House of Commons
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(12 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
1. What recent progress he has made on bringing forward proposals on Government IT procurement; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Soon after the coalition Government came to office, we introduced strict controls on ICT spend that saved £300 million in the year to March 2011 alone. We have opened up procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, we are moving towards open standards and interoperability, and we are examining some of the incredibly expensive and burdensome ICT contracts that we inherited from the previous Government.
Charlie Elphicke
Will the Minister tell us more about how open source, getting computers to talk to each other through common standards, and smarter procurement can help to save billions of pounds, secure better computers, and break up the IT cartel that was fostered under the previous Government?
Mr Maude
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government have opportunities to handle their IT and increase their digital offering in transactional public services very differently from that which we inherited. It is also becoming increasingly clear that it will be possible for both the quality of those public services and public interaction to be massively improved, at a fraction of the cost incurred by the previous Government.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the latest report on IT procurement by the Select Committee on Public Administration, which includes the Government’s response to our original report? We commend the Minister for that response, but there is further progress to be made. In particular, how will the Minister tackle the cartel-like behaviour of the large prime contractors?
Mr Maude
The reports produced by my hon. Friend’s Committee are my regular reading, and I enjoy them enormously. I commend the Committee’s work, especially its conclusions on Government ICT. I also commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which has focused on the subject. I think that we are making progress, but I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s point: there is much, much more to be done. The previous Government left the taxpayer in hock to an oligopoly of ICT suppliers, and we intend to move on from that.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
2. What criteria his Department uses to determine allocations made under the social action fund.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
The social action fund exists to scale up projects that have proved their ability to inspire people to take social action. We recently announced the first investments for the fund, which are worth £9.4 million and have generated a further £9 million in match funding. We believe that those combined investments will generate more than 200,000 volunteering opportunities.
Nicky Morgan
A registered charity in my constituency, Fourtwelve Ministries, which runs the Carpenter’s Arms residential rehabilitation centre and a food parcel handout service, was recently turned down for funding by the Social Investment Business, which administers the social action fund. One of the reasons given was that it was part of a Christian charity. Can the Minister assure me that the Government fully recognise the role played by Christian groups in delivering social action projects?
Mr Hurd
Yes, I can, but I should clarify one point. The charity was not turned down for the social action fund; it was turned down for another fund.
We all know from our constituencies that many churches and faith groups are very active in generating opportunities for people to become involved and give time to help others, and the social action fund is open to bids from faith groups that make social action possible. In the first round we invested in the Cathedral Archer Project, a Christian group in Sheffield that is enabling homeless people to volunteer to help other homeless people.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
A recent report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showed that, according to the Government’s own figures, charities face cuts of over £900 million. Does the Minister agree that the £20 million managed by the social action fund is a drop in the ocean in comparison with what charities need?
Mr Hurd
Let me make two points. First, the sector would have faced cuts under any Administration, as the leader of the Labour party has made clear. Secondly, the £20 million social action fund exists to do something very specific. Its purpose is to scale up successful, proven projects in order to inspire social action.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
3. How many big society projects were under way in the most recent period for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
Our big society agenda involves putting power into the hands of individuals and communities, and it is emphatically not a programme driven from the centre of Government. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that there is not an army of bureaucrats going around counting big society projects; that would entirely defeat the purpose.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that he has no idea—I appreciate that.
Big society projects have been one of the many successes of this Conservative-led Government. In my constituency we have the Hope project, led by the superb Simon Trundle, which is transforming one of the most deprived areas in the constituency. However, it is experiencing problems as local funding is cut, and it may even have to be closed. How can the big society initiative help it to obtain more funds?
Mr Letwin
I am aware of the Hope project, which is to be greatly commended, and I am happy to be able to say to my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), the Minister for civil society, will meet him to discuss this. I have a terrible feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) might even succeed, because I did some research and discovered that he managed to get community first funding for two of the wards in his constituency. I wish him luck in this endeavour, too.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Patrick Butler said in The Guardian recently:
“For many in the charity world, the Big Society…has become a toxic sign of Government hypocrisy, broken promises and ineptitude”.
What are the Government doing to change that?
Mr Letwin
I hope the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will help me to do so, because distinguished members of his party totally back the big society, including the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who tells him and his colleagues:
“We should be for the Big Society.”
I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in putting across the idea that we should welcome the giving back of power to communities and individuals to change their own lives for the better.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
One of the ways the big society will succeed is through the dissemination of successful projects, for which the big society awards were intended to be one of the vehicles. What progress has been made with the awards?
