lady in the House.
Gareth Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. People will always be out bargain hunting when they are shopping. My wife is exactly the same, but there is also a place for quality in the marketplace.
Let me make some progress. Mary Portas has said that out-of-town shopping centres are responsible for job displacement. Bluewater shopping centre employs some 15,000 people. I simply do not accept that that number of people lost their jobs in the local high streets as a result of Bluewater opening. If these assertions are incorrect for Bluewater and north Kent, I presume that they do not apply elsewhere either.
In many ways, the success of many our out-of-town shopping centres helps to highlight what is needed in our high streets. In short, high streets can learn from out-of-town shopping centres. High streets need to become attractive, safe locations for people to spend their time, day or night; they need to be attractive to families and to people who will want to spend quality time there.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as much as anything else, town centres must remain accessible and that planning authorities have too much of a tendency to force change in transport systems, like imposing one-way systems or parking restrictions? In so doing, they are often limiting the town centre; they want to force a retailer to pay just because it has come into the town.
Gareth Johnson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course town centres need to be accessible. Perhaps the most popular way of achieving that is through car parking provisions. This is how shoppers want to do their shopping; if they have heavy shopping bags, they might not wish to use public transport, however good it is.
It is essential that high streets offer more than just shopping. Too many high streets look the same and offer the same as each other, so they need a diverse range of attractions. High streets are facing an increasing range of challenges. Yes, the economic downturn has hit the high street hard, and it continues to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, internet shopping has also had an impact. High streets that offer something different can often flourish. Farmers’ markets draw people into the high street and continental food markets are also extremely popular. Ensuring that there is a permanent residential population in the town centre is important, too, in order to avoid high streets looking like ghost towns after dark. Having an effective town centre forum or chamber of commerce working with local councillors and planners can help to ensure that ideas and plans are thought through before they are implemented.
What I welcome in Mary Portas’s report is her support for a team approach to high street planning. I also support her suggestion of tackling the number of empty shops we see in the high street. We should not single out banks, which she suggests we should, but should target all retailers on this issue. Her report suggests that councillors should be given the power to tackle situations where, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) pointed out, there is a problem with the number of betting shops in a particular area. I disagree with Mary Portas, as we should not single out betting shops; we should adopt the same approach to all retailers and prevent any one kind of retailer from monopolising a particular street or particular part of the high street.
In conclusion, the future prosperity of British high streets is one of the biggest challenges the country faces. There is no simple solution to the problem. It seems, however, that with innovation, team work and an understanding of the needs of the people, high streets could once again flourish in this country.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Given that a number of Members wish to catch the eye of the Chair, I shall now reduce the time limit to five minutes. I want to ensure that everyone can contribute, so I ask Members to exercise some restraint in interventions. Members who wish both to intervene and to speak will be placed lower on the list. Let me reassure Members that I want to treat everyone as fairly as possible.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
We all want our town centres to be successful, and to provide employment and high-quality goods and services for the local community. In my constituency, more than 5,700 people are employed in the retail sector, but, like other town centres, Stockport is facing the challenges posed by changing shopping habits. One of the challenges is undoubtedly the growth in internet sales, which currently account for 12.2% of all sales. Some estimates suggest that e-commerce accounted for nearly half of the retail sales growth in the United Kingdom between 2003 and 2010, and we have seen a dramatic increase of more than 500% in “m-commerce”—sales over mobile devices—in the past two years.
In every town centre the well-known retail brands have a presence, and, together with independent retailers and markets, they have been the face of the high street in town after town. However, it is becoming clear that because of changes in shopping habits, retailers are going to need fewer shops. Some big names have announced that they are considering whether they have the right number and size of stores, including Arcadia, the owner of BHS, which is examining the future of 260 stores.
I believe that the challenge is for retailers to harness the power of the internet in ways that can benefit them and stop the decline of town centres accelerating as some well-known brands pull out. A growing school of thought believes that the internet, and specifically the evolution of multi-channel and social media, provides a significant opportunity for the future success of our towns and cities. The good news is that about a fifth of all internet transactions in the UK involve some in-store research, so internet shopping does not mean that people are abandoning the high street.
Analysis by Experian has revealed that one in 10 consumers use their mobile phones or “tablets” in stores to check the price of goods elsewhere before deciding whether to buy, and that nearly 31% of the UK population now fall into the category of multi-channel shoppers: those who use the internet, trips to stores, price checks on mobile devices, and advice from friends and their “virtual” networks to decide whether to make a purchase. It is clearly not as simple as shoppers deserting the high street for their computers or mobile devices. Indeed, a factor identified in the same report is the frustration with online shopping that is driving consumers back to the high street. The report states that 60% of online shoppers have expressed frustration about the arrival of deliveries while they were out, and that 50% have received products that they did not consider to match the online description.
It is for those reasons that many high street stores are offering more flexible “click and collect” purchasing, which enables customers to shop online and collect in stores. The number of non-food retail purchases to which that applies is expected to increase from a fifth to a third by 2020. Some companies are also encouraging customers to browse online in kiosks in their own stores, or are providing showrooms where customers can browse and receive specialist advice. All those factors are attracting shoppers back to the high street, and are providing opportunities for retailers who get their strategy right to survive.
Big names with collection points and web kiosks that have embraced the internet could in future provide an attractive anchor for town centres, and draw people into the high street. That in turn could increase investment in town centres, and enable each town to develop its own unique offer of, for instance, markets, independent specialist shops and cultural attractions. That, as Mary Portas says, is the key to high street success.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Last month Eastwood lost its only shoe shop because Jonathan James went into liquidation. Does my hon. Friend agree that a healthy economy is central to a healthy high street?
Ann Coffey
Absolutely, and the difficulty that retailers currently face is partly due to the consequences of the wider economic conditions. I also agree with Mary Portas that it is important for town centre partnerships to work together to meet the new challenges, and for councils to provide access to shopping and adequate parking. Innovative retailers can harness the power of the internet and e-commerce to change the way in which they do business.
Rehman Chishti
Does the hon. Lady agree that local authorities need show stronger leadership and come up with more innovative ideas, such as Medway council’s card that gives people discounts when they use local facilities such as restaurants and theatres?
Ann Coffey
I entirely agree. In a debate before Christmas, I talked about a unique offer in Stockport that combined discounts at cultural venues and in shops. Locally, there is a lot of similar innovative thinking about how we might attract people back into our town centres.
In October 2011 a well-known retailer opened a store without any stock. Customers select their product on iPads for delivery to the store or to their homes. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research published alongside the Portas review noted that this was
“an innovative use of bringing the internet to high street”.
Another big retailer has also reported “strong multi-channel” sales growth and plans to extend web kiosks in small stores to give access to a wider range of products, and a further influential company said that the success of its “click and collect” option had been so great that it planned to double the number of collection points in its stores. That is good news for town centres and it illustrates the fact that we should not see internet shopping as a threat—it can be harnessed to bring vibrancy and shoppers back to our high streets.
Like many people, I shop on the internet but also enjoy the social aspect of shopping in my local town centre and Stockport market. Like many of us, I do not want to lose the socialising opportunities that a vibrant town centre and market can offer or the sense of being part of a community that they provide, but nor do I want to lose the convenience of shopping online in the evening. We need to get the balance right for both to thrive nationally and locally. That is the challenge facing us all in reviving and developing our town centres.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. As so many Members are seeking to catch my eye, I shall reduce the time limit on speeches still further if there are frequent interventions. I hope colleagues will heed that warning and try to restrain themselves.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome today’s debate and the opportunity to discuss this most important issue. When thinking about my contribution today, I was reminded of the following headline in The Guardian in 2009: “Empty, unlet and unloved: the new British high street.” Over the past few years, we have become very aware of the demise of our high streets. Challenging economic circumstances, stretched consumers and a new breed of large out-of-town shopping centres and supermarkets are all part of the problem, but we in central and local government must also shoulder some of the blame. Above all, we must take the problems seriously and act now to halt the damage already done. I therefore welcome the independent Portas review and its recommendations on the future of our high streets. The findings seem sensible and offer a pragmatic, systematic way forward.
When choosing where to shop, many people become flippant about the struggle our high streets face. I, too, am guilty of that. We do not automatically associate our shopping transactions with the survival of the high street. We think someone else will shop there or use its services. That attitude needs to change.
My constituency of Edinburgh West is a collection of communities close to a major city centre. Corstorphine is at the heart of the constituency and has what would probably best be described as a traditional high street: linear in appearance and with all the usual amenities one would expect, including a butcher, a baker—but no candlestick maker—hairdressers, dentists, estate agents, charity shops and pubs.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another facility we would expect to find on our high streets is a branch of a bank? However, in my constituency Barclays has closed its branch in Rhayader high street and HSBC is going to close its branch in Presteigne. Such closures pull our high streets still further downwards. We should let banks know that we expect them to respect the communities they serve.
Mike Crockart
That is an important point, but we can hope that that problem will be addressed by the welcome widening of competition through Virgin Money, the Co-operative Bank and others opening on our high streets.
High street businesses and the services they provide would be missed if they were to go, but the majority of people still do their shopping at the Tesco Extra, or other superstore, down the road. It has parking, everything is under one roof and for some products it is more competitively priced. I fear that many high street shops do well because of an older generation for whom they provide a social amenity. That is worrying for their future.
The high streets in Kirkliston and in Davidson’s Mains, which are also in my constituency, are surviving but they are arguably not thriving. People can walk to the shops and businesses, which are friendly and provide a focal point for the community, but not many new businesses are moving in; growth has stalled, it would appear. But in another area, South Queensferry, the high street is bustling. Why is that? It is because it is a completely different entity. It is a tourist attraction, where small independent shops are found alongside well-respected one-off hotels and restaurants. It has a clear strength and is playing to it. In the other areas, it would be a positive step if the local communities, authorities, planners and business leaders were given the opportunity to talk frankly about the direction in which they should and could move.
The Portas review makes 28 recommendations, covering many things that I do not propose to discuss in any great detail. All of them are important parts of the solution, but the experience in Edinburgh shows that the solution for each area—each separate high street—will be different and will need different elements of all these suggestions and many others if there is to be success. Local involvement will be key to delivering that. In England, the focus will be on the national planning policy framework, but in Scotland I await the national planning framework 2 monitoring report from the Scottish Government to see whether progress will be made.
Finally, I wish briefly to discuss new technologies, which were mentioned by the previous speaker, and their role in the success or decline of our high streets and town centres. The growth of online shopping has often been associated with the decline of familiar high street names— Woolworths and HMV, to name but two—and I cannot argue wholly against that view. Indeed, Interactive Media in Retail Group forecasts from last year suggested that high street spending would drop by 2% over Christmas while online spending would increase by 16% and that 25% of seasonal shopping would take place online, with 12% being made via a mobile. Some 58% of large stores now have mobile websites; m-commerce is beginning to have a huge impact.
However, modern technology is not always the enemy. In the more rural part of my constituency, residents and business owners face cripplingly slow broadband connection speeds. I am campaigning for improvements, because not only do residents have a right to fast, reliable internet connections, but businesses need them in order to flourish and grow. I have been contacted by numerous business owners who say that the poor connection slows down card transactions in their restaurants, that without a website that they can update quickly and easily their business suffers and that any subsidiary online shopping facilities are limited because of the poor provision. If the connection could be improved, the online might not always lead to off-street sales.
The key to saving our high streets lies in allowing them to diversify to meet diverse demand. In some areas, such as South Queensferry, this will be achieved through tourism, whereas in others, such as Corstorphine, it will occur through meeting local needs. I believe that this Government are willing to work with local communities, authorities and businesses large and small to turn the tide. It is a refreshing and very welcome attitude.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I welcome the Portas review, which is well researched. It makes 28 excellent recommendations, many of which I agree with. Portas mentions out-of-town supermarkets and shopping centres. My constituency has not had any of those for 15 years; it has had town centre supermarkets and town centre shopping centres, which are a lot better than those out of town. However, in Prestatyn, in my constitutency, Somerfield and Tesco each owned half of one such site, and I believe that some of the supermarkets have land banks. These are not so much about developing their own stores as about keeping other stores out, and that issue needs addressing if we are to develop town centres. Where town centre developments are coming, the time scale should not be 15 years; it should be a lot shorter. When these town centre shopping centres are built, the impact on the local community should also be assessed. While there is a lot of building, disruption and road works, the Valuation Office Agency should be proactive and should give businesses the forms to apply for a rate reduction. This should not be left to happenstance or accident.
Let me also pay tribute to Tesco. When it said it was going to establish stores in my constituency, in Prestatyn and at the Cathco site in Denbigh, I wrote and asked whether it would take 50% of its employees from the dole register, and it agreed. There can be some positive benefits. If companies are developing near the town centre, they need to be integrated as far as possible with the town centre, with lots of coach parking that will benefit not just the shopping centre but the high street, too.
My constituency is blessed with a long-established market in Prestatyn. A market has just been established in Rhyl by a man called Ray Worsnop without a penny from the public purse. He set it up, he made mistakes but it is now up to 50 stalls strong in the centre of Rhyl high street. When someone is trying to establish a new market there are often tensions in the community. As Mary Portas says, we should establish markets and even car boot sales in the town centre.
Jim Shannon
As the hon. Gentleman says, the Portas review is very important. It mentions America and France, but not good practice in Northern Ireland. One example of that is the chamber of trade working with the council to provide financial incentives, such as reduced car parking charges and a transport system that brings people from the edge of towns to the centre.
Chris Ruane
I absolutely agree. We should look not just to England but to England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and beyond. If best practice is out there, let us bring it back to our high streets. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Markets, as Mary Portas said, will be integral, but how do we establish new markets? What are the lessons to be learned? She also mentions the social aspect of town centres. In Rhyl, we are trying to bring the town alive. The piazzas and public performance areas are empty. Young children who have trained for the children’s eisteddfod go down to Cardiff to perform, but do not perform in their own high street. We have a folk club, a jazz club, a music club and an operatic society: they should be doing public performances. There should be dwell time within a town centre, so people can sit, listen and talk. That is what Mary Portas is saying and we should be listening to her. In Rhyl and Prestatyn, which are seaside towns, we have promenades. The word “promenade” means “to walk”. We do not do enough walking or socialising. We are all on this treadmill of work, work, work and work. We need time to relax and we should be relaxing in our high streets—[Interruption.] Especially in Rhyl.
Mary Portas also addresses the issue of empty shops, and a lot more can be done. Empty shops and derelict properties bring a bad image to a town. In my home town, Rhyl, about six or seven derelict properties were filmed by national TV crews over 20 years. A sign outside one of the properties had been altered so that it read that it was Rhyl’s biggest receiver of stolen goods—nothing had been sold there for 20 years, but the TV cameras would come along and pan across the sign. I went up a stepladder with some black paint and painted it out—two years later, the building was demolished. It should not be left to the antics of a maverick MP to blot such things out; it should be done by the local authority.
Agreements are already in place; councils have section 215 powers. I believe that Hastings council is one of the best in the country in this regard, and I urge other hon. Members to look into it. It sent me a full pack that said exactly what our councils could be doing. Section 215 action can be taken against derelict properties that bring the neighbouring properties into disrepute. Those measures are already available, but they are not being used. Compulsory purchase orders should be used and the whole procedure should be streamlined.
There are many excellent suggestions. Mary Portas also mentions providing a disincentive to landlords to leave premises empty, especially when children’s groups, local artists and voluntary groups are looking for places to use. It is much better to see a light on in a building and actors performing, painters painting or children gathering together, than to see windows shuttered and covered in Billy Smart’s circus posters, seagull faeces and all manner of detritus. Empty shops should be converted into something positive for the community.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I shall be brief because a large number of hon. Members are trying to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and because I suspect that a great many of them, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), want to say the same kind of thing and are generally in agreement with the excellent Mary Portas report, to which I shall not refer further except to say that I broadly support most of its 28 proposals.
Hon. Members with an idle moment or two might find it amusing to look at my first-class website jamesgray.org, which was done not by me but by others, where they will find among other things, very wickedly, a video clip of my maiden speech. If they watch that they will see a fresh-faced, dark-haired, slender and keen young fellow speaking from these very Benches some 15 years ago.
Mr Gray
This is what happens when someone represents North Wiltshire for 15 years. In that speech, I went to some lengths to address some of the issues that we are talking about, namely that my constituency had a number of small market towns surrounded by beautiful rural countryside, and how we could prevent that countryside from being built on. That shows both that nothing changes and, I hope, that I have done a reasonable job of living up to my promise and preventing developers from building all over my beautiful constituency.
My constituency provides a case study of these issues; indeed Mary Portas or others might want to use it as a case study or it could be part of one of her pilot studies. We have a variety of market towns, some of which have more flourishing high streets than others. The most famous of those high streets, internationally, at the moment is that of Royal Wootton Bassett, where we have a superb community spirit. Why do we have that spirit? Because Royal Wootton Bassett has a flourishing, vibrant high street and no out-of-town shopping. There is a very good Sainsbury’s, which is 100 yards away from the town hall at which we all stood in silent remembrance of our passing fallen soldiers until very recently.
Equally, in the town of Calne, we have a first-class supermarket right in the town centre. In Malmesbury so far we have no out-of-town shopping, but in the neighbouring town of Chippenham, which is just outside my constituency, there is a large number of out-of-town shopping centres and I am afraid that Chippenham high street is not as vibrant and great a place as it once was. I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who I think will be speaking in a moment or two, will seek to explain why that should be.
This is not just about shopping, it is also about housing. Chippenham is currently looking to expand by 4,000 or 5,000 houses. This very afternoon, people in Trowbridge at Wiltshire council’s headquarters are considering a strategic way forward for areas such as the Birds Marsh estate, which is just outside my hon. Friend’s constituency but in my constituency. I very much hope that they will listen to local people, some 600 or 700 of whom have said they want no further expansion of the town of Chippenham into my constituency. The same issues apply elsewhere. We have to keep our high streets vibrant by preventing developers from spreading out into the countryside.
That brings me finally to a very interesting case in point—the town of Malmesbury. At the moment, two applications are in place, one from Waitrose and one from Sainsbury’s, to build out-of-town shopping centres outside Malmesbury. They claim those centres would provide x hundred new jobs, and of course they might, but in reality they would be jobs that currently exist. They claim that Malmesbury would benefit under section 106 agreements because there would be buses from Sainsbury’s car park into the town centre and there would be a staircase from the Waitrose up to the town centre. They say, “There would be all sorts of benefits for the people of Malmesbury. Aren’t they lucky to have us, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose, coming to build in the town?” But, no, we are not lucky at all. Waitrose and Sainsbury’s are going there for one reason only: to make a profit for their shareholders out of selling groceries to passing trade. That is of no benefit whatever to the town of Malmesbury, and I very much hope that the local authority, when it considers this matter, will turn down both applications—from Waitrose and Sainsbury’s.
Malmesbury has a vibrant and superb high street with a great community, which is not dissimilar to that in neighbouring Royal Wootton Bassett. If we allow the building of two new supermarkets on the outskirts of the town or of housing, which has also been threatened around the outskirts of Malmesbury, we will land up with urban sprawl of the worst possible kind and with a reduction in the vibrancy of the high street, which would become similar to those in one or two other towns in our area. I appeal to the planners who are sitting in Trowbridge this very afternoon considering these matters to realise that if we allow developers to build on greenfield sites, that is precisely what they will do because they want to build on greenfield sites. Only by preventing them from doing so will we force them to build in our town centres, to redevelop brownfield sites and to redevelop and add vibrancy to our town centres.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on their work in securing this interesting debate.
Given the time available, I shall deal with just two or three issues, in particular what can be done generally. VAT is a big issue and Members have already talked about how we could improve business rates. We should consider how we can do more to encourage the private sector to invest in town centres and high streets, by being proactive with councils and in the local community. We also need to look at some of the laws and regulations in terms of what could be done better to streamline compulsory purchase and to promote fairer competition between small and large retailers. Although supermarkets get a lot of criticism, they provide many jobs, as the likes of Morrisons, Asda and Tesco do in my constituency. Indeed, Tesco is about to open a new superstore and we also have a major distribution centre. In Widnes, those companies are all in the town centre and add to it, although there is an impact on some other shops.
The situation is different in Runcorn.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about getting more private investment into town centres, with big and small retailers working together. Does he agree that business improvement districts, such as the one we have in Truro and Falmouth, are an excellent mechanism for doing that?
Derek Twigg
I completely agree that it is important to get small and larger retailers working with the local community and the local authority. I should also like reinforcement of the powers of councils to stop too many takeaway or betting shops setting up in town centres, which is a problem in many areas.
I want to compare two towns in my constituency: Runcorn and Widnes. With a chemical industry heritage, Widnes has done particularly well. The town centre has been turned around, and there are a number of large supermarkets; in fact, Asda moved from an out-of-town site to the town centre. There has been good development of land in the area to promote such initiatives, which involve leisure as well as retail. We have a cinema and a bowling alley and an ice rink is coming. Widnes has done well to attract retailers and other investors to the town centre.
A key factor in attracting people has been Halton borough council’s deliberate free car parking policy. It has also ensured that car parks were built. As other Members have said, it is nonsense to try to rule cars out of town centres; people want to use their cars and we should encourage them to do so, while of course improving public transport links to our town centres and high streets.
In Widnes, there has been some impact on local retailers and a number of the older businesses that were there when I was growing up are there no longer, although Geddes bicycle shop still provides the same excellent service for the community. However, other shops have been set up in the town centre to serve niche markets and that is an important factor.
On the other side of the river is Runcorn, whose town centre has not done so well, despite Halton borough council’s excellent investment in development. One of the problems, and perhaps a lesson for the future, is that when Runcorn new town was set up, some individuals decided that we needed a new town centre a mile or two away from the existing one. It is called Runcorn shopping city, and although it is not a great success it had an impact on the traditional town centre. That has been a major problem, so when new towns grow in future and there are developments with significant numbers of houses we should learn the lessons from what happened in Runcorn.
The council has not had the success it wanted, so a year or two ago I took the initiative and set up a working group involving local residents and retailers, the chamber of commerce and the local authority. We explored how we could work together to bring developers to Runcorn town centre to try to regenerate it with more shops and retail. That means, as has already been said, that we need more people living in the town centre.
In Runcorn, we are particularly blessed with waterways, such as the Bridgewater, Mersey and Ship canals, so there is an attractive area to be developed in the town centre. There is great desire for that among my constituents, but great frustration that nothing has happened. The town centre is typical in that it has been harmed by other developments that have taken place over the past 10 to 30 years. Supermarkets have not been built in the town centre, but away from it. The town has many attractions, and that is part of the issue. We have to build on a town centre’s strengths. We heard that town centres should not all be the same, and should not all look the same, and the way forward is niche shops and a different type of design, building on an area’s strengths. In Runcorn’s case, the waterways can make it an attractive place to live, shop and eat.
Those are the sort of things that we must explore for our town centres in future. Involving the local community is crucial, and if we can develop residency and housing, that will bring people to the town centre, so that it does not become a ghost town at certain times of the day or night. I believe strongly that the Mary Portas report introduces many good ideas. Some powers already exist for councils to use, but we should look at how we can further improve powers to level the playing field and make it easier to develop those areas and bring in extra investment.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I would like to speak about a modern, British high street success story, rare as that is. Despite the obvious challenges facing the retail industry, the proactive approach in Chester in the past few years has resulted in resounding success. Our high street is the epitome of what towns and cities across the country should aim to achieve.
As many Members will be aware, Chester is a beautiful, historic city with a long history as a market town. Like every other part of the country, we face a threat to our traditional economy as a result of increased competition, internet shopping and out-of-town retail parks. Over the past three years, however, Chester’s high street has beaten the recession, and the statistics speak for themselves. As the Portas review highlights, excluding central London, high street footfall has fallen nationally by about 10% in the past three years. In Chester, however, we have had three years of consecutive growth, and our high street vacancy rate is similarly outperforming the rest of the UK. Compared with the rest of the country, Chester has proved to be remarkably resilient.
In the foreword to her review, Mary Portas speaks of the complex web of interests and stakeholders involved in the health of a high street, noting that many of those parties simply fail to collaborate or compromise for the greater good. Her solution is to put in place a town team to provide vision, strategy and strong operational management for high streets.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that success and resilience are the result of empowering local people to make the decisions that will affect their local area, and in towns such as Romsey that is exactly what should happen when there is an out-of-town planning application for a Tesco store?
Stephen Mosley
I cannot speak for Romsey, but in Chester, that is exactly what we have done. That approach was identified by the Conservatives when we took over the council in 2007, and resulted in the creation of Chester City Management, a body of local stakeholders, independent of the local authority, whose sole focus is on bringing footfall to the city. Many of the areas highlighted in the Portas review were identified by Chester City Management as the key to future success.
I should like to focus on one of those areas to showcase the way in which a little ingenuity and flexibility can make a significant difference to footfall. Town centre car parking, as we have heard, is vital to the economy of any city or town centre. Car parking that is too expensive, or a lack of car parking, has just one effect: to discourage people from visiting town centres, encouraging them to travel to out-of-town shopping centres instead. In Chester, we had year after year of inflation-busting increases in parking charges. Car parking was treated as a cash cow rather than as a tool to help local business. When I took over as the executive member responsible for car parking on Chester city council in 2007, I was all too aware of the detrimental effect of limited, high-cost parking on our high street. Along with the city centre manager, Mr Stephen Wundke, I thought up and launched Chester’s free after three scheme, offering free parking after 3pm every day in three of the city’s major car parks. The scheme was specifically targeted at local residents to encourage them to visit the town centre after school pick-up or work. Unlike the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the local Labour party did not like it and claimed that the reduction in car parking income would mean higher council tax and that residents would end up subsidising visitors to the city.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
To give my hon. Friend a further example on the same point, this very day my own council, which we took control of from the Labour party last May and which introduced free car parking, has been criticised by the Labour group for daring to reduce its income from car parking. In our area free parking, as my hon. Friend described in Chester, has increased footfall substantially.
Stephen Mosley
Absolutely. My local Labour party complained not just about that, but about the extra cars that were coming to the city. But despite Labour’s objections the free after three scheme was launched. It was supported by a huge publicity campaign in the newspapers and adverts on local radio, backed and funded by local businesses, and it was a huge success, seeing a massive increase in footfall in the city after 3 o’clock. Three years later it is still free after 3 in Chester, and footfall is now up by 23%. Free after three has been copied in towns and cities across the country, and it has even made its way into the Portas review, on page 27, as a model of best practice for others to follow.
In Chester, we have worked harder and smarter than most to keep our city and our high street vibrant. It is a credit to the local authority and organisations such as Chester City Management that we have been able to beat the national trend. It just remains for me to extend an open invitation to all right hon. and hon. Members and people outside the Chamber: if they wish to see first hand a thriving and successful high street, they are all very welcome to come to Chester, put their hands in their pockets, spend their money and enjoy their visit.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing the debate. I warmly welcome his speech and the tone of it.
My constituency covers the towns of Hyde, Stalybridge and Mossley, as well as some smaller localities, all with their own high streets. The people in these towns care very much about the future of their town centres and high streets, and they are concerned about the decline that they have seen. I welcome the chance that we have today to discuss the Portas review.
Over the past year I have been working closely with local businesses, particularly in Stalybridge where the decline has been the fastest, to try to find ways of supporting our town centre. I welcome the support and inspiration that that report has provided. The review points to many of the concerns that have been highlighted by people I have spoken to in Stalybridge, such as fewer reasons to visit the high street and limited parking when they do. It presents a number of measures that could attract shoppers back to the high street in greater numbers. I want to say immediately that I support very many of the ideas contained in it.
Creating strong identities, providing greater strategic vision and ensuring that towns have a range of outlets and opening hours that match the needs of their customers are among the sensible measures that could be used to make a real difference. The acknowledgement that it is not just about retail is crucial. In addition, the review contains specific proposals, such as reclassifying the use category of betting shops, and suggesting measures that could rid our town centres of the blight of empty and derelict buildings—things that I very much support. However, it is important to recognise that a number of elements in the report would require significant investment, whether that is reduced business rates or free parking. It is difficult in the present climate to see where those resources might come from.
Today I want to share with the House some of the challenges faced by traders in my local towns. For those Members who have not yet been lucky enough to spend time in Stalybridge, I shall say a little about it. Stalybridge is a former mill town which has the Huddersfield narrow canal running through it. It has benefited in the past from regeneration to open up that canal and the area around Armentieres square. Many of the former mills have been transformed into loft-style apartments by companies such as Urban Splash. It has a population of over 20,000 with a range of incomes and housing, from social housing to properties currently on the market for more than £1 million, so it should be able to support a decent town centre.
In the past the focus has been on the night-time economy, leading some people to dub us “Staly Vegas”, but on its own the night-time economy is too limited a vision to sustain a thriving high street and town centre. Stalybridge has good transport links to Manchester and Leeds, and it could be an ideal choice for those seeking a leisurely cappuccino by the canal or an afternoon browsing in the shops.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency neighbours mine, agree that one of the problems is getting people into and out of town centres? I am sure that he does, as we are having a joint meeting on Friday to discuss roads. I have spent many hours on Mottram road trying to get into and out of Stalybridge. We have a joint problem with roads and access that is further cramping the town centres of Stalybridge and Glossop in my constituency?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with his comments. In this case it is not just about traffic going through Mottram and Hollingworth in my constituency, but about how we can open up the asset of the Peak District national park in his constituency, which would be very much to our benefit.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you could spend a pleasant afternoon in Stalybridge, given its location and amenities, but unfortunately alongside our picturesque canal there is currently a burnt-out health club, which is an eyesore, and a once thriving pub that is now boarded up. Frankly, it looks a bit like a bomb site. There is an empty former police station and a former NHS clinic nearby, and an increasing number of shops on the high street are empty and shuttered up. As a result, few people now think of a visit to our town centre as an afternoon out.
Derelict buildings are a blot on our townscapes. Landlords are often reluctant to maintain their buildings or sell them, particularly if their value has fallen, and the powers to force those owners, who might not even live in this country, let alone the community, to take any action can be cumbersome and difficult to enforce. I have been working with my local authority to try to rectify the worst cases, particularly the burnt-out health club, but I recognise that it is very difficult, and that we are asking local authorities to incur significant liabilities at a difficult time, which they are not always in a position to do.
I am pleased that the Portas review recognises the detrimental impact that empty properties can have and calls for an exploration of further disincentives to prevent landlords from leaving units vacant. Removing empty property rate relief from landlords who fail to invest in their properties, or fining those who keep a significant proportion of their portfolios empty, are both measures that should be looked at. Dealing with derelict buildings would make a real difference in Stalybridge, and I would be keen for my town to pilot any scheme that would help. I suspect that I will not be the only Member making that request today. Indeed, this is such an important part of the review that I believe that it could have gone even further.
As has been mentioned, parking is a significant factor in the health of our town centres, particularly when supermarkets and out-of-town developments can offer free parking. The review’s solution is to suggest free parking schemes. Appealing as that might sound, we must recognise the reality that many local authorities are struggling for resources and, if they were simply forced down that route, might choose to sell off their car parks instead.
Our town centres could have a very strong future. The report recognises that retailers change but there is still a role for town centres if we get the offer right. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it today. I would like the Government to tell us how they will take forward and implement the report. I hope that it can be used as a springboard for communities such as mine to take a lead in designing their town centres in future.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I am grateful for being called to speak, and I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate. The number of Members present indicates how important this matter is, not only to us but to our constituents.
I shall start by outlining the situation in my constituency. Sherwood comprises a number of small former coalfield towns with high streets and market areas. They are all are under enormous pressure, but those individual towns face very different challenges and vary greatly in their approach to them. In summary, there is no silver bullet that will solve individual problems, which have to be sorted out at local level, and many different challenges have to be addressed. Some of those challenges affect all the towns and are similar wherever we go. Many Members have talked about the rateable value of properties once they become empty, and the challenge of how to put pressure on landlords to let them.
Landlords have a role to play, however, because when they are approached by individual retailers about empty properties, the rent that they want to charge and the length of the lease that they want to offer on shops can sometimes be an enormous challenge to anybody wanting to start a small business. Somebody who has not run a shop may want to dip their toe in the water, and then take the big leap and start their own business, but if they approach a landlord who wants an extraordinarily high rent and a very long lease, they can find it daunting to commit themselves to that process and sign on the dotted line, knowing that they might expose not only their business but their home and other assets. So landlords have a role to play.
Local authorities have a role to play as well. Members have mentioned parking schemes, and it is worth reiterating the impact on someone’s decision-making process of the cost of parking a vehicle. They may want to buy just a newspaper or a pint of milk and think, “Where am I going to do that?” If they have to pay 50p to park their car to buy milk, they will choose somewhere free of charge, rather than somewhere where they have to pay almost the price of the bottle of milk to park before they can buy it.
I compliment the councils local to me that have taken the trouble to abolish parking charges so that residents can make that choice, but we have to understand why charges are in place. In my constituency there are places where, once charges have been completely removed, other residents use the spaces to park and ride into the city of Nottingham, blocking up car parks and preventing shoppers from using them.
There is also an enormous emphasis on consumers. Many Members have mentioned supermarkets located close to a high street, but they will not be successful unless consumers make use of them by going in there and spending their money. Consumers are very good at saying, “We want our high street to be successful,” but sometimes they talk the talk and do not walk the walk: they use supermarkets rather than supporting their high street. Consumers cannot have it both ways, however. They have to make use of the high street and ensure that they support the shops in their community.
We also need to look at the physical size of the high street. In certain towns it may be possible to convert some properties from retail to residential use and thus shrink the high street, to make a more concentrated area of shops, where we can address their quality, fill the empty ones with shops from the periphery and allow for the residential use of the peripheral properties. That would have the knock-on effect of taking the pressure off the green belt around our towns, and we could include residential areas on our high streets.
I am grateful for having had this opportunity to speak, and I encourage my constituents to go out and make use of their high street. The strapline for this debate should be “Use it or lose it”.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate. The future of the town centre and the high street is a subject that probably affects every constituency in the country. I shall take this opportunity to describe my experience of town centre development, because ever since I became a Member at the 2007 Sedgefield by-election, the future of Newton Aycliffe town centre has been an ongoing issue. In fact, my first Adjournment debate was about the town centre and the problems that it was facing.
Newton Aycliffe was one of the first new towns established under the New Towns Act 1946, and work on it started on June 28 1948. William Beveridge was the first chair of the Newton Aycliffe development corporation, the first row of shops in the town was built in 1952 on Neville parade, and construction of the town centre itself began in 1957.
In those early years the town centre was seen as a bustling environment with thriving shops, and everybody of a particular age in Newton Aycliffe has fond memories of it, but then, in the 1960s, things began to stall. The planners could not make up their minds about the future direction of the town and its predicted population, and as a result hesitation stepped in. There were plans for a new town centre, which were eventually rejected.
In 1963 Lord Hailsham’s report on the future of the north-east predicted an increase in the town’s population, but because of hesitation and a poor decision-making process, it took 12 years from the Hailsham report and the consent of a Secretary of State before a few shops were built. In 1974 a leisure centre was built. By the 1980s the town’s biographer, Garry Philipson, said in his book “Aycliffe and Peterlee New Towns” that there was
“indecision and consequent lengthy delay regarding the new towns’ target population and, subsequently, the form of town centre redevelopment.”
The delays and setbacks have continued into this century, but I think that we have started to turn the corner over the past three years. About 10 years ago Tesco built a store about 500 yards from the town centre. Today that is taking £1 million a week out of the town, which has a population of about 28,000. People might comment on the superstore’s hold on the town centre, but everyone still seems to use the shop.
The town centre is still making progress. The old dilapidated health centre has been demolished, Wilkinson has opened a new store, and the row of shops in Dalton way has been demolished. That will make room for a new Aldi supermarket, which will be built and opened in the course of this year, adding welcome competition for Tesco. The leisure centre is to become the site of a community hub with a new library, newly configured health provision and a community space. The structural monstrosity known as “the ramp”, which links the centre’s two floors and the car park is to be dismantled, and a row of shops near the leisure centre is to be demolished, creating a thoroughfare. That will open up to the outside world a town centre that currently seems enclosed and uninviting to potential customers.
For the residents of Newton Aycliffe, the history of their town centre has been laced with a good dose of frustration. In the past few years I have experienced that frustration myself. To bring a halt to the delays and ensure that progress could be made, my predecessor arranged for the planners, developers and other stakeholders to sit down around the same table to thrash out their problems at the beginning of 2007. That was the first time that those people had sat down together in the same room to work out the problems.
There have still been frustrations. For example, before planning could be agreed for the Aldi store, a stopping-up order had to be in place on a footpath. That process could not run concurrently with other planning issues, but had to happen sequentially, which caused unnecessary delay, given that the path has not been missed and the process was holding up economic development and job creation. The planning regime does not need wholesale reform, but some common sense must be applied when implementing the existing planning regime.
Even with the best will of the developers, planners and stakeholders, the bureaucratic nightmare generated by the utility companies was a problem. The gas and electricity companies would arrange to sort out problems on the building site of the new supermarket and then knock back the date. They found pipes that they did not know were there. I have spent many phone calls to the utility companies trying to get them to stick to the plans. Some Members might argue that such incompetence is the preserve of the public sector, but I can guarantee that it is not.
I believe that we are now turning the corner in Newton Aycliffe. I say to my constituents in the town that although they might walk through the centre and think that things are not happening, they can rest assured that they are. We look forward to having a prosperous town centre in Newton Aycliffe.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this timely debate. It gives me an opportunity to speak about ongoing town developments in Bracknell, which I celebrate and support. I will talk about those developments, Bracknell itself and make some personal suggestions of what might enhance the town and make it more sustainable.
Bracknell is geographically at the heart of Berkshire. More than 100,000 people live in the Bracknell Forest borough. It is surrounded by some relatively affluent areas. Consequently, a town centre development is a viable proposition. The Work Foundation last year named Bracknell, jointly, the location likely to recover best during the economic recovery. It has a growth sector in technology, with 11 of the 15 biggest software companies in the world based in or near Bracknell. However, the town centre itself needs development. It is fair to say, and a widely shared view, that the centre of Bracknell does not look its best. It has long needed a development plan, and one has long been in the pipeline.
I am very pleased to say that although the majority of town development plans were being shelved because of the economic downturn at the time I was selected as a candidate in 2009, one of the four that were not was for the development of Bracknell. It is ongoing, and one has only to come to Bracknell to see the first stage of it: the Waitrose store that was opened recently. It is 36,000 square feet—a massive store—and we are extremely pleased with it. We have a long association with Waitrose, as its distribution hub for the entire country is in Bracknell. Indeed, it is the largest private employer in my constituency. There is widespread belief that the first store there will lead to others. I gather that a couple may be in the pipeline, to be announced soon, which would lead to further stores.
Of particular interest to the people of Bracknell is Winchester house, widely referred to as the old 3M building, although that great company has now relocated to another part of Bracknell. It is a big building in the middle of Bracknell and not particularly attractive, and I gather that a planning application will be put forward for its demolition and its replacement with new residential units and leisure and retail facilities. There is also planning permission for a £2 million transformation of the Princess square shopping centre frontage.
In the next couple of months there will be a presentation by the Bracknell regeneration partnership announcing the next stages of the town development. Originally it was going to be a £1 billion development to happen in one go, but economic reality means that it has been broken down into a series of developments. I have every confidence that it will be completed by the end of this decade.
I have my own suggestions. First, if there is one thing that we have learned in the past 10 or 15 years, I hope it is that consumption is not everything. I would very much like to see some culture in the Bracknell town development. I believe that feeding the soul is just as important as feeding the stomach, and I should like to see a theatre or cinema there. One has only to go a couple of miles to South Hill Park to see a wonderful arts centre. I am not suggesting for a second that it has not got wonderful grounds, but it is remarkable that a centre that is struggling for funds cannot be tied into the town centre development. I would certainly support that. There is also an absence of a museum celebrating Berkshire life. There is a long history of royal links and so on in Berkshire, and if a Berkshire museum were to be set up, I believe it should be centred in the county’s geographical heart, which is Bracknell.
Bracknell is going places. It has always been an economic hub, and I have every reason to believe that it will strengthen its position, particularly with such outstanding town development plans. The local borough council is to be congratulated on its leadership, as of course is Bracknell regeneration partnership, which is co-owned by Schroders and Legal and General, which own the great majority of the land. We need to ensure that the plans are sustainable, so we need to consider public transport, perhaps including links with Crossrail. The town’s sustainability and its contribution to the long-term health and happiness of all my constituents are of paramount importance to me.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The main high street in my constituency was rocked by the riots on 8 August, but the effects of the riots have not been the main problem for the high street. It was already struggling, and businesses now tell me that turnover is down by between 25% and 45%, and footfall down accordingly.
The impact of Westfield in Stratford has been dramatic. It has even affected the high street chains in Mare street, as they have bigger stores in Westfield to which people go for the wider choice of products that they can offer. Often, people use local shops for convenience during the week but tend to go to the bigger shopping centre at weekends when they have time to choose their retail centre.
The council and its partners in the town centre forum have been proactive in running events and activities to address that decline, such as ice rinks and personal appearances by celebrities and sports stars, but such things cannot be done on a weekly basis and do not help on their own. There are long-term plans, including for an outlet store offer to build on the success of the Burberry outlet store, which is a well visited international shopping space in Hackney—for those hon. Members who are keen to get a cheap mac, it is in Chatham place. Mare street also has the only Marks & Spencer in east London, so it is a shopping centre that has many things to offer, including independent stores such as Mermaid Fabrics, Argun Printers and Stationers, and others.
Some of the improvements that Mare street needs can be led or supported by the private sector, but local leadership, which takes many forms, is needed. Additionally, the council is looking into pedestrianisation and support for businesses to improve their retail offer very much along the lines of what Mary Portas outlined in her report. With the Hackney Gazette, I have launched an award scheme for local shops to encourage them to up their game. Local residents will vote for their favourite shops in a number of categories.
Planning powers, particularly in respect of bookmakers, are a big issue. Hackney has more bookmakers than any other London borough, and we need a change to the law.
Dame Joan Ruddock
My hon. Friend will know that I have a private Member’s Bill that establishes a separate use class for betting shops. It is due in the House on Friday. Does she agree that if the Minister chose to let that Bill through and provide it with time, we could solve the problem of the proliferation of betting shops on our high streets?
Meg Hillier
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I hope the Minister is listening to the debate and to the support on both sides of the House for that private Member’s Bill, which will make a difference.
I have focused on Mare street, but in the time remaining I want to touch on some of the other high streets in Hackney. Three main markets sum up Hackney: the Ridley road market, which is a traditional fruit and veg and general market, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); the Hoxton street market, where you can buy three pairs of knickers for £1, should you so wish, Mr Deputy Speaker; and Broadway market, which I also recommend, where a loaf of bread costs about £2.50, but is very nice. As hon. Members may gather, each market represents a different aspect of my constituency.
Broadway market, which is on a small street off London Fields, is an example of what can be achieved with local determination and drive. Traders and residents took matters into their own hands and established a Saturday street market in 2004. It has been a great success for local businesses and created an attraction for visitors. Andy Veitch of the traders and residents association told me recently that they like to think of the market as more friends, less frenzy. That pitch sums up some of today’s debate. We want Hackney shopping centres to be friendly and welcoming places to shop, which is a different offer from the out-of-town malls, particularly Westfield.
Broadway market began a customer survey at the end of last year because traders and residents there are aware that they need to keep up the best of what they are offering, particularly in this recession. They are also aware that they need to work together. They are fearful that a new Sainsbury’s Local will open nearby, but they are proud of what they have achieved, maintaining a mix of the low-cost, useful shop, and niche shopping with a thriving café culture. One local delicatessen employs 27 local people, which is quite different from some of the metro stores that open.
Hoxton street market is in the most southerly part of the constituency. It has not been thriving, but with a vibrant business man newly working with the council, we hope that that will change. It is early days, but I am hopeful. I put on record my respect for Councillor Philip Glanville of Hoxton ward, who has done an awful lot to get that moving.
Tesco has been mentioned a number of times, and I cannot speak about retail in Hackney without mentioning it for two reasons, the first of which is that it was in Hackney’s Well street that the young Jack Cohen started out in 1919 with a market stall, selling a few days later the first branded tea—Tesco tea. Secondly, Tesco now has stores across Hackney, including a large one in Morning lane and one in Well street. Not all residents are happy about the number of Tescos, but that makes it an important player, even in a borough that prides itself on its independent shops.
I was heartened when I spoke to the manager of the Well street store. He made it clear to Tesco headquarters that he did not want a fresh meat counter in his 2012 revamp because there is a good and well-used local butcher outside his door. Of course, the desire to support local businesses is not entirely selfless—Tesco and other big retailers will benefit from an environment that attracts shoppers—but it is important that businesses work together, which they often do not do enough.
I have not had enough time to mention Chatsworth road, but there has been great local innovation there too; or the Shoreditch Boxpark, which has become a shopping centre because of an innovative approach by the council—containers have small shops in them on short-term leases to allow retailers to experiment.
The Portas review is important, and I wish to highlight a few key points. Regeneration led by businesses works best. Too many of one type of shop is not good. In Hackney, we have too many bookies and money shops. We have quite a lot of Pound shops too, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has a 98p shop in her constituency—ever the discount in the recession. We need more local control, but that needs to be well thought through to avoid perverse outcomes, and we need to harness technology rather than see it is an enemy. We should encourage local websites and local linking of the internet with local shopping.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing today’s debate and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on her interesting contribution.
Before I entered the House, I spent 15 years working in the retail sector for three of the biggest names on the UK high street. I welcome the Portas review, for it contains many valuable points. It has taken us away from the traditional debate, in which it was said that the demise of the UK high street is down to out-of-town supercentres and supermarkets. The report identifies salient points, and it is a credit to the House that we have focused on them today.
In the time allowed, I do not want to go over ground that other right hon. and hon. Members have gone over—I want to move on to some fresh territory—but I wish to highlight the importance of landlords, particularly for small independent shops. Far too often, people who want to have a go and set up a shop face long-term leases of five or 10 years—added to the cost of rent, shop-fitting and staff, such leases become a deterrent. I appeal to the Minister and landlords: let us encourage flexibility and short-term lets.
In recent years, we have seen the trend of pop-up shops, where people are encouraged to take up a three or six-month lease agreement. Far too often, such shops sell fireworks or Christmas trees. I encourage landlords to be far more imaginative and to give people who want to have a go the opportunity to succeed or fail.
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to hear that a scheme for young people was set up in a derelict shop in Hoxton street. In order to do that, the property needed a shop front. It is now the Monster Supplies shop, where people can buy jars of snot and eyeballs. It attracts a certain type of visitor—it is very popular at Halloween—but is that a good example of what he is talking about?
Mark Menzies
That is a very good example. I never thought that Fylde or Lytham St Annes would have anything to learn from Hackney, but perhaps in this case it does, and I suggest we do so.
When shops are left empty, they are far too often left in an appalling state. As the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who represents Rhyl, pointed out, they are left with posters on windows or boarded up. That does not make them good neighbours, so I encourage local authorities to use all the powers at their disposal—we perhaps need additional powers—to force landlords to leave empty properties in a state that makes them good neighbours and not an eyesore for the community.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as encouraging landlords, we need banks and finance houses to help small businesses? People who want to start small retail businesses cannot provide the security that banks require. We need to alleviate the difficulties with banks to encourage people into entrepreneurship.
Mark Menzies
Our friends the banks of course have a role to play, but I wanted to focus on landlords, because, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, bank support for small businesses has been well covered in previous debates.
One sensitive item—I wish to be as non-controversial as possible—is the role of charity shops. Charity shops take up a disproportionate number of shop units in many high streets. I would not wish to decry the role that charity shops have to play—the income raised by them is important, particularly for small, independent, local charities—but perhaps now is the time to review some of the considerable benefits that are given to them.
Landlords often prefer to sign a lease with Oxfam than to take the risk with an independent retailer. The security of Oxfam versus the uncertainty of a start-up independent can distort the local market. Also, charity shops do not have the bigger costs that many retailers face. The biggest cost for any retailer is the one that walks through the door on two legs—namely, the staff. Charity shops often trade on the generous support that they receive from volunteers. Given that backdrop, I do not think that it would be wrong to put the support that we give to charity shops on to the table for a timely review, to see whether we need to move past that.
It is also worth pointing out that charity shops do not always sell stock that has been donated by members of the public. We often see items for sale such as books that look brand spanking new. They might have dropped out of a major retailer’s chart and, rather than being sent for pulping, they might be sold on at nominal cost or donated to the charity for resale. Oxfam has more shops selling books than Waterstones, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.
I want to mention briefly the importance of carrying out trials. Several Members have offered their high streets as hosts to trials today. I must advise the Minister that, when he picks towns in which to carry out trials, he should remember that no two high streets are the same. A seaside town is very different from the suburb of a city centre, which in turn is very different from a rural market town. It is therefore important to pick a wide cross-section of perhaps 20 or 30 town centres for the trials. The amount of money needed to be invested in such trials would be negligible, because, if they were done properly, the private sector could become involved. I urge the Minister to look at one of the recommendations in the Portas review, which relates to getting the major chains and supermarkets involved.
In 2007, I won one of the few awards that I have won in my life. It was the IGD/Unilever social innovation award for work that we had done in a town called Huntly in the north-east of Scotland. We were opening a supermarket there, and the independent butcher and baker in the high street were under threat, but if we can get the major retailers involved in the right way and at the right level, they can be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. That can also help to mitigate some of the costs.
Like other Members, I would like to offer up a town in my constituency to take part in a trial. It is the town of Kirkham. In it, there is a lady who runs a bookshop. She also sells ice cream and runs a tearoom in the shop. As the leader of the retailers in the town, she would be willing to lead a pilot scheme. If we want to send a signal that Britain is open for business, I cannot think of a better way of doing it than getting our high streets open for business.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
In common with Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Mary Portas review. I want to talk specifically about one of its recommendations, which pertains to betting shops and the planning regulations that apply to them. I want to talk about the scourge of betting shops, partly because I have campaigned on the issue for some time and partly because they are a particular issue in Hackney and other inner-city areas. Unless people live in an area such as Hackney, which has seven or eight betting shops on one high street, they cannot understand the scourge that the proliferation of those places represents.
We have seen a surge in the number of betting shops over the past decade, particularly in inner London. I think that there are now 90 in Hackney, which is three times the national average. That is why I am glad to have this opportunity to address the House on the subject. There are nine betting shops on Mare street alone. On that street, next to the historic St John’s church, we have a beautiful 19th century town hall, on which millions have been spent on renovation. It had been leased to the Midland bank since the 1930s, but in the 1990s the council sold the freehold to the bank—now HSBC—which promptly sold it on to Coral the bookmaker. That is the pitch that we have reached in the inner cities: that heritage building is now a bookmaker’s.
Let me say something about bookmakers for the benefit of Members who do not know much about them or who do not go into their premises. In many cases, they are the equivalent of casinos, with highly addictive fixed-odds betting terminals. Often, there are many of these in one shop. Members might say, “Well, it is people’s choice if they want to place a bet. Why is she being so prudish?” I have no moral objection to betting shops; my objection is to their proliferation. As I have said, there are between six and eight on our high streets, and children might have to pass four or five of them on the way from home to school in Hackney.
I also object to the predatory nature of the betting shops in the inner city. As I have said, there are eight or nine on Mare street, and nine on Green lanes in Harringay. Betting shops put nothing back into the community, and they add no vibrancy. The pattern of new betting shops opening within the M25 shows that they have targeted the poorest areas with the highest unemployment and poverty. There are three times the number of betting shops in Newham as there are in Richmond. What could be more predatory than that? The people who can least afford to bet are being tempted by four or five betting shops in a row. Furthermore, hundreds of public order offences are committed outside betting shops every week, contributing to low-level social disorder.
I have campaigned on this issue for many years. I have written to and met Ministers and council leaders, and I have tabled early-day motions. The problem is one of planning. Betting shops fall within use class code A2, which covers financial services. That means that it is possible to turn banks and building societies into betting shops. It is even possible to switch the use of restaurants and takeaways. The Gambling Act 2005 does not give local authorities any real scope to limit the number of betting shops. Year after year, my own Ministers wrote back to me saying that they believed that local planning authorities had strong planning powers available to them to control the development of betting shops. That was not true; it was clearly the line that officials took, but it was not true.
I very much welcome Mary Portas’s recommendation No. 13, which covers the planning regime for betting shops. It is headed: “Put betting shops into a separate ‘Use class’ of their own”, and I support her when she says:
“I also believe that the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets.”
After many years of campaigning by local residents, and of local authorities finding themselves caught between angry residents and a Government who claim that authorities already have the necessary powers, I suggest that now is the time, following the trigger of the Portas report, for Ministers to give local authorities the power, in this one respect, to give the high streets back to the local communities and to end the scourge of predatory betting shops in some of the poorest communities in our country.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing it. I do not think that I have ever taken part in a debate in which snot and knickers have been mentioned, so I look forward to reading Hansard tomorrow.
I welcome the Government’s review—it was long overdue. Let us face it, the problems of town centres are not a new thing: they have been occurring for some time. We need to create vibrant areas that are exciting to visit and in which social gatherings can be held. It is therefore important to deal with this issue. Mary Portas’s analysis is a good one. Shopping has changed, as have our habits. Where we go to do our shopping has also changed. There is much to think about in the report, and there is much in it that I support, although there are other bits with which I have a few issues.
I think that we are all in danger of simply repeating our maiden speeches today, because we are all, quite rightly, talking about our own constituencies. I shall do the same. The name of my constituency does not fully describe the area I represent, because I represent not only the town of Pudsey but the many other towns and villages around it. I want to talk about two examples today. In the Farsley and Calverley area of my constituency, there is a large out-of-town shopping centre, containing one of the biggest branches of Asda as well as one of the biggest branches of Marks & Spencer. It has had an impact on the towns of Pudsey and Farsley, because people travel out to the site.
Local enterprises are trying to get people back, however. Pudsey Business Forum, for example, has an excellent Shop Local campaign newspaper. It has also printed its own bags and held lots of events in the town. Recently, we were delighted to welcome back Pudsey bear at a Children in Need event, which was superb.
A local councillor in Farsley, Andrew Carter, should be congratulated on working closely with shopkeepers who are putting on street events to encourage people to come along. The church is also getting involved in the community. Many of the towns that I represent are old mill towns, and far too often mills have been knocked down and new houses built on them. In Farsley, encouragingly, two mills are renovating their buildings to attract businesses. One has all different types of businesses, including high-tech businesses, but the other is considering attracting retailers so that it can become an exciting place to visit. That is really good.
Another part of the constituency, in Guiseley, Horsforth and Yeadon, has been helped by the fact that the main supermarket, Morrisons, has built on the high street, which has encouraged people to go through the town centre on their way to do their weekly shopping. There are many lessons to be learned there, because we have changed our habits.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many supermarkets act as hubs within towns? For years, my area has had a Tesco in town, and people do their shopping in town and finish in Tesco. People now do weekly shopping, not daily shopping.
Stuart Andrew
I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. We can see the difference. The town centres are still struggling—these are difficult times—but the fact that there is a major supermarket on the high street encourages people to do their weekly shopping there and then have a look at the other shops.
In many constituencies, parking is the big problem. Far too often, in the towns that I represent, from early in the morning through to fairly late at night, commuters take up the parking spaces that would otherwise be available to shoppers. In fairness, councils are trying to deal with the problem by introducing shorter-stay parking.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Is there not a big issue with the loss of parking in certain areas because councils are looking to retail their assets and use parking assets to fund council projects? We are losing parking spaces, which is having a big impact on town centres.
Stuart Andrew
I concur. It is important that where there are limited parking opportunities, we do everything possible to ensure that the parking is right for the area. I am delighted that my areas are now introducing time limits. I have one problem with a supermarket in Guiseley, however, that has caused huge problems by not working with the council. I hope that I can use this debate to encourage it to do so.
Finally, I want to talk about empty shops. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) had a go at charity shops. As someone who used to work for a charity, I found them an invaluable source of income. In some cases, they can bring life and vibrancy to a town centre—it is important to say that—although it might not always be desirable. In Armley, people have used their shops as centres or beacons of art, as a result of which they have not remained empty and unattractive. That has encouraged people to go along and have a better shopping experience.
It is good that we are having this debate, because it shows that we are in touch. MPs get criticised all the time but we are in touch with what is going on and we care about our town centres. We were once described as a nation of shopkeepers, and long may that continue.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this timely debate. It is clear that there is concern about these issues across the House. The problem has come to a head recently because of the wider economic climate, but it is important to remember that this is not a new problem—it predates the recession by a number of years. There is evidence in my constituency of town centre decline stretching back at least 20 years. There is no single cause; instead, a malign constellation of circumstances combined to erode the viability of independent and family-run shops.
The trend towards larger supermarkets and out-of-town retail parks is undoubtedly the key underlining issue—others have alluded to it—but it is not the only one. As others have mentioned, there is the growth in online retail, changes in demography and working patterns in local economies, people commuting to work, less time to shop and changing tastes. I can also think of a range of long-standing family businesses where proprietors have reached retirement age and found no one else in the family willing to take it on. In the current climate, it is difficult for newcomers to get into the market or take on that kind of commitment, even if they can get the finance, which is a major challenge.
Turning that around is a challenge not just for national or local government; it also involves traders and, perhaps most importantly, our role as shoppers and citizens. If we want thriving town centres, Governments and local authorities need to work together to play their part. We should not, however, dodge the dominance of the large supermarkets and its consequences. There is no doubt that they are hard to beat on price and range and that they offer free parking and many other things that people have mentioned. Furthermore, those who think that supermarkets are the closest thing to Dante’s third circle of hell can now order all their shopping online and get it delivered.
That is all very well but small shops cannot compete on price and range of goods, or provide free parking. Those of us concerned about the demise of our town centres need to put our money where our mouths are, use our shops and not do all our shopping in one shop. If we do all our shopping in the large supermarkets, they will quickly become the only places where we can shop.
It is important to consider alternatives. People have come up with lots of good suggestions today, but in my constituency the small business bonus scheme, introduced by the Scottish Government, has provided a lifeline in recent years to smaller, independent shops. Shopkeepers in my constituency have told me in no uncertain terms that their business would not have survived the past three years had their rates bill not disappeared. Furthermore, the small business bonus is arguably a huge incentive for new businesses and entrants to the marketplace because it reduces start-up costs and mitigates some of the costs associated with a new retail business.
The £60 million town centre regeneration fund introduced in Scotland in 2009, with cross-party support, has also played a part. We have seen projects across every local authority area devised by local stakeholders. They have enabled communities across the country to improve the appearance of their facilities, make them more accessible and create more than 1,000 jobs. Local authorities have a particular responsibility to push forward regeneration, to take action on parking charges, which others have mentioned, and to ensure that planning decisions do not undermine town centre regeneration.
It is important that local authorities enforce the planning conditions that they place on big supermarkets outside town. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) mentioned Huntly. That was a great scheme in theory—it is not in my constituency— but in practice there has been much controversy because planning conditions placed on Tesco have not been enforced by the local authority.
Mr David Hamilton
May I point out what happens when local authorities try to challenge big companies, such as Tesco? We are talking about small local authorities taking on a multinational company, the legal department of which is often bigger than the local authority so it can take the local authority to court and win. That is part of the problem.
Dr Whiteford
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the challenges and pressures on local authority legal departments. As citizens and shoppers, we have a chance to address that.
Dr Whiteford
I would love to but I am conscious of the time and of the fact that lots of other Members want to speak.
Some towns in my constituency are doing well and managing to swim against the tide, largely because the supermarkets are in the town centre. However, it only takes one or two attractions in a town, whether civic or shopping attractions, to make it an attractive place to shop. That has a knock-on effect for everybody. Although many local trade associations feel that they are swimming against the tide, many are doing the right thing and trying to become more attractive to shoppers: many are selling online from their shops, trying to compete with other online retailers, and trying to develop niche markets. They are also working with other traders to raise the profile of a town and make it an attractive destination.
We must recognise that although shopping patterns have changed, retail might not be the only option for our town centres. Banff in my constituency has an exceptionally high concentration of listed buildings. Shopkeepers face eye-watering repair bills in maintaining such buildings. They often cannot perform the renovations they would like to do, and their signage can be limited. It is a bigger issue for the wider community when buildings fall into disrepair or disuse, so we need to look at how to turn businesses, residences and offices back into housing in some cases.
I have been encouraged by all the great ideas that have been suggested in today’s debate. I shall certainly take some of them back with me, but I do not think there is one magic solution or a one-stop shop on this issue.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
As the 21st speaker and one of the motion’s proposers, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on the quality of his speech and on all his excellent work on the all-party group for town centres. I declare my interest as a member of Kettering borough council.
I know that I have fewer than five minutes to cover the four high streets in the Kettering constituency: Burton Latimer, Rothwell, Desborough and Kettering itself. The three A6 towns of Burton Latimer, Rothwell and Desborough are all small town centres, all different in their ways. Burton Latimer has a supermarket, a mini-supermarket, a variety of small shops and a successful farmers market once a month. Rothwell has a variety of small shops as well as a mini-supermarket and a growing reputation for niche and specialist shops as well as attractive places to eat. Desborough is a former Co-op town where the Co-op supermarket has been around for many years, but the Co-up itself has restrictive covenants on a large number of small shops in the high street, which I would contend has been to the detriment of the town centre. Two supermarket chains are now bidding to build supermarkets in and near to Desborough—Sainsbury’s on an edge-of-town site and Tesco on a town-centre site—and it is fair to say that the town is split on which of those should go ahead. Kettering borough council has the unenviable task of making the decision on that—next week, I believe.
That brings me to the town of Kettering itself. It is the No. 2 retail town in the county of Northamptonshire after Northampton. It is fair to say that Kettering town centre excites a lot of local comment, favourable and otherwise. In fact, Kettering town centre has weathered the recession extremely well. In August 2009, 88% of the town centre’s units were full, which has increased to 90% where the national average is 86%, so Kettering is bucking the trend.
It is also fair to say that there are many myths about Kettering town centre. Local people believe that Kettering borough council sets the rents on all the local shops, when it is really up to the local landlords. There is, of course, a big contrast between Kettering, where there are many local landlords of shop premises, and neighbouring Corby, where there is one landowner in the town centre. It is a lot easier to get things moving in Corby with its one owner than in Kettering with its many. A £5 million Government investment has gone into the new marketplace in Kettering, with new developments in Market street and the Horsemarket. With all this public sector investment, the prospects for the town centre are good.
Now for the bad news. Just down the road, outside Rushden, there is a proposal for a major out-of-town development. According to the local Evening Telegraph, this site, which is 224 acres, will be the location for 20 leading UK retail chains, including a large Marks & Spencer, a cinema, a leisure centre, a garden centre, a hotel and a new lake marina. One of the major investors in Kettering town centre has written to me to say:
“From the plans we have seen and negotiations that we understand they are having with traditional ‘High Street’ retailers, we are convinced that should a scheme of this nature go ahead it would seriously curtail our ability to invest in Kettering town centre and attract new vibrant retailers to the town…we are concerned that a development of this nature would have a seriously detrimental impact on town centres throughout North Northamptonshire”.
In my view, the Rushden Lakes development would be a disaster for Kettering. It is completely against policy 12 of the core spatial strategy for north Northamptonshire, to which all the local councils signed up. I would like to take the opportunity provided by this debate to urge the Government to call in this application once it is registered with East Northamptonshire district council and to turn it down. If the development goes ahead, it will have a seriously detrimental impact on Kettering town centre—as I said, the No. 2 retail centre in the county of Northamptonshire.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I am pleased to be called to speak, and I want to cover supporting town centres and the important issue of parking. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on sponsoring today’s debate.
Too many valley town centres are in decline in south Wales. With the closure of Woolworth’s a while ago and Peacocks today, important cornerstones of the high street are fading away. Let us hope that Peacocks is quickly rescued.
On parking, as Mary Portas says, there are good environmental reasons why we should not use our cars, but if town centres do not accommodate the car at a reasonable price, shoppers will not be tempted to them. Furthermore, I have in recent weeks gained an insight into how a bad parking machine at a key town centre spot—at Ebbw Vale in Blaenau Gwent—can help to undermine shopping. Following a new private operator taking over the running of a car park there, I witnessed a large number of penalty notices being issued to blue badge holders, taxi drivers and others, which has swelled my postbag and prompted much anger. Good value and easy-to-use parking matter.
Bob Stewart
In my Beckenham constituency, it is not just parking that is the problem. It is the fact that trying to get into the car parks is made more difficult by road works that go up, go down, come again, go again and come again. It is sometimes just appalling. There should be much more planning of how road works are instituted and then stopped and controlled. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Nick Smith
I do. Local authorities and utility companies need to liaise much better.
If parking becomes a problem, there is a danger that shoppers will stay away. What does Portas say about car parking charges? She warns councils not to see parking as a soft touch for revenue raising in cash-strapped times. The bottom line is that if we want to rejuvenate our town centres, we have to be sensitive to the needs of car park users. I believe easy-to-use and easy-to-understand parking systems are important, too. People should do the right thing, and pay and display. My constituents are both intelligent and compliant. However, the problems some of them have faced are illustrated by one clear example.
Following the arrival of a new parking operator, Excel, 29 disabled blue badge holders were issued with multiple penalty notices. It became clear to me that they were not to blame. Indeed, when they saw a new sign saying “normal conditions apply” and saw no signage in disabled parking bays, they thought that they could continue to park for free. Well, they assumed wrong, and they received penalty notices of £60 a time. After much advocacy, some are starting to have them taken back.
My experience over these last few weeks suggests that signage is important. If the signage is right, people understand the rules and comply. When I identified the confusion and sought simplicity, I was not surprised to see that my request for a sign saying, “Everybody has to pay at this car park—24 hours a day, seven days a week” did not find favour. That makes me and many others think that some operators are using ambiguity rather than clarity to clobber motorists and boost their profits. If the signage is difficult to understand, the fine print is complex and the font is small, people will be confused—then penalty notices get issued and drivers stay away, so it is the high street that suffers.
Let me share some of the complaints I received. One local resident—I have plenty of similar anecdotes from others—said:
“The ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) camera is big brother at its worst, with the £60 fine…ridiculous for the ‘crime’ (this is how they make you feel)…These fines will put many people off going into town, as they will be too scared that they might get another if they make a mistake entering their registration number…I am not disputing the fact that you have to pay to park, just the way this company is bullying people who have innocently been caught out”.
Since the onset of the rash of penalty notices and local controversy, I have engaged in protracted correspondence in an attempt to secure fair play for local disabled drivers. As a result, I have learned that when penalty notices are issued—partly, in my view, as a result of poor signage—Excel profits considerably. That cannot be right. Last year a £100,000 bonus was paid to the company’s only director, Simon Renshaw-Smith, and in 2010 he paid himself a salary of £398,947—nearly £400,000. Nice work if you can get it.
All that has led me to conclude that independent regulation and appeal services are required to ensure that fairness for drivers is given the priority it deserves. I hope that I have made it clear in my focused contribution that parking is an important issue, and that getting it right will help to achieve our overarching objective: the creation of busy, dynamic and regenerated town centres.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate.
Two town centres define my constituency. Ealing and Acton are part of the same borough, linked by the Uxbridge road and sharing parts of the same community. They are very different in themselves, but a walk along either high street demonstrates that both are experiencing a noticeable decline. Both have been chilled by the effect of Westfield in Shepherd’s Bush. But we are lucky, because help is on the way: Crossrail trains will stop at both Ealing Broadway and Acton main line stations, which should kick-start a renewal. The potential is there, provided that we are ready to take advantage of it.
A regeneration programme continues apace in Acton, including work to completely revamp the town hall, a huge but empty building which has cast a long shadow over the high street for far too long. Work is also being done to refurbish the nearby South Acton estate. Encouragingly, just off the high street, Churchfield road is responding admirably. It has a parade of shops, cafés and restaurants that create a buzz and the incentive to shop locally for a new generation of residents.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of Acton high street. We do have a Morrisons right in the middle, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) that it provides an invaluable service, sitting at the heart of Acton and even providing car parking, but smaller shopkeepers along the high street complain of a toxic combination of rising rents, increased business rates and dwindling footfall. Clearly none of that is good for their business, although I believe that the local government funding proposals will help.
Ealing was once described as the queen of the suburbs, although the crown sits a little awkwardly these days. The town centre around Ealing Broadway is nothing like it once was: it feels tired. Yet there is much to build on. The centre retains its own distinctive character, which is appealing. It has a strong, mixed community, including young people who often choose to go on living there even when they have left the nearby parental home because it is a good place to be. It has great transport links, and also generous green spaces. Haven Green, Ealing Green and the common are just a few minutes away. Most interesting of all, it has a large vacant site up for sale right next to Ealing Broadway station. If properly developed in tandem with Crossrail, that could be the elusive silver bullet to get Ealing town centre back on track. However, it is a big “if”.
The Arcadia site has been the source of much friction and disappointment in the community. The last owners had their plans turned down by the inspectorate, and then went bust. We are all desperately keen for the site to be sold off as a single unit by the administrator, but so far no developers have turned up with the right money. We must hope that someone does soon, because otherwise it may be broken up, which would be a tragedy.
What are the magic ingredients for a successful town centre? A strong community who are prepared to support their local shops and play an active part locally; good shops providing everything that the community requires, and perhaps a decent department store as a magnet; decent pubs, cafés and restaurants to provide a buzz. Businesses are more likely to locate themselves in lively town centres where there are also good transport links. In Ealing, the Arcadia site could provide all that, but it should not be just about shopping, important though that is. Obviously housing is an inevitable component of a new development, but can we please ensure that it does not all consist of box-sized flats for singletons? Some at least must be decent-sized family housing which will help to build the community for the future.
Town centres should provide their communities with other activities as well, such as arts, fitness centres, libraries, street markets, and open spaces for socialising. There should also be a decent cinema. Ealing, of all places, does not even have a cinema, and has not had one for years. We have been hoping that the old cinema will be resurrected by its owners, Empire, but we are still waiting.
The Mary Portas report makes some interesting recommendations. It suggests that there should be more business improvement districts, plenty of convenient parking —especially at weekends—and a more flexible relationship between landlords and tenants. Perhaps most important is the suggestion that local people should become involved in neighbourhood plans. Obviously there are more such recommendations, but thank you, Mary Portas.
I welcome—at last—Government proposals to repatriate a large percentage of the business rates to local authorities. That is what we need if we are to redevelop the relationship between councillors and their local businesses and, hopefully, allow a new flexible relationship to flourish.
There is so much more that could be said. Our town centres, especially in constituencies such as Ealing Central and Acton, are essential to the life of the community. Governments can help, local authorities can enable and businesses will drive the regeneration, but local communities must be central to the vision.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I did not really intend to speak in the debate, but I have found it interesting to hear many of the views that have been expressed. I believe that we have been given a genuine opportunity to explore a number of different issues.
There is clearly a considerable amount of consensus about what needs to be done, but when I listened to some of the comments about cars and parking, it occurred to me that we ought to be careful what we wish for. I was slightly alarmed when a Member suggested that there should be no objection to people parking their cars in pedestrian zones in order to nip in and fetch their milk, bread and newspapers, because I think that that would be a hugely retrograde step. People do not buy things from shops when they are inside a car; on the whole, they buy things from shops when they walk past them and are interested in them. My constituency contains the historic Royal Mile, where shopkeepers have complained that if parking outside their shops is not allowed, they will lose business. In fact, that is the opposite of what actually happens. There are some fascinating shops in that stretch of road, but I never see them unless I am walking past them. It impossible to see what is on offer in their windows without having the opportunity to stroll past them.
Many Members have pointed out that people need to be able to park reasonably close to shopping centres. Of course we do not want to price people out of places, but we also do not want to prevent the kind of atmosphere that generates trade and business and makes a place pleasant to be in. I do not want to walk through a pedestrian zone knowing that the next minute someone is going to be up my backside with their car because they want to stop and buy something.
It is interesting that so many Members on both sides of the House have recognised the importance of public expenditure as a way of making town centres better places in which to be. However much people want the private sector to come up with all the money, it has not done so in the past. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—the other Scottish Member who has spoken today—when Governments invest money in improving the quality of town centres, they make them places to which people want to come. I do not think that it is good enough to say that a town centre will be improved if there is no good public investment to prime, and make possible, the kind of private investment that we want to see.
There is another point, which I do not think anyone else has mentioned today. In one part of my constituency, which is a regeneration area, members of a community group are setting up a community development trust. They want to open a local café, to be run on commercial lines. They do not want it to be a cut-price place—they want to make it a destination of choice—but they need capital, because without it the project will not work. Yes, it will be a social enterprise, and we hope that they will make a profit that they will be able to invest in their community, but they are finding it difficult to get it off the ground. Lots of warm words are uttered about how good such ideas are, but community trusts and social enterprise also need money behind them in order to get going. The public sector has an important role to play in supporting the private sector in that regard.
My next point may not be particularly consensual. The primary reason why so many shops are currently closing down is that there is simply not enough consumer demand. No matter how good an idea someone might have for a charming shop with high-quality goods, it will not work if people cannot buy them. Portobello is a seaside area of my constituency. Many interesting shops open there, but then close very quickly. Demand is key.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
My local traders tell me that their biggest problem is getting our banks to lend to them. Does my hon. Friend hear that, too?
Sheila Gilmore
Lending is clearly one part of the problem, especially in relation to starting and then expanding a business, but there must also be a market for the goods; there must be people who can come along and buy things.
The current economic climate is very difficult. No matter how many interesting ideas there are for improving the physical environment of shopping areas, if people do not have the income—and for the first time the financial position of people in work is deteriorating—we will continue to see a decline. As I have said, economic growth is key.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government cuts will help stimulate consumer demand and support local shops?
Sheila Gilmore
May I welcome my hon. Friend to the House? I do not think that cutting back in the way that cuts are being made now has been a success. We can be accused of being over-reliant on public sector employment, but we must not take that away too quickly.
Recently, some constituents of mine came to see me because their small shop had experienced a sudden downturn. That was a result of private sector, not public sector, employment factors. They had relied on people in the financial sector in Edinburgh coming into their shop to buy a newspaper or some sweets, and they were going under because that market had gone; the people they had relied on were no longer there. No matter how hard they worked and how many hours they stayed open, they could not make that business work. As I have said, economic growth is the key factor.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. As has been said, our town centres provide more than a place to do business; in many ways they are the focal point of our local communities.
The community spirit and character of my constituency of Gosport is perhaps best represented by our bustling twice weekly market days in the town centre. The market offers an incredibly diverse range of goods, from sophisticated garden ornaments to truly enormous thermal underwear. It offers the chance to pick up a bargain, but it is also a great social event; people almost always see someone they know and have a chat. The retail shops are busy on market day as well, as it is almost the only time when shoppers are attracted over on the ferry from Portsmouth.
The contrast with normal days on our high street is stark, as it is suffering from a severe bout of depression at present. The number of vacant shops in Gosport now stands at 18. Fortunately, that is nowhere near the worst number of vacant premises in the country, but an inactive high street can demoralise a town and ward off potential investors. Gosport would make a perfect pilot town for the Mary Portas proposals. It has all the necessary components for a winning town centre: a world-class marina, a spectacular waterfront location, a thriving market and, above all, a dogged perseverance, which is so vital in the current economic climate.
Those advantages are, however, counteracted by the disadvantage of being on a peninsular surrounded on three sides by water. As a result, we do not have a particularly wide customer catchment area, and, sadly, a few rogue shops do not help the shopping experience either. For at least the last three years the post office on Gosport high street has been in a state of permanent refurbishment. With pipes and wires everywhere, it is more akin to a building site than a fully functional retail environment. That can only have a negative impact on the fortunes of the high street and undermine the overall perception of Gosport town centre as attractive and economically healthy.
The importance of regenerating the retail sector in Gosport cannot be overstated, as it accounts for almost 15% of total employment and is crucial to the resurgence of our local economy. The slow demise of the high street has occurred in stages over a number of years, with independent retailers being replaced by large chain stores, which then suffered a downturn in their own fortunes as a result of the growth of out-of-town shopping malls and the rise of internet shopping.
However, a British Council of Shopping Centres report has revealed that some internet shoppers are being driven back to the high street by frustration with delivery times and goods failing to live up to product descriptions. We often see successes when areas have come full circle, with independent traders offering a unique or more efficient service slowly resurrecting the high street, and often doing what the internet does but doing it better.
It is also crucial to learn lessons from shopping centres that are doing well. Stubbington in my constituency bucks the national trend, with unit occupancy rates of almost 100%. I put that success down to free parking, easy access to the shops and a large number of independent retailers offering goods and services that cannot be found locally anywhere else. Furthermore, business owners have engendered a real sense of community; I always love attending the annual carol concert organised by the local business community and voluntary groups. Such events help foster a sense of togetherness. However, the council has recently been consulting on introducing parking charges for the area. I hope that the 6,000-signature petition and strong campaigning by the local Conservative councillor—as well as my speech today—will encourage the council to ensure that that crazy idea is dropped.
I understand very well that business, like life, is not always plain sailing. Where businesses in my Gosport constituency are continuing to thrive, that is a testament to their hard work and the support of the entire community. Sadly however, for every success story there is always another business that is struggling to make ends meet or being forced under. I therefore welcome the work Mary Portas has done in looking at the future of our high streets. Without further intervention, we run the risk of undoing any progress we have already made.
I commend the Government on putting high streets at the heart of the new national planning policy framework, and I look forward to their response to the Portas review in the spring. If the recommendations are endorsed, I hope that they will go a long way towards improving the health of our high streets for many years to come.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Until recently, Chippenham council was at the forefront of a community-led plan to realise the potential of its town centre. The efforts were led by Chippenham Vision on behalf of Wiltshire council and were hailed by the chief executive of Action for Market Towns as
“beacons of localism in practice.”
Sadly however, I have to report that that progress has stalled following a council planning committee decision to approve the massive expansion of an edge-of-town Sainsbury’s, which prompted the resignation of the hugely committed Chippenham Vision chair, John Clark. The town has lost—albeit only temporarily, I hope—an impressive advocate.
Such supermarket developments can only be a drain on town centres—in this case not only in Chippenham, but in nearby Corsham too. That is in direct and stark contrast to the Government’s stated intentions. Last month I sought and received the backing of the decentralisation Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), for the “town centres first” policy. He clearly stated that the Government’s commitment to it
“with all the tests that it requires, is firm.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2011; Vol. 537, c. 15.]
The evidence from Chippenham suggests that the Minister’s words are not being heard.
We are not alone in facing the prospect of substantial out-of-town supermarket development. Property consultants CBRE reported last month that over 40 million square feet of new supermarkets are already planned for this year. It appears that “town centres first” simply is not happening out in our constituencies. We must address this in the national planning policy framework. There must also be a robust test in respect of qualifying for the presumption in favour of sustainable development; local councils must not adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to planning policies, as Wiltshire recently did.
That is what we face in Wiltshire’s draft core strategy, which my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), referred to in his speech. It is set to conform to the old unlamented south-west regional spatial strategy. Despite the fact that that never came into legal force, council planners choose to claim that it is necessary for their local plan to conform to it now. Their report to the council’s cabinet this week states:
“Until the full provisions of the Localism Act come into effect through secondary legislation, the Pre-submission Draft Wiltshire Core Strategy needs to be in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West unless new up-to-date evidence indicates otherwise.”
I had thought that this Government had done something about that, because as far back as July 2010, the decentralisation Minister was good enough to confirm to me on the Floor of the House that he had issued guidance to inspectors saying that they should consider unadopted regional spatial strategies as immaterial. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is welcome to intervene on me now to give Wiltshire councillors that guidance, ahead of their imminent decision, and confirm that their officers’ instructions on this matter are simply wrong. If he does not do that now, I hope that he will manage at least to cover the point in his speech.
The future of town centres lies not in rolling them back to the way they were decades ago, or even in maintaining them just the way they are today, but in giving them the freedom to redefine their role according to local strengths and opportunities, and then in ensuring that the public bodies in the local area co-operate with that ambition.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need something to shift the balance from edge-of-town and out-of-town retail to town centres? That could be some form of small business relief, which does help to tilt that balance. We have done some of that work in Northern Ireland and I am sure that other parts of the United Kingdom could benefit from tilting that balance, to give small business people and small retailers in town centres a bigger advantage. At the moment, they suffer because out-of-town shopping centres have an unfair advantage.
Duncan Hames
We do need to tilt that balance. That has been the thrust of my speech, and I think that the planning system has an opportunity to do that for us.
Melksham, in my constituency, is to benefit from a central community campus hosting a leisure centre, a library and a youth centre. The council’s original intention was to locate the campus out of town, but the decision was reversed as a result of vigorous campaigning by the local community, including local councillor Jon Hubbard, and Melksham Without parish council. Local people are not short of good ideas for the future of the communities that they make their home. One tool that people and their councils can use to help their towns is the bottom-up process established by the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, whereby residents, together with their councils, can put proposals to central Government for action to promote or protect thriving local communities. I note that a quarter of the recommendations in Ms Portas’s review are ideas that have come forward as proposals under that Act. Unfortunately, it would seem the process has been put on hold, and we are still awaiting the regulations that will get things going. They are required by the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (Amendment) Act 2010, and I hope very much that we shall see them soon, so that people and councils will be able to get involved.