Mr Letwin
I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the big society awards are alive and well and happening, with successive tranches of people coming in to get them. The Prime Minister is hugely devoted to this. It is important to recognise what communities and community groups are doing the length and breadth of the land.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The Minister is a keen follower of my website, so he will know that I support initiatives to build social capital in communities. When I visit voluntary groups, I am very struck by the extent to which they have benefited from the future jobs fund. From a big society point of view, was it not a mistake, therefore, to abolish that fund?
Mr Letwin
I am indeed an avid follower of the hon. Gentleman’s website, and a most interesting document it is, too. The fact is that, alas, the future jobs fund offered only a very temporary fix. By contrast, we are trying to create a framework within which the voluntary community sector has long-term prospects that it can build on through achievement and by providing the taxpayer with value for money.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
4. What efficiency savings the Efficiency and Reform Group has identified across central Government.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
We have made huge efficiency savings in the spending we inherited from the previous Government. In the 10 months to March 2011 we delivered £3.75 billion in savings by reducing waste. For the first time, the savings were verified by the Public Accounts Committee and by the National Audit Office in its report last week, but this is only the start and further significant savings will derive from the Efficiency and Reform Group’s programme of long-term, sustainable reform.
Tom Greatrex
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am a keen follower of his Department’s website and I noted that its jobs section last week advertised eight jobs with a salary of more than £100,000 before bonuses, perks and who knows what tax arrangements. Will the Minister explain how that fits with his freeze on non-essential and non-front line jobs in the public sector, and at a time when public sector workers are under increasing pressure?
Mr Maude
It is completely consistent with that, because we need particular skills to drive out the waste we inherited. Particularly, there is a need for commercial and IT skills. While those skills exist in Government, we do not have enough of them. Every single one of those external recruitments by the Cabinet Office will have been approved by me personally, and I make absolutely no apology at all for approving them. Where those skills are needed and a rigorous search has shown that they are not available within Government, we will recruit from outside and we will pay people properly for work that is essential.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that the Minister’s Efficiency and Reform Group will achieve no savings at all if the most senior officials in Government are distracted into chaotic breaches of the Cabinet Office code of conduct? Will he confirm that the Cabinet Secretary has now restored efficient Government by launching an investigation into such destructive breaches of the code as that reported in The Times yesterday of a senior No. 10 aide saying the Health Secretary should be “taken out and shot”?
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
5. What the Government’s objectives are for the big society initiative.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
6. What the Government’s objectives are for the big society initiative.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)
Our objectives are to build social capital by transferring powers to communities, opening up public services and encouraging more social action.
Lilian Greenwood
Last year, the Prime Minister included community empowerment among his three big society aims, but this year the Communities Secretary has already been forced to write to the Conservative leader of Nottingham county council following reports of disproportionate cuts to the voluntary sector. Can the Minister tell me exactly how this Tory council’s decision to cut voluntary sector funding by a huge 34% will empower communities in our county?
Mr Letwin
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has written in extremely uncompromising and tough terms to the county council in question, reminding it that there is statutory guidance, and that the proportion by which the voluntary and community sector is cut should be the same as the proportion by which the council’s own budgets are cut. I am delighted to pay tribute, unusually, to the hon. Lady’s own council, which, despite coming from a different political party from mine, has actually followed that rule, cutting both by roughly similar proportions.
Jessica Morden
The Public Administration Committee report on the big society described it as lacking clarity and leadership and ways of measuring progress. Why does the Minister think this cross-party group is so critical of the big society idea?
Mr Letwin
As a matter of fact, the Committee’s report is an admirable work that brings out extremely clearly the value of our big society agenda and urges us to push it further and faster, and we agree with that. Actually, the evidence clearly shows that it is on the ground that people will measure success. When they see more free schools educating their children better, mutuals delivering better health care, and communities taking charge of their own neighbourhood planning and making their environment better, then we will know it is a success.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
The shadow spokesman on London and the Olympics said that the big society “should be Labour territory”. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the whole point of the big society is that it is not just for Labour but for everyone?
Mr Letwin
Yes, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, and I should like to pray in aid the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who said that the big society is
“something that the Labour party should instinctively understand as part of its own DNA”.
The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), told the Labour party:
“We shouldn’t be afraid of the Big Society; we should claim it for our own”.
I hope this can bring the whole House together.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
If my right hon. Friend wants to see the big society at work, may I suggest that he look at the snow in winter clearance initiatives of East Riding and North Lincolnshire councils? They have devolved money down to local communities, enabling them last weekend to sort out snow clearance in their own way, as they wished.
Mr Letwin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is a classic example of what I see in my own constituency, in many other rural constituencies up and down the country and increasingly in the suburbs. People are taking charge and making sure that they get what they actually need delivered locally, by people who understand the local circumstances, and in many cases much more cheaply than was previously possible from the centre.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given what is really happening, the objectives for the big society would appear to be huge funding and job cuts across the third sector, charities walking away from the Work programme and health service mutuals not getting health service contracts. Given the lack of influence that Cabinet Office Ministers clearly have across the rest of Whitehall, is the Cabinet Office not now merely the place where the emperor’s new clothes get spun?