As we have heard in this debate, pernicious parking charge hikes, along with people ignoring the “town centre first” policy, the insistence of councils on conforming to the old regional spatial strategies, and edge-of-town, edge-of-bypass development will guarantee that it is easier to move things out to the perimeter than to regenerate town centre locations. Over the longer term, reinvigorating town centres requires innovative ideas about what their future role should be. The future of our market towns should not lie in being dormitories with hollowed-out cores which send commuters out into large cities but have no life of their own. That is not sustainable socially, economically or environmentally. As we have heard, there is no shortage of ideas as to how we can approach this challenge, and Parliament must ensure that the planning system listens to and reflects the ideas of the communities who will have to live with its decisions.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
This debate is extremely timely, as many of the issues that have been raised are of great relevance to my constituency, where a potential large development on the outskirts of Carlisle is in the pipeline. We have a well-supported city centre, with a large number of shops, both national and local. The pedestrian city centre is very attractive and well used, and it often holds continental markets during the year. There is reasonable access to the centre for buses and cars, although that could be improved. In general, the city centre is considered to be vibrant and well-supported, and to have much going for it. Vacancies in the city centre are few at the moment, although I accept that there are a larger number of vacancies in respect of secondary shopping and that we may need to address associated issues. I, like many people in Carlisle, want to see the city grow and develop while retaining a vibrant and popular city centre.
The area does have a major development opportunity on the horizon. The local football club wants to relocate its stadium from the centre to the edge of the city, but to achieve that it needs to have an enabling development to make the move financially viable, and that undoubtedly means some sort of retail park. This is a major economic opportunity for the city: we would have new football facilities and supporting facilities, which would be very welcome; a large number of jobs would undoubtedly be created; and there would be a further and improved retail offer. However, there are potential consequences for the city centre that are in line with the thrust of this debate. We have to ensure that our city centre continues to survive and, indeed, thrive while not preventing other development elsewhere. Getting the balance right is crucial for Carlisle and, as has been made clear in this debate, for other parts of the country.
Before I put forward some ideas, I wish to make a few simple points. First, we must accept that we cannot fight against the tide; internet shopping is here to stay and it is likely to grow. Often we cannot prevent developments on the outskirts of cities and, again, we must accept that they will take place. We also have to recognise that no one size fits all; different parts of the country have different problems requiring different solutions. The Portas report raises a number of issues and I support many of her suggestions. I am less sure about others, but we should embrace those that are worth while.
We must fundamentally acknowledge that town centres and high streets cannot stay the same; they must change, innovate and develop new ideas. So what can be done? Many things can be done, but it is local leadership that will matter. I am talking about local leadership creating local solutions. Councils have to take an active and leading role. The development of business improvement districts is a real opportunity for councils. In many respects, councils should treat the city centre as a metro-centre or a shopping centre, and they should be proactive in managing their centre. Planning should be flexible and, crucially, councils should make sure that the city centre is an attractive place to which people want to come. Councils, as well as businesses, must also be investors in the city centre.
However, we have to accept that change will take place: we may have to encourage more residential property in and near the city centre; some parts of the country should embrace tourism—Carlisle should certainly do so; and we may have to accept that there will be fewer shops in the city centre, although there may be more cafés, restaurants and so on. Access is also crucial, and this relates not only to cars, which many hon. Members have mentioned, but to buses and other public transport. The overall goal must be to offer an improved experience, be it of tourism, shopping or something else in our city centres.
Many of the solutions lie with local government, but I wish to discuss one solution that central Government can be involved in, which is providing for standardised commercial leases for terms of up to five years. Basic lease clauses that are accepted across the industry would be enormously beneficial for traders. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that rent reviews should be “market rent only”, not “upwards only” and not retail prices index-related. That would give confidence to the traders in city centres and could improve our city centres. We already take that approach towards agricultural leases, so I see no reason why we cannot do the same for commercial leases. I believe that city centres do have a future and we just need to make it happen.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken eloquently about the strength of some of the local high streets in their constituencies across the country and about what those high streets and town centres contribute to the economies in the communities they represent.
In my constituency, there is a small town by the name of Yarm, which lies on the south bank of the River Tees. It is in the old north riding of Yorkshire and, by accident of local government reorganisations, it has found itself in the borough of Stockton-on-Tees. The town has a vibrant high street, a range of independent shops and a strong community. In 2007, the BBC Breakfast show voted it the best high street in Britain—an accolade of which it is very rightly proud. To the great concern of local residents, however, the borough council has decided to interfere in business that is rightly otherwise seen to be that of Yarm and its community.
There has been a long-running debate about parking and traffic through Yarm. That is a problem faced by the town and the solution, which is universally agreed on, must ultimately be one or more long-stay car parks, providing long-term parking provision for the town and freeing up spaces on the high street for trade and visitors. Despite that long-running discussion, however, the borough council has decided to push ahead not with a long-stay parking solution but with the introduction of parking charges—at this time of all times, when national reports specifically recommend free parking as a strong prerequisite driver for successful high streets. The borough council in Stockton risks choking off the growth and success of one of its most successful market towns and local economic drivers because it is failing to listen to what the community in that town says that it wants and needs.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
In my constituency, all the parking is free in all the villages and community centres, such as Wombourne, Codsall and many others, and that creates vibrant, thriving local areas. Does that not show the great contrast between a Tory-controlled council and Labour-controlled Stockton?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a Labour council is driving forward parking charging proposals against the wishes of local people and the community, to the detriment of the economy in the town of Yarm, which I am proud to represent.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
In that case, will the hon. Gentleman have a word in the ear of his fellow Conservatives on Gloucestershire county council, since they held a public consultation on imposing parking charges in the Montpellier shopping district of my constituency and, despite the fact that nobody supported the idea, imposed them anyway?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is very lucky, because his council has held a consultation. We have had promises of consultation from Stockton-on-Tees borough council, but what have we had in reality? An independent survey was commissioned, the results of which are clearly and demonstrably flawed. For example, it overestimated the value of the economy of the town by a factor of three. The flawed survey was then presented to the town council, which sat and listened to the findings and made its observations. It was told, “Thank you very much, but the report has already been written and this counts as consultation in our book.” Consultation for Stockton borough council, it seems, means deciding what to do and then telling people about it, not seeking their opinions and input to develop a policy that has local support.
Sadly, the proposals and the report went through Stockton borough council’s cabinet in December, just before Christmas. What is happening now? Good hard-working local councillors in Yarm and surrounding communities have signed the necessary forms to have that decision scrutinised. Andrew Sherris, Mark Chatburn and Ben Houchen, who are the borough councillors in Yarm, and Phil Dennis, a borough councillor for the neighbouring town of Eaglescliffe, joined forces to call in that decision so that Stockton borough council would have the chance to look at it again, to think again and to make a decision that better reflects the needs of the community that the council is supposed to serve.
In addition, a row has been running in the local paper; I am sure that everyone will be greatly surprised at the thought that the introduction of parking charges would excite a bit of a row in the local newspaper. Specifically, one of the borough councillors, Mark Chatburn, raised his concern at the lack of consultation before the proposals were pushed forward and Mike Smith, a cabinet member, came forward and attacked that idea, saying that there had been lots of consultation and that the council had consulted over an extended period of time. All I can say to that cabinet member, as someone who has followed this case closely and has talked to Yarm’s borough and town councillors, to traders and to residents, is that they do not feel that any meaningful consultation has taken place at all. Had it done so, I can guarantee that Councillor Smith would be getting the message loud and clear that the council’s proposals are not the right step for the future of that town.
Last Thursday, there was a public meeting in Yarm to discuss the proposed changes. About 250 members of the public came along on that cold night to attend the meeting, to make their concerns known and to discuss the proposals. I attended, and so did Yarm’s town councillors and borough councillors. Borough councillors from neighbouring communities also came along on a cross-party basis—well, on a coalition basis, I suppose, as the Liberal Democrats turned up, as did the Conservatives, but the Labour party did not send a representative—[Interruption.] And the same is the case in the Chamber right now. More significantly, despite a request from town and borough councillors and from me personally to the chief executive, Stockton borough council refused to send a representative to that public meeting. It refused to listen to the concerns of the people it is supposed to serve and represent.
You will have gathered, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this is a matter of great concern to my constituents, particularly those in Yarm and the surrounding communities, to which much traffic could be displaced if parking charges were introduced. It is a matter of concern not just because of the plans being proposed but because of the way in which this is being done, because of the high-handed and arrogant manner in which Stockton borough council is driving forward proposals without any consultation, against the will of local people, and because of the way in which officers on the council, such as Richard McGuckin, who heads the highways department, are listening solely to the cabinet members who control what they do and implementing those decisions against the will of local people. People in Yarm, a successful and vibrant market town in my constituency, are losing confidence in their borough council. They feel that they have not been listened to and that their views have not been properly taken into account and they are worried that the decisions being taken now by others who are not representing their views will have a long-term detrimental impact on the communities in which they live.
We have an opportunity, when the proposals go back to scrutiny on Thursday and are then, we hope, referred back to Stockton’s cabinet for the decision to be reconsidered, to change the situation and to put things right. In the light of Mary Portas’s report and of parking’s importance in securing the long-term success of our high streets and town centres, I want to take this opportunity to ask Stockton borough council to think again and to warn the cabinet members that if they do not, the people and traders of Yarm will not forgive them.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), on securing this very important debate. In my constituency, all three towns—Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—have faced challenges on the high street and, two years ago, before the last general election, I organised a local conference to discuss some of the issues. Conscious that such events are often attended primarily by councillors and local government officials, I walked through all the town centres and went into every single retail shop to discuss their concerns.
Let me outline the three key areas that repeatedly came up. The first was that the term “town centre regeneration” had very negative connotations for a large number of small retailers. The reason for that was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) earlier, and it is the disruption that regeneration can cause, of which local authorities often do not take enough account, whether the regeneration involves pedestrianisation or the introduction of one-way systems. In Redruth, for example, the local authority was going to resurface the main car park in the town, but to keep down costs it decided to do so progressively in between other jobs. As a result, it took six months to sort out the main car park in the town, which had a hugely detrimental effect on footfall and trade. The town has struggled to recover. First, we must apply the precautionary principle of “do no harm” if an authority is going to embark on regeneration.
The second major issue to come up was car parking. I disagree with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said earlier: most small retailers recognise that the single biggest reason why they cannot compete with supermarkets is that supermarkets can offer free car parking. I always remember the managing director of one of our large retailers saying that if a survey is conducted of the public, they will say that they want a picture postcard high street with a fishmonger and a butcher, but when it comes to how they vote with their wallets, 97% do their grocery shopping at a supermarket because they want to open the boot, load everything in and go home. We need to consider the issue of parking and I want to see local authorities using their retained business rates to try to offer some free car parking.
The third issue was business rates. It is a crying shame to see small retailers with new businesses that have sometimes been set up for only six months—who take huge pride in their shops and did not need mentoring by other retail experts or training as they knew what they were doing—find that the rigidities of the business rate system means they go backwards, losing money month after month, which is not sustainable. I think we need to look at ways of making our business rate system more flexible so that we can give more breaks to new businesses that are doing a good job and that, given the time, could achieve so much more.
Much has been said about the report by Mary Portas. I want to pick up on an issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) regarding recommendation 20 about the problems caused by banks. I disagree with his comment that we should not pick on banks. I think we should, because the issue is not about the banking estate and their high street branches, but about properties that they have repossessed, often in a trigger-happy way. We need to look at ways of making it harder for banks to repossess businesses, perhaps by requiring them to get a possession order from the courts before being granted possession of those businesses. That would give the courts the ability to take into account any proposals that banks or receivers have to bring those businesses or shops back into use quickly.
The final issue I want to address concerns the Local Government Finance Bill, which will commence its Committee stage tomorrow. The Bill provides that in the hierarchy of liabilities, a mortgagee who takes possession of a residential property will become liable for the council tax. That is a very important policy, which we should consider extending to business rates on commercial properties. This is a grey area at the moment, but I understand that as a general rule once banks have crystallised their charge on a property and taken possession, they are no longer liable to pay the business rates on it. If we made them pay those business rates, it would create an incentive for them to rent out such properties or, indeed, not to foreclose on businesses in the first place. No doubt the Minister will take some of these suggestions on board and we might consider some of this in Committee.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I, too, begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing a very popular, as well as important, debate. [Hon. Members: “On this side.”] Indeed.
All too often, attention is given to our big urban centres, with insufficient attention being paid to the hundreds of towns across the country where most of our population lives. I represent three fantastic towns—Warwick, Royal Leamington Spa and Whitnash. The debate is very timely not least because I will be interviewed by BBC Coventry and Warwickshire tomorrow morning about what will take the place of the police station, the fire station and the courts in Warwick now that they have been lost. The excellent report we have been discussing will give us a basis for some answers.
Towns are smaller ecosystems than cities, and as a consequence they are more sensitive and require greater care and special consideration. I believe that all Members can agree with the main aim of the Portas report—to craft a “town centres first” policy approach to development. Town centres are key. They are at the heart of our communities and are the backbone of our local economies. Independent retailers, of which we are fortunate to have many excellent examples, find it difficult to compete with large out-of-town developments, and this can have a massive impact on other parts of our local economies.
This is not just about retail. When town centre businesses and shops leave or close owing to a lack of footfall, it can make towns look less attractive, which can reduce other income streams such as tourism. The cumulative effect can be that community amenities are significantly affected, creating a general sense of malaise. So this is not merely about keeping a few shops on the high street: it is about how we create vibrant, dynamic and sustainable town centres fit for the 21st century.
We need to remember that town centres and high streets are not the same thing. Town centres are more than just a selection of shops. They are centres for community organisations, public services and important local amenities. They require equally as much care and thought and should not be ignored. Town centres are like any natural habitat. When biodiversity falls, the ecosystem becomes weaker and more prone to collapse. Likewise, when we focus too much on purely retail issues in our town centres, we weaken rather than strengthen them. If we allow our town centres to continue to be too expensive for other sectors, we will limit their potential. People are not merely shoppers. They are sportspeople, music listeners, theatre-goers and seekers of new experiences. The Danish architect who is credited with transforming Copenhagen has said:
“If you asked people twenty years ago why they went to central Copenhagen, they would have said it was to shop…But if you asked them today, they would say, it was because they wanted to go to town.”
It is also worth remembering that town centres depend on the loyalty of local people, and we need to ensure that those people have as big a say as possible. I welcome the fact that the Portas review plans to campaign to get people involved in their neighbourhood plans so that we create town centres in which people feel they have a say.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I know that you will not mind, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we return to Wales for a few moments. I want to deal with the twin issues of rates and planning, particularly as they apply to coastal towns, which depend heavily on tourism, and especially towns that fall under the national parks planning regime, which has a significant bearing on their ability to undertake economic activity.
Let me deal first with rates. Tenby has a population of about 5,000 in winter and about 50,000 in the summer, but the ability to negotiate the rates is extremely limited. As a consequence, in the winter shops close, businesses reduce their output, boards go up in windows and people are laid off. That is avoidable, and I make a plea to the Minister. Taken over a short period, the withdrawal of rate relief, albeit predicted and albeit that businesses know about it, can reach ridiculous heights. For example, in local towns such as Narberth in my constituency, figures have reached as high as about 250%, with the consequence that businesses are winding down, shops are closing and people are being put out of work. I suggest to the UK Government and, indeed, to the Welsh Assembly that there must be a neater way of deploying transitional rate relief and a better way of accounting for the fact that seasonal variations in seaside towns can be absolutely huge. Why not have a system whereby rate relief can be more carefully applied in the lower winter months and made up when cash flow might be better in the more buoyant summer months?
The second issue I want to address is planning in national parks. I know that my friends in the Pembrokeshire Coast national park will be suspicious about what I am about to say. I should like to quote one example from the town of Tenby, where a very viable local estate agent applied to take over high street premises that had previously been an unviable pizza parlour. For some strange reason to do with enhanced national park planning policy, the application was turned down. A boarded-up shop that employs nobody and engages in no economic activity remains in the centre of that important town, whereas the alternative would have been to have the lights on in those premises for 364 days a year with six or seven people working inside. There would have been a sense of life and energy returning to an otherwise dormant part of the street, but the only excuse that the national park planning authority could come up with was that the application was outside “policy”. Surely, in such circumstances the answer is to change the policy.
If we want towns such as Tenby to be regenerated, if we want economic activity and if we want people to be encouraged to go into town in the quieter winter months, organisations such as national park planning authorities have to be flexible. Their policies must reflect today’s economic climate and they must point in the direction of the restoration of prosperity rather than getting too hung up on outdated planning issues. I hope that there are two particular audiences to whom the Minister will address his responses—national park planning authorities, particularly in coastal areas, and the Welsh Assembly Government, who occasionally glance in the right direction when it comes to these issues. However, more often than not, particularly with a Labour Administration, the emphasis has been contrary to the interests of high street regeneration rather than complementary to it.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this important debate. I have to say in all sincerity that it is with great sadness that I rise to deliver my speech facing a sea of green Benches, which is particularly pertinent when we consider that the city of Wolverhampton is among the highest for the number of empty shops. If this is not a vital debate, I am not sure what is; but so be it.
The essential point has already been made. Town centres are not just about retail; the high street is at the very heart of any community. Many Members have referred to their constituencies. Following the riots, and in view of the fact that we have such a high number of empty shops in Wolverhampton, I conducted a survey of small shops and businesses in the city centre to find out why people do not shop there. I was surprised by the No.1 reason—chuggers: people who fundraise, perhaps aggressively. Again and again, shoppers said that the aggressive tactics used by some street fundraisers leave them feeling harassed and intimidated. I was disappointed to learn that people were being discouraged from visiting Wolverhampton city centre and I called for action to address the problem.
In Manchester, there is an agreement between the city centre management company, CityCo, and the Public Fundraising Regulatory Association, a self-regulating body that monitors face-to-face fundraising. They have found a balance between fundraising and leaving people in peace to shop. It is important that that fine line is drawn.
Although I support the incorporation of local communities in decisions about their areas, efforts need to be made to facilitate the process, so I welcome the Government’s local initiatives because that is where the solutions to many of the problems will lie. I should also like to offer the Minister some guidance on trust and clarity over tax-incremental financing, which is an issue for the developers of city centres. We have to go back to basics. If we are to see regeneration, we cannot look at the old model whereby development was funded only by bank lending; we need to look at partnerships between local authorities and businesses.
The important word is trust. Be it a local authority or a business, they need to trust each other. If, as has happened in Wolverhampton in the past, a developer wants to take a city forward and a local authority is promising this, that or the other but they get to point X without delivering anything, there is a breakdown in trust. If we are to have effective development and management in these difficult economic circumstances, it is vital that trust is at the core.
Time is pressing and many colleagues have already spoken about parking. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) made a pertinent point about local communities when he spoke about Yarm. In all my travels, not just in my constituency but up and down the country, I have noticed that there are parts of our country where there are social issues and challenges. Southall high street, Soho road in Birmingham, Melton road in Leicester or even Dudley road in Wolverhampton are in areas where there is deprivation, but there are no empty shops on those high streets. I do not know why, but I believe it is because they are centres and hubs for their communities. We need to harness that in retail development and construction. We come back to the original point: town centres and high streets are at the very heart of our communities.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate.
Much has already been said so I shall concentrate on two issues, time permitting. The first is my constituency. Many Members know that the town of Enfield, which is at the heart of my constituency, has a recent history, sadly, of being caught up in the riots. It has been fraught with that difficulty and the current economic climate that faces so many of us.
The wonderful “I love Enfield” campaign, which was started by Fast Signs, one of our local businesses, immediately after the riots tore through the high street, is a prime example of how local businesses, close to their community, are entirely in touch with the individuals and locations for which they provide services. Subsequently, our local Labour council started a “Love your high street” campaign, which I was fully behind, to try to bring traffic to the high street. It is thus all the more baffling that the council has persisted in introducing a steep hike in parking charges, including for Sunday parking, that is causing economic distress to traders and frustration to residents and is penalising churchgoers. It is not acceptable. As one of the local businesses said:
“If the council…are serious about regenerating town centres…then they need to consider one of the most simple ways of encouraging people to stay and shop in their community.”
At the heart of that is parking.
Since its election, Enfield’s Labour council has sought to force through drastic changes to parking regulations throughout the borough. Its initial proposals to increase parking charges, in some cases by more than 100%, and to increase the number of charging days to include Sundays and bank holidays, have created a difficult climate for local businesses. The changes faced massive opposition from residents, traders and our local newspapers—The Enfield Advertiser, which has launched a campaign, and the Enfield Independent. Despite that, the cabinet member for environment, Councillor Chris Bond, still claims that “fairness” is “at the heart” of the decision. However, as the Emma Claire hair and beauty spa salon says:
“All we constantly hear from our clients is that they no longer wish to shop or use our facilities due to the excessive amount of parking charges that Enfield council has implemented.”
It is worrying that Enfield council has refused to explain where the extra income generated will be spent. The cabinet member for finance, Councillor Andrew Stafford, claims that it will be used “to gain additional revenue” for the council’s coffers. I question that judgment, because the guidance for the Traffic Management Act 2004 stipulates that merely raising revenue should not be an objective of parking charges. I support the campaigns by residents and newspapers to try to overturn the decision. The council must withdraw its plans, cancel Sunday parking charges, repeal the increases and help, not hinder, Enfield’s shops and businesses.
The issue is not all about parking, but we have heard consistently across the House that it is a problem that faces everyone. Our high streets will benefit in future from a long-term strategic view of how to take on our present-day challenges, but I fear that there is disconnect between landlords, retailers and local authorities in achieving a strategic view. To face the challenge for the future, a long-term, investment-led and holistic strategy will be needed that will drive people—with relief, I believe—away from their computer screens and internet shopping. If they see their high street become a destination of choice for social and cultural events, and not least for shopping, we can help to promote our town centres. In Enfield under the Conservatives, between 2002 and 2010, there was a commitment to expand the shopping precinct, and they moved the library and the museum. Now we can take things a stage further. Recently, even volunteer dance groups have appeared in the streets of Enfield, making it a good place to do business and I invite all Members to come and see what a great job our retailers are doing.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
My constituency town centres—I suspect like those of many Members—have been subject to the development of supermarkets without any real control or the involvement of local people. In Bishop’s Waltham, when Sainsbury’s recently gained permission to build a supermarket, there was enormous turmoil in the community, and a “them and us” situation was created: half the community was for the supermarket, half against. I thought that I should do some work on PPS4, the regulation that allows unplanned, out-of-town supermarkets and retail outlets to be constructed.
By luck, circular 02/2009 requires any proposal for an unplanned out-of-town supermarket to be reviewed by the Secretary of State, so that he can see if he wants to call it in formally. Records were available for two years, so I could see exactly how many unplanned supermarkets had been granted permission and how many had been called in by the Secretary of State. The answer was that 146 unplanned out-of-town or edge-of-town retail stores had been given permission, and one had been called in. The simple lesson, for me at least, is that supermarkets are extraordinarily well resourced, powerful and practised, and they get what they want. In short, the local plan is not really an effective tool to restrain that undue competition for many of our high streets.
It is time to put people back in charge. Not all high streets are equal, and the quality of high streets varies hugely. However, some are truly more than the sum of their parts. They are the hub of the community; they are a forum for social interaction and a draw for tourists; they are a marketplace for local products, and a safety net for vulnerable people, particularly the elderly. People notice when certain people are not there, and shopkeepers are aware of those who need looking after. High streets can be heritage centres, and the value of those externalities is simply not contained in models such as PPS4—the method previously used to grant those permissions.
If we consider the needs of social services and GPs, as well as the delivery costs to new markets of businesses that are displaced, those are all costs that the models do not price and do not see. We need to do something about that and let communities decide. Local plans and notional neighbourhood development plans do not allow communities to turn around and say, “We do not want a supermarket here.” I believe that they should be able to do so, but there must be a high hurdle. There must be overwhelming community buy-in for the proposal, and we must ensure that there is competitive pricing in that community so that the less well-off are not marginalised. We must demonstrate that the local jobs that would be created are strategically important. If we put all those hurdles in place, is it not right that local people should be able to say no? If they can convince their community that they do not want a supermarket and that they have something special, should they not be able to turn around and say, “Stay away—we’re happy as we are”? I think very much that they should be able to do so.
I propose to the Minister that that should be included in the new national planning policy framework. When the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government looked at the issue and wrote a report on the NPPF, it agreed that it was a reasonable idea and it is included in the recommendations. I hope very much indeed that Ministers will consider that carefully and, yes, with high hurdles, ensure that people who live in valuable communities that they do not want to change have the right to say no.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this important debate. I work closely with him on the all-party parliamentary group for town centres, and I value his input tremendously. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, too, for granting the debate.
Town centres mean a lot to me, because they should be a reflection of a town’s character. That has emerged powerfully today in many speeches. A town centre should be a place where families go to relax and be together, where people can pass the time of day and enjoy themselves, and where consumers can shop, eat, relax and be entertained. As many of my colleagues have debated, it is about so much more than shopping: that is how town centres should work. In short, town centres should be welcoming environments where we all want to go. That is what they should be, but are they? The answer, with a couple of exceptions that have been made clear, is no.
I said that town centres mean a lot to me, but I should have said, given that many of my hon. Friends have taken the opportunity to discuss their own town centres, that Eastbourne town centre is particularly relevant. A few days before the general election, I talked to some independent traders in the town centre. As we have heard from many other Members, they had been fed up for a long time about the way in which the town centre was going, and how town centres generally were going. They were fed up, too, with politicians promising things and not delivering and so on. I spoke to the chap who chairs the Eastbourne independent traders group, and I said to him, “I give you my word, if I am elected, come what may, I will be down to see you the day after the election.” To this day, I remember a look in eyes of, “Oh yeah, I won’t see you for dust.” Sure enough, after the election, with only two hours’ sleep, I was down there at midday to say hello and to promise him that I was going to roll up my sleeves and get involved.
One of the first things I did in Parliament was to join the all-party parliamentary group. I am now vice-chair, and it is something to which I am strongly committed. I set to work on Eastbourne town centre. Unlike my hon. Friend, I did not have a great deal of expertise in that area. My background is in business development, not town centres, and I discovered the complexity of trying to get something done in town centres. It is really hard: one has to deal with planning, business rates, and byelaws. In Eastbourne, we have an astonishing number of byelaws that make it very hard to set up a street market—the sort of thing that would make a real difference.
Hopefully, the difference this time is the enthusiasm and commitment that I have shown, along with my local council. It was not always the case, but it is now a can-do council. I said that we had to get a good street market in the town centre, which would act as a catalyst or engine to get things going. The council said that there were a lot of byelaws but—and this is different—it said, “We will do something about it, Stephen.” Previous councils, whatever their political persuasion, would just say, “It’s too complicated. We’re not going to do it.”
It took a year and three quarters, but it has been through cabinet. In Eastbourne town centre, opposite the shop where I spoke to that independent trader, there will be a street market in late spring or early summer. It is a start, but as we have heard today, so much of this is about the drive and commitment shown by the Portas review, the coalition Government and the Prime Minister. As an Opposition Member said, this is an old issue that has been around 20 or 30 years but, finally, there is a chance that something will be done. I hope that that is the case because, to be honest, we all know about the state of town centres for the past 20 or 30 years. They have consistently become worse and, with some honourable exceptions, there has not been any real change or improvement.
We are all responsible—politicians, planners and the public—because everything has changed with the internet and the complexities of shopping today. This important debate—I really think that it is important—offers an opportunity so that, in a few years’ time, we will look back at 17 January 2012 as the day on which parliamentarians, the Government, the Minister and the public decided, “That’s it. We’ve had enough of our town centres simply deteriorating and going out of fashion. We’ve got to stop it.” We have to begin that fight. There are many reasons why it is important but, most important of all, town centres, when they work, are the heart of a town. I think that they are worth fighting for, and it has been a pleasure to speak in this debate.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing this debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I pay tribute to Mary Portas for the hard work, passion and imagination that she put into her report.
We have heard about the challenges that town centres face from out-of-town food stores, retail parks and the internet. Poor town planning has also played a role in the decline of town centres, whether in granting planning permission for out-of-town stores in the wrong places on inappropriate terms, by making town centres inaccessible and difficult to reach by car or public transport, or by doing little to prevent the rise of “same street” syndrome and clone towns throughout the country.
To halt that decline, town centres should be able to compete on a level playing field. We have heard about the importance of retaining the “town centre first” policy. Moreover, Mary Portas points out that the high street can be a hard place in which to trade. We need to make it easier, with fewer rules, regulations and restrictions, and a more balanced tax and rating system.
As for parking, in some towns, such as in Lowestoft in my constituency, the council, working with town centre shops, has put in place more customer-friendly car parking arrangements. However, the Government still need to do more.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what Gloucester city council has done, which is to reduce parking charges to £1 an hour, is exactly the sort of proactive work by local government that we need to help revitalise interest in our city centres?
Peter Aldous
I welcome that intervention, and I agree. Councils across the country are doing what they can, but the Government can do more. They should look at how parking at out-of-town stores is assessed for rating purposes. As a chartered surveyor, I do not believe that the current valuation approach truly reflects the value of that car parking to out-of-town retailers and the rateable values should be raised, with the additional funds generated being used to reduce car parking charges in town centres.
With rates, councils should be provided with more discretion over the discounts that they can offer, ratepayers should be able to spread their payments over 12 months rather than 10 months, and the anomaly whereby business rates are increased annually in line with the RPI, rather than the CPI, must be corrected as soon as possible.
Another challenge that needs to be addressed is the fact that there is a lot of unused space in town centres, both at ground and upper levels. We need to make it easier for that accommodation to be put to alternative uses, such as much-needed dwellings, doctors’ surgeries, gyms or other community uses. The use classes order, which for so long has acted as a straitjacket, should be relaxed and local councils liaising with local communities should have more discretion about what activities should be allowed.
In Kirkley in Lowestoft in my constituency, Desmond does not have a barrow in the marketplace; he has a superb coffee shop, with unique decor and a “Hancock’s Half-Hour” collection to rival the BBC’s. An episode is played at 10 am each day. Desmond wants to expand to provide hot food, but at present he cannot do so, as his use would be in the same use class as a kebab shop. That issue needs to be addressed.
Many town centres, including Lowestoft, are blighted by unkempt and dilapidated buildings that discourage people from going there. Councils should be given more compulsory purchase order powers to address such problem properties, and they should be able to serve empty shops management orders.
I agree with Mary Portas that markets should be encouraged. Markets were the procreators of town centres and they have an important role to play in their future. People like browsing around a marketplace. Markets bring people into a town, they provide an opportunity to showcase products or skills, and they give entrepreneurs the opportunity to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder that can lead to running their own business. Across the country, there are too many rules and regulations, too many hoops to jump through, before a market can be set up. Those need to be removed, and to be replaced with a presumption of favour of the right to trade.
Out-of-town parks have a major advantage over town centres in that they are in one ownership, subject to one management regime, with one common purpose. In the town centre there are many players and many stakeholders, with different goals and objectives. We need to help them come together to work as one to promote town centres, as they are doing in my constituency in Lowestoft, Beccles and Bungay. Business improvement districts, for which preparatory work is currently taking place in Lowestoft, can help as well, as can Mary Portas’s proposals for town teams.
In conclusion, Mary Portas’s report has highlighted a problem that is faced across the country, and this debate has helped move the discussion forward. I look forward to the Minister’s summing up and I urge the Government to respond to the report as a priority, so that we can all get on with the important task of bringing life and prosperity back to the country’s high streets.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I should declare an interest. I own commercial properties in Greater Manchester and I was a shopkeeper for 20 years. I had clothes shops and hairdressing outlets around the Greater Manchester area. For years I have been watching the decline of town centres, and I agree with more or less everything that I have heard from both sides of the House today about the state of our high streets and town centres.
Our shopping habits have changed, and we must recognise that. The internet has been a revolutionary step forward and, as we can all agree, it has good points and bad points. There is more choice on the internet, but the disadvantage is that people cannot hold, touch, see or experience the object unless it is in a showroom. Many town centre shop owners have said that they have become showrooms for the internet market. I know that many suppliers and manufacturers have taken measures to stop certain sales taking place over the internet, but the internet has had a large impact on town centres, as out-of-town shopping has on all our towns across the country.
The good points are that those huge shopping centres provide security, diversity and more choice—but most of all, they offer free parking. They are accessible from the motorways. More often than not they are on bypasses that have been created because every town centre in the land has been pedestrianised. Correct me if I am wrong, but most town centres in this country have been developed through the centuries, most of them in Victorian times, as thoroughfares or crossroads where traders met and markets, and later towns, developed. For the life of me I cannot understand why every major town centre in the UK has been pedestrianised. Cars have stopped going in. The whole infrastructure of a town centre was based on traffic going through, in and out. To compound things further, what did we get in some, if not most, councils? Parking wardens. Private parking wardens—a way of raising money.
Let me tell it like it is. Where I am from, I still have commercial properties. If I nip into the local town or go to visit my children, I park, and I then have 30 minutes. By the time I have walked into the town centre, which has now shrunk, it is time for me to go back. When I get back, more often than not I have a parking ticket. That discourages people from going into town centres.
Look at what has become of our town centres. As one hon. Member said, they have become the home of charity shops, fast-food outlets and betting shops. A plethora of shops service retail industries. The large high street clothing shops—the Nexts and the Marks & Spencers—will not set up in a small town any more because the units are too small. We now have to look at the planning system. Over the past few years many town planners, rightly or wrongly, have been planning on the outskirts of the town. A bypass road has been built round the pedestrianised town and the situation has been self-perpetuating.
We must start thinking about the future of town centres. The circumference of the town centre will shrink, and the outer shops will more than likely become housing. The town planners should recognise that if we are to attract larger businesses into the town centres again, we must redevelop and create units that will house their current requirements, instead of what happened when town centres were built up, in some cases hundreds of years ago and in other cases as recently as 50 years back.
To sum up, we should re-open some of the pedestrianised towns where applicable, and we should start looking seriously at how to attract businesses back into the centre of towns. More than anything, we should try to work out a better system of parking. Free parking areas would be preferable, but in this day and age I know that that would be almost impossible. Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for letting me speak in this debate.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate.
I have the pleasure of representing a seat with three town centres, Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley, and there are various other high streets. I could go on all night and list them, but probably the three biggest are Codnor, Somercotes and Langley Mill. It will not surprise anyone who has heard the debate to hear that they all face the challenge, to varying degrees, of empty shops and an over-supply of charity shops, take-aways and betting shops. This seems to be true of the whole country.
I was slightly concerned by the local council’s report on the retail industry in Amber Valley. I first read the part about the most successful town in the constituency, Alfreton, which shows that in some parts footfall is below the national average. I thought, “That’s a bit of a problem, but hopefully we can find a way to fix it.” I then read the part about the weakest of the three towns, Heanor, which shows that footfall there is one third of that in Alfreton, which already has a problem. That shows the scale of the problem we face in that part of Derbyshire. Because of the history of old mining communities, there are many small town centres between one and five miles apart servicing 20,000 people, and the old diverse shopping mix, with people walking into town to use the shops, is history. That is no longer how we shop.
Before we look back to a golden age of town-centre shopping, we should think about what we do when we get back home on a Thursday evening at half-past 9 after leaving this place and find that there is no food in the fridge. We go down to the 24-hour Asda and do our shopping there. I am then busy all day Friday. What do I do at the weekend? I go to the supermarket. Those of us who know that that is wrong try to find the time to shop in local shops, for example by going to a local butcher rather than the supermarket. I have found that one of the privileges of being an MP is that I get to convince my girlfriend that we cannot go to the Meadowhall shopping centre, but we have to shop locally instead. According to the Portas review those huge shopping centres offer a great and enjoyable experience, but I am not sure that that is what I have found.
Understanding the problem is easy, but finding the fix is not. I do not think that the fix is for my local council to have to decide tomorrow night whether it wants to sell land on the edge of Ripley to another supermarket. I do not know who is bidding or how many bidders there are, but I do know that having a second supermarket will not help in a small town that is already struggling. The shopping centre might have a pharmacy, an optician, a mobile phone shop, an electrician —you name it, they have it these days—and the town centre already has vacant shops. It has three pharmacies, an optician, a Currys and other electrical shops, all of which will be under direct threat from a second supermarket, never mind the fact that there are already two supermarkets in the town centre that are themselves struggling.
We have to send out the message that if we are trying to save our town centres, we cannot add extra out-of-town shopping that reduces the footfall that town centres desperately need to attract. The council’s report states that we might need another supermarket in the Alfreton area in 2026. I look forward to catching HS2 to that supermarket in 16 years’ time, but in the meantime I am not convinced that we need it.
It would be remiss of me not to comment on parking, which is a long-running local issue. Our parking charges are actually quite low: 50p an hour is a typical rate. With the amount the petrol costs to get to the car park, I wonder why those charges are such a concern, but clearly they are, especially for the convenience store that has reopened in Heanor market place—I pay a huge tribute to Mr Patel for that. His problem is that there is a Tesco store down the road. If I want to buy a pint of milk I can park there for free, but if I want to buy it at his shop I have to find the change, find the machine and pay the 50p, and if I accidentally stay longer I get the privilege of a £25 fine. Finding a solution to that problem is key.
The most encouraging thing about Mary Portas’s review is that she did not try to take us back to the golden age of the 1950s or claim that this is just about getting all the shops back. She recognised that we have to do something different, and find different uses to get people using town centres again, whether that is a social use, a health use or something else. The challenge for all of us, and for our councils, is to find something that will work for each town centre, and find a way of making it happen. If that means shrinking the shopping area and moving shops to a viable area, rather than having them too spread out, or if that means finding other uses and allowing empty shops to become restaurants or café bars to try to get that footfall and find a viable use, that is the way forward, and that is what we need to do.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Liberal Democrats believe that community politics should be at the heart of what we do. Decisions that affect individuals should be made at the lowest practicable level and, when it comes to our high streets and town centres, local communities should be given as much power as possible. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to protecting our high streets.
The independent Portas review, although not perfect, is a significant step towards undoing the centralising powers that were introduced by the previous Government. Key measures such as business rate reforms, town teams, the general power of competence and neighbourhood plans will enable local people, through their council, to make decisions about their own areas and that affect their own lives. There is much more that can and should be done. As the Portas review identified, the more powers local people have to control their own lives, the more likely they are to create a thriving community, and a thriving community is the bedrock of a successful economy.
In Cambridge, I am fortunate to have an extremely successful city council, headed by Councillor Sian Reid, who is fighting hard to protect our town centre, our local market and our local high streets. We have been doing this for years, so we are more than ready to identify where Government reforms are working and where they will not deliver as expected. However, the story is not all good. This year, Tesco is due to open its 13th store in Cambridge. Despite the best efforts of Sian Reid as council leader, Catherine Smart as deputy leader and myself as the local MP, we have simply not been able to find any legal means by which we can prevent supermarkets from opening ever more new stores on our high streets, even when there is significant opposition from local people. That means that supermarkets in general, and in our case Tesco in particular, will have a very large market share in one place.
The problem is not Tesco itself. It and other supermarkets play an important role and people do choose to shop in them. The problem is supermarket dominance. There are a number of problems. First, there is a stranglehold on competition. A successful economy, both locally and nationally, is based on diversity and people’s ability to innovate, adapt and provide the services that people want. What can be done about the supermarket monopolies? The answer is not very much. It is perfectly legitimate under existing rules for a supermarket to have a reasonable market share across the country but a complete monopoly in some towns and high streets. The result is lack of choice for consumers, which is bad for the community and the economy. Breaking these monopolies up is not anti-free market; it is fundamentally pro-fair market and pro-community.
Secondly, local areas retain more money when it is spent in independent and locally owned stores. Local owners are more likely to serve their communities because they live there too. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the need for the Government to support worker-owned enterprises. In the same vein, local planning powers should enable locally owned stores. When shops are opened by consent, with the support of local people and under the ownership of local residents, the economic and community benefits are huge and we should support that.
Many of these trends are likely to get worse. We have a housing problem in our country and need to build more housing, but as these new neighbourhoods are formed, we must ensure that developers, when they lease or sell their outlets, take into account independent retailers. I have been told that some developers will sell units only to companies that are prepared to buy 10 or more outlets, which squeezes independents out of new neighbourhoods entirely. For these reasons, I have been working closely with city councillors to see how we can better represent the interests of our constituents by supporting local stores. Local government must be able to influence whether new stores are chains or independents and whether they are small or large outlets, because that is want people want it to do.
One approach we tried was to see whether planning applications could take account of the diversity of shops in a town centre. The push by Cambridge city council became known as the “Cambridge amendment” to the Localism Bill in the House of Lords, and I spoke in favour of it in this place. The Government, however, did not accept that case, but they did suggest using local “use classes” to enable local people to control their high streets, which seems a perfectly reasonable proposal. It would mean that local people could determine that supermarkets are in a different category from small shops and that when shops merge, that would change the class. It would empower local councils, but we have not yet heard from the Government how those proposals would work and the details, despite letters from myself and the leader of the council. I ask the Minister to respond as soon as possible. It is not just about opposing supermarkets for the sake of it. We need to ensure that we have variety and diversity.
We also need to ensure that there is transport. I have been fascinated by the comments made about the need for more cars. There is lots of evidence that improving the walking environment increases retail footfall by 30%, as a study in Exeter has found. People who walk in shopping areas and cycle there or take the bus and train spend more money because they have access. We have to promote sustainable travel. I call on Ministers to look at how we can empower our local communities and give them the powers they need to ensure that we have vibrant centres.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I would like to join the long list of Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who has carried out an exceptional role in promoting our town centres and high streets. I was very proud to co-sponsor the call to get this debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and we have been proved right that this would be exceptionally popular and justify the full six hours.
I am particularly interested in the issue, both as shopper, when following my fiancé round and carrying the bags. I support my local town centre and am the vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for town centres, retail and small shops. I have set up a retail forum in my constituency; I support our excellent local bid company in Swindon; I invite retailers such as Lord Wolfson to visit and pass judgment on our town centre; and I grew up in a family of shopkeepers who modelled themselves on the “Open All Hours” sales technique.
Nationally, the last few years have been tough on high streets, with consumers wielding less disposable income, high-profile retail failures leading to large numbers of empty shops, the growth of out-of-town shopping centres and the continued boom in online shopping. For example, this December saw an 18% increase on last December in such shopping, and one in 10 consumers now uses their phone in-store to check the price of goods elsewhere.
For all those fans of Swindon—I know everybody loves Swindon—I must say that even we have had challenges. Over the past five years, there has been a 22% fall in footfall, and the number of empty units is up to 17%, but there is much hope on the horizon.
Turning to the excellent Mary Portas review, I, as her unofficial official No. 1 MP fan, am a great supporter of it, and for me the key recommendations included, very importantly, the need for a town team. We have the Forward Swindon company in Swindon, because developers and retailers want a single point of contact. Out-of-town shopping centres have a single point of contact, and that is what is needed on our high streets. It is important to empower bid schemes, which are essential for creating events, for marketing and for representing traders—for creating that reason to visit and for making the particular town a town centre. I wish the company in Swindon all the best in the referendum to get a second five-year term. I am sure it will.
It is very important to promote the national market days. We all say that we would like more markets in our constituencies, but the challenge is the lack of market traders, so I am delighted that today New college in my constituency and the Blunsdon indoor market have agreed to work with me to give business students the opportunity to man stalls on the market for free in order to get real-life experience.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend has drawn on several things happening in his town of Swindon. Does he agree that they demonstrate that town centres, high streets and markets are not just centres of economic activity, but the beating heart of many communities?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. That is right.
By giving young people the opportunity to get real-life experience on the market, we may find that they become the next generation of market traders or, even, shop retailers, and they create the independent retail outlets that give our town centres unique character.
Many hon. Members and hon. Friends have discussed the importance of business rates, and I welcome the fact that we are giving greater powers to local authorities. As with all things, there is a limited amount of money, but I hope that if they target anything, they will provide incentives for start-up businesses and, perhaps in particular, young people’s start-up businesses.
Parking has been mentioned several times, and I am delighted that Swindon has been praised in the Portas review, because its local council took a brave decision—opposed by Labour councillors who seemed hellbent on abandoning our town centre—to introduce a £2 flat fee for four hours’ parking. That reversed the fall in footfall, we had a 10% increase and, crucially, dwell time increased, too. In fact, one café reported a 30% increase in takings, so where, previously, people went into town just to do their banking, now they stop off in a café to refuel and, then, carry on to do some serious spending, which is a real boost for our local economy.
It is right to highlight the need for town centres to be accessible, attractive and safe, and I was delighted to see the £20 million parade redevelopment in Swindon, and that the council has invested £2.8 million in the public, open space in the town centre. It is also important to recognise the transition between the daytime and night-time economies, and with the plans to introduce a late-night levy I suggest that the units paying the levy have a say in how it is spent, as they understand the night-time economy.
The exceptional sign-off rule for all new out-of-town developments has also been highlighted, but we had a town centre Marks & Spencer, and the company planned to build another store on the northern orbital, at an out-of-town site. A deal was struck, however, whereby it would refurbish the town centre store first, so it remained the anchor, destination store.
On affordable shops, it is important to secure the next generation of independent retailers, and I fully support the need for several small units as the entry point for those new businesses.
I fully agree with the comments about doing everything we can to tackle the number of empty shops, and I am delighted that our Brunel shopping centre has reduced its vacancy rate to just 4%, partly on the back of cheaper parking and partly on the back of pushing landlords to make the units useful.
James Wharton
In the light of many comments that we have heard on the Floor of the House today, did my hon. Friend just say—did I hear him right?—that cheaper parking has helped to deliver success at his local shopping centres? It would be useful if he clarified that point.
Justin Tomlinson
Absolutely, and I know that my hon. Friend highlighted a campaign on parking in his speech. Footfall had fallen by 22%, but following the reduction in car parking charges it has increased by 10%, and dwell time has increased significantly, benefiting local businesses.
For all those fans of the various Mary Portas TV programmes, page 43 of the report touches on another area—the need for retailers also to step up to the mark, particularly in customer service and by offering something different. We will not stop supermarkets or out-of-town shopping centres, and arguably we should not have to, because it is up to the market if people choose to go to them, but there is an opportunity for retailers to offer something better and different.
There are two examples in my constituency. The Bloomfields deli in Highworth opened when people said that it was absolutely mad to do so, but because it offered unique products and exceptional customer service it has thrived and opened a further two stores. The Forum clothes store has been trading for 17 years and seen off all sorts of national chains, which have come and gone as fashions have changed, but by building on customer service and offering products that are not immediately available elsewhere it has remained standing much longer than the main competition.
All is not lost, and there is much positive work to do. Members, the Government, local authorities and retailers have roles to play, and I very much hope that, with my promotion of Mary Portas at every opportunity, we in Swindon will have an opportunity to secure our status as one of the pilot schemes, because we are all behind it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I shall take a slightly less supportive position on the Portas report than my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who just made a very effective contribution to the debate.
I recognise that our local communities want to retain their high streets and town centres, and ultimately it is in their hands: they will determine where they shop. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) pointed out the attractions of supermarkets because of their all-embracing services at almost every hour of the day and night, but we certainly have to do something to restrict out-of-town developments and to retain the vibrancy of our town centres, because that is what the people we represent most certainly want.
My constituency boasts in Barton-upon-Humber a very good market town, and in Cleethorpes itself the main shopping centre on St Peter’s avenue boasts not only the MP’s constituency office, but a lively and excellent selection of shops. Another town in my constituency, Immingham, has a reasonable mix of shops, but it, like other places, is desperate. It wants Tesco as part of its regeneration, and I am pleased to say that it is almost about to happen, but we have to recognise that point.
I do not have time to touch on all the recommendations in the Portas report, so we can take it as read that I support most of them, but the town team recommendation envisages
“a visionary, strategic and strong operational management team”
and, having served on a town team as a council representative for many years, I have to say that we struggled because of over-regulation, difficulty and the lack of funding—even at that time, with lavish support from the regional development agency, which achieved almost nothing. Town teams are fine, but nothing will happen without the driving force of a local authority, because it controls planning, traffic movement and car parking.
Much has been said of car parking. Of course, we would all love to see zero charges, but the reality is that car parking provides a net income. I wrestled with this matter when I was a member of my local authority’s cabinet, where car parking had a net income of £1.25 million. Yes, that can be reduced. North Lincolnshire council, which is another authority in my constituency, has brought in some imaginative ideas and encouraged growth.
Nigel Mills
Does my hon. Friend agree that when councils get the power to keep any increase in their local business rates, we will soon see whether they are convinced that by reducing parking charges, they can generate extra business rates and therefore extra revenue? Cutting car parking charges might not be a lose-lose game, but rather a win-win game.
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend has made the point that I was just coming to, so I will skip a few points. However, we have to recognise the difficulties that local authorities face in this regard.
Recommendation 15 of the report talks about an “affordable shops” quota in large new developments. That idea sounds fine, but the businesses that would be drawn to such developments are probably those that are currently in secondary shopping areas, such as the long parades of shops that most towns have, where many of the shops are boarded up or are used as charity shops. The recommendation might lead to more decay and dereliction in those secondary areas. We must consider the knock-on effects.
Overall, the report is to be welcomed, if for no other reason than that it has generated a lively debate in the House today, with excellent contributions. That will feed through into our local communities, where the debate will continue.
While I have the opportunity, I will put one point to the Minister again. We hear much about the regeneration of our cities, which are indeed engines of economic growth. I ask him not to forget the provincial towns, many of which are a long way from a major city. There should not be too much concentration on cities at the expense of the many provincial towns in my region, such as Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Halifax and Huddersfield.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
How does my hon. Friend suggest we communicate politically the value of market towns as opposed to cities?
Martin Vickers
That is a challenging question. The reality is that we have been trying to revitalise our towns. As I have said, I served for a long time on my local authority. I was also a member of the Local Government Association’s urban commission. We had countless presentations from highly paid consultants on how this could be achieved, but many of the ideas fell flat because there was not the support of local communities.
The report mentions reinvigorating high streets with market traders. In principle, that is fine, but I remember being the councillor responsible for allowing that to happen and there was a mass uprising among existing shopkeepers, who immediately came to me saying, “I pay my rates and my dues and you are allowing these people to drift in, many of whom have no connection with the town and the community.” It is a difficult balance to achieve.
We have to recognise that the success or failure of our high streets and town centres relies ultimately on the customers. It will be determined by the market forces. I want to see our town centres and high streets thrive with imaginative ideas from local shopkeepers, but ultimately the customer is king. Past Times went into administration a day or two ago; we must hope that high streets do not belong to times past.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
That was a powerful concluding statement from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who laid out the complexity of the situation.
The truth is that over the past six decades our policy on market towns and high streets has been an astonishing failure. Government after Government have tried almost everything. They have played around with parking and with rates, and they have changed the planning regulations. The result has been a catastrophic disaster. We have gone from 43,000 butchers in 1950 to 10,000 in 2000. We have gone from 41,000 greengrocers to 10,000. The number of fishmongers is now a fifth of what it used to be and the number of bakers is a quarter of what it used to be.
The question is, what do we do? We first need to be tough and serious in recognising the problem. The problem is not simply that out-of-town retailers are large, muscular bullies. First, their growth reflects the fact that it is more convenient to locate a business out of town. It is, of course, cheaper and easier to set up out of town. A shop can have night time deliveries, the rates are much more transparent and it is easier to develop a retail space that suits the retailer. Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes said, customers are selecting out-of-town retailers for their shopping. Thirdly, we need to acknowledge that although out-of-town retailers have had a disastrous impact on our high streets and market towns, they have had a very good impact on the products in our shops. When my neighbour first moved to Penrith in 1955 from the United States, the only way in which one could buy olive oil was to go to the chemist and buy it in a bottle of about 25 ml for medicinal purposes.
So what are we going to do? As everybody has said in this debate, we need clearly to define the value of towns and high streets.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to providing a broader range of products, the supermarkets that he refers to have brought the benefit of reducing the cost of living for many people by reducing the price of basic essentials and the general grocery bill?
Rory Stewart
I agree absolutely. That is why the argument that we have to make is not an easy one. We have to make it because everybody in this Chamber—indeed, everyone in this country—believes deeply in the value of our high streets and market towns. It is not an easy argument to make because in terms of price, market competition and, fundamentally, choice, it is difficult to continue to defend the high street. In order to do so, we need to reach for more imaginative arguments.
We need to explain, above all, the value of public space. The great thing about any high street or market town is that it offers somewhere that is different from the workplace and the home: a civic space in which one interacts with other people. The point of it is not simply a shopping or retail experience, but those innumerable miniature encounters and exchanges of advice and wisdom that create the warp and weft of a community. That is a huge capital resource that we rely on when we talk about the big society, when we look for voluntary activity or when we fight for our local assets, such as in Penrith where we are fighting to save our cinema. We need that local identity and it is conveyed primarily in our lives through the experience of a town or high street.
Mr Marcus Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the ambience and experience of the town centre is extremely important? The town centre manager in Nuneaton has a strong track record of putting on entertainment such as Punch and Judy shows, theatre shows, mini opera companies and brass bands. Does my hon. Friend agree that such things add to the ambience and experience when people go to our town centres?
Rory Stewart
Absolutely. Of course, that is a central insight of this debate: a town centre is not simply about a shopping or retail experience, but about a much broader community experience that can range from puppets to the visual elements and even the aesthetics. One reason that Appleby in my constituency is such an appealing place is its architecture. The extraordinary asymmetry and symmetry of our red sand stone, the castle on the top of the hill, the Moot hall and the market cross create something that it would be impossible to replicate in a modern retail space. Those things are not about shopping.
The other important point from Nuneaton is local leadership, which is what we need to represent a town centre and compete with an incredibly able retail manager at a Tesco or Waitrose. That is why we should look again at local democracy and elected local mayors. If we ask why a French town is vibrant and able to say no to a local supermarket, whereas in Penrith a Sainsbury’s appeared even though I reckon 90% of the community opposed it, we realise that a great deal of that is due to the lack of a local leader and champion, the elected mayor, who can say no.
We can also do an enormous amount to support councils by getting rid of regulations and ensuring that if, for example, Penrith wished to challenge the supermarket, it could be confident in the judicial review process and confident that the planning laws would suit it. There could perhaps even be insurance if it were defeated, so that it did not feel horribly financially exposed.
Finally, and most importantly for Conservative Members, we must understand that this is a fundamentally conservative campaign in the best sense of the word. It is not about a grand vision of central planning and rationality, or a notion that some expert in a capital, or in Tesco’s headquarters, can define exactly what is required for every community. It is about taking what is already there—our historic inheritance. It is often an inconvenient inheritance for parking, rates or the space for shops, but we can make something of that history and tradition. Above all, we can have not simply shopping but a sense of the warp and weft, the interaction and the human spirit of community that once made us proud to be called a nation of shopkeepers, which will be difficult to retain without any shops at all.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing the debate and ensuring that the Backbench Business Committee listened to his remarks. The depth of the conversation that has taken place today has clearly indicated the leadership that he demonstrated.
Before I go any further, may I declare an interest? I still have shares in a company that I set up some five or six years ago, which deals in giving advice to property developers on how to manage public consultation and on ensuring that they get their political messages across. I suspect that in the next five minutes I will demonise myself as being responsible for an awful lot of the problems that have occurred. Some of the people with whom I ended up working were from supermarkets and food retailers, so I have some understanding of what they do.
First, I wish to talk about Plymouth, which is the largest urban conurbation west of Bristol. It is a low-skilled and low-wage economy, and as Members know it is the home—or I should say a home—of the Royal Navy. My constituency runs south of the A38 and from the River Plym to the River Tamar. It has a city centre in it, and I am uniquely a very strong urban Tory. I therefore hope that I can talk about the impact of what is happening.
We were badly bombed during the war, and a lot of the property in the constituency is now beginning to look a little shabby and needs work doing to it. However, we do have a university, which is a key part of ensuring that regeneration takes place. I would be grateful if the university considered how it could include some retail activity on its premises, because there are major implications for the city in July and August when the university has gone down.
There is a proposal by English Heritage to list the city centre, which I do not think is a very clever thing to do. All that will do is put the whole thing into aspic and discourage the growth of the retail sector.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I am interested by what my hon. Friend says about universities and students. In my constituency we have a large university in a town of 50,000 people. Does he agree that when councils and shop builders plan town centres and retail offerings, it is important that they think about not only the student market but, as he says, a year-round market? They have to appeal to both students and non-students for the whole 12 months.
Oliver Colvile
I fully agree, and licensed premises are also incredibly important. We now have more licensed premises in Plymouth city centre than there are in the whole of Liverpool, which is quite a striking fact given that the population of Plymouth is about 250,000 and Liverpool’s is significantly bigger. There has been a tendency for local authorities of all political parties in the area to move the culture of Union street, of which those who know Plymouth will be aware, out to Mutley Plain and the Barbican. That has had real implications, including for the local police’s work to maintain law and order. We need a much more balanced approach.
When I was working commercially—Members will be delighted to know that I am not any more, although I do have an interest in my own business—I was aware of how defensive some landowners could get about looking after their stakeholdings. They wanted to ensure that if there was development, it would not affect their commercial interests badly. There was one city in the south of England where we did a lot of work, and I had a client there who owned about £40 million of assets in the town centre. He had great difficulty in talking to the local authority and getting it to work with him to develop his part of the town. It became a very big problem, and it ended up with the local authority trying to get his land by compulsory purchase order, with all the implications that went with that. It is very important that local authorities should not try to be developers by proxy, because that is a disaster. It has delayed the regeneration of that town by a significant time.
Mr Marcus Jones
Will my hon. Friend comment, on the basis of the professional expertise that he has just outlined, on the suggestion that we heard earlier that the abolition of the upward-only rent review might benefit the regeneration of our town centres?
Oliver Colvile
We need to do everything we can to encourage as much footfall as possible in town centres. If I were a retailer, I would want people passing by to come into my shop. One thing that I learned at a very early stage when I got involved in the whole business of development was that planners liked to have one anchor store at one end of the town and another at the other end. I think that is quite a positive story, because people end up walking from one side of the town to the other and doing their shopping in the small shops in between.
I am very keen to ensure that town centres are the major places in which we encourage investment, but we must understand that in so doing we put up rents and some smaller shops cannot operate. We need to encourage people to set up niche businesses, such as bakers, butchers, fishmongers and so on.
We must ensure that we deliver a master plan approach. When development is taking place in our towns, we need to look at the sites and get the local community involved in making the decision on what they want there. There must be community benefits. When I gave advice to developers, including Sainsbury’s, I would always say, “When you are looking at your campaign, you have to consider what consumers and electorates will think is in it for them,” which means developing good community consultation. We have worked hard on that key aspect in my constituency.
Conservatives have a good story to tell. After all, Nicholas Ridley introduced the planning process in the first place, and John Gummer, as Secretary of State for the Environment, introduced the concept of planning policy statements—we are now on PPS 4, which is on ensuring that stuff goes into the town centre. We have a good story to tell, but there is further to go. I very much encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the Portas report is used and implemented.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate on this vital subject. It is an important day for town centres around the country, but it is also a very important evening for Macclesfield Town football club, who are playing a well-deserved replay at the Reebok against premier league Bolton. [Hon. Members: “What’s the latest score?”] Nil-nil. We will win yet.
I welcome the Government’s decision to set up the high street review and congratulate Mary Portas on her exceptional work and on producing an action-oriented set of recommendations. Most of all, I pass on my thanks to the shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, and business men and women around the country who work tirelessly day in, day out, to put our high streets at the heart of our communities. They do so very capably, particularly in Macclesfield.
Macclesfield is an historical and energetic town, nestled beneath the hills of the Peak district. It has real character and an independent spirit. In Georgian days, Macclesfield was the world’s biggest producer of finished silk, and the town continued to thrive in prosperity for centuries after, but in recent years the town centre has suffered from the opening of the Trafford centre and the Handforth Dean retail park, and the uncertainty of future plans for the town centre that were stalled by the credit crunch. By its own successful standards, the town centre felt tired, and in 2008 or 2009 there was a growing appreciation that something had to be done.
The response from the community was terrific—positive and action-oriented. I am particularly keen to share that experience and hope that it is of interest to colleagues and those who might be listening, just as we are keen in Macclesfield to learn from other communities.
We have learned through our efforts in regenerating and revitalising the town centre that the key ingredients are belief, confidence and building momentum. A critical milestone for us was re-establishing the Barnaby festival in June 2010. Barnaby was a centuries-old tradition that had fallen into decline, but it was completely reinvented and resurrected as an arts and culture-led festival by the community, for the community.
Barnaby was a huge success and led other community entrepreneurs to establish a monthly treacle market. That market, which again is run by the community, for the community, has gone from strength to strength.
As confidence has grown, more events have followed. There was a programme of events to celebrate the 750th anniversary of the Macclesfield town charter, and last December, as if from nowhere, a schedule of events called the “WinterFest” helped drive footfall across the whole month. That was vital at that critical time of year.
To build that momentum, it was vital that we sought to engage stakeholders more fully. We needed to get local businesses, community groups and the council together, so we created a business breakfast. It was not so much a “town team” as the Portas report describes, but more a good old-fashioned town hall meeting. In engaging those businesses and community groups—about 120 come out every couple of months—we have created a real agenda for progress.
We have created our own brand identity—by the community, for the community—and an economic forum. That really is our “town team” as defined by Mary Portas. However we define it, that partnership, and—dare I say it?—that coalition has helped to create and strengthen our initiatives to help to take the town forward.
The creation of the economic forum led to a whole-town vision, which has helped to create the confidence for local businesses to invest. Wilson Bowden is considering a town centre development in Macclesfield—one of the few being considered across the country—and Tesco has expressed an interest in dramatically increasing the size of its edge-of-town unit as well as its town centre Metro store. My message is similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies): at these moments in the life of communities such as Macclesfield, it is vital that national retailers and developers show that they are going to be part of the solution, rather than exacerbating the problem. It is vital that they show commitment and energy in supporting the community, just as so many other stakeholders are doing, up and down the country.
In my remaining 10 seconds, I would like to say to the Minister and to Mary Portas that Macclesfield stands ready to take part in one of the pilots. We think that we would be a leading light in culture and heritage-led regeneration—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There is no injury time for football scores, I am afraid, and the hon. Gentleman has run out of time.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I was born and brought up in Dudley. Dudley has been somewhat disparaged this evening, but I want to tell colleagues that it used to be the place to go. For me, Cranage’s coffee shop was the place to hang out. For my mum, it was Cook’s or Beattie’s department stores. However, following the closure of a huge local steelworks called Round Oak, Government subsidies were used to create a new shopping centre called Merry Hill on that site—with free car parking, of course. Merry Hill sucked the lifeblood out of Dudley. Cook’s was lost, but Beattie’s stubbornly hung on for many years. It was a family firm determined to buck the trend and keep the town together.
Today, as the MP for Solihull, I have fought, along with my party and local residents, against an Asda superstore being built on precious parkland on our high street—the Stratford road in Shirley. We lost. The Conservative-led council forced the decision through. We are about to find out whether we are right to believe that the Asda will suck the lifeblood out of the small independent shops on the high street, or whether the developers are right in saying that it will attract more people who will magically spill out on to the high street and create more footfall.
Now the Conservatives are planning to introduce car parking charges to Shirley for anything longer than a 30-minute stay. That is crazy. It will mean that the hard-working shopkeepers will be starved of business because people will be unwilling to pay the charges, especially when there is free parking down the road at an out-of-centre Sainsbury’s and Tesco. Councils should be looking for ways of encouraging people to use local shops, not discouraging them from doing so. I have big worries that this will be the last straw for Shirley.
That is what is happening now, but what of the future? Do we have to march inexorably down this road? Are the town centre and the high street doomed? Tonight we have heard many facts about the decline in trade and in the number of high street shops, but I do not think that they are doomed. There will always be a need for town centres. They are not just places to get commodities; they are venues in themselves, incorporating restaurants, entertainment and places to meet up with friends, to socialise, to browse and to be seen. Touchwood, in the centre of Solihull, is an excellent example; it demonstrates how a good shopping centre can thrive.
A recent Experian report identified that frustrations with online shopping are driving consumers back to the high street. Deliveries can be slow or even non-existent, and the goods often do not match the online descriptions. When we go shopping, we can see exactly what we are getting, and have the instant gratification of being able, in most cases, to take our purchases home with us.
The high street must respond to changing consumer expectations and offer a great experience to shoppers. On the whole, business improvement districts have done well in concentrating on that, and they can do more. I have been banging on for years about local communities’ need for empowerment in relation to the design and character of their shopping centres. Developers who come in with a “we know best” attitude could be in for a fight, as was the case in the Shirley development.
I support the Association of Convenience Stores’ sequential test to ensure that all sites close to a town centre are considered before out-of-town developments are allowed. Both the ACS and the Portas review support a presumption in favour of town centre development, and I totally agree we should have a “town centre first” principle in the national planning policy framework.
As for parking charges, out-of-town centres clearly have a competitive advantage, and I support the idea of councils being given new tools to raise revenue specifically to support access to, and the regeneration of, high streets. Given that business rates can now be repatriated to local authorities, I am sure that a way can be found for that to be done. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and we must find a way to even up the playing field so that all retailers have a fair chance to get a fair market share.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this debate, in which it is a great privilege to speak. I represent Llandudno, the second most popular shopping centre in north Wales—unfortunately, the most popular one was the subject of a hymn of praise from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley). However, Llandudno is a very attractive shopping centre, mainly because it has retained its character as an old Victorian seaside resort. Llandudno is known as the queen of Welsh resorts, and that is still very much the case. The credit for that has to go to Mostyn Estates, which owns the freehold of a large percentage of the town.
That is why I am so concerned about certain aspects of the Portas report. There are many good things in it, but when a landlord is willing to work extremely hard to retain the retail centre in Llandudno—Mostyn Estates works extremely hard and constructively to do that—it is of concern to read comments in the report stating that landlords with vacant spaces must be further encouraged or possibly penalised. We have an issue with empty property rates relief lasting only three months for retail premises, and I would be loth to see Mostyn Estate’s ability to support the development of retail in Llandudno damaged by a further penalty for having empty properties. They are often empty not because of any failure by Mostyn Estates to market them properly, but because of economic circumstances.
I shall try to explain that in detail. I spoke recently to the chief executive of Mostyn Estates, and he made the important point that when a small business looks to locate in a retail centre, it will have a certain amount of money available for rent and rates. In Llandudno, the rates are so high that the rent paid to Mostyn Estates is often lower than the rates that the same businesses pay out. Time and again, Mostyn Estates has been willing to reduce its rents to keep a tenant in place even though the rates have not been reduced. I am concerned, therefore, about that proposition in the report.
I am also slightly concerned about the tendency in this debate to view the supermarket chains as a danger to the retail high street. Yes, that can be the case, especially if the development is out of town, but Llandudno has seen the development of retail parks and centres within walking distance of the high street, and some footfall has gone from the supermarkets to the high streets. Yes, the centre of gravity within the town has changed, but the town has retained its attraction to shoppers.
I was taken by the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who highlighted the fact that a town centre must be more than just a shopping centre; it must be a focus for public engagement and enjoyment of life. In Conwy, another small town in my constituency, that is exactly what we have seen. Some 10 or 15 years ago, Conwy was on its knees, yet an enterprising local butcher, as it happens, decided to invest significantly in developing his local shop, which resulted in the business going from strength to strength. Indeed, Edwards of Conwy, the maker of the finest sausages in the United Kingdom, recently won a major contract to export its produce to Malaysia, in addition to supplying all the supermarkets.
That investment is important. It created the feeling in Conwy that they could develop and revitalise the town as a shopping centre by highlighting the food offer. In Conwy, we now have wine shops, delicatessens, restaurants, high-quality hotels and, to crown it all, the food festival every October, which is a huge success. In other words, Conwy has decided to reinvent itself as a destination.
When we consider the future of the high street, it is important to recognise that we cannot fight the tide of history: we cannot fight the fact that people now buy from Amazon. Before Christmas, I went to the Llandudno post office and was struck by the number of parcels from Amazon. We cannot fight that type of development, but we can offer something completely different. We can say to people, “Come to Conwy. Come and shop in Conwy. You’ll see something completely different offered by small, independent retailers who will sell you something that you will not see anywhere else.”
So I have two examples in my constituency of where we have seen the ability of a good landlord, in Llandudno, and innovative local retailers, in Conwy, to make a real difference; and yes the supermarkets can contribute to footfall in high streets, but they can also be a danger. In Llanrwst, another small town in my constituency, there is a proposal for a Tesco store. The one comment made to me by a shopkeeper was: “Why can it offer to build a school or swimming pool for the local authority? If I did that, I would be accused of taking advantage of the system.”
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I add my name to the list of those congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing this important debate and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging it. At this stage of the debate, there is little left to add to the excellent contributions of so many hon. Members, particularly of my hon. Friends. I want to highlight one or two of the concerns I share with others for my Mid Norfolk constituency, but as we move to the close I want to focus on some of the positives, as I believe there are a number of reasons for being positive about the future of our market towns, particularly our rural market towns.
Mid Norfolk is not an affluent constituency. We are not part of the celebrated Norfolk triangle, and we are not part of the “gold coast”; Burnham market is a long way from my constituency. Our average income is about £17,500 a year; we have four market towns and 114 villages. Many of the problems described today are all too evident as one travels in Dereham, my capital, the ancient heart of Norfolk. We have recently seen the closure of Chambers, the celebrated and historic store. I was recently delighted to receive a petition from the town’s residents to the Co-op, asking it to change its decision to close.
In Wymondham, home of the great abbey and the place of Robert Kett’s rebellion, I have the pleasure this Friday of chairing a meeting at which 400 residents are due to come to talk about the town’s plan, as it faces an application from Asda for a development in the middle of the town. There is a huge appetite to discuss issues around sustainable development, facilities for the young and the old, and ensuring that we have a genuine long-term plan that looks at the needs of Wymondham over the next 20 years—not just for Wymondham either, but for the surrounding villages that rely on it, too.
In Attleborough, zoned for development under Labour’s regional spatial strategy and to be doubled in size with 4,000 houses, the challenge is to come up with the right level of growth that can provide the infrastructure levy that will fund the bypass we need, while keeping Attleborough as the beautiful market town in which people want to live and work. In Watton, the heart of the Wayland valley, there are huge pressures on the high street, with closures of traditional stores and huge local concern that the town centre is losing its viability.
Why, then, am I optimistic? After several decades in which our town centres, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), have been “woefully badly catered for”, I believe that we have serious grounds to be optimistic. First, because people care—and such care has been demonstrated today in the level, strength and depth of opinion voiced in this debate, while our residents also care, as evidenced by the 300 or 400 people due to turn up on Wymondham on Friday evening.
Secondly, I am confident because around the country there are inspiring examples of enlightened local council leaders, town councils, residents associations and, indeed, of best practice, which have shown that it is possible to combine the one-stop shop convenience of an out-of-town supermarket that people with busy lives need with the heritage, community and authentic local community experience of a well run and well organised town centre. These things are not beyond the wit of man.
I am confident, thirdly, because of the Government’s measures, including the Localism Bill, community planning measures, the big society, the emphasis on the rebalanced economy, the localisation of business rates and the support for small business generally.
Fourthly, I am confident because the public themselves are showing in their retail habits a growing demand for the local, the artisanal, the authentic and for an increased interest and involvement in the retail experience seen as an authentic part of the community of which they are part. I am confident, fifthly, because of the measures on broadband.
In my Mid Norfolk constituency we might have been neglected by successive Governments for 30 or 40 years, but if we put all these measures together, along with the investment in the Cambridge-Norwich railway line, in the A11, in rural broadband and in science at the Norwich research park, I would submit that our area is on the cusp of a renaissance—a renaissance that we describe and seek to promote locally through a project called the Norfolk way, a renaissance of small businesses coming back to the countryside in converted barns and converted turkey sheds, empowered with globally competitive information technology and trading between the hubs of Cambridge and Norwich.
If we can have a vibrant rural economy, we will have a chance to have vibrant market towns. For no one are those market towns more important than for the people trading in the rural economy. I close with the suggestion that we can be optimistic provided that we take the energy of today and channel it into the enlightened policies of tomorrow.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing the debate.
The real added value of high streets is their importance to our communities. Our high streets are literally at the centre of town life, and are a vital part of our towns’ identities. One of my first campaigns after I was selected as the candidate for my seat was a fight against proposals to close local post offices. The loss, or downgrading, of local services such as post offices in our town centres has taken away many of the reasons for people to come into the high street rather than travelling to out-of-town shopping centres. That has had an impact on high street traders who were already facing significant challenges as a result of changing shopping habits.
Cradley Heath in my constituency has recently had direct experience of the difficulties faced by local high streets. Three years ago, a large supermarket was built on a bypass going past the town centre. It is almost as if everything, from the positioning of the store to the road layout, had been designed with the express intention of taking as many people as possible away from Cradley Heath high street, and the effect on local traders has been enormous. Had Sandwell council acted with more care, there could surely have been an alternative that would have kept trade from supermarket shoppers in the town helping high street traders. That is a lesson that must be learnt for future development.
We need to find ways of making town centres more attractive so that people want to be in them, and to take advantage of the things that they can offer and out-of-town centres and online stores cannot. We have seen that in the town centre of Halesowen, the largest town in my constituency, which grew from being a market town after the war to being a “border town” at the edge of the Birmingham and black country conurbations. That had an effect on the town centre, which found itself facing strong competition first from Birmingham city centre and then from the new Merry Hill shopping centre that was built in the 1980s. Familiar local names disappeared from the centre, to be replaced by chain stores and empty premises.
In recent years, however, Dudley council, the chamber of trade and other partners have worked to turn the town centre around. A new bus station has been built next to the main shopping area, there is an indoor market plaza to help small traders to set up in the town, and there have been initiatives such as Halesowen in bloom. None of those constitutes a “magic bullet”, but each helps to make shopping in Halesowen a more pleasant experience. The results can be seen in an increased footfall in the town, and in reports from local businesses that things really do seem to be picking up.
We need to find new ways of giving people a reason to come to the high street. We should consider initiatives such as town centre loyalty cards to retain business in our towns. We also need local authorities to exercise more flexibility to ensure that town centre premises do not remain empty for too long, and we need Government help to make that possible. In December, Halesowen police set up a “cop shop” in a vacant shop in the town centre, offering crime prevention help and advice to Christmas shoppers. It brought together other public services and agencies, and proved very popular.
More such initiatives would be possible if local authorities were able to offer business rate holidays, or similar support. Although councils have legal powers to do that in many instances, the financial cost prevents it from being a viable option. Councils that offer business rate relief in such circumstances still have to pay the money to the central fund although they are not receiving the revenue from the rates. The Government’s proposals to allow some or all of the revenue obtained from business rates to be retained locally could be used to allow more discretion in the way in which local authorities offer business rate holidays and other reliefs. I hope that the Government will consider that as they develop their proposals in the Local Government Finance Bill.
At their best, town centres such as Halesowen make shopping more than a purely commercial transaction. We should be proud of the work that is being done to enable high streets to compete in an age of Amazon and eBay, but we must also continue to look for new ways to make our town centres more attractive. That means a partnership between local and national Government, local businesses and the wider community that will enable local solutions to address local challenges.
I welcome the Government’s commissioning of the Portas review. I look forward to seeing its recommendations being put into practice and action being taken to help put our high streets at the very heart of our local communities.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), on stimulating a lively, interesting and largely well-attended debate. We must support our town centres. If we do not, we will witness their demise, and the economic, environmental, retail and community value of those centres will be lost. Anyone who has visited the United States, where there are fewer planning controls than we have had in the UK, will have seen many towns with holed-out centres where there is little life or activity, but also with a doughnut of development all around of large-scale retail shopping centres.
My constituency has fared rather better than most in relation to the recent changes in town centres. The Association of Convenience Stores states that the average level of vacant shop units is 14%. The situation in Rugby has improved, however. The vacancy rate was just 3% in 2007. It then rose to between 8% and 10% at the peak of the recession in 2008. Since then the proportion has fallen back to 6.25%. That compares very favourably with the national average.
As elsewhere, there have been recent shop closures in Rugby as a consequence of difficult Christmas trading, but I pay tribute to our progressive forward-thinking council. It is aware of the problem and has taken action to deal with it, including through adopting a flexible approach to planning and introducing “moving in” grants of up to about £5,000, which often go to smaller independent businesses. The total spend on that has been £70,000 over three or four years, and it has been an effective investment.
This is a national problem, however, and we all must consider what to do to halt the decline in high street retail. It is important to understand what is happening in retail. Many Members have referred to the influence of the internet and have rightly stated that we cannot fight the power of the internet. According to the House of Commons Library, just 3% of retail purchases were made on the internet in January 2007, but the internet now accounts for 12% of UK retail trade.
Local communities have two options. With a decline of 12% in retail trade, it is clear that the number of retail outlets and the amount of retail space must fall, not necessarily by the full 12% but certainly to some extent. Alternatively, the population in the local area must grow. I am delighted that Rugby is taking the latter approach, with a substantial development of 13,000 homes about to start on the Gateway site as well as development due for 6,200 homes on the Mast site.
There are many reasons why communities should embrace new housing. Our young people need homes, and the new homes bonus provides an income stream for local councils. New housing also supports our existing town centres. Communities should not complain about the decline of their town centres if they do not accept more housing where that is possible. In areas where new housing is not possible and town centres shrink, properties at the edge of the town centres should be able to be used for retail—indeed, many of them were originally developed for retail use. We must react fluidly in order to adapt to times of growth and decline.
Communities should also develop their independent stores. Rugby has a very successful independent sector in the Regent street and Albert street area, and The Rugby Observer report on Christmas 2011 trading highlighted the success of independents in Rugby that give great service and flexibility in the range of products they sell. As elsewhere, chain stores did badly. I believe that people are now bored by the uniformity of multiples, and independents offer something different. We need more support for independent retailers, especially as that would effectively be backing winners.
That was recognised in the Mary Portas review. She visited our town and said in her report that she had been very impressed with the “champions of change” she met in Rugby. They were not managers of national multiples, but independent entrepreneurial traders. They must be encouraged. There is much good news and much that can be done, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Colchester’s Daily Gazette today reported that the parent company of three shops in Colchester—Peacocks, Bon Marché and Past Times—had gone into administration. I know that they are national firms, and my hope is that buyers will be found and the businesses will continue, because they are an important part of the retail mix and they employ local people. Indeed, it was at Past Times that I bought a poster that said “Keep calm and carry on”, and I trust that that is what will happen. However, it is not all doom and gloom. I am told by those who know about these things that Colchester has fared better than most places for retail sales. Indeed, our department store, Williams & Griffin, one of those great local stores that is now part of an independent group, has plans to expand its floor space by 50%.
Colchester High street is the oldest high street in Britain. It is built along the Roman road, which goes back to the time when Colchester was the first capital of Roman Britain. I am anxious to ensure that Colchester does not become part of clone town Britain. National Government and local government have parts to play in that, along with local initiatives, both individual and collective. The Government need to be careful about expanding further out-of-town shops and other moves in that direction.
A local initiative that I wish to promote is one that I call “centurion’s walk”, which is to involve just over 100 small, mainly locally owned independent stores, all built on top of the Roman wall in the southern part of the original Roman city of Colchester. In addition, the East Anglian Daily Times has a “shop local” scheme and the East of England Co-operative Society sources from local suppliers; that is very successful and I certainly recommend it. One way in which the national Government could help is by having a scheme where the first 500 square feet of retail space is free of business rates; I would like the Portas report to be adapted here. The money could be reclaimed by a levy on out-of-town supermarket car parks. I do not see why that could not be done.
Park and ride is vital for Colchester and for many other regional shopping centres. Unfortunately, Essex county council, which is responsible for this, has not provided one single park and ride facility for Colchester, yet Chelmsford has two and Ipswich, over the border in Suffolk, has two. Our principal competitor towns, Ipswich and Chelmsford, have been provided with park and ride, but Essex county council has not provided the same for us. Colchester is the only part of Essex that is not Tory, and I suspect that that may be the reason why we are being discriminated against.
On localism and sustainable communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) quite properly drew attention to the number of empty floors above shops, and it is important that we try to use those wherever possible. I also pay tribute to the Essex chamber of commerce and the Association of Convenience Stores, which are battling in this area. This is not just about the high street, because our neighbourhoods, suburbs and community centres are involved.
The Federation of Small Businesses has drawn attention to the Portas review’s recommendation that the Government should consider whether the business rate system can support small businesses and independent retailers better. I invite the Minister to look at my suggestion that we can help smaller shops—community shops and village shops—by giving them a business rate holiday. I would also like to mention indoor markets, because they have a lot to commend them. Keep Britain Tidy, too, points out that its awards scheme is a way of encouraging local pride in our communities. Finally, I wish to mention our good friends at the British Retail Consortium, who say:
“it is essential that Local Authorities across the country work with retailers, cultural and heritage organisations, landlords and other local stakeholders to maximise the inherent advantage of an individual area’s local heritage”.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we are about to have—and are having—a very important debate. In my constituency a number of small towns are all demonstrating the importance of localism. Stroud, Dursley, Berkeley, Painswick and others are all effectively manifesting what is necessary through the provision of strong local leadership and the delivery of sophisticated outcomes, because people know and understand what happens in their local areas. That is one of the strengths of localism, which is reinforced by the activities of chambers of trade, which should also be saluted in this project. A good chamber, it seems to me, is one that knows and understands the shops and so on in its high street and works hard to generate collective activity in generating business and in interfacing with the local authorities and other agencies. I salute such chambers.
We need to drill down on several issues, one of which is the night-time economy. It seems to me that it is really important to recognise that there are different phases in the high street timetable, one of which involves what happens after the shops close. The restaurants, pubs and cafés generate more activity, which is linked to what happens in the shops. It is important for all our smallish communities—that is what I am talking about from the vantage point of my constituency—to think in terms of the night-time economy. Some years ago we had a seminar about that subject in Stroud, at which pub closures, the impact of night clubs and the absence of restaurants were all mentioned, but over the last few years all those factors have begun to point in the right direction for a lively night-time economy in Stroud. I pay tribute to people who think in those terms.
Another aspect of the question that has come across quite forcefully in the debate, and rightly so, is the fact that we are not just talking about shops, although they are very important. We are talking about, for example, the cultural life of a high street. In Stroud, Dursley and Nailsworth, farmers markets generate a lot of business and activity. They have made an impact in my constituency in delivering extra verve in high street life. It is valuable for such activities not just to be started but to be seen to thrive. It is vital that we think beyond the normal expectations of people who think about high streets and go into new areas and new opportunities. Farmers markets definitely fall within that category.
I also want to talk about unused houses and flats above shops in our high streets—an important matter in terms of our attitudes to housing. If we can get people to participate in and live in their community, that is great, and we should consider how we can encourage shop owners and owners of general commercial properties on our high streets to make better use of the properties, and the floors above the shops that we all walk past. If all of a community—shop owners, shoppers, residents, café and pub owners and so on—is part of a multi-dimensional high street, we can start to get a strong nucleus of useful influence that can work towards developing the high street.
I welcome the report we have discussed tonight, and the Government’s enthusiasm for promoting high street activity. I salute the very strong work in my constituency, in the towns I have mentioned and in others, which demonstrates that some really good results can be produced in high street and town activity.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I particularly relish the opportunity to speak in this debate because it really is the hot topic in my constituency at the moment, and it is nice to see that it is also such a hot topic in so many other constituencies. There are two reasons for that in my constituency, the first of which is that we have a very successful high street in Lindley, north of Huddersfield, which I shall talk about in a moment. Secondly, like many other colleagues in the Chamber, we have worries about a proposed out-of-town supermarket superstore.
My constituency is one of the biggest in the country. I have 81,000 constituents, but only one major supermarket —a Morrisons in Meltham, which heavily overtrades. It is incredibly busy, particularly at 5 o’clock on a Saturday evening. It is just up the road from where I live. There are a couple of medium-sized Co-ops and a sort of Sainsbury’s Express in Salendine Nook. The supermarket companies have identified that situation and both Tesco and Lidl are looking to come into the outskirts of Holmfirth.
Holmfirth is the “Last of the Summer Wine” town from the BBC television series, which is home to Compo, Foggy and Cleggy—not that Cleggy of course, but the one from the television. It is a very popular tourist destination and a lovely market town, but Tesco is looking to situate a big new store 0.7 miles from the outskirts of Holmfirth and has put in a planning application to do so. Many people are very concerned about that and there was a protest by traders in Holmfirth over the weekend when they boarded up their shops to show what the place could look like if Tesco arrives. There are also big transport issues to consider. However, there could be positives if Tesco comes, such as 175 jobs and greater accessibility to goods at a reasonable price. At the moment, a lot of people go to superstores on the other side of Huddersfield.
There are big concerns about having an out-of-town supermarket, but on the other hand, as Mary Portas noted in her review, local shops can be successful if they specialise in specialism, experience and service. That is shown particularly well on a very successful high street in Lindley in the north of my constituency, which is a lovely little community and is very busy because the big hospital, Huddersfield royal infirmary, is in that area. I would like to name some of the different types of business on a little street called Lidget street which really demonstrate Mary Portas’s point about service, experience and specialism. We have Concepts Beauty and the Forget Me Not Trust children’s hospice charity shop, which is a local charity shop to which people feel very close emotionally. We have Garry Butler’s top quality butchers, Hartley’s confectioners, Branch One food emporium, the Bubble and Squeak deli, Lindley Fine Wines, Pure Occasions of Lindley, the Hair Room, Soor’s of Lindley, the Saddle pub, the Caspian gallery, Wagstaff’s Shoes and Eric’s restaurant and bar, which uses local produce. There is also a pharmacy, the local library, Sugarcraft Creations’ wonderful sugar craft to go on the top of cakes, Cosy Kitchens, an opticians, the Dress for Less discount store, Lindley Spice, Carl Livesey’s butchers, the Children’s Book Shop, Lindley’s café and deli, and the Number 10 bar and kitchen—how appropriate is that? That is a fantastic range of local shops that are locally owned and offer that kind of service, experience and specialism.
Linked to that area is a wonderful community spirit because people organise a superb Lindley carnival in the summer and there is the Lindley Christmas market in the first of week of December when the thoroughfare is closed, everyone comes out on to the street and all the shops are open, offering mulled wine and mince pies. Those local shops really engage with the local community and are something to behold. There is also two hours-worth of free parking—something that has been mentioned very much in this debate—in a major car park at the end of the street. People can also park up and down the street in bays and quickly pop into one of those wonderful local shops to make quick purchases. That is exactly what a community needs. High streets can be successful if they follow that kind of model and I think that all hon. Members, including myself, need to encourage our constituents, ourselves and our families to shop locally and support these wonderful local shops.
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)
The whole debate so far has reminded me of when I was waiting to make my maiden speech, listening to potted descriptions of every town and city in the country, learning a lot about geography as well as politics. I shall now do roughly the same thing, talking from a city perspective about my Bristol West constituency, which covers the whole city centre and the shopping centres of Broadmead and Cabot Circus in the regional capital of the south-west of England. The constituency is also a patchwork of distinct neighbourhood shopping centres and high streets, bookended by Clifton village and Stapleton road, with the unique areas of Park street, Whiteladies road and Gloucester road running through the middle. Gloucester road may not be the oldest high street in England but it is certainly the longest. It has been argued in many media outlets that it is the greatest high street in England, with 2 miles of independent shops.
In the 1990s, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a fellow Bristol Member, our city centre faced great challenges from out of town, but it has fought back. Bristol city council worked in partnership with the private sector and we have a new shopping centre, but more important, thousands of people now live in the heart of the city of Bristol. I do not think it has been mentioned in the debate that we need more residents in town and city centres. I certainly endorse the recommendations in the Portas report for town centre teams and for a presumption in favour of town and city centres in the planning regime.
High streets, whether in cities or towns, certainly face multiple challenges; indeed, as has been said, they are at crisis point. Rationing of parking spaces has been referred to. Control of crime is another issue, as is the switch to online retailing. Every time I make my traditional Christmas visit to the Montpelier Royal Mail sorting centre, I am struck by the sheer number of Amazon parcels of the books and DVDs my constituents are buying.
The other major threat to all our high streets and locally owned businesses comes from the large national chains and multiples. Supermarkets have been mentioned many times during the debate so I shall not say too much more about them, but I am probably the only Member in the Chamber who has experienced a riot in his constituency caused by the opening of a branch of Tesco. It took place over the Easter and royal wedding bank holidays in April last year. I certainly do not condone the antics of those constituents, but I very much share their frustration. Large businesses do not work with the grain of local opinion. It was not that people did not want a Tesco; they just did not want another Tesco in an area where the brand was already at saturation point.
There are also national chains of bars, restaurants and cafés. They use their lawyers and large planning departments to circumvent local authority planning decisions. In my constituency, we have an example involving Costa Coffee—a brand owned by Whitbread, the brewers—which has opened three outlets in Bristol; in Gloucester road in my constituency, in Clifton Down and in Westbury village in the neighbouring constituency of Bristol North West. The company has flouted the decisions of Bristol city council; Costa’s managing director wrote to me to say that Costa was “re-energising and revitalising” high streets and
“regularly complements independent retailers…to offer a wider range of choice.”
That sort of banality infuriates local residents when they think they cannot work with the system to get what they want. We certainly need to reform the planning system to combat uniformity and promote diversity.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
As a fellow Bristol MP, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I hope we might work together to share our experiences of local high streets. Kingswood high street is a valuable part of my constituency. Does he agree that if a planning application for a major store is rejected, there should be a breathing space and the large store should not be allowed to re-enter the system straight away?
Stephen Williams
Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman—an MP for Greater Bristol—for that intervention.
The other flaw in the planning system is that when permission is refused by a committee of local councillors, the applicant goes ahead and opens the business because they know that an appeal will take a long time. That is a loophole that Costa has certainly exploited and it needs to be blocked. We need to reform the planning process, but we must also reform local government finance.
The use classes have been mentioned many times. Surely, it is common sense that the A1 retail use class cannot apply equally to Tesco, Sainsbury’s and all the other retail multiples and to Mrs Smith’s corner shop; none the less, that is how our planning system works.
What we need is to let go so that we have more localism, so that local councils, whether Bristol or South Gloucestershire, are sufficiently granular at the local level to micro-manage what they want in their high streets. If they do not want any more supermarkets or chains, they should be able to say so emphatically, and there should be no ambiguity in the classes of use to allow the large companies to drive a coach and horses through local opinion and local democratic decision making. Local communities could then promote the shops that they want, and democratically elected councillors could block the sharp practices of the large multiples.
Finally, finance has been mentioned a couple of times. The uniform business rate needs to be reformed so that local councils can offer waivers to businesses that they wish to attract to an area. Gloucester road has shops with most uses, but it does not have a book shop, so perhaps a rate incentive would attract a book retailer to the area. Business improvement districts have made a huge improvement to Bristol city centre, but I would argue that any shopping centre would benefit from a BID in which landlords are incentivised to take part as well. That is a key recommendation of the Portas report, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading, and which I have thoroughly enjoyed endorsing in this debate.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on introducing this debate. I have decided to make a speech because, having heard many colleagues wax lyrical about their shopping centres, I have to tell the House quite firmly that the finest shopping centre in the country is in my constituency of Southend West at Leigh-on-Sea.
There have been many, many reports before, and all hon. Members know what the problems are: it is the solutions that challenge us. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and I were at the Olympic stadium. Indeed, we both ran round the stadium and did the 100 metres in under nine seconds, so Usain Bolt should be worried. We then went to Westfield shopping centre. Having been born in the area, I found it all very impressive, and we were told that Stratford has a better Westfield than west London. I looked around for elderly people, and thought, “Where do they go?”
When I was Member of Parliament for Basildon, we had the biggest covered shopping centre in the country. I have enough enemies without naming a particular supermarket, but in Basildon, we started off with one giant store. We ended up with another giant store, and a third one at the other end of the town. I had a terrible row with the then chairman of that supermarket, because not only did it sell groceries but white goods, and it then decided to have a post office in-store: it was completely out of control.
We were told that we had the so-called biggest covered shopping centre in the country, but we were then told that Gateshead had the biggest covered shopping centre. Then the honour went to Lakeside, then Bluewater. It goes on and on and on. As the former chairman of the small shops group, I want to make a plea for small shops and for older people. I worry where older people, who do not shop online at Amazon and so on, are going to shop. They cannot go round the supermarket; they cannot go to the big covered shopping centres. In Leigh-on-Sea, we have an absolutely brilliant range of small shops. Indeed, my predecessor, Paul Channon, used to take Princess Margaret to shop in the local shops, which are still there today. It is a wonderful village atmosphere.
It is all very well and good Members coming to the House saying how marvellous small shops are, but this is the toughest time that I have ever known for businesses, let alone small shops. If we do not use them, we will lose them. We must all be realistic: in this day and age, it is down to price. For older people, it is great that we still have these little shops, where the shop owner has the time to swap stories and listen to people talk about their aches and pains and the rest of it. I worry that with the increasing Americanisation of the UK, if we are not careful, the whole country will be run by one rampant supermarket, and we will end up with all these covered shopping centres.
Having represented two constituencies, I am in a good position to judge what happens. Given the lead that my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has taken today, I am sure the Opposition spokesman and our excellent Minister who will respond to the debate will have all the solutions. I hope we will not just park the issue and leave it at that one report. Each Member of Parliament who has local stores should lead by example and shop locally. We must remember that if we do not use it, we lose it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
We have changed the way we shop. Fifty years ago mothers in Beckenham and other towns in my constituency went to the shops daily to get the food that they needed for their families. Many more people lived in town centres. Today mothers and fathers normally get their week’s food at one time. Supermarkets provide the family living essentials. They do so at the lowest price possible and they are open all hours. Internet shopping offers unbeatable value.
High streets cannot compete with that, so all our high streets must think about how they change. I am slightly disappointed that the Mayor of London’s outer London fund has not given additional funding to my constituency, but I am very pleased that Bromley has been given another £5 million to help redevelop its town centre, as it is the major shopping centre that many of my constituents use weekly. Beckenham high street caters for local people from Copers Cope, Kelsey and Eden Park, Shortlands and Clockhouse. Our high streets must be designed with that in mind.
I shall end by making a few points, many of which have been made earlier. We need to make town centres places where people want to go, not just to shop, but to socialise and simply be there. I agree that parking and parking charges are a problem that needs to be addressed, but in my constituency people sometimes drive 30 minutes to Bluewater because of the free parking there, and it costs them a tenner in petrol.
Pedestrianisation is a two-edged weapon. I like the idea of shared space for vehicles and people together, and I want buses to go down Beckenham, West Wickham and Hayes high streets, bringing people in and out of the town centres. I like the idea of calming traffic but not stopping it, but pedestrianised town centres and high streets can be lonely and dangerous places at night. Cars passing sometimes help to mitigate the threat.
Beckenham, West Wickham and Hayes are ideal places for niche shopping. Everyone wants a mixed retail experience but now much of what we shop for is in supermarkets. I want to see reduced business rates and rents, if possible. These will help small businesses make a decent offering. I am glad that the Government are considering keeping back a portion of business rates for the local community.
As a society we must have decent and vibrant town centres. They are under threat and of course we are trying to do something about that. I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate this matter today and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) for securing an important debate. Finally, I must place on record a personal lack of interest. As hon. Members might expect, shopping does not float my boat very much. In fact, I detest it.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate. I must say that I am in completely the opposite category to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), because I am an avid shopper, which is why I am particularly interested in the debate. Unfortunately, I seem to have passed the shopping gene on to my daughter, who occasionally seems to think that she is personally responsible for keeping some of the retail sector in Durham afloat—something I am sure many parents recognise.
The huge number of hon. Members who took part in the debate—54 in total—shows that the topic is relevant to many constituencies. I will not be able to mention every contribution, as just listing the Members’ constituencies would probably use up most of my time, but I will comment on some of the points that were made. I think that all hon. Members who spoke, right across the Chamber, were tremendous advocates for their town centres and high streets, whether they were celebrating their successes, particularly in these difficult times, or arguing strongly that the challenges they face need to be addressed.
A few issues stood out in particular. Almost all Members who spoke mentioned parking and the need for a level playing field with out-of-town developments. That was sometimes coupled with a concern that out-of-town shopping centres had perhaps expanded too much in recent times, with an adverse effect on town centres, although I think that there was more debate about that. There was also some unanimity on the need to amend use class orders, particularly so that there is more flexibility on change of use. A number of hon. Members were keen to see more community involvement in shaping town centres and high streets, particularly in order to get greater diversity and to have an offer that goes beyond retail and includes leisure and social facilities. Many Members celebrated the advantages of markets, including indoor markets, and wanted them to increase in a number of towns and cities.
Several Members mentioned the need for more flexibility in rents and rent setting and business rates. In particular, they stressed the need to give local authorities more of a say in the level of business rate that should be applied and even to give a business rate holiday if that seems appropriate, as part of a package of measures, for regenerating particular areas. We know that changes to the business rate regime are coming, and the Minister might comment on that when he sums up.
There was a great deal of consensus about the fact that the Portas review is a very good thing and that the Government need to respond to it more quickly. I congratulate the Government on commissioning the Portas review and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills report on understanding high street performance, carried out by Genecon, which went alongside it and provided us all with a lot of valuable information for our contributions to the debate.
There has been much consensus throughout the Chamber, but I am perhaps going to break it for a few moments, because, although I acknowledge that many of our high streets have struggled for several years, there is no doubt in my mind that the actions of this Government are making things much worse, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The downturn has hit our high streets hard, and, although thousands of jobs have already been lost in the retail sector, many more are at risk. We heard yesterday of yet more job losses in the sector throughout the country, and every day and every week more retailers seem to be going out of business.
Let us be clear about how serious the situation is. The latest shop vacancy report, compiled by the Local Data Company, found that town centre vacancy rates in Great Britain stand at 14.3%.
Derek Twigg
My constituent Liz Howard, of the Curiosity Bookshop in Runcorn, has raised several issues with me, not least those of unfair competition with supermarkets and of parking, but one issue in particular is derelict and unused buildings—some that have to be knocked down and others that are still unused. That is an area of real concern, so I hope that the Government will act upon it to improve the situation.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will turn to empty shops in a moment.
Void rates are another real issue, especially in secondary shopping areas, but the most recent wave of closures and the downsizing and retrenching of the retail sector are clearly causing a problem even in primary shopping areas.
There is a set of challenges for the high street, and that is not to mention the difficulties caused by the rise in internet shopping and by out-of-town centres.
Rory Stewart
Does the shadow Minister acknowledge, however, that internet shopping can be immensely beneficial to small, high-street shops? For example, in our constituency, the John Norris fishing supplies shop makes £12 million of sales over the internet but only £1 million through the door—and that allows it to keep going.
Roberta Blackman-Woods
I do accept that point, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) made very well earlier. Nevertheless, the internet is, I think, an additional challenge for high streets and town centres.
I say all that not to talk down our high streets, however, because, as several hon. Members have said, the town centre or high street in their constituency is weathering the economic storm. I say it to demonstrate the extent of the problem, because not all town centres are thriving and we have to be clear about the action that needs to be taken.
In government, we had a strong “town centre first” policy, but even with that policy there was recognition that more needed to be done to revitalise high streets, so there is a particular challenge for this Government. They need to do more to bolster consumer confidence, as their austerity programme—cutting too far and too fast—coupled with their VAT hike last January has squeezed incomes, reduced consumer confidence and led to further job losses on the high street. In a YouGov poll last year, four fifths of retailers said that the VAT increase would undermine sales.
The Government have so far also ignored the recommendations for a stronger “town centre first” policy, and they need to think about amending the draft national planning policy framework to reintroduce the sequential tests for town centres, because we really need that to encourage more town centre development.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Would the hon. Lady not acknowledge that the recently passed Localism Act 2011 gives real power to local communities and councils, such as Crawley borough council, to make town centre policies a priority where they think it is important?
Roberta Blackman-Woods
That is not the case if offices are taken out. Of course we all want more localism, but the Government also have to attend to their economic policies, which are damaging our high streets and town centres.
There are other issues that the Government need to address, such as business rates, the need for local flexibility to tackle unemployment, the lack of credit for small businesses and whether property values are artificially inflated in some areas. The big challenge is to respond positively and quickly to the Portas review. We welcome the review, not least because it champions high streets and town centres as community hubs where social, leisure and retail activities can take place. People are passionate about their town centres and want them to thrive.
I hope that we hear from the Minister how he will strengthen the “town centre first” policy. He will know that a number of large retailers, including the John Lewis Partnership, have said that the sequential test as it stands simply is not strong enough.
I am pleased that the Portas review touched on use class orders, which have been raised by many Members. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for campaigning on this issue, in particular for a separate category for betting shops. I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) well with her private Member’s Bill, which is trying to put a change in use class orders into legislation as quickly as possible. We must be careful to ensure that if use class orders are changed, they are accompanied by safeguards, so that there is not abuse and misuse of the new guidance. For example, local communities do not want a change in use class orders that makes it easier for fast food outlets to be set up.
Empty shops are a particular issue. We urge the Government to follow through with the recommendations of the Portas review, many of which reflect the policies that Labour championed and carried out in government. We introduced the empty shops initiative, which enabled councils to pursue innovative uses for empty shops and reinvigorate high streets. For example, vacant units could be used for cultural, community or learning services, rather than be left empty. We hope that the Government will introduce such a policy as soon as possible.
It is important that we spend a bit of time thinking about how we redevelop high streets. We need to give councils more tools to do that. We want a more proactive use of compulsory purchase orders. That is mentioned specifically in the Portas review and it needs serious consideration. We also think that her suggestion of an empty shop management order could be pursued.
We are keen to see the town teams that Mary Portas recommends. We hope that they are active and vibrant local partnerships that work closely with business improvement districts. They should also work closely with the local community to make neighbourhood planning a reality. It is important that neighbourhood plans cover town centres and that every effort is made to involve local people in drawing them up. A number of hon. Members have made the point that if life is to be put back into town centres, particularly those that are failing, the involvement of the local community in shaping them is really important.
I finish by saying that in addition to following through with the Portas recommendations, we want the Government to pay some attention to our four-point plan to save our high streets—cutting VAT, giving local people the power to put the heart back into the high street, repeating Labour’s empty shops initiative and promoting a fair playing field for our high streets.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I join virtually every colleague who has spoken in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) on securing the debate—a truly inspired move—and the Backbench Business Committee on ensuring that it happened.
I have had the pleasure of sitting through most of the debate and hearing the many by and large excellent contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have enjoyed it tremendously in the run-up to the Government’s response to the Portas review. Of course, the debate has very much been spurred by the Mary Portas report, which was undertaken after the Prime Minister personally asked her to go out, look at what was happening in our town centres and high streets and make a series of proposals to make things better. There are 28 proposals in all, many of them quite detailed and many of which Members have touched on.
It has been fascinating to weigh up Members’ representations. As one Member suggested, it has been like an afternoon and evening of sitting through maiden speeches, because every Member mentioned every town and village in their constituency. It made the debate much more enjoyable.
I should, as everyone else seems to have done, declare an interest—one Member declared a disinterest—by saying that 21 years ago last month, I started my own retail shop, a print business, so I have had some experience in retail and found out how tough it can be on the high street. Among the many significant problems that retailers have to overcome can be intransigence from local authorities, which, it has to be said, have until now had almost no interest in business in their area, and particularly in the retail sector. Why? Well, retail businesses do not vote, and the local authority does not get to keep their money. One of the most important reforms, therefore, which Mary Portas mentions in the report, must be the localisation of business rates. I am delighted that that legislation is now going through the House. Speaking as that small shop owner, I know that it will be of considerable help to many people. Alongside that, of course, local authorities will have the ability to provide a discount on business rates if they choose to. The legislation will make that all the more easy.
As I am speaking in this debate, it would be remiss of me not to mention that the wonderful town of Hatfield suffers greatly from the same problems that many Members have described. It was a new town, and so bright was its future when it was set up. Unfortunately, partly because of the situation that has been mentioned—the road and the cars were taken out of the town centre, and the life was sucked out of it—it has struggled to have a renaissance. As the Minister taking the response to the Portas review forward, I can assure right hon. and hon. Members that I have personal experience of a failing town centre that needs to be rescued. That is why I take many of the measures suggested in the review so much to heart.
Car parking was the No. 1 concern mentioned by Members in the 54 contributions. It is absolutely right, and in fact quite obvious, to say that in today’s society, when people either do not need to get into their car at all because they can simply click on something with a mouse to buy it or, if the option is available, as it now is in most parts of the country, drive to a shopping mall or shopping centre, an uncompetitive high street with high parking charges will always make a retail district suffer. It is absolutely essential, even in these incredibly tough times, for local authorities to appreciate that hammering the motorist visiting the local shops will not be the solution to the area’s problems, and certainly not to those of retailers. Everything comes back to the fact that in future, under the localisation of business rates, for the first time it will matter to local councillors that businesses survive and thrive, because the local business rates will be retained.
The second most-mentioned item in the debate was the Mary Portas concept of town teams. That is the idea that if people want to promote their town, they need to get together. That involves not just the usual suspects—the town centre manager and perhaps an interested local councillor—but everyone, from the retailers and landlords to the council, and most notably Members of Parliament, forming a town team and leading the debate. If I am enormously enthused about one thing in the debate, it is that so many Members—it must be said that I am referring mostly to Government Members, who have largely filled the House—spoke with enormous passion and made it clear that they intend to lead the debate in their local areas. That will do an awful lot of good.
Members, and particularly the shadow Minister, mentioned the “town centre first” policy. Government Members would be far more tempted to take lectures on different solutions for the town centre—or whatever this week’s soundbite is from Her Majesty’s Opposition—if Opposition Members actually attended the debate. There were significant periods when but one person—the shadow Secretary of State—sat on the Opposition Benches. I felt so sorry for him—he seemed so lonely—that I was tempted to join him. People in the country and retailers would take Opposition Members’ comments all the more seriously if they were expressed in this House.
Mary Portas has made many different recommendations and the Government have made a number of significant moves, including, for example, doubling the small business rate relief for two and half years to help small businesses through the Localism Act 2011; scrapping Whitehall planning guidance, which forced up parking charges in the past; changing the planning rules to allow councils to provide more parking spaces; and updating the licensing laws to give councils more power to tackle antisocial behaviour and, of course, the problems that came in with the 24-hour drinking laws.
I said that I would respond on the “town centre first” policy. We have focused on retail development in town centres. The national planning policy framework will be released by the spring. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) was quite wrong to say that it does not put town centres first, because it absolutely does. It is very clearly written, so I suggest she looks at the text again. We believe that town centres should be considered very strongly when making decisions. To reinforce that, the 2011 Act and the move towards giving local people the ability to make decisions, which was mentioned by more than one of my hon. Friends, mean that it will be much easier in future for local areas to prioritise in the way that they would wish to ensure that developments happen in the right way.
Duncan Hames
My right hon. Friend speaks with enthusiasm about the policies that the Government are introducing, but will he touch on the question I raised on the progress they are making to get rid of the regional spatial strategies and the old planning policies, which were forced on local areas by the previous Government?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right. Nothing did more damage to local areas than those hated regional spatial strategies. As everyone knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already written to local authority leaders and the Planning Inspectorate confirming that we will abolish those regional planning strategies. That letter was immediately material consideration, but we now intend to lay the orders from the 2011 Act, which will mean that they will finally be gone. I can therefore tell my hon. Friend that policies and proposals from the once-emerging regional spatial strategies should carry very little weight indeed in the minds of anybody involved in our planning system today.
Meg Hillier
I hope the Minister gets to the betting shops issue, which is not a party political one—I lobbied the previous Labour Government on it. Will he answer the question asked in the debate? Will the Government give fair wind this Friday to the private Member’s Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), which would radically change our high streets?
Grant Shapps
There were many detailed recommendations in the report, and I am looking with great interest at the one on betting shops. I sense the impatience that has been expressed today for a response to Mary Portas’s recommendations, and I can assure hon. Members that they will not have to wait terribly long to find out what our response will be. We have promised to deliver it by the spring, and we absolutely intend to do so; the hon. Lady will not have to wait very long at all—and I can confirm that I mean spring 2012.
We intend to provide a very energetic response to the Portas review. The Government like what she has said, and we have already started to implement a number of her recommendations. I will be coming back to give greater detail on the other items that we have not so far covered, but we have a generally positive attitude towards the report. It is also true to say, however, that in order for her recommendations to work, it would not be sufficient for us simply to put in place all 28 of them. Hon. Members and others should not expect a universal recovery in the high street simply as a result of such action. Retail is much more complex than that, and we need to get to the heart of the reasons that it has suffered so badly.
Hon. Members mentioned the fact that there are two essential factors. The first is the growth of the internet, as recognised by Mary Portas. The second is the growth of the out-of-town shopping stores; again, the report recognises that factor. Both those factors are here to stay, no matter what we do. No one can legislate to get rid of the internet, or to do away with the out-of-town stores. The advantages of the existing high streets therefore need to be played up. The first is the ability of people shopping in the high street to touch and feel products does not exist when they are shopping online, although they could still do that in an out-of-town store.
The second advantage is perhaps more significant. It is the ability to meet, communicate and enjoy a coffee with friends, and to go to other facilities that are based in the same location. Such facilities could include a local library or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said, a theatre. The high street provides a sense of community and well-being that I will wager could never be provided by the out-of-town stores. They simply do not provide that sense of community and belonging that has been so vividly described by Members across the House today. I have visited many of their constituencies in my role as Housing Minister, and I look forward to visiting many of them again. We have been given a wonderful tour of the country today, and we look forward to seeing those high streets revived. The one pledge that will go out from the Government is that, in addition to implementing as much of the Mary Portas review as possible, we will ask Members from across the House to lead the debate and the renaissance in their constituencies in the months to come just as passionately as they have done in the Chamber today.
Mr Marcus Jones
When I originally thought about applying to the Backbench Business Committee to hold this debate, I considered applying for a three-hour debate. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) persuaded me to request a six-hour debate instead. I was persuaded, but I was concerned that we might not be able to fill up the time. I must have underestimated the concern and support of hon. Members for their town centres. It has been wonderful to hear some 50 colleagues make such profound and important contributions about their town centres. For once, I am glad to have been proved wrong. I am pleased that I managed to secure a full-day debate.
I must admit—this has been mentioned by several hon. colleagues—that I enjoyed travelling the length and breadth of the country with them, hearing the trials, tribulations and triumphs of hon. Members and their constituencies, town centres and high streets. Among all the comments, however, what really struck me was the passion of many hon. colleagues for their town centres. It is important now that we put that passion into meaningful action. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister listened intently to much of the debate, as did his colleagues, and I am convinced that he will—
Business without Debate
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Midwife and Maternity Services
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to hold this debate on midwife and maternity services. It is particularly important because, as I speak, there is a baby boom in the UK. Last year, a baby was born every 40 seconds—the highest number in 20 years—and in certain areas of the country maternity units are under considerable pressure and midwives are working harder than ever. England has seen a 22% increase in the number of births, compared to Wales at 17%, Northern Ireland at 15%, and Scotland at 12%. The number of live births in England in 2010—the latest year for which figures are available—was well over two thirds of a million, representing an increase of 22% since 2001.
The Royal College of Midwives recently published its “State of Maternity Services” report, and I was pleased to be at its launch in Westminster Hall. The report looks at a number of indicators of the pressures on maternity care and the resources available to cope, and for the first time it does so for all four nations of the Union. The report finds that a significant increase in the number of births in each of the UK’s constituent parts and a trend towards older mothers are increasing the pressures on maternity services significantly. The extra work load placed on midwives by more older women giving birth has been exacerbated by an increased complexity in their work load.
The number of births to women aged 40 or over rose by more than 70% between 2001 and 2010—a level not seen since 1948. In England that has led to a substantial deficit in the work force needed to provide a safe level of care to women and their babies. Furthermore, the existing midwifery work force in England is ageing. We can therefore anticipate an even greater strain on services over the next 15 years, if the situation is not properly addressed. One region of England actually cut midwife numbers between 2001 and 2010. Between those years, the north-west experienced a 19% increase in the number of live births, but a reduced number of full-time equivalent midwives.
The only way to get large numbers of new midwives into the profession is through training student midwives, yet the record on student midwife numbers is patchy. In the 2005-06 academic year, for example, there was even a 16% cut in student midwife numbers, and it took five years for those numbers to climb back up to their 2004-05 level. With an ageing profession, a substantial and consistent rise in student midwife numbers is the only way of rectifying the enduring problem that there are too few midwives working in the NHS in England.
I very much welcome the increased number of midwives and trainee midwives introduced by the Government. That is fundamental. I also very much welcome the increase in NHS funding over each and every year of this Parliament, including the greater investment in maternity care as part of the solution. However, the financial limits resulting from the historically high debts that the previous Administration left us mean that innovative ways to address the work force shortages need to be considered.
I know that the Royal College of Midwives, for its part, is realistic about the financial challenges facing the NHS. The “State of Maternity Services” report recommends, for example, providing more midwife-led units and appropriately integrating maternity support workers as two ways to make better use of the limited financial resources available. The report also recommends at least maintaining, and in some regions increasing, the number of student midwives to ensure that more midwives are available to meet future needs.
Maternity services in England are approaching a critical point. London, along with many parts of the south and east, is particularly overstretched, with some maternity units currently having a midwife vacancy rate of over 20%. Maternity services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in better shape. According to the Royal College of Midwives, an average ratio of one midwife to 28 births is a safe level. At the moment the figures for the UK are as follows: in England there is one midwife for every 33 births, in Wales there is one for every 30 births, in Northern Ireland one for every 28 births, and in Scotland one for every 26 births. There are clear variations in care across the UK that need to be addressed. It is clear that with adequate midwife numbers to match the birth rate, mothers and babies receive a higher standard of care.
The situation in England is a concern, but it is certainly not hopeless. The midwifery shortage can be solved; it is simply a matter of policy will and using resources innovatively. For example, giving expectant mothers real choice when deciding where to give birth could alleviate the shortage problem in England. In essence, a mother has three main choices when choosing the location of birth: a midwife-led unit, a consultant-led unit or at home. Most women choose a local hospital, usually for convenience and because of the perception of safety and security. Encouraging more births at midwife-led units, however, would help with NHS work force planning. Births at home or in midwife-led units require fewer interventions and are less demanding on midwife time. According to calculations, for every 10,000 births moved from a consultant-led to a midwife-led unit or to the home, the required midwifery work force would be reduced by the equivalent of 71 full-time midwives.
There are significant variations in home birth take-up, which suggests that the message of choice is not getting through to all mothers. For example, in Somerset 11.4% of births are at home. At the other end of the scale, however, in Wansbeck, just 0.1% of births are at home. By encouraging real choice we could enable mothers across the country to receive higher levels of care during and after their pregnancy.
Choice of location of birth—that is, of course, a specific coalition policy set out in the NHS White Paper—is far too important to be denied to mothers, particularly when it is readily available in other parts of the country. According to the Office for National Statistics the percentage of home births decreased to 2.5% in 2010 compared with 2.7% the previous year.
Research by Oxford University’s national perinatal epidemiology unit has given further weight to the evidence that suggests women at a low risk of complications should be given full and frank options when it comes to choosing where to give birth. The general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, Professor Cathy Warwick, welcomed the research, saying:
“This ground-breaking research makes a very important contribution to the evidence base for women and health professionals about the safety of childbirth planned in different settings for women at a low risk of complications. The RCM hopes that its findings will be widely used and will help health professionals support women to make informed choices about their options when considering where to give birth. It should also influence the planning of high-quality maternity services across the UK.”
Maternity support workers who have been adequately trained, and are appropriately supervised and suitably deployed, can also provide a significant reduction of the pressure on midwife time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the House. He will be aware that some 70% of midwives oversee the birth of a child without a doctor’s support. He has not mentioned that it can cost up to £45,000 to train a midwife. Some of our midwives, certainly some from Northern Ireland, are going to Australia to gain experience. Does the hon. Gentleman see some way of retaining midwives here in England, where, as he has said, there seems to be a shortage? Might there not be some way for the regions to help each other in this respect?
Henry Smith
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, which reinforces my view that there must be proper investment—the Government are already making a good start—to ensure that student midwives learn how to help mothers give birth in a safe environment so that in most cases there are no complications. It should be emphasised that consultant-led maternity units, although obviously vital, do not represent the full picture, and that midwife-led units play an important role in increasing capacity. Midwife training in each part of the United Kingdom should be at least maintained, and in some regions increased. It is necessary to maintain the numbers who begin training to ensure that an adequate supply emerges at the other end, and I repeat my commendation of the Government in that regard.
Let me end by referring to a matter related to my constituency. Yesterday evening, during the Opposition day debate on the NHS, I mentioned that 10 years ago, in 2001, the maternity unit at Crawley hospital had regrettably been closed and moved nearly 10 miles up the road to East Surrey hospital. The move has created extra pressure at that hospital, and mothers and their families have a more difficult journey to attend the unit at for check-ups and for births.
I am personally very grateful to East Surrey hospital. It is where my children were born. My daughter Georgia was born there in 2003, my son Isaac was born there in 2006, and I feel that it is important also to mention that my son Ethan was stillborn there in 2005. The care that the hospital provided for us was second to none. Nevertheless, I think it important for mothers and families to have access to midwife-led services that are closer to their communities. It is certainly one of my hopes and desires that we may be able to establish a midwife-led unit for Crawley—and, indeed, many more such units throughout the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Let me begin by not only congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing the debate, but thanking him for raising the high-profile issue of midwife and maternity services. Those services, and the midwives who work in them, are extremely important to women, and the provision of high-quality maternity care is non-negotiable for a Government and a health service. I want to outline some of the measures that we are taking to improve the quality of that care, but let me first pay my own tribute to the midwives throughout the country who do such a fantastic job.
I hope that you will allow me a brief personal comment, Mr Speaker. My four children were delivered in four different hospitals, but in each of those instances the midwife had a profound impact on the experience, and a profound impact on the start that we made with a new little family member. I know that it will have been the same for many other families. The importance of midwives and maternity services cannot be overestimated.
We want to ensure that all pregnant women and new mothers receive the best care that it is possible to give. As my hon. Friend has said, and as other Members will know only too well, maternity services face increasing challenges, and they will have to evolve to meet those challenges. Over the last few years the birth rate has been rising, and the number of complex pregnancies is rising as well. There are also more high-risk births. Women are having babies when they are older, heart disease and obesity are increasing, and more mothers born outside the United Kingdom are giving birth here.
Impressive improvements have been made in many services. The Care Quality Commission’s 2010 survey of women’s experiences of maternity services found that 92% of the women surveyed rated their care during pregnancy as excellent, very good or good, 94% rated their care during labour and birth as excellent, very good or good, and 89% rated their care after birth as excellent, very good or good. I hate statistics as they can seem meaningless and dry. It is important to congratulate the midwives who achieved those satisfaction figures, but we should never forget that if 94% of women rated their care during birth as good or better, then 6% thought they did not get care that was good enough. That might not seem like a large proportion, but for the women concerned it is all that matters.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I have written to the Minister about the high-profile problems at the Furness General maternity unit, triggered by personal tragedies. What reassurances can she give on the future of that unit? More generally, what can she do to ensure that trusts with poor performing services in need of investment get the resources they need to deliver the first-class care people in my constituency and the whole country rightly expect?
Anne Milton
I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about those issues, and I will come on to discuss the measures we want to put in place to ensure such past tragedies do not happen again. CQC reviews have corroborated that there are problems. It raises concerns about the safety and quality of maternity care in some areas. They are small but significant areas of concern, and they must be of note to all involved in this area of care, especially as sometimes they involve personal and family tragedies.
Media and public attention on maternity services has picked up pace over the last year. In particular, there is anxiety about safety, capacity and changes to services. In many respects, there is a “perfect storm” of circumstances, which makes things difficult. The issue is how well we react, and how well services evolve and the work force are equipped to react positively.
We have put extending maternity choice as a key priority in the NHS operating framework. To help communities achieve the desired outcomes in the most individually suitable ways, when services change, that change will be led by clinicians, midwives, and women—the very people who run and use those services.
To make sure the maternity infrastructure is being put to best use, I want there to be maternity provider networks across the country, bringing together all the different elements of maternity services, so there are no gaps or hidden corners where mothers might get substandard care. The incident that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) raised involves precisely such hidden corners and gaps, and such incidents often result in a personal tragedy. Hospitals, GP surgeries, charities and community groups can all be linked up to share information, expertise and services.
We also want more efficient use of skills in maternity wards themselves. Obstetricians and gynaecologists, maternity support workers and, of course, midwives can come together and use their complementary skills and expertise to get the best results for mothers, with appropriately trained support workers providing valuable assistance, for example with breastfeeding, leaving midwives to concentrate on the more specialist areas. This is not just a numbers game; it is about getting the skills, expertise and team mix exactly right. That will mean the talents of all 27,000 midwives can be put to the best, most efficient, use. That number shows that more midwives are working in the NHS now than ever before. The picture looks good for the future, too, because it is backed up by a record number of midwives entering training. Subject to the number of forecast births, that will be maintained.
In July, we published “Supporting Families in the Foundation Years”. That report does not have the catchiest of titles, but it is important because it sets out how everyone who commissions, delivers or leads on something can work to support parents and families. We cannot overstate the importance of the health and well-being of women before, during and after pregnancy; it is a critical factor in giving children a good start and in continuing that good health and well-being as they get older. The latest data show that more than 90% of women who gave birth in the third quarter of 2010-11 saw a maternity health professional within 12 and a half weeks. That is another dry statistic, but it is crucial. Early intervention and early contact with a maternity health professional is crucial to the well-being of not only the mother, but the child. Those meetings are about more than just basic maternity care. Work will have been done on, and discussions will have been had about, things such as diet, exercise, smoking and drinking. This is about improving the health of the baby, the mother and the whole family, and decreasing the kind of health inequalities that remain and are so persistent in our society. All those things affect the outcome for those women and their babies, and the lasting impact of those things cannot be underestimated.
To back all that work up, from April a maternity experience indicator will be introduced as part of the NHS outcomes framework. That will be an important part of identifying those gaps, as it will allow us to chart a woman’s experience of care throughout antenatal care, labour, delivery and post-natal care. It will also allow women and their partners to compare people’s experience of care and make choices about what they want to do. It will be a valuable tool for midwives as well, as they will be able to see how they are doing in relation to peer organisations. If they are doing well, this will drive them on to maintain their level and if there are weaknesses, the experience indicator will show specific areas to improve. As I say, this is not about the numbers; it is about getting the team mix right. In one busy maternity unit that I visited, it was simply about moving women around the labour facilities effectively and efficiently.
The Department of Health funded the “Birthplace in England” study, which was published in November last year. It provided evidence about the expected outcomes for women and their babies at “low risk” of complications. It was the first study of its type in this country, and the findings will be a very important part in shaping maternity services, as well as other, linked parts of the NHS, such as ambulance services, so that every part of the system is working together. It is an extremely important body of evidence. In addition, we have asked the Centre for Workforce Intelligence to carry out an in-depth study of the nursing and maternity work force to determine whether we have the right skill mix and professional teams, and whether they are able to deliver what is needed. That will start this year and will inform the future commissioning of training places.
I hope that what I have said reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and other hon. Members in the Chamber that we are continuing to improve maternity services to women, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their circumstance; it is not good enough to give excellent care in one place and for services to be patchy elsewhere. We want consistently high-quality care and we will carry on with that process, making sure maternity services and midwives are fully prepared for the demands of the modern maternity landscape.
I know that my hon. Friend has had specific issues to deal with in his local area and that they have been ongoing for many years. I am also aware that the picture is complex in terms of the circumstances of the women who end up using the local services. I hope that I have reassured him, to some extent, that we have taken note of what is going on. There is no doubt that the birth of a baby is a very special moment and we want it to be a positive experience that shapes the future of not only the child and their mother, but the whole family.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Deloitte: Government Departments
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Robertson
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to the answer of 14 November 2011, Official Report, columns 537-8W, on Government departments: Deloitte, what the (a) net value and (b) individual value was of each of the Government contracts awarded to (i) Deloitte and (ii) associates of Deloitte since May 2010.
[Official Report, 10 January 2012, Vol. 538, c. 249-52W.]
Letter of correction from Francis Maude:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on 10 January 2012. The full answer given was as follows:
Mr Maude
The following table summarises contracts that are listed on Contract Finder. The total potential value of these contracts exceeds £1.47 billion; actual net value will depend on usage, particularly of framework agreements. Further information is held by individual Departments.
Supplier | Procuring authority | Contract | Value (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA8 Scotland—Ingeus Deloitte | 141,761,075 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | English Work Programme—CPA16 West Yorkshire—Ingeus Deloitte | 75,893,060 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA5 North East—Ingeus Deloitte | 111,509,095 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA1 East of England—Ingeus Deloitte | 117,887,335 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA3 West London—Ingeus Deloitte | 102,846,725 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA2 East Midlands—Ingeus Deloitte | 116,576,495 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA6 North West—Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire—Ingeus Deloitte | 107,089,660 |
Deloitte LLP | Northern Ireland Audit Office | Financial auditing services | 264,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Skills Funding Agency | Cloud Readiness | 120,000 |
Deloitte | Humber NHS Foundation Trust | Auditing services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust | Internal audit services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Fabrick Housing Group | Auditing services | 16,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | One Vision Housing Ltd | Auditing services | 25,000,000 |
Deloitte | National Audit Office | Accounting and auditing services | 2,450,000 |
Deloitte MCS Ltd. | Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 400,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP (local authorities) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 2,439,000 |
Deloitte LLP (health bodies) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 1,896,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Coventry City Council | Financial consultancy services2 | 20,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | University of Leeds | Statutory audit services | 1— |
Deloitte and Touche Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd | North Devon District Council | Internal audit services | 33,000,000 |
Deloitte | Herefordshire Council | Auditing services2 | 3,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | NHS Shared Business Services Ltd | Property management services of real estate on a fee or contract basis2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Pension services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services2 | 50,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | Swan Housing Association Ltd | Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services2 | 1— |
1 No data 2 Framework agreements rather than individual contracts. |
The correct answer should have been:
Mr Maude
The following table summarises contracts that are listed on Contract Finder. The net value will depend on usage, particularly of framework agreements. Further information is held by individual Departments.
Supplier | Procuring authority | Contract | Value (£) |
|---|---|---|---|
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA8 Scotland—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 141,761,075 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | English Work Programme—CPA16 West Yorkshire—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 75,893,060 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA5 North East—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 111,509,095 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA1 East of England—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 117,887,335 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA3 West London—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 102,846,725 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA2 East Midlands—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 116,576,495 |
Ingeus Deloitte | Department for Work and Pensions | Work Programme—CPA6 North West—Merseyside, Halton, Cumbria and Lancashire—Ingeus Deloitte2 | 107,089,660 |
Deloitte LLP | Northern Ireland Audit Office | Financial auditing services | 264,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Skills Funding Agency | Cloud Readiness | 120,000 |
Deloitte | Humber NHS Foundation Trust | Auditing services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust | Internal audit services | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Fabrick Housing Group | Auditing services | 160,000 |
Deloitte LLP | One Vision Housing Ltd | Auditing services2 | 250,000 |
Deloitte | National Audit Office | Accounting and auditing services | 2,450,000 |
Deloitte MCS Ltd. | Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 4,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP (local authorities) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 2,439,000 |
Deloitte LLP (health bodies) | Audit Scotland | Statutory audit services | 1,896,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Coventry City Council | Financial consultancy services2 | 20,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | University of Leeds | Statutory audit services | 1— |
Deloitte and Touche Public Sector Internal Audit Ltd | North Devon District Council | Internal audit services | 330,000 |
Deloitte | Herefordshire Council | Auditing services2 | 3,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | NHS Shared Business Services Ltd | Property management services of real estate on a fee or contract basis2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Pension services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | The Pensions Regulator | Business and management consultancy and related services2 | 1— |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 1)2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 2)2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 3)2 | 50,000,000 |
Deloitte LLP | Buying Solutions | Computer-related professional services (Lot 5)2 | 50,000,000 |
Drivers Jonas Deloitte | Swan Housing Association Ltd | Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services2 | 1— |
1 No data 2These are framework agreements or contracts split into lots, under which Deloitte is one of several successful companies; the contract value represents the total potential value across all successful bidders. |
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Care of the Dying
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It will not have escaped your notice that a considerable number of hon. Members are present, and a significant number have indicated in writing that they wish to speak. Who gets called, other than in what order, is beyond my control. We have an hour and a half for this debate. The Front Benchers will traditionally want not less than 10 minutes each, so, if you do the math, as they say, it is up to you. If hon. Members confine their remarks to three minutes a head, we will get everybody in; that is, of course, other than the person who initiates the debate. If hon. Members take an inordinate amount of time, I have no power to curtail the length for which they speak, other than to say that they may not get called again in the near future. Please try to exercise some control, and we will endeavour to ensure that everybody gets heard. Those with less experience might like to pay attention to the fact that it is sometimes possible to make a point in an intervention, rather than in a formal speech.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to talk about care of the dying. It is marked that so many hon. Members are attending the debate on a subject that so many people in our constituencies would rather not talk about.
Last year, a ComRes poll found that 67% of people are scared of being told that they are dying. More significantly, 83% are scared of dying in pain. As a nation, we need to get better at talking about dying, death and bereavement, but Parliament can take a lead in breaking the cycle that can result in a lack of care. With the public reluctant to discuss end-of-life care, many professionals do not feel confident to deliver it. Services are not available to everyone who needs them. The aptly named Dying Matters coalition, across the public, voluntary and private sector, should be commended and supported when it has its annual awareness week in May.
Too often in health care, dying equals failure rather than a normal process. This attitude ignores those who will not respond to treatment, but who can still be cared for significantly. Although death may be a tragic inevitability, palliative and hospice care can ensure that the remainder of life is still worth living. We have an opportunity today to show the mark of a civilised society and care for the vulnerable and largely forgotten—the dying.
The growth of palliative care, not legalisation for assisted suicide, should form the central debate about care for the dying. As a country, we must do all that we can to allow the terminally ill to live a dignified life until death, to make the intolerable tolerable and to replace hopelessness with hope and desperation with serenity. Too often, this essential part of health care is forgotten, or simply shrouded by the more high-profile issue of assisted suicide. Reading media reports this year, one could be forgiven for thinking that that is the only option for those suffering with terminal illness. Rather than legislating for an abrupt end to life, we need to find better ways to help care for the dying.
The good practice of palliative care, which hon. Members will no doubt illustrate this morning with constituency examples, makes the point that we in this country believe that life should be treated with dignity at every stage through to death. Some 50 years ago, Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, said:
“You matter because you are you, and you matter to the last moment of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
What a refreshing contrast from what we have heard recently from those advocating assisted suicide. Take the chilling words of Baroness Warnock, who said:
“If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives—your family’s lives—and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.”
Suggesting that we have a “duty to die”, she said:
“I think that’s the way the future will go, putting it rather brutally, you’d be licensing people to put others down.”
Well, that is not a future I want to be a part of, and I am sure many of those present today agree. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] If we adopted the law of Oregon, the trickle of people wanting to be killed in places such as Dignitas would become a flow—some estimate that more than 1,000 people a year would take that path.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most worrying things is that, if what he is talking about is introduced, many older people may feel that they are a burden and that they should bring an end to their lives?
Mr Burrowes
Indeed. We need to retain the present law, which continues to provide a strong deterrent to the exploitation of vulnerable people, while giving prosecutors discretion in hard cases. Parliament has agreed, through a detailed Select Committee inquiry and three votes in the past six years, to retain that protection. We have to recognise that it is easy, in the comfort of Parliament, to make fine-sounding points about terminal illness. I recognise that there are no easy answers for those who feel they are not valued and who may feel that they may be wasting resources or are a burden on their family or society. However, they are the very people who most need the protection of the law and the provision of good-quality palliative care. How do we best safeguard their dignity and autonomy?
When we talk about dignity in the context of a health debate, it can all too often be restricted to privacy and physical care, but palliative care recognises a wider, proper understanding of dignity. Good palliative care recognises the social, emotional, spiritual and psychological needs that put an embrace around a terminally ill patient, rather than the proposed arbitrary, so-called safeguards that put a straitjacket around patients and doctors. For example, the prognosis for a terminally ill patient is notoriously difficult to determine. The best safeguard is through specialist palliative care that helps a patient live with uncertainty. Take the case of a motor neurone disease sufferer who wants to end his life but, unknown to his GP, has developed fronto-temporal dementia and whose thinking has become distorted. Such a condition could only be noticeable if someone knew that patient very well before the illness. The best safeguard to help the patient live with those fluctuating moods and thoughts is specialist palliative care. The proper way to empower patients’ choice and protect the vulnerable is through driving up palliative care standards, not new legislation.
In 2010, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Britain, rightly, as top of the league of countries for the provision of end-of-life care. Much of the credit is no doubt due to the expansion of local charitable hospices that provide more than £700 million of care, the majority of which is donated by the communities that they serve. Additionally, more than 100,000 people donate their time to local hospices each year.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. The fact that there are so many hon. Members here at 9.30 on a Tuesday morning shows what an important subject this is. He talks about local hospices. The Rainbows children’s hospice, which is in my constituency, now looks after young adults with life-limiting conditions as well. In this debate, we will perhaps focus on older people, but we should not forget children with life-limiting conditions. One point that the hospice has made to me—I think that my hon. Friend is coming on to this—is the fact that we need to integrate both health care and social care. Rainbows children’s hospice would like to see more of that from the Minister.
Mr Burrowes
I am grateful for that point. Integration is needed, and we see that in the context of hospices and palliative care. We hope for that future in the reforms that are going through Parliament.
Although we should be proud, rightly, of individual examples in our constituencies, we should not rest on our laurels. We need to build on that solid foundation, because far more can be done. End-of-life care is not available to everyone who needs it. In fact, the palliative care funding review found that 92,000 people die in England every year without access to the services that they need. That figure equates to nearly 500,000 people during the term of this Parliament, and 700 people in each of our constituencies dying without the good palliative care services that they deserve.
Nationally, hospices receive about a third of their funding from the NHS, but that can vary substantially across the country. Indeed, in my constituency in Enfield, the NHS contributes less than 20% of what the hospice spends on care for Enfield patients. One of the biggest issues facing the terminally ill is where they will die. Currently, more than half the people who die in England do so in hospitals and just 20% die at home, although various studies have shown that two thirds of people would choose to die at home.
In Enfield, there are excellent palliative care services. I pay tribute to Nightingale Cancer Support Centre and North London hospice, which provides a community service providing care in people’s homes alongside an in-patient unit. In Enfield, the North London hospice community team are able to ensure that only 28% of people cared for by the hospice die in hospital.
According to the Minister, the Government should consider allocating national resources to continue to promote and extend palliative care. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the progress in implementing the new per-patient funding system for hospice and palliative care providers, which will provide incentives to enhance services within community settings.
Mr Burrowes
I will conclude in a moment, because a large number of colleagues want to contribute.
Jean Rostand, the French biologist, said:
“For my part I believe that there is no life so degraded, debased, deteriorated, or impoverished that it does not deserve respect and is not worth defending with zeal and conviction. I have the weakness to believe that it is an honour for our society to desire the expensive luxury of sustaining life for its useless, incompetent and incurably ill members. I would almost measure society’s degree of civilisation by the amount of effort and vigilance it imposes on itself out of pure respect for life.
I look forward to hearing hon. Members demonstrate that respect for life, for the dying, today.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes)on obtaining this debate? I agree with the bulk of what he said. There is something drastically wrong with a society that can contemplate legalising something that is, to my mind, murder. A change in the law would inevitably define the value of a life as dependent upon physical or mental capacity.
One of the greatest regrets of my life is that I was not present when either of my parents died. They did not die at the same time: both died in hospital and there was a period between each of them dying. One of the greatest privileges that can be afforded to a caring person—to us as human beings—is to be present at that moment when the last great adventure begins, when life slips away. A great strength of the Marie Curie hospice in my constituency is not that it exclusively treats the individual who is facing that last great adventure, but that it offers care and concern for the family, so that they can be included in that process.
Surely, we all deserve dignity in our death, whether or not that happens, as I think most of us would like to experience it, in our own home. Certainly, hospices provide the most extraordinary care. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, regrettably, neither this Government nor the previous one took on board sufficiently the importance of hospices by financing them to the degree they warrant and deserve. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said, we are not simply discussing those who are elderly and facing death: this also applies to children and young people. The particular approach that hospices and palliative care can provide is of paramount importance.
I am somewhat shocked at the idea that hospices are somehow irrelevant, which is argued by some who seem to believe that advances made in medical science have, during our period on Earth, ground to a halt. I remember, because I am quite old—[Hon. Members: “No!”] I am sorry, but I am. The most frightening diseases when I was a child were cancer, and consumption—tuberculosis—which was deemed an absolutely incurable illness leading inevitably to death. We hear that its incidence has increased, but we do not hear much about it being an absolute death sentence.
We should all support the advances being made in medical science and research, not only in curing illnesses but in preventing their onset. In this instance, it is paramount that our society turn its face away from what could become legalised murder, and argue and press the case for increased funding, increased support for palliative care and, most markedly, support for hospices.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on the strength and spirit of his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) and very much agree with what she said. I was privileged to be present at my father’s death. My mother will, hopefully, shortly celebrate her 100th birthday.
All hon. Members came into politics because we care about life. We did not come into it to legislate about death. This is a sensitive and serious issue. One of our former colleagues is not in great shape at the moment. If he were able to attend he would support what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate said.
When I was Member of Parliament for Basildon I was privileged to lay the foundation stone for St Luke’s hospice. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned hospices in her constituency. In the area that I represent there is Fair Havens hospice and Little Havens hospice for children. I agree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate on what Dame Cicely Saunders said.
Britain is the world’s leading provider of end-of-life care. We are the only nation to offer palliative care as a specialist, medical discipline in its own right.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when Government budgets are under a great deal of stress and the amount of assistance received from the NHS by hospices such as his and the Pilgrims hospice in my constituency is being decided, it would send exactly the wrong message to those splendid hospices and to those making budgetary decisions in the NHS if the House decided to allow assisted suicide?
Mr Amess
I agree with my hon. Friend. His local hospice does splendid work.
Hospice workers require four years’ intensive training in order to practise. As a result, our hospitals and hospices are staffed by teams able to offer first rate end-of-life care when it is needed—all hon. Members will be familiar with the wonderful quality of care in our hospices—which puts Britain at the scientific forefront of palliative medicine, meaning that the care we can offer will only improve as advances are made. If we can offer this world-leading end-of-life care, why are we looking to euthanasia as an alternative solution?
We can do even more with end-of-life care than we are doing at the moment. We should seek to provide appropriate care to everyone who needs it, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn said, no matter who they are or where they are. Figures suggest that 700 people in every constituency die without access to the appropriate services they need. Of course, this needs to change.
We need to help more with planning difficult situations. Understandably, thinking ahead can be traumatic for patients and families. None of us—I am the world’s biggest coward—wants to face the consequences of death. We must therefore do all we can to ensure that the end-of-life support received runs as smoothly as possible. We should focus on personalisation and integration.
Care needs to be developed throughout the community, so that the dying can spend those precious last moments in their local area, not in hospital.
We have already heard about the difficulties of legalisation in Oregon.
I could say much more, but I will not. I simply applaud the words of Dame Cicely, who said,
“Hospices are places where people come to live, not to die.”
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate on providing the opportunity for us to debate this important issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall; the number of Members present is an indication of its importance. Perhaps not coincidentally, we are about to recognise a memorial to the holocaust, to the 6 million Jews killed, as well as to all those people who were “socially unacceptable” or “mentally unstable”, according to the Nazis, who way back in that time took a decision to murder people whom they felt were not capable of contributing to society. I want to make some comments about that in the short time I have.
Cancer is a big killer. I can remember clearly what it meant for my own family when my father had it, on three occasions. He survived it, which I believe was because of his faith in God, as well as the medical profession and what it can do. Not everyone survives, however, and nor is cancer the only condition that can be terminal and need extensive care. Numerous other horrific illnesses include multiple sclerosis, lupus and HIV/AIDS. Some people classify those with such conditions as on the dying pathway, but, along with other speakers, I congratulate the UK on being top in the world for good palliative care, which is something to be incredibly proud of. However, sometimes palliative care is not the next step, and some steps might well be missed by those who are looking to make a diagnosis rather than to treat an illness long term. Some suffer from incurable illnesses, but others are simply elderly and infirm and need care, dignity and a programme tailored to their requirements. The word “dignity” has been mentioned by every speaker so far, and that underlines the issue clearly for me. People need dignity when they are not well.
I recently visited an occupational therapist whom I had met during my 26 years as a councillor. I got to know her well, and she was diagnosed with cancer. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) commented on the work of the Marie Curie centre, and I had the opportunity to visit that lady at such a centre in Belfast. She had an aggressive strain of cancer, with six weeks between her initial diagnosis and the end of her life—the disease struck quickly and hard. I and her family could not but appreciate the good work done by the Marie Curie people. At a time when she needed help most, they made her life that wee bit more comfortable—if that is the word to use—and helped her family.
No one living in the UK can be unaware of the need for efficiency savings, but in some areas we cannot afford to cut, and palliative care is one of those. Health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and the health service has said in its palliative care strategy:
“The vision of this Strategy is that any person, from diagnosis to the advanced non-curative stage of disease, lives well and dies well irrespective of their condition or care setting. This requires a philosophy of palliative and end of life care that is person-centred and which takes a holistic approach to planning, co-ordinating and delivering high quality reliable care enabling patients to retain control, dignity and crucially, choice in how and where their care is delivered to the end of their life.”
It is about the people who are ill and who need care at the right time and in the right way. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned personal beliefs, cultures, the practices of patients and so on, and I would hold to what he said in his introduction. It is about the practices of patients and their families and carers, and recognising the contribution that good palliative and end-of-life care can make to the quality of their lives and the lives of the people around them who have to sit back and watch their loved ones die.
The NHS is supported by many charities, and one is the Northern Ireland hospice. It was established in 1981 and provides palliative care for adults—the majority of whom have had a cancer diagnosis—although there are young people there as well. The service began in Somerton house for in-patients but developed to provide specialist community nursing services, a day hospice and hospice at home—the point is that the service can be at hospital or at home, and it supports the family. Everyone knows of the tremendous work of the Macmillan nurses—personally, in many cases, and as elected representatives—and although the people of Northern Ireland continue to give generously, that is not enough to sustain the high level of care and training.
It is important for us to remain top of the world in palliative care, not because we want to show off or show our prowess, but because we want those who are dying before their time to have the best care in order to ease their way, and to ease the pain of their families. We can show what sort of a society we are by the way we treat our vulnerable people. Along with everyone else present, I support the intention behind the debate, and I hope we can assist the people who need it most: the elderly, the infirm and those who are ill and dying.
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I do not intend to refer to the policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide or to the report of the Commission on Assisted Dying because I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) has been given a debate by the Backbench Business Committee. Hopefully that debate, in which I suspect that many hon. Members present today will seek to catch Mr Speaker’s eye, will give us the opportunity to make our views known on those matters.
I fully endorse everything said so far today in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), so I hope not to repeat anything. However, it is important for us to recognise that we will all die. As a society, we need to talk much more about dying and the care of the dying. As the psalmist says:
“The days of our age are threescore years and ten; and though men be so strong, that they come to fourscore years: yet is their strength then but labour and sorrow; so soon passeth it away, and we are gone.”
All too often in modern medicine death is seen as a failure in some way, but supporting those who are dying is an important part of modern medicine.
Three crucial things, therefore, ought to happen for anyone who is dying. They should be informed and fully know and understand, as far as possible, what is happening with their medical treatment. So far as is possible, they should be relieved of pain and should be able to die where they would most like to die. Most people, when asked, say that they would like to die at home, yet home hospice services in this country are pretty noticeable by their absence. I agree with the comments of hon. Members so far: we do have exceptionally good palliative care in this country—where it is good it is very good—but all too often it is mediocre.
Guy Opperman
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. A lot of people present are passionate Christians and see the subject from a religious standpoint. I speak as someone who was given warning of death on 26 April, before my operation last year, and with respect I take the view that, of the choices faced by individuals, one is the choice of their death—when they would choose to go. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) accept, as a matter of both law and faith, that that choice belongs to us?
Tony Baldry
I want to resist the temptation to be drawn into a debate on assisted dying, because many people present want to talk about palliative care, but I state simply that the only person who should determine when we die is the Almighty—it is not us. If we get into a situation in which we pick and choose who dies and who lives, it is a slippery slope. However, I will wait until the debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South before I develop those arguments.
On the need to enhance palliative care, I hope that much more emphasis can be given to junior doctors in particular. I understand that at present they get comparatively little training on palliative care and, given the pressures that junior doctors are under, they often feel that if a patient dies they have somehow failed that patient. They might not have: patients die, and it is a fact of life that people will die. Every hospital trust should have a clear policy on palliative care and on how to enhance it. We should never forget the role of hospital chaplains. People approaching death often need spiritual support as well as medical assistance. Spiritual support is no less worthy and necessary.
We should never underestimate the role of hospices. Hon. Members have referred to hospices in their constituencies, and I have the excellent Katharine House hospice in mine. However, we must try to ensure that they are better integrated in support of NHS palliative care services. Many moons ago, in the mid-1980s, Jack Ashley and I set up the all-party group on hospice support, which is now the all-party group on hospice and palliative care. Even then, we were concerned about the varying amount of support from the NHS to local hospices. I hope very much that NHS commissioners will, whenever possible, see local hospices not just as a resource in developing excellence in palliative care, but as an invaluable resource to help those who are dying and those who are terminally ill. I suspect that the voluntary hospice movement still needs to be much better integrated in supporting the NHS and those who are terminally ill. I hope that the introduction of new forms of commissioning will enable that to be done much better. How we support those who are dying is a measure not just of the NHS, but of us as a society, and we should be judged by how we care for those who are bereaved.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I support all that has been said by those hon. Members who have spoken today. I want to touch particularly on the importance of how we can develop the excellent hospice care that already exists in our country today. Dame Cecily Saunders has been quoted. She said that the hospice movement should have three components: care, research into good care and education of professionals and the community in care and end-of-life issues. Communities today need hospices to operate at that level not just within their buildings, but outside. Fantastic care is given in hospices, but to a relatively small number of people.
In Cheshire, for example, St. Luke’s hospice, which serves my constituency, has just 14 beds, but through various initiatives, it has a far greater beneficial impact on the wider community. I should like to share some of the initiatives that St. Luke’s is developing. It has recently been invited to share those initiatives with the all-party group on dying well. To give confidence and skills to others to share well the care of family members, it has a community outreach programme, and I will refer to one of those programmes in my constituency.
The village hall in a village near Alsager opened its doors one day a week, but that is now being extended, so that those who are not within the hospice may come for day care. Nurses from the hospice spend a day at the village hall, and a group of volunteers cook lunch for the community’s elderly residents, who are often in some difficulty with their physical and mental capabilities. They can have counselling in a private room, a massage, treatments such as manicures and pedicures and engage in hobbies. I saw some wonderful art work that they had done over a period of months. They are provided with an excellent lunch, preceded by a small glass of sherry if they want it. There is much laughter and much support, and that enables the people who visit the centre not only to remain in their communities, but to have their lives enhanced and supported by the work of the hospice, augmented by a substantial number of local volunteers. In turn, those volunteers go into those people’s homes.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for describing the innovative care that hospices in our local communities provide. In my constituency, Katharine House hospice does the same. I want to draw her attention to the community lodges that the Douglas Macmillan hospice has set up in an area near her constituency. They allow families to come together and to support their loved ones in a lodge as they are dying.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As Siobhan Horton, the director of St. Luke’s hospice said:
“Hospices need to actively transfer their enormous expertise in health and social care more broadly to ensure more benefit from high quality care”
for more people. St. Luke’s also provides education for all those in the Cheshire area who are involved in hospice work. I have visited the hospice. The ground floor contains 14 beds, and the first floor is a resource centre with a library, and advisers to inform and enable carers and professionals to extend their expertise throughout the Cheshire community and beyond. Hospices can do that excellently, because of their unique expertise, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
Another project that St. Luke’s is undertaking is to develop a public health approach to end-of-life issues, so that ageing well and dying well are part of living well. It is working with the local community to improve communication with family members who are coming to the end of their lives, to resolve outstanding issues, to reduce regrets, to open up conversations that others may be reluctant to engage in, to work with family members and to encourage the engagement of their wider community in supporting the family and individuals who are struggling to support themselves towards the end of a life in the family. The aim for all who are supported in that way is a good death. I think that we all have that aspiration: a death within the loving embrace of our family and local community. St. Luke’s is undertaking serious research into that, and I look forward to hearing more about its developing public health approach to end-of-life issues.
I want to touch on the work that St. Luke’s is doing in connection with care homes. It has been involved in care home education for many years, and although it believes that some care home care is excellent, it also believes that much expertise can be shared both ways. It is considering how to have a closer, more supportive relationship with care homes locally and is commissioning a report on strategic planning and what sort of relationship and support would make a positive difference to care home delivery of end-of-life care. Let us support such innovations and others throughout the country to develop the excellent work of the hospice movement here, of which we can all be proud. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the country and the Government can continue to support and promote the extension of the excellent palliative care in this nation.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate. I have known him as a good friend for nearly 30 years and his values have remained the same over that time.
I welcome this debate because I feel that we need to move the focus of the discussion away from assisted dying and towards quality of life. I became involved with this issue not by accident but through involvement with my local hospice, St Clare. It is one of the most wonderful community organisations with which I have ever had the privilege to be involved, both as a parliamentary candidate in Harlow for many years, and as its MP. St Clare is dedicated to promoting quality of life and care, and it has taught me much about the important role of palliative care and how it needs our support.
I should like to make several brief points, the first of which concerns equity of funding. St Clare hospice in Harlow receives 24% of its funding from the local primary care trust, although other nearby hospices in other PCTs, such as Farleigh hospice or St Francis hospice, receive around 40% of their funding from the PCTs. I welcome the figure of 40% and do not deride it, but it is important to have greater equity of funding. There is also a cliff-edge issue: 70% of charitable hospices have agreements with their local PCT that last for just one year. We need longer-term agreements, so that hospices can plan ahead.
Although we often talk about the big society, the hospice movement existed before that was even mentioned. It has pioneered the big society for many years, and 157 charitable hospices in the United Kingdom receive the bulk of their funding from private and community sources. More than 100,000 people donate their time to local hospices. St Clare hospice has 500 volunteers, and on one occasion, I was pleased to work there as a receptionist. Given what the Government are trying to accomplish in many parts of the public sector, hospices deserve more recognition for their role as part of the big society. They are models of how charitable institutions can raise extra funds, invest in services and train the community, without resources coming simply from higher taxes.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I support everything that has been said so far about doing whatever we can to preserve life. Funding has been mentioned, as have the community and voluntary sectors. Medway contains the Wisdom hospice, where £539,000 is raised annually by the voluntary and charitable sectors. That is a great example of how communities want to preserve and support palliative care.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes a good point that is exactly right; his constituency is lucky to have him serving it so well.
I want to highlight bereavement counselling services. St Clare offers such a service, and about 40% of families that become involved with it receive bereavement counselling. That is a huge extra cost for something that the hospice does not have to provide but nevertheless offers as an extra service. Hospices receive little recognition for their work on bereavement care, and a UK study has shown that such care is often overlooked. In 2010, more than half of hospital maternity units still lacked dedicated bereavement support, thus leading families to turn to their local hospices. In 2007, an Oxford university survey of bereavement care in 10 Marie Curie hospices around the country showed that, although there are some great services, such care is patchy or non-existent in other areas. That is why hospices such as St Clare that go above and beyond the call of duty in the bereavement services that they offer deserve recognition and extra financial support.
To conclude, I should like to comment on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) who is no longer in his place. I have huge respect for him, but he mentioned choice in death. The problem with assisted dying and the move towards euthanasia is that people will be pressured into making choices. That is why I am passionately against any move towards assisted dying.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate, and I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). Is not part of the problem the fact that if this House eventually—sadly—legislates in favour of assisted dying, that would normalise the situation and mean that people and families who are vulnerable or in desperate straits may think, “That is normality; we will go down that route”? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a dangerous route down which to go?
Robert Halfon
I agree passionately with the hon. Gentleman; we would be taking a hugely dangerous step were we to go down the road of assisted dying. We as a society devalue human life, whether through fiction, computer games or television, or in real life. I often wonder whether Harold Shipman would have got away with killing one patient after another if we as a society had not devalued human life in such a way. We need to move away from that in a big way and back towards dignity for the dying and strong support for palliative care.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
This is a complex subject about which one could probably speak for around half an hour. I will try to confine myself to three minutes and make an important point that I do not think has been made previously. I do not want to repeat points already made by other hon. Members.
I should begin by declaring an interest. I am a board member of Living and Dying Well, which is an active and committed organisation that examines and publishes evidence-based research into assisted dying. There are many aspects to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) not only on his speech but on the measured tone in which it was delivered.
I have probably received more communication from constituents about assisted dying than on any other subject. Most of those who have contacted me disagree with my point of view; I am totally opposed to any change in the law. All those people, however, approached me on the basis of compassion, usually for an individual whom they know—I am sure that many hon. Members present, and others, know of people whose lives are coming to an end and who are living in such difficult circumstances that it is almost a blessing when that happens. Such circumstances have led people to feel that there should be a change in the law. We, however, are parliamentarians, and although I feel compassion for the individual and understand and respect the views of those who disagree with me, we as legislators have a duty of compassion to society as a whole. In my view, we cannot introduce laws that are geared towards individual cases and are dangerous and could lead to situations such as those already mentioned where pressure is put on individuals and suicide is normalised.
In a perfect world, every terminally ill person would be clear thinking and not suffering from a mental illness from which they might recover; every doctor would be professional and competent to make a judgment about the end of life; and every relative would be full of compassion and motivated by nothing else. Our society, however, is not like that. We live in an imperfect society, and our laws must allow for those imperfections.
A debate to be held next spring will consider assisted dying, and we will all be able to make a huge number of points and provide evidence. I would be deeply sorry if we move towards legalising assisted dying and I think that it would be a dreadful mistake, but we should leave that discussion until that debate. Let us recognise that, as parliamentarians, we have a duty first to make a huge commitment to social and palliative care—which as a society we have never done—and to help people at the most vulnerable stage in their lives. We should not go down the road of making things convenient by simply removing those who are most vulnerable and most need our care away from our society altogether.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Six hon. Members still wish to speak. I intend to call the Front Benchers from 10.40 am. Again, please do the sums.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I became interested in end-of-life care in part from having been a hospital visitor at my local hospital for eight years, largely attending those who had no advocate, friends or family and who were nearing the end of their life. I continue to work on these issues with a number of organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing, Age UK and the NHS Confederation.
We have known for some time that older people, in particular, are poorly served in both a hospital and a community setting. To give a recent example, a constituent of mine, who had no continence problems but was bedbound following an operation in hospital, repeatedly asked for a bedpan and at the sixth time of asking was told to wet herself because it was nearly suppertime and no one was around to fetch the pan for her. By that time, she was so desperate for the loo that she did just that, despite how unnatural and unpleasant it felt, and she then had to sit in wet sheets until the meal was over. Only then did the nursing team come and change her whole bed—a procedure that took more staff and time than the simple act of fetching her a bedpan in the first place.
We have had a succession of reports, including from the Care Quality Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, calling for the Government to act. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will today update us on progress. With my hospital visitor hat on, I would particularly like to know whether she believes that there are opportunities with the Centre for Social Justice “End Loneliness” campaign, which is focused on befriending and visiting, to consider the support and advocacy services that could be developed to support those who have no one else as they near the end of their life.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. I am pleased that it has been focused on good-quality end-of-life care, rather than assisted dying, as that is the immediate issue. I am sorry that those two issues are often conflated or painted as an either/or. The Commission on Assisted Dying added its voice to the previous reports in relation to the patchy nature of good end-of-life care. It was highly critical of the practices at Dignitas and elsewhere, including Oregon. It highlighted the lack of research in the area that we are discussing. One of its key conclusions was that the Government must step up their drive to improve care in this area as a priority.
Poor-quality end-of-life care cannot be a reason for an assisted death. Indeed, one of the safeguards required by the commission’s model for assisted death in the UK would be verification that a terminally ill patient who requested an assisted death was receiving good care. However, the view that, if there were universal provision of good-quality care, there would be no demand for an assisted death is a false one. It assumes two things: good-quality end-of-life care can alleviate all pain and suffering, and the overriding motivation for seeking an assisted death is poor-quality care. Neither is true. Those who request an assisted death are often doing so because of issues about control and their identity, and we must recognise that even with very good care and advances in pain management, there will still be patients who are in considerable discomfort at the end of their life.
All in this place have great sympathy for those who wish to have an assisted death, whether or not we believe that they should be granted one. We have sympathy for the 400 people who commit suicide every year because of a terminal or chronic illness. We all know about the sale of suicide kits—those appalling suffocation devices, which often fail to kill and instead result in brain damage. I would like the Minister’s comments on whether we should be doing more to end that trade on the internet. We also know about the 160 people from the UK who have travelled to Dignitas. In my view and the view of the commission, that is a very unpleasant experience, and such people are often ending their lives very prematurely.
All of us have sympathy and compassion for the people to whom I have referred. Where we differ is in whether we think that measures to enable those people to have a good death, at the time of their choosing, come at too high a price for the rest of us. There are issues that are often discussed—safeguards, for example, are deemed too difficult and have not been thought through—and issues that are just as pressing but are not so often discussed, such as equality of access to such a death. Indeed, certain issues are barely debated at all. This is a difficult subject, but we should, as a Parliament, continue to discuss the plight of those people and their families, as their suffering is profound. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies); we should do that in the tone that he outlined.
Such suicides occur once or twice a day in the UK. These are a tiny minority of patients, a minuscale minority of Britons, but each of them, in my view, is entitled to a good and peaceful death.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. Bearing in mind your request for brevity, Sir Roger, I will be as brief as possible. I can only agree with much if not all of what has been said.
In considering what to contribute to the debate, I looked up a definition of palliative care. We tend to know what that means, but the definition that I came across last night is from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence:
“Palliative care is the active holistic care of patients with advanced progressive illness. Management of pain and other symptoms and provision of psychological, social and spiritual support is paramount. The goal of palliative care is achievement of the best quality of life for patients and their families. Many aspects of palliative care are also applicable earlier in the course of the illness in conjunction with other treatments.”
That seems to sum it up. Who could not support that statement?
One reason for my participation in the debate is to pay tribute to the hospices that serve my constituency, as many other hon. Members have paid tribute to the hospices that serve their constituencies. My Cleethorpes constituency is served by St Andrew’s hospice, based in Grimsby, and the Lindsey Lodge hospice in Scunthorpe. Both are wonderful organisations that rely on the work of their dedicated and skilled staff and volunteers. I have visited both hospices in the past 18 months; indeed, I visited St Andrew’s only a couple of weeks ago. St Andrew’s also has a children’s unit that serves the whole of the county of Lincolnshire.
I am more familiar with St Andrew’s hospice because my father spent his last weeks in its care and my mother died on the day on which she was due to be transferred to St Andrew’s. My father received care and attention that can only be described as superb. He suffered greatly in the time until he arrived at the hospice, but he seemed to be pain-free during those last few weeks in the hospice. He was in surroundings that allowed me, my mother and other family members to feel reassured that everything possible was being done to give him all the support that was necessary. That was as long ago as 1988. St Andrew’s has progressed enormously since then. It is now in a modern purpose-built building. The drugs and methods of care available have evolved beyond anything that we could have imagined 24 years ago. The advances that are likely to be made in the next 24 years will improve the lives of people who are in their last days beyond measure.
Human life is to be valued. Anything that denies that diminishes society as a whole. I shall conclude by noting one of the contributions made to Lord Mackay’s Select Committee in 2004. It states:
“I would rather die in a country where euthanasia is forbidden but where doctors do know how to look after a dying patient in a humane manner than I would in a country where palliative medicine is ignored but euthanasia can be easily arranged”.
That is the sort of country that I want to preserve.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on obtaining this very important debate. We have heard a lot about palliative care and the hospice movement and we recognise what a patchwork of provision there is in different parts of the country. I take on board the warnings from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) that that should not be used as an excuse to make assisted dying easier. I will concentrate my brief comments on assisted dying. In doing so, I will be taking up the challenge offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), who talked about whose choice this was. It perhaps was inevitable that, in answering that question, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, took the view that the Almighty should make the determination. I recognise that many hon. Members present are strongly Christian, but I think that we have to face the fact that we live in a secular society. I do not think that that answer—perhaps slightly tongue-in-cheek—will do as we go forward. My own view—this is perhaps strange, given that I am a legislator and a former lawyer—is that the law is not the right place to make these changes. The empire of the law should not necessarily stretch into this area, and that takes on board elements of ethics and the fact that I have some belief.
I have a great concern that a right to die will rapidly become a duty to die for elderly folk and disabled people. The way in which a society looks after its most vulnerable says much about it, and if we fail to look after such people, and allow the law to change, even in a relatively subtle way, whatever the so-called safeguards, that will be a dangerous step.
The reality is that much of this debate is happening in the context of tremendous funding problems in not only the national health service, but care for the elderly—an issue that has appeared across our newspapers in recent weeks. In a way, those funding problems and the issue of assisted dying are almost two sides of the same coin, with people looking at assisted dying as somehow being an easy way forward on those funding issues.
My concern about the law is that it is simply not the right instrument. It will not give anything like the safeguards we need; indeed, it might make life even more difficult for members of the medical profession and the police, who will be reluctant to do the right thing if the laws that are put in place notionally to provide safeguards simply regulate their lives more stringently in reality.
I speak slightly from my own experience. It is 21 years ago almost to the month that my father died. He was diagnosed with terminal cancer seven or eight months before he died. I was his next of kin, and I must confess that I was very happy that we had a long-standing family doctor. My instructions, and indeed my father’s instructions, to our doctor were that my father did not want to die in pain, and that probably meant that he had more morphine, which might well have accelerated his death by a matter of days or perhaps even weeks. Such decisions should be made by the medical profession, but my worry is that any change we make in the law will make that right decision much more difficult, because it will be a regulated legal decision.
Above all, the problem is that, if we try to introduce such changes in the law, which is natural for us as legislators, we will end up introducing a charter for those who think there are elderly, disabled and other people whose lives have less value than those of the rest of us. That is a very dangerous way forward.
Going forward, we will all have to fight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly said, there is a vocal group that is keen to change the law. All of us must now get ready for a battle to stand up for the silent majority, who think, very much as we do, that the importance of life should not be underestimated at all.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
There is a famous saying that only two things in life are certain: death and taxes. In the short time I have been in this place, it seems we have talked a lot about taxes, but very little about dying. I worked in the hospice movement for more than 12 years, and the hospices have a wonderful saying that they cannot add days to people’s lives, but they can add life to people’s days. That is the fundamental point to make.