Mr Letwin
Unfortunately, what the hon. Gentleman fails to reckon with is that not only this Government but any Government currently trying to run the United Kingdom would be faced with the need to clear up the fiscal mess that he and his colleagues left this country in, and that certainly entails cuts. We are very clear about that, and as matter of fact his own leader is now beginning to be clearer about that—although we are still not clear how clear he is. The fact is, therefore, that the voluntary and community sector does suffer some reduction in funding, but we are determined to create vast new opportunities for that sector, so it can compete to provide public services effectively and for the sake of the taxpayer.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
7. How much his Department spent on consultancy in the last year for which figures are available.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
During 2010-11, the Cabinet Office spent just over £9 million on consultancy. The figure is down from £27.5 million in 2009-10, the last year of the previous Government. That is a reduction of more than two thirds and we anticipate further reductions in the current financial year. Across central Government, expenditure was reduced from £1.234 billion in 2009-10 to £361 million in the last financial year—that is a 71% reduction.
Chi Onwurah
In August 2010, the most recent month for which figures are available, the Cabinet Office spent almost £120,000 on consultants for advice on judicial reviews. Does the Minister agree that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds defending this Government’s mistakes is not the best use of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Maude
The Government are obliged to protect what they do in the interests of the taxpayer. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that spending on consultants was spiralling completely out of control under the previous Government. That was providing very bad value for the taxpayer and it was very demoralising for mainstream civil servants, who felt that they were undervalued by the previous Government, whose default setting when anything difficult came up was to hire consultants. We will put our faith in the work that civil servants do. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. A large number of very noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber, even as I speak. Some involve very senior Members who ought to know better.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
8. What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to public procurement on the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to secure contracts.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
9. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of new suppliers to Government working groups in making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for Government contracts.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
We want 25% of the value of Government contracts to be awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have made significant progress towards that. This has so far led to a more than doubling in the amount of direct spend awarded to SMEs in the first half of the current year.
Ann McKechin
The Minister will be aware that his own commercial representatives of SMEs have said that it will take up to two years before SMEs stop being excluded from Government contracts. Does he agree that that is utterly unacceptable? What is he going to do to make better use of EU exemptions that protect local economies?
Mr Maude
I fully accept that it will take a little time to get things fully sorted out following the mess left after 13 years of the hon. Lady’s Government, so rather than chiding us for the progress that we are making why does she not congratulate us on our progress and start apologising for the mess her Government left behind?
Luciana Berger
Further to the Minister’s answer, the leader of one of the Government’s own working groups, Mark Taylor, who is the chief executive officer of Sirius, has said:
“There are SMEs being taken out of procurement, not put into it.”
He said that that is “simply not acceptable.” Are not Government policies, as Mr Taylor points out, making it more difficult for SMEs to take part in Government procurement projects, rather than easier?
Mr Maude
No, that is the reverse of the truth. The arrangements we inherited made it incredibly difficult for SMEs to bid, because the procurement processes were so bureaucratic, so clunky and so expensive, both for the taxpayer and for bidders, that many SMEs and voluntary and community sector organisations were, in effect, excluded. We are addressing that. There is more to do, but I would be grateful for some support from the hon. Lady’s side, particularly in encouraging Labour-led local authorities.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
My constituent, Mr Isham, who runs a business in Willington, is also finding it difficult to break through the barriers to obtaining Government contracts. May I encourage the Minister to come to South Derbyshire for a question and answer session with local business people, so that they can learn at first hand from the master how to apply?
Mr Maude
I would obviously be delighted to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents, but I would urge them to look at the Contracts Finder website, where, for the first time, Government and public sector contracts are available for scrutiny. If they find that procurement is still being done in the old-fashioned, outmoded way that we inherited from the Labour Government, they should phone our helpline and we will get on the case, as we have done in many cases already, and put improvements in place.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Manufacturing companies in my constituency are slowly dragging this country out of the mire in which it was left by the previous Government. Will the Minister please advise my manufacturing companies how, other than by looking at the website, they can find out about getting on the list to provide the national Government with products?
Mr Maude
We inherited some very rigid arrangements that militated against UK-based suppliers and at the same time provided very bad value for taxpayers. We are making reforms that make it easier for local businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, to compete effectively, but I will happily consider the issue raised by my hon. Friend.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Government promised that 25% of Government contracts would be awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises, yet figures on the Minister’s departmental website show that the percentage of procurement spend with SMEs at the Cabinet Office has fallen from just under 11% to 7%, a decline replicated across Whitehall. At a time when net lending to SMEs is falling and the number of companies going under is increasing, why are things getting worse, not better, for small businesses on his watch?