I want to talk about children’s hospices. I spent most of my time working for Martin House, which is a children’s hospice in Yorkshire. Children’s hospices are very different from adult hospices. Having also worked in an adult hospice, I have been able to see the differences between the two. Caring for a child with a life-limiting and terminal illness is incredibly difficult. The whole family need support, not just the patient. One father I spoke to said that, if he got up eight times in the night to go to his child, he considered he had had a good night’s sleep.
Many people are frightened of using a hospice, because the view is that that is where we go to die. In my experience, however, things really are much better than that, because hospices are about living and making the best of difficult lives. I want to give two examples, although I will try to be as brief as possible. Two parents came to see me after their six-week-old baby suddenly died. They had spent five weeks in hospital unable to touch the baby, but when they went to Martin House, they were allowed to hold the child. As they put it, they were allowed to be parents, rather than carers. That really shows the wonderful work that the hospice did.
Another thing also made me realise that, for many people suffering from terminal illnesses, the important thing is life and the issues surrounding it. I and other staff from the hospice were interviewing a young man who used it as part of a promotional video, for want of a better term, to help raise funds. The head of care asked him what the most difficult thing was about having a life-limiting illness. In my naivety, I thought he would say it was the fear of dying and the fact that his life would be short, but he said it was falling in love. I could not quite understand that at first, but he said, “Who is going to love me if I have a muscle-wasting disease?” I suddenly realised that the hospice movement was about helping young people who face not only a difficult disease, but the emotional difficulty of not being able to live their life in the way we do. Hospices do so much work to make the very best of difficult lives. The holistic approach they offer—the respite care, the emergency care, the terminal support and the bereavement support we have heard about—is vital to the families that need them.
While I was working at the hospice, it needed to raise £4 million a year. We got only 6% of that from the PCTs, which, frankly, is not good enough. We really should spend a lot more on providing excellent care to ensure that those who are coming to the end of their lives have the very best death possible. When the Minister looks at providing money for hospices, I urge her to recognise that children’s hospices provide very different care from adult hospices.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is no doubt in my mind that, if we allow assisted dying, it will eventually become encouraged exit. G. K. Chesterton wrote that, when orthodoxy becomes voluntary, it will be prohibited, and we could be on a dangerous, slippery slope. One of the witnesses to the Falconer inquiry said:
“I think we can only go for terminal illness at the moment, so this doesn’t actually apply to the people who are probably about to go into care homes. But, you know, baby steps.”
That is a chilling statement.
There is a lot I could say about this issue, but time is short. We all know that it is virtually impossible to predict how long someone has to live—we know that even from the famous case of the Lockerbie bomber. We also know how people suffer from depression in their last months of life. We know what has gone on in Oregon and in the Netherlands, where 8% of all deaths are the result of euthanasia. We also know about the experience in the Northern Territory, in Australia.
However, I just want to make one simple point, and I apologise, because I suppose it is a moral point. I visited St Andrew’s hospice with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). To us, this is a moral issue; we believe that the body is simply the mirror of the soul, and however old, crippled or useless someone might seem to society—our society seems to be dominated by the worship of youth and beauty—they are of immense value to society and should be sustained by society to the very end of their lives.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If more hon. Members who support assisted suicide had participated in the debate, one word would have been heard above all others: safeguards. The only hon. Member who seemed to make the case for assisted suicide talked, in a brief intervention, about some people viewing these issues on a religious basis, by which I think he meant that we should judge them on a rational basis. I judge this issue entirely on the basis of rationality, rather than religion, and according to that rationality, it is impossible that the safeguards can be practical or reliable. Safeguards could not be applied to people choosing to end their lives, because the people who would try to apply them could not get into the minds of those people whose future was in question.
The case for assisted dying has been made by a small number of strong-minded and articulate people who have made up their minds that they want to die, but who cannot end their lives without help. If everyone relevant to the question were like that, there would be much less of a problem; but the real reason why safeguards are thought to be necessary is twofold. One is to prevent people from being subjected to subtle pressure, which no outside person could detect. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said early in the debate, even without outside pressure, there would be a danger that people would feel they had to end their lives in a spirit of self-denial, so as not to be a burden on others. There is no way to erect safeguards to prevent subtle pressure from being applied undetectably; still less is there any way for such safeguards to prevent people from genuinely deciding, although they might want to continue with their lives, that they want still more to end them so that they will not be a burden to others. We cannot apply safeguards to those cases, and that is why the case for assisted dying based on the application of safeguards is fundamentally flawed.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. We have lived through an era when MPs have been seen as irrelevant, not to say venal, and when Parliament has been seen as remote. However, increasingly, in this Parliament, we have found that we are seriously debating issues at the centre of current political debate. The present debate is one of them. I want to touch on policy issues that relate to palliative care and to say a little about assisted dying, but I will begin by saying that in a busy, urban 21st century society people seem increasingly reluctant to talk about death or even to face the possibility of death.
At the risk of generalising, I will mention that, as many hon. Members know, my family come from rural Jamaica. In such rural communities, people make a point of talking about death. People stay up all night with bereaved families, night after night. That may seem strange to some, but it is a way of saying, “Death is a reality, and we will support you through it. Your community is here for you.” In a way, the rather hurried, perfunctory and frightened way that we deal with death in modern urban Britain is not necessarily an advance on the way people deal with it in rural communities around the world.
End-of-life care is of course an important issue, not just because death will come to us all, but because it is a major issue for the NHS. It represents billions of pounds of NHS spending—a fifth of NHS costs and a total of £20 billion altogether. Yet, as hon. Members have said, whereas most people would prefer to die at home, most do not have that privilege. It has been a concern of successive Governments to find out how we can give people the range of choice that they want for end-of-life care and how we can improve the level and type of care that is available.
Among the published reports on the issue, the King’s Fund report identified improving the primary care management of end-of-life care as one of the top 10 priorities for new commissioners. We have heard about the unevenness of funding of hospices and end-of-life care, even within the same part of the country, so I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the Department of Health’s view that end-of-life care should be a national priority and how she proposes to deal with the considerable variation in quality, efficiency and funding. What is the Department doing to ensure that the NHS can support the voluntary sector hospices and other specialist palliative care providers? Can the Minister give the House some reassurance that the Government’s proposed commissioning arrangements in the Health and Social Care Bill, which is being considered in the other place, will ensure that there is planned 24/7 provision of community support, including care co-ordination, nursing and symptom control?
As I have said, we know that most people would prefer to end their life at home, but most cannot. We also know that half of all complaints to the NHS involve criticism of the circumstances in which someone died. Often the time when a relative is dying is one of the rare occasions when a whole family come together and perhaps watch the process minute by minute. Therefore, a focus on and concern with end-of-life care comes to us all, and we will all have a view on it. The Minister will be aware of the Demos report, “Dying for Change”. Demos made a number of recommendations and said:
“Unless we can devise ways to get people to talk about how they want to live while they are dying, our efforts to improve services will be like groping in the dark.”
That is a reminder of the need to talk about and face death and to say, while still well enough to give an unconstrained opinion, how we want things to happen. Demos referred to training in palliative care and the important question of linking hospices to groups of care homes, so that hospice skills and values can migrate to care homes. It said that services need to be commissioned in an integrated way. The Minister will also be aware of Age UK’s public policy proposals on those issues.
The House would expect me to say a word about Labour’s record. Under the previous Labour Government, the NHS end-of-life care strategy was launched in 2008. It covered all adults with advanced progressive illnesses and care in all settings. The 10-year strategy was backed by an extra £268 million. There is no question but that progress was made, as I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge. The number of staff using models of care specifically designed for the end of life rose. Those models are now used by 75% of GP practices and hospices and 85% of acute hospitals.
Is the Minister aware that the King’s Fund has warned of the dangers of losing momentum in the drive to improve end-of-life care? Is she also aware of the report of Dr Rachael Addicott, “Implementing the End of Life Care Strategy: lessons for good practice”? Dr Addicott expresses concern
“that the decision not to hold a review until 2013 risks losing momentum and missing the opportunity to build on the progress already made.”
I have been fortunate, as a Hackney MP, to have a close relationship with St Joseph’s hospice, which was set up in 1900 by five Sisters of Charity and is the place where, in the 1950s, Cicely Saunders developed the principles of modern hospice care. My respect for the men and women who run hospices cannot be bettered by anyone in the Chamber today.
As for assisted suicide, I do not want to take a position one way or another. I have great respect for colleagues who advance the case for it and for people in the media who earnestly want to be able to decide how and where they end their lives. However, I have represented a busy, kaleidoscopic urban constituency for 25 years. In Hackney, the best of life and the worst of life can be seen—and the best and the worst of people. I have seen what fantastic support families can give, even when the state lets people down; but in a tiny fraction of cases, I have seen how venal families can be.
My concern about assisted dying would be for that tiny handful of cases involving elderly people who did not want to be a burden—and how many times have hon. Members sat in advice sessions and heard elderly people say that? I would worry about the cases—tiny in number, but still representing the lives of actual people—in which, if we were to provide a legal framework to make assisted dying possible, such people might feel almost an obligation to move forward. I stress to the House that that is a personal view. It comes, as I have said, from seeing the best of people, but also the worst of people, in more than 20 years of being a Member of Parliament.
End-of-life care is one of those issues that is at the centre of people’s debate and concern, because death comes to us all. Advances have been made in recent times, partly through what has happened in the voluntary sector—in hospices all over the country, such as St Joseph’s, which is a wonderful hospice—and partly through conscious Government policy. I am interested in what the Minister has to say on policy going forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
Thank you very much, Sir Roger. May I say what a pleasure it is to be able to say “Sir Roger”? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate. It is timely that the House is reminded of the excellent work that goes on, and we have had tributes from all parts of the House this morning for individual hospices and the work of individuals. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend on his comments on the fears that surround death. Death is an inevitable consequence of life, albeit for some it is tragically premature. We do not find death and dying a comfortable subject. It is thought frightening and mysterious. If nothing else, debates such as this may demystify some of the issues around death.
I also want to mention in particular the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) and her comments on the privilege it is to be present at a member of one’s family’s death. The hospice movement, as she rightly said, has enabled that to be possible for so many more people today.
Services in some parts of the country are excellent and in some parts of the country they are patchy at best. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) pointed out, the quality of care does not always live up to what we expect. It also does not live up to what we expect in the treatment of certain conditions and in end-of-life care.
The Department of Health’s end-of-life care strategy was published in 2008 under the previous Government. I want to pay tribute to the progress that they made. It remains the blueprint for improving this area. Last September we published the third annual progress report on implementing the strategy. It is on the Department of Health’s website and I urge hon. Members to have a look at that.
Anne Milton
I will not for the moment, because I have so little time.
Our plans for the NHS mean that we want people to have as much choice as possible in treatment in life but also in death. We want commissioners and providers to ensure that the right services, which include 24/7 community-based services, are available to support people at home.
Progress is frustratingly slow, but the examples around the country where it is working well are of note. We will review progress regularly to ensure that this becomes a reality for people. It is much overdue.
One development is the electronic palliative care co-ordination systems. I hate these names, but they can be effective tools. Through those, care providers can instantly share care plans and express preferences for care. We piloted that approach successfully in eight sites across the country and it is now being adopted more widely. We are also working to make sure care planning is a routine part of care for people who are dying. It is dreadful that care planning is not a routine part of care for all people. That has not been the case for some years, but it should be.
In November, NICE published its quality standard for end-of-life care of adults. That is an important contribution to this issue. It covers the whole of the end-of-care pathway, not just the medical bit. The 16 statements include social, practical, emotional and spiritual and religious support. We have also developed a national survey of bereaved relatives to get first-hand experiences of people’s care. The first survey should be completed by March. That will inform a new indicator on end-of-life care in the NHS outcomes framework.
To provide quality services, where and how people want them, hospices and other palliative care providers need support and funding. We will introduce a new per-patient funding system for all providers of palliative care, covering both adults’ and children’s services. We set up the independent palliative care funding review to help take that forward. The final report was published last year. It came up with some significant proposals, which we will consider in detail to ensure that we get that right. It is the first major step in local palliative care funding. We will have pilots to collect data and test the review’s recommendations, which will be established from April this year. The aim is to have the new funding system in place by 2015, which is a year earlier than was anticipated.
I also want to pay tribute to the voluntary sector. Palliative care was first developed in the voluntary sector and it still provides us with those beacons of best practice. Dame Cicely Saunders has already been mentioned and had tributes paid to her. She founded St Christopher’s hospice in 1967 and I want to associate myself with those tributes. I also pay tribute to people such as Dr Colin Murray Parkes, who has done so much in the area of bereavement and grief. That has been mentioned, but it possibly did not get the mention that it should.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Mr Amess), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Harlow (Robert Halfon), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Portsmouth North all paid similar tributes. I would love to mention every contribution in detail, but they all surrounded the same issues: this is about dignity; this is about choice; this is about life. It is also about bereavement and the care of the relatives who live beyond the death.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) specifically mentioned assisted suicide, as have other hon. Members. This is a matter for Parliament as a whole to decide, not the Government. He talked about the perception of failure when someone dies. On a personal level, to be present at a good death is a privilege and an opportunity, not a failure. We need to right that balance a bit and see the success in someone dying well. As I have said, it is such an important part of the bereavement process.
We have a comparatively smaller number of people who die in a hospice, but so many more benefit from their services and expertise. We want to see hospices flourish and develop. In particular, we want to see them continuing to expand the care they give to those with illnesses other than cancer, as well as expanding into community-based support for patients, their families and their carers. That is where the work that we are doing on palliative care funding is so important. It will be key to moving us towards a fairer funding system for all providers, including hospices.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the one issue that has not been mentioned. In accepting that death is part of life, we also need to consider those who can be given the chance of life through another’s death. As I have ministerial responsibility for organ transplants, I have to mention that we need to make organ donation a normal part of end-of-life care. We need to recognise that through a sensitive approach to the family, we can, in death, give life to many others.
In conclusion, we come to this place to give our constituents and this country a better life, because we believe that everybody deserves a good life.
Robert Flello
I just want to touch on the point that in my constituency, the Donna Louise Children’s Hospice Trust does some fantastic work. There is this difference between it and the work of the Douglas Macmillan hospice just outside the constituency. There is a mishmash and I would be grateful if the Minister looked at that in the future.
Anne Milton
We want to end any mishmash. We want a consistently high quality of care for everybody. Everybody deserves a good life and that is why we came to this place. This debate has allowed us to debate, discuss and share the opportunities that exist for Parliament to allow people a good death too, with dignity, without pain, in the company of those we love and at peace in death with the lives that we have led.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Just before we move to the next debate and while I am awaiting the arrival of the Minister, who is not late, may I thank all hon. Members for the tone and the self-restraint that has been exercised this morning? As a result of that, we have managed to accommodate the views of 21 Back Benchers, in addition to those on the Front Bench. I regard that as exceptional. I hope that many people outside the Chamber will have heard the quality of the House of Commons at its absolute best. Thank you.
Carbon Capture and Storage (Scotland)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Roger, for calling me to speak. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship again. It is the first time that I have done so since your well deserved recognition in the new year’s honours list.
For the sake of clarity, I should draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and point out that at the last election I received a donation from the union Unison, which has a small number of members at Longannet power station in my constituency.
As Members will be aware, Longannet power station sits at the most westerly point of my constituency. It has been generating electricity since 1970 and it has the capacity to put some 2,000 MW into the national grid. Scottish Power, or its parent company Iberdrola, has been the owner of Longannet power station for a number of years.
Members will be aware that the previous Labour Government established the carbon capture and storage competition, and I will say some more about that shortly. At the tail-end of last year, the current UK Government took the decision to end Longannet’s bidding for the £1 billion pot of money and today I hope to tease out from the Minister exactly where that decision leaves the future of carbon capture and storage, both in Scotland and more generally.
As I said, Longannet power station has been successfully putting up to 2,000 MW into the national grid in Scotland for more than four decades. Several years ago, it had a significant upgrade, which will give it a life through most of this decade. As is the case with all fine pieces of engineering, however, there is only a limited life span left for the power station and of course there are serious questions about how we will keep the lights on in Scotland.
Being a grown-up, I do not think that the Scottish National party’s rather ludicrous plan for 100% of Scotland’s electricity to come from wind turbines and other renewables is at all sensible or deliverable. If someone is a grown-up and has a real energy policy, they have to look at the alternatives to that plan. I firmly believe, as I have done for a number of years, that clean coal technology must be part of an energy mix including nuclear power stations. There should be some role for renewables and fossil fuels, mainly coal, although I accept that there is a limited role for gas. However, I was disturbed to learn from a much esteemed source this morning that 80% of the gas that we now use in the UK comes not from UK shores but from overseas. Security of supply is an important concept. For the benefit of the SNP, which clearly does not understand the concept, let me explain it. If we are dependent on overseas sources of energy, we must have comfort that those sources of energy are reliable, can be delivered safely and are not prone to outside threat.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Given recent events in Japan, does the hon. Gentleman think that nuclear power is reliable and safe?
Thomas Docherty
Clearly, the hon. Lady was not listening two minutes ago when I said that nuclear power was part of a balanced energy policy. In the UK, nuclear power has been delivering electricity safely and securely for nearly six decades now. When she speaks in the debate later, I would be grateful if she could say whether she thinks that having a policy of 100% renewables is a saner option than having a balanced energy policy that does not put all the eggs in one basket. Moreover, perhaps she would like to tell me how many wind farms she has supported in her own constituency. I say that because one of the things that we often see is that certain politicians make great proclamations about their support for certain types of energy but the moment that anyone tries to put those types of energy in their own backyard they suddenly seem—bizarrely enough—to oppose that particular scheme. Unlike the SNP, I have always been consistent: I have always argued that we should have a balanced energy policy; I have always argued that we should keep the lights on; and I have always spelled out how and where I would do that.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a very important issue. Does he agree that it is important to have carbon capture and storage not only for energy security but for environmental reasons? Even if Scotland, with its renewable potential, were able to have a much greater percentage of its energy supplied by renewables, that would not be the case in the rest of the UK and in other countries around the world. Consequently, if we are to tackle carbon dioxide emissions, clean coal and carbon capture and storage have to be a part of any solution we find.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. She is entirely correct that this issue is not only about security of supply, although that is the single most important aspect.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an economic and industrial factor to carbon capture and storage, and that the decisions taken in Holyrood and Westminster do nothing to create the momentum for the UK to be a leader in carbon capture and storage?
Thomas Docherty
Yet again, I find myself in full agreement with my hon. Friend, who, as my neighbouring MP, has taken a close interest in Longannet power station. I hope that he will be able to make further points in the debate shortly. As I was saying, security of supply must be the biggest single priority, but as colleagues have just mentioned there are other issues and I will turn to each of them in due course.
Where do we go from here on the issue of security of supply? We have two choices. We can have a balanced energy policy that has clean coal technology, nuclear power, some renewables and, regrettably, a limited proportion of gas, or we can put all the eggs into one basket, as the SNP has said in its manifesto that it will do. As I said earlier, I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) will spell out exactly why we should have 100% windmills and hydro, and how she will achieve that goal during the next decade.
As I have mentioned, a very regrettable decision was taken by the Government on 19 October last year that, for obvious reasons, was very disappointing for my constituents and indeed for the whole of Scotland. That decision was that the Longannet scheme was not going to go ahead. However, there is a recognition that that decision was a pragmatic one and that the Government have a duty to the taxpayer. The problem with carbon capture and storage is that it is an unproven technology. No Government or private company have yet come up with a viable, large-scale carbon capture and storage scheme. I must say that successive Governments have been very late to understand that there comes a point when people have to push back from the metaphorical table and say, “We could throw billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at something and we still have no guarantee that that is going to work”.
Regrettably, successive Labour and Conservative Governments have had a very poor track record of backing winners when it comes to new technologies and there is a genuine debate about whether Governments should try to back winners or whether they have a duty simply to put in place a market for private companies to come up with winners. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say more about the Government’s thinking on that issue.
I make no criticism of Iberdrola or of Ministers for the decision that they ultimately made. Building on the excellent work of the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the current UK Government offered a £1 billion fund for carbon capture and storage. The only observation that I would make—as I say, it is not particularly a criticism but more a general observation—is that many colleagues misunderstood the nature of the competition. The competition was not a case of “last man standing wins the prize”; it was a marathon, and to qualify for the funding one had to reach the finish line. Regrettably, but for obvious reasons because Longannet was the last entrant in the competition, there was an assumption that it would receive the £1 billion. The UK Government and Iberdrola, the Spanish energy giant that owns Longannet, were clearly in the region of £500 million apart on the start-up and ongoing costs of Longannet. That is regrettable, particularly for my constituents, but I do not think this was doable for the UK Government.
What was bizarre was the intervention by our blustering First Minister, who outrageously leaked the confidential commercial information to a Scottish newspaper, showing, again, that he really is not a grown-up. Also, while he was pandering to the galleries and attacking the UK Government, I noticed from answers I received from UK Ministers that he did not offer a single penny of Scottish Government money to fill the gap. If the First Minister had been prepared to offer £500 million, we could have taken Longannet forward but, as ever with the SNP, all we get is bluster, grudge and grievance, with no solution. Perhaps when she speaks, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will spell out what the SNP Government would have done, because all they have done is their usual trick of having a pop at someone else and not offering any solutions.
As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, there are some genuine issues here about not just security of supply, but the environment. I firmly believe that carbon capture and storage is a technology worth pursuing, and my preference remains for a coal station for the simple reason I have spelt out already: that I would be reluctant to go down the route of investing in a gas technology over the next 30 years, because gas is not an indigenous supply. I recognise that there is a strong case for Peterhead, which has been championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex). I hope the Minister will be able to outline in some detail where we are with that.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Part of the problem with the Longannet development was that it was coal-fired. It would have had better energy returns, because a large proportion of the UK’s energy still comes from coal-fired stations, but has not experimentation with carbon capture and storage for gas been more successful than the Longannet trial was proving to be?
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s observations. She is indeed correct. There have been some positive signs. My note of caution, however, is that there is a danger that we will go down the route of that classic British tradition, whereby Europe and the United States pursue one path and the UK does its own thing. One need only look back at the nuclear programme. While the rest of the western world was going down the water reactor route, the British, in our own quaint way, went down the gas reactor route, meaning that we had wonderful technology—what I would call the Betamax technology of nuclear power stations—but technology that was not compatible with anyone else’s.
Gordon Banks
I will certainly not make any comments about Betamax or VHS. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, given the number of coal-fired power stations in the UK and the world, and the number of new ones coming on line in the developing world, the holy grail is carbon capture and storage for such stations? If we do not get our skates on, we will be left behind, economically and industrially, and will have to watch others develop the technology and create jobs in their economies, while having to import the technology and ability ourselves.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the holy grail. I am not sure if that makes my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West the Sean Connery or the Indiana Jones of the analogy, but it is the holy grail that we should be pursuing, and it can be achieved. My point about Betamax is that it was a fine piece of technology, and our advanced gas-cooled reactors in particular were, and still are, superb engineering kit. I see that the SNP is now a convert to the case for AGRs, championing Hunterston and Torness having life extensions in the years ahead, but when the rest of the world is going down the VHS road, it is slightly disturbing to think that we are going to pursue gas at the expense of coal. Coal is the long-term priority, and there is a significant market, if we can get the technology to work: we can export it not just to developing countries, although that would be a big market, but to many western and European countries that are also very coal reliant.
I should perhaps say a little about the technology itself, and its benefits for Scotland. As Members are undoubtedly aware, the trick with the technology is not just to capture the carbon but to store it. The Peterhead scheme is, as I understand it, very similar to that for Longannet, in that it would seek to push the captured carbon up into the North sea, into land owned by the Crown Estate. It is important to recognise the Crown Estate’s role, and perhaps the Minister can outline how that will work. Reuse of the now extinguished gas and oil fields off our UK shores is also provided for. Interestingly, the Longannet scheme was a tri-party approach, involving National Grid, Iberdrola and one of the largest oil and gas companies, which had an extinguished field. I hope the Minister can say more about how he will encourage the private sector to do more such partnership work.
It is worth saying that no short-term danger is posed to the Longannet power station by the current carbon capture and storage project not getting the go-ahead. The lights will not be turned off at the station tomorrow morning, but there is a question about its medium-term future. There is a genuine debate to be had about whether it would be the right decision to build another coal power station, whether Iberdrola should be encouraged to seek a further life extension, and if so what Government support could be offered, or whether, as at Cockenzie in East Lothian, a decision is made to shift the type of fuel. Whatever the options, I sincerely hope that the UK Government will do all they can to offer genuine support to Iberdrola as it seeks to take this forward, and I would be grateful if the Minister found time—for either himself or his colleague Lord Marland, who has, to be fair, been a big supporter of CCS—to meet with me. Whatever decision is made about Longannet, I hope, ultimately, that when we get successful CCS we can either retrofit the station or, if we do persuade Iberdrola to go for a new build, that we can get it included. For the benefit of my constituents, I would be grateful if the Minister spelt out what support the Government will be able to give to any new build fossil fuel plant that might be needed to keep the lights on.
I am conscious that other Members wish to speak, so I will draw my speech to a close.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have listened very careful to his arguments about coal and gas. It seems that this technology is a long way from being proven, and it would be a big win if we could get it to work for either gas or coal. I want to address the point about Longannet. The Government’s most recent publication, “The Carbon Plan”, which came out about a month ago, states that the first decision about an operational plant for CCS will be made in 2018. That is a long time after the current generation of coal is scheduled to be switched off, so there is an issue there if we expect this technology to save some of the coal stations that are planned to be switched off in the next five years.
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me of an important issue. If the project had gone ahead at Longannet, the full 2,000 MW would not have been converted to a CCS scheme. Forgive me if my figures are slightly out, but roughly only 20% of the capacity would have moved across. He is entirely correct to say that it is a long-term technology. The problem with energy and its supply is that by its very nature it requires long-term decisions, which is what makes the SNP’s ludicrous plan for 100% renewables so unachievable. They have no “plan McB”—to use the First Minister’s slogan. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan addresses the Chamber, I would be grateful if she spelt out how an SNP plan McB would work, given that it is so clearly failing on its plan McA.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
Congratulations, Sir Roger, on your ennoblement—that is not the right word, but congratulations on your award. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. It is an extremely important issue for the long-term future of our country from the point of view of both power and industry.
I have more than 25 years’ experience in the electricity and heavy process industries. The delay in carbon capture and storage implementation at Longannet is disappointing. The UK is in a great position to exploit CCS. As Lord Oxburgh, president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association recently put it:
“Experience gained in the North Sea oil and gas industry, and the abundance of offshore geological sites where CO2 may be stored underground have allowed the UK to become one of the global leaders in CCS. Capitalising on this early leadership is vital”.
We certainly can be leaders. The same technology that has been so successful in the complicated job of extracting, storing and processing oil and gas from the North sea can be modified to put carbon dioxide back under the North sea. There is a skilled work force, and academia is already doing important support work. Professional bodies such as the Institute of Mechanical Engineers are very clear that the technology is perfectly practical, and there is a great future here if we move quickly. The global market in the technology alone is conservatively estimated at $10 billion.
A similar story could have been written some years ago about wind technology. We are one of the windiest countries in the world, but thanks to Government dithering and lack of public and private investment, we are playing catch-up and importing most of the technology and equipment. Having worked mainly in the private sector until May 2010, I am baffled at the interminable time scales I see in this job. When someone says something will take six months, my questions are: so what will happen tomorrow and the next day, and how can we shorten the critical path? I am then met by blank looks. I am sure that the giant new Tesco store being built in my constituency would not have gone from a green field to a functioning supermarket in six months with politicians and civil servants running the project. My challenge to the Minister is: how fast can we go and what is getting in the way?
We should be ambitious about CCS in the UK. It is needed to decarbonise our power production and our heavy industry. The areas that get CCS infrastructure will become magnets for new power and industrial investment. That means that we can protect energy-intensive industries, which are currently being challenged by European Union and United Kingdom climate measures, and help to reverse the decline in our manufacturing sector. Failure to act will lead to more announcements like the recent one on the closure of the UK’s last aluminium smelter. Ironically, it is in Northumberland next to the North sea, and the owners had considered using CCS to keep the plant going. It is now too late.
Where should CCS investment take place? Again, we should be ambitious. There are four obvious prime locations: the Aberdeen area, the Forth, the Tees and the Humber-south Yorkshire area. They all have merits, and the Department of Energy and Climate Change should kick-start development in them all. A long-term strategy should be developed for CCS infrastructure.
Thomas Docherty
I have listened carefully, and disturbingly I find that I must agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says. On his point about funding all the schemes, surely the great challenge is that there is a finite pot of money. How should that problem be addressed?
Ian Swales
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that challenge. I do not necessarily see it as my job to represent the Treasury, but £1 billion for less than a quarter of the Longannet power station was not a good use of money. Having talked to people in the industry, I think that there are better ways. Conglomerates of private sector companies want to get into the sector, and we need to be more imaginative about how we make that happen.
Dame Anne Begg
One problem is that at the moment, the private sector cannot see that it is a worthwhile business proposition. One of the difficulties faced by CSS in this country is that the economic arguments do not yet stack up.
Ian Swales
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and that is where we must challenge the private sector and be imaginative about the schemes. I will come on to a scheme I am familiar with that is not in Scotland, but for which there is already a conglomerate of companies ready to roll—household names in the gas and pipeline industries and lots of different companies. It can be done.
To those who say that such development is highly expensive, I say that we need to look more at the overall longer-term finances for the Government, industry and energy generation. For example, it has been estimated that the CCS project proposed for Teesside can generate a peak of £1 billion a year in extra petroleum revenue tax for the Government, through oil companies using CO2 to get more oil from their North sea wells. That possible extra oil recovery from the North sea is estimated at 4 billion barrels. The use of CO2 for enhanced oil recovery is already widely practised in the United States.
The debate is about Scotland, but a project is ready to go in Teesside, and the necessary list of major players in pipelines, processing and so on are ready to start. More than 30 large CO2 emitters in the power and industrial sectors can be connected to the system. Interestingly, a few of those are using biomass, which raises the prospect of net carbon-negative power—sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. By generating clean power and running clean industry, CCS can make a huge contribution to UK climate change targets. A clear and ambitious UK-wide strategy, action to remove roadblocks to progress and a sense of urgency are needed from DECC, so that the UK can genuinely lead in this exciting new industry.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. I am rather disappointed that he chose to squander his opportunity today; instead of asking the Government about progress on the plans for carbon capture and storage in the UK, he preferred to take pot shots at the First Minister, who not only is not here but does not have the power to make decisions on CCS that will be made under the current constitutional arrangements.
I want to focus on CCS in Scotland. I share the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment and frustration over the abandonment of the Longannet project. It promised job security for the folk involved, offered technological innovation and would have brought significant investment to Fife. I regret that it hit the buffers, but it is not only the people of west Fife who have been frustrated by the slow progress of carbon capture projects in Scotland. Peterhead, in my constituency, has long been recognised as having leading potential as a site for CCS. Indeed, Scottish and Southern Energy asserted that Peterhead represents the best site in the UK for a gas demonstrator CCS project. By no means is that a new plan. The previous CCS plan for Peterhead was abandoned in 2007, after expectations were raised and then dashed. Frankly, delays and indecisiveness on the part of Government led BP to scrap its plans and turn its attention to projects overseas. The problem was that the previous Government were not decisive enough.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Lady has commented on two decisions, but will she clarify whether a Scottish Government, if they had the powers, would have gone ahead with both those schemes? Would they have put up the £1.5 billion to £2 billion needed for Longannet and the sum needed for Peterhead?
Dr Whiteford
I do not deal in hypotheticals. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to where we are now and how we are going to progress, because important questions need to be answered.
Dr Whiteford
No, it is not. The Scottish Government’s commitment to carbon capture and their involvement in discussions about Longannet and Peterhead have been constructive throughout the process. I hope the Minister will comment on how he has worked with the Scottish Government on the carbon capture and storage projects.
The Peterhead project was resurrected in 2010 when Scottish and Southern Energy Group revived the idea, and last November it joined forces with Shell to make progress on the plans. Those companies are committed to a gas demonstrator at Peterhead, using storage in the Goldeneye field and the existing North sea infrastructure going out from St Fergus. The Goldeneye field is available and has the right pressure and capacity to make the project viable in technical terms.
I do not think there is much argument any more with the view that we need to mitigate the environmental impact of fossil fuels if we are to have any hope of meeting our international commitments and obligations in tackling climate change. We need to continue using fossil fuels, but we also need to make them cleaner. It is also evident—I was surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s comments on this—that gas will remain a crucial part of our energy mix. What are the Minister’s views on the role of gas in the UK’s energy supply? It is important to understand the role that CCS might play, not just from the perspective of energy security, but from that of the sustainability of our planet.
Dr Whiteford
I will, and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will be better than his previous one.
Thomas Docherty
I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Lady correctly, so will she clarify whether she thinks it a good thing that we would import 80% of our gas not from Norway, but from Kazakhstan, the middle east and other slightly insecure regions?
Dr Whiteford
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that energy security is crucial, but the point about gas is that I do not think we have a choice any more, and the reason why we will have to use gas, wherever it comes from, is the previous Government’s indecisiveness. They refused to make decisions, for example, on whether to have new coal at Kingsnorth. After 13 years in government, it is very easy for the previous Government to put pressure on the new Government, but they need to take some responsibility for their own decisions when they were in office and their failures, which have made us very dependent on external gas at present.
That, however, does not negate the argument for a CCS gas demonstrator project at Peterhead. We are where we are and we are dependent on gas, but the proposed Peterhead site fits in extremely well with both the UK’s strategic objectives and the EU’s strategic priorities. It is also very well located for old oilfields in the North sea. We are in a good position to use them—it is probably a better position than that of anywhere else in Europe at present.
David Mowat
I agree with the hon. Lady that gas is the default solution to energy where decisions have not been made. On gas from overseas, I think I am right in saying that the majority of our coal also comes from overseas at the moment, but we can rest assured that, from 2015, Europe is likely to be flooded with cheap shale gas from the US, so I think our concerns about that particular fuel source are misplaced.
Dr Whiteford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable expertise in this area, for making the important point that it is not just gas but coal that comes from overseas. The point about CCS technology is that it is extremely marketable and the UK has a comparative advantage in that market. A number of coal demonstrator projects are taking place elsewhere in Europe, whereas gas is not being explored to anything like the same extent internationally. That could give us a proper comparative advantage in gas CCS technology. It is about not just our domestic markets but international marketability.
The key issue is funding. There is no doubt that the collapse of the Longannet project and the Treasury’s announcement that it would reallocate the underspend has created a great deal of anxiety and uncertainty. However, Shell and SSE have made it clear that they would require funding in the next two to three years to make the project viable, and revenue support during the operational period. In that respect, the energy companies have argued that spreading the finance too thinly over too many projects risks jeopardising all of them.
What proportion of the funding will the Government make available during this Parliament? What discussions have been had about the prospects of levering in further investment from sources other than those in the public sector? What is the Government’s response to the argument that the UK needs to focus its efforts on funding and risk management? The Government have published a timeline for implementation. How likely is that timeline to be met and how is it progressing?
We have to recognise that this is a demonstrator plant. It carries investment risks and might not go smoothly and completely according to plan, but that is why it is so important for it to have Government backing. I hope the Peterhead project will progress apace.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing this debate, which is extremely important to Fife and central Scotland, as well as to the UK in general. I am disappointed with the Longannet decision. It affects my constituency, which borders that of my hon. Friend more or less at Longannet, very much. Many of my constituents work at Longannet and I would have had high hopes of many more of them finding employment in a successful carbon and capture storage plant there, but we are where we are.
It is vital that we have a balanced energy policy. We have to embrace renewables of all natures and there has to be a role for fossil fuels and, indeed, nuclear. We have to have a guarantee that, when we press the light switch, the light comes on. Unless we embrace all available technologies to ensure that that happens, we will find ourselves socially and economically challenged.
We need to determine—we can only do this through full-scale trials—whether carbon capture and storage is a real option for future economic prosperity, as well as for dealing with the knock-on environmental issues, which are the driving factor. It is equally important to determine what a successful CCS programme—developed and branded in the UK—could deliver to the UK economy in terms of revenue and the skills of our constituents.
The Scottish Government did not do anything in relation to the Longannet decision. There was a lot of hot air from the First Minister, and it is hot air that we are trying to stop. It would have been much more constructive for the Scottish Government to have done something to facilitate the development of Longannet. Did the Minister have any discussions of that nature with the First Minister?
In an intervention, I made the point that, with coal-fired power stations in the UK and throughout the world—an increasing number are coming online in countries such as China—CCS is the real gain and the holy grail. We need to focus our minds on it in the UK, while bearing it in mind that both the public and private sectors have limited resources to invest. I will come to that in a moment.
Can the Minister confirm the expected release date of the CCS roadmap, because that is absolutely vital for the private sector embracing the challenge of this technology and seeing the Government as a partner in this? Unless the Government play their part, we cannot expect the private sector to play its part. That in itself will create jobs, technology and developmental skills that I hope we can build on and in some way export. CCS could create 13,000 jobs in Scotland and 14,000 jobs elsewhere in the UK. By 2025, the sector could be worth more than £10 billion a year to the economy, which, in addition to the environmental impact, makes CCS a bit of a no-brainer. We have touched on how many times we have been left behind.
Ian Swales
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if CCS is worth £10 billion to the economy, those who will benefit have an incentive to help to get things going? It does not seem to make sense to rely only on Government funding.
Gordon Banks
The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, but what the private sector needs is for the Government to show a willing lead. What happened at Longannet could be construed as not demonstrating that. The Government need to step up to the plate here and throw the gauntlet down to the private sector.
As I was saying, how many times have we been left behind and missed the boat in the UK in terms of various different technologies? The hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) talked about wind technology. It is a crying shame that we are where we are with wind technology. We are largely importing the technology and the equipment to build turbines. That really has been a missed opportunity. Although CCS may be costly—I will come back to that matter—it is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.
We need something from the Government to show that they are embracing CCS and that demonstrates to the private sector how serious they are. The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) raised the point about CCS being expensive. Yes, it is. There are no cheap or quick fixes to our energy position, but we have to consider what the fixes are and CCS is potentially one of them. Governments in Holyrood and Westminster need to step up to the plate, and I am not sure they are doing that.
Thomas Docherty
Does my hon. Friend have any views on what Governments can do in terms of the planning system, because it strikes me that one of the great challenges we face, particularly given the long lead-in time on a new-build plant, is ensuring that that type of decision is not held up unnecessarily through the planning process?
Gordon Banks
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We must determine what becomes a priority in the United Kingdom and ensure that people’s lives are not blighted by decisions that are trying to make things better. There is a real need to recognise that we must have security on a core range of issues, one of which is energy. I embrace the possibility of ensuring that future CCS opportunities and, indeed, new build with carbon capture get the relevant scrutiny and are of benefit to the UK, Scotland and the immediate community. Future CCS opportunities need to be fully valued and evaluated in that process.
In conclusion, the Longannet decision was extremely disappointing. It did not send the right message to the energy sector or to the people working in it. Today, the Minister has an opportunity to try to undo some of that damage and I look forward to his comments with bated breath. I hope that he will take that opportunity on board.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Thank you for letting me speak, Sir Roger—I had not intended to do so. I want to make two points in relation to some of the comments I have heard: one in favour of CCS and one expressing some reservations. I will mention the latter one first, which relates to cost.
Many hon. Members have talked about the benefits of CCS technology. Of course, we live in a country where energy is still 90% fossil fuel generated, and anything that can enable us to make the transition from that in a carbon-free way, such as CCS, is attractive. Yet there seems to be something wrong. What the Government should be doing is setting a price for carbon and then letting the private sector do the work. We do not know the details about Longannet but, for whatever reason, that approach is not enough. People are saying that we have to invest a further £1 billion here and have a further pilot scheme there. What the Government’s role ought to be—this is the energy market reform—is, as it is with nuclear, to set a price for carbon, give industry that stability and let it make the investment. For example, let us consider Iberdrola.
Ian Swales
The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the pressure I feel in my constituency is essentially coming from industry, not from power generators, because industry can very much see what is happening to it competitively and so on through carbon pricing. Does he agree that there may be a carbon pricing method that can incentivise the power sector to play its part in bringing this new technology on board faster?
David Mowat
I do not, no. If this technology is to work, it has to be done on the same playing field as everything else. I mentioned the price of carbon. The other thing about CCS technology that is not in doubt is that it requires an injection of power over and above what a power station is currently using—in the order of 25% for coal. That is an immediate increase in emissions and everything else just to make CCS work.
Gordon Banks
I want to press the hon. Gentleman and ask him whether he is advocating that the Government should not be spending this £1 billion.
David Mowat
I am willing to accept that this technology is new and that the Minister might therefore say it is a bet to try to get it to work in our country. I agree that our country is uniquely well suited for CCS because of the offshore gas fields. In places such as Germany, people have been resistant to CCS because the fields are onshore and they do not want CO2 under them. Our country is in a uniquely good position for CCS, as it is for wind, and I do not necessarily begrudge the Government spending the money. However, I repeat the point that, structurally, the energy market reform sets the price for carbon and we should let the market decide. We will watch with interest whether the market does decide that this technology is worth pursuing. That is my negative point. I shall now make my positive point.
Thomas Docherty
The hon. Gentleman is certainly bringing a different perspective to the debate. Does he not accept that Governments have given subsidies and financial support to both nuclear and renewables for a decade-plus and that CCS pump-priming would be no different from the support that those industries already get?
David Mowat
That is a fair point. In the energy market reform that has been published, the Government are very proud of the fact that they are giving no subsidies to nuclear in going forward—[Interruption.] Well, that is a different argument. The Government have subsidised and continue to subsidise renewables. That takes me to my next point.
Dame Anne Begg
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not simply about the economic argument because if we leave the market to decide, it will always go for the cheapest option? There is also an environmental argument and the Government need to be involved on that basis because this is still a new technology with demonstrator projects. Until the technology can be proven, the market and the industry will not make the investment. The Government may therefore need to make that investment to pump-prime and ensure that we get the environmental benefits.
David Mowat
Just to be clear, I completely buy into the Climate Change Act 2008 and its requirements. However, the way that the Government have chosen to meet their environmental obligation is by setting a price to carbon. That is what makes CCS viable because, obviously, the companies will save the money from burning the carbon at whatever the rate is—£30 or £50 a tonne—and so on. That is my point. The level playing field that the Government are trying to obtain through the energy market reforms is being achieved over the medium term by the price of carbon.
Let me now make my point about CCS from a more positive point of view. What worries me a little about the Government’s position on CCS is a little similar to what worries me about the Government’s position on nuclear. Both CCS and nuclear have one thing in common: they are extremely good at reducing carbon, but they are not renewables. The Government have an issue to work through, and I have said this in other forums. The Climate Change Act 2008 requires us to reduce our carbon emissions by 80%—a huge and difficult target, but it is right that we are trying. My concern is that, in 2009, the EU 20-20-20 directive required us to increase our use of renewables by a factor of five over a decade or so. That objective is not necessarily consistent with the objective of reducing carbon.
It is possible that CCS may lose out, like nuclear, through a little bit more ambivalence on the part of Government. I looked at the Government’s carbon plan. It estimates how much of our electricity will be produced from CCS by 2030 and how much will be produced from renewables. I am not anti-renewable at all, if it can be made to work in a cost-effective way. The Government’s estimate for 2030 is a factor of five difference between renewables and CCS. I do not know whether CCS will be made to work or not. We should try, and it would be great if it did, but I am worried that the emphasis of policy is not on carbon reduction. The emphasis of policy is on renewables, and that might take us to, or down, a sub-optimal path.
Ian Swales
Just one point of clarification: those two things are not necessarily entirely separate. A new 300 MW biomass power station has been announced for Teesport. A CCS network in the area could actually feed into that. As I said earlier, we could end up with carbon negative power as a result of doing that, so they are not entirely separate. While 300 MW is not a huge amount, it is worth noting that the Longannet project was only 400 MW.
David Mowat
I agree. I mentioned CCS and nuclear as opportunities. Biomass is also an opportunity. In common with the first two, it is also not a renewable. As I said, I am concerned that the emphasis of policy is in the wrong place. The 2008 Act was a hugely ambitious plan to try to achieve. We should not be diverted from doing so and we should look very hard at optimising that.
[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]
Finally, we have not really covered nuclear in any detail, other than an exchange at the start between two hon. Members from north of the border—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). People say to me that there is no cost-effective option. On the facts, it would appear that nuclear is cheaper than some of the other options, but of course the market needs to determine that. I agree with that. The carbon price will allow that to happen. That needs to be the case with CCS.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate on CCS in Scotland and other related factors. It is not a surprise that the debate has sometimes ranged beyond CCS projects in Scotland, because so many aspects of energy policy and energy considerations are tied up with the potential—the potential projects and the success, or otherwise—of CCS. I am sure there are many other issues, from the contributions we have heard, that the Minister will wish to reflect on. He missed the very start of the debate, but what is gratifyingly clear from the whole of the debate is that—despite one comment from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat)—nobody taking part in the debate fails to see the potential of CCS and its impact. From time to time there is a view that, because CCS is unproven and has not been demonstrated on a commercial basis, it is a distraction. I do not believe it is a distraction. It is integral to achieving the right, balanced energy policy and the right mix of energy sources, and to reducing carbon emissions at the same time. It is interesting and positive, therefore, that that view has not been expressed during the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on securing the debate. He touched on many issues from the perspective of representing the Longannet power station. Everybody felt disappointed with the announcement that Iberdrola and the Government had concluded that the Longannet project was not able to go any further without significant additional funds. In fact, even with the significant addition of funds, there may well have been other technical issues that made it impossible to go further. That decision was not necessarily a party political issue. It is, I think, a deep disappointment to everybody who is interested and committed to energy policy.
Some of the commentary around the issue was unhelpful. I had the pleasure—it was not that much of a pleasure—of rereading some of the comments made by the First Minister and other members of the SNP immediately after that decision. While I understand that the predecessor of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was caught up in the moment at his party conference shortly afterwards, his description of the Government turning their back on a world-leading technology and £1 billion of investment not being there was perhaps going further than the facts allowed. That was disappointing in many ways, but not necessarily that surprising.
Thomas Docherty
Does my hon. Friend think it is interesting that, for all the bluff, bluster and ranting from the SNP, when push comes to shove they would not have put a single penny into the scheme? We have heard nothing today about how much it is prepared to fund.
Tom Greatrex
I think my hon. Friend is trying to tempt me into one aspect of a constitutional debate that we will have, and I am sure we will have plenty of opportunities. I join other hon. Members in seeking clarification from the Minister on what offers of funding for CCS were made, if any, from the Scottish Government. It would be interesting to learn more about that issue if he has the opportunity to address it in his winding-up speech.
I want to reflect on some of the contributions to the debate, because so many aspects of energy policy are tied up in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife touched on security of supply. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) touched on the importance of the industrial and technological potential that undoubtedly exists in the UK. The clock is ticking, however, and he gave an apposite warning about the potential for missing out on that, as indeed did the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales), who has experience in the industry and related industries. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made the important point that this is also about reducing carbon emissions, which is fundamental to our energy future.
Scotland has had a relatively long, and sometimes chequered, past—and present—with CCS: from Peterhead to Longannet, and back to Peterhead again. There is also the potential of the Hunterston project, which is currently caught up in the planning process. Other hon. Members referred to the difficulties that can arise with the planning process.
At various points, there has been lots of excitement about the potential of all those projects in Scotland. There is a real opportunity for Scotland to be a world leader in this low-carbon technology. Much of the academic expertise is in the UK, particularly in Scotland, notably Edinburgh. It would be a shame if that potential was not realised first in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire made clear, we should not overlook the potential for jobs and the value to the economy. Many hon. Members have touched on Scotland’s potential, particularly within the UK. It has access to geological formations off the North sea that are ideally suited to carbon storage, and we have heard about the issues in Germany and elsewhere regarding under-land storage.
All those things make it important that the Government remain committed to CCS, including, potentially, in Scotland. That does not mean that the decision on Longannet was not disappointing, as I have said: it was bad news for the plant, for the local economy and for Scotland. My two hon. Friends here today with local connections made that point eloquently. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, we are where we are and we have to deal with the realities. The important thing now is that the potential demonstrated in the work at Longannet is not lost, so that we do not have to start from scratch.
I am pleased to have found out in my discussions with Scottish and Southern Energy—or SSE as it is now formally known—that some work undertaken at Longannet is being used to help inform current work in relation to Peterhead. It is important that we do not have to start from scratch each time, because then our ability to get ahead of the game would almost certainly be lost.
It is important and significant that we understand the difference between CCS being encouraged through other aspects of energy policy, including carbon pricing, in the longer term—as the hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned—and where we are now, because this technology has not yet been proved commercially on a significant scale. The real potential has been demonstrated, but it is reasonably widely accepted, if not universally, that to get that benefit Government intervention and support is needed in the initial stages.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan touched on the Peterhead project, and many hon. Members who are not here have commented on the decisions made in 2007. I am tying this issue into Longannet because sometimes, as I have said, party politics gets in the way of the realities of projects that have potential but, for whatever reason, cannot be taken further forward.
The predecessor of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan talked about the Peterhead project being lost to Abu Dhabi. He is a frequent traveller, at the moment, to that part of the world. I wonder whether he would, either through the hon. Lady or at some other point, inform us what happened in Abu Dhabi, because I understand that BP’s hydrogen power project has still yet to get the go-ahead there. Sometimes the simplistic sloganising around this issue does a disservice to the technological, practical and engineering hurdles that we still need to get over. Sometimes, the degeneration of this important matter into an “England versus Scotland” or a “Scotland being done down” debate does it a disservice.
Funding is important and I am sure the Minister will have expected me to mention that, given that I have used many opportunities in the past few months to seek answers on this issue. It is important that we get clarity from the Minister today, including about the funding that is available going forward. At the time of the Longannet decision, the Minister’s boss, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said at Energy questions that there would be no backsliding from the Treasury, that the £1 billion would be available for CCS funding, and that that was an absolute commitment. Yet the day before the autumn statement—I am sure the Minister recalls the radio interview—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that the £1 billion for CCS would be subsumed within the £5 billion infrastructure plan, although he was not clear about what would then be available for CCS. The ramifications of the interview on 5 Live that morning were pretty significant and have caused a degree of concern in the industry that has not yet abated. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and say what that means for the timeline for the development of CCS.
The subject of the debate is projects in Scotland. The Minister will be aware of SSE’s projections regarding when it expects such projects to be up and running: that is, before the end of current comprehensive spending review period. There is a degree of doubt and concern about that, because the Government are saying that the £1 billion will be available, but not necessarily in this Parliament. How can they make that commitment ahead of the next CSR? The industry is concerned about certainty and stability in relation to that funding; it is important that it know exactly where it stands.
Again, will the Minister make clear how much of the £1 billion that his boss said there would be no backsliding on will be available during the current CSR period? How much of the £1 billion previously set aside for CCS will now be used for other infrastructure projects? Will those other infrastructure projects in the Treasury infrastructure fund exclude CCS, and is the money being double-counted? What form will the remaining funding take? Will it be up-front capital, or fixed or variable payments over time?
I am asking the Minister these questions again because on 29 November 2011, I asked the Chancellor during his autumn statement to provide some clarity, but he was not able to do so. On 1 December I asked the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to provide some clarity, but I am afraid his answer was not clear. On 6 December I asked the Chief Secretary again to provide further clarity, but, again, he was unable to do so. On 15 December I even asked the Leader of the House to provide some clarity, and he said that he thought the issue had been dealt with with the appropriate degree of clarity beforehand.
Four Cabinet Ministers were, in the space of 11 sitting days, given an opportunity on the Floor of the House to spell out clearly and without ambiguity exactly how much money was available for CCS in this Parliament, what the impact would be on the timeline for distributing that funding and whether the funding was, potentially, being spread far too thinly to have a positive impact. On each occasion the Government were found wanting: rather than providing potential investors with the clarity they were asking for, they preferred to provide further confusion.
The Energy Minister even claimed, in a written answer to me, that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had not made any announcement on CCS funding. People who heard the interview I have mentioned would beg to differ: although it may not have been a formal announcement to Parliament, that statement by the Chief Secretary has caused such a degree of concern that it is incumbent on the Government to provide the clarity we need now.
I should like to touch on the European NER300 funding package. The lack of clarity about Government funding for CCS projects has a knock-on effect on other sources of funding, which hon. Members have mentioned, whether private or public. One such source is the European Union NER300 programme. The six CCS projects competing for funding from the UK are also doing so at European level.
The Peterhead project is seeking funding. The chief executive of SSE, Ian Marchant, has made it clear that the development of the commercial-scale CCS demonstration is dependent, to some extent, on levels of support from both the EU and the UK Government. The criteria for accessing EU funding are clear. Before any allocation of EU money for a CCS project that is seeking both member state and EU funding:
“Member States will be asked to confirm the value and structure of the total financing of the projects concerned, and any project for which confirmation is not forthcoming will be replaced by the next highest-ranked project.”
Those words are chilling, and unless that criterion has changed, they highlight the urgent need for the Government to get in place their plan in relation to CCS, so that that opportunity is not missed.
The Government held an industry day just before Christmas, which many people were hoping would answer some questions. Given the questions and answers published on the Minister’s website and the views of people who attended that event, I do not think it answered many questions, other than to say that at some point questions would be answered. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to answer those important questions.
Scotland is at the forefront of this pioneering low-carbon technology, which could hugely benefit our energy security and how energy policy is taken forward across the UK and more widely around the world. However, as hon. Members have highlighted, the right support from the Government is needed to get that opportunity up and running. It is time for the Minister and the Government to bring the uncertainty to an end, to provide clarity and to come clean on CCS.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Howarth. I begin with an abject apology to you and to the House for my late arrival. I am afraid that there was confusion in my office about the time at which the debate started; I therefore turned up slightly late. I apologise profusely and will write to Mr Speaker to make my apologies known to the House.
In particular, I had wanted to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). He has shown a strong personal commitment to the issue that goes way beyond the interests of his constituency alone, to look much more broadly at the interests of carbon capture and storage and future energy development in the United Kingdom and particularly in Scotland. I am profoundly grateful to him for his interest and the expertise that he has shown, and I was keen to hear his remarks in full—I will read them—but of course I accept his request for a meeting. If he and other hon. Members wish to talk to me about their concerns in more detail at any point, they are more than welcome to do so.
We have had an extremely valuable debate, characterised by the extent to which hon. Members have spoken with both commitment and expertise. It reinforces why we all desire the issue to be seen as outside politics, and there is an enormous prize for our whole country. People looking to invest want to see as much clarity and agreement between the parties as possible, to which the tone of the debate has been conducive. We are all frustrated about the pace of progress and we are all disappointed that the Longannet project could not be made to work within the budgetary framework, but we are all equally committed to taking the issues forward, to ensure that the United Kingdom is one of the most attractive places in the world in which to invest in CCS. The UK has unique facilities, which should put it at the forefront of developing CCS, and Scotland is at the forefront in the United Kingdom. The industry’s potential for Scotland, for existing industry and for new industries that want to support CCS and to provide part of the supply chain is extremely comprehensive.
The frustration was outlined before the general election by Paddy Tipping, then the Member of Parliament for Sherwood and a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, who said it was a competition without end—the competition for CCS seems to have gone on for ever. Given that we must now proceed with new urgency on setting a new competition, it is not lost on any of us that we wasted the chance over a number of years to take the opportunity forward, and we must now do so with extra vigour.
Thomas Docherty
Does the Minister share my observation that part of the problem with the previous competition was people’s apparent belief that it was a case of the last bidder standing, rather than of having technology that worked? Can he ensure therefore that much more robust criteria are set down at the start, so that everyone understands what the competition is?
Charles Hendry
My concern was always that the competition was too narrowly focused. Given the requirement for post-combustion technology, the interest in pre-combustion technologies, such as the BP project at Peterhead, could not qualify. The assumption at the time was that the technology could then be sold to China and elsewhere to retrofit old plants, but the Chinese are now clearly quickly developing their own technology that they want to sell to the rest of the world, so we need to look at a wider range of technologies. An added complication, which I will come to later, is retrofitting an old technology to an old plant, with the significant extra costs inevitably occurred in bringing that plant up to scratch, to give it decades of future life, on top of the cost of the CCS alone.
We all agree that CCS can play a fundamental part in delivering our secure, low-carbon energy needs. It provides us with a generation option that other technologies do not: its flexibility can provide a balance between the intermittency associated with renewables and the base-load nature of nuclear. It allows fossil fuels to play a full part in our low-carbon future and allows the decarbonisation of industrial emissions. We—the whole of the United Kingdom and the Government—remain firmly committed to working with industry to achieve that.
We have made available £1 billion of capital funding to support early CCS projects, and I will say more on that in a moment, in response to the questions. We are establishing a market for CCS electricity through our reforms to the electricity market. We are continuing to lead the world in putting in place the regulatory framework to support CCS, including legislation on third-party access to pipelines. We are supporting essential research and development, including opening the UK’s first carbon capture demo at the Ferrybridge power station. We have also established the CCS development forum, which has drawn together around 40 members from the industry to be directly involved in delivering CCS in the United Kingdom, together with representatives from the international academic and non-governmental organisation communities.
There are many different ways to achieve the decarbonisation of the power sector. At this stage, it is not possible to predict which will be the most cost-effective route or what exactly the power sector will look like in 2030. Nevertheless, we can use economic models to produce projections, using the best evidence currently available. Analysis undertaken for the carbon plan of the Department of Energy and Climate Change suggests that around 40 to 70 GW of new low-carbon electricity generating capacity will be needed by 2030, depending on demand and the mix of generation built. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), a strong continuing role for gas is envisaged in that mix.
Ian Swales
The Minister mentioned economic modelling. Do the Government have any wider modelling that takes into account the whole picture, not only carbon capture and the grants that might be required to get it going, but—my earlier point—petroleum revenue tax resulting from enhanced oil recovery?
Charles Hendry
My hon. Friend makes an interesting and valuable point. Our focus so far has been on how to advance the technology and to make it commercially viable and on how to bring down the cost. Our focus therefore has been on the energy sector, but he is absolutely right about a range of other benefits, not least in PRT or revenue that might come through enhanced oil recovery, which I will come back to, as well the supply-chain opportunities, the wealth that that creates for the economy and the tax revenues that will come into play.
Our analysis shows that CCS could contribute 10 GW of capacity to the UK electricity market by 2030 and up to 40 GW by 2050. I want to be absolutely clear that we are not setting targets for separate technologies. The industry’s ambition for CCS, as set out by the Carbon Capture and Storage Association strategy paper last year, is significantly higher than in our modelling, seeking 20 to 30 GW by 2030. We would be happy with such deployment, provided that it is the most cost-effective way to meet our decarbonisation targets—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). We must do three things to make that possible: provide incentives for investment, bring down the costs of the technology and tackle barriers to deployment.
The key to delivering the investment that we need in the UK electricity sector is confidence, for both technology developers and investors in the long-term future for their technology, and in the certainty of opportunity for those who want to take forward CCS and other low-carbon technologies. That is why the Government are implementing the biggest reforms to the electricity market for a generation, to provide the certainty that investors require and to create an industry for CCS, rather than only a few pilot projects. We are committed to reforming the electricity market to incentivise the deployment of low-carbon generating capacity.
Electricity market reform is a game changer for CCS. The reforms that we have announced offer the prospect of a future market for CCS electricity that will drive investment in commercial CCS plants. We are considering reforms that offer a range of benefits: longer-term contracts to provide stable financial incentives; support for early CCS projects, with contracts designed to recognise the associated uncertainties; an emissions performance standard set at the equivalent of 450 grams of carbon dioxide per kWh; and a carbon price floor that will further incentivise investment in low-carbon generation. With such incentives in place, the deployment rate for CCS will be dependent on the costs of the technology and how they stack up against nuclear and renewables.
If CCS is to be competitive with other low-carbon technologies, we and the industry must work together to understand the costs and how they can be reduced. There are two elements: technical discovery, through both research and development and learning by doing, and reducing the perceived risk of investing in a new technology, which leads to higher premiums for investment. We are tackling these issues in two main ways: through our £125 million research and development programme, which will continue to provide support for projects such as the UK’s first carbon capture pilot at Ferrybridge, which was opened by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change last year; and through our new CCS delivery programme, which will support larger-scale projects, delivering learning by doing, moving the technology forward and reducing risk premiums. The programme will focus on achieving the overall outcome of cost-competitive, low-carbon electricity from fossil fuel power stations in the 2020s, thus achieving exactly what we want, which is a long-term industry in the sector.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister will recall that I previously met him to discuss transmission charging. At that time, we referred to the fact that fossil fuels that come up and down are charged on their capacity rather than what goes to the grid. Will he set out briefly the Government’s thinking on that and how we can change the system?
Charles Hendry
The hon. Gentleman’s point is critical to the whole Scottish electricity sector. The work is being taken forward by Ofgem through Project TransmiT, which is considering the appropriate regime for charging when electricity is transmitted over long distances. It will set out its thoughts during the next few weeks, and that can be discussed in more detail. I am very encouraged by the progress that I understand is being made to find a formula that will work for those who are developing projects north of the border and in other parts of the country. More detail will be available shortly, but it is critical to the development not just of CCS in Scotland, but to the whole electricity generating sector north of the border.
We are putting in place a strong financial offer for early CCS projects, and it is one of the best offers anywhere in the world. It includes the £1 billion that is available for the up-front capital costs of projects, the potential for low-carbon contracts for difference to support operational costs and the potential for European new entrant reserve funding, which we fully support.
In response to the point made by the shadow Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that, realistically, because the programme is being put back, the money that we had anticipated being spent in this spending round is unlikely to be spent, and it cannot be spent in the time scale originally intended. If Longannet had gone ahead, it could have started to be drawn down this year and certainly into 2013. With new projects coming through, that will happen at the very end of this spending round and primarily into the next one. However, there is a clear commitment, and the £1 billion remains.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, good progress is also being made on finding additional sources of funding to bring into the process. Discussion is taking place with sovereign wealth funds overseas to trap their investment in this area. We are seeing a greater appetite from industrial investors to put in their own funding, instead of the Government providing funding. Projects involving enhanced oil recovery might also make a significant financial contribution.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to the Minister for his partial answer to one of my questions. May I press him on how much of that £1 billion will be available during the current CSR period and the current Parliament if demand is present and whether the projects are advanced enough for the money to be available to spend? How much of that £1 billion could be spent on CCS during this time, or has it been subsumed into a wider infrastructure pot?
Charles Hendry
Certainly, the funding that was assumed would be spent on CCS in the middle of this spending round and that will not now be spent and cannot be spent is being made available to other infrastructure projects. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that, because it will help to drive forward our economic recovery. Until we have seen the scale and type of the projects and the extent to which they will co-operate and collaborate, we cannot set out exactly what the funding will be. Some of them will access the new entrant reserve fund; some will be more dependent on a predictable income stream through the contracts for difference; and some will need more up-front funding. Until we know exactly what the projects will be, we cannot say exactly how they need to be financed. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants clarity now, but until we understand the nature of the front-runner projects, we cannot say with certainty exactly how that funding should come forward.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. How much money would be available if those projects were advanced to a stage where they would be considered to be appropriate for that funding? How much of that funding would be available for projects in this comprehensive spending review period if they were in that position? Would the figure be up to £500 million, £200 million or £300 million? How much would be available from that £1 billion during this CSR period if the projects had the applicable framework for that money?
Charles Hendry
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go out of line, but I am reluctant to pursue that approach. Until we understand the nature of the projects, I cannot explain to him how they will be funded. They will all have a different funding requirement for longer-term running costs or up-front capital, which may come from one or two sources. We want to make it clear that we want projects to try to find other investors to enter the process. There will inevitably be a process of discovery and of trying to find out exactly what the best projects are, but we have made it absolutely clear that that £1 billion remains available. The hon. Gentleman understands that the time scale has been moved backwards because of the decision on Longannet, but the £1 billion remains ring-fenced.
Dr Whiteford
I appreciate the Minister’s candour in outlining how he is trying to find alternative sources of funding, but Shell and Scottish and Southern Energy hope to begin a full-scale field study of the Peterhead project in the second half of this year. They have made it clear that they will need funding in years 2 and 3, and it would be helpful if the Minister indicated what the funding prospects were for that time scale.
Charles Hendry
The hon. Lady makes exactly the point that I am keen to focus on: there are investors who might want to come into the project—international investors who want to be part of the early development of this game-changing technology because of its global potential. We are encouraging them to try to talk to other potential investors, and we are looking at a range of projects. We are discussing one that could come through the new competition, but it is not the only one. Other projects are viable and would have greater scope for accessing the new entrant reserve fund, but until we have seen their scope and the collaboration and co-operation between different industrial players, it is hard to come to a final decision. However, I give the hon. Lady the commitment that we have a real desire to take the competition forward much more rapidly than the previous competition, and during the next few weeks, we will provide the details.
We had an industry day in December, and during the next month we will have a further industry day to provide more detail on how the competition will work. We will then open up the competition shortly afterwards with a tight time scale to encourage firms to come back. Having lost time, we want to make up for that and to see the full range of projects that can benefit from funding and find out how we can take that forward.
Gordon Banks
While the Minister is winding up, will he respond to a point that I made that fits in with the one that he is making about new competition and external funding? What discussions has he had with the Scottish Government about them playing a financial role? Did the First Minister approach the Minister’s Department on Longannet or any future projects?
Charles Hendry
I was not remotely close to winding up until I took so many interventions, but I must now do so swiftly. On Longannet, the Scottish Government did not offer funding but, to be fair, they were not asked for funding. The project is seen to be a UK energy policy with funding from the UK Exchequer. We had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government ahead of it. I think that we all share the disappointment at the reaction, and perhaps the lesson is not to announce decisions just before the Scottish National party’s annual conference. We must try to move forward in a way that takes such issues out of politics. The gain from what can be achieved to the United Kingdom is so substantial that we all need to pull together and to work together.
The hon. Gentleman said that the decision on Longannet did not send out the right message, but it was the only decision we could have made, because at the end of the day there was so much difference between what it was going to cost and what was available. We want to take the technology forward, but we cannot do so at any price. Even if funding had been available from the Scottish Government, it could not have made up the difference to enable the project to go ahead.
Much more work needs to be done, and we are taking it forward urgently on regulatory reform, storage, the supply chain, transport and storage infrastructure and planning. In England, we can certainly make it clear through national policy statements and the infrastructure planning commission that that process will work much more smoothly and without the time delays about which people have expressed concern, although planning in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. More details will come forward very shortly—
Music Venues (Disabled Access)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I am glad that the Minister responsible for culture, communications and creative industries is able to attend the debate.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on access to live music for deaf and disabled people both because it is an issue close to my heart, and because I believe that there is a strong and principled business case for the proposals that I shall set out. I can personally attest to the importance of this subject, and to the difference that equal access for disabled people makes to those passionate about music. My involvement in this issue is due to a close friend of mine, Dom Pardey, who had a love of life and of music but who without warning at the age of 28 suffered a serious stroke and is now confined to a wheelchair. Although life became more difficult, his passion for music has never wavered. It is what keeps him going, and I regularly travel with him and take him to music venues, and comedy or theatre productions, along with a wide network of friends. He is one representative of many people across the country whose passion for music is their reason to live. From that experience, I know what a difference good access can make. It is not only about ramps but about toilet facilities and hearing loops, and just one step can make the difference between an inspirational event watched by somebody in a wheelchair, and a sad disappointment.
I am proud to be patron of the charity Attitude is Everything, which exists to improve the accessibility of music venues for deaf and disabled people. It began as an idea by Suzanne Ball 20 years ago. She was attending a major festival and almost died in the crowd because of the pressure on the disabled listeners who were sitting at the front. Attitude is Everything became a pilot project in September 2000 in direct response to deaf and disabled people’s calls for fair treatment at music venues, clubs and festivals, and it set out to address the music industry’s apparent lack of awareness about its responsibilities, obligations and duties under disability discrimination legislation.
Last December, Attitude is Everything released a report entitled “State of Access”, which I launched in Portcullis house. It is the first piece of systematic research into access to live music for disabled people, and it examines approaches to access across the industry. The report was compiled by 100 deaf and disabled music lovers who acted as mystery shoppers, just as a food critic may act in a restaurant. Those people are directly affected by issues of access, and their extensive input made the report valuable and powerful. I would like publicly to thank all the mystery shoppers who took part in that exercise and volunteered their time to ensure that the report was so strong. The report examines views and approaches to access across the live music industry, promotes best practice, and suggests solutions to improve the current situation. I thoroughly recommend it to any hon. Members who are interested in improving access for disabled people.
The research carried out by Attitude is Everything led to two key recommendations. The first looks at the business case for taking action while the second argues for the enforcement of existing legislation, and I shall address those points in turn. There is a strong commercial argument for venues to adopt the Attitude is Everything charter of best practice. Charter venues and festivals, such as the Latitude festival in Suffolk which I highly recommend, and local authorities that follow the charter’s principles, such as Kent county council and Tower Hamlets, vouch for the scheme and demonstrate the benefits of good access. Some of the most powerful advocates for improving access are venues and festivals that have already improved access and seen the improvement in business that followed.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I would not have been aware of this debate had I not attended the previous discussion, and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue because it is obviously something close to my heart. He is absolutely right about the business case. Disabled people do not go to music festivals or the theatre on their own; they go with friends or in groups of friends, and by barring one member of the group, venues are often effectively barring everybody in it. That is why there is a good economic argument for making all venues fully wheelchair accessible.
Matthew Hancock
I am extremely grateful for that intervention; the hon. Lady has taken a page of my speech by expressing that point more strongly than I could have done. The annual spending power of deaf and disabled customers is estimated at around £80 billion per year—a serious market. For example, estimates suggest that hearing loss currently affects more than 10 million people in the UK. That is about one in six of the population, and rising.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this worthy debate. He mentions larger music festivals, but does he agree that it is equally important to have the access that he describes in some of the smaller venues? Is he aware of my “Rock the House” competition that asks people to nominate their favourite live venue in their constituencies? We would encourage all disadvantaged groups to nominate their favourite pub and so on.
Matthew Hancock
I certainly join my hon. Friend in encouraging disabled groups and disabled music lovers—whether in a group or not—to nominate their favourite live venue, and I hope that his work in live music will take into account improved access for disabled people. Given his interest in this area, I am grateful that he is attending the debate today.
About 2 million people in the UK use hearing aids, which is a huge potential customer base. In a major survey by Action on Hearing Loss, more than two fifths of respondents said that they would go out of their way to visit a shop or service with a hearing loop, and almost three quarters said that deaf-aware staff would make them more likely to use a particular service. The potential is there, but all too often loops are not turned on or do not function properly. It is critical to be both aware of the issue and to put the technology in place.
I do not want to pretend that things are not moving in the right direction. For example, over the past few years, the number of disabled people attending the Reading and Leeds festivals increased by 25% each year, demonstrating the impact of Attitude is Everything and other such groups. I also pay tribute to Festival Republic which is involved in and enthusiastic about the agenda.
We have all seen the photographs that were taken at the Glastonbury festival last summer in the pouring rain, of people signing on stage in order to ensure that deaf people at the festival could fully participate in what was going on. Once Glastonbury began to improve its access facilities, attendance by disabled customers increased threefold in three years.
The Sage Gateshead, a venue that reached the gold level of the charter, said about its experience:
“We have numerous customers who specifically visit our venue, regularly…because of its excellent access. Many of them bring their families who appreciate a stress free outing.”
I know very well what a stress-free outing feels like and how different it is from an outing that is not stress free.
The success that I have described can be repeated at large and small venues throughout the industry. The truth is that doing that does not have to be very expensive. The report shows that progress can be made in three key areas. First, the cheapest and easiest adjustment is simply providing information—on how people can access the venue, where they can park and so on. Detailed information provided in advance on the internet can allow people to make informed decisions and know before they arrive at a venue exactly how they can get the most out of their visit.
The second adjustment, which is also cheap, is to improve staff understanding. It is highlighted again and again that simply understanding the needs of people who are in wheelchairs or have other disabilities improves access and the experience of disabled people and their friends and families who go with them to the venues.
The third issue is small changes to infrastructure—for instance, step-free access and the induction loops that I have already talked about. Those often simple measures are at the heart of the charter of best practice. I encourage all venues to sign up to the charter. I hope that the charter will become the minimum standard for access and that in time it can be expanded to include things such as standards for disabled toilets and disabled hotel rooms.
The report’s second recommendation is a call for enforcement of existing legislation. Businesses have an obligation under law to make reasonable adjustments to help disabled people to access their goods, facilities and services. Unfortunately, access requirements are seldom enforced and often only under the heavy hand of the courts when a disabled person sues a venue under disability discrimination legislation. I am here today to call not for new legislation, but merely for the enforcement of what is already in place.
Supportive music venues, key festival organisers, local authorities and licensing officers should work together, with organisations such as Attitude is Everything, to make access normally a condition for entertainment licences. Scotland made such a change last October, and I hope that the Minister can consider it today. It would be an ideal tool with which to ensure that, incrementally, we move towards improved standards throughout the industry, with all the benefits that that could bring.
The list of venues and festivals that support the proposals is long and growing. Make no mistake: there has been progress. I am delighted to say that the festival at which Suzanne nearly died 20 years ago now has a regular clientele of more than 700 disabled customers, an accessible campsite and viewing platforms at nearly all the stages. That is good progress, but there is much more to do. We should do all that we reasonably can to ensure that being disabled does not mean that one has to live a life less rich, less varied or less full. Music is a central part of our shared cultural experience, and nothing compares to the live performance. For some, it is a lifeline. It should, wherever this is realistically possible, be accessible to all.
If adopted, the proposals would make an immense difference to the lives of deaf and disabled music lovers. It is vital that we move towards a situation in which good disabled access is the norm, not the exception. Such a goal is morally right, legally required already and commercially viable. This debate is a small step on the road to achieving that ambition. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great honour to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) on calling for the debate. He has already asked me about this issue during questions in the House. This cause has no better advocate than him, because he comes to it with a genuine passion, having been engaged with the issue for many years before he came into the House. He also brings his considerable skills to bear to highlight the campaign.
I thank the hon. Members who have made a contribution to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) has made the cause of music one of his passions in the House and has advanced it very strongly, particularly with his highly successful “Rock the House” campaign. I noted his intervention calling for disabled users to nominate their favourite live venue. Perhaps I may make a suggestion in return—that the judging criteria for the best live venue could include accessibility criteria, because that would certainly increase awareness of this important aspect of the debate.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who needs no introduction because she has long been campaigning on these important issues, made a crucial point that we must all take on board: if we bar one disabled user, we in effect bar many more—those who would be accompanying the disabled user to the venue. What has emerged from the debate is that, if a venue provides the appropriate facilities for disabled users, it will end up having no more loyal customers than those people, who come not only to enjoy the music, but to enjoy as hassle-free an experience as possible. All those points apply. One may say that providing those facilities is simply the right thing to do, but one may also appeal to self-interest. Music venues up and down the country should realise that making themselves more accessible is not a burden to be complied with, but a huge opportunity to gain a loyal following of fans.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk talked about the charity Attitude is Everything. The charity is lucky to have such a formidable advocate, and he is lucky to have found a stand-out charity such as Attitude is Everything, which has campaigned for so long on these important issues. As he rightly pointed out, the campaign began in September 2000, and Attitude is Everything now has a comprehensive programme of activity. That includes the charter of best practice, which has already been mentioned and involves working with live venues, festivals, clubs and promoters. It includes Club Attitude, showcasing deaf, disabled and non-disabled musicians in fully accessible venues. It includes the disabled people stewarding programme, which involves helping festivals and other events to include deaf and disabled people as stewards; running information tents; and creating employment for deaf and disabled people. It includes disability equality training, access audits and consultancy; that involves creating practice strategies for venues to tackle access issues. Of course, it also includes advocacy and campaigning.
I am delighted that Attitude is Everything receives funding via the Arts Council and, through its new national portfolio funding programme, has received an increase to some £170,000 a year from this financial year, starting in April. We enjoy—well, we do not enjoy but when it comes to media attention we often focus on cuts and restrictions in funding or perhaps some of the more high-profile organisations that the Arts Council funds. It is worth the media focusing on the fact that the Arts Council supports important organisations such as Attitude is Everything. The reason I describe it as a stand-out charity is that its attitude is entirely right. It is an attitude of encouragement, rather than lambasting, and of providing solutions, rather than simply highlighting problems.
Dame Anne Begg
Perhaps the worst venues that exist are not music venues, but comedy venues. They always seem to be in the basement for some reason. The Minister might want to encourage comedy venues in particular to take up the issue with regard to their accessibility, because they are still absolutely appalling.
Mr Vaizey
At the end of the debate, I was going to sum up some of the things I have learned in preparing for it. One thing I would like to take from the debate is the opportunity not only to meet properly with Attitude is Everything, but, potentially, to expand the Department’s work on leading the debate on these issues.
At the moment, the Department has an e-inclusion accessibility forum, which I have been closely involved with since I became a Minister. The forum works with charities to ensure that people in a digital age have access to the internet and to phone technology, but I have been struck by the lack of engagement from business and telecoms companies, which is unbelievably frustrating. In that respect, we would, for example, like to have video technology that enables deaf people to use sign language, and I have told all the telecoms operators, “Please come to me with a cost-effective solution,” but they have not done that. Eventually, of course, I will have to regulate through Ofcom to make them do that, but it would be so much simpler if they came to me and did it.
Similarly, if we bring a group of disabled charities together, we can work to move this agenda forward in respect of not only live music venues, but comedy clubs, as the hon. Lady said. During the debate, I was also thinking about cinemas. We have just published a film policy review consultation, which does not cover disability access issues, but when the Government respond to it in the middle of March, we will address those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk gave a comprehensive summary of Attitude is Everything’s report. He mentioned the Sage Gateshead, an organisation I have got to know extremely well over the years. It is fantastically well led by Anthony Sargent, and it is a great example of a national venue with strong support from a local authority. It is excellent in a whole range of different areas, but I am delighted that it is also a stand-out venue in terms of providing access to people with disabilities. Likewise, it was good to read that KOKO, a commercial venue, has picked up silver status for accessibility. The vast majority of UK music venues are privately run, and it is important to build a good dialogue with such organisations.
I join everyone in the Chamber in congratulating Attitude is Everything on an excellent report. Now, of course, comes the difficult bit, when I have to respond to my hon. Friend’s call for action. He mentioned the recommendations at the end of the report, and specifically the one that disabled access become a condition of music venues receiving entertainment licences. As he will be aware, we have recently consulted on our plans to deregulate licensing, and that process, which is very much in line with the coalition Government’s aim of reducing red tape and, therefore, costs, aims to make it much easier for venues of all shapes and sizes to put on live music, theatre and dance events.
The good thing about deregulation is that more venues will provide live music, but the unintended consequence might be that more venues are under scrutiny for not providing access for people with disabilities. The measures will cover community halls, amateur theatres, circuses and other arts organisations that have found the licensing requirements expensive and restrictive. Of course, other venues, such as schools and village halls, which are used regularly by fundraisers, face the same requirements as commercial operators. Low-risk community events have been cancelled because of the onerous burden of licensing requirements, and we are seeking to put an end to that so that schools and community groups in the third sector have more opportunities to put on such events. That will increase revenues and the money raised for good causes.
Obviously, we start with the attitude that we are not keen to place further conditions on venues that wish to put on events. I do not simply want to say no to my hon. Friend, so let me put the Government’s perspective. As he said, access issues are covered by different legislation. The Equality Act 2010 ensures that organisations that provide goods, facilities and services are required to make a “reasonable adjustment” where a disabled person would be at a “substantial disadvantage” to a person who is not disabled in carrying out a particular job or—this is relevant to today’s debate—in accessing a particular service.
The idea of a “reasonable adjustment” is important, because it makes the judgment dependent on the size of the organisation and the resources available to it. I am delighted that a number of venues offer services such as multiple hearing induction loop systems, but I am not sure everyone would agree that it is fair that every venue of every kind, including small village halls, should have to offer such things as a matter of course.
We are confident that the 2010 Act, which subsumed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, provides reasonable assurance for disabled attendees. My hon. Friend mentioned the change made in Scotland, and I will take away a commitment to examine it and to write to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who is responsible for licensing issues, to ask whether it should be a factor in his deliberations.
Matthew Hancock
Nobody would want venues to close or not to offer music as a result of our pursuing this agenda. However, the question is not whether the law is in place, which it is, as my hon. Friend says, but whether there is enforcement. Nobody wants the law to exist, but to be unenforced. In Scotland, the live question is about the improved enforcement of whatever legislation is in place. In that respect, the reasonableness test is important. If we have a rule, however, it is important that we make sure it is enforced.
Mr Vaizey
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Again, to a certain extent, and perhaps unintentionally, he issues a challenge to different parts of the Government to join up. It is worth my taking away the tone of the debate and communicating with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has responsibility for the disabled, about the measures the Government are taking on enforcement across the board under the 2010 Act. If we have a meeting with a group of disabled charities to discuss what is happening on the ground, we can certainly talk about enforcement.
To return to my point about Attitude is Everything being a stand-out charity, one of the good things it does, besides providing encouragement, is to provide training so that people do not have an excuse for not understanding what the law requires of them. That would be one subject for discussion in relation to how we increase training opportunities for venues and how we work with the music industry and some of the big players to ensure that adequate training programmes are in place for their staff and that there is an adequate understanding at all levels of the requirements of the 2010 Act.
Earlier, I picked up on the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South about the economic self-interest of making changes to attract more customers and, more importantly, more loyal customers. The music industry faces radical changes in a digital age, and it is having to change its business model for selling music, but it is also having to look at live music as a potentially important income stream for the future. That is an important point.
Time is running out, and I want to end by saying that the debate is very timely, because this is the year of the Olympics and, more importantly, the Paralympics. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk that the London 2012 festival, the cultural festival that will run alongside the Olympics, takes these issues very seriously. It is working with all its partners to ensure that disability access is at the forefront of their minds. Some redevelopment will be undertaken on the south bank, and although its primary purpose is to redevelop the site, disability access will be an additional benefit. We also have a number of programmes in the cultural Olympiad. For example, Film Nation: Shorts actively targets disabled film makers.
This has been a good and useful debate, and I hope I can take forward some of the issues that have been raised.
Parking (Westminster)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in Parliament the issue of Westminster council’s parking controls, and particularly the most recent round of proposals, which have generated more controversy than almost any local government matter in recent years. Although I am conscious that much of what is proposed and under discussion relates to the west end—it is good to see the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) here today—I make no apology for introducing the debate. I have no wish to step on the hon. Gentleman’s toes, but Westminster council’s parking policies have an impact far wider than that specific local dimension.
There are two reasons for that: one—and this is one of the themes on which I look forward to the Minister’s response—is that the issue of parking income, and how it is generated and distributed, has a wider context in relation to the agenda of revenue-raising and local taxation. Therefore, everyone in the local authority of the London borough of Westminster has a legitimate interest in how that income is generated and used. Indeed, the wider issues of congestion, displacement and road management are for everyone in the community. Secondly, what happens to the economy of central London is a legitimate matter of concern for us all, since millions of Londoners are affected in their capacity as employees, workers, shoppers, business men and women, worshippers and people who enjoy the cultural and recreational opportunities that central London offers. It is in that context that the Westminster parking proposals have generated such an exceptional level of media interest, particularly, but by no means exclusively, in the Evening Standard. The Evening Standard has, I think, grasped what the majority party on Westminster council seems not to have grasped—that Westminster’s financial problems cannot be solved by any means to hand, without a proper recognition of the impact on the wider economy of London.
To put my cards on the table, I entirely accept that parking income is a legitimate source of revenue-raising for local government, particularly given the severe constraints on the raising of income by other means, and the critical importance of maintaining services for residents. However, the law is clear on the issue, and the law, common sense and political calculation all demand honesty and transparency in the process, as well as that the charges should be fair and proportionate. There has not been adequate honesty and transparency about Westminster council’s financial pressures, and councillors have been found out. They have not told it straight to local people, but instead have given the impression that they have discovered the philosopher’s stone—a way to provide comprehensive, quality services without an adequate tax base.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Lady recognises, I think, the fact that there were considerable legal constraints on the making of the proposed—now shelved—parking changes on the grounds of the finances that were required. There was a big campaign to make a case, which I think was legitimate, about congestion; but no one was fooled about an important element of the proposals being driven by the desire to raise more money in times of financial constraint. Would the hon. Lady prefer a much more transparent approach, not just in Westminster but across local government, which would allow an open debate about precisely those problems—the issue of going down the route of increased parking costs, which would affect everyone in the vicinity, or potential cuts in adult and child services, which are the sorts of things she and I know all too well affect many providers in the City of Westminster today?
Ms Buck
There are several issues there, and I shall return to one or two of them, but, yes, we need a broader debate about the role of charging income, property taxation and other forms of income generation by local government. There is no question but that charging has a role to play; but, as the Minister will no doubt confirm, there are particular constraints on the way parking income can be used for revenue generation. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has confirmed what the Secretary of State for Transport said earlier about the suspicion that the charges are being used for revenue generation, rather than parking and traffic management. That is not what parking revenue is supposed to be about.
Mark Field
I think that a perfectly legitimate case was made for traffic management, and concerns about congestion. However, had there not been the big financial constraints, there might not have been such a desire to proceed so quickly. The trouble was, the legislation is so prescriptive that to make the case on financial grounds would have killed it off at the outset. Therefore, much more emphasis was placed on the issue of congestion.
Ms Buck
The hon. Gentleman is almost making my argument for me. We should have a debate about charging income, which could include the proper role of parking income in a local authority’s tax base. That would be fine; but within the present legal constraints we are where we are, and however we approach the matter we need a mature, transparent and honest debate about services and income. That has been spectacularly missing. As I have said, the political fallout from what has happened has been catastrophic for Westminster council. Whether or not the current leader has, as I believe, been the first victim of that miscalculation—it remains to be seen whether he will be the last—a great deal of collateral damage has none the less been done to the council.
To recap on the facts, Westminster council’s plans to ban free evening and Sunday parking on single yellow lines in the west end for more than 8,400 cars have provoked an unprecedented coalition of opposition. They have united the Churches and casinos and the trade unions and big business. They have brought together local residents, visitors to the west end, and those who earn their living there, and united all the major political parties. Indeed, Westminster council has achieved the near impossible—it has found the one thing that Boris Johnson, Brian Paddick and Ken Livingstone all agree on.
The council said that the new charges and the single yellow line parking ban are designed to increase the turnover of cars parking in the area, and to make it easier for those driving into the heart of London to find a parking space; but everyone knows that the real reason is to raise the expected £7 million a year that the charges will raise for a council whose cash reserves have fallen by £60 million in the past two years, as Government cuts have bitten and reduced its room for manoeuvre. As Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, has said:
“It’s completely mad what Westminster are doing. It will be damaging to business. I’m afraid, as far as I understand the matter, there is a financial issue here for Westminster. In other words, they need the revenue.”
As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State for Transport has said—and I should be interested to have the Minister’s clarification of this—
“I’m sure when Westminster thought about what they were going to do with those parking charges they had a sense they might be able to put some extra money in their coffers that they could probably use on public services”.
As I understand that quotation, the Transport Secretary clearly accepts that the local authority was acting at least at the borders, and possibly beyond the borders, of legality. Does the Minister agree with the Mayor of London and the Transport Secretary about Westminster’s true motives, and, in view of that, what is the Department’s line on how to respond, and on what constraints there should be on the proper use of parking revenue?
Mark Field
I confess I look forward to the fulsome praise that the hon. Lady will give to the words of the Mayor of London in the next 107 days, in the run-up to the mayoral election. I do not think there is any suggestion of illegality. Surely the primary purpose of the changes was related to traffic management and congestion, but the hon. Lady and the Transport Secretary are right to suggest that there was also a secondary purpose. That would not make the proposals illegal or illegitimate, but the public at large were not going to be fooled, and they felt that the wool was being pulled over their eyes when the latter priority was denied entirely.
Ms Buck
I will let that pass; those are the hon. Gentleman’s views.
In addition to the question about the proper role of parking income as a source of revenue, the issue that has probably generated the greatest controversy is the risk that the parking charges would present to the central London economy. The independent City forecaster, the Centre for Economics and Business Research, has estimated that the parking charges would cost the west end £800 million a year and threaten more than 5,000 jobs. It is suggested that 9% of the £9.2 billion central London night-time and Sunday economy could disappear as customers and workers are put off by the new charges. The research found that the biggest losses of turnover would be felt by restaurants, bars, pubs and cafes at £330 million, followed by theatres, cinemas, casinos and other places of entertainment at £314 million, and then retailers at £145 million. Recent research by the Society of London Theatre revealed that 16% of London theatregoers used cars to visit the theatre. For those over 55, it was more than 20%, with the reasons being more about access and security than the availability of public transport. Some 90% of London’s theatre ticket revenue was generated within the borough of Westminster. Westminster’s proposals would still, although delayed, continue to put at risk some 14.5% of total theatre income, or approximately £72 million a year.
Baroness Valentine, the chief executive of the business group London First, said:
“At a time when the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors are all suffering from the protracted slowdown and reduced consumer confidence and spending, introducing measures that will further discourage customers from coming into central London seems perverse. Westminster’s businesses should not be the unwilling guinea pigs in an experiment of which the outcome could be highly damaging to their viability.”
Mary Portas, appointed by the Government as a high street adviser, as well as being a local resident, said:
“Parking is just one of the issues that comes up time and time again. It’s one of the biggest things that stops flow, and for retailers and restaurants it stops their trade. This is just sheer madness”.
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s high street adviser?
There are of course a great many individuals, too, who are low-income employees working in the night-time economy and who have raised concerns about the impact on them at a time when night transport is by no means always available. That raises real concerns about safety, particularly for women travelling at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning.
In addition to the impact on business, the Minister will know that some 15,000 people attend churches of all denominations on a Sunday in Westminster, many of whose families used to live in the west end. They see it as part of the family tradition to worship in a west end church. Major Ray Brown of the Salvation Army in Oxford street made the case in clear and unambiguous terms. He said that
“Westminster Council have taken a very short-sighted decision to seriously damage hundreds of years of church community action and spiritual activity for the sake of a quick financial gain. For some members and volunteers at The Salvation Army, this means having to face the terrible decision of having to leave the church they have been involved in all their lives”.
Does the Minister believe that curtailing the Church’s community action is in line with the Prime Minister’s big society vision?
These new charges were originally due to be introduced in early December 2011, just weeks before Christmas, but thanks to pressure from west end retailers and Labour councillors, Westminster reluctantly agreed to postpone implementation until January. Meanwhile, west end restaurateurs, retailers, residents and Churches came together to fund legal action against the council. On 14 December, the High Court ordered Westminster council to halt plans to introduce west end parking charges until the judicial review application is heard in March. In a scathing decision, Mr Justice Collins highlighted
“substantial damage to businesses and churches”
and “far too limited” consultation as reasons why the council should not be allowed to introduce the new charges until the judicial review has been heard.
Sensing it was losing the argument, Westminster council leader Colin Barrow promised to listen more in the future and to delay implementation of the new charges until after the 2012 Olympics and the diamond jubilee celebrations. However, just nine days later, at 3.30 pm on 23 December, Councillor Barrow stopped listening and the council announced that it would be axing 1,200 single yellow line parking spaces under the guise of helping the elderly and the disabled cross the road more easily. Of course, everybody supports double yellow lines at dropped kerbs in order to make crossing the road safer for the disabled, the elderly and parents, but Westminster council’s proposals go way beyond just protecting dropped kerbs from parked cars. They were used as an excuse to remove 5 miles of safe evening parking from the west end, and were a deliberate attempt to get round the High Court ban on implementing plans to remove more than 8,400 free parking spaces on single yellow lines.
Then, just last week, Westminster council dropped another bombshell when it became clear that figures on the number of parking spaces that would be lost through the council’s plans were not accurate. Originally we were given to understand that 1,700 yellow line parking spaces would be lost through the council’s proposals, when the real figure was actually more than 8,400. That is a 500% difference. The significance of this monumental blunder is fundamental. The council had no idea how many parking spaces would be lost when it took the decision in August 2011 to ban parking on single yellow lines in the evening and on Sundays. Nor did the council have the correct figures when it consulted residents and businesses before and after the decision.
The leader of the Westminster Labour group, Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, has written to the council’s director of legal services to point out the obvious implications of this admission. He said:
“At the time the Cabinet agreed the proposals in August 2011 Members were not provided with any information on the number of single yellow line parking spaces that would be lost. Cabinet members were therefore unable to give proper consideration to all the material facts. Members were not informed of a figure for lost parking spaces until nearly 2 months later…The Council’s further public consultation that ran up until early December 2011 did not provide any figures on the number of single yellow line parking places to be lost and the only figure in the public domain during the consultation period was the incorrect figure of 1,700 provided by the Council”.
Whatever happens next—it is hard to see how the proposed charges can survive the leadership contest that Councillor Barrow has unleashed—Westminster’s problems are not over. Either the highest profile charging row in recent memory will lead to reinstatement, or a financial crisis looms, to be dealt with by a council weakened in trust and credibility. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I believe that the policy disaster that has befallen Westminster has much wider ramifications for local government finance, and those need to be addressed too.
We all believe that parking and car use in inner cities has to be controlled and managed, but any changes with impacts and ramifications such as these need to be handled on the basis of accurate data, and with effective consultation. The changes need to take with them public trust and confidence. I am sorry to say that Westminster council has lost that trust and confidence, with major implications for the wider economy, and is in danger of undermining this Government’s and future Governments’ more thoughtful approaches to traffic management and parking. If the council will not act effectively to get itself out of the hole it has dug, I look to the Minister to assure us that the Government will step in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Howarth. I apologise that the Minister responsible for local government is not here. I am stepping in on his behalf. He is in Newcastle, although I know that he would have liked to have been at this debate. Some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) may need to be dealt with by letter.
As the hon. Lady knows as a former Under-Secretary of State for Transport, it would be wrong and improper for me to get drawn into the decisions of the judicial review. I stress that some of the comments she made seemed to pre-empt what the judges at the judicial review will look into. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in his place.
Very unusually for me, I am going to read. I normally know my brief well enough not to need to do so.
The Government are fully aware of the strength of feeling surrounding the proposed changes by Westminster council. It is difficult not to be, given what is in the local press and on the local news. The strong views expressed, and the concerns raised by residents and businesses in Westminster, show just how important issues such as this are, not just for Westminster, but across the country as a whole. It is essential that local authorities do all they can to get the balance right and to develop and maintain an effective parking and traffic management strategy that serves the interests of all stakeholders in as fair and equitable a way as possible.
There will be a little repetition, for which I apologise, but it is important that the Government set out their position. Among other things, Westminster has to strive to understand the needs of industry, shops, restaurants, clubs, theatres and Churches, as the hon. Lady alluded to, as well as the needs of the employees, customers and residents in the area affected.
Mark Field
It is also worth stressing, and this point perhaps relates to something that the hon. Lady said, that the west end and the centre of London seem to belong to more than just one or two constituencies. It is fair to say that relatively few of my constituents—my residential constituents—wrote to me about this scheme and of those who did a number were in favour of it. However, it is also the case that a lot of businesses, particularly independent businesses, are implacably opposed to the scheme. There are specific issues in Westminster because of the nature of our local authority, which means that this scheme has become a higher-profile issue and aspects of it would not necessarily be transferrable to other local authorities throughout the country; I disagree with the hon. Lady that they would be transferrable.
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The character of this part of town—a town in which I was born and brought up—is unique in the country. However, I will come on to the issues relating to parking and parking spaces, and revenues that are surplus to the cost of creating those parking spaces. They are important issues, and they were the issues that the hon. Lady was referring to.
Many people choose to travel by public transport, but many others usually use their car or van. Also, parking spaces are clearly limited, both on and off the street, and there is considerable demand for road space in one of the busiest areas not only in London but in the country. Without doubt, congestion—one of the areas covered in my portfolio—is a real problem. I can understand the competing concerns that the local authority in Westminster has to address. There are very difficult issues that need to be addressed when developing appropriate parking strategies in such circumstances.
The hon. Lady referred to the fact that Mary Portas produced a report for the Government on high streets, recommending that local areas should implement free controlled parking schemes in their town centres wherever possible. However, I am not certain that such a scheme would work brilliantly within Westminster, for obvious reasons.
The Portas review points out that the high street is in serious threat of decline. No matter where we look around the country we can see that, and Westminster is no exception. Town centre shopping is affected by the internet and out-of-town stores. The number of shops in the country as a whole has gone down by 25,000 during the past 10 years, so it is not something that has just suddenly happened, and Opposition parties cannot blame everything on the current Government; that decline has been going on for some considerable time. The case that Mary Portas makes in her report is that a range of measures—not just parking measures—should be used to encourage people to use secondary and main high streets, and it is an absolutely important case.
However, as the hon. Lady said, the report by Mary Portas indicates the crucial role of parking in making an area vibrant, and I think that that is the biggest point that we have heard today. The Government agree with the report by Mary Portas on that. I am not saying whether the Government fully agree with the comments that the hon. Lady said that Mary Portas had made, because I have not actually seen those comments, but I am sure that Mary Portas is more than capable of standing up for her own comments. So we are encouraging local authorities to look closely at how parking provision and charges work.
The Government understand that these issues have a massive effect. So, in January 2011, we amended the national planning guidance to remove Whitehall restrictions that imposed maximum numbers of parking places in new residential developments; to change a policy that inhibited competition between council areas, so that one parking charge would be imposed and another would not, which related to in and out of town centre developments; to introduce a policy that parking enforcement should be proportionate, and I stress proportionate; to remove the policy that encouraged councils to set car parking charges to discourage the use of cars; and to increase support for electric car power-charging infrastructure in parking areas.
The Government’s draft national planning policy framework follows through on those changes by removing the restrictions that impose maximum numbers of parking spaces in new non-residential developments. That will also relieve pressure on on-street parking.
As we know, Westminster council has now postponed its plans until beyond the Olympics and the jubilee celebrations. The Government welcome that decision, but we will wait—I think everyone will wait—for the judicial review to reach its own conclusions. It is up to Westminster council—if we believe in localism, we must leave it to the council—to come forward and make its decisions, based on the guidance that it has.
We appreciate Westminster council keeping Department for Transport Ministers fully informed, and council representatives have had several meetings and conversations with Ministers; I myself had a phone conversation yesterday with Westminster’s chief whip, Mr Caplan, about this debate. I understand that Westminster council has agreed to use the intervening period to discuss its policy and to continue to listen to the concerns of residents, visitors and businesses, who I am sure also want to find solutions to the ongoing pressures that the hon. Lady alluded to in her speech. The key is achieving a sustainable economy for the residents and the businesses together, and that is something that we all want to achieve.
It would perhaps be useful if I provided some context and said where Westminster is in the legal framework; the hon. Lady referred to the legal framework. The Department issues operational guidance to local authorities on parking policy and enforcement. That guidance was revised in November 2010, and it supports and complements the statutory guidance published under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to which local authorities must have regard—I stress the word “must”.
Local authorities have long been responsible for managing all on-street parking and some off-street parking, and their relevant powers were first laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 imposes an explicit duty on local authorities when they are carrying out these functions to manage their network so as to reduce congestion and disruption, and to appoint a traffic manager.
Following the provisions for authorities to manage parking that are laid out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the Road Traffic Act 1991 significantly changed the way that on-street parking restrictions are enforced. Before the 1991 Act, the police and traffic wardens were responsible for enforcement, and income from fixed penalty notices specifically went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the police found that the impact of parking enforcement on the resources of a number of forces supported the idea that another agency should take responsibility for such enforcement.
The potential road safety and congestion implications of a lack of enforcement were unacceptable, so the 1991 Act made it mandatory for London boroughs and optional for other local authorities to take on the civil enforcement of non-endorsable parking contraventions; in other words, parking fines where a driver does not receive points on their licence. In London, boroughs were responsible for enforcement of such fines and some other authorities also enforced such fines. The legal framework for enforcement authorities is now contained in part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Now you know, Mr Howarth, why I am reading it and not trying to do this from memory.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to his notes.
Mike Penning
Correct, Mr Howarth. And noted.
The legislation clearly places the responsibility for managing and enforcing parking on local authorities, and it is a mandatory requirement in London, including in Westminster.
The Department for Transport supports local authorities by issuing both statutory and operational guidance on parking policy and enforcement. The guidance makes it clear that each local authority should have a clear idea of what its parking policy is and what it intends to achieve by having that policy. Then the local authority needs to make traffic regulation orders to put parking arrangements in place, displaying appropriate traffic signs to show the public what the restrictions mean.
The parking strategy needs to take account of planning policies and transport powers; the needs of the many and various road users, businesses and residents in the area; the appropriate scale and type of provision that it will undertake; the balance between short and long-term provision; and the level of charges, which must be formally addressed.
On the issue of charges, I should add that both the statutory and operational guidance make it clear that parking charges are a tool to manage the demand for parking and should not be used as a revenue-raising measure. I will return to that point in a few moments if I can. The Department also recommends that authorities should consult the public on parking policies as they formulate or appraise them, before coming to a decision.
What I think the hon. Member for Westminster North was asking about earlier, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster alluded to it too, is what happens if a council tries to reduce congestion and address the parking issues—as set out in the guidance—and there is a surplus. In my constituency, there is a surplus. We have looked very carefully at how we fix the charges, and there were lots of discussions about whether there should be a charge of £1, £1.50 or £1.75, and there were all the arguments about the change and so on. The figure ended up being, say, £2, and then the surplus comes.
I do not think that there is any doubt that Westminster council knew—I think that it has been very open about it—that there would be a surplus and that that surplus would be used. However, it is quite specifically set out in the regulations and the guidance how that money—the surplus—should be used within the community. So I think what the Secretary of State for Transport was alluding to in her comments was that there was a knowledge that there would be a surplus, but the main reason Westminster council was introducing this scheme was to reduce congestion and to ensure that it is possible for the local community, businesses and people—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. We must now move on to the next debate.
Noise Reduction (M54)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I compliment the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), on his management of the previous debate, and I hope that he feels a lot more comfortable with this one, which is far more firmly within his brief. It is a great privilege to have secured this debate in Westminster Hall, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who inspired me to request it, by pointing out what the Government could do to reduce the negative impact of road noise in many constituencies, including mine.
Often, when we talk about new developments such as motorways and railways, people who object to them are accused of being nimbys—not in my back yard—and of not wanting the developments because they are not concerned about the national interest. However, the fact is that they are often concerned because they are not fully confident that the Government, of whatever political colour, will do all that they can to mitigate the effects of noise from roads, railways or other major infrastructure projects.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on securing this debate. I completely agree with him, and I re-emphasise how much the Government can do. In my constituency, the resurfacing four to five years ago of the M6 between junctions 12 and 13 greatly improved the lives of people living round and about who were plagued by the noise from the old surface.
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is not that the Government are unable to act or incapable of doing anything to improve the lives of people who live close or adjacent to motorways; they can have an enormous effect and make enormous improvements in people’s lives.
One of the key reasons for requesting this debate was the fact that road noise had once again been highlighted in my constituency, on the back of some very good and positive news: the announcement by Jaguar Land Rover that it is to build a major new engine factory on the i54 South Staffordshire industrial estate. That is fantastic news, because the new factory will bring many jobs and great prosperity, not just to my constituency, but to my hon. Friend’s constituency of Stafford and many others right across the west midlands. However, to secure the development, our local authorities—South Staffordshire district council and Staffordshire county council, working in conjunction with Wolverhampton city council—had to put money forward for a direct link between the i54 site and the M54.
Any such major construction project will have an effect on local residents, and in this case the residents of Coven Heath village adjacent to the motorway are particularly affected. Residents of not just Coven Heath but neighbouring villages up and down the M54 have raised many concerns about the impact a Jaguar Land Rover plant will have, with increased traffic movement from heavy goods vehicles and from the many people who will visit the site every day. That has focused many people’s minds on the inadequacies of the M54 and on the failure of many Governments in the past to take action to reduce the impact of noise on local communities.
I am not sure whether hon. Members have had the pleasure of driving along the M54 regularly, but perhaps I can tell them a bit about it. The Minister will probably correct me if I make a mistake, but I believe that the motorway was one of the first to use the construction method of concrete slabs. That was a revolutionary idea, and it became incredibly fashionable in motorway construction throughout the country, but unfortunately, as with many things that were fashionable in the 1970s, with the benefit of hindsight, the idea was not such a good one. Concrete construction causes excessive road noise, much more than the tarmacadam system used on many motorways, and the problem has been recognised often, including by the 1994 royal commission and the 1997 addition to that.
Road noise has a very detrimental effect on many people’s lives, and the Government have recognised both that and the need to reduce its impact on people living near motorways, as outlined in the Hansard list back in, I think, 2000 or 2001. It is my firm belief that the M54 meets the criteria of that list because the noise coming off it causes sufficient disturbance to the many communities not just in South Staffordshire but in Wolverhampton and across the county boundary into Shropshire.
When people leave the M6 and turn on to the M54, they immediately drive on a tarmacadam road until junction 2. Unfortunately, it is not a low-noise-impact surface, and as soon as they pass junction 2, there is a concrete slab construction all the way to Telford. We all know that rather than absorbing noise, concrete sends it out, causing local residents great concern.
I appreciate that finances are tight, and I do not imagine that the Minister has a bottomless pit of money—if he does, I am keen to hear about it—but I urge him to look at the issues on the M54, not just in connection with the Jaguar Land Rover development on the i54 site, which, I emphasise, all my constituents welcome. We do not stand in the way of progress in South Staffordshire; we embrace it and make it happen, as we have been doing with the development on the i54. However, we look to the Government to reduce the impact of such developments, and I ask the Minister to look very closely at junction 2 and the flyover that will be constructed from the i54 to the M54 and to reassure my constituents that the Government will do all they can to reduce the impact of noise, light and other pollution, including by ensuring that sound barriers are constructed.
Jeremy Lefroy
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way again. Does he agree that when the M6 managed motorway scheme that the Government recently announced, for which I am extremely grateful—I thank the Minister for his part in that—is being progressed, improving sound insulation, in particular between junctions 13 and 14, as the M6 passes right through the middle of Stafford, could be looked at, for the benefit of my residents who live right up against the motorway?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Where motorways cut through urban areas or pass close to communities, the Government should be duty bound to do everything within their power to reduce the impact. If they wish to cultivate a positive image of infrastructure improvements—that they need not have a detrimental effect on people’s lives—they should take every step to ensure that the effects are minimised at every level. I must confess that I would like the barriers, which my hon. Friend mentioned, to be in place from the start of the M6 all the way past Manchester, but I am unsure whether the Minister will give so generously of sound barriers. Local communities often demand them, and the Government should always do everything within their power to ensure that local communities get them. I particularly ask the Minister to ensure that such measures are put in place for junction 2 and the flyover, along with noise-reducing or whisper tarmac.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is so important to his constituents. It is typical of his approach that, having been at the forefront of the campaign to deliver the Jaguar Land Rover investment for his constituency, with colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), he now follows through to ensure that it happens in a way that benefits his constituents most effectively. In the Department for Transport’s forward spending plan, £310 million was taken out of resource funding for road resurfacing and management, but £150 million is being invested in capital spending. Is that capital spending not exactly the sort of spending that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) is calling for to improve the road and deliver a better quality of life for the constituency he so ably represents?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. He makes a valid point; there is a danger that the Department for Transport wants to spend all its money in the Chilterns, and we do not want that. We want to ensure that it goes to the west midlands and further afield. I hope that the Minister will assure us that some money will be spent on the M54 and many other such schemes in the west midlands.
I ask that the Minister assures my constituents that everything will be done to protect residents during the construction phase of the flyover, not only in Coven Heath, but much further afield, so that the impact of the Jaguar Land Rover plant and the i54 is minimised at all costs. Will he urgently look at the whole motorway, from the M6 to junction 2 onwards, to assure my constituents that low-noise, low-impact whisper tarmac will be used when the road surface is replaced, to ensure that they do not have to hear the roar of the M54? Will he ensure that we do not have the travesty of a concrete slab motorway surface all the way from junction 2 to Telford? Will it be properly surfaced with low-noise, low-impact tarmac, thus enhancing and improving the lives of many people, not only in my constituency, but along the length of the M54?
I hope that the Minister can assure me that the use of silent or low-noise tarmac along the whole motorway will be considered in the maintenance schedule. When will that be planned over the next few years? Those assurances will give my constituents hope that the Government will act to improve their quality of life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) will be pleased to know that roads are part of my portfolio, so I should be able to handle the debate slightly better than the previous one. I congratulate him on securing the debate and giving me the first opportunity to congratulate him on his work in getting Jaguar Land Rover to invest in his constituency. It is the sort of investment we desperately need.
With investment comes infrastructure issues, particularly in my Department. I am sure that all my hon. Friend’s constituents welcome the investment and the new jobs, but, interestingly, with that often comes enhancement—we could call that 106s, “planning bribes” or whatever we call them these days. As he knows better than me, there will be a lot of work on junction 2, which I will come on to in a moment. We have already moved in the debate from the whole length of the M6 to the Chilterns, so it is a shame that we have only another 15 minutes or so.
I assure my hon. Friends that investment in High Speed 2 has no effect on the money secured from the Treasury for road improvement and infrastructure. I had about £1.4 billion to spend on capital road infrastructure over the three years of the spending round and was then given just over £1 billion in the autumn statement, which is about £2.5 billion, give or take, over three years. We would not have dreamed of such investment when we entered coalition Government and inherited the financial mess 18 months ago, but the money has been found for good reasons—the biggest of which is that without infrastructure, we cannot have growth, and without growth we cannot get out of the financial mess we inherited.
My hon. Friend has done his homework correctly. There have been fads in construction over the years, and I say “fads”, because one minute something is the greatest piece of design technology we have ever seen and needs to be protected, and the next minute it is out of fashion and out of the way. There are two sides to concrete road construction. The upside is that such roads last for a very long time and do not wear out like flexible coverings—that is a technical term for tarmac. The bad news is that the concrete part of the M54 is unlikely to need resurfacing for 10 years. We will keep a close eye on it and ensure that, if it starts to deteriorate more quickly than that, we will address it immediately.
The downside to concrete is noise, and I freely admit that. It often depends on the type of tyre used on the vehicle. We have so far—touch wood—not had the worst winter, and my stockpiles of salt are doing remarkably well at the moment, but this time last year we had had a severe winter already. People—lorry drivers and hauliers—are starting to think about switching to the tyres that they use at other times of the year. That has a massive effect on noise. If people address the type of tyre they need for the environment they are working in, we will have fewer breakdowns and blockages, so it is a positive step. There have been fantastic developments in the tyre industry. In the old days, there would be a town tyre and a town and country tyre. There are much better developments now, but noise is an issue. No matter where I go in this great country of ours, road noise is an issue in every constituency, including mine.
Gavin Williamson
I would like clarification of the Minister’s remarks about when concrete-topped surfaces need repair. Will he confirm that when the road needs repair, it will not be repaired with more concrete but with a low-noise surface?
Mike Penning
There is a difference between repair and replacement. I cannot guarantee that that will be the case when the road is repaired—in other words, when potholes and so on are fixed—but what is needed to repair it will be done. I will come on to replacement in a moment.
We do not have a huge amount of concrete road, but a lot of local authority roads are concrete, and for maintenance, the longevity of the investment is an issue. My hon. Friend is right about the rest of the tarmac on the M54; low-noise surfacing, which reduces noise by about 50%, is not on that part of the motorway. I have never heard it called “whisper” tarmac, but developing that would be fantastic for everybody. The i54 development, with which he was involved, will lead to significant changes to junction 2 and the slip road, which I know the local authority has planned carefully. We will work with it to ensure that the project works for the local community and Jaguar Land Rover. I can categorically say that all the new parts of it will be low-noise.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was told by the European Commission—not many good things have come out of the Commission over the past few years, but this is one good thing—that it should do a noise survey of the whole country, including the road network. I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that this particular part of the M54 does not fit the criteria for being excessively noisy. That offers no comfort or solace to residents in his constituency, but think about how bad the problem is on the road network in other parts of the country. Interestingly, the A449 going north from junction 2 meets the criteria and will be resurfaced imminently with low-noise tarmac. It already needs replacing, but it is deemed to have a significant problem with noise.
That is nearly all the bad news. The tarmac on the M54 where the concrete stops is also in good condition. We do not predict that we will need to replace the tarmac on the M54 for approximately four years. Although there will be new tarmac on the new roads—new, low-noise tarmac on the A449—it will be a considerable time before the M54 concrete-tarmac is resurfaced. However, I assure my hon. Friend that, when that is done, low-noise tarmac will be used on the concrete as well as on the existing tarmac.
The solution might seem simple—as I have asked my officials, surely we can lay the tarmac on the concrete, because it provides a strong sub-base—but that is not the case. It will have to be broken up and created as a sub-base, and the tarmac will then have to be re-laid in great depth on top, because the product is flexible, not rigid. Wear can cause so many problems.
My hon. Friend has alluded to the debate that is taking place, rightly, in all our constituencies throughout the country. I hold up my hand—it is happening in my constituency, where I have had exactly the same discussions. I have to look at the money available for maintenance and for capital projects that will keep the country going, and I must spend that as wisely as possible. I do not have the bottomless pit of money to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and in many ways I am pleased that I do not, because it gives me the opportunity to study carefully where our money is being spent. That makes me popular in certain parts of the country. I am pleased that the M6 widening project will be popular. It will give us capacity, and road safety will be significantly enhanced.
As an ex-fireman, I was very sceptical about managed motorways, because they were taking away the hard shoulders. Then I thought back to my time in service. Where did I see the major, serious fatalities on a motorway? It was on the hard shoulder. One of the first incidents that I ever went to involved an ice cream van parked on the hard shoulder. It is not the most robust of vehicles, because of the chassis, engine and fibreglass on top. It had broken down, pulled over to the hard shoulder and been hit by a lorry. The driver thought he was safe. Fortunately, he had left the vehicle to walk to an SOS phone. The vehicle resembled a skateboard—we would never have known that it was an ice cream van. It had been completely wiped out. If people’s vehicles break down on the motorway, they should pull over to the hard shoulder and then get out and on to the other side of the barriers, which is where they will be safest. Modern technology on the motorways means that assistance should get to them quickly. SOS phones are available and mobile phones have enhanced safety enormously on our roads.
Managed motorways have rescue areas and sanctuaries that allow us to sweat the existing assets. We do not have to go through planning all over again, because the motorway has already been built and the hard shoulder is up to road standard. It is interesting that, while hard shoulders were built to road standard all those years ago, we are only starting to use them now. The M42 pilot project showed that it works and road safety on such roads has been enhanced. We can get more vehicles on and it is much easier to control the flow of congestion. If we look at the M42, we see that there are far fewer traffic jams and stationary traffic. I would much rather see traffic running at 40 or 50 mph than it being stationary before rushing off at 70 mph and having to stop again later.
I cannot promise to put up sound barriers all along the motorway. I have made a note—and my officials are present—to look specifically at junctions 13 and 14, as my hon. Friend has asked me to do, and I will write to him about that.
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being so generous in giving way again. I welcome his reassurance that low-noise, low-impact tar will be used across the whole stretch of the M54 when it is resurfaced. He has pointed out that the road between the M6 and junction 2 already has a tarmacadam, or flexible, surface. Can he give my constituents and me an idea of when the resurfacing will realistically happen? Will it happen in my lifetime or in my daughter’s lifetime? My top priority as a constituency Member of Parliament—I am being selfish; there are no Members from Shropshire present—would be from junction 2 to Telford and on to junction 3. When could that happen?
Mike Penning
It will be during my hon. Friend’s time as a constituency MP for his area—he is going to be there for a long time, because he is such a hard-working constituency MP. The time scale for the expected replacement of the tarmacadam part is four years from now. It may wear out slightly earlier than that, or—I am crossing my fingers—it may last a little longer. The longer it lasts, the more money we will have in the pot. I fully understand that that would be good news for my hon. Friend, and it would be good news for me regarding the budget. The faster it is replaced, the faster the low-noise tarmac will come in.
Sound screens will also be used and some are already up. They help, but they are not, under any circumstances, the answer to the problem. Mounding or bunding is another option—I know that that has been done in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Trees help, but they have to be placed at such depth. They have to be at about 10-plus metres before they can provide any tangible benefits. They look pretty, but if people stand on the other side of them—as I have done on many an occasion—they will see that they do not really help. We will put in sound-proofing, particularly wood-panel sound-proofing, where we can, but it is not feasible to do so across the motorway network and the A-road network.
We are looking at specific areas. On areas where we are doing new works in particular—this is why I touched on the M6—it is built into the project that we look at the issue. I am sure that that has happened with junctions 13 and 14, but please do not think that that is not also true of the A15, A16 and A17—we probably have done it. It is a massive advantage that, if we can sweat the assets, it leaves us some money elsewhere to do the sort of advanced projects to which my hon. Friend has alluded.
On the concept itself, the i54 project is so important not just to my hon. Friend’s constituency—I fully understand that—but to the country as a whole. It sends a message that this country is open for trading and investment. I was lucky to be on the Thames estuary when DP World announced a £1.5 billion investment in the newest port—it is huge—in the United Kingdom, just at the time when people were saying how difficult the situation was. Yes, the situation is difficult, but there are people who are willing to invest, and that will lock straight into the M25 and give us an opportunity.
Even though I have not said that this issue will be resolved imminently, works will be done soon in relation not only to the local authority and the i54 development, but to the A449. When the roads wear out, we will resurface them with low-noise tarmac. The estimated time is four years for the tarmac and 10 years for the concrete. I stress that the concrete is a major job and not something that can be done overnight, because the expense will be huge.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Regional Development Agencies (Closure)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)
The Public Bodies Act received Royal Assent on 14 December 2011, and includes parliamentary approval of powers to abolish eight regional development agencies (RDAs). The RDAs are expected to achieve operational closure by 31 March 2012 with formal abolition expected to occur at the end of June 2012.
Most of the RDA assets and projects which were not sold or closed have transferred to receiving bodies during 2011. This includes the majority of land and property assets to the Homes and Communities Agency, grants for research and development to the Technology Strategy Board and venture capital funds to be managed by Capital for Enterprise on behalf of BIS.
BIS issued individual transfer schemes for each RDA under the Public Bodies Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2012 and transferred the majority of the remaining projects and contracts as well as 13 staff from RDAs to BIS so that they can be managed to completion. The schemes and associated transfer schedules are available in the Libraries of both Houses.
I expect that there will be two further transfer schemes to move the last remaining assets, liabilities and obligations out of the RDAs prior to abolition. The first of these is expected in March with the second taking effect at the time of abolition.
The RDAs will produce accounts for the financial year 2011-12 and these will be laid in the Houses in the summer of 2012 in the usual way. The accounts for the period from 1 April 2012 to the date of abolition will be laid in due course.
Disabled Facilities Grant
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
Today the Department for Communities and Local Government is announcing the local authority allocations of the £20 million additional funding for the disabled facilities grant in England.
Local authorities are being informed of their individual allocations. Details of the amount awarded to each authority will be available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website and a table detailing the funds provided to individual authorities has been placed in the Library of the House.
The disabled facilities grant was protected within the spending review and additional funding is now being provided to help more people live as comfortably and independently as possible in their own homes through the provision of adaptations. This additional £20 million has been allocated to local authorities using a relative needs weighted index and all local authorities will receive some additional funding.
The grant provides financial assistance for a wide range of housing adaptations ranging from stair lifts, to level-access showers and home extensions. The disabled facilities grant is improving the lives of many disabled people and this additional funding is a further demonstration of our commitment to helping older and disabled people continue living in their homes for longer.
Armed Forces Redundancy Programme
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)
The Government announced in the outcome of the strategic defence and security review in October 2010 that, as part of moving to Future Force 2020, we would reduce the size of the Regular Army by 7,000 personnel, and both the naval service and Royal Air Force by 5,000 personnel. In addition, in order to balance the British Army’s regular and reserve forces, further reductions were subsequently identified to deliver a Regular Army of around 82,000 by 2020. We also made clear that, in order to maintain balanced force structures for the future, an element of these reductions would need to be made through a redundancy programme.
Our statement of 1 March 2011, Official Report, column 21WS, set out the process and timetable for the armed forces redundancy programme. Consequently, in September 2011, 2,860 service personnel were notified of their redundancy in the first tranche; 1,020 service personnel from the naval service, 920 from the Army and 920 from the Royal Air Force. Of those made redundant in tranche 1, some 1,770 (62%) had applied for selection.
Today the services are announcing the fields from which they will select personnel to be made redundant in the second tranche of the programme. This will comprise up to 300 members of the naval service, up to 2,900 members of the Army and up to 900 members of the Royal Air Force. This will be the last major tranche for the Navy and the Royal Air Force, who will be able to achieve the majority of the remaining draw-down by other means.
The same selection principles as used in the first tranche will be applied. The services will seek applicants, but will also consider all personnel that meet the published criteria. The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on the current operations in Afghanistan, and no one who is preparing for, deployed on, or recovering from specified operations on the day that redundancy notices are issued will be made redundant unless they have applied. Personnel who are assessed as being permanently below the level of fitness required to remain in the forces will not be considered for redundancy, and will instead leave through the medical discharge route at the appropriate stage in their recovery.
Throughout the redundancy process, we will ensure that we retain the capabilities that our armed forces require in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Puma ZA934 (Findings of Service Inquiry)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)
I wish to inform the House today of the findings of the service inquiry into the incident involving Puma ZA934 on 8 August 2007 at Catterick in which three service personnel tragically lost their lives and others on board were injured.
A service inquiry was convened to examine the cause of this incident and to make recommendations to prevent recurrence and this is now complete. The purpose of the service inquiry is to establish the circumstances of the loss and to learn lessons from it; it does not seek to apportion blame.
Puma ZA934 from 33 Squadron RAF Benson was conducting training at the Catterick training area. The Puma was carrying 12 personnel: three RAF crew, an Army officer and eight recruits undergoing basic training at the infantry training centre, Catterick.
The service inquiry found that at approximately 20.50 local time during the day’s final sortie, the Puma failed to recover from a tight turn and crashed into land to the west of the Catterick training area. Detailed analysis by the Royal Navy Flight Safety Incident and Investigation Centre suggests that the aircraft’s tail rotor guard that protrudes below the tail hit the ground first as the pilot attempted to regain height. This initial impact resulted in the tail being severed. The aircraft then lost rotational stability as the rotor blades made ground contact, causing the fuselage to rotate and flip several times, finally coming to rest having broken up considerably.
Following extensive investigation, the service inquiry concluded that the cause of the incident was an incorrectly executed manoeuvre which caused the aircraft to crash. Contributory factors that led to the incident included: the crew’s combined relative inexperience; the lack of robust crew supervision; human factors; manning shortfalls; the high operational task load placed upon 33 Squadron; and the reduced opportunity, because of this task load, for supervised consolidation and reinforcement training.
In addition to these findings, the then Commander Joint Helicopter Command (Rear Admiral Johnstone-Burt) also identified three additional contributory factors: the crew’s lack of adherence to checks; operating procedures; and their flight at below the authorised minimum level. In total, 29 recommendations were made covering aircraft handling, training, supervision, manning, organisation and equipment. Of these, 25 have already been implemented and the residual recommendations are in hand.
A copy of the service inquiry, redacted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, is being placed in the Library of the House and on the Ministry of Defence website.
Devolution
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)
The coalition programme for government includes a commitment to establish a commission to consider the “West Lothian question”. In my statement of 8 September 2011, Official Report, column 27WS, I gave some details of the forthcoming commission and undertook to return to the House with further detail including the terms of reference for the commission. This statement sets out the further detail.
The “Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons” will consist of a panel of six independent, non-partisan experts, chaired by Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of this House. The other five commission members, whose backgrounds are in law, academia and constitutional development in the UK and the EU, are: Sir Stephen Laws, Sir Geoffrey Bowman, Professor Charlie Jeffery, Professor Yvonne Galligan and Sir Emyr Jones Parry.
As I stated previously, the commission will focus on parliamentary business and procedure. The commission’s terms of reference are:
“To consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which affects only part of tine United Kingdom, following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.”
The commission will commence in February 2012 and will make its recommendations to the Government in the course of the next parliamentary session. This reporting time scale is necessary to ensure that the commission has time for proper scrutiny of all relevant options.
Late Night Drinking (Late Night Levy and Early Morning Restriction Orders)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Antisocial Behaviour Reduction (Lord Henley) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
A consultation on the secondary legislation for the late-night levy and early morning restriction orders has been launched today.
The late-night levy and early morning restriction orders (EMROs) are two alcohol measures in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. The extension of EMROs will allow local councils to restrict the sale of alcohol in their local area flexibly between 12 am and 6 am. This is a tool that licensing authorities can use to prevent problems in the night-time economy in either a part or the whole of their area. The late-night levy will fulfil our commitment to allow councils to levy a charge from those selling alcohol late at night in their area to help contribute towards high policing costs in the late-night economy. Again, it can be applied flexibly between 12 am and 6 am. These measures will empower local communities to act to achieve a more viable night-time economy.
The “Dealing with the Problems of Late Night Drinking” consultation is an opportunity for licensing authorities, the licensed trade and its representatives, police officers and the public to share their views on the details of the regulations that will implement these policies. In particular, it asks for views on what categories of premises should benefit from exemptions and reductions under the measures, with the intention to avoid penalising premises that are not part of the wider late-night economy.
Copies of the consultation will be placed in the House Library and it is also available on the Home Office website.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (UK Delegation)
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) have been appointed as full members of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in place of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who become substitute members.
Lord Anderson has been appointed as a full member in place of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who becomes a substitute member.
Lord Ahmad and Baroness Eaton have been appointed as substitute members in place of Lord Glentoran and Lord Inglewood.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) has been appointed as a substitute member in place of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).
Civil Aviation Authority Environmental Objectives
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
When the CAA is exercising its air navigation functions it is required under the Transport Act 2000 to take account of environmental guidance given to it by the Secretary of State. The current guidance was issued in 2002 by the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
The CAA has been able to take account of the guidance to make decisions on over 70 proposals for airspace change over the last nine years. The guidance recommends that the CAA keeps abreast of current Government policy including on planning, sustainable development and noise as well as guidance issued by the devolved Administrations.
Given the length of time since the guidance was published, and the recommendations of Sir Joseph Pilling in his July 2008 strategic review of the CAA and the Transport Select Committee in its 2009 report on the use of airspace, the Government recognise the need to update the guidance to reflect current Government policy, including on issues such as noise and climate change. This will be done next year following development of the “Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation” and will include a public consultation so that all views can be heard on this important subject.
In the interim the Department for Transport is publishing today a technical addendum to the guidance. The addendum updates references and lists relevant policy documents and legislation published since 2002 that the CAA takes into account when considering airspace change proposals.
Plug-In Car Grant Review
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)
I am pleased to announce the launch of a plug-in van grant alongside the continuation of the existing plug-in car grant to help stimulate the market for ultra-low emission vehicles. The plug-in van grant, available to both private and business buyers across the UK, will provide a point of purchase discount of 20%, up to a maximum value of £8,000, for the purchase of eligible new ultra-low emission vans1.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and I have reviewed the existing plug-in car grant, which provides a discount of 25%, up to £5,000 off the price of eligible ultra-low emission cars. We examined the need for and value of the grant, as well as its scope. We have concluded that there remains a strong case for the grant. We have therefore decided to continue with the plug-in car grant at the current level, with provision out to 2015.
In addition, we are persuaded that there is a strong case for supporting ultra-low emission technology in vans—which often have fixed duty cycles and return to base regularly where they can easily recharge. An up-front purchase grant, when combined with the lower running costs and tax benefits, can make switching to an ultra-low emission van an attractive choice for businesses. The plug-in van grant, alongside the existing plug-in car grant, is designed to help private individuals and businesses adopt new, cleaner technology. Businesses, especially those with fleets, will be a key driver in increasing the market share of ultra-low emission vehicles.
The shift towards clean technology is an opportunity to reinvigorate further the UK automotive industry, where many van manufacturers are based, alongside helping to increase our energy security. The plug-in van grant will help to improve local air quality in our cities, reduce carbon emissions and meet Government targets. The technology fits well with a large portion of the van market that relies on short urban trips to and from base.
Only vans which meet strict performance criteria for range, tail-pipe emissions and safety will be eligible for the plug-in van grant. We are today opening the application process and inviting van manufacturers to apply for their vehicles to become part of the scheme. To be considered in the first tranche, applications will need to be received by 31 January. I look forward to confirming very shortly thereafter the first vans to join the scheme.
1 Subject to state aid approval from the European Commission.
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 Pitkeathley)
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 Motions to approve the instruments will subsequently be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. I further remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Republic of Korea Framework Agreement) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Republic of Korea Framework Agreement) Order 2012
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the framework agreement itself was negotiated in parallel with the EU-Republic of Korea free trade agreement, debated in this Room yesterday, which was signed on 6 October 2010. The agreement provides a structure aimed at strengthening the co-operation of the European Union and its member states with the Republic of Korea in a number of fields. These fields include justice, freedom and security, as well as good governance and taxation. The agreement will also allow for further engagement on global issues such as climate change, security of energy supply and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The agreement gives us another tool through which to discuss and work on important issues with a key ally in the east Asia region. The Republic of Korea is the fourth largest economy in Asia, and growing fast; it will be the 10th largest driver of world growth over the next five years. The Republic of Korea is also an important international player, with troops in Afghanistan and ships in the Indian Ocean off Africa tackling piracy. It is also a fellow leader on green issues. Its partner of choice has so far been the United States, but we hope that the framework agreement will give the EU an opportunity to increase engagement in many of these fields and will therefore contribute to the better implementation of UK objectives in relation to the Republic of Korea. The EU delegation in Seoul is currently in negotiations with the Republic of Korea on what areas of co-operation to prioritise and how best to take this forward.
Her Majesty's Government fully support this agreement. We firmly believe that it will help to enhance and strengthen the relationship between the EU and the Republic of Korea. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the background to this order ready for affirmative resolution and following yesterday’s proceedings on the trade agreement with the Republic of Korea. That, too, is a very important document, with its contents at an early stage; it remains to be seen how that will work out in the build-up of trade between ourselves and the Republic of Korea. This instrument is one of the accompaniments that the EU and its allies and other countries with which we are doing deals like this rightly require. The international practice now is to have agreements along these lines: a framework agreement alongside a trade agreement dealing with all the other matters that the Minister has listed, which are extremely important from the point of view of good governance and civil society being properly looked after in the countries that are parties to this agreement. In this case, that means the member states of the EU and the Republic of Korea. Obviously, right now there is bound to be a certain amount of tension, at least in the margin, because of events in North Korea and the relationship and heightened tension between the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. One hopes that will not have any deleterious effect on the trade agreement that we discussed yesterday or on this agreement.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is a great expert on Korea. He is particularly knowledgeable about South Korea—and, indeed, North Korea—and I would presumptuously guess that he may want to say a number of things about these matters. I will listen with great interest, but with some trepidation. I apologise in advance in case we find our proceedings go on a bit because I am due at a Select Committee where a Minister is attending at 4.10 pm. Therefore, if I depart prematurely, which I would certainly not wish to do because it would be very discourteous on my part, I can none the less rely on my noble friend Lady Maddock to keep me abreast of the developments in the rest of the discussion, and I shall look very closely at Hansard.
On behalf of the other part of the coalition today and in support of the Minister, I express support for this agreement.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, the Minister said at the outset of his remarks that we should attach great importance to our relationship with the Republic of Korea, our key ally in east Asia; I entirely concur. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested that I am an expert on Korean issues, which is an exaggeration. So far as North Korea is concerned, the only thing predictable about it is its unpredictability. I do not claim great expertise, but I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, which I founded along with my noble friend Lady Cox seven years ago following our first visit there.
I was struck by paragraph 7.2 of the memorandum to the statutory instrument, which lists “Justice, Freedom and Security” and suggests that these might involve,
“(e.g. combating organised crime and corruption, drugs and money laundering, migration, protection of personal data) as well as on good governance, and taxation”.
It goes on to talk about what the agreement will allow engagement over:
“issues such as climate change; security of energy supply; approaches to labour issues; education and other issues relating to structural change in the world economy; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; counter terrorism; and a shared understanding on the need to prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community”.
I do not take exception to any of those; indeed, I shall return to three or four examples in the list with some brief questions to the Minister in a moment or two. However, I am surprised that there is no reference to the relationship between North Korea and the European Union—and between it and ourselves. We have had diplomatic relations for over a decade now with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The lack of such a reference seems strange, as does the lack of a reference to human rights in that list.
Looking at the issue from the international perspective, one of the errors in how we have conducted relations is that we have emphasised security questions a great deal—properly so, given that North Korea embarked on the development of weapons of mass destruction—but failed to run in parallel questions of human rights. This is not a criticism of Her Majesty’s Government—quite the opposite. I was struck that Amnesty International reported on 10 January that, to mark the birthday of the two late leaders in North Korea, Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, an amnesty had been declared for the release of prisoners there. If the Minister has any information on that, I would be grateful if he will let us know whether that is so, how many prisoners might be involved, and whether he sees it as a glimmer of hope in the international situation. If he does not have that information today, I would be grateful if he wrote to me in due course.
I have long argued that we have not really learnt the lesson of history that in the period of the Soviet Union, we understandably matched weapons of mass destruction—the SS-20s and SS-22s of the Soviet Union—with our cruise and Pershing missiles. Simultaneously, Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister and Ronald Reagan as President of the United States at the time embarked on support for the Helsinki Accords, promoting human rights issues alongside and in parallel with security questions. That was the reason we saw the Berlin Wall crumble, and it will be the reason—maybe not tomorrow, but in time to come—that the 38th parallel, which divides the Korean peninsula, disappears as well.
The importance of human rights in North Korea should not be underestimated. In a leader 18 months ago entitled “Slave state”, the Times said:
“The condition of the people of North Korea ranks among the great tragedies of the past century. The despotism that consigns them to that state is one of its greatest crimes”.
It was in this Room—the Moses Room—that I chaired meetings of the all-party group where we took evidence on several occasions from people who had escaped from North Korea. I will give only one example to the Committee this afternoon: a witness called Ahn Myeong-cheol, aged 37, who worked as a prison guard at four political prison camps within what is called the absolute control zone between 1987 and 1994. He movingly described in this Room how his father killed himself when he realised that he had been heard criticising the regime. His mother and brothers were sent to prison camps. Ahn was re-educated and became a prison guard in that so-called absolute control zone. He vividly and harrowingly described how he witnessed guard dogs, imported from Russia, tear three children to pieces and how the camp warden congratulated the guard who trained the dogs. He said that even when prisoners died they were punished; their corpses and remains were simply left to disintegrate and rot away on the open ground.
I also chaired a meeting for Professor Vitit Muntarbhorn, who was the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and who, along with his successor Mr Darusman, the former Indonesian Attorney-General, was denied any access to North Korea. In this House, speaking to the all-party group, Vitit Muntarbhorn said that he estimated that 400,000 people had died in North Korea’s prison camps in the past 30 years. He said that its human rights record was “abysmal” due to,
“the repressive nature of the power base, at once cloistered, controlled and callous”,
and that,
“The exploitation of … ordinary people … has become the pernicious prerogative of the ruling elite”.
All eight of his reports which went to the United Nations have detailed a very grave situation in which the abuses are “both systematic and pervasive”, and “egregious and endemic”. Vitit Muntarbhorn has concluded:
“It is incumbent upon the national authorities and the international community to address the impunity factor which has enabled such violations to exist and/or persist for a very long time”.
He estimates that some 300,000 people have fled the country, many of whom are, of course, living in north-east China while others have managed to migrate to South Korea. There is a brilliant book called Nothing to Envy, written by Barbara Demick, which records many of the first-hand accounts of those who have been able to escape.
Here at Westminster, I chaired the launch of a 142-page report commissioned by the late Vaclav Havel, Elie Weisel, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Kjell Magne Bondevik, the former Norwegian Prime Minister, entitled Failure to Protect: A Call for the UN Security Council to Act in North Korea. What they were arguing in that report was for the need for the international community to take human rights issues every bit as seriously as issues concerning security. Only a week ago in another place, in a Westminster Hall debate, the honourable Member for Congleton, Mrs Fiona Bruce, along with Mr Gary Streeter, the Member of Parliament who is the vice-chairman of the all- party parliamentary group, initiated a debate where Members from all sides spoke of their concerns about human rights and humanitarian questions. I commend the Hansard of that debate to your Lordships.
A few weeks ago in this House, I chaired a meeting for Shin Dong-hyuk, who is aged 26 and was born in prison camp 14. He spent the first 23 years of his life in that camp. I am glad to see that the noble Lords, Lord Edmiston and Lord Grocott, who have taken a close interest in this issue, are present in the Committee. They have had the chance to meet some of those who I have referred to. Shin Dong-hyuk was forced to work for 11 years from the age of 10 and was forced to watch as his mother and brother were executed. During his visit here, he met the Lord Speaker and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has a book which will be published in March, entitled Escape from Camp 14. It is precisely people such as Shin Dong-hyuk whom we should be investing in for the future. They are tomorrow's leaders. He does not have a hatred of the leadership of North Korea; he has a hatred of the ideology. He wants his country to change and to reform just as the Republic of Korea did. That was, after all, a military dictatorship, but under the extraordinarily brave and enlightened leadership of Kim Dae-jung it embarked on the sunshine policy and reformed itself, so I hope that we will see North Korea change as well.
In addition to asking the Minister directly about human rights, the importance that we attach to it and why it does not appear in the list of our concerns on the face of the paper, I have four brief questions for him. On energy supply, it was announced in September that Russian natural gas would be pumped into South Korea via a pipeline that would straddle the whole of North Korea. At present, the £520 billion South Korean economy imports about 96 per cent of its energy, 80 per cent from the Middle East. Clearly, it does not want—any more than this country would want—to be entirely reliant on that source. What will be the payment for that energy coming into South Korea? How will that sit with the sanctions that we have imposed on nuclear proliferation—the security questions that I know are close to the heart of the Minister?
Secondly, I would like to ask about Kaesong. One of the most hopeful developments in recent years was the development eight years ago of the Kaesong industrial zone, which is about six miles north of the demilitarised zone inside North Korea. Some 48,000 North Korean workers work there in 123 different companies. This earns, it is said, around $50 million a year for North Korea. The aim is to develop Kaesong so that one day it will have some 700,000 employees. In the context of the employment and trade implications of the order before us today, what is Her Majesty's Government's position on the exploitation of labour and the use of cheap and possibly slave labour? The average wage for a North Korean working in Kaesong is about £67 per person per month, and a lot of that money has to then be handed over to the state. Is this a question that we are pursuing in the context of the cheap labour and cheap produce that could then be exported as a result of these orders to the European Union?
Thirdly, I want to ask about education. On 15 February, an extraordinary man called Dr James Kim will be in your Lordships' House speaking at the all-party group. As a young man, James Kim fought on the side of the South Koreans. He lied about his age in order to get into the army. He was one of only 17 who survived in a unit of 800 men. At the end of the war, he said that he would one day try to do something to bring peace and reconciliation to the Korean peninsula. For his trouble, 60 years later, having gone to North Korea, he was arrested as a spy and sentenced to death. He said, “I have come here to give you everything, so you might as well have my body and use it for experimental purposes”. He wrote his last will and testament and said to the United States, where he also has citizenship, “There should be no revenge because I came here as an act of love”. He was ultimately deported and a year later was allowed to return to North Korea where he was able to embark on the building of the first ever international public-private university. I was privileged to visit it a year ago at its opening with my noble friend Lady Cox.
Dr Kim raised £18 million for this extraordinary initiative as a result of Her Majesty's Government creating diplomatic relations with North Korea 10 years ago when the then Prime Minister Tony Blair overruled his Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and decided that the war was over, which is something that the United States has still not done, merely the armistice that still stands, which was signed in 1953. We ended the war and created diplomatic relations. One of the great fruits of that has been that the English language is now the official second language of the country. It is the language used at Pyongyang University of Science and Technology to teach about 600 students. Is there more that we can do to promote education as a reforming tool? It is a transformative experience. It is the chief thing that will change North Korea in the long term, and we should be very pleased from the point of view of British trade and commerce that English is so widely taught and used there.
I also congratulate the Government on supporting the creation of the first two Chevening scholarships, which started in this academic term at Cambridge University, giving young people the chance to come to the United Kingdom to learn English-language skills on brief courses. It is impossible to come to a country such as this and not be challenged by our liberties, our freedoms and our democracy—the things that we prize. Just as we saw in the former Soviet Union, perestroika and glasnost bring about change, mainly as a result of interaction. Surely the same thing can happen in North Korea.
Finally, I turn to security and weapons of mass destruction. Following the sinking of the South Korean corvette “Cheonan”, when 46 people died, and the bombing of a South Korean island, it is quite clear that there was a very serious deterioration in relations between North Korea and South Korea. Many of us fear that it will be not a deliberate act but a Sarajevo moment that will lead to a conflagration that could lead to the loss of some 3 million lives, because that is how many died in the Korean War. We often forget that in addition to the 2.5 million Koreans who died, there were 500,000 others: Chinese, Americans and 1,000 British servicemen—that is more British servicemen than died in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands combined. We must do all we possibly can to ensure that there is not a repetition of history.
I wonder whether the tools in this order can be used to facilitate a Beijing peace conference because China clearly has the key role in trying to broker some way forward. I also believe that Her Majesty's Government can build on their successes in constructive critical engagement and can work with our European partners to create more constructive engagement, not least with the military. Surely with the octogenarian leadership of the Politburo, the nomenklatura and the military, there are opportunities for us to build relations with some of those who lead the military by welcoming them to the United Kingdom, taking them to places such as Sandhurst and opening dialogue to see whether we can help a country that has 1 million men under arms—it is the world’s fourth largest standing army—to put its resources into building peace instead and into doing something about the humanitarian needs of a country where 2 million people died in the famine in the 1990s and where our previous ambassador, the admirable Peter Hughes, said that he had seen examples of malnutrition reappearing on the streets.
With the news from Burma of significant change, the release of political prisoners and a coming in from the cold, surely it is not too much to hope that we might see something similar happen in North Korea. There have been changes in China. Those of us who visited China 40 years ago, as I did, and visited underground churches and saw human rights violations have seen extraordinary change and reform. China is not there yet on some of the human rights issues, but the social and economic changes make it one of the most exciting places on earth. Anyone who has the privilege of travelling to South Korea can see the possibilities for the north if only change could come.
Building on the report that my noble friend Lady Cox and I published when we returned last year Building Bridges not Walls, I commend this order, but I ask the Minister to dwell on some of the points that I have raised today and consider whether we cannot place more emphasis on the importance of raising human rights considerations as we embark on more constructive and critical engagement.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I express the Opposition’s support for the approval of this statutory instrument. One of the real privileges of becoming a Member of the House of Lords, which I did last year, is to listen to people such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who have expertise, wisdom and judgment to offer on things that one knows very little about. I hope that the points that he has raised today, although they are tangential to the thrust of the EU framework agreement, will be taken very seriously and that we will have further opportunities to debate the position in North Korea, about which he spoke so movingly. I thank him on behalf of the Opposition for his work there.
The agreement itself is what they call in EU jargon a strategic partnership, and it is one that is directly linked to the conclusion of the free trade agreement in 2010 between the EU and the Republic of Korea, which I think Europe took about a year to ratify from when it was actually signed. That was not bad when one looks at the position in relation to the United States and its free trade agreements with Korea, which are deeply enmeshed in the problems in the US Congress. Perhaps many people in Britain forget that the EU can be effective and that it still is an important pole of attraction for a very rapidly growing country like the Republic of Korea. The deal on the free trade agreement with the accompanying strategic partnership was negotiated in two years. It arose out of the global initiative that my noble friend Lord Mandelson launched when he was trade commissioner which, given the difficulties of completing the Doha round, was a switch away to bilateral trading agreements with our major trading partners.
The Republic of Korea is extremely significant for us in economic terms. It is the most important trading partner for Europe behind the United States, Japan and China. I discovered that fact when I was Googling away before the debate, but it is a remarkable fact none the less. We on this side welcome the deepening of relations with the Republic of Korea. We think it is right that a trade agreement should have a parallel political agreement, as it were, which sets out a broad range of areas for co-operation and dialogue and we very much wish that co-operation and dialogue to be effective. I am sure that this agreement will play an important role in deepening relationships between Europe and the Republic of Korea, which I hope will assist in a solution being found to the terrible problems that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, described in North Korea. I support the approval of this statutory instrument.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I happily yield to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, as an expert in EU jargon. It is a very erudite subject with which we have both struggled for many years. I feel I am slightly in the same position as I was in last night, when being asked to defend Britain's approach to the OSCE, to which the answer is: we are not entirely sure how this works or what its potential is, but we think it is worth doing. The framework agreements are a new element in EU relations with other countries beyond the European region. They have very wide potential, including on human rights, and provide a formal structure for member states collectively to raise such issues.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his, as always, fascinating and well-informed speech. While nothing in this framework agreement specifically refers to North Korea, relations with North Korea are of course always likely to be an important part of the agenda when we discuss political and human rights issues with our Korean colleagues. All those of us who have been to Seoul know that when you are in Seoul you feel close to the border. The sense of insecurity is not that much less than it used to be when one visited Berlin during the Cold War, so one cannot get away from the North Korean dimension in this relationship. The absence of specific reference to North Korea or to human rights in the framework agreement does not imply that these are outside its structure.
The noble Lord asked a number of specific questions, including one about information on the news of a potential North Korean amnesty for political prisoners. I will inquire further within the Foreign Office and report back. Although I am fully briefed on what is happening in southern Sudan, Kenya, Somalia and Iran, as one jumps from one country to another I have unfortunately not kept up with exactly what is happening in North Korea.
There are problems in developing among the EU 27 a common position on North Korea. Smaller EU member states see North Korea as a distant country, even further away from Europe than Burma. We are therefore talking about the larger EU member states attempting to reconcile their positions, which fits in with their relations with China and their position on nuclear proliferation. Finding common EU positions on distant problems with which not all the smaller member states are directly concerned is not always easy.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Can the Minister tell us about the position of France? As I recall, France does not even have diplomatic relations with North Korea and since it is not one of the smaller member states, getting a common position would be a pretty good start.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I will ensure that I give the noble Lord a more expert reply on the French position than I could off the cuff. As he remarked, the British took a very balanced decision to reopen relations with North Korea. The Americans and the French did not support it at the time. I think that most of us here think that it was worth doing, in spite of the intense difficulties which our representatives have often had in North Korea since then. We therefore have an advantage over some of our EU colleagues in having a more direct understanding of what is going on in the country.
I will also need to come back to the noble Lord on questions of energy supply. I thank him for the information on the proposals for a direct pipeline and I appreciate its implications. Similarly, in the case of the industrial zone, I am tempted to say that the import into Britain of goods which are partly put together in extremely poorly paid factories and then assembled in higher wage countries is, as we all know, not unique to relations between South Korea and North Korea.
On education, I have heard some fascinating stuff before from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the university of which he spoke. We are doing our best to provide some support there. It is a very interesting experiment and is one of the things which suggest that chinks of light are possibly opening up. At this precise moment, with a change in leadership in North Korea, it is difficult for any of us to read exactly how the situation is going to develop. We have to follow what is happening, to intervene when we think that we can make a difference—as we are beginning to do on the educational front—and to see how much more we can manage. The Government share his concerns about the possibility of a local incident moving up the escalation ladder into accidental war. We are all concerned about that, and not only between North Korea and the Republic of Korea. Although not within this framework agreement, it is absolutely part of the multilateral diplomatic process on North Korea—which includes the Chinese, the Americans and others—to try to build those contacts and confidence-building measures which will prevent such an escalation happening.
The comparisons with Burma are not exact. North Korea has remained much more closed than Burma, even through the worst points of the Burmese military Government. We can hope for similar shifts with North Korea but it will take longer and it is much more difficult, precisely because North Korea has been so much more cut off from the world. This framework agreement offers us the prospect to widen the relationship with Korea. We will be pursuing this through a whole range of activities.
Perhaps I may be allowed on a personal note to remark that some noble Lords may not be aware that the Korean parliamentary choir will be coming to sing with the British parliamentary choir and has invited the British parliamentary choir to go out and sing in Seoul in exchange. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the language point. We are singing Mendelssohn with them and the Korean parliamentary choir has insisted that we sing it in the original German and not in English. I am glad to hear that it is particularly correct in this way.
I conclude by reassuring noble Lords that the Government believe our European partners and Europe institutionally have a role to play in strengthening co-operation between Britain and the Republic of Korea. This agreement will allow for more work to be done in expanding a long-term relationship on a number of very important issues such as the promotion of human rights, international peace and security, energy and climate change, on which the Koreans are particularly active, and global economic co-operation.
Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the Local Authorities (Conduct of Referendums) (England) Regulations 2012 provide for the conduct of referendums in relation to whether a county council, district council or London borough council should change its existing governance arrangements to different—executive or non-executive— governance arrangements. These regulations replace the 2007 Conduct of Referendum Regulations. In large measure, they replicate the 2007 provisions with which councils and their returning officers are familiar. These are the basic rules for the conduct of any governance referendum.
In addition, as necessary these regulations update the 2007 provisions. They do this particularly to reflect the changes that the Localism Act is making to local governance. In essence, the Localism Act 2011 implements the Government’s policy of extending the governance options available to local authorities by adding the committee system to the existing executive models set out in the Local Government Act 2000. It will therefore now be open to local authorities to operate one of the following governance models: the mayor and cabinet executive; the leader and cabinet executive (England); the committee system; or prescribed arrangements—that is, prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.
Part 1A of the 2000 Act as inserted by Schedule 2 to the Localism Act, provides for local people to have a say on the governance model adopted by their local authority via a referendum in certain circumstances. The result of such a referendum is binding on the local authority concerned. There are four circumstances under which a local authority would hold a referendum on its governance arrangements. They are where one is triggered by a petition signed by local people; where the authority itself chooses to hold a referendum; where an authority wishes to move away from a governance model that was approved by way of a referendum; or where an authority is required by order to do so. It is this final situation that we will come on to debate later, when an authority is required by law to hold a referendum on whether it should adopt the mayor and cabinet executive. If Parliament approves these regulations and the orders, the mayoral referendums will be held under the rules set out in the regulations.
Noble Lords will see that these regulations reflect the changes provided for in the Localism Act. That is, they provide for the inclusion of questions about whether a local authority should adopt the committee system and whether a local authority, specified in an order made under Section 9N of the 2000 Act, should adopt the mayor and cabinet executive, the orders made under Section 9N of the 2000 Act being those orders that we are debating today.
In addition, these regulations update the 2007 provisions in four further ways. First, they remove references to the now abolished mayor and council manager model. Secondly, on the basis of advice and expertise of the Electoral Commission, they update and improve the questions to be asked in a governance referendum, set out in Schedule 1, and the ballot papers in Schedules 3 and 5. In consulting on the questions set out in Schedule 1 to be asked at governance referendums, the questions were sent to the Electoral Commission, which undertook public consultation on the questions and ballot papers. As a result of the consultation, the Government have adopted the referendum questions and the form of ballot papers as recommended by the commission; these are the questions that are included in Schedule 1 of the regulations. A report setting out the views expressed by the commission on the questions has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.
Thirdly, these regulations remove the unnecessary prescription in relation to how local authorities publicise information about referendums; for instance, the date of the referendum and the question to be asked. For example, under the 2007 regulations, local authorities are currently required to publish such information in one or more local newspapers. However, under these regulations, it will be for each local authority to decide the best method for ensuring that this information is brought to the attention of people living in its area—a change which, I am sure noble Lords will agree, brings these regulations further into line with the Government’s localism agenda.
Finally, provision has been made at Regulation 10 to add the election of a police and crime commissioner, under Sections 50 or 51 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act to the list of elections with which a poll at a governance referendum may be required to be combined.
In short, these new regulations will put in place the rules needed for ensuring effective administration of referendums in which the electorate can have confidence. They follow a well tried practice, simply updated for today’s circumstances. The referendum questions are as recommended by the Electoral Commission. I am confident that these regulations will ensure efficient and effective administration of any referendum. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, this is the first time that I have attended the Moses Room to speak about the idea of an elected mayor in Birmingham, which has been around for a long time. I have come to support the order. I have always taken the view that the opportunity to have an elected mayor should have been taken at least a decade ago. Therefore, I hope that the referendum is successful. To that extent, I hope that there is a large majority for an elected mayor and a very high turnout among the citizens of Birmingham. I do not think that we want to get into the argument of having a small majority on a low turnout, which would be a disaster, simply because the result is binding—a one-vote majority and that is it. That is the same as we had with the AV referendum earlier this year. I can recite all that.
The idea of an elected mayor is a good one, and I hope that the citizens of Birmingham, of which I am no longer one, embrace it. My home in the West Midlands is in Shropshire, not Birmingham. The idea of bringing about a different form of leadership and partnership in local government is long overdue, particularly in the West Midlands and the West Midlands conurbation. I have travelled around the country as a Member of the other place and a Minister for 12 years, and one notices the difference in attitude in co-operation. I cite in particular the difference between the Greater Manchester group of authorities and the West Midlands group of authorities. There is much more partnership and effective leadership in the Greater Manchester set of authorities than there is in the West Midlands. I think that they work together in a much more collegiate way, to the benefit of their citizens. The trigger for change in some attitudes would be the mayoral referendum for Birmingham. I accept that Coventry is also on the list, so I am not arguing one way or the other, but I think it will create a new style of leadership for the citizens of Birmingham and that that will spill over into the West Midlands.
Depending on the referendum—I hope it will be successful—there will be a contest. I shall certainly not go into personalities here, but I know that the issue has always been who can be the mayor. Being mayor of a big city is a 24/7 job. I think the Mayor of London will testify to that, although I have not discussed it with him. It is clearly a 24/7 job. It is not a job for celebs who are not used to public service. I realise that there are some great American examples of successful celebs, such as Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Clint Eastwood, but we do not have those people in Birmingham. I want to make it absolutely clear that neither do I think it is a job for has-been politicians. There has to be a way for people from outside the normal mainstream to do public service, but not celebs.
People have to be very wary about what is being offered. It is a mayor for the city; it is not a mayor for the council and it is not a mayor for council workers; it is a mayor for the citizens of Birmingham. That is a big distinction and I think it is a great opportunity. I have never spoken on this issue, which has been mooted for many years, but I regret that when the Labour Party was the majority party in Birmingham it did not grab the idea with both hands when the opportunity came along. Councillors did not want to do it. In fact, I regret the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition that has ruled Birmingham for eight or nine years now. It did not take the opportunity and it could have done this.
I am very pleased by the views of the Secretary of State in taking this action. I am also pleased about the way in which it has been done in the large cities. This is not picking on people. Take the 12 largest cities. I fully accept the issue relating to Sunderland. Of course, Leicester gave a lead on the matter by deciding it earlier. I think Birmingham, as the largest city in England, should have given a lead on this. It has some unique features which I think will be enhanced with the different form of local government that will come out of this. I give my support to the referendum and I hope it is a big success. I emphasise that I hope there is a large majority. I know that some people will want to oppose it, but the citizens of Birmingham need to know that if they want a new future and a new way of running the city, they have to come out and vote in support of it on 3 May. I give the order my support.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, my noble friend and I have worked together for many years and most of the time we agree. To the extent that this order frees certain models for local people to determine, I am totally in favour of it. Given the different personalities, different commitments and different people at local level, the people should be able to choose. However, I cannot believe that it is right for us in Westminster to determine this at a time when local authorities are facing very difficult circumstances with regard to care for the elderly at home and other local government services.
The Minister knows that I have great respect for her experience in local government, although, as with my noble friend Lord Rooker, we do not always agree. I find it hard to understand why we should tell people that they must spend money on a referendum. It is perfectly open to individuals and parties running at local level, to represent their local community, to present as part of their manifesto a commitment to local people that there should be a referendum—that they would like to see one. However, I am deeply saddened that, when there is a small easement over the “Westminster knows best” model, alongside it this afternoon is not “you may” but “you will” or “you must”. I cannot agree with that.
We have seen it with the police commissioners. I spend a lot of time meeting people in my community who are deeply disturbed about money being spent by order from Westminster on certain things at the expense of other things that people have developed in their locality and hold dear. I am deeply distressed that we are telling people that they must spend money on a referendum.
Baroness Maddock
My Lords, over the years I have served on three councils, all very different, and I certainly came to prefer what we all in local government call the old committee system. I do not think that I have changed my mind on that. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I welcome even more encouragement and allowance for people to have the committee system. The last council I served on was abolished by her and her party; we were a small council able to operate the committee system. Indeed, I played a part in this House when small councils were allowed to carry on the committee system under earlier legislation, so I welcome that part of the regulations.
I also welcome the fact that local authorities will be able to choose how they give information to people. That said, I have a worry. I know that all the people in this Room have been involved in these matters over a number of years; we all know the ins and outs; we know how some of these things work. However, as fewer and fewer people have voted in local elections, it seems that fewer and fewer people understand the system. I worry that we will have referendums—maybe not with very good turnouts, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said—because people are not very engaged with these issues at the moment. Therefore, although I welcome the fact that local authorities will be able to do their own thing, I hope that they will up their game in trying to make sure that, if these things are happening, people are at least involved and the decisions are proper decisions of local people.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I have never been a great fan of elected mayors. However, at least we are asking local people—it will be their decision. My big worry is that turnout will be low because people are not engaged.
I have a question about process. Part of these regulations allows local authorities to hold elections for police commissioners at the same time. Obviously, trying not to have too many elections at the same time is a good thing. I would not have thought that electing a mayor at the same time as a police commissioner was particularly a good thing, but I am not sure whether that is what is happening. If I understand things correctly, the first elections for police commissioners will be this autumn, which is not when we normally have local elections—you might have some by-elections; then I could understand that happening. Because I have not followed things very clearly, I am not clear whether the police commissioners have a fixed term or whether that can be changed at some point so that your mayor could be elected at the same time as councillors. It may be my fault for not having followed the legislation, but I would be grateful for some clarification on that.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I had not intended to speak until the later debate on the individual orders, but as this has become almost a mini Second Reading debate on the merits of mayors, I feel I must chip in because, like my noble friend Lady Farrington, it is rare for me to find myself disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Rooker, but I do so strongly on this issue. If his wishes could come true, I might be persuaded to change my mind at some stage. I think his two hopes were that there would be a large majority in the referendum, when it came up, for whatever decision it was going to reach, and that we would be spared a kind of beauty contest between celebrities. I think that the evidence so far is that he is likely to be disappointed on both fronts. I did not bring my notes with me, but perhaps the Minister may be able to remind us. In the referendums that have been held so far on directly elected mayors, if I were to describe the turnouts as abysmal, I would probably be exaggerating on the high side. They were very low, even in London where there was lots of publicity. There is no evidence that I am aware of—perhaps the Minister has some—that this bout of referendums would be any different from the previous ones in terms of turnout.
The risk of it being not at all about the city but largely a beauty contest has been proved beyond any reasonable debate by what we see happening in London at the moment. I do not know much about it, except it is between two celebrities called Boris and Ken, it seems to go on inordinately and it is basically a tale of two egos that does not tell us a great deal about how local government should be administered.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
Would my noble friend care to speculate about whether it is two beauties or a beauty and a beast?
Lord Grocott
I find it very difficult to make careful distinctions on that front. Uniquely in a business—politics—where ego occasionally intrudes, those two manage it far more effectively than most of the rest of us. I do not intend to say anything more at the moment because the opportunity will come in the orders establishing the mayoral referendums in the various cities. However, I would like the Minister to remind us, if not immediately, what the turnout has been in previous referendums.
Lord Smith of Leigh
My Lords, I declare an interest as leader of Wigan council and chairman of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and the new Greater Manchester Combined Authority. I was going to wait until later, but I would like to respond to some of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is in the background papers. He is mistaken to compare what is being offered here with what is going on in London. The London mayor is mayor of a whole conurbation. There are 32 London boroughs. What is on offer here is a mayor for a single local authority. In the conurbation of west Yorkshire, we are offering three cities. I am sure that Kirklees and so on must feel a bit out of it if they are not to be in the system. In the West Midlands, there are two, so they are not conurbation-wide. There are no additional powers coming to these individuals compared with those that the leader and cabinet model can exercise. The importance of the mayor of London, whoever it is, in terms of transport, police and so on, will not be there in any of the cities. In fact, as my noble friend Lady Farrington reminded us, in my area, we will have an elected police commissioner who will take responsibility for those areas. In transport, I can assure whoever is the new leader or mayor of Manchester that they will have no more influence over what goes on in transport for Manchester than any of the nine authorities. They will be one of 10. That is it.
The other thing that my noble friend Lord Rooker seems to think will happen is that getting a mayor for Birmingham might create some cohesion between the other local authorities in the West Midlands. That does not happen. He is right that Manchester works better than many other conurbations—I take some credit—but that is because we have worked at it for a long time and each authority has understood that if you want to gain collectively you have to give up some power as a local authority.
Will someone coming in as the elected mayor of Birmingham say straight away, “I’ll be elected mayor of Birmingham but I want to give up things to the West Midlands council so that we can work better together with Coventry, Wolverhampton and the other authorities”? That will probably not happen. We do not know whether it comes down to personalities in Birmingham because, of course, you do not have any successful football managers in Birmingham so clearly the chance of one of those standing does not apply, whereas it does in Manchester. The current law allows each of these authorities to choose to have an elected mayor if they want to. None has chosen to do so. However, if we were offering something like the London model, there could be a real debate.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I resist the temptation to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with whose views on the principle of elected mayors I could hardly disagree more strongly. I shall reserve comment on that issue until we reach the next group of orders. However, I strongly agree with the two noble Baronesses—that sounds like the name of a rather superior public house. The two noble Baronesses and I welcome the regulations which facilitate a choice being made. We will come on to how that choice arises in the next round, as it were. However, I am particularly glad that there is an opportunity for councils which wish to do so to revert to the committee system—not that I am personally in favour of that system as opposed to the leader and cabinet model. My own experience consists of having served for 17 years as leader of my authority and five years either side of that as a committee chair. When I went voluntarily to my Siberian power station in 1997, leaving the front bench of my council and going to the back benches, I chose the arts and recreation committee as a place of sojourn. The reality of life as a back-bench member of a committee became apparent when, having missed a meeting, I came to the next meeting and noticed that the minutes solemnly noted that a member had raised a question about birds eating grass seed at the Leazes Park allotments—this in a council with goodness knows how many problems and a budget of £800 million. It did not seem to me that the committee system was necessarily designed, or was working, in a way that addressed significant issues and facilitated members making a significant contribution. However, if members choose that system, it is a matter for them and we now have a scrutiny system which, if properly resourced, can make the system much more effective.