Mr Maude
It is simply not the case that things are getting worse. The value of contracts being given to SMEs is rising and rising markedly from the very low base that we inherited. The other issue that we have had to deal with is the fact that the quality of information left by the previous Government was deplorable.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My responsibilities are for the public sector, the Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.
Julie Elliott
Will the Minister explain how the Government’s action in allowing the chief executive of the Student Loans Company not to pay tax or national insurance on his £182,000 salary is in line with his own Government’s report, “Tackling Debt Owed to Central Government”? Does the Minister agree that this Government have one rule for the rich and another for everyone else?
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
T2. In reply to a question I tabled last July, my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of reforming the civil service appraisal system. Will he update the House on what changes have been made?
Mr Maude
We have already put in place new arrangements for the senior civil service and they will be rolled out for the whole civil service at the delegated grades. It is really important that appraisal identifies the very best performers, rewarding them with promotion and proper pay, and pays serious attention to those who underperform, who cause massive demoralisation to the hard-working majority of dedicated civil servants.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T3. Given the fact that the report of the Public Administration Committee, “A Recipe For Rip-Offs”, has recommended that owing to allegations of anti-competitiveness and collusive behaviour by some large IT suppliers, the Government should establish an independent and external investigation into those claims, will the Minister agree to implement the recommendations and set up an investigation into the oligopoly of large suppliers?
Mr Maude
The hon. Gentleman is completely correct that an oligopoly of IT suppliers has, to far too great an extent, dominated Government ICT contracts. We seek to change that by having smaller contracts and much quicker and better procurement processes, but we have a legacy of huge contracts with that oligopoly of suppliers and are looking at how we can deal with that.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
T8. Europe’s most energy efficient data centre was recently opened by Ark Continuity near Corsham on the edge of my constituency, providing resilient top-tier security infrastructure. Given the Minister’s interest in improving public sector information, communications and technology, can I interest him in joining me on a site visit to see that world-leading technology for himself?
Mr Maude
I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and that installation. There are now ways of providing much better ICT at a much lower cost and in a much greener way. We are exploring all of them and I would be delighted to share our thinking with my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise. We can scarcely hear the Minister’s answers, which is unfair on the Minister and unfair on the House.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
T4. Sixty per cent. of Welsh Government public procurement contracts are awarded to SMEs, half of which are in Wales. In England the figure is less than 10%. Given that SMEs invest more in local jobs, pay more tax and create more growth, what is the Minister doing to ensure that SMEs get business in England, instead of the money being siphoned off abroad?
Mr Maude
We are radically reforming procurement to cut the cost to businesses. Bidding for public sector contracts has been far too expensive, both for the taxpayer and for bidders, and it is entirely right to say that too many SMEs have simply been frozen out of the process. We are determined to open that up and to enable more SMEs, which will tend to be UK-based, to bid successfully.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
T9. I welcome the Minister’s wise decision to accept a bid from the Hastings Trust and other charities to the social action fund to build community volunteers and to promote the big society in Hastings. May I urge him to visit us in Hastings, to see the good work that is being done?
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 February.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
Before I list my engagements, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—in this historic week marking the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. Her Majesty’s 60 years of remarkable leadership and dedicated public service are an inspiration to us all and something that the whole country and the whole Commonwealth can be immensely proud of. Members will have the opportunity to pay individual tributes during debate on the humble address on 7 March.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Slaughter
I am sure the whole House, and not least myself, will wish to join the Prime Minister in his warm tribute to Her Majesty. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
In March last year the Prime Minister said:
“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line police officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]
Will he confirm that front-line officer numbers have been cut in 40 out of 43 police forces?
The Prime Minister
The proportion of officers on the front line is up, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in congratulating Mayor Boris Johnson on his excellent record on crime in our capital. Total crime is down, violent crime is down on buses and tubes, 11,000 knives and guns have been taken off our streets, and there are 1,000 more officers on the streets of London at the end of his term than at the beginning. That, together with his reminder of the rule on the dangers of tweeting, is a good start to the day.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at the overthrow yesterday of the first democratically elected President of the Maldives in a coup d’état? Given our historical links with the islands, will the Government, by way of a message, do all they can to ensure that no violence results and that the democratic institutions remain?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. This country does have strong links with the Maldives and a good relationship with President Nasheed, but we have to be clear. President Nasheed has resigned, and we have a strong interest in the well-being of several thousand British tourists and in a stable and democratic Government in the Maldives. Our high commissioner is in the capital now and meeting all the political leaders. We call on the new Government to demonstrate their respect for the rights of all political parties and their members, and to ensure that the constitution is upheld. We advise British tourists to avoid non-essential travel to Malé island, and those using Malé airport and the tourist resorts should exercise caution.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen as we celebrate her diamond jubilee. Her dedication to the country and to public service is an inspiration and an example to us all, and we all look forward to the official celebrations later this year, which will enable us to celebrate both Her Majesty and our country.
On the day the Prime Minister completed his NHS listening exercise, he said:
“some of the people who worked in our NHS were sceptical of our changes. Today, we are taking people with us. It’s in this spirit of unity that we want to continue.”
Why does he think he has failed?
The Prime Minister
Today, 95% of the country is covered by general practitioners who are not actually supporting our reforms; they are implementing them. Just today—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House must calm down. There is a long way to go, so let us hear the answers. There will be plenty of time. Calm.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just today, 50 foundation trusts have written to the newspapers in support of our reforms and objecting to what Labour is proposing, and the signature at the top of the list, which the right hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, is that of one Anne Campbell, the former Labour MP for Cambridge. She, running her local foundation trust, supports the reforms. That is what happens: Labour MPs leave this House and start implementing coalition policy.
Edward Miliband
Even the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that nonsense he just came out with. Last Friday the Royal College of General Practitioners said that his health Bill would
“cause irreparable damage to patient care and jeopardise the NHS.”
[Interruption.] The Health Secretary is shouting from a sedentary position—from some distance away, I notice. It is nice to see him here. The Prime Minister says that he wants the voice of doctors to be heard in the NHS. Why does he not listen to them?
The Prime Minister
It is always good to get a lecture on happy families from the right hon. Gentleman. I care passionately about our NHS, not least because of what it has done for my family and because of the amazing service I have received. I want to see that excellent service implemented for everyone, and that means two things: we have to put more money into the NHS, which we are doing, but we also have to reform the NHS. He used to be in favour of reform. Let me read him something. Who said:
“to safeguard the NHS in tougher fiscal times, we need sustained reform.”?
That was in the Labour manifesto at the last election. Because the NHS is important, we are committed to £12.5 billion in this Parliament, yet his health spokesman, who is sitting right there, said that it would be “irresponsible” to spend more money on the NHS. The Opposition are not in favour of the money. They are not in favour of the reform. They are just a bunch of opportunists.
Edward Miliband
Isn’t this interesting? The Prime Minister says that this is all about reform, but the Tory Reform Group has come out against these proposals. It comes to something when even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the NHS. Let us hear what Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] So when the people Government Members want to put at the heart of the NHS say things about their Bill, they just groan. That says it all about those on the Government Benches. Clare Gerada said:
“This bill is a burden. It makes no sense, it is incoherent… It won’t deal with the big issues… and it will also result in a health service that certainly will never match the health service that we… had 12 months ago.”
Which part of that does the right hon. Gentleman not understand?
The Prime Minister
Let us look at what has happened to the NHS over the past 18 months—[Interruption.] Yes, let us look at the figures: 100,000 more patients treated every month; 4,000 extra doctors since the election; the number of clinical staff up; the level of hospital-acquired infections down; the number of people who are in mixed-sex wards down by 94%. That is what is happening, because there is a combination of money going in and reform.
Now, we know what happens if we do not put in the money and do not undertake the reform, because there is one part of the NHS which is run by Labour, and that is in Wales. Let us have a look at what is happening to the NHS in Wales. Labour has cut the money, and one third of people are waiting longer than 18 weeks. That is what is happening in Labour’s NHS, and if we did not put the money in and did not have the reform, it would happen right here, too.
Edward Miliband
I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is getting so agitated, because he thought that the NHS was his way to modernise the Conservative party, and I am afraid that it is coming apart. I will tell him why: it is because the promises he made before the election are coming back to haunt him. We all remember the promise of no more top-down reorganisation. Now he says that he knows better than the doctors, better than the nurses, better than the midwives and better than the patients associations—people who day in, day out rely on and devote their lives to the health service. This is a matter of trust in the Prime Minister. Can he honestly look people in the health service in the eye and say that he has kept his promise of no more top-down reorganisation?
The Prime Minister
What we are doing is cutting the bureaucracy in the NHS. We are taking out £4.5 billion of bureaucracy which will be ploughed into patient care. If you don’t support the reform, you won’t see that money go into operations, doctors, nurses, hospitals, health care assistants. That is what is actually happening in the NHS, but there is one group of people I will not listen to, and that is the people who ran the NHS under Labour. This is what they did: £6 billion wasted on the NHS computer; £250 million spent on private sector operations that were never carried out. We still have private finance initiative agreements whereby we pay £300 every time someone changes a light bulb. That is what we got from Labour. We are putting the money in, we are putting the reform in, the number of operations is up, the waiting times are down, the NHS is improving, and that is the way it is going to stay.