I revert to the Motion moved by the Minister, which will be approved. However, I have a reservation about the regulations in relation to the questions to be asked in the referendum. It is perfectly true that this is not something which has been dictated by the Government. The Electoral Commission has drafted it and has consulted on it although I do not know how many responses it received to the consultation. I doubt whether it was deluged with responses from the public but that is a matter for the commission. The question to be asked is in my view rather curiously and, arguably, tendentiously worded. It is: how would you like your authority to be run, by a leader who is an elected councillor chosen by a vote of the other elected councillors—this is how the council is run now—or by a mayor who is elected by voters—this would be a change from how the council is run now? It seems to me that “run” is a fairly loaded word. It does not really describe how I felt I was running the council when I was the leader of a council. The council is run by a leader and councillors, not by the leader elected by councillors. I think that rather colours the view that people might well take. They might think that if an individual is running the city, he or she might as well be accountable—if accountability is what they are interested in and if it is realisable—to all of us. In fact, a leader and cabinet model means a leader working with councillors to lead and run a council, not doing it personally. Although there is nothing we can do about it, I rather regret therefore that the question is posed in that way. However, we are where we are and doubtless if there are to be referendums in future, that is the question which will be put. It will be for those of us who take a different view of these matters to explain that it perhaps gives a somewhat misleading impression.
Either at this stage or a little later, perhaps the Minister could respond to the implicit question which I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised about when a mayoral election would take place, pursuant to the orders which we are to debate later, if they are approved. It is suggested that it is intended that these elections will take place in November of this year, on the same day as the police commissioner elections. I do not know whether that is right and I would have some views about it, but the Minister may be able to enlighten us with a little of that information before we debate those orders.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I thank those who have taken part in this quite short debate. I was not sure whether this one would be long. I recall that when we were debating the Bill, this aspect had not aroused a huge amount of controversy. I am very grateful to have such sterling support from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I agree very much with what he says. If the referendum is agreed, one hopes very much that the turnout for the subsequent election will be sufficient to cement that decision, and to make people feel that the result is wholeheartedly what they want.
On the candidates for election, somebody will presumably put their names forward and they will have to be nominated. I am not sure whether celebs will come running along to spend at least four years managing a city. We have had some strange candidates in one or two of the elections but, on the whole, those who have been good have survived and those who have not have found their way elsewhere. I am grateful, too, for the fact that there is support for the models of governance. I always felt that the committee system's abandonment was a great shame and I am delighted that there is now a way of getting it back in. Although councils have moved on in many respects in governance, there is always room for a system where councillors have a real opportunity to debate what is going on and the policies that are coming.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked about the money being spent on the referendum. This will be not local money but general taxation money, and there will be a grant from my department to the referendum authorities so that they have the money to spend on this. I know that that money comes from the people, but it is not quite as direct as being from the local people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about having the elections at the same time as those for the police commissioners. There is no definite date for the referendums yet, but it would be fair to say that we would hope that the elections would take place in a reasonable time following a referendum because otherwise there will be a hiatus of governance. They could potentially be held near the date when those for the police commissioners are held but there is no question of that having been decided yet.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, asked about the turnouts. Apparently, they have been pretty near turnouts at local government elections. He will know, as I do, that those can vary between about 20 per cent and 40 per cent. There has not been an overwhelming general election-type turnout, but they have been within that sort of ballpark figure. There was another question about police commissioners and how often they are going to be elected. The answer is every four years. The mayors will be elected on four-year terms as well. They will be elected on the normal council election day.
There is an agreement, perhaps not unanimous, that local people have a right to decide whether they want this issue to go ahead—that is what the referendums are about. It is not about saying that you must do this or you must do that. There is nothing dictatorial about this. The question to local people in cities is whether mayors provide a good form of governance. Do you ask the local people whether they want to consider that? It is up to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I hope that in the referendums there will be a good turnout. In both areas—the referendums and, if one follows, an election—we would want to see a good, settled result, because that would stop any disagreements afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, was talking about the fact that there would not be any decent powers. Part of this process is that mayors would have negotiations as to what official powers they thought that they needed. That would be individual and powers would be devolved appropriately to what they wish to have. There is a devolutionary aspect here too of the bigger policy areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, objected to the word “run”; I do not know what I did with the council. Perhaps I had better not think about it. “Run” is the word that the Electoral Commission seems to think that people recognise as the way that a council is managed. That is what it has decided. We have got to leave that; we have taken its independent view. If what is said is a political decision, somebody will say that we are trying to tip the question over. So I think that “run” it will have to be.
I hope that I have answered the points that everybody has raised. If I have and everybody is satisfied about that, I commend the regulations to the House.
City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, the purpose of all these orders to which I speak is to require the local authority named to hold a referendum on 3 May 2012 on whether it should start to operate a mayor and cabinet executive form of governance; that is, to have a directly elected mayor. As we described in our programme for government, the coalition Government are committed to creating directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject to confirmatory referendums. These orders are the next stage in fulfilling that commitment. I shall explain the rationale for this, but first I would like to recall the steps that we have previously taken on elected mayors and the approach that we have followed in seeking to ensure that we can achieve the best way forward for our major cities.
As a first step to delivering our coalition agreement commitment, we included provisions on directly elected mayors in the Localism Bill which we introduced in December 2010. Those provisions included introducing the idea that there would be shadow mayors in the cities before any election and that, where a city adopted an elected mayor, it would be required to introduce mayoral management arrangements. These arrangements were that the city would cease to have a chief executive and the mayor would then be both the political leader and the top executive of the authority.
During the parliamentary passage of the Bill, these provisions attracted considerable debate and concern, particularly in the House of Lords. I remember it well. We listened carefully to the arguments being made about why these elements of a switch to the mayoral model could give rise to difficulties and hence were not appropriate. On careful reflection, we accepted the arguments being made and amended the Bill so that there was no longer any question of there being shadow mayors or statutory mayoral management arrangements. Our approach was to listen carefully to the arguments, address the issues raised with an open mind, and seek to ensure that we took forward our mayoral agenda in a way that commanded the widest degree of support and would best serve the interests of the cities concerned.
It is perhaps worth recording that when the House considered the question of mayors in the Localism Bill on Report there were no Divisions on any of these provisions or amendments. The result is that the Localism Act contains a simple provision that enables the Secretary of State to require in a particular city a referendum to be held on whether or not that city has a mayoral form of governance, and the orders before the House today are the first use of this provision.
I now turn to why we are seeking the House’s approval for these orders. As part of the coalition agreement, the Government committed to creating directly elected mayors in the 12 largest English cities, subject, as I said, to confirmatory referendums. Leicester already has a directly elected mayor, following a resolution of the Labour-led council to move to a mayoral form of governance and the people of Leicester elected their first mayor in May 2011. We are therefore planning referendums in May 2012 in the other 11 cities: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield. Where the referendum vote is in favour of having a mayor, the city will then rapidly hold an election for its first mayor.
The Government think that there is good evidence that where a city has a powerful and directly accountable mayor this can be a major factor for delivering local economic growth and bringing greater prosperity to that city. The value of big cities, effectively led by powerful mayors, is demonstrated by a range of international experience. For example, the Mayor of London has transformed the capital’s governance and achieved a range of successes including the London plan, the congestion charge, Crossrail and Boris bikes. Barcelona was transformed into a leisure and cultural centre through the strong leadership of its powerful executive mayor, Pasqual Maragall, who was elected as head of the list of the winning party. It is now one of the most prosperous cities in Europe with a GDP per capita 44 per cent above the European average.
Of all the governance models, we think that the mayoral model has the greatest potential to provide that strong and accountable leadership needed for our cities to be successful, economically, socially and environmentally. That is not to say that other forms of local government cannot deliver success or indeed that a mayor guarantees success, but we are clear, not least from the evidence of cities around the world, including London, that where a city has mayoral governance the odds of success are greater.
Why do we have the 12 cities? As the Institute for Government and Centre for Cities highlighted in their joint report, our cities are the heartbeat of the UK economy. Despite occupying less than 10 per cent of the UK’s land, they contribute 60 per cent of our economic output. That is why the Government believe that it is important that in each of our major cities, which contribute so much to our economy, the opportunity to have a mayor is seriously addressed by the electorate.
Of course, it may be, as in the case of Leicester, that the city council—the democratic representatives of the city’s communities—simply resolves to move to an elected mayor without a referendum being held. That option is available to all the cities unless their current governance model was agreed in a referendum, and will remain so until we have made a referendum order for that city. But if this option is not taken up, then local people should be given the opportunity to address the issue and decide. That is why we are bringing these orders to be approved by Parliament.
Finally, I remind the Committee that the orders we are considering today are about local choice and allowing local people to have a say on how their city is governed. Although we are clear about the benefits that mayors can bring, we are and remain localist. We believe that decisions about how a locality is governed are best taken locally. This is about letting local people decide. I commend the orders to the Committee.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, I cannot resist making just one general point before I get on to the specifics about my fundamental objection to the directly elected mayor system. I see it as an import from a different political culture. In essence, it is a presidential arrangement. All levels of our democracy in our country have embraced the parliamentary system whereby executive heads emerge from the elected body. I think that is infinitely preferable to the presidential system. The Minister’s examples were notably from abroad, with the exception of London, and bringing in this system whereby elected councillors have no direct say on who the city’s leader should be is—I cannot find a less pompous way of putting this—alien to our political culture, and I do not think there is too much wrong with our political culture. In my view, it has inevitably—certainly in the United States and here—led to mayors being elected who simply do not arrive via the tried-and-tested system.
I thought that the evidence put forward for extending this system in this dramatic way was pretty thin. The explanatory document claims that,
“directly elected mayors … enhance their city’s prestige and maximise the potential for local economic growth”.
Let us not go to Barcelona or anywhere else. We have had this system in Britain for a number of years. Where is the evidence that those lucky cities and towns that have directly elected mayors have seen the prestige of their areas enhanced in comparison with those that have not had the benefit of directly elected mayors and have seen economic growth? In short, has London been demonstrably much better governed, to justify all this additional expense, than has, let us say, Newcastle, Manchester or Birmingham? If there is any evidence, I would love to see it, but I am not aware of it.
I move to the specifics of the orders that we are now looking at. One has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Farrington. I am afraid this is more of a rhetorical question than one I expect the Minister to be able to answer because it is unanswerable. How on earth can you have an order that states:
“The authority must, on 3rd May 2012, hold a referendum”—
I would add, in brackets, “whether you want to or not”—with the Government’s alleged commitment to localism? Why the compulsion? Why not leave it to the local authority to make up its own mind? I do not know the answer to that one. I do not think it will do to suggest, as the Minister did, that somehow this is an opportunity for local people to decide and that the Government are neutral, at least to the extent that the local people can make their own decisions, because is it just an accident that the only places where local citizens will be able to decide on their governance are places where they do not have an elected mayor at the moment? What about all those local authorities that have an elected mayor? Why not ask them whether, on the basis of the past 10 years, it is a good way of spending public money? I am delighted to be able to report that, as the Committee will know, in the one area where people have been given that choice, namely the splendid city of Stoke-on-Trent with the outstanding Stoke City Football Club, the public were asked, “Do you want to continue with your elected mayoral system?” The answer was a pretty resounding, “No, we don’t, thank you very much”.
Lord Rooker
We need to hear the full story on Stoke-on-Trent. The structure between the mayor and the council was not replicated anywhere else in the country; it was unique. The Stoke system was almost designed to fail and indeed did fail, but it is not the same system as for the other elected mayors.
Lord Grocott
As my noble friend has argued for a referendum, I simply say to him: let the people in these other cities decide whether they want to continue with their mayoral system. They have had long enough to test it out, and he may be right that it is only in Stoke that they would say, “No, thank you very much”. If we are to have referendums in places that do not have mayors—I would rather we did not have any at all—then let us have them in places where they do.
I have a couple of questions about the cost. The only statistic that I have is from House of Commons Hansard of 20 December, where the Government said that,
“the cost of referendums for elected mayors will be £2.5 million”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/11; 1187W.],
That is an average of about a quarter of a million pounds per referendum. Frankly, I am not very interested in who pays for it; all I know is that we will. I suppose it would be very unfair to put it all on the local authority, but the blunt truth is that those of us who do not live in any of these cities—I am one of them—will be paying for them to have a referendum, which I certainly do not want. We will find soon enough whether the public want that. Can the Minister confirm whether those figures are accurate?
I also note that paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“A Regulatory Impact Assessment has not been prepared for these instruments as they have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies and the cost of conducting the referendums across the 11 cities is less than £5 million”.
I do not know how these impact assessments are worked out these days, but that may be the cost of the referendum. Of course, if the referendum results in a yes, then the cost of implementing this system in 11 cities will be massively in excess of £5 million. In effect, through these orders we are setting a train in motion that will cost an awful lot of money. I would like the Minister to tell us who will pay for the reorganisation costs in the event of there being a yes result of a referendum. I would also like to know the estimate that the Government are making before we go on this journey about the cost for each of the local authorities because most of them can ill afford any unnecessary expenditure at the moment.
I would also like to ask the Minister about the responsibility for implementing the new system. The order is loose enough, as it stands at the moment. Article 4, under the title,
“Action to be taken after referendum”,
states:
“If the result of the referendum held by virtue of this Order is to approve a change to a mayor and cabinet executive, the authority must implement that change”.
It goes on to say that if a local authority does not do that, the Secretary of State will. Following the question asked by my noble friend Lord Beecham earlier, if there is a decision to make the change, I would like to know the timescale within which the implementation of that change must take place whether it is done by the local authority or by the Secretary of State?
I very much regret that these orders have come forward. I know this was an idea dreamt up by some policy expert in some recess of the previous Labour Administration. I did my best to stop it happening then, but without success, and this is my second attempt. I do it with more confidence now as I know—I will check the figures because they are around somewhere—that there was no evidence of any great enthusiasm for this system when local areas had the chance of holding referendums under the legislation that the previous Government brought in. There were very low turnouts, by and large. Some were lower than normal for local government elections. I know of no great evidence that these places have been a riotous success. Mercifully, where I live in the West Midlands, we do not have a directly elected mayor but, like the rest of us, I spend lots of time in London, and I am massively unimpressed with the directly elected mayoral system. I do not find it a wonderfully impressive and exciting operation, and I do not know why we should proceed with this without the evidence to justify it. I am, to put it mildly, unhappy with these orders.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I came to listen, but I am provoked into saying a few words because, not for the first time in my brief period in this House, I find myself almost totally in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who has deservedly acquired a reputation for speaking his mind and speaking with a lot of common sense.
I was one of the very few Conservative Members of Parliament who voted against the abolition of the GLC. An amendment of mine came quite close to defeating the Government of the day. My argument was complex, but it was basically that I thought that if we abolished the GLC we would finish up with something worse. I believe that that has proved to be an accurate prophecy. We have the mayor and of course I shall campaign for his re-election later this year as a dutiful member of his party.
I would not be detaining the Grand Committee now if these Benches were crammed, but as they are not, and as I believe that I am the only Conservative Back-Bencher in the Grand Committee Room, I want to say this to the Grand Committee, the Minister and everyone else. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, does not claim to speak for the Labour Party, and I do not claim to speak for the Conservative Party, but just as many of his colleagues in his party have grave reservations about the whole concept of the elected mayor, so do many people in the party to which I have belonged for well over half a century.
Many people feel, as does the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that it is not quite the way we do things in this country. I believe in the collegiate atmosphere of local government which, at its best, delivers a real service. As the country has demonstrated many times—the greatest example of this was Joe Chamberlain in Birmingham—that does not prevent a great leader emerging. The balances and counterbalances that are built into the committee system make for better local government. They also provide a greater challenge for individual councillors, each one of whom has the opportunity to shine. Since we moved to elected mayors and cabinet systems, one has very often found in local authorities that only a handful of people really count. I do not believe that that can be right. I do not believe that it is in the British tradition to elect one supremo to be the mayor.
I am entirely happy about the concept of a referendum. I did not used to like referendums, and I still do not like them very much, but the fact is that they are now here. Because they are here and they are here in abundance today, it makes absolutely uncontestable the case that there must be a referendum if anybody is ever so silly as to propose the abolition of the House of Lords. However, that is another story, although I felt it right to get it in because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, at least is entirely at one with me on that, and maybe others are too.
If we must spend this money, let these towns and cities have their referendums. I shall be interested in the turnout. I personally do not believe that any referendum should count unless there is a threshold. Here I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who went along those lines not long ago. If it is the genuine wish of local people to have an elected mayor in these cities, having had the opportunity to consider the merits and the problems, so be it. However, I hope that they will reflect very carefully and that they will realise that if they go for an elected mayor—somebody with real executive authority—they will be turning their backs on a system of local government which has served this country well over the years. That is a system which I and many others have admired and one in which the Minister has played a considerable and constructive part, as has the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who has an enviable record in these matters. They provided leadership, but it was leadership of a team. The danger with a mayor is that he dictates to a team. People should bear those things in mind.
Lord Smith of Leigh
My Lords, I was intrigued by the Minister’s introduction in which she gave examples of some successful mayors in Spain. I do not suppose that she wants to mention those mayors who are now serving time in Spanish jails for accepting bribes for land usage, or the famous mayoral model in New Orleans when it suffered from flooding a few years ago and the mayor simply dithered and created yet more problems.
I was intrigued by the point the Minister made, with which I totally agree, about the importance of the economic role of cities. The issue that I have with the Government and some people on my side is that we are talking here about cities whose boundaries are historic. I think back to the 1972 reform of local government when most of the boundaries of these places were established, so they are historic to that extent. However, they are pretty arbitrary and do not reflect the way that people’s lives are led now.
The city and region I know best is Manchester, but the Manchester economy is not just that of the city of Manchester. The boundary of Manchester comprises a very strange long sausage shape but its economy spreads not only into the nine districts around it but also into parts of Cheshire and West Yorkshire. That is what is driving the growth that we all want to see. I was slightly perturbed by the Minister’s answer as Manchester is holding successful talks with the Government on the new deal for cities. I welcome the approach that the Government are taking to that. However, that approach appears to be conurbation-wide, not city-wide. It does not actually give things to Manchester City Council. However, we are talking about how we can, through the combined authority, do things better and achieve the joint objectives that we have on economic growth for Manchester, which clearly is part of the Government’s agenda as well.
As I say, there is some genuine debate and discussion going on and I want to place on record how much I support what the Government are doing on this matter. I have met Greg Clark on a number of occasions and he is pushing this devolution well. However, I do not want to see devolution to Manchester—not that I am jealous of Manchester—because, if we are to be successful as an economy, the devolution has to apply to a much bigger area. The economic growth that the Government want will not be achieved unless the Manchester city region does well, not simply the narrowly defined city of Manchester. I know that that is largely the case in other conurbations. I want to refer briefly to West Yorkshire, as I know that area well. West Yorkshire has not really got its act together well. It has three very large and important areas which we know are up for city roles.
My fear in a sense is that once you have become mayor of Bradford or Wakefield or Leeds, your desire is to do well for that part of the conurbation and you fail to understand that, if you want to do well for those three parts, it is the whole conurbation that needs to be successful. Clearly I was at odds with people in my party some time ago who thought that it was a panacea that would solve the problems of local government. Some very good authorities have been set up through the traditional models. I know that the Minister was very actively involved in one of them; we three were on the old Association of Metropolitan Authorities Policy Committee many years ago.
I want, as the Government do, for cities to do well for the whole of Britain, but I am not sure that this is the way in which to achieve that.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the last time when I spoke for the Opposition in this Room, the noble Lord, Lord Smith, also participated in the debate. A couple of days after that, he was taken very seriously ill. I am delighted that he is back with us and in such excellent form. I am sure that we wish him continued good health.
It is perhaps appropriate that we are discussing these orders in the Moses Room, not because I may be distantly related to the gentleman in question but because he is portrayed as coming down bearing 10 commandments. The Minister of course brings 11 commandments to 11 authorities, and they may receive a similar reception to that which the originals received. I know not—we shall see.
Since the Prime Minister’s arguably somewhat clumsy intervention the other day, referendums have become almost the issue of the day, at least in the minds of the political class. I suspect that the majority of people are rather more concerned with issues such as the faltering economy, unemployment and the fate of the NHS—and, to judge by today’s e-mails, the Welfare Reform Bill and perhaps the legal aid Bill. Many of us have been deluged with e-mails about that; I am bound to say that I have never received a single e-mail suggesting that we need referendums for elected mayors. But 11 authorities will now face compulsory referendums, not because as in Scotland there is a public demand for it but because the Government are determined to pursue this agenda.
It is interesting that the Explanatory Notes affirm that the Government believe that local authorities and the communities that they represent are best placed to reach decisions on how their local authority should operate and be governed. They say that the 2000 Act provides for local people to have a say on the governance model adopted by their local authority via a referendum. But it is one thing for people to have a say and another to require them to vote or at least hold a referendum, as the Government are now doing. Yet 5 per cent of the electorate in any of those 11 cities, or any other local authority, could at any time over the past 10 years have requisitioned a referendum—and, of course, the vast majority have not done so. A number of referendums have been held, 38 in all; 13 of them agreed that they should go ahead with the mayoral system and 25 rejected it. Some of those authorities called a referendum, as they were allowed to do; there was nothing wrong with that. That included Tower Hamlets and Leicester. In other cases there was a petition.
My noble friend Lord Grocott questioned the turnout in referendums; in only one case apart from three referendums held on the same day as the general election did the turnout exceed 40 per cent. Incidentally, one of the authorities with a referendum subsequently decided to abandon the mayoral system. The turnout in the five authorities that voted for an elected mayor ranged as follows: 16 per cent, 18 per cent, 21 per cent, 25 per cent and 27 per cent. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept. Yet the mayoral system was supposed to lead to a great upsurge in local democracy.
I was present when this concept was floated. It was at a meeting—I do not think that it is wrong for me now to reveal it 15 years on—of the joint policy committee of the Labour Party, a somewhat cumbersome, bureaucratic piece of machinery, which consisted of members of the then shadow Cabinet and of the national executive of the Labour Party. I was representing local government and some other unfortunate was representing the Labour MEPs. Tony Blair announced to the apparent consternation of Frank Dobson, who was the environment spokesman of the day, that we were going to have an elected Mayor of London. The only person who asked a question about that, in a somewhat sceptical vein, was me.
The discussion lasted five minutes and that then became Labour Party policy, which you may think is an interesting way to formulate policy, but there it was. The constant theme of those advocating this was that it would strengthen local democracy and lead to greater involvement. That has not been the case, as my noble friend, Lord Grocott, has rightly pointed out, either in terms of the turnout at the referendum or in terms of the turnout in mayoral elections. In London, the first two elections showed a turnout lower than the average local authority election. At the last mayoral contest, gladiatorial as it was and as it no doubt will be again, with all the coverage proffered by the Evening Standard—noble Lords will remember coming out of tube stations and seeing the placards about the latest Ken or Boris pronouncement—the turnout was around 45 per cent, marginally higher than a council election in a major authority: it did not necessarily command huge interest.
Over and above the propriety of requiring the holding of the referendum—and I think that there is a serious flaw in the Government’s approach—there is a question of what is at stake here. We are talking about the conferring on a single individual of very wide-ranging powers combined with very little accountability. It is not as if a majority of the council can overturn a decision of the mayor. On hugely important matters, from the budget, the children’s panel, and the strategic panel of the authority and over a whole range of issues, the mayor will prevail unless two-thirds of the elected members of the council overturn him. This is a little better than the Mussolini formulation for general elections in Italy in 1923, when 25 per cent of the votes were sufficient to give 75 per cent representation in the chamber; we are not quite in that league. Nevertheless, it is a formidable degree of power concentrated in a single pair of hands. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, adduced Barcelona as an example of a mayoral authority, which indeed it is, but as she put it—perhaps without quite realising the implications of what she was saying—Maragall, who was the outstanding mayor of Barcelona, was elected as head of his party’s list. In the same way, a Prime Minister—although not as it turns out the present Prime Minister—is elected as the leader of his party: his party obtains a majority, not a single individual running for office. That is quite a distinction, yet by any standards Maragall was an outstandingly successful mayor.
The Labour Party in its wisdom once sent a delegation over to Holland. They have mayors in Holland and it was thought it would be instructive for innocent and naive Labour councillors to see what was done in Holland. They had overlooked that mayors in Holland were not elected at all by anybody. They were Crown appointments at that stage. At least the Government have not gone that far yet, but there is that huge issue of power. Equally, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, pointed out, there have been distinguished local government leaders, not least in the great city of Birmingham, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, alluded. They have had not merely Joseph Chamberlain but his brother; he was described by Lloyd George, it will be recalled, as a “good mayor of Birmingham in a bad year”, but he was a distinguished local government figure. Successive leaders of Birmingham of, certainly, two political persuasions have been well respected. We have seen similar figures leading other councils. So while the power exists for either a council or a small percentage of an electorate to call for the holding of a referendum, it seems entirely unnecessary to prescribe that such elections should take place.
Of course, the Bill will give the Government the power to impose this system of referendum on any authority. It would be interesting if the Minister would indicate the Government's thinking on these matters. Is it likely, if a number of these referendums are successful, that they will then seek to roll out the holding of referendums elsewhere?
In relation to cost, it is reassuring that Mr Pickles has been able to find yet more money secreted in the coffers of the Department for Communities and Local Government—in addition to maintaining the weekly waste collections—to fund these referendums, although most of us would prefer to have the money for more productive purposes. In addition, there will be the cost of mayoral elections, which will be at least as much and presumably a little more than the cost of holding a referendum in the first place. I apprehend that those costs will be met by the local council if the electorate choose to go down the mayoral route.
It will be gathered that the Opposition are not entirely sympathetic to the orders that are laid today and we will be moving a Regret Motion when the matter comes before the House. I understand that there will be similar proceedings in the Commons. I am confused by the timetable. I understand that we have the statutory instruments before House of Commons, but so be it. We are looking for these matters to come before the House in February.
No doubt the Government will stick to their guns. I can only hope that people in these 11 authorities, should these referendums go ahead, have the good sense to stick with the tried and tested system of local democracy and not vote to confer huge powers into too few hands.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I cannot wait to discuss this issue all over again. I thank the noble Lord for giving us due warning that that is precisely what will happen, so we wait with bated breath. I am sure that we will cover at least some of these issues again and noble Lords will have to try to say the same thing twice if possible. But this gives me an opportunity to say that if I cannot answer all the questions now, I will probably have an opportunity to do so at a later stage.
We could stand here and debate the rationale and the virtues of this form of election all night. There is a pretty clear division, although not entirely politically, on what noble Lords think about this. The coalition's view is that these 12 cities should be given the opportunity to decide whether they think this form of government, which is a different way of doing things, is the right way to go. I readily accept that this is not a policy that the electorate will want in these cities, but they must be given an opportunity to decide and to consider the options. Indeed, people will have to put out some publicity to explain the situation and make sure that the electorate understand the issues at stake.
I do not agree with the concept that has been put that the Mayor of London has not made an impact. I suspect that if you asked people in London who the mayor was they would have a pretty good idea and they would have a pretty good idea of what he did. A mayor is constantly in the news and doing things. People either like or do not like them but they certainly know who they are.
Lord Beecham
Will the noble Baroness agree that they also knew who Ken Livingstone was in his first incarnation, and who Herbert Morrison was, for example?
Baroness Hanham
I will have to take the noble Lord's word for it. People may have known who he was but he has certainly been heard of since. The question is whether he was better known at the time or subsequently.
A lot of questions have been asked. It is not helpful to go over the debate again. We have a debate on the previous orders and we have had a very interesting Second Reading speech from my noble friend Lord Cormack, who was not entirely supportive. We have just a few issues to deal with. As regards turnout on the referendums, as I think I have said before, probably some had about the same turnout as local elections. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, did not think that was quite right. I do not think anybody would accept that they have been in the general election ballpark figure but there has been a good turnout.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the interminable business of savings and costs. We have gone through the election costs. We anticipate that the costs of reorganisation will absolutely depend on what amount of reorganisation a local authority needs to do. It may not need to do very much at all. The mayor comes in and it might need to provide him with a room. He will probably need a couple of members of staff. His expenses will fall within the general administration of the council. Therefore, I do not anticipate there being a huge extra cost to the council as a result of this. I am sure it will make the decisions which ensure that there is no huge extra cost. I do not think the Government want—
Lord Grocott
I intervene only as it may save time when we discuss this later. Presumably, figures are available showing the cost of the mayoral systems that have been introduced. I challenge the Committee to say whether there has ever been a local government or, indeed, any other reorganisation which has not cost more than people said it would. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the costs are likely to be a bit more than those incurred in providing a room and perhaps a secretary. When the orders come back to the House, could we be given figures showing what the actual costs of reorganisation have been where the mayoral system has been introduced?
Baroness Hanham
I am not sure that I can answer that even now. As I have said, the costs will depend on how much reorganisation a city council has to undertake to accommodate the mayor. As I understand it, the evidence we have shows that there has not been a substantial increase in costs where elected mayors have taken up office. I am not going to be able to provide figures down to £5,500,000 and 36 pence. If I can find more helpful information for the noble Lord, I will, but this is about as good as we can get in that it is for the relevant area to work out in its own mind how much reorganisation it needs to do.
The implementation of the system is entirely the same. It will be up to the authority itself to decide how to implement it. However, we expect the mayor to be in position three days after the election. There should be no hiatus. As I say, he should be in position three days after the day on which the result of the first mayoral election is declared and then take office four days after the election, so this happens within a week.
I love the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. They are all always very taxing and have a nice aspect. I thank him for his speech. I do not have much to say in response to it but it was nice to hear his words. He has been consistently against us from the start, so there is no change there. I hope that within the space of these two discussions we have more or less covered the ground. I appreciate that we are going to have another go at this later.
City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Bristol (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Bristol (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Bradford (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Bradford (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Manchester (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Manchester (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Sheffield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Sheffield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Nottingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Nottingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Leeds (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Leeds (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Birmingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Birmingham (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Liverpool (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Liverpool (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
City of Coventry (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Hanham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the City of Coventry (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012.
Relevant documents: 36th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
House of Lords
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing: Managing Agents
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce regulations or a code of practice to set standards for managing agents for leasehold blocks of flats.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, there are already two codes of practice in force that can be used in evidence in a court or tribunal: the Service Charge Residential Management Code, which is published by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and Private Retirement Housing: Code of Practice, which is published by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers. The Government recognise that problems caused by the actions of managing agents can cause leaseholders real inconvenience and distress. Landlords and managing agents must obey the law and should act in a socially responsible manner. While we have no plans for a wide-ranging review of leasehold law, we are keeping a close watching brief and will not rule out making changes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Can the Minister tell me what rights leaseholders have to be assured that managing agents carry out regular assessments of property condition and arrange necessary repairs for works in blocks of flats? Are the agents responsible for ensuring that any work done is carried out to a satisfactory standard?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, managing agents are employed by the freeholders, although leaseholders have rights as to what they are being charged for and the work that is being done. We believe that any managing agent acting on behalf of a landlord owes a duty of care to leaseholders. Reasonable steps should be taken to ensure that all work is done properly and safely. Leaseholders of course have a right to challenge the management of their blocks and the people who are doing it through the leasehold valuation tribunal.
Lord Best
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the council of The Property Ombudsman, which listens to complaints against managing agents. Although the Minister is probably against regulation of this sector, does she agree that it would be a good idea if it was compulsory for all managing agents to belong to an ombudsman scheme that can resolve disputes between residents and managing agents without the need to go to court?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that we would want to compel managing agents to do that, but I agree that it would be very helpful if they would voluntarily ensure that they are members of the ombudsman scheme, which is very valuable in terms of leaseholders being sure that they are getting and can get proper access to advice.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the words “regulation” and “overregulation” should be used with some care, while acknowledging, as the noble Baroness has done, that in practical terms redress through an ombudsman or some other route should be made a lot easier? I speak as having been chair of a residents association of a block of 24 flats over some years. The accounts are almost impenetrable and it is difficult to get stuff done according to the lease. You do not get an answer to the telephone. If you need a plumber, you can use only a named plumber who is never available, et cetera. We all know the litany.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I acknowledge that it is probably not very easy, but I do not acknowledge that there are no routes for dissatisfied leaseholders. They have access to the lease valuation tribunal if they have concerns, particularly about charges. They also can go to LEASE if they are concerned about the way in which their property is being managed. It requires at least one person in the property to be in charge of the residents and how they feel in order to make sure that they follow the routes that are already open to them.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report published last year which showed that some leaseholders were paying far too much in property insurance to managing agents and that, as a consequence, regulation would most certainly help? In addition, might it be for government to promote the right to manage to leaseholders groups in blocks of flats, so that they themselves can reduce the costs that they have to bear?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the matter of commission is already being investigated as there have been many complaints about it. As I understand it, the commission of, for example, insurance would not appear on the service charge but could form another charge that the leaseholders have to pay. I think that most leaseholders need to have a tenants association within their blocks of flats or wherever they live to ensure that they do have some muscle with poor managing agents and that they can then use the routes that are, as I said, there for them.
Eurozone Crisis
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether HM Treasury is developing contingency plans for use in the event of a Eurozone collapse.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon)
My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in the Autumn Statement, the Government, including of course the Treasury, are undertaking extensive contingency planning to deal with all potential outcomes of the euro crisis.
Lord Barnett
Thanks for that very informative reply. I hope that there will never be a need to use the contingency reserve, because, as the Chancellor has said, it would be devastating for the UK economy if there was a collapse in the eurozone. We already have a near recession—if not an actual one—forecast without such a collapse. I gather that the Government are more amenable to the new draft treaty that has been promoted for the next summit. In those circumstances, and given the risk of jeopardising the slightest chance of preventing that collapse, would he not agree that it would be very foolish to veto that summit as well?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, first of all I welcome the compliment paid to my Answer by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. He asked me a yes or no Question. I gave him a very full Answer and some extra things he did not ask about, so I am glad that he appreciates that. I am not going to speculate on our negotiating position because this is all very fast moving. All I can reiterate is that we are working very hard with our European partners to see a resolution of all aspects of the crisis. They have invited us to be at the table to discuss the arrangements that the eurozone countries are making among themselves and we are active and positive participants when we are invited to be there, as we are at those discussions.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very much easier, technically, for a country to join the single currency than to leave it? Does he accept that the contingency plans which he mentioned—and which are welcome—need to be designed to ensure that, for anyone leaving, the process is completed as soon as possible? It is not just a question of having the notes and coins available but of having an extensive programme, including provision for exchange controls. I welcome my noble friend’s reply but stress that this is a very complex question.
Lord Sassoon
My noble friend makes some interesting and relevant points. I shall not speculate on what precise aspects the Government are looking at in their exercises but, as he points out, none of this, under a range of scenarios, would be at all simple.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Has the Treasury carried out internally an inquiry into the level of exposure of British banks to banks within the eurozone that might collapse?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, of course the FSA, in the course of its normal work, continually examines the exposure of the financial sector to a whole range of issues, including to the eurozone. The Europe-wide stress tests which were done, and done again, and finally done on a much better basis, looked at that matter last year.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will my noble friend confirm that in these contingency plans there is no question of the Government providing money for eurozone states to bail them out while the underlying problem of lack of competitiveness within the euro remains unresolved and unaddressed?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, of course I can confirm to my noble friend that we work extremely hard to make sure that the competitiveness of the EU and the eurozone is not lost in the discussions. It is encouraging—they are only early signs, but they are encouraging—that in the Merkel-Sarkozy discussions on 10 January there was specific reference to growth-enhancing policies for prioritising EU spend towards growth and competitiveness. We look forward to the letter which I think they are likely to write to President Van Rompuy ahead of the next Council meeting.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, there is plenty of time. Shall we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and then perhaps from the noble Lord, Lord Pearson?
Lord Grenfell
My Lords, given the unrest on the Conservative Benches in the other place, I was tempted to ask whether the Prime Minister had contingency plans for the full recovery and strengthening of the eurozone, but I have a more serious point to make. Does the Minister agree with me that it is extraordinary that the rating agencies disclaim all responsibility for the impact on borrowing costs of their downgradings when a Government like Italy’s are doing their best to solve their problems, and when an institution such as the European Financial Stability Facility—which was downgraded yesterday by Standard & Poor’s—is trying to maintain its lending capacity in advance of the creation of the new ESM, which will take some time? Do these unaccountable agencies just not care whether the impact of what they do is likely to hamper and jeopardise the eurozone recovery?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, the credit rating agencies have a useful and important part to play in the good working of the financial markets. Your Lordships produced a report in committee on aspects of the regulation of the credit rating agencies on which we had a good debate before Christmas. There are issues about the performance of the credit rating agencies in respect of the financial crisis, but their record generally on sovereign ratings has been perfectly acceptable in most people’s judgment. However, I am not going to comment on their individual judgments in the past couple of weeks.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, is it not now clear that there are really only two ways forward—either full fiscal union, which does not look as though it will be accepted by the peoples of Europe, or a return to national currencies? On the latter alternative, have the Government seen the research from Bank of America Merrill Lynch which suggests that an orderly return to national currencies need not be nearly as traumatic as the political class would have us believe?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, there is a whole range of views about the effect of the eurozone breaking down in any way. All I can say is that 40 per cent of our trade goes to Europe, and we want to see a strengthened and healthy eurozone. That is fundamentally in the interests of the UK. A crisis in the eurozone presents the most imminent threat to growth in this country.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, there is plenty of time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Can we hear first from my noble friend Lord Newby, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Peston?
Lord Newby
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if there is a collapse in the eurozone, it is highly likely that the IMF will be asked to play a larger role that it has done up to now? What is the Government’s thinking about making further resources available to the IMF in those circumstances?
Lord Sassoon
I am happy to try to clarify the Government’s position. It is very clear that the Government see the IMF’s role as supporting individual countries and not currencies. That has always been its role. If the IMF puts forward a case, as it may well do, for an increase in its resources, and if there is a strong case, the UK will support the IMF in increasing resources as required, as it has always done in the past.
Lord Peston
My Lords, using the immortal words of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, will the Minister give me a lesson in economics and explain why the Government still do not forthrightly support the maintenance of the euro? What possible benefit is there to us in the Government seeming to drag their heels when dealing with this matter?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, as I have repeatedly made clear this afternoon and on other occasions, the UK Government want to see a strong and dynamic eurozone and European economy. But it is for the eurozone countries to take the lead in supporting the euro as a currency.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, there is only one thing as worrying as the collapse of the eurozone, and that is the continuation of the eurozone. It has been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed and is the cause of all these problems. Is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, not right that at the heart of the thing that we need to address is the risk of a banking meltdown? Will the Minister give an undertaking that should it prove necessary for the United Kingdom Government to rescue any British banks, they will do so on much tougher terms than the ludicrously soft terms on which the previous Administration went in to save banks?
Lord Sassoon
My Lords, we have a lot to learn about the softness with which the previous Administration went about a lot of things. One of the key lessons for this crisis is that we must stick to a deficit reduction programme that is firm and fair, and keep this country isolated from the worst of the problems that are all around us.
Education: Careers Advice
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve careers guidance for under-25s.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, in April the National Careers Service will be launched in England. It will provide high-quality information and advice on careers, online and by telephone. For those aged 18 and over, it will provide a face-to-face service in the community. From September all secondary schools in England will have a legal duty to secure access to careers guidance for pupils aged 14 to 16. Subject to consultation, this duty will be extended to 16 to 18 year-olds in schools and in further education.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I am grateful for the references to England and I only hope that we speak to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. I appreciate that careers advisers in the new development will be independent. Are we certain they are going to be trained at the top level and that the interviews they conduct will not just be online or by computer but be face-to-face discussions with the youngsters, who are often among the 1 million unemployed? In respect of the face-to-face discussions, do we realise that only 7 per cent of young people know the meaning of apprenticeships? What are the Government going to do to make apprenticeships far more widely known about and better accepted?
Baroness Wilcox
The National Careers Service is being put together to answer pretty well everything that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, has just suggested. We know that the careers advice that has been given up until now has been very patchy, and neither parents nor children have understood what their choices are. We hope that the training and monitoring that we will do will make absolutely sure that schools will get the right advice for children in their area.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, having visited a comprehensive school this morning and talked to the lower sixth form, never have I been more reminded of the importance of careers guidance when young people begin to make choices about further education and careers. Is the Minister worried about the comments by the president of the Institute of Career Guidance? He said:
“In reality, the National Careers Service is an illusion, and not a very imaginatively branded one either, and is a clear misrepresentation with regard to careers services for young people … The likely reality is that hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, of young people will never get access to personalised impartial career guidance”—
I stress those words—
“having to rely on the national telephone helpline or website and school staff”.
I do not expect the Minister to agree with that, but I would expect her to assure the House that there will be a review of the current approach to careers guidance and to ensure that the right level of personalised careers guidance is available to young people.
Baroness Wilcox
We take this issue very seriously. We are putting new money towards it and ensuring that the youth contract will provide nearly 500,000 new opportunities for young people, including apprenticeships and work experience placements. The important thing as far as we are concerned, and our aim, is to get every unemployed young person earning or learning again. We do not think that careers advice has been good in the past and we think it can be improved upon. We are using the original Connexions system to help us to provide a better outcome than we have had thus far. With 1 million youngsters out of work, we know how important this is.
Baroness Deech
Does the Minister appreciate that the cuts in legal aid proposed by the Government will devastate the career prospects of young people, many of them from ethnic minorities, who wish to become lawyers? The possibility of earning a living with legal aid in interesting areas such as immigration and family law has been wrecked, not to mention tuition fees.
Baroness Wilcox
We are giving schools the power to decide in their area what is going to be right for the children in their schools. This is a very empowering thing to do. We have enormous confidence in our schoolteachers. We believe that our schools should be given this opportunity. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to speak further on this to me. We will ensure that every opportunity is available to our children.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, in her Answer my noble friend referred to the service thus far as “patchy”. Many of us who have been privileged to be Members of Parliament over the past 30 years would not be nearly so generous as she has been. What are the radical changes that are planned that give my noble friend confidence about this bright new tomorrow?
Baroness Wilcox
Local authorities deliver both universal careers guidance and targeted support for vulnerable young people under the Connexions brand, and there is widespread evidence that a lack of focus on careers guidance led to provision of variable quality, which is what I was referring to. That is why we have decided to end the Connexions area-based grant that the noble Lord is referring to. Local authorities retain the responsibility to help young people not in education, employment or training to re-engage. We are concerned about children at every level: children in schools, and children who have just left school and are wandering the streets with no training and no work to go to. Do not worry, we are really on top of this, and any advice that the noble Lord can give me, I am happy to have.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, mentioned the independence of these advisers. Will they really be independent or will they just be yet more teachers who find themselves with a little spare time in their timetable and are given this job to do?
Baroness Wilcox
That sounds a bit like the careers guidance when I was at school all those years ago. No, the whole point is that these are going to be specially trained careers advisers. They will be external to the schools. It will not just be—forgive me—the teacher who maybe has time to go to the library for the couple of rows of books that we used to get pointed towards. This is real careers advice; we need it now, and we are determined to provide it.
Planning: Naseby Wind Farm
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Secretary of State will intervene in the decision to build a wind farm overlooking the site of the Battle of Naseby.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the patron of the Naseby Battlefield Project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)
My Lords, I assume—I hope correctly—that my noble friend’s Question relates to the proposed wind farm at Kelmarsh, which has been the subject of a recent planning appeal. In that case, the decision has been made by a planning inspector acting on behalf of the Secretary of State and is final unless it is challenged in the High Court. The period in which a High Court challenge can take place has not yet expired, so I cannot comment on this case.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, is it not extraordinary that our precious battlefield sites of Hastings, Bosworth, Culloden and Naseby can be spoilt by wind farms, especially when planning guidance PPS5, introduced less than a year ago by the present Government, specifically mentions the need to protect the setting of a heritage site? How can one inspector ignore PPS5 on the—in my judgment—spurious grounds that wind farms are limited by time as their life is only 25 years? Will the Minister think again and come with me to the viewpoint, which is funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and see the impact that six windmills will have from Colonel Oakey and Prince Rupert’s viewpoints? Surely the Secretary of State needs to recognise that we do not have the funds to challenge in the High Court. However, the Secretary of State has the right to call in at any point, and I ask my noble friend to convey that to him.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I hear very clearly what the noble Lord has said. As I said, I cannot comment on the particular matter that he raises. All I would say is that there are two issues here. One is the Planning Inspectorate, which, as noble Lords will know, is independent. The planning inspector makes a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State, but he or she takes that decision in the light of his or her own views. The protection of areas of a special nature is covered by the national planning policy framework and the expectation is that they will be protected.
Lord Jones
My Lords, surely the Government will move towards a rethink, bearing in mind the huge importance that that battlefield held for future parliamentary democracy. Is it not the case that on that battlefield the King lost an army and Parliament assumed dominance? It was there that Cromwell’s cavalry, on the second charge only, was able to smash through the royalist army. It was there that Colonel Oakey’s enfilading of the royalist infantry ensured that the parliamentary forces succeeded. Is this battlefield not quintessentially the middle English countryside, adjacent as it is to the sleepy charm of Naseby village and being the haunt of buzzard and skylark?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, on the back of that history lesson and exposition, I do not think I can say anything more, other than that I hear what noble Lords have said.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, I feel we should hear from my noble friend Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter
Thank you. My Lords, does the Minister think that the opportunity to make revisions to the national planning policy framework should be used to make clear the importance of the landscape setting of historical assets in contributing to our understanding of a sense of place and who we are from the ideas and events that have shaped our country?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, the national planning policy framework will be coming into existence in the next weeks or months. We are looking to the protection of areas of natural beauty as the noble Baroness has indicated.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, mentioned Culloden. Are there any plans for a wind farm at Bannockburn?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, that would be a matter for the local community to decide when they put together the local plan on which ultimate decisions will be made.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the royalist centre at the Battle of Naseby was led by that great soldier Sir Jacob Astley, who subsequently surrendered the last royalist army in the field with the words which have a lasting relevance to the political scene: “Gentlemen, you have beaten us, now go fall out among yourselves”?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I merely thank my noble friend for adding to the history lesson which we have all much enjoyed.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, my noble friend said that the inspector makes a decision on behalf of the Secretary of State. Can that really be right? Does not the inspector make a recommendation and the Secretary of State makes the ultimate decision?
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, as I understand it, the initial recommendation by the planning inspector is made on behalf of the Secretary of State. If that is incorrect, I will come back to the noble Lord.
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill [HL]
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Welfare Reform Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:33 - Division on Amendment 50E - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 229 - Amendment 50E disagreed.
“( ) Where amounts are re-allocated to local authorities as described in subsection (5), the Secretary of State must publish the following information annually for five years following the first re-allocation—
(a) the amount of money which has been re-allocated from the Consolidated Fund in each local authority; and(b) an annual report accounting for the expenditure of these amounts in each local authority area.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, like Amendment 50 debated last week, this amendment is designed to minimise the adverse effects likely to result from the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, in order to be of assistance to the noble Baroness, who is seeking to move a very important amendment, may I suggest that those leaving the Chamber do not pass in front of speakers? That is not the habit of this House. May they please leave the Chamber by another route, so that we may hear from the noble Baroness?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Thank you.
The amendment is about accountability. Considerable concern was raised in Grand Committee about the accountability of local authorities for the moneys devolved to them when the discretionary Social Fund is abolished. The amendment has been drafted with the help of Family Action, to which I am grateful, so as to put into effect the recommendation of the Communities and Local Government Committee report Localisation issues in welfare reform. While the CLG Committee accepted the Government’s case against ring-fencing the money, its report said that this,
“may carry some risks at a time of difficult financial circumstances for councils”.
The committee therefore recommended that,
“central government identifies clearly the amounts that are being allocated to local authorities, and collects information about their use, until the new arrangements have bedded in—we suggest a period of five years. … This would provide some reassurance about the effectiveness of the new system in helping those in need”.
Ministers have been giving out mixed messages on this issue. I hope that means that they are genuinely trying to find a way of answering the concerns about lack of accountability that have been raised in a number of quarters. One ministerial response has been to rely on the ballot box, even though the people affected are those least likely to vote, and also to contend that it is sufficient to set out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter.
However, a chink of light emerged in the Government’s response to the call for evidence, when they said that the settlement letter, mentioned last week by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley,
“may be supplemented with a requirement to report on how the funding has been used”.
The CLG Committee observed:
“This would fall some way short of the accountability mechanisms suggested by some stakeholders”.
Nevertheless, if the Minister now committed the Government to imposing such a requirement, we would be satisfied.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke about supplementing the planned review of a cross-section of local authorities in order to collect more information on how the money is spent. While I welcome the spirit in which this very small concession was offered, I fear that it falls short, not just of what we believe is necessary but of what the Government themselves hinted at in their response to the committee’s evidence.
We are still awaiting an answer to some astute questioning in Grand Committee from the noble Lord, Lord German, about how the Government will meet their obligations of stewardship for the money allocated to local authorities in England. As the noble Lord stated very powerfully, this is a question of accountability to Parliament. How can such accountability be ensured if local authorities are not required to report on how they spend the money allocated to them?
The purpose of Amendment 50ZB is to allay the fears voiced by voluntary organisations such as Family Action, Women’s Aid and Platform 51 that local authorities might impose a local or residence condition as a way of rationing assistance when allocating social housing. Again, I am grateful to Family Action for help with drafting this amendment. Given the pressures on local authorities, it is quite conceivable that some at least might seek to impose a local connection test—that is, confine help to people who already have a local connection with the area. In Committee, I tabled a general amendment to prevent such a test. This amendment is drafted more tightly to ensure that such a test is not applied to people fleeing domestic violence—or, more accurately, people who have fled domestic violence—young people leaving local authority care, people who are homeless or who have been homeless within the previous 12 months and people leaving institutional residential care such as a hospital, prison or a young offenders’ institution. In other words, this amendment is designed to safeguard the interests of groups who are likely not to have a local connection.
As the voluntary sector consortium headed by Family Action points out,
“These groups of people are much less likely than others to be able to demonstrate local connection. Without crucial assistance from a Community Care Grant to buy essential items such as cooking equipment and bedding, they may struggle to set up and maintain a home. This puts them at risk of reoffending or moving back into temporary or institutional accommodation, which is far more costly and means they lose their newly-found independence”.
The consortium is particularly concerned that, without a clear legal prohibition on requiring a local residence connection, women who have experienced domestic violence will be discouraged from moving elsewhere to flee their violent partner, or will return to their partner because they are unable to provide basic household items such as a cooker to prepare cheap healthy food for themselves and their children. The consortium’s concerns were echoed in the impact report published last week by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, which looked at the impact of the legislation in relation to children’s rights. When questioned on this matter in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State assured Members that local authorities had a moral duty. Welcome as this recognition is, I fear that if a woman who has fled domestic violence or an ex-prisoner cites a moral duty to their local authority they will not get very far. Surely if the Government believe that a moral duty holds, they should translate it into a statutory duty.
The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, did not address these issues in Committee but kindly wrote to me afterwards. However, he simply set out in his letter the local connection provisions on homelessness contained in the Housing Act 1996. I shall not spell those out now, but they protect a person from being denied any assistance anywhere because of a lack of local connection. If the Minister is saying that the same rule will apply here, then I welcome it, but does it not need to be written into the legislation? As I understand it, the Housing Act 1996 does not apply to the legislation we are discussing here. If the Minister were to offer to bring forward his own amendment at Third Reading to give effect to the Housing Act provisions on local connection, I would happily withdraw the amendment as unnecessary. As an absolute minimum, can the Minister assure the House that the settlement letter will spell out that local authorities should follow the same provisions as in the housing legislation?
It seems to me that the aims of these two amendments are not that far from what the Government themselves wish to achieve. I hope therefore that the Minister might be willing either to accept them or to agree to bring forward his own amendments at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 50ZA and will refer to Amendment 50ZC. I very much applaud the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in seeking to have publication of information about the allocations of money to local authorities for the purposes envisaged. She presented her case very powerfully as always.
I want to thank the Bill team for a most helpful conversation. I understand that the £36 million allocated for crisis loans could be spent by local authorities on grants or payments in kind as well as loans. I find that very encouraging. I for one am very suspicious of loans for people attempting to live on the breadline—they can build up even greater problems for the future—other than when provided for budgeting purposes, which I know is very much what the Minister has in mind. If, for example, households receive half their monthly income half way through the month as a loan only to be repaid at the end of the month, that would go some way to ameliorate what would otherwise, for me anyway, be a highly risky set of proposals.
Amendment 50ZA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would provide information on whether the funds had been spent by local authorities on the purposes for which the Government are allocating them—we all understand that is what they are being allocated for. I have some concerns that, even if the Minister concedes this amendment, it remains true that there is no statutory requirement for local authorities to provide some form of assistance to households in crisis. Many Social Fund crisis loans are sought because mothers, often single mothers, have no cash for the electricity meter—apparently, this is really the dominant issue confronting people who seek these loans—with several days to go before getting any more benefit and, of course, the children are cold and the mother cannot even make a hot meal for them without some form of electricity. I understand that the idea of the settlement letter is to spell out the purposes for which the £36 million should be used. I applaud that. I also understand that the DWP plans to follow up a representative sample of local authorities after one year to find out how they have spent the money.
My concern is that over time the settlement letter might be redrafted—heaven forbid that Ministers even change from time to time—and, if local authorities report after one year that unfortunately the £36 million had to be spent on other matters, it seems to me that there is no way of ensuring that these households in crisis actually have funds allocated to those needs. That is actually my concern. We need to know that there will continue to be a system for dealing with these household crises, particularly for families with children. We do not want these children disadvantaged.
I understand the logic of making the £178 million for community care grants and crisis payments available to local authorities, which are no doubt closely involved with many of these families—certainly, if they are not involved, they should be. The aim, as I understand it, is that these funds need to be brought together with other forms of assistance for these families in order to generate greater value for money. At the moment, the Social Fund is a national system that operates at arm’s length from other services. I recognise that this has some disadvantages. The concern is that every local authority is likely to respond differently to this challenge. How can we be sure that households in crisis will have somewhere to go for help, as I have already said? The Government are already committed to the settlement letter and review after 12 months, again as I have already alluded to. I welcome those commitments very strongly. They are a start, but they are a weak provision in this very important area of policy.
I hope that the Minister will take seriously the need for a more robust system to underwrite what I understand to be the Government's intentions. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is one option, but whether or not the Minister accepts Amendment 50ZA, perhaps he will consider incorporating in regulations the requirement that the funds envisaged for resolving household crises are indeed allocated to that purpose. I understand that how local authorities want to do that is a matter for them, but I think that ensuring that the funds are focused on that issue merits a sentence in the regulations. That would certainly make a much stronger support for the provision and give an assurance to the House that we have not lost it.
I would be very grateful for the Minister's serious consideration of the amendment. I should mention that I will not move Amendment 50ZC at this stage.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, I make a brief intervention to support the amendments, as I did in Committee. Clause 69 is very important for a relatively small but very vulnerable group of people. The discretionary Social Fund has been part of the furniture, if you like, of social security for a long time, and during the period that it has been deployed, people have been able to take advantage of it to save the public purse considerable sums. One of the main purposes behind the discretionary Social Fund is to prevent people being institutionalised in various ways, and it has done that very successfully. There is cross-party agreement that reform of the Social Fund is long overdue, but to abolish or decentralise it like this raises many questions, which remain unanswered. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to try to assuage the concerns that some of us continue to have.
First, the process that will now unfold is less than clear to me. Reading the penultimate subsection of Clause 69, I think that an affirmative resolution will be required to give effect to the power that the Government are seeking in the clause, but I should like reassurance about our ability to have ongoing discussion about how the Social Fund Commissioner’s assets and the apparatus that we have in place at the moment will be dismantled in a way that makes sense, and that the allocation formula for the disbursement of these moneys is carefully considered and consulted on, because the discretionary Social Fund spend obviously has a very spatial dimension to it because some communities need it much more than others. We need to be careful about how we make that decision in the first instance. That is another reason why Parliament, by virtue of affirmative resolution or statutory instrument, must be continuously approached for advice and reassurance. The sample of local authorities being lined up for the welcome review process needs to be carefully considered because of the point I have just made: the decentralisation process will affect some dramatically differently from others.
I still have serious misgivings about this. If we are going to do this, we need to be really careful that we are getting it correct in the first instance and that the client group who have relied on discretionary payments from the Social Fund in crisis situations are not left wanting, completely abandoned and without access to liquid cash in circumstances where they find it difficult to survive.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I wish to raise briefly the question of whether to centralise payments to people in extreme difficulty or whether to leave that to the discretion of local authorities or, as was originally suggested prior to the First World War, friendly societies, or others. That idea has subsisted for at least 100 years and I think it will continue. I am generally supportive of the localism agenda and I can see material benefits in devolving this opportunity to local authorities. However, the amendments raise two issues that need a little reflection.
The wider question, which has been touched on by a number of noble Lords, is whether this money, which was intended for people in severe difficulties, will continue, albeit with local administration, to be applied to such people in general. I think that on the whole the Government are facing in the right direction here, but I look forward to the Minister’s assurances on it.
The specific twist that I want to add was prompted by something that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said about whether there should be a local connection. Clearly there is the subtext that there could be some discrimination in favour of the local boy or girl against someone from outside, someone who was felt to be in some sense the architect of their own distress or someone in some way morally unworthy. I do not want to go on about that now, but we can see the argument developing.
I should like the Minister to consider—and it may be helpful to him to do so—the fact that since the passage of the Housing Act some 16 years ago, we have had all the equality duties, including the public sector equality duty. Certainly local authorities, in exercising the discretion being offered them, will have to operate within the framework of that duty. I wonder whether that is indeed helpful in obtaining the assurances that I think we want with regard to making sure not only that the money goes where it is intended to go but that it goes to the people who need it most within that category of difficulty, rather than being siphoned off to people who are more acceptable or who come more within the interest of the local authority concerned.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I want to speak in favour of all these amendments and to ask a question about Amendment 50ZB. When we discussed the Social Fund on our previous day on Report, I raised the fact that the Office of the Children’s Commissioner had published the Child Rights Impact Assessment of the Welfare Reform Bill. I understand that at that point the Minister had not had the opportunity to read the assessment in any detail, but I wonder whether he has had the chance to read it since then and, if so, whether he can assure the House about the line that says:
“In failing to guarantee that crisis support is available for children fleeing an abusive home with their parent/carer, the clauses abolishing the Social Fund fail to take all appropriate legislative measures to protect children from domestic abuse and we therefore believe they are in breach of Article 19”,
of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That goes to the heart of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has just raised. People might have a very good reason to cross boundaries. If one were fleeing domestic violence, that would be a good reason not to move to the neighbouring street, as I am sure the noble Lord would accept. How can the Government guarantee that local authorities will give appropriate support to children and families in that circumstance, and how can they prove that the UK will discharge its responsibilities under this convention?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I speak as a heretic who is even now probably having his burning at the stake prepared by the Secretary of State for Local Government, my right honourable friend Eric Pickles, because I believe in ring-fencing. I have always thought it daft that Governments make available for a specific purpose money that is then spent by other people on something else. The Government get the blame for not having provided the money and everyone else gets the credit when anything good happens. I do not think that is sensible. However, it is a brick wall against which I do not propose to bang my head this afternoon.
The suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—that if local authorities are going to have this money, they should at least be required to account for it—is a good one. I am slightly scarred by my experience as chairman—although I am no longer—of Help the Hospices; the previous Government allegedly made £50 million available but no one ever found it. It disappeared into thin air. I do not want to see that happen here. I do not want to see it spent on swimming pools, or campaigns, or many other good causes, when it is intended for people with severe disabilities.
Lord Blair of Boughton
My Lords, like other speakers I support Amendment 50ZB. Very few police officers have not come across the fleeing mother with her children. There is no more desperate person imaginable. However, that is not the point I want to make. My point relates to a longer-term issue, and is about making sure that this funding goes towards the long-term prevention of crime. The connection between criminality and having been in care, between criminality and homelessness, and between criminality and having been already in prison is so clear that money spent here and accounted for by the local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has just said, is money well spent. This money should be spent on this, and to have it spent on other things would be a great shame.
Lord German
My Lords, to concur with the noble Lord’s last sentence, this is a matter of accountability. I refer to Amendment 50ZA, which applies only to England. Members of the House of Lords will be very familiar with the fact that other parts of the United Kingdom will receive this money, and I would like some confirmation from the Minister on the arrangements that are to be made for Scotland and Wales. If, as I understand it, this money is to be transferred by means of the Barnett formula, the amendment will apply only to England. I wonder how it is possible to seek accountability for money that has been given by this Parliament for the services that are so vital for people within the current arrangements for the Social Fund. This is not an anti-devolution to local government statement, but the lines of accountability here do need to be judged. If we are devolving the power for that accountability to the Welsh and Scottish Governments, we need to state that now, and noble Lords need to understand that this is a further devolution of responsibility. Many noble Lords may accept this, or like it, or find it an attractive proposition, but the Government’s intention in this respect is as yet unclear to me.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord German, is for or against the amendment, but all the other speakers have clearly supported these amendments. This is quite sensible, because the amendments all set out to ensure that vulnerable people can continue to access support once the Social Fund has been devolved, to whomsoever.
The first amendment in the group implements a recommendation of the Select Committee in another place. It would provide some reassurance about the effectiveness of the new system of helping those in need, and clearer information to local voters about whether their local authority is choosing to spend less than the allocated amount. It does nothing to restrict local discretion in how to implement the Social Fund replacement scheme; it merely places a requirement on the local authority, as has been said, to account for it. I think that all noble Lords who spoke would support that, and I feel sure that this is an aim that the Minister, similarly, will support.
The second amendment in the group, as was spelled out, would ensure that the use of local connection rules cannot prevent, for example, care leavers, the homeless, those fleeing domestic violence—the noble Lord, Lord Blair, spoke about them—and those leaving institutional residential care accessing Social Fund-type support. It is true that it ties the hands of local authorities a little, but only to ensure that groups that might be very much in need of support are not left with nowhere else to turn. As we heard, for many women fleeing domestic violence, community care grants are vital in helping them to set up a new home and perhaps buy a cot, a bed or a cooker. Given that many women need to enter refuges or other homes away from their former partners, they will often be unable to meet local connection rules.
We know that, among people who use the discretionary Social Fund, one in eight is leaving some sort of institutional care; nearly one in 10 is leaving prison; and one in five has at some time experienced homelessness. I work in Camden with people who have alcohol problems. There are a lot of train stations in Camden, so a lot of people arrive on our doorstep. At the time we help them with their drink problem, they will not be in the same area where they have lived and worked for perhaps 30 years.
Although I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will not press her amendment, I urge the Minister to consider it. We know that although universal credit budgeting loans could be available for rent in advance, crisis loans will be abolished before the introduction of universal credit, and it could be some time before the new system is set up and reliable. We know from our experience of many new IT systems that even the best laid plans occasionally go wrong. We have had many assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Freud, about the robust nature of the system being put in place, but it would be prudent to ensure that a national safety net remains while we wait for him—we hope—to be proved right on this occasion. I said “prudent” but it is probably vital that we continue to guarantee national access to community care loans and crisis loans until the universal credit system is set up. Once national systems have been devolved, the accountability that my noble friend spoke of, as well as the local connection rules, will be an essential part of helping these vulnerable groups. We are happy to support all three amendments in this group.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, when we discussed the Social Fund last week, I hope I was able to offer reassurance in two key areas. First, I informed noble Lords that we would extend the 2014-15 review of a cross-section of local authorities to include information about the way they have used their funding for the new local provision. Perhaps I may return to that in a moment.
I was also able to assure your Lordships that the settlement letter that noble Lords referred to today that will accompany the funding will set out what the funding is to be used for and will describe the outcome that must be achieved—although, for reasons I explained, not the method that should be used to achieve the outcome. After further consideration of the issue, and following questions from noble Lords, I am able to explain what the settlement letter will contain. The letter will set out what the funding is to be used for, the underlying principles, and describe the outcome that must be achieved. It will say that the funding is to concentrate resources on those facing greatest difficulty in managing their income, and to enable a more flexible response to unavoidable need. The letter will make explicit that the funding is to provide a replacement provision for community care grants and general living expenses crisis loans.
The letter will go on to explain that community care grants were awarded for a range of expenses, including household equipment, and were intended to support vulnerable people to return to or remain in the community or to ease exceptional pressure on families. They were also intended to assist with certain travel expenses. It will also explain that crisis loans were made to meet immediate short-term needs in an emergency or as a consequence of a disaster when a person had insufficient resources to prevent a serious risk to the health and safety of themselves or their family. As I said in our discussion of Amendment 50 last week, I assure your Lordships that we are equally committed to ensuring that this funding goes to help the most vulnerable.
Amendment 50ZA would require the Secretary of State to publish information on the amount of money given annually to each local authority. I can assure your Lordships that we already plan to publish this information on the DWP website. On community care grant budgets, noble Lords might like to be aware that work has been done since Committee to make the funding distribution fairer by changing the funding allocation methodology.
It is each local authority’s responsibility to decide what type of support it provides with these funds. We have already been made aware of a variety of innovative ways in which local authorities plan to use this money, such as furniture re-use schemes, working with credit unions, investing in existing projects or joining up with other organisations in the area. For example, the fieldwork undertaken by the department shows that rural local authorities had very different ideas from those of urban authorities, and would embrace the freedom to design and establish local provision that suits the particular challenges they face.
Some benefit recipients cannot even afford the delivery of free goods from support schemes. During the fieldwork, the department was made aware of the fact that a local authority in Yorkshire is considering using some of the new funding to pay the delivery fees charged by an existing provider for the delivery of free goods to benefit recipients and other low income groups. This demonstrates the benefit of tailoring support to the local area. This initiative is particularly useful in a rural area, as it would have been far more expensive for people to arrange their own deliveries than in an urban area. This service would help people on the lowest incomes to receive free household goods that they might otherwise be simply unable to access.
Another example of innovative thinking came from a local authority in the Greater Manchester area, which said that it would use the funding to expand the local credit union, as this already provides household goods to people on low incomes. Expanding the scheme would increase access to affordable credit for those on low incomes and reduce the reliance on high-cost and illegal lenders. Yet another different approach to the new provision is that of a local authority in the south-west, which has been looking at how commissioning services would boost the local economy, providing new skills and routes back into employment and out of poverty.
As I hope is evident from these examples, giving local authorities the responsibility for deciding what the new local provision will look like allows for innovative new schemes that are tailored to the local area.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
These examples are very helpful, as is the further fleshing-out of the content of the letter to local authorities, but what is the arbitration process, supposing local authorities deliberately and in bad faith pay no attention to the contents of the letter that the Minister is proposing to send?
Lord De Mauley
Perhaps I might come to that as I proceed. Amendment 50ZA would also require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report accounting for the expenditure of this funding. As each local authority will be delivering different types of support, requiring the Secretary of State to report on a large number and variety of schemes—some of which, as I have explained, would be combined with existing services—would, I suggest, be impractical as well as costly. It would lead to expenditure on administration when local authorities will, in any event, be required to account to their communities for their spending and services.
There will be a large variety in the size of awards to local authorities, as the amount of funding each will receive will be based on the equivalent Social Fund spend at the point of transition. Therefore, while some local authorities will receive large amounts, others will receive less than £10,000. It would be far too onerous to require these authorities to report in detail on how the funding is spent. It would make no sense to enforce the same reporting requirements on such a wide range of local authorities receiving such differing amounts. However, as I said in the debate on Amendment 50, the department will conduct a review in 2014-15, obtaining appropriate information from a representative cross-section of local authorities, in order to help inform future funding levels. I am not talking about a small sample. An analogous exercise conducted last year covered 50 local authorities, so we are talking about quite a substantial exercise. Following the helpful contributions of noble Lords in Committee, I have made a commitment that this exercise will be extended to provide more information about the way in which local authorities have used the funding.
Amendment 50ZB seeks to ensure that certain particularly vulnerable groups of people are not rendered ineligible for support on the basis of a test of local residence or connections. We have discussed this issue with local authorities, which are, of course, as noble Lords will be well aware, already very familiar with the issue. In fact, it is not really a Social Fund-specific issue at all because local authorities already deal with boundary issues in the delivery of other services, such as housing and homelessness. Local authorities already have many duties to provide assistance to vulnerable people under existing legislation and frequently co-operate with other local authorities in doing so. We believe that local authorities should be given the freedom to set their own eligibility criteria to enable them to tailor the new provision to their local area.
Furthermore, we will encourage local authorities to link support across boundaries. Indeed, several authorities have mentioned to us in discussions that they were already planning to establish collaborative working relationships. Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea, for example, already work together to provide some joint services and have said that they will look to see how they can join up for this new local provision. Bristol is also looking at working with neighbouring authorities. Each of the groups referred to in Amendment 50ZB already receives assistance from local authorities and the Government. As my noble friend Lord Boswell mentioned, local authorities already have a number of existing responsibilities in relation to the provision of emergency and longer-term accommodation. They have particular responsibilities in respect of those with a priority need, such as those who are vulnerable because of age, mental illness or disability and those with dependent children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to Section 199 of the Housing Act 1996, which sets out what constitutes a local connection in relation to people who are homeless. There is also statutory guidance for local authorities from the Department for Communities and Local Government to which local authorities must have regard. The effect is that those with no local connection receive help from the local authority to which they apply; those with a local connection to a particular area receive help from the authority responsible for that area unless they are at risk of violence if they return there. A local authority housing a vulnerable person would be in a good position to provide help through the new local provision—for example, by providing furnishing for the accommodation it arranges. This is a more holistic approach for local authorities to adopt and such an approach would also be beneficial for local authorities delivering support to those fleeing domestic violence. Local authorities can use the new local provision alongside existing support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, challenged me as to how the other groups in the amendment are covered by duties and responsibilities. Local authorities already have a duty to house someone fleeing from domestic violence. They will be able to use the new provision to continue to provide support further down the line—for example, helping to furnish new accommodation that has been provided to someone who has fled domestic violence. As regards young people leaving local authority care, local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child who has been a looked-after child, including providing maintenance, and have such duties until the child is 21. Local authorities also already have duties to support disabled people or those who are destitute. They must make arrangements for promoting the welfare of those with a disability or mental disorder, including assessing the welfare needs of a person leaving hospital having received in-patient treatment for a mental disorder.
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 requires local authorities to prepare a plan for the provision of community care services in consultation with relevant bodies and to assess the needs of people who may be in need of these services. Local authorities are already required by multiple legislative duties to provide support to the most vulnerable people in their area and they have a great deal of experience of doing so. They will be able to use this experience to deliver the new local provision in a way that will best suit the people in their local area. Therefore, I suggest that there is no specific need for local connection eligibility rules to be published.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the Children’s Commissioner’s report. I have read the report, published last week, which suggests that certain changes made by the Bill could lead to breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government are satisfied that the Bill is compatible with their human rights obligations, including those under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The safeguards to which I have referred will ensure that the money intended for vulnerable people goes to vulnerable people. The most discretionary support will be better tailored to people’s needs when it is delivered locally. The new local provision and the national provision of payments on account will complement each other and, taken as a whole, they will provide more effective and better targeted support. For these reasons, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Wigley
Does the Minister intend to respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, with regard to the interplay with devolved authorities? It is a material question that was raised in Committee. My understanding in Committee was different from the understanding of the noble Lord, Lord German. If the Minister cannot respond now, perhaps he will write to interested parties in order to provide clarity on the matter.
Baroness Meacher
Can the Minister also respond to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, which I also raised, on the real assurance—the teeth, if you like—that the Government will need in emergencies to make sure, without specifying how it is spent, that the money is spent on those in greatest need? I would be grateful for a response from the Minister.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I hoped that I had emphasised that point. A great deal of work has been done with local authorities explaining the proposal and the intentions behind it. We have encountered considerable enthusiasm for the principle. We have put a lot of effort into helping and educating local authorities which will be making the decisions. I hoped that I had emphasised the importance of that point. I am agreeing with the noble Baroness but I do not think that I can go very much further than I have gone.
Baroness Sherlock
I am obviously being very slow. What will the Government do if a local authority spends the money on a swimming pool?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the local authority will not spend the money on a swimming pool.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. They have added some powerful arguments and questioning. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I should say that it is better to go from zero to hero than the other way round.
I thank the Minister who, I feel, is inching gradually in the direction that we have been trying to push him. He has again reassured us that the Government share the concern across the House that the money that is allocated to local authorities should be used for the purposes intended. It was helpful to have more information about what will be in the settlement letter. However, I have heard nothing today to reassure me that the money will necessarily be spent on what is intended. We should think of the context. Local authorities are under huge pressure. Apart from anything else, they will have to be responsible for council tax benefit, with a cut of 10 per cent in the money available for it. How tempting it might be for them to say, “Oh, let us use a bit of the Social Fund money to top up council tax benefit”.
How can the noble Lord say with such assurance that the money will not be used on a swimming pool, a road or anything else? Without the information that this amendment would provide, I am afraid that the Government simply cannot give that assurance. I am very disappointed that the noble Lord has not felt able to go further in meeting the spirit of these amendments even if not the letter of them. I do not think that he has dealt adequately with the questions and comments made by noble Lords.
We have the example of the supporting people budget. When the ring-fence was removed, immediately many local authorities started spending the money on other things. That was with an existing budget. This is a new budget, which will be even more tempting for local authorities. I hope that the Government will reflect further on this issue. We will certainly reflect further but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is unfortunately unwell today. Currently, she is watching the Report stage of the Welfare Reform Bill from her hospital bed. She has asked that Amendment 50ZE is not moved and I would ask your Lordships’ House to agree to this request. I am sure that your Lordships’ House would also want to send best wishes to the noble Baroness for a speedy return to the Chamber.
Baroness Meacher
“(4) A person is not entitled to personal independence payment unless the person is aged 18 or over.”
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, in moving Amendment 50ZGA, I shall speak also to Amendment 56ZC, the purpose of which is to allow disabled children aged 16 and 17 to continue to qualify for DLA for children instead of PIP until they reach the age of 18. It would mean that they would not have to go through the PIP assessment process until they reach an adult age. It would also simplify the benefits system by aligning PIP with universal credit.
I thank the Minister for sparing time to discuss this amendment at the end of a long day, which was at the end of a long week. I should offer him my apologies because last week I was jetlagged, tired and not very well, and I did not always get all my little ducks in a row. But I understand that 16 and 17 year-olds applying for PIP would not have to go through an income assessment. However, they would have to undertake a capability assessment. The point of this amendment is to sort out some issues of principle and consistency in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds. When I met the Minister, we did not touch on these issues and I should be interested to know his response today.
I understand that this amendment would bring the Bill into line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines a child as,
“every human being below the age of eighteen years”.
More particularly—in my view more importantly—this amendment would deal with the adverse consequences of these clauses for the young people affected. In other words, if disabled 16 and 17 year-olds would benefit from being treated as adults, frankly, that would be good enough for me but the fact is that they will not.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I have amendments in this group. Our noble friend Lady Meacher has spoken most eloquently to the specific problems for these age groups. This is Report stage, and we are well aware that there has already been much debate about young people who have to transition between children’s services and those for adults. However, I remind the Minister that, coming from a medical background, we have tabled our amendment because of the specific problems for those who fall ill suddenly or who are severely ill. As they transition for all their care in the medical sense, they transition also for all their life events and social interactions. They struggle to move to a degree of independent adulthood and are faced with a whole range of problems that those who are more settled either in the security of childhood or, later on, in an adult framework might not encounter so acutely. For that reason, we ask the Government to allow them to be considered separately should it be appropriate.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have strong sympathy with these amendments, spoken to so effectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Finlay. We had a bit of a canter around this issue in Committee, focusing particularly on 16 to 24 year-olds. I took from that debate, and the Minister may take the opportunity to confirm or deny it, that there is potentially scope within the Bill for a regulation not to require 16 year-olds inevitably to move towards PIP. If that is not the case, it is important that we clarify it, because it impacts on how we approach the amendment.
A number of questions have been posed which I should like to emphasise. The first is whether the Minister contends that the PIP assessment as currently constructed is fit. Does he believe that it would be appropriate for most 16 year-olds? The assertion is that it is not. Another issue is the extent to which there is alignment of ages for a range of things—the UN convention certainly, but care generally and education and training. Would it not be better if that alignment were brought into effect also for the purposes of the PIP and the DLA cut-off?
When somebody aged 15 is about to become 16, that is the point at which things change on the DLA journey and we move into a somewhat different regime. If somebody reaches that once PIP is up and running, do they inevitably have to apply and go through the PIP process at that point, or is there an opportunity for them to remain within DLA or perhaps migrate at a subsequent point? Otherwise, there is a real risk that these young people will the first to test the new PIP arrangements. What is the technical position there? Does somebody who wishes to make their first claim after the age of 16 have the route only to PIP and not to DLA? Would somebody currently claiming DLA necessarily be denied the opportunity to continue with that until, perhaps, the migration plan has run its course? I thought part of the noble Lord’s response to our Committee debates was that you could deal with this in part by the way people in the DLA system migrated towards PIP. One way of dealing with some of the issues that have been very validly raised in this amendment would be to use that flexibility, if it exists. If not, it seems doubly important to lock into the 18 year-old cut-off point, which is being pressed.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I welcome these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. They allow me just to go through how the Government intend to introduce PIP successfully for young disabled people from the age of 16. Clearly, the central question is whether 16 or 18 is the right age. In one sense, all ages are a little arbitrary here. Adulthood is defined at different ages in different contexts. The key to the decision to start PIP at 16 was based around the assessment criteria and at what stage people fit in with those, in terms of the activities that they can undergo and how we can look at them. When we looked at it with a range of experts, we concluded that you would normally expect individuals without disabilities to be able to carry out these activities independently from the age of 16. For example, you would expect a 16 year-old to be able to wash and dress themselves, to communicate with others, to plan, and to follow and make a journey. It is the age at which, currently, you expect individuals to be able to be employed full-time. There is a general expectation that they have the capabilities of adults.
The group looked at whether you would expect even younger people—I had better use that word now, rather than adults or children—to fit this assessment. They concluded that children go through several developmental stages under the age of 16, and they do that at uneven speeds. So, there was a cut-off in developmental terms between the two stages, for the purposes of this test, at 16. The other way of looking at this is that it is about trying to move people into adulthood and independence. A lot of these youngsters are living in their households but need to move to independence. Having their own independent help and their own funding in PIP at that age matches their aspirations to move into adulthood, and allows them to make their own decisions about aspects of their lives.
This is an area where, as we described in our policy document, we have set out our intentions and outlined the key principles that we have debated and agreed with stakeholders. We have set up a subgroup of the PIP implementation development group specifically to help and inform the design and testing of the new system in relation to disabled young adults. Together with the focus group work and the interviews that we have held with disabled young people, their appointees and representatives, this is the process that we have under way to get the system right. One of the most important areas where we are using the development group is around the question of how we look at the process of moving people into the 16 category and how we signpost, communicate and get awareness of the changes and then join up the support for disabled young adults and their families.
Clearly, this is not the only testing that disabled youngsters undergo in this phase of their lives. There are a number of assessments as they move from childhood to adulthood. We will ensure that all young people claiming PIP or moving on to it at age 16 have the appropriate support to allow them fully to express their needs. We know it is important that they have a parent, an advocate or a friend to accompany them to that face-to-face consultation. We are not changing anything in terms of DLA in this area. We are changing a lot of things by moving DLA to PIP, and we will be discussing some of them, but in this area we are sticking with the same age as the existing DLA arrangements.
There was an anomaly that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, tried to pin me down on and defied me to find a good explanation for. I have been challenged and I shall do my best. On the point about the difference between the universal credit at 18 and PIP at 16, the blunt answer is that these are different benefits for different purposes. It is important that we do not think of PIP as an income supplement; that is not what it is, and nor is it for someone who is out of work. PIP is a payment to people who are disabled who will always need extra money to live because their costs of living are higher, and we will pay it regardless of whether people are in work or out of work. That is why it is a different argument. By giving PIP earlier, we are giving youngsters their independent funding to run their own lives from that point—not from the point when they are meant to be in the workforce and fully independent—when, if they do not have a job, they will need an income supplement. That is the difference. I hope that I have risen to the challenge; I am sure that the noble Baroness will say that I have not, but I have done my best.
We are working closely with the Department for Education to explore evidence gathered so that we can have a single assessment for an education, health and care plan that can be used to support a personal independence payment claim. We are trying to get rid of all the multiple assessments.
Baroness Meacher
Does the Minister accept that there are a lot of people who are very worried about this shift? The reality is that many of them who might have been entitled to DLA will not be entitled to PIP and will therefore lose out. They will also lose out on the disability additions. There is quite a big financial consequence here.
Lord Freud
I accept that there are concerns but one has to stand back. We are spending £12 billion on PIP in real terms, which is the same as the spending in 2009-10. The talk about a big cut refers to a big cut of a projection—the 20 per cent. I want to reinforce that point. In this House we should not get carried away with the simplicity of the big cut. It is not a big cut. With PIP we are trying to direct scarce resources, at a very difficult time, to the people who need them most. That is the purpose of it.
One of the other things that is happening—and is probably the biggest difference in emphasis between DLA and PIP—is that PIP is trying to take account of people with mental health problems in a way that DLA finds much harder. That is why the assessments and activities that are looked at are very different. Therefore, PIP is different and there are changes. Some people will lose out but they are the people who need the money less. That is the point of making the adjustment. However, the overall sum remains that £12 billion.
To pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, we have the power and flexibility to treat 16 year-olds differently. This includes different assessment processes during the migration period. We are working actively now with children’s groups to make sure that we have the right migration strategy for youngsters and to finalise it. We will publish that approach. It is not a settled matter, which was, I think, the noble Lord’s real question. We are working very hard to get it right.
Let me deal with some of the amendments. Amendments 57, 58, 50ZGA and 56ZC would prevent our abolishing DLA for those aged 18, and potentially limit our flexibility by imposing statutory duties that would be less able to respond to change, especially as we refine and improve processes as a result of feedback and our experiences. It is very important that we have that flexibility. One of the things that we will discuss later this evening is feedback and the amount of research that we will carry out on a continuous basis. Clearly we want to incorporate that into how we apply PIP, particularly for youngsters.
This is very technical but I need to make it clear that the Government consider Amendment 56ZC to be consequential on Amendment 50ZGA; and, separately, Amendment 58 to be directly consequential on Amendment 57. I do not want any misunderstandings later, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is not in her seat at the moment to give me a piece of her mind. Given the reassurances that I have given the noble Baroness, and the technical limitations that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would impose, I hope she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
If the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I have tabled would be more restrictive, does the Minister now have more powers to make regulations to exercise discretion in relation to people of different ages? Does this discretion remain wider by not including our amendments where an age group is highlighted?
Lord Freud
This is a framework Bill. There is a lot of potential flexibility as we set up the regulations, particularly in this migration period, as we move into them. This flexibility would be denied by these amendments.
Baroness Meacher
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for contributing to this short debate. This amendment was tabled very late and others have not had a chance to catch up with the thrust of the argument. I thank the Minister for his reply, although I doubt that the considerable number of people who will be losing out as a result of this provision will be very reassured by his response. I do, of course, understand—at least in general terms—the thrust of the Government’s commitment to focus resources on those most severely disabled. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“( ) A person is entitled to the daily living component at the basic rate if—
(a) the person’s ability to carry out daily living activities is limited by the person’s physical or mental condition; and(b) the person meets the required period condition.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, the amendment is designed to complement broader plans for social care and links to the Dilnot review of care funding. The Dilnot review examined care costs and how best to manage our demographic change. It concluded that universal disability benefits for people of all ages should continue as now. Dilnot was referring to DLA. The rationale for his recommendation was that DLA helps many disabled people avoid formal social services. It acts as a form of low-level needs management. However, Government plans include abolishing the low-rate care DLA payments of £19.55 per week, which 652,000 disabled people aged 16 to 64 currently receive.
Despite ignoring the Dilnot recommendation, the DWP has not provided a cost-benefit analysis of what this abolition could mean for care services. Charities and individual disabled people have, however, indicated that reduced access to DLA will increase dependency on social care services funded by councils. About one in eight of the disabled people who completed a Disability Alliance survey suggested they would be more likely to need a council-funded care home placement as, without DLA, families would no longer be able to manage needs. This leaves councils funding a much more expensive service. The lack of information being provided on this issue, despite the clear recommendation of the Dilnot review, can leave us with no choice but to assume it has not yet been fully analysed.
The Minister has suggested that providing a basic level of help is unaffordable, but we must also take into account the further costs of the two million medical notes from the NHS which disabled people who are forced to undergo the new assessment process will have to provide. This is not a cost-free policy. What about the analysis of the cost of potentially avoidable NHS use following the abolition of low-rate care payments? Disability and ill health do not just disappear, and the costs and needs of disabled people will be exacerbated. I suspect that there is an unfortunate silo approach being operated. Disabled people will suffer first and then their families, followed quickly by the NHS and councils.
The DWP has been pressed on these issues since plans emerged in 2010. It is unacceptable that these legitimate questions on the policy costs remain unanswered. I also believe the amendment is essential to help mitigate the risks of the current government proposals to disabled people, their families, the NHS and councils.
Figures published just yesterday suggest that of the 652,000 disabled people receiving low-rate care, about a quarter of a million may be able to access daily living payments under PIP. The statistics suggest an increase of 166,000 in the numbers receiving enhanced daily living payments, compared to DLA high-rate care, and an increase of 89,000 in standard daily living payments, compared to middle-rate care DLA. However, this means that 400,000 disabled people will lose support.
My amendment aims to secure basic support for just some of those 400,000 disabled people. The amendment will not simply carry over the same people and the same rules. I realise that the Government need to ensure a new approach. The amendment allows them to retain the right to establish the level of basic need at which disabled people would be entitled to support, as well as levels of payments. The DWP has not yet published the payment levels that disabled people can expect under PIP, but it could examine different payment levels. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, which has the support of many disability organisations and thousands of disabled people and their families who face losing help under the Government’s plans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has already outlined the numbers of people affected by the Government’s proposals. These people are not fakers and scroungers. Of current low-rate care claimants, DWP statistics show that 20,000 are blind, 57,000 have learning disabilities, 94,000 have arthritis, and more than 100,000 experience psychosis or psychoneurosis. These are some of the people affected, and these conditions are clearly not fake. These are the people who the Government suggest should lose support.
Disabled people have told the Government exactly what losing low-rate care could mean. Examples include people who categorically state the clear health and social care consequences of cutting DLA, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, outlined. I shall cite examples of people who have commented. One said:
“If DLA was reduced or removed then I would be unable to attend doctors and hospital appointments due to the cost of getting to and from them, and my health would be severely put at risk due to not having enough money to either keep myself warm and/or fed”.
Another said:
“We would be in crisis—end of story … my son would start self-harming again”,
and that even,
“prescriptions would be out of the question”.
The amendment could help prevent an explosion of avoidable NHS and social care needs, as the noble Baroness said. Will those needs of the disabled people who are losing help be met elsewhere? I fear that no support may be available from any other public service for many of the 400,000 who will lose all their DLA. The past decade has seen a shrinking of council social care service provision through the tightening of eligibility criteria. More than 80 per cent of councils in England now help only people with critical or substantial needs. The people losing DLA may very well not be able to access care services until crises develop. This leaves families, friends and neighbours to care for them. We already have one of the highest economic inactivity rates due to informal care provision. By not accepting this amendment the Government risk ignoring the impact on carers—especially on women aged between 46 and 64 who are more likely to have to take up caring responsibilities in lieu of formal services or benefit provision.
In proposing to abolish low-rate care provision, the department appears to fail to understand or, worse, to wilfully ignore the genuine needs of disabled people and carers. The amendment would help the Government ensure that they did not simply end the lifeline of DLA for disabled people and families who are unable to access alternative help until they receive expensive NHS treatment or residential care. Accepting the amendment and devising a fairer way to share the burden of the proposed dramatic cut in DLA resources would also help the Government ensure that they do not permanently undermine disabled people and the trust and confidence of carers. I hope that the Government really mean what they have said—that we are all in this together.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will speak just briefly on this. It seems to me that the importance of this amendment has been heightened by the documentation we got just yesterday from the DWP, which emphasised that half a million people are going to miss out under the new system compared with the current arrangements. In passing, I might say that it would have been more helpful had we had that documentation a little earlier so we could have studied it in more detail, although clearly the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has delved into it more deeply than I have had the chance to do.
There must be an onus on the Government to undertake some sort of assessment of the consequences for those half a million people who are not going to be able to benefit under the new system. Some of the consequences have been spelt out, such as extra pressure on social services and the health service. We know there will be loss of income tax and national insurance because DLA helps many people to stay in work or to work longer than they otherwise would. All those consequences are quite apart from the worst feature which is the human cost for people who are going to miss out who had been able to rely on funding and not just at the lower rate. It may be that most of those who fall out of the system are currently on the lower rate of DLA, but that certainly is not the case for all of them.
It seems to me that this approach reinforces the perception that is too prevalent that if you claim these benefits then somehow you are not worthy and you do not really deserve them. Half a million people will come out of the system under these proposals. What are the consequences for them? What assessment have the Government undertaken of their needs as a consequence of falling out of the system? Have they or will they look at the sort of proposal that this amendment covers so that there is some basis for bringing some redress for those people who, on any analysis, are bound to suffer as a result of these proposed changes?
Lord Wigley
My Lords, before the Minister gets up—I am sorry I did not get in before the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, who beat me to it—I want to say a few words in support of Amendment 50ZGB moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It provides a basic rate of daily-living payment to minimise the number of disabled people who might otherwise be totally deprived of such focused help. Listening to Radio 4 this morning and hearing the Minister from the House of Commons acknowledging that 500,000 people could be hit by these changes really brought home to everyone the significance of what we are talking about. The ending of lower-rate DLA will leave people with needs arising from their disability but without the means to pay for them.
The point was made earlier by the Minister—and I understand his point—that the day-to-day costs of living are covered separately from the additional costs of disability. The implication is that people who would be in the lower group do not have additional costs of disability, but we all know from experience that they do and they are going to be losing out as a direct result. If the Government’s intention is that so many people who have previously been recognised and acknowledged as having needs will no longer be helped to meet those needs, let them say so. I think it is a very retrograde step.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I had also meant to rise to speak a bit earlier. I, too, very much support what has been said about those amendments. We have all been absolutely flooded with e-mails about the situation of many of the people with disabilities we are talking about, who are fearful about their future and about how they are going to be affected. What has really impressed me is the details they give of their own lives and just what they need the extra money for—things that you and I would not even think about. It is not just support to get out of the house and to get to the shops or extra money for a car because there is no other way of getting about, but support for very basic extra things to make it possible to use saucepans and things like that.
I appreciate the actions that have already been taken, but I hope that serious thought will be given to those half a million people who will still suffer as a result. I am sure that the Minister will do everything he can to ensure that those in real need are approached with a flexible mind, but, nevertheless, some will fall between the new systems that are being devised, so I support the amendment and hope that serious consideration will be given to it.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but are things said subsequent to the Minister sitting down clarifications of what had been said before? If not, are they in order?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I start by picking up the point that the lower rate is being thrown out so everyone on the lower rate will no longer get DLA or PIP. That is absolutely not the structure of what is happening. We are looking at the needs of people from the ground up and designing a support mechanism in PIP to look after people who have disability needs. Clearly, anyone who needs support, on the grounds of a rigorous and consistent assessment, will get it. Many of those people will get more. In fact, we think that the proportion of people who will be in the group with the greatest need, in the highest group, will rise under PIP compared to those in the standard group.
The difference between PIP and DLA is that we are trying to strip out the complexity of all the different rates and boil it back down to eight rates—by the time you take the two components on the two different rate levels. The amendment replicates the complexity of the structure of DLA and moves it back up from eight to 11 components, making it more difficult to administer coherently.
I pick up the specific point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, on the Dilnot review, and reassure her that the DLA reform proposals published in April 2011 were shared with Andrew Dilnot’s review of long-term care funding, which was published a couple of months later in July. Andrew Dilnot said that universal disability benefits should continue, based on need and not on means. We are doing PIP exactly on those grounds—it is not means-tested but based on needs. He did not say that that benefit should go on unreformed.
We have designed the PIP assessment criteria to take broader account of the impact of disabilities than simply care and mobility, which are still of course very important factors. In our most recent draft of the assessment criteria—I remind noble Lords that we are still consulting on this process; this is work in progress and we are still listening very hard to the responses that we are getting—care and support needs feature very strongly. If someone needs attention with things such as washing, bathing, going to the toilet, dealing with medication, cooking food and eating, that is taken into account. We have amended the draft assessment criteria so that they now include supervision, whereas before they just considered whether someone needed assistance and prompting.
Baroness Browning
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. On the point about scarce resources, I think we all understand the financial situation and the imperative to reduce the deficit. However, if people who are currently on the lower rate of DLA lose it—a point made earlier in the debate—they will not just carry on with life as it is. If we accept that these people do not claim DLA without a need for it, then we accept that they have a genuine disability and that the lower rate of DLA is factored into their weekly budget. If it is then decided that their case is not as important as someone else’s and that that person might need the DLA, that is going to have an impact. Earlier, the point was made that if you take away the lower rate of DLA from a lot of people with a wide range of disabilities, there will be consequences for their health and well-being, which will translate into a financial cost on the public sector. Will my noble friend consider undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of that consequence?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have two answers to that question. The first is that people who need the support because of a disability may happen to be on the lower rate of DLA today but that does not mean that they will not be entitled to the standard rate in the future. My noble friend gave an example of people who are really dependent on that funding. I would expect in those circumstances that it would continue. Indeed, I would regard PIP to be a failure if it did not do that. Secondly, we will be monitoring that really closely. As I have discussed, later this evening I will present an amendment to make sure that we properly monitor what happens in this area and make sure that PIP does what it should be doing, which is to stop people ending up in the situation that my noble friend is so concerned about.
I must point out that if we move to a three-tier system on the daily living component, the implications are that the caseload would be larger—possibly larger than that under DLA—and spending would increase rather than decrease against the original and revised forecast under the personal independence payment. We cannot possibly quantify such expenditure implications, mainly because we have not yet set the rates at which benefit is paid, but the implications are there. I want the House to be under no illusions that they would be anything but significant.
Before I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments, I would like to confirm that the Government see Amendments 50ZGH and 50ZJA as directly consequential upon Amendment 50ZGB. On that note, I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I have to say that I am disappointed. I am also concerned and gravely worried for a huge number of disabled people. The tiny spark I take out of his comment is that he says he is listening. That is positive. However, there are lots of ways in which spending will increase if we push disabled people into poverty or do not give them the right support they need. We will be making massive, long-term mistakes for the rest of those disabled people’s lives. It is not a small number of people. It could be up to 500,000 disabled people—half a million disabled people could be affected by this.
I am keen to keep pressing the Minister to ensure that the outcomes of disabled people losing the lower rate of care will be monitored throughout the rollout of the PIP assessment because, whatever way you look at the maths, there will be people who lose out. It is a big mistake to see this as a deadweight expenditure. You only have to look at our postboxes or e-mail inboxes —in the past two days, I have had nearly 600 emails from different disabled people saying they are terrified of the changes that are going to happen.
It is really important that the assessment process properly records whether losing DLA has a negative impact on the health of disabled people or their ability to work. We have a long way to go on this. Very reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, the issue of the social model of disability was discussed at some great length in Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, spoke very eloquently on it. Despite the Government’s commitment to the social model of disability, their other commitment on this issue—to provide an objective assessment—works in opposition to this aim.
The idea of an objective assessment is to ensure that people with the same functionality receive the same level of PIP. This looks only at the person’s functionality, and not at the barriers faced by that person within society. A benefit which was based on the social model of disability would look at the barriers that individuals face, not just at their functionality. Despite their stated intention to bring in a more active and enabling benefit that supports disabled people to overcome the barriers they face to lead full and independent lives, it actually takes less account of the individual barriers people face—because different people face different barriers.
The DLA has been criticised and no one would argue that it could not be improved on. However, DLA takes into account to some extent an individual's circumstances and uses—again to some extent—the social model of disability. It is claimed that, by making the criteria simpler, PIP will use the social model. However, it seems to rely much more on the medical model and appears to be going backwards in terms of taking into account someone's costs in surmounting their barriers. The charity Scope has made it clear that it considers that the Government are introducing a tick-box style medical assessment that will not help them achieve the aims they have set out to achieve.
The stated aim is to provide a more active and enabling benefit that supports disabled people to overcome the barriers they face to leading a full and independent life, yet nowhere in the assessment process is there any space for looking at the barriers that an individual faces. Disabled people face a multitude of barriers to participation and independence, many of which come as a direct result of social, practical and environmental factors. Making the test more objective and simpler will inevitably lead to a greater focus on the medical model, which will work against the stated aims and purpose.
Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, said:
“We recognise that Disability Living Allowance needs reforming and we fully support the government's ambitions to create a more active and enabling benefit. However, we are concerned that the new assessment the government is planning to use is flawed because it doesn't take into consideration all the barriers that disabled people face in daily life. Without understanding the extent of barriers people face, the government has no hope to overcome them and genuinely enable people to take part in daily life”.
At a time of limited resources, it is crucial to ensure that support is targeted as effectively and accurately as possible. This will not happen using the proposed assessment. To ensure effective targeting, the assessment process for PIP claimants must accurately measure the extra costs that individuals incur, based on an understanding of the variables that affect those costs. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, this is the first time I have contributed on Report. I declare my interest as vice-president of the National Autistic Society, patron of Research Autism and as the named carer of an autistic adult man in receipt of DLA. I am concerned about this part of the Bill and support the amendment and the detail with which it outlines what I believe are shortcomings, despite my noble friend's best efforts to identify how the assessment will affect people on the autistic spectrum.
In 1990, the House of Commons sent to this Chamber the Autism Bill, which became an Act of Parliament. It was passed as a result of a Private Member's Bill introduced by the right honourable Cheryl Gillan MP. It was supported by all parties in both Houses and was enacted in 2010 by the coalition Government. I tabled a Question for Written Answer just before Christmas asking whether the Welfare Reform Bill that is before us was compliant with the Autism Act. It is worth remembering that no other Act of Parliament has been passed that is specific to a condition. Certain medical conditions are mentioned in other Acts, but the reason for both Houses agreeing to pass the Autism Act, which is now on the statute book, was that autism is different. I make no apology—I know I bang on about it quite a lot—for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that an Act of Parliament was needed because autism is so different.
There are many aspects to the Bill, including the amendment we are now debating, which have a specific read-across to the autistic spectrum. Some years ago in another place I introduced the first debate in Parliament on Asperger's syndrome. It was not well understood then. It is far better understood now, which is a great relief to me and many others. Even so, parents and people with Asperger’s syndrome still struggle to get access to services, benefits and independent living, and to take their place in society as they would wish. The Autism Act was passed in recognition of that. I have to say to my noble friend that I was very disappointed when the reply to my Question for Written Answer in relation to this piece of legislation said that this was a matter for the relevant services by local authorities and NHS bodies and was not the subject matter of the Welfare Reform Bill.
Under the Autism Act, there is now a statutory responsibility on health and social services to implement the autism strategy which will require them to work with partners; for example, local authority housing departments. The Health Minister will be in a strong position to call to account local authorities and health authorities that do not implement this strategy. I know it is not the subject of this clause but if you are going to say that people under 35 will have restrictions placed on them as to where and with whom they live, that is a total contravention of what local authorities are being asked to do to implement the Autism Act. Equally, in the assessments for people on the autism spectrum, Asperger’s syndrome is not “autism-lite”.
Some years ago the National Autistic Society produced a report on autism called Ignored or Ineligible?. It is a 10 year-old report but sadly a lot of it is still relevant today, especially for those trying to get support for people on the autism spectrum, particularly those at the end of the spectrum who are more able—people with higher than average IQs. The anomaly about this condition is that you can have people with Masters degrees who cannot cope with some of the day-to-day detail of looking after themselves. The House has put on the statute book the Autism Act because autism is so different. The amendment before us picks up on some of those defects in the assessment.
I had time to read the case study—unfortunately it was number 13—in the information that my noble friend published yesterday, which related to a young man with autism and how his assessment had been carried out. Yes, he scored highly and one would take a lot of comfort from that. But I want to bring my noble friend back to the situation of what is sometimes regarded as quirky behaviour—sometimes threatening or challenging behaviour—but in the main non-threatening behaviour; odd behaviour, yes, with the inability to do certain things sometimes but able to do much more difficult things at other times. It is a very strange and complex condition. Therefore, in an assessment process, it is absolutely essential that people are viewed as individuals in the way in which their condition affects their day-to-day lives, whether it is their medical condition, the way they live socially or their housing conditions. It is that sort of complex condition. It is sometimes associated with other things such as learning disabilities and/or mental health issues as well, which makes it much more specialised in terms of understanding the behaviour that is presented.
I do not want to focus on my own situation but, as I am sure noble Lords can imagine, as a mum I am pretty worried. I want to take this opportunity to say on behalf of other mums—if I do not say it, who is going to say it for them?—that when you have a child who is born with a lifelong disability and you know they are going to die with that disability, as a parent your relationship with that child is very different from your relationship with other children you may have. When they are little children, you agonise about things like education. As they get older, life skills and whether they can cope for themselves become far more important to you than whether they ever got a GCSE. As they and you get older, your waking moments are haunted by how they will cope when you are no longer there to support and help them. I think that most parents of disabled children—whatever the nature of their disability —would understand that. Therefore, when you feel after many years that you have them in what I would describe as a stable situation—and how important, particularly for autism, stability is—it is so worrying when you suddenly look into the future and find that actually it is not stable at all. It is not stable for you—as you are growing older with goodness knows how many years left—and you see that it is not stable for them.
I have every respect for the amount of time my noble friend has put into autism. I am totally in favour of what he is trying to do to get more autistic people into work, because there are many who could work if they were given the right support and back-up to do it. I fully support that. But Asperger’s syndrome and those people on one end of the spectrum of autistic spectrum disorders are not “autism-lite”. I mentioned the report Ignored or Ineligible?. It showed that for people between 20 and 30 the suicide rate was 8 per cent. The reason it was 8 per cent was that the people on that spectrum try like mad to be part of society and try to be like everybody else. However, there comes a point at which, for many of them, they give up that struggle. I am very concerned that if they are not assessed as individuals, with all the quirkiness and strangeness of this very complex condition, we will go back to people on the more able end of the autistic spectrum being either ignored or ineligible, with all that that means. That is why I support the amendment tonight.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, that was a most moving contribution from the noble Baroness. I think we were all very touched by it. I declare an interest at this point, as I receive DLA.
There is a real fear among so many disabled people who have contacted us that the migration to PIP is going to be like a horrid game of musical chairs, because they all know that the Government want a 20 per cent cut, wherever that comes. They all think that when the music stops, they will be the one without a chair. They also know that DLA, for all its faults, has the lowest incidence of fraud, and many of them say they feel demonised in the press for being scroungers. Would it not be nice if some of the screaming headlines in tabloid newspapers were about the way in which many people receiving DLA are able to live independently, contributing hugely to society in many different ways, rather than the other way around?
On the low level of DLA fraud, we have to acknowledge that my noble friend, coming to this whole subject with a fresh eye, reckons not that the wrong people are claiming the benefit but perhaps that the net has so small a mesh that it tends to pick up everyone who has any level of disability rather than picking up only those with the greatest need. Therefore, his argument goes, you do not have to resort to fraud in order to get DLA; it is so loosely drawn that almost anyone can get it if they know how to fill in a long and complex form in the right way. Taxpayers are entitled at this point to ask why medical reports are looked at in only around half the cases, which I for one find quite inexplicable, but we will come to that in our debate on a later amendment.
However, it is the phrase
“those with the greatest need”
that is most worrying. It could mean many things and is most closely associated with those who are entitled to means-tested benefits, which we know is not the case for PIP, and long may this last. Among the arguments that the Minister deployed when he rejected this amendment in Grand Committee were that it was too widely drawn; would be too expensive; would lead to too long an assessment, which would be too intrusive; and too complex. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, countered this by saying that the proposed points-based tick box descriptors approach will not capture enough information about the barriers and costs faced by disabled people on a daily basis. Both are right, which is why this issue is so difficult. It would be almost impossible to translate this amendment into a points-based assessment in a meaningful way, although in an ideal world that is exactly what is required.
I wonder whether there is any way in which the sense of this admirable amendment, or elements of it, could somehow be incorporated into the assessment process. I shall be most interested in my noble friend’s reply.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I support the amendment, which seeks to ensure that the assessment for the new entitlement is fit for purpose and fulfils the Government’s commitment to the social model of disability. As has already been noted, DLA occupies a unique space in the welfare benefits system as it recognises that disabled people face a plethora of extra, often prohibitive, costs as a result of living in our society with a condition or impairment.
We should all warmly welcome the Government’s repeated commitment to the social model of disability, for which, as many of your Lordships know, disabled people have fought long and hard. At the heart of the social model is the recognition that it is our society, not just their bodies, that disables people with health conditions and impairments. However, I fear that the proposed assessment for the new entitlement does not reflect this commitment. Despite the Government’s assurances in Grand Committee, the Minister admitted that the proposed test,
“is not a full social model assessment; it is not intended to be”.—[Official Report, 14/11/11; col. GC 199.]
I ask the Minister in his response to clarify to the House and disabled people why such a commitment was ever made in the first place.
The second draft of the PIP assessment criteria includes some small improvements from the first. However, it does not go nearly far enough. By assuming that a medical assessment will capture social and environmental barriers to independence, the Government risk homogenising the diverse difficulties that disabled people face in their everyday lives. The new threshold document makes many mentions of extra costs and barriers, but only a few of these will be captured by an assessment that looks exclusively at impairment.
It is with this in mind that I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The assessment for the new entitlement must consider the real social, practical and environmental barriers faced by disabled people with impairments living in our society. I, along with disability charities such as Scope, disabled people’s organisations and disabled people across the country, voice great concern that the Government are reneging on their commitment to the social model of disability. Doing so would undo decades of campaigning for and progress towards a better and more equal society.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for her honest and enlightening contribution. I speak as a doctor and as a mother; I have two adult children who are in receipt of disability living allowance.
I wish to talk about the medical approach to disability. As a doctor, I have often been accused of being very “medical model”, usually by disabled people. The medical model to disability is reductionist. Many doctors and other health professionals do not understand the social model; they do not understand the social, practical and environmental barriers that people with physical and mental impairments face. I support the amendment, but it would require skilled and sensitive assessments to be available and they would need to be delivered by people who understand the social model.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in her amendment. I read the whole of the information sent to us yesterday and I was pleased to see that ME/CFS, in which I am interested, was raised in two examples, and that the difference between the two conditions was shown. I am concerned not just for people with ME but for those who can almost function normally and will not meet the criteria for getting DLA. For example, there are those who, because they have an endocrine problem, cannot cope with the cold. They need extra heating and clothes. If they are working, they are probably on a minimum salary because they are not very well. Therefore, they need extra money. They might also need extra clothing.
If they are incontinent, they may need to be able to change their clothing regularly. They may need incontinence pads, which—as everyone knows from questions in the House—are extremely difficult to get from the National Health Service. My mother-in-law, who died a few years ago, could not go out of the house because she was worried about wetting herself in public. If she could have afforded incontinence pads, she would have been fine. She was not going to tell her children or her daughter-in-law about her problem and we had to extricate the information from her to find out why she was not going out. Such people get confined to their homes and become desocialised, and it is very difficult to get them back into society. We must take all these things into consideration—not just whether they can cook or wash themselves—when we think about what they need to keep functioning on a relatively normal basis.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this amendment. The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about her personal experience of the whole range of autism reminded me just how this range has developed over the years. When I first got involved with the autistic movement many years ago, it really was just one thing; but since then, many different branches and forms of behaviour have been identified. The fact that all these extra aspects have to be borne in mind re-emphasises the whole question of whether the clause is fit for purpose. In particular, the Asperger’s syndrome comment was very apt. I hope the Minister will be able to persuade us that there will be a thorough method of assessment by people who understand the range of problems that we are talking about as well as—as my noble friend Lady Mar said—the detailed and different ways in which extra help is used and needed for such people to have a basic ability to lead a normal life.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me start by referring to the moving speech made by my noble friend Lady Browning. I confess to a real concern about autism generally and I am very proud that my maiden speech was on the Autism Bill. I have undertaken a number of initiatives in the autism area because we do not look after people with autism and Asperger’s properly. I also strongly believe that it would not take a huge effort to make sure that we look after those people much better. As my noble friend knows, there is currently a major initiative to try to ramp up the number of such people who have and keep jobs. Currently only around 15 per cent have jobs, which is ludicrous, and I am determined to double that figure.
As part of that concern for this particular group, we wish to make sure that this assessment takes people with autism and with Asperger’s properly into account. I am hopeful that PIP will do a better job than DLA, and, furthermore, that we will make sure that we have the right processes in place to look after this group. As we refine processes during the next consultation period, which we are running until the end of April, one of the things that I want to make absolutely sure of is that we have the right measures in place for autism. I know that everyone in this Chamber feels similarly on this issue, and feels very strongly that we should get this right for that particular group.
I shall now turn to the more technical aspects of this issue—that is, looking at what we are doing with the PIP and its assessment. Is it a medical assessment, as the noble Baroness suggested? It absolutely is not. In fact, as I said in Committee, our approach is—and this is rather a mouthful—akin to the biopsychosocial model. I shall try to draw this out a bit—I do not mean in time: I shall try to draw the themes out. A medical assessment would be something like the industrial injuries disablement benefit, where there is a direct correlation between the injury sustained and its severity and the amount of benefit or compensation received. Nor will the PIP assessment focus on the functional limitations of the individual in the way that the work capability assessment does. Instead, it will assess how the individual’s health condition or impairment impacts on his or her everyday life by looking at their ability to carry out a series of key and holistic activities, all of which are essential for participation and independent living. In such an approach, the type of condition or impairment an individual has is of limited relevance.
It is not, however, a full social model assessment. I accept that. That is something that many noble Lords and disability organisations would like, but I have to point out that it was not our intention to develop it in this way. As a department, we do support the social model. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, we are on record as supporting it. While we want to ensure that the PIP assessment better reflects it than previous assessments, that does not mean that the full social model is relevant for assessment, although it is relevant for some things. I sent round a rather interesting piece of analysis to many noble Lords in the Committee, called Models of Sickness and Disability, which showed the differences between the models, explaining the medical model, the reaction of the social model against the pure medical model and the synthesis of the biopsychosocial model. The summary of the biopsychosocial model in the analysis is that:
“Sickness and disability are best overcome by an appropriate combination of healthcare, rehabilitation, personal effort and social/work adjustments”.
There is a coherent theory behind this assessment.
Baroness Browning
Will my noble friend confirm whether, when people on the autistic spectrum are assessed, there will be somebody present as part of that assessment who is expert in cognitive specialisms?
Lord Freud
People will be able to bring anyone with them to the assessment, whether it is a parent, adviser or anyone else. For the WCA, the person doing the assessment can call in that support where they need it. We are now entering the consultation phase on the PIP assessment. Wrapping in that support will be one of the elements that we will look at. I accept that the assessor needs to understand how those factors reduce the ability of the person in front of them to run their lives.
Baroness Browning
It has been suggested—I hope that this is an opportunity for my noble friend to put this straight—that the assessor will be able to call somebody on the telephone in making the cognitive assessment. I hope that he is able to assure me tonight that that is not the case.
Lord Freud
Clearly, the system will be elaborated and developed, and we are at an early stage. Although the WCA is a very different test from the PIP assessment, one of the useful lessons that we have drawn from Professor Harrington’s recommendations for it is that mental health champions are available on site for assessors. That is the way in which that test has developed, and there are some valuable lessons there for when we look at how we elaborate the PIP assessment.
If we were to go with the full social model assessment along the lines suggested by Scope, looking at the full range of factors that potentially cause barriers and cost, it would require a very long, intrusive and costly assessment, putting significant cost burdens on the state and, more importantly, very large burdens on the individuals involved. They would also inevitably require much more regular assessment, as the social factors that would be taken into consideration would change more regularly than the impact of a health condition or impairment. You might, for instance, get to the ludicrous position where every time a local bus service changed, you would have to do a reassessment on that model. In meeting after meeting with noble Lords, I have been left under no illusion that having too many reassessments is one of the things that they dislike the most. We will try to provide later on some reassurance that there will be decent gaps wherever possible between reassessments.
The situation could go very dramatically the other way and lead inevitably to inconsistency, with factors considered varying from person to person and affected by local factors or service provision. With PIP, we are looking at something that is universal and where entitlement is based on the same criteria wherever individuals are and whatever their circumstances. This discussion carries echoes of our ring-fencing debate earlier today in relation to the Social Fund. If we move to a kind of local needs-testing, which is what the amendment implies, it would be at odds with how we deliver a national benefit. Clearly, we could do something else. We could localise it as a benefit, but then it would be a very different benefit. I suspect that many noble Lords would be very concerned about moving in that direction.
Most importantly, we think that a social-model approach would be more subjective. Benefit entitlement needs to be based on clearly defined and transparent criteria which we need to be able to set down in legislation and apply to individuals consistently, whatever their circumstances and wherever they are in the country. If you cannot do that there would be a level of unfairness and uncertainty, high levels of appeals and a system in disrepute. Under the type of assessment proposed, it would be harder to define the criteria that individuals would be assessed against and less clear whether they had met the thresholds for entitlement.
Finally, we do not think that an assessment along these lines would allow us to control expenditure and keep that benefit spend sustainable, making sure that it goes where it is needed most. I do not think that I can really reach a figure on how much it might cost, but our estimate is that it would be very substantial.
Although the social model approach is superficially attractive—and I emphasise that we support it in many ways—we have decided that it is not the right way to go with this assessment. We have not gone for the medical model; we have gone for the biopsychosocial model. That model has now garnered very significant academic support, as those noble Lords to whom I sent that very interesting piece of research will recognise. It recognises the diverse range of biological, psychological and social factors that impact upon an individual and cause variation in need. We think that approach—of looking at activities and outcomes—matches the requirement.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can answer a question for me. I made a particular point about people having very special needs such as extra heating and incontinence pads, for example. If they are leading a fairly normal life but would be restricted to their homes because they cannot pay for things, will this be taken into account in the PIP assessment? I could not see it anywhere when I read the details. How are these facts going to be elicited when the person is being assessed? People do not fit into boxes—everyone is an individual. It seems that the noble Lord is trying to make people fit into boxes when they do not.
Lord Freud
We are very much trying not to make people fit into boxes. We are not saying, “Because you have that condition, that’s your relevant position”. We are trying to look at people as individuals. Clearly, you go through all these criteria very carefully and reach a judgment. It is almost impossible for me to say whether a particular person would hit the assessment criteria or not. You just have to go through it and see. However, we clearly expect someone to get a payment who has genuine needs for coping with life because of their disability. That is what it is designed for. I cannot answer the specific question, but I can tell the noble Baroness the principle—where that person needs that support as a result of their disability, they should get it.
When we develop an assessment for PIP, we have to balance a range of factors. A complete model should include all the perspectives and important interactions between an individual, their health and the environment. That is what the biopsychosocial model does. There are limitations in considering only a single perspective, and this is a much more holistic approach.
I do not accept the criticism that our proposals do not truly reflect the extra costs faced by disabled people. As I have tried to explain, it would not be feasible to assess the actual costs without something hugely intrusive to disabled people and very complicated. We therefore have to assess other factors as a proxy for these costs. We are using “care” and “mobility” in DLA, which we do not think are broad enough. So, in our draft assessment criteria we have a range of everyday activities for PIP that we believe are a good proxy for the impact of impairments, the overall level of disabled people’s needs and the extra disability-related costs. We will go on refining those; we will not just stop when we finish the consultation in April.
The proposals have taken into account many of the key drivers of cost that Scope and others are obviously concerned about. For example, individuals who have difficulty getting out are likely to have higher utility bills, while those who need support planning a journey and moving about are likely to have higher transport costs. The proxies and associated criteria should therefore allow us to prioritise spend on those who face the greatest challenge and expense. In answer to my noble friend Lady Thomas’s point on the tick-box assessment, the proposals, which have been around since May, are very much not a tick-box approach; they are trying to look at people’s functional capability.
We have changed the assessment very considerably as a result of the enormous amount of engagement that we have with disabled people and their organisations. We will go on doing that. However, if we had fundamentally to revisit our approach in the way in which the amendment would require, we would have to go back to the drawing broad, spend more time developing and testing, and have greater consultation. It would push back the start of PIP by at least a year and reduce savings over the reassessment period by £1.4 billion. This is, I think, the priciest amendment yet.
Lord Freud
This is about doing the right thing for people and focusing money on them; it is not about playing silly games—by which I mean that we are not playing silly games here and we are determined to get this right. We are consulting widely and know that we have the right approach with the model that we are using. I understand the noble Baroness’s position, but we do not think that the Bill should specify that the assessment should consider social and environmental factors. That approach would be inappropriate and unworkable, because we need the assessment to be straightforward, objective and consistent. We would lose £1.4 billion of savings. For that combination of reasons, these amendments are not acceptable to the Government. Just for the avoidance of any doubt whatever, I confirm that the Government see Amendments 50ZJ to 50ZQ and Amendments 51A and 52A as directly consequential upon Amendment 50ZH. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
I thank the Minister for his response. It is nice to know that, even for a short time, I might hold a record in your Lordships’ Chamber for tabling the priciest amendments. I also thank the noble Baronesses who have brought much personal and moving experience to this debate.
I apologise to your Lordships; in introducing the amendment, I did not declare that I am a recipient of DLA, although I am fairly unlikely to be on PIP. I realise that to many the social model turns into a philosophical debate but I felt that it was important to raise it again, as—
Lord Freud
My Lords, I feel that I should interrupt. I think that when the noble Baroness looks at the PIP assessment, she will find that she is on PIP—without doing an assessment myself.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
I thank the Minister and accept that I did not just go through an assessment process.
I feel that it is important to raise this issue again as a gentle reminder that the social model is written by disabled people using their experience. The noble Countess, Lady Mar, made the important point that you cannot fit disabled people into boxes. I tend to think that we are a little more like Venn diagrams. It is obvious to me that if the Minister were truly committed to helping disabled people, the full social model would be used. I recognise that there is a balance between costs and how far we want to go to help disabled people.
I share the Minister’s view on autism but I would like to widen the issue and hope that we will take all disabled people’s experiences into account. I look forward to seeing the refined process that he mentioned.
There is one point on which I agree with the Minister: the biopsycho model is interesting. However, that is as far as I can go. If we looked at the definition of “interesting”, he and I would probably differ considerably. Perhaps we could save that exciting debate for another time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, there is a great deal of evidence that decisions are frequently inaccurate when made on the basis of reports from face-to-face assessments on their own without being informed by evidence from the claimants and healthcare professionals. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in all cases, as a part of the decision-making process to decide eligibility to PIP, evidence is collected by the DWP from the claimants’ own healthcare and other care professionals. If sufficient evidence is collected to decide entitlement to PIP, it should not be necessary to have a face-to-face assessment.
There have been ongoing problems with the assessments for ESA. Recent figures published by DWP show that nearly one-third—29 per cent—of those in the work-related group were originally found fit for work and had to appeal to be placed in the right group. Even more worrying, a staggering 60 per cent of those who won their appeal had been awarded no points at all in their initial face-to-face assessment, and at least 15 points are needed to be awarded ESA. These are not borderline decisions.
Why are so many decisions going wrong? The assessment reports frequently contain a partial or inaccurate account of what the claimant has said. The reports done by the healthcare professional are meant to record accurately what the claimant says about the effect of their condition. The second half of the report is where, on the basis of what the claimant has said and their observations, the healthcare professional comes to their own decision about the level of the claimant’s functionality. However, welfare rights workers have consistently reported over the years that many of the reports contain a partial or inaccurate account of what the claimant has consistently reported is the impact of their impairment on their everyday life. Regular feedback from welfare rights workers, who are dealing with these reports every day, is that although there have been some improvements, such as in the reconsideration process, there are still considerable problems with the accuracy of these reports. It has not been solved and will not be while relying on these assessments on their own.
The healthcare professional doing the assessment sees the claimant for only a relatively short time on one day, which may well be a good day. They are unlikely to be a specialist in the condition and know the likely effects or how they vary, and will not have access to all the medical records and the tests that have been done establishing the level of seriousness of that condition. DWP and Atos now recognise the value of medical evidence from the claimants’ own doctors—this is a really valid point—which was acknowledged by Dr Crawford, clinical director of Atos, in evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Healthcare professionals working for Atos also acknowledged that when a sample group was interviewed in a survey for DWP.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, the importance of this amendment, and of collecting evidence from a person’s healthcare professionals, cannot be overstated. Some of us are shocked that not all medical reports are looked at presently under DLA; I think only around half are.
Turning to the assessments, I, too, was very interested in the finding by Citizens Advice that welfare rights workers report that the WCAs often present a distorted picture of what a claimant has said. In case noble Lords have forgotten that report, it said that 37 clients were asked to examine their reports and establish how accurately they reflected what they had said and done in their assessments. Sixteen were found to be very inaccurate. We know from experience that if you hear two people speaking to each other and one of them tells you afterwards what they said all over again, it often does not match your recollection of what they said at all. I note that in relation to PIP we are told:
“Individuals or professionals who support the customer on a regular basis will be able to provide evidence to support their claim”.
Who will ask these people to provide evidence? Will it be written evidence? If it is not from a healthcare professional, who else might it be from? The finding of Citizens Advice in connection with the WCA alarms me a great deal about the quality of some of the Atos healthcare professionals who are currently carrying out the assessments. I fervently hope that those doing the PIP assessments will be of a higher calibre altogether.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support Amendment 50ZR, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness has made the case comprehensively so I will be brief. She referred to the alarming error rate in benefits decisions. At the same time, I am aware that steps are being taken to improve the accuracy of those decisions.
Here I want to make sure that we do not forget the particular problems of people with learning difficulties and mental health problems, who may not adequately convey their limitations in a face-to-face assessment. These groups have to spend their lives concealing their symptoms. They are embarrassed by them, and the last thing they want to do is to spell them out. They are acutely aware of the stigma associated with those symptoms. The Government are ensuring that claimants can take someone along to their assessment. There is no doubt that that will help and in some cases lead to appropriate outcomes. However, for many having a companion simply will not be enough. The companion cannot conduct the interview and the pressure on these individuals to conceal their problems is very difficult to overcome in these one-off assessment interviews.
There are also people for whom the very idea of one of these assessments is completely unacceptable. The obvious example is of people with agoraphobia, for whom just going out of the house can present real problems, as can getting on a bus or whatever it is. It is a real problem for this particular group. These people would benefit massively from having a psychiatric assessment at the start of the process, which would eliminate the need for them to go through all the distress of having to do something that they find completely intolerable. It is very fashionable to knock medical assessments but, having worked in mental health for a quarter of a century, in my experience psychiatric assessments are bio-psycho-social assessments. I think that was the term that the Minister used. They do look at the biological, the social, the genetic and every other aspect of someone’s functioning.
Also, any self-respecting psychiatrist will not do an assessment in a single sitting. They expect to assess someone over a period of time. They will bring in the views of social workers, nurses and others who have seen someone over a period. There is no way that a one-to-one assessment by someone who may be a nurse but not a psychiatric nurse—even if they call in someone who might be a psychiatric nurse but does not know the patient—can meet the need to make sure that someone is properly assessed, gets the benefits to which they are entitled and does not get benefits to which they are not entitled. It works both ways. This is an important issue.
Other examples include people with a psychosis whose symptoms are not controlled by medication. Many people’s symptoms are controlled but some people’s, tragically, are not. Those people should be able to have a medical—a bio-psycho-social—assessment and, on the basis of that assessment showing that such a person may not be able to function at all, it should be sufficient. I would have thought that the Government would accept that view.
There are physical diagnoses to which the same sort of arguments would apply. For example, those undergoing treatment for cancer, who again have uncontrolled and uncontrollable symptoms, would fall into this category. I referred to this group in connection with an earlier set of amendments. An early medical certificate for those people would avoid enormous distress and the gross injustice of requiring them to do things that none of us would wish them to do if we saw them face-to-face.
I understand the issue of medical fees, which has been referred to. GPs will not tolerate an inundation of requests for medical assessments without a fee. One of my daughters is a GP. I discussed it with her and she was not impressed by the idea. I am also aware that the Government have introduced an important new element in that the claimant can seek a report from their favoured clinician, who could be anybody—it might not be a doctor. This is helpful but it raises the issue, which has already been raised, of a two-tier system. Some people may be able to afford such a thing; others may not. It is a great step forward and I wish to acknowledge that, but it does not detract from the importance of this amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I am sorry to come in on Asperger’s syndrome again. I know that the Government involved people on the autistic spectrum in some trials that they carried out over the summer. I just wanted to encourage my noble friend to take the feedback from some of the people who took part in that, in a mock PIP assessment. Because the spectrum, particularly at the more able end, includes people who may be very articulate, on a good day it may be quite difficult to see that this is a communication disorder. On the other hand, you could have an assessment in which, even with the benefit of someone in support in the same room, the person on the autistic spectrum may have some difficulty in answering any question themselves as they struggle to put the words together or to make eye contact with the assessor.
On this group of amendments, I would encourage my noble friend to be aware of the variation in how people can present. However confident they may appear, it will inevitably be a very stressful situation for them to be in a room, answering questions from someone they are unfamiliar with. However they present, there will be stress behind it. I just reiterate something that I asked my noble friend a little earlier. I ask him to make absolutely sure that the people doing these assessments have not just mugged up on what autism or any other disability is from some book, but really understand and have a working knowledge of the disciplines in which they are assessing people. I will leave it at that.
Lord Addington
The amendment on which mine is the lead name also refers to the autistic spectrum. When the noble Baroness is in the Chamber with us, I always feel as though you are definitely on the end of the passing movement, as opposed to being the play-maker. The noble Baroness knows exactly what she is talking about. At my conference, someone who was talking in a meeting about autism said, “You must understand that autism is a three-dimensional spectrum”. Does that phrase not start to explain why the diversity of people and their reactions are incredibly difficult to understand and always will be? I wish I had thought of that expression myself. The great diversity of needs and different types of behaviour mean that you must have some specific training.
When I was approached to put down this amendment, I had a conversation with the NAS. I want to use it as an example of the fact that you always need a certain degree of knowledge to make this type of assessment. I remember that, in years gone by, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke for the then Government, our exchanges on the subject of the initial interview process went on and on and developed almost into a ritual dance. “Can we have specific knowledge?”, we would ask the Government. “No, but we will give them lots of training”, they would reply. We have got better, because we always do, but it remains the case that unless you have someone who actually understands the condition which they are assessing and reporting on, they will make mistakes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has already pointed out that mistakes cost “blood and gold” for everybody concerned. You burn up time; you burn up money; you cause suffering. Getting more expertise into assessment, either by taking a better history, or by making sure you have the right person there at the right time, will make life a lot easier and will probably save money in the long term or, indeed, in the medium term. The Minister has been moving forward, although he is pushing water uphill with certain concerns here. I stress that I am looking for clarification on where he is moving to and his thoughts on where this expertise is going to be dragged in. If you have a problem, empower people to say that there is a problem and that someone who understands it needs to be brought in. If you can do that, you will take huge steps forward. You will not get it right all the time but you will get it right more often.
If the Minister can give us some encouragement and some firm guidelines about what is going to happen to encourage people to get it right—not just to get the numbers through—I will be a very much happier man at the end of this.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House long, because Amendments 50B, 50C and 50D were debated at some length in Committee. I attempted to withdraw Amendment 50A yesterday, but the gremlins crept in and the only thing that has been withdrawn is my name—the amendment still appears on the Marshalled List.
With Amendment 50B, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has once again made a very powerful case in support of the need for properly trained assessors. In particular, all assessors should have an understanding of and training in autism if they are to recognise and understand the complex cases they will have to deal with. It has been said a number of times—I make no apology for repeating it here, because it is important—that when you have seen one person with autism, you have seen one person with autism. This is why the training is so important. A knowledge of autism and possessing the right skills to assess the needs of an autistic person are essential in making any decision about the appropriate level of financial support that that person might need. I believe that the Minister accepts this point of view.
Following the Committee stage, a number of other noble Lords and I had a very useful meeting with the Minister and his colleague Maria Miller MP, and we are grateful for that opportunity to exchange views in a less formal situation. One point from that discussion, which was touched on today by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, did concern me—the point about the qualifications of the person carrying out the initial assessment. One of the Minister’s officials told us at that meeting that the initial assessments would be carried out by an occupational therapist. Will this be the case? That seems a very narrow skill base from which to draw the expertise for any kind of wider assessment, and it leaves me, for one, with the impression that the assessment is aimed primarily at getting people into work and not at trying to understand and support them if they are not able to work. Such a situation would fly in the face of the well-argued case that assessors should have specific training in all mental, intellectual and cognitive disorders, as advocated by the amendment. I hope the Minister can allay my fears.
I turn to Amendments 50C and 50D, in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Healy of Primrose Hill and Lord Wigley. The amendments concern face-to-face assessment and would, if accepted, exempt certain categories of people from the process of continuous reassessment where sufficient medical and other expert evidence existed to demonstrate that their condition would not improve. I return again to my concerns about people with autism. Autism can be summed up in this way: autism is for life. Any reassessment must accept this fact before progress can be made. The Minister made it clear, at Second Reading and in Committee, that the Government did not believe that a face-to-face assessment would be the right course to follow in all cases.
At our meeting, both the Minister and his colleague, Maria Miller MP, gave a strong impression that the Government would support a tiered approach to assessment in such cases, as advocated by the National Autistic Society and others. In practice, this tiered approach would allow for written assessment from professionals to be considered and a decision to be made, on that basis, about whether a face-to-face assessment was appropriate or necessary. I will not test the patience of the House any longer. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope he will have something positive to say about a tiered assessment.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
This is an important debate because existing relevant medical evidence is absolutely essential to getting this test—and the whole process—delivered as accurately and as sweetly as it possibly can be. This is true in two separate directions. First, getting access to and active consideration of existing relevant medical evidence will make the examination—if an examination is needed—much more satisfactory for all concerned. As has already been said, it will reduce appeals—and it will minimise costs for that reason if for no other.
It has a second important function which I hope the Minister will be able to spend some time on. If the Minister could help us understand better how desktop assessments can obviate face-to-face assessments, he could diminish the fear factor that clearly exists, rightly or wrongly, about what will face people who might be invited to these face-to-face tests in future, and that would be enormously helpful. I am aware, having followed this for some time, that the DLA provisions which we put in the primary legislation in 1992 were, in some respects, too prescriptive. I understand perfectly that assurances can be made and put into regulations and put into medical contracts as well.
I am in the market for voting for this amendment if we do not get the kind of response that I hope for. However, there are ways of delivering the assurances that are being sought by our correspondents and the disability community. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about the contract. I understand that the contract is out to tender and it is too early to say who is interested, but people are drawing conclusions from the Atos Healthcare experience. I do not think that that experience would necessarily be repeated in the future if the terms of the contract are drawn sufficiently clearly. In that contract, if not in regulations or primary legislation, we should be saying clearly that on cause shown, if there is heavyweight medical evidence that can be addressed at a desktop level, those are circumstances where it should almost be a default that people will not be subjected—if that is the right verb—to these assessments.
I share a concern about the quality and experience of the assessors. I have a capacity issue as well as a quality issue about that. It does not matter if you get the best contract in the world and the most enthusiastic prime contractors who come in and promise, hand on heart, to do the best they can. The professionals with the right qualifications and experience to do this work may not be out there. If that is the case then we need to be very careful. There is not enough emphasis in the United Kingdom on this kind of medicine, and we should be promoting with our medical colleagues a far higher degree of interest in and development of the specialist skills that medical professionals need to do these jobs in order to make this process a success.
I have here a case history that caught my imagination. A 25 year-old young man is undergoing his first major reassessment of his problems as an adult. His assessments will involve MR scans, examination by neurologists, neurogeneticists, neurophysiotherapists and a specialised occupational therapist. He has scattered neuromotor difficulties. Although I trained as a pharmacist a long time ago, I could not even find on the internet what neuromotor difficulties actually amount to, but it is clearly a serious condition that is being addressed by experts at a tertiary, if not international, level by a centre of excellence in a region in the United Kingdom. The young man has written to say that he is now fearful that he will have to address the circumstances of these tests. It would be completely daft and stone mad that we cannot say something now that is clear. There may be technicalities with the legislation, and perhaps I could be persuaded that such provisions should not be in primary legislation, but we absolutely need some clear, copper-bottomed assurances from the Minister that a person in those circumstances would not face such difficulties.
I hope that the Minister will understand that this is an important amendment and that he will take as much time as he can to tell us as much as he knows about how these processes will work and where in the legislative process—whether by regulation or primary legislation—we can be assured that we will get some protection for the kind of young person to whom I alluded.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I have difficulty with Amendment 50ZR. I fully endorse the fact that medical evidence is needed, but some people with ME have not seen a doctor in years, simply because there is no treatment for them. If the department is expected to depend a lot on medical evidence for corroboration of the illness, I do not know how people with ME are going to cope. That really disturbs me and the issue needs to be examined.
I fully support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on training. People with ME have cognitive difficulties as well as all their other problems, and these are not very well understood. I give him my heartfelt support, and I hope that the noble Lord will take on board the fact that some people cannot get current medical evidence to corroborate their illness.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak briefly because time is pressing. We went into this issue in some detail in Committee and I warmly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which was better than the one we originally considered. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, referred to the tiered approach, and I very much hope that the Minister can confirm that the tiered approach that has been pressed upon him by those involved with autism will be central to this matter.
I also hope that he can take the main thrust of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, whereby expertise needs to be brought on board. Earlier today, the Minister emphasised the need to make sure that those with greater disabilities get the support they need and that those with lesser disabilities get less. That approach is dependent upon knowing exactly what the conditions are. When we consider people in the spectrum associated with autism and Asperger’s we need to know the individual challenges they have. If the wording of this amendment is inappropriate, so be it. However, there needs to be an approach that brings that expertise on board, otherwise we are failing to do what the Minister says he wants to do.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this amendment and Amendment 50B. I spoke at length in Committee in support of the requirement for the decision-maker to collect evidence from the claimant’s own health professional, and I do not intend to repeat myself. However, I should like to make a specific point about the requirement in Amendment 50B that,
“persons approved by the Secretary of State to undertake assessments have specific training in all mental, intellectual and cognitive disorders”.
This is because it is necessary to state that specialist skills are required in assessing someone with autism, learning disability or mental illness, and I know that it is intended that such expertise should be provided. However, most medical doctors do not have these skills. Indeed, Professor Steve Field, when writing about the NHS Future Forum in connection with the Health and Social Care Bill, pointed out in his most recent papers that it is of some sadness and regret that most doctors do not have training in these specialties, particularly those relating to learning disability and autism.
The other point I should make is that in psychiatry these are also specialist skills and not all psychiatrists have them. All will be good at assessing mental illness, but not all will have expertise in assessing people with learning disability or autism. That requires additional or different specialist training. I wish just to draw that to the Minister’s attention.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, these amendments would improve the assessment process for the new PIP and allay the fears of many people with disabilities that the poor experience of the ESA assessments, where around 40 per cent have been successfully appealed, is not replicated under the new benefits system.
Amendment 50B relates to the training of those undertaking face-to-face assessments to ensure that they have knowledge of mental, intellectual and cognitive disorders, clear guidance about when to access more specialist advice, and a guarantee that such advice will be available. In Committee, we received some encouragement from the Minister who stated:
“Assessors will be required to have a broad training in disability analysis as well as training on specific impairments … we intend to ensure that they have sufficient training in mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments … and will stipulate this in our contracts”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 263.]
Perhaps the Minister could let us know what budget has been set aside for such training.
Amendments 50C and 50D would exempt certain people from a face-to-face assessment where sufficient evidence is available via other means. This would actually save money for the Government. I hope that the Treasury is listening. Implementing face-to-face assessments was to have cost about £675 million. The amendments would reduce the costs by removing from the process claimants for whom a face-to-face assessment is clearly unnecessary. This would help those with lifelong or degenerative conditions, for whom a face-to-face assessment could be stressful. For example, about half those with MS or Parkinson’s are receiving the highest level of DLA. Putting them through an expensive and stressful face-to-face test seems unnecessary.
Again, we received some assurance in Committee. The Minister stated that,
“where there is already sufficient evidence on which to make a decision … we completely agree … a face-to-face consultation should not be required”.
I hope that the flexibility would be there for that. However, he also argued that other than for those with a terminal illness,
“we do not agree that there should be different rules or processes for different groups of people … on the basis of impairment type”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 261.]
Yet, if the Minister is prepared to accept that those with a terminal illness should not be subject to unnecessary assessment, surely the same argument could be applied to those with degenerative conditions where there is no hope of improvement. We look forward to any assurances the Minister can give that unnecessary face-to-face assessments will not be necessary.
If he is not persuaded by me, perhaps he will be persuaded by someone of his own political background—the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. I have never quoted from one of his speeches before. He writes:
“Evidence from the individuals GP and/or a consultant will provide an accurate assessment of need. It would be difficult for a healthcare professional in a one-off meeting to elicit a comprehensive response about the daily reality for each claimant. Face-to-face meetings … could prove … inappropriate for an individual who may have difficulty with social contacts, such as those with autism, or for those with an intellectual or mental health disability”.
This brings me to the first amendment in this group which would ensure that the assessment process always takes account of evidence from the claimant’s old healthcare professional. It builds on the experience of the work capability assessment for ESA and is to help the Government to avoid history repeating itself. Unfortunately, in this case, it would be as tragedy not farce. The problem with the current proposals is that they put the onus on the claimant to collect the medical evidence and also to have the knowledge that would be helpful to provide this. As we have seen with ESA assessments, it is exactly this that often leads to unnecessary duplication as a case is assessed and then reassessed in the light of the evidence from the GP or professional. The initial failure to consider such evidence has contributed to the very high and expensive success rates.
In Committee the Minister argued that while medical evidence could be of use, he felt that it was not necessary to gather evidence in every case. He said:
“In some cases what the claimant has already told us … will be sufficient. In other cases, information … might be likely to add only limited value”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 261.]
Surely it would be better to err on the side of caution, given the widespread inaccuracy of the ESA assessments and the need to ensure that the personal independence payments do not follow the same route. Medical evidence is bound to assist the decision-maker in far more cases than those in which it proves unnecessary.
This is a modest amendment. It seeks to ensure that the introduction of personal independence payments proceeds smoothly and more importantly to ensure that the right benefit is paid to the right people. I hope the Minister will accept this. Certainly it would have our full support.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I could summarise my speech in about three sentences. I am in agreement with virtually everything said in the Chamber. I hope that after my three sentences I will be able to provide assurances. My only point of real disagreement is that I do not want it to be mandatory—in primary legislation. This is in regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood that it reduces flexibility and we are much better off setting it up in regulations and guides and in the contracts. That is our proposed approach but fundamentally we are absorbing all the valuable points made on this group. I will try now with some speed to go through those assurances. I ask noble Lords to stop me with the precise assurance they want if I am not making the assurance well enough.
Amendment 50A was semi-withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, but I will try to deal with it because it is a building block. People being assessed can bring in someone with them—a relation, a friend or a professional—to help them. That is really important in the group we spent a lot of time on this afternoon relating to autism and Asperger’s. When people are over-bright their relation can make the point about the reality and the over-anxiety of the person being assessed. That would be an active role in the process.
I turn now to Amendment 50B. Clearly, we need to make sure that assessors have all the appropriate training to interpret the evidence that they are provided with. I have to make the point that it is not a medical assessment PIP. It does not ask the assessor to diagnose a condition or to recommend treatment options. It is different. It looks at how the conditions or impairments affect individuals’ everyday lives. That is a different skill set from that involved in treatment. There is not quite the same level of need for specialist skills but it is our intention that assessors will have a broad training in disability analysis as well as training in mental, intellectual and cognitive impairments. That level of training will be stipulated in our contracts with any providers and we will be responsible for signing off the training syllabuses. There will be occasions when assessors need more specialist support in the course of making these assessments. We will ensure that they have access to and support from individuals who have the in-depth knowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned with regard to mental health conditions.
Baroness Browning
I am sorry to interrupt again. Can my noble friend give us any hope that when an assessment is called there will be any publication of the qualifications and background of the assessors so that the people being assessed at least have some view of what their expertise actually is?
Lord Freud
It is a nice idea. I do not think I will make an utter commitment to it here and now but it is a cute idea and maybe we should put it in the contract. I will take it away and think about it.
We do not think that we should prescribe this in the Bill or even in regulations because it is important that assessors have an understanding of the limits of their knowledge so they know when to bring in the expert advice. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, got that absolutely right.
I will now go on to Amendments 50C, 50D and 50ZR. We know that individuals can have a wealth of material, knowledge and evidence that will help in the assessment process and we need to get the right material and evidence from them at the right time and we need to encourage that evidence to come forward. We will not create a two-tier system where the poorest and the most vulnerable have less chance of receiving benefit because they cannot afford to pay for the evidence. We are going to make sure that does not happen.
I want to pick up the very valuable point raised by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. If we have a mandatory process to involve the individual’s health professionals it may very well be an entirely nugatory and expensive process in the many situations where the GP is not up to date with what is happening. That is the inflexibility of having something in the Bill which adds nothing except cost. If someone who has a learning disability has not visited a health professional for many years, why go through the expense of getting evidence? It would be unnecessary; it would slow the process down; and there may be someone else whom we would not have thought of including in the Bill who is much better placed to provide information and evidence for the assessor. We need to pull out the cumbersome implications of the mandatory process—the point made so precisely by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood.
We have made it clear that face-to-face consultation should form part of the claim process for most—but absolutely not for all—claimants. Ultimately, consultation will play a key role in creating a fairer and more objective assessment. It needs to be done sensitively and proportionately, but where sufficient evidence is available, we are in absolute agreement that there does not have to be face-to-face consultation. There will be many examples where that is unnecessary.
We are talking about something very close to, if not exactly, the tiered process recommended by the National Autistic Society. That is what we are planning to adopt. We have flexibility in the Bill to do that.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I should have said this when I was making my initial speech. About 60,000 people with ME are either bedbound or housebound. To go to a face-to-face interview would cause enormous stress and probably exacerbate their symptoms. Will that be taken into account? They cannot provide medical evidence because there is no treatment; yet they cannot come out of their homes. How will the Minister deal with that?
Lord Freud
My Lords, one thing I was trying to get over about trying not to have a two-tier process so that the rich can get their evidence and the poor cannot, is that we turn the burden on to the assessors, so that when someone cannot come out, that requires a house visit if we cannot use paper evidence. There will be examples where paper evidence will do the job; where it cannot, the onus is on the assessor to do the checking, rather than the other way round. That is how we will provide that protection.
I hope I have gone through all the specific issues and given assurances on all those important matters. We are planning to meet the concerns expressed around the House. All I am asking for is that we have the flexibility to go on running the system as things change, as they inevitably do, and that we do not lock it up in primary legislation so that if we need to make changes it takes years. That is really what we are talking about.
Baroness Meacher
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I just wanted to make a point about ME patients, who have the most awful time. I have direct personal experience of that—not myself but through people close to me. Does the Minister accept that Amendment 50ZR would enable someone bedridden with ME who has not seen a doctor for years to call their GP and have a proper assessment? They are bedridden; they cannot go to assessments. That would avoid getting into a benefit assessment straight off. That is the whole point of the amendment. There has been support around the House because of the many situations where tremendous distress can be avoided by an appropriate person—perhaps a nurse, perhaps a doctor—doing a full and careful assessment, rather than getting into the benefits system.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that if we write into the Bill that it must be the GP, who may not be the right person, we are stuck. If you give us the flexibility, we are not stuck and in those circumstances we will go to the person’s home to do the assessment, or take someone else's piece of paper on the tiered approach.
What we are planning will be better for people suffering from ME and other illnesses because we will be able to respond. I think that the market will change. My noble friend Lord Kirkwood said that there is not an adequate market in this area. Occupational health and support for people of working age is a Cinderella service. We will be building that. As things change, we can move the assessment. If you tie it up, we will be locked in to 1948 as the years go by. The only difference between us on this, I think, is how mandatory and prescriptive we want to be, and it would be most unusual to put it in the Bill.
Let me cover the technicalities. The Government consider that Amendment 50D is directly consequential on Amendment 50C; the others are separate, so I ask noble Lords not to press them to a vote and the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone else who has taken part in the debate this afternoon. On a point of clarification to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, although the wording of the amendment was “relevant healthcare professionals”, in her speech she mentioned doctors; it is much wider than that.
The amendment is a fundamental cornerstone of what is necessary in the move to PIP. I recognise that the Minister has moved a long way. I am still not comfortable with some part of his statement on the broad training for professionals. You do not know what you do not know. It is very difficult to instil that knowledge in people. I would like to know an awful lot more about the detail of how that training and education will take place.
There has been broad support around the House for my amendment, and I am grateful to noble Lords for that, but considering that the Minister has moved further than perhaps I expected, there is an awful lot to think about in what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(d) shall not take into account aids, appliances or adaptations used by the person.”
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, we had quite a debate about the use of aids, appliances and adaptations in Grand Committee, at the end of which I found myself more confused than ever about how the PIP assessment was going to take them into account. I have already declared one interest; I feel that I should declare another in having most of the aids and appliances known to mankind in my house.
My purpose in tabling the amendment is not so that we can have another debate about the detailed use of all kinds of aids—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
Order. I ask Members of the House to leave quietly, because otherwise the Chairman cannot hear the speech.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I am not going to have another debate here and now about the detail of all kinds of aids and appliances, but I want to signal my concern about the question and to ask the Minister whether he would consider hosting a meeting for interested Peers on this topic, together with the relevant officials from his department.
I quite appreciate that those who have been working on the second draft criteria for PIP have tried to do their best to incorporate the views of many organisations and people, including disabled people, but we must not forget that the Government want to cut the bill for DLA by bringing in PIP, which may mean that some of those who currently receive DLA will not receive PIP. If so, it is very important to make sure that some people do not fall through the net because their particular needs have not been met.
We have to keep in our minds at all times the purpose of PIP, which is to help a person to carry out daily living activities and mobility activities if that person is limited or severely limited by their physical or mental condition. The Minister has repeatedly made it clear—we heard it just now—that the Government are looking not just at the medical model of disability but at the biopsychosocial model, which tries to include part of the social model. The responses of disabled people and organisations to the first draft criteria were instructive. Many were keen to point out that taking the use of aids and appliances into account does not necessarily remove a barrier to participation. Those of us who have mobility problems can all testify that there are still a lot of buildings such as restaurants, shops and even hotels which are not accessible, as well as dropped kerbs which are positively dangerous and public transport which is not suitable. The mobility descriptors are, in my view, worryingly minimal, and here again the responses to the “Moving Around” section were useful. While moving outside, for example, no account is to be taken of the gradient or texture of the ground, or the weather, and there was no box for whether the physical support of another person was needed for those with poor balance.
I turn now to a very basic issue—managing toilet needs or incontinence. One response was that toilet needs outside the home should be considered. Most disabled people can manage in their own homes, many with aids, but going out is a different matter, as we heard from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who is not in her place at the moment. This has not been included but it may make all the difference to whether someone can participate in society. If that is the criterion for receiving PIP, why is there no suitable box for it? Or perhaps there is and I have not been able to find it.
Before ending, I should like to raise one matter that has concerned me for some time but about which I may not have to worry—that is, the difference between using an aid or appliance for work capability and using the same aid or appliance for ordinary living purposes. For example, we know that a person in a manual wheelchair is no longer classified as having limited capability for work simply because of their use of a manual wheelchair, so they will not automatically get ESA rather than JSA. Although I am not happy with that state of affairs, that is the situation at the moment. However, if that person applies for PIP under the new regime, knowing that PIP will be an in-work as well as an out-of-work benefit, and because they might need extra help with daily living activities, then I can see no good reason why they should not receive it. Therefore, I hope that whether a person has “passed” or “failed” the work capability assessment will not be taken into account when they are being assessed for PIP. I think that this is why the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, thought that she might be ineligible for PIP.
I understand that the aim for PIP is to take account of aids and appliances which are actively used by individuals and those which could reasonably be expected to be used to reduce barriers to participation. If the Government expect a person to buy and maintain aids, the least they can do is to help to pay for them.
The case studies that the Minister promised us I found extremely valuable, but they also beg a few questions. For example, the phrase “Needs to use an aid or appliance to bathe” means using a shower seat to take a shower, but what about those who can use a shower only if there are suitably placed grab-handles and the shower has the lowest step possible, or if the person has a wet room but has to use, say, a walker while using the shower?
In view of the very late appearance of the PIP thresholds and the case studies, I hope that the Minister will agree to an early meeting between concerned Peers and the relevant officials at the DWP to talk in more detail about how aids, appliances and adaptations are going to be used in the assessment. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment and I have here an eloquent speech in its support. However, I do not propose to deliver it because I am aware of even larger fish to fry a little way down the track, and I think it is important that we should reach those as soon as possible. However, I want to make it clear that that in no way reflects any lack of support for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I support and agree with every word that she has said, and I entirely agree with the approach that she has suggested of getting together with the Minister and his officials to see whether we can find a way through before Third Reading.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I support the amendment. I have raised this issue with the Minister in private in the past. Many people on the existing benefit have used the money to increase their possibility of living normally by putting it towards aids or adaptations, and it would be very wrong if they were disadvantaged because of that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, a fundamental principle of PIP is that support should be targeted at those who are most affected. I reassure my noble friend Lady Thomas that we will not be penalising people who use aids and appliances.
We know that many disabled people have a greater level of participation because of the help provided by aids, appliances and adaptations. If we were to disregard entirely the use of such aids, we would penalise individuals whose health condition or impairment could not be helped through their use. In those circumstances, the needs of those individuals would seem less of a priority, even though their levels of participation might be lower. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck here. I would be the first to admit that the use of aids, appliances and adaptations do not of themselves eliminate needs, barriers or costs. We accept and understand that, and that is why we are applying points in the assessment when such aids are in use. The number of points will vary depending on the aids in question and the levels of need.
With regard to the daily living component, the entitlement thresholds have been set at such a level that an individual who requires aids to carry out a number of activities may receive the component at the standard rate. I am pleased to reconfirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that with the mobility component, individuals who use aids and appliances to move short distances can receive the standard rate, while someone who needs to use a wheelchair to do so—whether it is a manual or an electric one—will receive the enhanced rate. In that sense, it is a different assessment and it does things differently from the WCA for ESA. The valuable point has been made tonight that people do not understand that, so clearly we need to put across information about it.
As I informed noble Lords in Committee, the approach that we wish to adopt for PIP is the same in this area as that currently used within DLA. We take into account aids that are currently used by individuals as well as those which might reasonably be expected to be used. Let me be precise—I mean those that are easily and cheaply available. We will not, for example, say that an individual’s needs would not be present if they simply bought themselves a wheelchair, a stairlift, or a walk-in shower. That would not be reasonable, and we will have guidance available to make sure that claimants are treated consistently.
I will, however, be delighted to host a meeting with my noble friend, and any group she wishes to bring. Clearly, there is a big consultation exercise going on in precisely this area. I know this is an area in which she has great interest, and I will be very pleased to host that meeting. I urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to such a meeting, and for clarifying that there is a great difference between the assessment for the work capability assessment and PIP. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“( ) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an independent review of the plans for implementation of the assessments under section 79 before the provisions are brought into effect, and such plans must in particular provide for—
(a) a trial period before any assessment process is implemented fully for new applicants and those transferring from DLA;(b) disabled persons organisations to be involved in formulating the assessment process.”
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is an independent report on the plans for both the PIP assessment and its implementation before implementation starts, and a trial period before it is implemented in full.
We have spent much time today debating why disability benefits matter so much, but perhaps I may briefly point out that nearly one-quarter of individuals in families with at least one disabled member live in relative income poverty, and over 50 per cent of working-age disabled adults are not in paid employment. One-third of working age disabled people are estimated to live in poverty.
There is huge concern about the effect of DLA reform. The thresholds for the new benefit were announced only yesterday. The modelling suggests that the second draft will produce a 2015-16 caseload of 1.7 million people receiving PIP. Without introducing the new benefit, we would expect the number of 16 to 64 year-olds claiming DLA in 2015-16 to be 2.2 million. That is a reduction of half a million people who will not receive any help with the cost of disability, who would have been receiving DLA.
Just last week an analysis of organisations’ responses to the original government consultation on DLA reform highlighted the amount of concern about the proposed changes. The extent of this concern was not clear from the DWP response to the consultation. Scope, in its report, The Future of PIP: A Social Model Based Approach, says:
“We remain very concerned that this decision is based purely on budgetary targets, rather than on robust evidence as to how the benefit is used and by whom”.
I just do not believe that there has been time to analyse who will lose out. The Disability Benefits Consortium stated:
“We are very concerned that there has not been due consideration of the impact this reform will have both on those who lose all their entitlement and those who are left with a reduced award following reassessment”.
The thresholds were published only yesterday, but without those thresholds it is impossible to look in detail at who will lose out. Without them, it is almost impossible to have an informed debate about this part of the Bill. The few examples in the consultation document, while helpful, cannot possible address this properly.
Why do we need an independent review and trial period? Some early analysis has suggested that one of the groups who might lose out are those with mental health conditions, who currently receive the lower rate of mobility. Many people with a mental health condition find it impossible to use public transport. They frequently use their DLA to pay for taxis. If they are unable to get out, it is likely to make them more socially excluded, and push them further from the job market. This is just one possible unintended consequence.
There needs to be careful scrutiny of who will be affected by these changes. Many more groups will emerge in the months and years ahead, together with some unintended consequences. I have a real concern that it could lead to a deterioration of people’s health. Will it impact on the social care budgets? There are so many more things to consider in this. For such a major change as this, it is important to be much clearer on what the changes will be.
There is concern not just about the test or the thresholds but about the way that the benefit is assessed, and this is a much greater change than the move from IB to ESA. An independent report on the plans for both the PIP assessment and its implementation, before the implementation starts, would provide an appropriate level of scrutiny, given the huge impact this reform will have on disabled people.
The trial of the IB reassessment process in Burnley and Aberdeen threw up a number of important lessons which the DWP learnt from and implemented in the full rollout. It is so important that there is a trial of PIP in a similar way before the full rollout to either new or existing claimants. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I declare my interest in these debates as a recipient of DLA. This amendment is every bit as important as those we passed last week. Noble Lords will know from their postbag that people are looking to us to ameliorate the worst excesses of this Welfare Reform Bill. Although the Bill has some very sensible and progressive things at its core, in the shape of universal credit, nevertheless it goes too far for most people’s consciences in the way that it takes vital support away from some of the most needy in our society, in ways that have been movingly illustrated—far more eloquently than I could—in earlier debates.
Let me be clear about what the amendment does and does not do. It does not entail the Bill being paused, as happened with the Health and Social Care Bill, and as it has been portrayed outside. It merely states that the new assessment regime should not be commenced until Parliament can be given the benefit of an independent review—a common enough procedure regarding the introduction of particular statutory provisions.
It may be said that it is pointless to pass such an amendment, and that the Commons will only reverse it. However, there are two reasons for passing it, notwithstanding that. First, it sends a strong signal to the Government that they cannot be too cavalier in the way that they drive the juggernaut of reform over those who are weakest and most defenceless in our community. Secondly, as we have seen in the last week, it ensures that they cannot do this below the radar of public attention.
I support the amendment from my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson because I think that this is all being rushed through far too quickly to meet Treasury targets, before it is ready. The latest consultation draft of the assessment criteria reached us only yesterday, as we have heard, which has left little time to carry out the necessary analysis, but enough to see that it is still very much work in progress. For instance, just one day before we were due to discuss the Government’s plans for the future of DLA, the number of disabled people likely to lose help through the new assessment process was revised upwards to 500,000, as we have heard.
When the proposals were first announced in the June 2010 Budget we were told that a 20 per cent reduction in case load was likely. At that time this represented 360,000 disabled people, so the figure for the total of losers from the Government’s proposal has risen by 140,000, to which we should probably add the 80,000 care home residents who will no longer lose their mobility payments.
The Treasury’s target saving of 20 per cent was always arbitrary, being cost-driven rather than evidence-based. The Government themselves admit that the level of fraud is very low with DLA, at only 0.5 per cent. There are even suggestions that the increased figure for losers which we heard of yesterday will not achieve the Treasury’s target, either. At all events, the DWP is giving the impression of making it up as it goes along, all in an effort to satisfy its Treasury masters.
Disabled people do not have confidence in this process, which all serves to underline the fundamental unfairness of taking needed support away from the most vulnerable simply to meet Treasury targets. Confidence is not enhanced by the experience disabled people have had of the work capability assessment for out-of-work benefits. This was trialled on new claimants and regionally piloted for 18 months before national implementation, and has been the subject of two independent reviews, yet still gives rise to considerable difficulty, with 40 per cent of appeals upheld. This is a massive waste of money. We need to be sure that we have got the system right for the personal independence payment before it is introduced. So far, the DWP has tested the proposed assessment for PIP on fewer than 1,000 people. A sample of fewer than 1,000 is simply not enough to get a proper handle on the complexity of the issues that will arise when the full DLA caseload of 2.2 million people is put through the reassessment process; it is not like saying whether you vote Labour or Conservative.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, for the second time today I feel that I need to say something, however brief, because of my history. Just as I engaged in badinage earlier with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the Social Fund, I now have to declare to the House—possibly as a proud boast—that as a Minister I was responsible for introducing the disability living allowance in the early 1990s. I was given huge help by someone who deserves a great deal of credit, namely my former and unhappily now late colleague, Nick Scott, whom some noble Lords in the House today will remember with respect and affection.
On that occasion, we cobbled together a slightly curious construction based on the existing benefits of mobility allowance and attendance allowance, using the maximum amount of money I could extract from the Treasury at the time, to extend help to various groups who had previously been excluded, including the mentally ill. Perhaps we did a better job than I thought at the time because it has not only stood the test of 20 years but has survived with people now seeking to defend it against all comers, in much the same way as they defend the Social Fund.
What I say to the House may be uncomfortable for the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, for whom I genuinely have huge respect. This is not flannel; they are immensely valuable Members of this House. However, I have been taken down a different path. If somebody had told me 20 years ago that that structure was to be seen as anything near a settled state for 20 years, I would have been surprised, because there were obvious ways in which it could have been developed and carried forward to build on what we had achieved at the time. That is what the Government now seek to do. I say to the noble Baroness that I am not sure that it is right now to try to slow down the process by yet another review after the many that we have had.
Only yesterday the Government published a revised review of the assessment process. I accept that neither I nor anybody else has had a chance to digest it. However, it makes it crystal clear—this picks up on the second half of the noble Baroness's amendment—that this will be worked through steadily and carefully, in conjunction with organisations representing disabled people. I assume that account will be taken of the results of that consultation. Of course I accept that it would be nicer in a perfect world if we had all the details now, and that there will need to be a good deal of tweaking—or perhaps more than tweaking—as the consultation proceeds. However, I also accept that we have a Minister who knows his stuff, who cares about the subject and who has shown himself to be willing to listen to those representations. We should let him get on with it.
I do not accept the tenor of the e-mails that jammed my system from yesterday through the early hours of the morning into today, which suggested that the Government had a dastardly plot to do down disabled people. It is not the case, and I would not say this if I believed that for a moment. It is clear to me, having glanced at some of the e-mails—I have not been able to read them—that a number of them came from people who will not only not lose but may well gain from the proposals that the Government made. I hope that the senders will reflect on that.
This is not the moment for the House to agree this amendment. If we want to agree amendments, I suggest that between now and Report both the Minister and the House might reflect on the desirability of some extra-affirmative procedure of the kind used in the Public Bodies Bill for affirmative resolutions—I hope that they will be affirmative—that will come forward as a result of all the consultation. That would be far more productive than trying to slow the whole thing down with another review.
I have other points to make but the hour is late and the House wants to get on, so I will conclude by saying that at the end of the day I speak only for myself when I say that this would certainly cause delay, and would almost certainly add to the cost of an already expensive government programme. There may be smaller issues later, including those espoused by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, on which I may take a different view; but this amendment is strategic, damaging and mistaken, and I hope that noble Lords in all quarters of the House will join me in opposing it if it is pressed to a Division.
Baroness Browning
In the context of this amendment and the ability of health and social services to carry out their statutory responsibilities under the Autism Act, will my noble friend agree to take a look the number of people who currently have DLA but are predicted to lose it? There is a read-across here, because small levels of support have been identified as having prevented people taking their place in society and gaining independent living.
As I mentioned previously, I am concerned that as regards those who will lose the allowance—some will and others who apply in the future will not get it—the measure is going to have an impact on the way in which we have required health and social services to implement the Autism Act. Does my noble friend agree that there will be some hardship for those who lose it and that we have to face up to that reality, and that the Government should have a clear and examined view of how they are going to square that with the new statutory responsibility?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we support this amendment, moved so comprehensively by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and spoken to so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Low. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that in doing so we are not motivated by a belief that this is all some dastardly plot, but a belief that we need to be assured that the system does not just need to be tweaked but that it is fit for purpose before this major change is introduced.
This amendment is aimed at helping the Government get right the process of transfer from DLA to the personal independence payment. It calls for an added layer of safeguards within the process of reform, with an independent review of the plans for operation of the assessments before they start and a trial period when the assessment process first comes into effect. Crucially, it calls for the full involvement of disabled people and their organisations in this process, ensuring that they have confidence that the assessment process for the new benefit will be fair. The need for safeguards in this area has been all too fully revealed with the experience of the employment and support allowance. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, told us that he was responsible for introducing DLA—which in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Low, called an “iconic” benefit—and he should be proud of that achievement. I have some responsibility for having introduced the employment and support allowance so I cannot claim any such accolade.
It is clear that the assessment process has not been working and has caused not only distress to too many disabled people but considerable headaches for the Government. We all know that 39 per cent of appeals have led to a decision about ESA being overturned in favour of the claimant, and the unreliability of the assessment procedure has also made it difficult for the Government accurately to budget for the cost of these reforms. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s November economic and fiscal outlook states:
“ESA changes have resulted in an increase in expenditure of £1 billion by 2015-16”,
and the latest administrative data suggest that fewer people than previously assumed will be judged fit for work as a result of the initial ESA work capability assessment and the reassessment of incapacity benefit cases, and more will be placed in the support group. This accounts for around four-fifths of the increase. Other changes arise from a change in assumptions about the composition of the ESA caseload, which results in higher average benefit payments per person and higher inflows. The costs of getting this process wrong can therefore be high, and we know that the Government have benefited from the independent review of the ESA assessment process undertaken by Professor Harrington.