Edward Miliband
I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman about our record on the NHS: the shortest waiting times in NHS history; more doctors and nurses than ever before; the highest level of patient satisfaction ever in the health service.
But everyone will have heard a Prime Minister unable to defend the promise that he made: the promise of no more top-down reorganisation—a Prime Minister who has broken his word. The reality is this: all his attention is on this pointless, top-down reorganisation, and the front line is suffering: the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks—up, under him; A and E targets being missed; cancelled operations. Why will he not just give up, stop wasting billions and drop his Bill?
The Prime Minister
If the Opposition’s record was so good, why were they thrown out at the last election?
Now, let me just—[Interruption.] Let me— [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am worried about Opposition Members. They must calm themselves and do so straight away.
The Prime Minister
Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the clear test that he set for the reforms and for the Government. He said that the test was whether waiting times and waiting lists would come down. Let me now give him the figures: in-patient waiting times, down; out-patient waiting times, down; the number of people waiting more than a year, down to its lowest ever level; the number of people waiting for six months, down to its lowest ever level; and, indeed, the number of people on the waiting list—what he said was the clear test—is down. This is what it proves about the Labour leader: even when he moves the goalposts, he can’t put it in the back of the net.
Edward Miliband
The person who is moving the goalposts is the Prime Minister. The reality is that the key test that was set for the health service was the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks, and that number is up 43% since the general election. However much he twists and turns, that is the reality.
In his heart of hearts, the Prime Minister knows that the Bill is a complete disaster. That is why his aides are saying that the Health Secretary should be taken out and shot, because they know it is a disaster. The reality about the Bill is this: the doctors know that it is bad for the NHS; the nurses know that it is bad for the NHS; and patients know that it is bad for the NHS. Every day the Prime Minister fights for the Bill, every day trust in him on the NHS ebbs away and every day it becomes clearer that the health service is not safe in his hands.
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the career prospects of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary are a lot better than his. That is what this is about. This is not a campaign to save the NHS; this is a campaign to try to save the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership. I make this prediction: the NHS will go on getting better and his prospects will go on getting worse.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
When the Work programme was introduced in Burnley in October 2010, 66% of people there were economically active; since then, the figure has climbed to 75%. Would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the people of Burnley—and in particular, Vedas Recruitment—for that success?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating not only the people in Burnley but the people conducting the Work programme and our welfare reforms. What we are seeing is more people becoming able to work and therefore able to enter the work force and raise not only the country’s living standards but their own, too.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q2. The people of Preston are furious that the Indian Government have selected a French company as their preferred bidder for the Indian air force jet contract. The Prime Minister repeatedly talks about rebalancing the British economy, but this is a major blow to manufacturing in this country. Other European leaders go to help their companies get major contracts. Why is this weak Prime Minister not doing that and why have we not got the contract with the Indian Government?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman ought to think about the fact that all European leaders are backing the Eurofighter project—it is a German project, an Italian project, a Spanish project and a British project, and that is how it should be. I am very disappointed by what has happened in India, but Eurofighter is not out of the contest and we need to re-engage as hard as we can to make sure that we get the best deal for all those workers in Britain who make Eurofighters. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is shouting from a sedentary position, but this is something that ought to unite parties in this House—getting behind our great defence producers.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
In order that a constituent of mine could access the drugs and treatment that she was entitled to under the NHS constitution, her GP, her consultant, her specialist oncologist, the Secretary of State for Health and I had to write a total of 70 appeal letters. When will health care professionals be able to decide what treatments their patients get?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Since the introduction of the cancer drugs fund under this Government, 10,000 more people have been able to get cancer drugs, which are so essential. Let me tell the House one thing that would really damage cancer treatment in this country—it is the proposal from the Labour party to cap at 5% any private sector involvement in our hospitals. The Royal Marsden, one of the best cancer hospitals in the country, would have to cut by a quarter the services that it delivers. What a crazy, left-wing plan, which only the Leader of the Opposition could come up with.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q3. In three months’ time, just before the Olympics, Abu Qatada, a truly dangerous man, will be roaming the streets of London with his mobile phone and internet access, thanks to the Prime Minister’s having abolished control orders and house arrest provisions. How can the Prime Minister justify putting the public’s right to life at risk to give over to the Liberal Democrats on their demands to abolish control orders? It is disgusting.
The Prime Minister
The situation with Abu Qatada is completely unacceptable. As I said when I went to Strasbourg to make a speech to the Council of Europe about this issue, it is not acceptable that we end up with a situation where we cannot try, detain or deport someone in our country who threatens to do us harm. That is why the Government will do everything they can, working with our Jordanian friends and allies, to make sure that he can be deported. Again, instead of the hon. Gentleman sniping about this, the whole House ought to unite to help sort this out.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As recently as last September, only a tiny handful of the 165 acute mental health adult in-patient beds in Hampshire were vacant, yet the trust concerned proposes to cut those 165 beds to 107, replacing them with something called a hospital at home, or a virtual ward. Given my belief that the statistics on which that decision is based are inconsistent and unreliable, will the Prime Minister support my call for independent experts from the Audit Commission to look at those figures before those beds are closed?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we are putting extra resources into the NHS, but there needs to be a clear series of tests—as there is now under our plans—before any facilities are changed or closed. That is about ensuring that there is GP backing for what is proposed, and ensuring that any such changes will improve the health of the area. I will happily look at the issue that my hon. Friend raises, and ensure that the Department of Health engages on it with him.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q4. Four police authorities, including one that I share with the Chancellor, have just started buying Hyundai cars imported from Korea. Add to that the Thameslink fiasco and that of the Olympic tickets—when will we see some leadership from the Prime Minister on public procurement in this country?
The Prime Minister
The most important thing in police procurement is that police forces get together and procure together to cut their costs. We have all lost count of the times spent wandering through police stations and seeing countless different types of vehicle, all costing a large amount of money. What the public want is police on the streets, not money spent on unnecessary procurement.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Q5. The Prime Minister will have seen this morning’s Defence Committee report on Libya. What steps is he taking to ensure that the UK will be fully able to evacuate all UK nationals from conflict zones, and reduce our reliance on civil charter aircraft?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think that the Libya evacuation, and other potential evacuations in a dangerous and unstable world, have brought home to us the importance of having transport aircraft in the Ministry of Defence and the RAF. I can announce today that because the MOD’s finances are now better run and better managed, and because we have found savings, we will be able to purchase an additional C-17 for the RAF. This aircraft is becoming an absolutely brilliant workhorse for the RAF, bringing men and material into a war zone such as Afghanistan, and evacuating civilians in times of need. It is an important investment for the country, and I am glad to announce that we can make it today.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
May I first associate myself with the tributes to Her Majesty the Queen?
Yesterday, the all-party independent group on stalking published its report. The Prime Minister knows of my interest in that subject, and the Government consultation concluded yesterday. Will he please meet me and a small group of members of that all-party group to discuss the urgent need for a stalking law?
The Prime Minister
We take this issue seriously, and I would be happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman and discuss it. I know that he has had conversations with the Home Office. We all want to get the issue right, and if there is a need for legislative changes, there may well be opportunities in the next Session for that sort of criminal justice legislation. I will happily meet the right hon. Gentleman and talk with him about it.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Q6. During apprenticeship week I am proud to highlight the fact that Macclesfield college has increased its number of apprenticeships from nine to 160 over the past three years, and that the Government have increased the number of apprenticeships by 177,000 in the past year alone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that achievements such as those illustrate the importance of apprenticeships, and the commitment that is required to give them the focus, attention and recognition that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the most important investments that we can make in the future industrial base of this country and in helping young people is in apprenticeships. The number of apprenticeships has increased by a staggering 60% over the past year, and 457,000 people are starting apprenticeships. In apprenticeship week, it is important to stress what we are doing to get over the objections that people have had in the past, and to ensure that apprenticeships are more easily taken up by small businesses through the payment of a simple fee. We must ensure that we have more higher-level apprenticeships to show that apprenticeships are every bit as good as having a university degree, and often involve a university degree. We must also cut bureaucracy by allowing big businesses to run apprenticeship schemes themselves, rather than doing it via a training provider. All those things will make a big difference.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Q7. Why have the Government not lodged an appeal against the Abu Qatada judgment? Aren’t you being dangerously complacent, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can to get this man out of the country. The absolutely key thing is to get an agreement with Jordan about the way he will be treated, because the European Court of Human Rights has made a very clear judgment. I happen to think it is the wrong judgment, and I regret that judgment. This guy should have been deported years ago. Nevertheless, if we can get that agreement with Jordan, he can be on his way.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Q8. Complex employment law makes small businesses nervous about hiring new staff. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a simpler alternative for our smallest firms on dismissal rules?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. If every small business in the country hired an additional worker, that would go a long way to curing both long-term youth unemployment and total unemployment at one stroke. We have got to make it easier for businesses to take people on. One of the key considerations for businesses is how difficult it is to let someone go if it does not work out. That is why extending to two years the amount of time that someone has to work before they get access to a tribunal will make a real difference in small business employment.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
We have heard from the Prime Minister how the Italian and German Governments are out there fighting for British jobs. Will he tell us exactly how many phone conversations he had directly with the Indian Prime Minister about the Typhoon bid, and when the last conversation took place?