As other noble Lords have said, we received just yesterday the document providing further information about the second draft of the PIP assessment criteria, together with proposals on entitlement thresholds, impact modelling and case studies. While this technically fulfils the Minister’s commitment that we should get it before the Report day, as we have previously noted, there has hardly been time for detailed study and analysis—although it is hard to miss the startling figure that some half a million disabled people will be excluded from the new benefit in comparison to existing DLA arrangements. Before causing this to happen, the Government should be called to account for the impact that this may have on the disabled people who are missing out.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
The noble Lord is an experienced hand and has made a very interesting speech, but it would help the House enormously if he could be tempted to give an assessment—if he was the Minister facing Amendment 50—of how long he thinks it would take to discharge the responsibilities contained in the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It is clear that the Government are going to have to do some of this anyway, but in terms of an overall time period it is clearly a matter of some months rather than weeks, but not a matter of years. It depends on the determination and effort that the Government bring to bear. They have the levers and the resources to cause this to happen quite quickly, I would suggest, but there has to be full engagement with disabled people for it to be meaningful. This does not mean endless delay in the introduction but it does mean a real level of reassurance before we embark upon this very significant change.
Lord Freud
I will come to my conclusion first. Basically, we are doing a lot of trialling in this process and the way that this particular amendment is drawn would delay us very significantly. At the end of my speech, I will give the noble Lord the actual cost that we estimate the delays will represent.
I will spend a bit of time highlighting our approach to developing, testing and refining the assessment criteria that we already have. We have been developing those in collaboration with a group of independent experts, including disabled people and disability organisations. We had initial proposals on which we then carried out 16 weeks of consultation. We met 60 disability organisations; had 170 written responses; and carried out testing involving sample assessments of around 900 volunteers selected from current or recent DLA claimants. Both the testing and the consultation were very effective and allowed us to review, revise and improve the draft assessment criteria from that published in May. We provided a second draft in November in advance of discussing the PIP clauses in Grand Committee. Since publication, we sought the initial views of disabled people and the organisations that represent them in an informal way to listen to their thoughts. Yesterday, as promised, we published a further document detailing our initial thinking on entitlement thresholds for the rates and components of PIP. We have now commenced a formal consultation on the entire assessment criteria, including the weightings and entitlement thresholds which will last for 15 weeks.
That gives disabled people and disability representative groups the opportunity to tell us what they think the criteria will mean to them and their members and what amendments might be needed before we finalise the regulations. I can assure my noble friend Lord Newton that those regulations, which we will lay later this year, will be subject to the full affirmative procedure of both Houses. We are confident that we will be able to test the impact of these using the data we gathered during our earlier exercise. If for any reason this is insufficient, we will carry out additional testing to support our analysis. In response to a specific request from my noble friend Lady Browning, I will personally look at the impact of this on our autism obligations and I will make sure that that is done as a key part of this process.
There have been, and there remain, significant opportunities for involvement from disabled people and their organisations, and significant opportunities to influence our proposals to ensure we get them right. That, however, is not all. In terms of the delivery and operation of PIP, we intend to continue to develop a number of our operational processes in conjunction with disabled people and their representative groups through our implementation development group, which I talked about a little earlier this evening. This group has already played such an important role that it is our intention to retain its services after April 2013 in order to work with it to help evaluate the new delivery arrangements.
We have also created a number of customer research panels, made up of groups of disabled people who share similar characteristics, in order to understand, and gain an insight on, how the process impacts upon them. We will also test our operational processes in a model office environment, allowing us to see how they work without affecting individuals’ benefit entitlement. The trouble with a formal trial, of course, is that it would change what people actually get even though we are trialling. Here, by doing it in a model office, we can do it in a way that does not actually affect what they receive, but we know exactly how it will work.
We want similar arrangements to be in place with regard to the processes of the eventual supplier of the assessments of the benefit. We will be making it clear to bidding organisations that we expect them to work with disability organisations on the design of their processes, to improve the customer experience. This will be before, during and post-implementation. This will be a clear requirement in the contracts.
As well as getting the whole development process right, I recognise the value in moving away from a big-bang approach to implementation which would see both new claims and reassessments beginning in April 2013. Since the Committee stage, a significant amount of work has been undertaken to investigate the options for ensuring a sensible implementation which allows us to learn from early experience. Therefore, I can inform the House that, in addition to the pre-implementation testing work that I have already mentioned, we will limit the number of new claims for personal independence payment to a few thousand per month for the first few months of implementation. This will allow us fully to trial all the processes in a truly live environment. We are still developing the details on how we can meet our claimant target over the first few months.
Once we are satisfied that the new processes are working as intended with this reduced number, we will allow all new claims for personal independence payment to enter into the process. We will continue monitoring and reviewing the processes to ensure they are working effectively and appropriately and to see how claimants are finding the experience. We will begin to reassess existing DLA claimants in a co-ordinated way six months after the initial implementation. Again, we will stagger this process. We expect the first stage of reassessment to start in the autumn of 2013, beginning with individuals on a DLA fixed award who will need to renew their claim and those claimants who report a change of circumstances on their existing DLA claims.
At the same time, we intend to conduct a pathfinder trial reassessing individuals who would not, in the ordinary course of events, come up for reassessment. We expect the pathfinder to run for around three months to ensure the processes for identifying and contacting people and taking them through the claim processes are working satisfactorily. Allowing a small number of existing DLA claimants to advance through the reassessment process ahead of full national implementation will enable us to be sure that our approach to engaging these customers into the claims process is working effectively ahead of widening the selection. Also very relevant here is the independent review and report on the assessment that we are legislating for in Clause 87.
During Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, laid an amendment seeking to increase the number of independent reviews carried out. Noble Lords will remember that I promised to take this matter away and consider it further, and I have done that. Our revised proposal is that we legislate for two biennial independent reviews within the first four years of the implementation of PIP. The first would report within two years, beginning with the date on which the first assessment regulations come into force, and the second within four years of that date. Although it is only two reviews formally in legislation, we commit to undertake a third if the second review demonstrates ongoing issues with the operation of the assessment which need to be addressed in this manner. That is a firm commitment from me and my ministerial colleagues.
In reality, in the way that we are structuring this, we are trialling it in any real sense; we are doing it on a gradual basis. If we do it in this way, we will get the assessment and wider benefit processes right; we will involve disabled people and we will learn from the earlier delivery of the benefit. We do not think, therefore, that the formal trial proposal in this amendment is necessary. However, if we do it that way, the House should know that it would push back the implementation of the benefit. Our estimate is that the loss will be £1.4 billion of savings over the reassessment window. Clearly, that has to be found somewhere else. I know that noble Lords opposite think that is funny.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could the noble Lord give us a bit more detail of that estimate? The figure of £1.4 billion seems to trip off the tongue as the cost of any amendment that we pursue.
Lord Freud
That is an assessment based on the delays that we anticipate from this amendment, which is actually similar to the previous amendment where I used the same figure. It would have the same effect of delaying the whole process. That is the Government’s position, having worked through the implications of the amendment.
I remind the House of where the Opposition have got to with their amendments. We estimate that as a result of the votes on amendments so far, over five years they have imposed £3.8 billion-worth of extra costs, and this amendment will take that figure to £5.2 billion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry to see a Minister, whose integrity and respect for evidence has been apparent to the whole House, going back to the box-ticking, false assumption that there are no political choices available to this House. There are plenty of political choices if the Minister wishes to use them—for example, freezing council tax, increasing council tax bands, looking at some of the things that go on in pensions tax relief and so on. It is not clear to me that the economic growth of this country depends on taking away DLA from some of the most disabled people in the country.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I do not want to debate where alternative cuts would be found by the Opposition if they were in government and needing to balance the budget. All I can tell you is that the effect of the amendments that the Opposition have supported comes to that figure. It is amazing how, given an amendment here and an amendment there, pretty soon you are talking serious billions. I am afraid that this is another amendment which involves a serious amount of money and, for that reason, it is not acceptable to the Government. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
I thank the Minister for some of the reassurances that he has offered tonight. He has, once again, moved further than I expected, although it would have been wonderful to have heard some of it a little earlier. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, for his consistent honesty and for what he has done for DLA. Unfortunately, I am genuinely sorry that I do not agree with him tonight because we have to get this right.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, talked about confidence and, even with what the Minister has said today, there is such a lack of confidence among disabled people about where we are going with this that I am really concerned.
The Minister referred to costs, which are important, and huge financial sums are involved here. I would like to talk about cost—the social cost of what we are doing to the lives of disabled people. A number of disability organisations—I shall not go into how many—have contacted me and are telling me that we are not in the right place; disabled people are telling me that we are not in the right place; and my personal belief and conscience tell me that we are not in the right place. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Freedom of Information Act 2000
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how extensions in the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and their transparency agenda will affect the availability of government records to the public.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
My Lords, I very much welcome this evening’s debate on access to official information and I am grateful to so many noble Lords for wishing to speak. It is, I think, the first time that your Lordships’ House has had a chance to discuss the plans for additional openness announced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on 7 January 2011. He outlined four changes that the coalition proposed to make: increasing the number of organisations to which freedom of information requests can be made by bringing in such bodies as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Financial Services Ombudsman; consulting on drawing in a range of further bodies, such as examination boards; undertaking post-legislative scrutiny to see how the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has worked in practice—a task which the Justice Committee in the other place will take up next month; and—especially dear to my historian’s heart—making most public records available at the National Archives after 20 years instead of the current 30 years.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is keen on this. He has been a good friend to historians. He has always been willing to talk to my students about the 1976 IMF crisis when he became a prime historical exhibit while working in No. 10 for the greatly missed Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.
Perhaps I may this evening mirror the Government’s approach by taking a wider-lens view of freedom of information and look at it as a question of access to official information as a whole. To do so, our field of vision needs to encompass not just the workings of the Freedom of Information Act, for access is a matter of linkages embracing with FOI the output of the public records system and the often neglected, although related, matter of government-commissioned official histories—a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, led a debate in your Lordships’ House four years ago.
Before turning to public records policy, I must first declare an interest as president of the Friends of the National Archives and as Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Mary, University of London. Given my trade, I especially welcome the coalition’s pledge to implement the provisions of Part 6 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which was passed in the last days of the Labour Government and created a new 20-year norm to replace the 30-year rules that have been operational since 1972. The plan is that from January 2013 an extra year’s worth of declassifications will be added to the 30-year process until the 10-year gap has been closed.
I understand that the statutory instrument for triggering the new archival flow has yet to be signed. I am neither a pessimist nor a sniffer of conspiracies but I would welcome reassurance from the Minister on this point. In the same spirit, I would welcome publication of the 20-year rule guidelines for record reviewers in government departments—who are fondly known as “the weeders” —so that Parliament can check that they will be no more restrictive than the current ones for 30-year releases.
I am confident that the new 20-year rule will stimulate a cataract of fine theses and excellent books, for a fresh run of documents is like giving the historical profession a new currency with which to trade. This is precisely what happened in the 1990s after the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, who I am delighted to see in his place, as Sir John Major’s Minister for Open Government, put in place what we historians called, and still do, the “Waldegrave initiative” whereby departments were encouraged to re-examine particularly sensitive files that had been retained for longer than 30 years.
By 1998, when Whitehall stopped measuring its yield, 96,000 files had been declassified as a result, which filled gaps in the defence, intelligence and nuclear elements of the post-1945 secret state. I am full of admiration for the departmental records teams in Whitehall and the staff of the National Archives. I am equally aware of the pressure on budgets and manpower, but I urge the Government to consider commissioning a “Waldegrave 2” to run alongside preparations for the 20-year rule to ensure that as little possible remains in departmental strong rooms, including files that were still too sensitive to release in the 1990s but that might safely be declassified now. If the Minister agrees, we might even call the initiative “McNally 1”.
Those 30-year releases are a form of delayed freedom of information. FOI disclosures are welcome and often highly revealing, but they are fragmentary and it is runs of documents that historians need. FOI, to be candid, is not an unmixed blessing for scholars because it has led to greater caution in what is written down.
I turn now to official histories. I have not written one myself, but I am very grateful to those who have, not least for providing a window into Whitehall short of 30 years, and, in Christopher Andrew’s authorised history of MI5 and Keith Jeffery’s history of MI6 up to 1949, opening up windows into the necessarily most opaque parts of the secret state. The Cabinet Office, under the energetic guidance of Mrs Tessa Stirling, is the engine room of official histories. Thirteen have been commissioned since 2000, eight of which have already been published. The Pilling report of 2009 urged still more and suggested enhancements in the commissioning process, while the Hamilton report of the same year laid out improvements in the marketing of the books produced. The Government have not yet pronounced on Pilling-Hamilton. I hope the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will this evening be able to accept the recommendations and undertake to implement them when funds allow.
For the general public the most visible manifestation of the public records system is the annual festival of 30-year revelations in the media between Christmas and the new year. This time, understandably, it was the riots of 1981 that attracted most attention. Few noticed a security file in the No. 10 papers of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, dealing with a leak inquiry instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, then Cabinet Secretary, into a story on civil contingencies planning that I had written in the Times as that paper’s Whitehall correspondent. I am glad to say that the investigation got absolutely nowhere, but its declassification, as I think my noble friend Lord Armstrong would agree, has brought a frisson of amusement to both of us—a kind of bond between us after all these years.
There is, however, a truly hidden treasure in the latest releases for those with a taste for personal and political drama, after, perhaps, seeing that remarkable film “The Iron Lady”. It is a Cabinet Office file containing the records of the third world war that never was of March 1981: a transition-to-war drill exercised in great secrecy in Whitehall every two years in which officials role-played Ministers. It ends with the United Kingdom under conventional and chemical weapons attacks from the Soviet Union and its allies, and the British War Cabinet reaching and crossing the nuclear threshold, with the role-played—I emphasise that—Mrs Thatcher declaring that never before had a Cabinet been faced with such a grim choice between capitulating to a powerful and malevolent aggressor and embarking on a course of action that could end with the destruction of civilisation. It is gripping, desperate and—mercifully—fictional stuff, which cries out, I think, to be converted into a film script.
To finish by returning to reality, I stress that well organised and sustained access to official information, current and past, is crucial to the accountability of our system of government and the richness of the historical residue that clings to the Velcro of our collective memory. Such practices enhance the depth and quality of the rolling national conversation about government policy and politics without which no open society can flourish.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold
My Lords, I have two rather narrow points to make in this valuable debate so brilliantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy.
First, it is obviously in the interests not only of historical accuracy but, I would add, of transparency in the democratic process that there should be access to Cabinet and other government papers.
Secondly, if such access is not well structured and organised, and accompanied by well observed conventions, the public will inevitably be more interested in the political disclosures involved than in greater historical understanding of the events concerned. I believe the increasing use of FOI requests illustrates this point.
The conventions are all-important. Without them, the noble Lord’s objectives of a clearer and more accurate understanding of the past could be at risk. The convention that a Government cannot examine the files of their predecessor was breached by Ruth Kelly as Education Secretary in 2006, when she sought to make public her predecessors’ decisions on teachers debarred from working with children—the famous List 99—with no prior consultation. This was regrettable. It was an enormously sensitive issue, which was, inevitably, hyped up by the media. This resulted in inaccurate press coverage, problems for children, for schools and for individuals and, in the end, a negligible increase in public understanding of the issues concerned.
There may not have been time to develop conventions with the Scottish Parliament. Something tells me that the Scottish Government might not be too interested in discussing these things, but their decision unilaterally to reduce the no-disclosure period to 15 years—again with no consultation with their Westminster counterparts, who, by definition, are the ones who will be affected—raises a number of questions, not least about political motivation.
It is obvious that the public interest is served by the orderly and properly structured publication of government decisions, but without observed conventions the more accurate and informed public understanding of past events that we all want could be threatened by short-term sensationalism and even political manipulation. The conventions and their observance are key in achieving the noble aims so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, “Transparency”, said Sir Humphrey Appleby cynically,
“afflicts all incoming administrations. It used to be called ‘open government’, and reflects the frustrations they felt when they were in opposition and could not find out what was going on, combined with an eagerness to discover and publicise the deception, distortions and disasters of their predecessors … But it does not last beyond the first few months. As time passes they realise they have more to lose than to gain from public knowledge of what they are up to. Each month increases their tally of catastrophic misjudgments, pathetic deceptions, humiliating retreats and squalid compromises. They very soon come to understand that sound and effective government is only possible if people do not know what you are doing”.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for introducing this debate. It is to the credit of this Government that they have maintained the commitment in the coalition agreement to build on the Freedom of Information Act and to,
“extend transparency to every area of public life”.
The Act has been in full operation for upwards of seven years. When it was introduced, local authorities recorded information in a more traditional way. The right to data now being introduced will ensure that public authorities make electronically stored data readily available in a reusable form. I spent 10 minutes this afternoon looking at complaints about the potholes in the road outside my home in Gresford, which are published on the local open website and was happy to realise that, in the past six months, my very good local Lib Dem councillor had managed to resurface the whole of that area.
The Act has been extended, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, and proposals in the Protection of Freedoms Bill will extend it to companies owned by a number of authorities. There are real social and economic benefits, apart from for the writing of history, to be gained by enabling businesses, non-profit organisations, volunteers and others to use freely the datasets held by public authorities for social and commercial purposes.
For my own part, I would extend the provisions of the Act to private companies carrying out public work paid for by the taxpayer. I agree with the Public Accounts Committee which said recently in its 44th report published last July:
“Transparency on the full costs and benefits of PFI projects to both the public and private sectors has been obscured … commercial confidentiality should not restrict the ability of the public, Parliament and decision makers to access information”.
I hope that the Minister will be able to comment upon that view; I am sure that Sir Humphrey would not agree.
Viscount Colville of Culross
I thank my noble friend Lord Hennessy for having secured this debate on such an important issue. I declare an interest, having been a journalist, both on newspapers and in television, for most of my career. Since the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act, I have seen at first hand the beneficial effect of its principal aim, that of improving the openness of public bodies to wider scrutiny.
The Ministry of Justice will consult 200 bodies carrying out public functions and receiving public funds which are not covered by the Act. I should like to focus your Lordships’ attention on several of these bodies.
There will be consultation with two examination boards, AQA and Edexcel. Edexcel is a private company which is the UK’s largest award-giving body; AQA is an education charity providing GCSE and A-levels to English and Welsh schools. I remind the Minister of the concern felt across the educational establishment about the aggressive manner in which these examination bodies compete for GSCE and A-level business. An investigation last year by the Daily Telegraph exposed how privileged information was being given by these bodies to teachers at feedback seminars. Ofqual is now looking into the matter. There is concern also about the uneven quality of marking by these boards. A survey last year by the National Association for the Teaching of English expressed great anxiety about the qualityof the marking of English at A-level. These processes and these boards need to be made open and public.
The Local Government Association and the NHS Confederation are also being consulted on the extension of the Act. The LGA has campaigned against the vexatious and expensive effect of FOI requests on its local authority members, citing a fourfold increase during the past six years. I would argue that this figure is evidence of the success of the Act. Certainly, it has revealed stories such as the 6,000 council houses lying empty in London last year and the £31 million in fines paid by utility companies for overrunning roadworks. In fact, the Constitution Unit found that 95 per cent of local authority FOI officers felt that the Act had brought increased openness to local government. If the LGA's members have so benefited, I suggest that their representative body would garner similar advantages.
The NHS Confederation is also up for consideration. In autumn last year, its trustees agreed a new transparency and accountability policy which would ensure that it was open and transparent to the public. However, the voluntary nature of this agreement means that there is no right of appeal to the Information Commissioner. An extension of the Act would rectify this omission.
I urge the Minister to bring the Justice Ministry’s consultation on these bodies to a speedy conclusion. The last exercise to extend the FOI Act was launched on 25 October 2007, but was not implemented until four years later. I hope that this new consultation will be carried out in a fraction of the time.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I am glad to be contributing to this short debate initiated by my noble friend and former adversary Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield. I say “former adversary”, because when he was the Whitehall correspondent of the Times and I was the Principal Private Secretary at 10 Downing Street, I was required by my political masters to see that Whitehall did all it could to frustrate his knavish tricks, designed to extract information about the working of government which government would have preferred not to disclose. He collected nuggets of information with indefatigable diligence, like Squirrel Nutkin collected nuts, but, unlike Squirrel Nutkin, he always knew where he had stored his nuggets and where to find them when he needed them.
Now that the noble Lord is no longer a mischievous journalist but a learned professor, and I am a mandarin long since put out to grass, we are firm friends. I can acknowledge that, though he did not win them all, he did win more than we could have wished, and that much of what he succeeded in extracting was relatively harmless if occasionally a little embarrassing.
I am much in favour, and always have been, of the greatest degree of transparency in government as is reasonably possible. That is owed by government, central and local, to Parliament and to the councils to which they are accountable, and to the people they represent. But freedom of information is not, at least in its current legislative form, an unmitigated boon and blessing to men. Tony Blair expressed the point in his memoirs in his own characteristically vivid style:
“You idiot”—
he says, addressing himself—
“You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop”—
his words, not mine—
“I quake at the imbecility of it”.
“It” is the Freedom of Information Act. He goes on:
“Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? We had legislated in the first throes of power. How could you—
“you” is now Sir Humphrey, I think—
“knowing what you know, have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government?”
It is a well attested fact that, if I was the model for anyone, it was for Sir Arnold Robinson, not for Sir Humphrey Appleby. None the less, I am sorry that I was not around to be consulted in Mr Blair’s hour of need. I was already, unfortunately, well into my retirement.
I am afraid that there is no doubt that the risk of unwarrantable disclosure created by the Freedom of Information Act is liable to be damaging to the quality of governance. My successor, the noble Lord, Lord O'Donnell, has gone on record with his anxieties about the threat that the Freedom of Information Act presents to the usefulness of the minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet. Those minutes are not a verbatim record; they are none the less a comprehensive and accurate account of what the Cabinet decides and why. They are a valuable tool of administration. Their value depends upon their comprehensiveness and their accuracy. Their value would be diminished—they could even be misleading—if they had to be edited or bowdlerised to minimise risks of unacceptable disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
More generally, Ministers and officials, and indeed other people, now hesitate to put in writing things which are important, and which ought to be conveyed to their readers, but which they would not want to see having to be disclosed in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. The result is not only that discussion among colleagues is less candid than it should be but also that policy decisions may be taken on inadequate information.
The perverse effect of freedom of information legislation is thus to make important information less freely available where it is most needed and to impair the quality of governance. This is a problem that may well need to be addressed by amending legislation if its effects are not to become cumulatively more damaging.
I just add my support for the programme of official histories and my hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that, despite the need for austerity in public spending, the programme will be maintained.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, I declare an interest in this subject as the executive director of the Telegraph Media Group. It is worth remembering the opening words of the 1997 White Paper on freedom of information, which began thus:
“Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making. The perception of excessive secrecy has become a corrosive influence in the decline of public confidence in government”.
Fifteen years on, such sentiments remain as forceful as ever. That FOI has perhaps not lived up to all the expectation is perhaps because, in my view, the 2000 Act did not go far enough. The Government’s transparency agenda, including the increase in scope of that Act, is a welcome step to remedying some of its initial deficiencies. I wish it went further now, to include all contractors performing public functions on behalf of public authorities—an extension all the more vital because of the contracting-out provisions of the Localism Act and the health service reforms currently before this House. Will the Minister look at that?
There are concerns—eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong—that FOI has had a negative impact on government decision-making by increasing the practice of what is termed sofa government, with damaging consequences for government record-keeping. As a historian, I am only too well aware that a comprehensive and accessible archive of government decision-making is a precious legacy to future generations. However, I believe that those concerns are misplaced. The last inquiry that looked into them—the review of the 30-year rule led by Mr Paul Dacre, working with the distinguished historian Sir David Cannadine—concluded that:
“We accept that ‘sofa government’ may have occurred at certain times in twentieth-century British history– indeed, long before FOI and the introduction of the 30 year rule; but we believe that it is more likely to be a reflection of leadership style and political circumstances than to be motivated by any concern regarding the timing of the future disclosure of official documents”.
For those interested in maintaining a comprehensive record of the deeds and doings of government, which is available to the public under FOI or the 30-year rule, there are far greater concerns than FOI, of which the most vital is the vulnerability of digital records. Most business is now recorded digitally. These records are subject to rapid obsolescence, with often a natural life of only five years. Already the oldest digital government records from the early 1990s are lost for ever, because appropriate software is no longer available or storage media is corrupted.
There is also the problem of digital information overload, with, in the words of the 30-year review,
“vast amounts of ephemeral information paralysing the system”.
Although digital technology may assist in making government more open, it has the paradoxical effect of making a permanent archival record far more difficult to establish, because documents disappear into digital landfill. Those two problems present a huge issue for the long-term maintenance of government records. That is a deeply worrying problem to tackle. It would help to hear from the Minister about what the Government are doing to ensure that electronic record capture is an integral part of government IT infrastructure—the key point for all of us who are concerned about the maintenance of government records.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn
My Lords, in this very short debate, for which we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Hennessy, I want to touch briefly on two issues. One is the effect on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular of the Freedom of Information Act and the other is the consequences, again essentially for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, of reducing the period of restriction on government records down to 20 years. I fear that on both I have a more suspicious and restrictive view than my noble friend Lord Hennessy.
Maximum openness of government is something that everybody wants, historians particularly, although my noble friend Lord Hennessy has managed to produce fantastic accounts of British policy and the way the government machinery operates without any changes in the way in which the records are dealt with. However, there are dangers, particularly for departments of state such as the Foreign Office. We always say we want officials to speak truth to power. However, will those officials be speaking as much truth if they think they are not talking just to power but to the whole population as well? Will they not, as my noble friend Lord Armstrong suggested, avoid written communications and get into huddles in corridors? Is that really for the benefit of the nation as a whole? Perhaps the Minister could comment on how this sort of danger might be avoided.
Then there is the problem of reducing the restriction of access to public records from 30 years to 20 years. Legislation is already in place to do that. Some years ago, I did a PhD on British policy in the 1920s towards the rise of nationalism in China. Most records were open, but there was one fascinating file that was closed for 70 years. It was the response by a senior Foreign Office official to a paper from the number two in the British mission in Peking, Owen O’Malley, around 30 pages long, about what British policy to China should be. I puzzled about what this reply from the Foreign Office said—clearly it revealed key things about British policy. I went to see Sir Owen O’Malley later. He said, “You must see the reply I got to my paper. It was so abusive that the Foreign Office has closed it for 70 years”.
That did not need closing, but I suggest that other things do. Imagine a conversation a young person in a British embassy has with a friend in a country. The friend is frank about the failings of his country and the people who are responsible. Later, he becomes a senior official. Does he want those sorts of things to be in the hands of his enemies, only 20 years later, when he has risen to a high position? I think there is a serious issue there. Perhaps again the Minister could suggest how “McNally 1”—which I think it is going to be—could somehow deal with this issue; lest, as I fear we might, with the best possible intentions, we finish by shooting ourselves in the foot.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hennessy for initiating this debate. My remarks will follow broadly in the spirit of his remarks and, like him, I have to declare an interest as a practising university historian, at Queen’s University Belfast, and as secretary of the All-Party Group on Archives and History.
There is an important Irish dimension to this question, relating to the decades of commemorations that are about to come upon us in Ireland: of the signing of the Ulster covenant, the Easter Rising and the war of independence. There are still important documents in Kew that have not been released in this context. I am interested because historians need to be armed. Quite rightly, there is a certain nervousness in both Governments about the emotional consequences of some of these commemorations. For some, they are a rather bad model—the argument is that the commemoration in 1966 of the Easter Rising played a role in triggering the subsequent Troubles. Historians need help, and we have formed an ad-hoc group of historians on a north-south basis, under the chairmanship of Professor Eunan O’Halpin of Trinity College, Dublin. We all feel that the more help that we get from Governments to release documents, the more valuable we can actually be.
I am not talking about spasmodic release. For example, when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, the Irish Taoiseach, wrote to him and said, “Could we please have Roger Casement’s SIS files released?” and they were released. I am talking about something somewhat more systematic. There is one thing in particular that Her Majesty’s Government could do: they could get in touch with Commonwealth states—Canada, Australia, New Zealand—and say to them that they could safely declassify Irish material from the period 1913-23. We strongly suspect that it remains locked away because it contains security-related exchanges with London that no longer have any particularly poisonous dimension to them. I very much hope that the Minister, who has been a friend to historians, will help us in this matter.
However, I would like to add something slightly more cautious in the spirit of my noble friend Lord Wilson’s remarks about the move to a 20-year rule. I am certain that before long our political class will agree to this, and there is a reason for that. Even the great figures of our current political class, a Thatcher or a Blair, are at the top for only 10 or 11 years, so a 20-year rule is something that they can feel quite comfortable with. For good or for ill, there are no longer any Mr Gladstones, who sat in Peel’s Cabinet in the 1840s and was putting through the third Home Rule Bill in 1893. If we had politicians who spent 50 years at the top, I am certain that we would not be talking about a 20-year rule.
It is not politicians or their reputations that worry me; it is the young officials. I have talked to members of the committee that made this recommendation, I believe that it is the spirit of the times and I support it broadly. However, even under the 30-year rule young civil servants have been embarrassed by material that has been released. We need to be a little cautious about this matter.
Lord Turnbull
My Lords, the FOI Act has, as intended, brought important benefits to citizens by giving them information on decisions affecting their lives. However, one area of the Act is not working as intended—the so-called safe space. In all the discussions leading to the Act, the code of practice, the White Paper, the Bill itself and reports by committees, the need for a safe space was repeatedly acknowledged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, speaking on the Bill in 2000, said:
“I should … make clear that many people on both sides of the debate consider that it is appropriate that policy making should not take place in a goldfish bowl: that there should be a process which allows Ministers, public authorities and civil servants to exchange views in a way that they feel will be private to give them that space to think and make decisions”.—[Official Report, 24/10/00; col. 282.]
When taken with the principle of Pepper v Hart that the courts should be able to look at the parliamentary record as well as at the specific wording of the Act, it is crystal clear what Parliament intended. Why, then, has the safe space been under repeated attack? It is because Section 35 does not confer an absolute exemption but requires a balancing public interest test. In applying that test, however, the commissioners and the tribunal have tended to focus narrowly on the information sought in the request, not the wider signal that the disclosure produces. Any release contains two forms of information: that inherent in the document, and that which provides signals how about the commissioner/tribunal are expected to respond in future cases. There will be cases where the information itself may cause little harm but where releases of similar documents could have a big effect on the behaviour of Ministers and officials. The commissioners and the tribunal appear to place little weight on this wider impact despite the advice of many distinguished people.
There is a further dimension. The Civil Service is required to give its best advice to Governments of different complexions. This will inevitably become more difficult if the advice given by named officials is revealed to successor Governments, a danger referred to in the papers by none other than the noble Lords, Lord Heseltine, Lord Mandelson and Lord Butler. There are two ways out of this: either the commissioner and the tribunal pay more heed to the original intention of Parliament or the use of the ministerial veto, always intended as a backstop, will, sadly, become more frequent.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I can think of nowhere else where such a brief debate could contain so much. We are all enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for the manner in which he introduced the debate, just as many of us are grateful to him for all that he has done for contemporary history.
I speak as one who for some 24 years was on the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and sat on the council of archives, and who occasionally had to chair a panel to adjudicate on whether a certain document should indeed be released. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with the general case that the noble Lord so brilliantly and wittily made when he opened the debate.
There are other things that we have to consider, though, and some of them have been touched upon in this debate. The importance of archives is such that we must not endanger them or their preservation. My noble friend Lord Black talked about the digital and electronic archive, which is something to which we have not yet devoted sufficient attention.
My noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold talked very eloquently about the need for conventions. It is truly important that we have those. What we do not want is an incentive to destroy or an incentive for people to go into the back garden of an embassy, which I was once told about when I visited an iron curtain country. That was the only place where people dared talk. We need to have the conversations between Ministers and civil servants recorded and released at the appropriate time.
However, the appropriate time is not always necessarily after 15 or 20 years. Sometimes it has to be longer. Although the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that we no longer live in the age of Gladstone, in which a statesman could be active for 50 years, maybe he is being a bit premature. We live in an age of longevity. At the moment we have three party leaders who could well still be active in politics in 20 years’ time. I should not like to think that they were being driven to make difficult decisions on the sofa or somewhere that are not adequately recorded so that the Hennessys of the future and those who look back, not as contemporary historians but as historians viewing a whole sweep of history, are deprived of essential evidence.
In this, as in all things, we have to get the balance right. If we take the judicious approach of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, tempered by the cautious words of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong, we will have the ideal solution. I know that my noble friend Lord McNally has a reputation for being something of a Solomon. We will have to hear what he says to us tonight. However, I hope he will be able to assure us that he has a passionate care for archives, but complete archives, and that he will do nothing to damage in any way the material that future historians will need.
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on initiating this debate. However, I should like to draw attention, as others have, to rather a different problem—namely, the extent to which the Freedom of Information Act in its present form and application, and the Government’s existing transparency agenda, may affect the readiness of public servants at home and diplomats abroad to record their frank advice to Ministers, even though there are exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act designed to cover confidential advice to Ministers and damage to international relations.
Does the Minister agree that there is a real potential constraint on officials if they believe that their confidential advice is liable to be open to early public access in spite of these exemptions, as illustrated by the recent decision to stop valedictory dispatches by departing heads of mission? I personally deplore this, having benefited three times from the experience and assessments of my ambassadorial predecessors. I regard the problem as being not so much the availability of government records, but whether important advice to Ministers is failing to be recorded for eventual inclusion in the National Archives. There is also a potential problem for future historians, unrelated to the Freedom of Information Act, in the failure to register many of the constant official exchanges by e-mail.
It is, I hope, an exaggeration—although I have heard it said—that the application of the Freedom of Information Act has led to a climate of fear in Whitehall, and to a marked reluctance by officials to put their frank and confidential advice in writing, whether by minute, letter, dispatch or valedictories. The Minister knows well, from our service together in 10 Downing Street many years ago, the importance that we both attach to a relationship of mutual trust between Ministers and their advisers. Does he accept that there is a real danger of that mutual trust being eroded by the excessive application of the Freedom of Information Act?
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton
My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for introducing this debate. I am also grateful to him for his work over many years in elucidating problems of great interest in English politics, particularly his discussion of how the nuclear weapons of this country were developed. He also developed well the idea of how we would manage to survive a nuclear attack in his book The Secret State, to which he alluded.
I have on one or two occasions come up against restrictions on the freedom of information. I remember writing a book and needing the text of the Non-Intervention Committee in Spain in the 1930s. I was told it was an official secret. I argued but I did not get very far until I found out that the Dutch version of these minutes and documents could be available to me if I went to Amsterdam. I discussed this with the Public Record Office, which eventually relaxed its control.
I had another experience once when, already a Member of this House, I tried to get the late Lord Dainton, then chairman of the British Library, to tell me how many people had visited the British Library— the old, noble British Library, which I still regret—the previous year. He told me—this is difficult to believe—that it was an official secret and I could not be informed. Recently, I have come across a different problem—if it is a problem. Letters that I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in the 1980s are now available for scrutiny in Churchill College, Cambridge. I do not mind that: I know that on one occasion I wrote a very important paper about the Ming dynasty in China because she was just about to go to China.
In this debate, we are trying to discuss where the line lies between the need for confidentiality: the need for Ministers, for civil servants and for private persons to have private conversations which are not leaked immediately; and the need which public persons, private persons, historians, journalists and others have for information. The difficulty of deciding this line has been touched upon very well by many noble Lords. I was particularly interested by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong, who pointed out the difficulty of immediate indiscretion, so to speak.
I feel have to sit down in a minute—I can feel a glare upon me. In conclusion, it is essential for public servants and politicians to be able to write down statements of policy and not just commit them to the telephone or to conversation. Dr Kissinger makes that point very strongly in an introduction to one of his volumes of memoirs and I very much agree with him. It is the written document which we need.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, both for securing this debate and for his own role, not just as an historian, but as a constitutional activist who has done a great deal more than most in pushing at the boundaries of official information.
First, I would like to endorse the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for a “Waldegrave 2”. Just as the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, helped historians understand our recent past, so, too, would a reconsideration of the issues now. Secondly, I would also endorse his call for the Pilling and Hamilton reviews on the official history programme to be implemented.
However, my main concern is the Government’s proposal to review the operation of the FOI Act 2000. Although the FOI Act was passed by a Labour Government, this does not of course mean that everything about it is perfect. The wriggling of this Government in relation to the Department of Health’s risk register is clear evidence of that. So we on these Benches—well, my colleague and I—welcome the establishment of a review of the 2000 Act, in the form of a post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation.
There is a continuing need for consideration about whether the Act has got right the balances it seeks to strike: for instance, between disclosure and operation in government; between transparency and the need to reduce regulatory burdens; between, in effect, good government and open government. In that respect, I welcome the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell of Clapham—whom I am delighted to see in his place—in his final remarks as Cabinet Secretary. My own experience in government suggests that there is indeed a need for proper policy-making space in government and also suggests that FOI, as a piece of legislation, has had some negative as well as positive effects. Discussion in government can be less open as a result of FOI. Fewer things are now written down in government as a result of FOI. These are not good outcomes either for good governance or for future historians.
Set against that are the clear and real successes of FOI, as detailed in the Government’s helpful memorandum on the Act, published last month, which will form an important part of the review of that Act. At present, the review is to be carried out by the House of Commons Justice Select Committee, chaired by Sir Alan Beith, the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. The Select Committee is a very fine body and its chairman a very fine chairman, but there is a case—a strong case—for the form of that inquiry to be expanded.
Today’s debate gives me the opportunity to propose that even at this late stage the vehicle for the review of the operation of the FOl Act 2000, first suggested by the Government in January last year, should be extended to a review carried out by a committee of both Houses. That would also be in line with the spirit of the Goodlad report, and the Leader of this House has always said that he is in favour of this House undertaking post-legislative scrutiny. The expertise of your Lordships’ House across a whole range of activities is clear.
A Joint Committee of both Houses might well be the best means of carrying out a review. Or perhaps, given that the work of the Common’s Justice Committee on the matter is already under way, there might be scope for that Committee to co-opt or include in some way as part of its process Members of your Lordships’ House, and this House should explore and pursue this matter further with the House of Commons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, in the spirit in which the Leader of the Opposition intervened, perhaps I may say that it is an interesting idea to broaden the post-legislative scrutiny. The rules are that it is within the scope of the relevant committee to do that, but I will draw her remarks to the attention of Sir Alan. It would be useful if that committee made use of the experience and expertise available. One of my memories of the original Act was the ludicrous situation at that time whereby there was pre-legislative scrutiny by two committees—one from this House and one from the Commons—sitting at either end of the Corridor, with witnesses moving from one to the other.
First, I apologise to all noble Lords who have taken part. This should have been a three-hour debate that gave the eminent people who have contributed a proper opportunity. I will not do my usual practice of trying to refer to the individual points raised. Instead, I should like to provide a considered omnibus reply that I will send to each Member who has participated and put it in the Library of the House, because the issues raised are too important. If I tried to reply to each in turn, I would look up and all my time would have gone. With the permission of the House, I will do it that way.
I must say in passing that I have never seen so many mandarins in one place since my school production of “Chu Chin Chow”, and it was great to see them all out. I am of course immensely grateful to my old friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy. He is quite right—it is about time that I got a PhD from Queen Mary college because of the number of times I see a letter beginning with, “Professor Hennessy has suggested you might be able to help with my research”. I am grateful in one way because I am in several footnotes to history around the various work that is done. My time goes back even further than his clash with the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, because I was working for Harold Wilson when the Times, with great fanfare, announced this new creature that was going to pace the corridors of power: a Whitehall correspondent, one P Hennessy—to which Harold announced that any civil servant found talking to this new creature would be fired on the spot. Such was the spirit of the age.
The Leader of the Opposition pointed out that the Freedom of Information Act was the work of the previous Government. Let me put on record my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, who produced the first White Paper on freedom of information and on which the Act was built.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the quotation from “Yes, Prime Minister”. I do not think that any of us who have watched “Yes, Prime Minister” and “Yes Minister” and have actually worked in Whitehall and Westminster have ever considered it as comedy; we watched it more as documentary. In passing, I should say that I still have not worked out how in those days Sir John Hunt could manage to get from his office way down in 70 Whitehall to the foyer of No. 10 to greet the Prime Minister without any of the electronic devices that we have today to know that the Prime Minister was about to return, but now as I watch it on the cable channels I find the show still very pertinent.
As many Members are aware, I am a long-standing enthusiast for transparency and freedom of information. I therefore continue to be proud to have an opportunity to help shape the next phase of freedom of information in this country. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said with his vivid quotation from Tony Blair’s memoirs and indeed the valedictory from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, who I am very pleased to see in his place. They are matters and opinions certainly to be taken in evidence, although it leaves me, as a proponent of the Act, also to argue that when Prime Ministers and mandarins object, this Act might actually be doing something that it was intended to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has placed considerable emphasis on the Government’s pledge to replace the current 30-year rule with a 20-year rule. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate the enormity of the task. Central government departments alone hold more than 3 million files that will need to be reviewed during this process.
However, just before I depart from the points that were made by a number of noble Lords about the battle—and this has been the battle throughout—between the safe space and the culture of secrecy, all I would say is: let the Parliament system work. The Act has the process of post-legislative scrutiny built into it. Let this process tease out some of the weaknesses that have been named today, and let the Government look at them, and let those who believe that those weaknesses exist give evidence of them. That can be nothing but healthy.
The detailed work has now been done to develop an implementation plan that will balance our intention to reduce the 30-year rule with the burdens that this will impose. I reassure noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—who asked for my guarantees on this—that the Government remain committed to this course of action and that further details will be announced in due course. Let me also give him a guarantee that that is not Whitehallese for some time, never. Not on my watch it won’t; we will press ahead with this.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is also keen for there to be a new Waldegrave initiative and an expansion of the current programme of official histories. I fully recognise the benefits to historians that such initiatives bring and I am sympathetic to his view. However, the subsequent introduction of FOI since that time means that the public—including historians—are free to request any records. Moreover, the reduction in the 30-year rule will result in more and more government records being made available earlier year by year.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that such a significant undertaking as the reduction in the 30-year rule would make additional simultaneous initiatives very difficult at this time of financial restraint. I also hope that noble Lords will recognise the unprecedented level of transparency that was not available at the time of the Waldegrave initiative. However, I will continue to keep the suggestion under review and I pledge here and now that it will be called Waldegrave 2. I have no ambitions for it to be called anything else.
As for the official history programme, a good deal of work is already in progress, and I hope that we can review future work in happier economic circumstances. I emphasise again my enthusiasm for the programme of official histories. It would be a tragedy if we were to allow them to wither on the vine after 2013.
Hand in hand with FOI is the transparency agenda being pushed through government by my right honourable friend Francis Maude. The transparency agenda is about much more than historical information; it is about much more than government records in the traditional meaning of the phrase. It is about the information and data that we deal with day to day to inform our decisions and provide our public services. Making that information available is what makes the transparency agenda truly revolutionary. More information than ever is being published proactively by this Government. In excess of 7,500 data sets have been made available to increase accountability, empower the public and foster innovation and economic growth.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Protection of Freedoms Bill includes provisions that introduce a new right to data to ensure that public authorities, including government departments, make data sets available in a reusable format where they can and make them available for reuse when releasing them in response to requests or through publication schemes.
The Government will also be developing a transparency and open data strategy and plan to publish their response to consultation on the form that it might take early this year. There is a strong public interest in increased transparency by all bodies in receipt of public funds, including those in the private sector. The Cabinet Office is considering the type of bodies to which an open data policy will apply.
Many noble Lords will also be aware of the significant steps that we are taking to extend the Freedom of Information Act to more bodies through the Protection of Freedoms Bill and secondary legislation under Section 5 of the Act.
As I said in my opening remarks, I am a long-standing supporter of freedom of information and transparency. I am proud that, on my watch, the Act has been extended and the independence of the Information Commissioner strengthened. I am well aware that the FOI still has its critics among both Ministers and officials. It was never meant to make those groups comfortable, but as the Minister responsible I have played this matter by the book. My department has consulted widely on how the act works in practice. We have produced a report that, I believe—I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comment—is a model of objectivity in the post-legislative scrutiny process.
That is how matters should work. It is now in the hands of the Justice Select Committee, which has in turn asked for written comment by 3 February and urged interested parties to give the committee their views. As I said, I will pass on the noble Baroness’s comments about widening the basis of the group considering that.
I am confident that FOI is robust enough to survive rigorous post-legislative scrutiny. It is that process that will expose any flaws, if there are any. In the mean time, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for initiating the debate and all noble Lords who have spoken. As I said at the beginning, the tragedy is that a speakers list of this quality and a topic such as this should be crammed in to the dinner hour, but I will write to noble Lords on the points raised. In the mean time, I am most grateful for all contributions.
Welfare Reform Bill
(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
My Lords, never have I minded less about changing my original speech so extensively, because the Government have conceded on the qualifying period for PIP being brought back to three months from six months. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the concerns expressed by many disabled people and the organisations that support them about the hardship that such a long qualifying period could cause. The reasons for changing the time back to three months are compelling, particularly in relation to those who have sudden onset conditions or a serious accident, and there is now no need to rehearse the arguments yet again. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I, too, shall be brief because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has said, the Minister has flagged his acceptance of the amendments in this group.
The debate in Committee led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, centred in particular on the importance of keeping a qualifying period for PIP at three months, but obviously the concept of increasing the prospective period from six to nine months to align PIP with the definition of “long-term disability” in the Equality Act has been helpful to the process. However, the arguments for a three-month qualifying period are strong, and it is commendable that the Government have accepted the case. We have not heard them today but those arguments concerned conditions of a long-term nature having a sudden onset, conditions which are not diagnosable immediately after the onset of symptoms, and conditions which have an immediate devastating impact.
I have just one question for the Minister on the required period condition. This has been touched on before but is not the subject of an amendment today. On the basis of what is before us as an amendment, to be eligible for PIP it has to be determined whether, as respects every time in the previous three months,
“it is likely that if the relevant ability had been assessed at that time that ability would have been determined to be limited or … severely limited by the person’s physical or mental condition”.
The issue is how this requirement is to be interpreted for those with fluctuating conditions. At a recent meeting to consider how things should work for those on the autistic spectrum, we were assured that, although the wording was a bit clumsy, it covered the situation. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that or, as we are at one on this issue, commit to tidying it up at Third Reading.
However, all in all, the Government are to be commended for doing the right thing on this, as indeed is the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for having led the charge and continued to press the matter.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I tried to rise to speak earlier because my name is added to this group of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Thomas, and I am very pleased that I have been able to support them. We have had a lot of responses from people whom we respect and whose advice we find very useful, including Macmillan and CLIC Sargent, and I thank them for the time that they have given.
When we looked at this issue in Committee, I think it was generally agreed that an overall 12-month required period condition was right, but there was a lot of concern that the six-month period in question here was too long. Bluntly, we were trying to balance two factors: payments being made sooner against the potential for more assessments to ensure that ongoing payments were correct. That is why we ended up with periods of six months plus six months. However, we have been listening to the arguments and have been persuaded that the balance should shift. There was a clear consensus that a three-month qualifying period and a nine-month prospective test offered the fairest solution, and that is why we are able to support the amendments.
On the point raise by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I think it is easier if I write to him, as this is a fairly technical matter. On that basis I am very happy to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend.
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, this amendment would ensure that those who are awarded either the daily living component and/or the mobility component before pensionable age can continue to receive it after they reach pensionable age. Currently the Bill states that persons of pensionable age are entitled to neither award.
The matter was fully debated in Committee, when the argument was fully rehearsed, so I do not intend to speak to it at great length this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said in moving the same amendment in Committee—on 16 November at column 303 of Hansard—how the Disability Alliance and other charities were being approached regularly by disabled people worried about what the current proposals would mean when they reach pension age. She maintained that the amendment would clarify the position and put many minds at rest. She also drew the committee’s attention to the fact that the Dilnot commission highlighted the pivotal role that DLA plays in preventing high-level needs from escalating. Receiving DLA helps disabled people manage their health and prevents avoidable NHS costs or people entering residential care prematurely, or at all, with potential savings in the long run.
The noble Baroness understood that the Government intended to provide in regulations for those who received DLA before pension age to retain it after they reached pension age, but she said her concern was not allayed by the Minister for Disabled People stating in the Commons that the Government wanted the matter to be addressed in regulations to allow for flexibility. Such flexibility, she said, could easily include altering the entitlement in the future and denying support to disabled people reaching pensionable age. It would offer a significant boost in confidence for many disabled people, she said, to receive the reassurance in the Bill that their support will not be withdrawn when they reach pension age.
The Minister made it clear that the Government intended to make regulations for PIP that will allow people who have reached the upper age limit to continue to receive PIP. He said:
“Our priority is to support those individuals with established, long-term health conditions or impairments that would put them at a financial disadvantage over a long period … The intention behind this amendment is to ensure ongoing support throughout later life for individuals whose abilities are limited earlier in life, recognising that they may have had less opportunity to earn and save for later life. I can assure noble Lords that this is also our intention and that it can be achieved without amendment to the Bill, but instead through regulations. As it currently stands, the amendment would potentially widen the scope of personal independence payment and undermine our intention of creating a more affordable and sustainable benefit”.—[Official Report, 16/11/2011; cols. GC 304-05.]
He also made clear the Government’s intention of replicating, under PIP, the one-year linking rule which operates under the DLA regime, which allows individuals over 65 to renew an award within one year of their previous award, without losing DLA entitlement.
The matter seems quite straightforward. The assurance that those who have DLA when they reach pension age can keep it is provided in current legislation. The Government propose to remove this insurance in the Bill before us. They say that they will maintain the guarantee in regulations, but we all know that regulations can be changed much more easily than primary legislation. What possible motive can the Government have for removing from the Bill the guarantee to pensioners? One cannot blame people for asking the question or for being suspicious of the answer.
If the Government intend to give the assurance in regulations, what skin would it be off the Minister's nose to give it in the Bill? In circumstances where he needs all the confidence-building measures he can devise to take disabled people with him through the legislation, this would be an obvious and cost-free concession. The Minister referred to an earlier amendment as being the priciest yet. Surely this is the cheapest. If the wording needs to be fine-tuned in order to avoid widening the scope of PIP, I would be entirely amenable to working with him to find the appropriate wording before Third Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilkins
My Lords, I, too, put my name to the amendment. I declare an interest as someone who was awarded mobility allowance for life and was then moved to DLA at its inception. I have continued to receive this past pension age. I strongly support the amendment, which would put in the Bill the assurance that awards of PIP will be retained after retirement age, as is the case with DLA. When the amendment was discussed in Grand Committee the Minister tried to sound reassuring, but unfortunately the Government are not trusted.
We know that all Governments prefer to use regulations, which give them more scope and power. However, to quote Sir Bert Massie, the chair of the much lamented Disability Rights Commission, the difference between now and 1992, when the DLA was introduced, is that this Government are playing with false cards. If the Government are sincere in their assurance that PIP will be retained after retirement age, why will they not behave transparently and place the commitment in the Bill? Clause 82 only grants a power. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, imposes a duty. There is a massive difference.
Sir Bert fears, as I do, that the Government are planning to use the payment of post-retirement PIP awards as part of the Dilnot package for social care. On the argument about cutting the DLA mobility component for people in residential care, they will discover what they regard as double provision, and PIP will be lost to pensioners. In his response in Grand Committee, the Minister almost said as much when he stated:
“By setting out these provisions in regulations we can ensure that the legislation can be adapted in response to any future changes in the social care system which might affect pensioners”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 305.]
Given the demands of responding to the Dilnot commission report, would your Lordships trust the Government not to use the flexibility of regulations to devote the entire PIP budget for over-retirement age to social care?
DLA is an essential contribution to so much more than our social needs. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have tried to convey the enormous complexity of disability and the very wide range of extra costs with which we are faced. DLA gives the lie to the false dichotomy that the Minister always draws between benefit recipients and taxpayers. My DLA has enabled me to be mobile and be employed. It has enabled me to be a taxpayer all my life. As I have aged, my mobility needs have become considerably more expensive. I could not have contemplated buying that “nice bit of kit”, as the policemen outside the Peers’ entrance term the considerably adapted car that I can drive from my electric chair, without the assurance that my DLA is for life. Future PIP recipients should have the same reassurance and I ask noble Lords to support the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment. The case has been very clearly made. The amendment is seeking the assurance of something written in primary legislation rather than the comfort that was given that this could be dealt with in regulations.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to clarify a part of the debate we had in Committee. The Minister said:
“Turning to the current rules, broadly speaking, current DLA provisions have a one-year linking rule. This allows individuals over 65 to renew an award within one year of their previous award without losing DLA entitlement. Similarly, we intend to allow a linking period for PIP. This will support those individuals who reach the upper age limit and have a break in their claim through temporary improvement, provided the individual makes a claim within a defined period and continues to fulfil the eligibility criteria for PIP”.
I understand all of that. The next sentence says:
“As with DLA, there will be restrictions on new and existing claims for those over the age of 65”.—[Official Report, 16/11/11; col. GC 305.]
Can the Minister expand on what particular restrictions on existing claims for those over the age of 65 he is intending to implement?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity to set out our position in relation to people who are approaching 65 and over the age of 65 and, I hope, give a degree of reassurance as to what we are aiming to do and, if people could accept our firm stated intention, explain why that would be a better and more flexible way of proceeding. I hope that some of the things I said in Grand Committee and what was in our policy briefing document in May will have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, at least to some extent, although I am not absolutely confident of that, given the slightly questioning tenor of her remarks.
People in receipt of DLA who are aged 65 or over when PIP is introduced will not be reassessed for the new benefit from 2013. These reforms will initially be focused on people of working age. This will enable us to ensure that learning from the reassessment of working-age recipients is properly considered before any further changes are developed and implemented.
I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that financial support continues into pension age for individuals who may have had less opportunity to work and save during their working life due to their condition. I can reassure noble Lords that this is also our objective and can be achieved without amendment to the Bill, but instead through regulations, much as the detail for DLA pensioners is provided for in regulations. We intend to make regulations for the personal independence payment that will allow people who have reached the upper age limit to continue to receive it for as long as they continue to meet the entitlement conditions. Our priority is to support those individuals with established, long-term health conditions or impairments that would put them at a financial disadvantage over a long period. As we indicated in our entitlement thresholds and consultation document, we expect to consult formally on a range of issues to help inform the regulations. This is such an area and we expect to begin consultation in the spring.
It is also our intention that the rules for people over the age of 65 should be broadly similar to those that currently apply to DLA. For example, DLA provisions allow a one-year linking rule which lets those aged 65 or over renew an award within one year of their previous award expiring without losing DLA entitlement or having to satisfy a qualifying period. This provision is intended to allow for those on a fixed-term award to renew their award on a new claim or to reclaim where their condition previously improved and subsequently deteriorated.
I turn to the link question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Under DLA, claimants over the age of 65 cannot move up or down the mobility component rates or move to the lowest rate care component. In the main, these rules match up with attendance allowance and that is an example of the kind of restrictions currently in DLA, which we will look to and consult on maintaining in PIP. Our commitment is to maintain support for those individuals who have relied on DLA or PIP for their working lives into retirement. People who develop care needs during retirement as part of the natural ageing process, for example, and who are not receiving PIP, will be able to claim attendance allowance.
The effects of this amendment are important. It could allow an individual aged over 65 who had previously, at any point in the past, received PIP to make a new claim for the benefit. This could have the effect of allowing people over 65 to receive PIP if they have previously been awarded it, even if there was a very long break in the claim—a break of decades. We would not want that to be the case.
Under the powers we have in Clause 82, we can ensure that the regulations can be flexible to respond to future changes. The changes in the social care system were raised as an example by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. Clearly, if there is a rebuild of the entire support system, that is one thing that we might want to take account of. It could, of course, go both ways: it might affect pensioners.
In terms of developing the rules and how we implement them, I would like to assure the House that we will continue to work closely with the PIP implementation development group to ensure that policy design and delivery in respect of people aged 65 and over are informed by disabled people and their representatives. We intend to consult fully on our proposals during the spring as part of that commitment to involve disabled people. Given these assurances on our approach, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I declared my interest as a DLA recipient when I first entered the debate on PIP before dinner. However, in view of the particular relevance of this amendment to my own situation, I ought to have made it clear, like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, that I have received DLA from its inception and continue to receive it now that I am past pension age.
Obviously, at this time of night, I am not going to press the amendment and will seek leave to withdraw it. However, I have to confess that I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s answer. The strongest point he made was that, in the way it is drafted, the amendment could override linking rules and enable somebody who had received DLA a considerable length of time before he reached pension age successfully to resuscitate a claim to PIP after he reached pension age. That would not be our intention and, as I said in moving the amendment, if we could resolve that and any other matters of mis-wording to which the Minister could draw my attention by Third Reading, I would be very happy to have discussions with him and his officials.
Lord Freud
Perhaps I may make the position clear. The difference between us is that we would not want this in the Bill but the substance of what we are trying to do matches what the noble Lord is looking for. I am not in a position to offer anything further for Third Reading. I am, however, very willing to see him personally—and any groups he wants as well—to discuss this matter when we move into the spring period to make sure that we get it absolutely right. We are anyway having full consultation, but I am absolutely prepared to commit to looking at this so that the detailed regulations are acceptable.
Lord Low of Dalston
The trouble is that by the spring consultation the Bill will be done and dusted and we will have missed the opportunity. However, on the basis that the Minister is happy to meet us to discuss this matter further and perhaps bottom it more than we are able to do at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollins
“Carer’s allowance
In section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (invalid care allowance), for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) In this section, “severely disabled person” means a person in respect of whom there is payable either—
(a) an attendance allowance;(b) a disability living allowance by virtue of entitlement to the care component at the middle or higher rate; or(c) a personal independence payment by virtue of entitlement to a rate of the daily living component which will be prescribed in regulations, or such other payment out of public funds on account of his need for attendance as may be prescribed.””
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, the amendments would place the new arrangements announced by the Minister in Committee in the Bill to reflect existing provision for carer’s allowance passporting in primary legislation. In the discussions around the Bill, Peers, including the Minister, have demonstrated their understanding and appreciation of the huge contribution made by the 6.4 million carers in the UK, often at considerable personal sacrifice.
Despite its rather low level, carer’s allowance is a vital benefit which provides an essential independent income for families providing care. As a result, it is crucial that the prominence of carer’s allowance is maintained, as now, in primary legislation, preserving the strength and importance of these crucial rights for carers. Amendment 54D would establish this crucial link between carer’s allowance and personal independence payment in the Bill but allow the Government to prescribe the rates in regulations. However, the clear preference of Carers UK and other charities—I agree with them—is for the maintenance of the strength of existing rights by also setting out the rates in primary legislation.
Amendment 54E would establish the passporting link and that both rates of the daily living component would act as gateways, fully reflecting existing provision for disability living allowance and the details announced by the Minister in December. I remind the House that in December the Minister said:
“It has always been our intention that personal independence payment will provide a gateway through to receipt of carer’s allowance in the way that DLA currently does”.
The briefing paper went on to say:
“It is our intention that both rates of the daily living component will be used as a criterion in connection with entitlement to carer’s allowance”.
Carers UK hopes that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment, to cement in primary legislation this announcement made before Christmas and to send out the clear message that the Government do indeed value carers and that their rights and entitlements are valued correspondingly in primary legislation. Having made such a positive announcement, I can see no reason why the Government would not wish to establish these details in the Bill.
In addition to establishing the provisions announced by the Minister in the Bill, the amendment also provides the opportunity to express ongoing additional concerns about the impact of the personal independence payment reforms on carers, which were not addressed by the announcement around passporting. Carers UK and other organisations are still deeply concerned that the 20 per cent reduction in spending on these benefits as the personal independence payment is introduced will lead to the loss of carer’s allowance for a number of carers, on top of substantial numbers of disabled people losing their benefits.
Having looked at the consultation issued yesterday and other documents which I have received, I cannot see an assessment of the impact on carers of the changes. I may have missed it. We know from the statistics the impact on the relevant groups of disabled people—those in receipt of middle or higher rates of the care component of DLA, the gateways to carer’s allowance—and that these groups will be reduced by 80,000. Many, of course, will not have carers, but it is likely that some of those 80,000 will have someone currently in receipt of carer’s allowance caring for them, and when the disabled person loses his or her benefit the carer will lose eligibility for carer’s allowance.
I understand everything that has been said about the emphasis being on supporting people with greater need and that some people may receive more and that some people currently receiving the lower rate may move into the new standard rate, but concern has been expressed. So, if there has been no impact assessment, is the Minister now able to inform the House how many carers are likely to be affected by these changes? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment and I fully support what my noble friend Lady Hollins has said. As we have heard, there are approximately 6.5 million carers. Of course, we all need to remind ourselves just how important they are and how much money they save the state in the work that they do on behalf of their families and, indeed, friends, because quite a number of carers are not necessarily directly related. Perhaps the Minister would agree that that is a very good reason for putting this proposal in the Bill. It would certainly reassure all those who, as has been said, do so much for the nation in terms of finance and for individuals with whom they have personal caring relationships.
I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to accept this amendment. Otherwise, perhaps he will give us an assurance on the questions that have been asked. That would be helpful and useful. I look forward to hearing his reply.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I, too, speak in support of these amendments. We are talking about essential rights for carers. When carers give up work in order to care, it is crucial that they are able to access financial support, which provides them with an independent income. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for a brief trip down memory lane about an independent income for carers. In the 1960s, an independent income for carers was at the very heart of what started the carers’ movement. That independent income was achieved in the 1970s and went on to be extended in the 1980s. I should like to acknowledge the very active part that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who is not in his place, played in extending those rights under—perhaps I may remind your Lordships—a Conservative Government.
Given the importance of carers, which has been acknowledged time and again, it is disappointing that the Government have not brought forward an amendment to place these rights in the Bill. If the gateway for PIP payments is left to regulations, different groups of carers will have their rights to carer’s allowance set out in different ways. Those caring for disabled children will continue to receive DLA and will not be moved on to PIP, and carers looking after an older person in receipt of attendance allowance, which is also unaffected by these reforms, will continue to have their right to carer’s allowance clearly set out under the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. Yet those who are caring for disabled people of working age who are being moved on to PIP would have their rights set out only in secondary legislation, which would make for a confused picture.
I know that Carers UK, other Peers in your Lordships’ House and the Disability Benefits Consortium very much welcomed the Minister’s decision to bring forward their decision about both levels of PIP in December. But to give carers full confidence in their rights and clarity in the legislation, it is crucial for the decision to be written in the Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment and it is clear that we support it. The amendments are, I hope, welcomed by the Minister as an opportunity to firm up what, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has said, he said before Christmas: that carers of claimants of both rates of the daily living component will retain eligibility for the carer’s allowance, and to make that undertaking concrete by placing it in primary legislation.
The Minister and the House know well that the changes to disability benefits are causing considerable concern to disabled people and to their carers. This amendment is about providing some clarity. It cannot provide full reassurance because carers do not yet know how they will be affected by the 20 per cent proposed cuts or the exact way that the new thresholds will work. We know that half a million people will lose benefit, but we do not know how many of that half a million qualify for carer’s allowance at present. I am afraid we must assume that there will be a large number of current recipients who will no longer qualify for support.
There has not yet been any impact assessment—it is not simply that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, cannot find it. We hope—indeed, we expect—that there will be as part of the response to the consultation announced yesterday. However, for today, we would simply ask the noble Lord to solidify his commitment to those who qualify under the new assessment process that their carers will be able to receive carer’s allowance. At the moment, the Bill does not repeat what is there for DLA. It does not even appear to do it in regulations.
A move from warm words to an undertaking in the Bill to maintain the status of carers’ rights would be very welcome. It would be a sign that the Minister is listening to disabled people and understands their need for clarity. In Committee the Minister spoke very warmly of our 6 million carers. Along with those warm words, can we have something in legislation?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to place on record the value that this Government place on carers and their work. Although times are difficult, I have managed to redesign the universal credit so that we are ameliorating the £100 cliff edge, as carers do some earning, that they dislike so much. I hope that that is a token, even in these difficult times, of how much we value carers.
The second thing I would like to mention is more than a token. I was really pleased to be able to announce before Report that both elements of PIP will be a gateway for the receipt of carer’s allowance. I am grateful for the very detailed and knowledgeable debate that we had on this matter. We have had a lot of very thoughtful and clever representations from groups such as Carers UK, which we have taken very seriously indeed. I know that our announcement has been very warmly welcomed by various groups.
There is some concern about how the decision is to be enacted. That is clearly what is driving the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I want to give an absolute assurance on this. We will use the powers under Clause 90 of the Bill to make the necessary change. We will bring forward, in due course, the appropriate secondary legislation to amend Section 70 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and put the position beyond doubt by making clear that people will be able to access carer’s allowance from both rates of the daily living component of the PIP. That is how we are planning to lock that position down, and it is a commitment that I make here and now to carers in this country. We have listened to the concerns from Peers and the carers’ lobby.
The noble Baroness asked how many carers would be affected. We expect to undertake an impact analysis as we get to regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, spoke about large numbers being affected. That is a slightly brusque assumption given that carers currently on the lowest rate would not anyway be passported. We are talking about the top two rates. The assumption of a 20 per cent cut in that budget does not marry up. It is not a cut on where we are today; it is a cut on where we would be at the end of this Parliament. We have to await the impact analysis before we can know the real figures.
On the basis of the reassurances that I have provided, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I am indeed reassured to hear the Minister’s response, in particular that an impact analysis will be done as the regulations are prepared. I accept the Minister’s assurance that the passporting arrangements will be locked down. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am happy finally to place in the Bill the Government’s intention to continue to enable disabled people who live in care homes to be mobile. I am equally pleased to have the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, joining me on this amendment.
The amendments in this group put our position beyond doubt by removing from the Bill the power to make regulations to stop payment of the mobility component of PIP to people who live in residential care homes and whose costs are borne from public funds.
As noble Lords will know, we examined the evidence base, sought contributions to the debate from many disabled people and disability groups, and considered in detail the excellent report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Low, which was published in November. We established, as did the noble Lord, Lord Low, that while there was some duplication, the overall picture meant that in order to access mobility provisions within a care home environment, which we have steadfastly said we are committed to protect, the fairest outcome was to retain payability of the mobility component in those settings.
I am pleased to be able today to act upon these findings and to introduce a new, separate clause for people undergoing treatment in hospitals or similar institutions. I hope that noble Lords will feel that this reflects the fact that we do listen—sometimes, especially when people shout very loud—and that we try to get things right in this area.
I can go through each provision in turn, but I hope that noble Lords will trust my assurance that the overall effect of the amendments is that the mobility component of PIP for people in care homes will remain on the same basis as it currently is for DLA, including for those in residential schools and colleges. I commend the amendments to the House and urge noble Lords not to press theirs.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, as the Minister said, we have an amendment in this group that I do not propose to move as I accept it has been superseded by the Government’s formulation—this listening Government that we have on this issue.
It is to be welcomed that the Government have accepted the arguments that have been put forward over many months and from many quarters. As the Minister indicated, we should be particularly thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his leading on the independent—I would stress the importance of independent—review of personal mobility in state-funded residential care. The report does not just focus on the narrow issue of the availability of the mobility component of DLA—soon to be PIP—but on wider issues of the mobility needs of disabled people, the role of local authorities and care home providers, and the importance of mobility to disabled people’s rights. The clear conclusion in that review found no significant evidence of overlap in the support offered by the mobility complement of DLA and that offered by local authorities and providers. If the rights of disabled people are to be preserved, it is vital that DLA mobility and its successor under PIP are retained for people living in residential care. The report offered a very clear analysis, which I would suggest the Government, frankly, had no option but to accept. Perhaps we should leave unanswered the question of what the position today might have been if the initiative by Mencap and Leonard Cheshire had not been undertaken and the noble Lord, Lord Low, had not assembled such a knowledgeable team to produce this report.
We always give voice to the proposition that disabled people are the experts in their own affairs. It is just a pity that it took so long for their voices to be heard on this occasion, but we should welcome the fact that that has now happened.
Lord Rix
My Lords, as Mencap has just been mentioned, I would very much like, as president of Mencap, to thank the Minister and his colleagues for accepting this situation and the Low report. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Low on his splendid research into this problem. It is wonderful to hear the Government’s change of tack. I notice that the Minister mentioned hospitals, but I was busy chatting to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, at that moment. Did he mention children? I was not quite sure what the position was going to be regarding children—over 16 and under 16—in regard to this mobility component. However, apart from that, we are very satisfied in Mencap. I would like to thank, both personally and on behalf of Mencap, the Minister and his colleagues for this change of heart.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I promised the Minister earlier on that if he just waited long enough, sweetness and light would break out. The fact that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I have our names on another amendment in this group enables me to tell him that we have now reached that point.
There is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just persons who need no repentance. For that reason, I greatly welcome the Government’s decision to drop their proposal to withdraw the mobility component from those living in residential care. I have been given some credit for bringing this about with the review that I was asked to lead by Leonard Cheshire Disability and Mencap, but I think, in all honesty, I must disclaim this. Half of that is because I had a very good team working with me, supported by an extremely able and hard-working secretariat from both organisations; and half because I think Ministers, to their considerable credit, largely came to their decision of their own accord. Perhaps I may have provided a little cover for a U-turn—if so, I am glad to have been of service.
It would be tedious if I were to start recycling all the water that has now flowed under the bridge by rehearsing the considerations that led both the Government and my review to come to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to withdraw the mobility component from those living in residential care. Probably the most significant of them, as has been mentioned, was that we could not detect any evidence of the double funding that was thought to exist and the Government could not either.
The Government can be proud of the fact that on this occasion, when faced with the evidence that did not support their initial conclusion, they had the grace to acknowledge the fact and reverse that initial conclusion. This is very much to be welcomed and a matter for congratulation.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I should take the opportunity to say thank you. It is lovely to have some sweetness and light after a few days where there has not been very much.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Has the Minister learnt from this that the best way to encourage more sweetness and light is to agree with the amendments from all around the House?
Lord Freud
There are some other constraints that I do not think I need to spell out. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, we are picking up the same arrangements for DLA including those for residential schools and colleges. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“Hospital in-patients
(1) Regulations may provide as mentioned in either or both of the following paragraphs—
(a) that no amount in respect of personal independence payment which is attributable to entitlement to the daily living component is payable in respect of a person for a period when the person meets the condition in subsection (2); and(b) that no amount in respect of personal independence payment which is attributable to entitlement to the mobility component is payable in respect of a person for a period when the person meets the condition in subsection (2).(2) The condition is that the person is undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient at a hospital or similar institution in circumstances in which any of the costs of the treatment, accommodation and any related services provided for the person are borne out of public funds.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the question of whether any of the costs of medical or other treatment, accommodation and related services provided for a person are borne out of public funds is to be determined in accordance with the regulations.”
“( ) Regulations will prescribe what considerations must be taken into account in deciding whether a fixed term award would be appropriate.”
Lord Rix
First, my Lords, I should make a correction for Hansard: it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who I was chatting to, not the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I inadvertently put an “n” into her name, and I apologise.
My Amendments 55 and 56 relate to opportunities for people in receipt of PIP to receive lifetime or indefinite awards of the benefits in much the same way as many people do who are currently entitled to DLA. As figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions in May 2010 revealed, of the 3,157,300 people in receipt of DLA some 2,239,500 received an indefinite award, and on closer inspection this is hardly surprising. If an individual’s disability, impairment or condition is lifelong, their needs will either remain the same or increase over time—they will not go away. Therefore, it seems perfectly logical and right for them to be entitled to the benefits indefinitely.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Rix. I suspect that, after days of assessing the increased cost implications of the amendments already discussed, there will be a genuine expression of relief on the Minister’s face at proposals that will almost certainly reduce overall costs and the administrative burden on the department. I have already declared my personal family interest—I have two disabled adult children—and my professional experience of working with people with severe learning disabilities and autism over 30 years.
I should point out that an annual or short-term assessment would almost certainly be a waste of time and money. This is true not just for people with learning disabilities, but would be true for people with other conditions such as some 69,000 with multiple sclerosis who are currently in receipt of disability living allowance and, on a smaller scale, those with motor neurone disease. After an initial assessment by experts confirming the diagnosis and the degree of severity, it is surely better to leave things as they are but to respond, on the application of carers or the individual themselves, to any deterioration in their condition. That is then the time for further examination, when it may well be found that the person may need greater support.
It is also important to recognise that annual reviews may only increase the anxiety of those undergoing them and will do nothing for their morale. I think with horror of the time—currently scheduled for 2014—when my son will be due for an assessment. I hope I will have the opportunity to go with him and that I will actually know about it. It is not that there would be any intention that I would not know, but rather because he cannot read and his supporters do not always realise the importance of involving me in certain aspects of his support. I hope to be with him when that review is done, but I also know how challenging it would be for him to be reassessed. For quite a lot of people, this constant reassessment would be costly in more ways than you can imagine. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s measured reply to these very modest and cost-saving proposals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
In quite a lot of the publicity run in some newspapers preceding today’s debates, there has been—how can I put it—synthetic outrage about the number of DLA awards that have been made for life, as though they are somehow fraudulent, negligent or erroneous, thus apparently besmirching the entitlement of the holder of that lifetime award to it as of right, as though they have somehow manipulated or cheated the system and that the previous Administration has colluded with them at the taxpayer’s expense. That publicity has been extremely ugly and extremely unfair. Whether or not the Minister feels able to accept the amendments—and I hope he does—I hope he will accept that some conditions, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, spoke so eloquently and movingly and of which two other Peers in your Lordships’ House have had intimate experience, do not change except for the worse and for which a lifetime award is a decent, sensible and cost-effective way of proceeding. Could he therefore ask his press hounds to lay off those people who have had them in the past and who ought, in all decency, to go on to enjoy them in the future?
Baroness Browning
There has been a suggestion that people with disabilities adjust to their condition. It is true, if you take the meaning of those words at face value, that people do adjust to their condition. For example, in one of the case studies shown in the paper produced by the Government yesterday, there is an account of a woman with epilepsy who did not meet the PIP qualification. It said that it was dangerous for her to use a cooker but she got round it because she used a microwave and therefore does not need to use a cooker. That may be a very practical suggestion—apparently when a cooker was needed her husband did the cooking on a proper cooker—but we have, in a way, failed to address what we mean by people with a range of disabilities coping or adjusting to their disability. Yes, there is an adjustment and yes, there are practical and psychological ways in which people cope with their disability, but it only requires something that is really unsettling to someone with a lifelong disability for those very important building blocks that have been put in place at the bottom to be disturbed or taken away and for the whole thing to disintegrate and come down like a house of cards.
Therefore, while I can understand why reassessment is necessary in some cases, a judgment has to be made about identifying those for whom reassessment, with the associated costs that have been mentioned, will add to their stress. Stability, as I said earlier, is important in these cases. If their stability is unsettled, there are consequences. The Government must make some sort of judgment about this. They will not save money and it is compassionate to recognise the types of disabilities that will present themselves when there will clearly be no improvement and degeneration is more likely. Quite frankly, if in some cases people adjust to their disability, are they not to be applauded for having made that adjustment, not penalised for it?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I simply say that some compelling and moving personal circumstances have been advanced in support of the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept it, or a version of it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I first want to put absolutely on the record that we are not talking about the constant assessment of everyone. That is simply not how it is going to work. To the extent that there is concern about people being dragged in to face assessors every year, that is simply not how it is going to work.
When we talk about having another assessment for some people who have deteriorating conditions, noble Lords have to remember that they might have started on the lower rate of PIP and that in practice the assessment will move them to the higher rate at that time. DLA is an understudied phenomenon. It was studied by the previous Government in 2004-05 and it was found that £630 million was overpaid. That was not as a result of fraud; it was just that people no longer fitted the rather easier criteria of DLA that were in place when they applied, although we do not know where they fitted when they did apply. Just as worrying was the finding in that year that £190 million was underpaid. We want to make sure that the money goes to people in the right way in both ways.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I was the Minister responsible for those reports at that time, and I have to say to him that they did not apply to people with lifetime conditions. People with lifetime conditions should get lifetime awards. Clearly, if someone deteriorates, they or their carer may apply further, but the information on DLA that the Minister referred to was either about people with fluctuating conditions or about people who had become better but had not realised that they might no longer qualify as a result, and so on. We had no argument with the need to continue to review DLA for people whose conditions may change quite rapidly over a period of time, particularly if they have been recovering from an accident, and so on. We are talking here about lifetime conditions in which it is therefore decent to give lifetime awards. I can assure the noble Lord that the statistics to which he referred do not refer to that group.
Lord Freud
As I understand the statistics, they refer to the whole group and we clearly need a system that we can apply to everyone, within which there will be groups with lifetime conditions. Let me come back to my main point, which was my concern about the underpayments. People with lifetime conditions deteriorate, and they need to be caught at the point of deterioration in order to be paid the extra funds they need to cope with the higher level of disability or higher inability to do things.
Lord Rix
I apologise for interrupting yet again. The point is that if, as I said, the annual health checks are taken for these people it can be reported medically. Certainly the carers can report on this. There is no question that if your son or daughter or your friend is obviously not receiving the amount they should be, it is up to you to get hold of the necessary officials and to inform them. Equally, the annual health checks should certainly—for people with a learning disability anyway, although I do not know about other disabilities —take care of any deterioration in condition.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me go through the approach we are planning to take in PIP. It will involve a personalised approach and, in some cases, awards will be fixed for a short period—maybe one or two years—but in others they will be much longer and we are looking at awards that could be five or 10 years. That will depend on the circumstances of the individual, the impact of their health condition or their impairment and the extent to which they are able to live independently and participate in society. In many circumstances, this can change for better or for worse during someone’s lifetime and that will be different for different people. Therefore flexibility in award durations is key and will allow decision-makers to tailor awards appropriately. Again, we will be working with disability organisations and disabled people to develop the necessary guidance to support these decisions over the next 12 months. There will be many chances to get this absolutely right in the months to come.
I must quote the noble Lord, Lord Touhig—who is not in his place—who quoted Lorna Wing, one of the founders of the National Autistic Society, who said, “When you have seen one person with autism, you have seen one person with autism”, which is a phrase that will remain with quite a few of us in the years to come. Our flexible approach should allow us to provide the support to meet the variable needs people have. We also recognise that the system needs to deal with fluctuating conditions and that is one of the things we need to really lock down in consultation in the next 12 months.
Even where awards of PIP are made for a fixed term and periodic reassessment is required, it will be proportionate. Some assessments may only involve scrutiny of paper evidence and will not require face-to-face consultation. That will particularly be the case where there is considerable supporting evidence on which to base decisions. Conditions or impairments that are lifelong or degenerative will have such supporting evidence. Clearly, we are going to provide guidance on the duration of an award, including when an ongoing award would be appropriate and with what frequency that award would be reviewed. That will be evidence-based and we are committed to coproducing it with the appropriate experts in the field. I assure noble Lords that we are keen to involve disabled people and their representatives in this process. We are determined to get it right.
I have to make the point that lifetime awards were abolished in 2001 and only in very rare circumstances would they be reviewed. At the moment in DLA, we have indefinite awards that can be reviewed at any time. On the other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on the national benefit review, the only group excluded from that is the awards made to the terminally ill.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on the issue. There is still a lot of work to be done in this area. We will look to organisations that help us, including those with which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is associated. However, before I ask him to withdraw his amendment, I must make clear the technicality that the Government do not consider that Amendment 56 is directly consequential on Amendment 55, so they are separate matters. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Freud
I can certainly write to the noble Lord on this matter and see what we can do with the paperwork.
Lord Freud
(a) within 2 years beginning with the date on which the first regulations under that section come into force; and(b) within 4 years beginning with that date.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, the government amendments are intended to support our plans for a sensible, achievable and measured approach to the introduction of PIP and to report on the effectiveness of the assessment. I went into detail on what we are planning earlier this evening, so I do not need to dwell on it too long.
The first amendment will allow us to test the processes in a truly live environment and gives us the ability to control where those early new claims will come from. We are looking at which sites to use and developing the detail.
The second is designed to support our programme of examining how PIP works against the assessment. In summary, as I said, I propose to put into the Bill a statutory duty to publish two reports to Parliament—the first within two years from the time that PIP starts, the second within four years of that date. I also made the commitment earlier this evening, which I repeat, that if there is a need for a third review and report because of ongoing issues identified in the second review, we undertake to do that. That is a commitment to ensure that the assessment and its processes are working. We have slightly adapted the idea of doing that annually, which is what happens under WCA, because that has led to a slightly piecemeal approach. We think that two-year reviews will be better and we have learnt from that.
These are sensible and practical amendments. They are of course inspired by noble Lords in Committee, whose arguments convinced me. I have already put it on record that I think that Committee Members did a fantastic job and went through the Bill in an organised, diligent manner with astonishing energy. I have tried to take all the good ideas possible—some of them are not, but I am really pleased to be able to take this one.
The Government consider Amendment 56ZB to be directly consequential on Amendment 56ZA, but do not consider Amendment 70 in this group to be directly consequential on Amendment 56ZA. Despite that, I beg to move.
Lord Rix
My Lords, the Minister gave the shortest reply in Committee, interrupting my amendments, and I sat down within about three seconds of standing up. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—I have the name right this time—said that if the rest of the amendments could be taken at that speed, we would have got through the Committee stage much faster. I am absolutely delighted that the amendments have been modified but certainly accepted by the Government. I am very grateful.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
Lord Freud