The Prime Minister
I raised this issue with the Indian Prime Minister repeatedly on my visit to India, and indeed at the G20 in Cannes, but let me remind the hon. Lady of one important fact. When I loaded up an aeroplane with British business people, including from businesses like Rolls-Royce, and took them around the Gulf to sell our defence equipment, who was it that attacked me? Who was it that put out press releases? Who is it that does not stand up for British industry, British defence companies and British jobs? It is Labour.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Q9. On Monday I visited the offices of the Bucks Free Press to hear what my constituents have been saying about proposed changes to health services at Wycombe hospital. I can tell the Prime Minister that Labour’s tragic legacy in my constituency is distrust and despair. Does he agree with me that the right way to deliver local accountability in health care in our constituencies is clinical commissioning and foundation trust status?
The Prime Minister
I think my hon. Friend is entirely right. The whole point of the reforms is to put the power in the hands of local doctors, so that they make decisions on behalf of patients and based on what is good for health care in their local area. We may well find that the community hospitals that were repeatedly undermined by Labour will actually get a great boost, because local people and local doctors want to see them succeed. That is what our reforms are all about.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The PIP implant saga has left 40,000 women sick with anxiety because of faulty medical products, and now they are being failed by private clinics and by an NHS that is dithering about what to do with them. In this saga we can see the future of a privatised NHS, so will the Prime Minister pledge to support those women in the NHS now and claim against the clinics later, and will he drop the Health and Social Care Bill so that we do not have this happening again across the NHS?
The Prime Minister
Let me take the hon. Lady’s question in two halves. She is entirely right about the scandal of the PIP implants. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we will offer every one of those women a free consultation and ensure that we do everything we can on the NHS to help them. It is an absolute scandal, and the private clinics that carried out those operations should feel the maximum pressure to undo the harm that they have done.
On the issue of greater competition and choice within the NHS, I think the hon. Lady should listen to past Labour politicians who have themselves said that actually, greater choice, greater competition and the involvement of the private sector can help to raise standards in our NHS system. That is why we should support it.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Q10. The threat to shipbuilding jobs at Portsmouth dockyard places a question mark over not only 1,500 livelihoods at BAE Systems but 32,000 jobs in the wider regional supply chain. I know that the Prime Minister shares my concerns about that, but will he commit to do all he can to protect that site, where they have been building warships for more than 500 years?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for Portsmouth, for her constituents and for shipbuilding. BAE Systems has not approached the Government with any proposal to rationalise shipbuilding in the UK. As far as I am aware, no decisions have yet been taken by the company. On this Government’s commitment to the Royal Navy, we are building the new frigates, the global combat ship and the hunter-killer submarines. We have plans for replacing Trident, and plans for aircraft carriers are well under way. That is a major punch for the Royal Navy, which I strongly support.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Q11. Treasury tax raids on North sea oil and gas are putting 1,500 jobs at Offshore Group Newcastle in North Tyneside at risk. I ask the Prime Minister not to be complacent about north-east jobs, but to incentivise offshore development and guarantee tax relief on platform decommissioning in the Budget, and to meet me and others about the job situation in the north-east.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point. I saw for myself when I went to Aberdeen how vital this industry is and how much investment is taking place in the North sea. Let me remind her, however, that the reason we put up the tax on the North sea was to cut petrol duty for families up and down the country, but we will make sure—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not know why Members are falling about unable to contain themselves. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.
The Prime Minister
We will make sure there is a good tax regime for the North sea, whether that is servicing jobs in England or, indeed, in Scotland.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Q12. Last Wednesday, the Commons rejected the Lords attempt to wreck the Welfare Reform Bill. On seven occasions, the Commons voted. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister voted, but the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children, refused to support the Government and has spoken against the policy. On occasion, I have spoken against the Government and not supported them, but I am not a Government Minister. Why is she still a Government Minister? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We want to hear the Prime Minister’s verdict on the hon. Member for Brent Central, and we will not if there is too much noise.
The Prime Minister
I thought my hon. Friend was going to say that he was not a Government Minister “yet”. The hon. Lady is a Government Minister and supports Government policy, as all Ministers do.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Q13. Fifteen thousand young disabled people will be affected by the changes to contributory employment support allowance. The worst 10%—1,500 new claimants —will lose £4,900 a year. Is this the Government of values that the Prime Minister spoke about in May 2010?
The Prime Minister
The important value with respect to employment support allowance is that we are saying that there are two groups. The first group—the support group—is for people who are not able to work, who deserve to get that support over and above jobseeker’s allowance, for as long as they need it, without any element of means-testing. The second group—the work-related activity group—is for people who need help to get work but who will be able to work. That is why they are in that group. They will get tailored help and support under the Work programme to get them into work. I know the Labour party has set its face against all welfare reform, but it is making a massive mistake in doing so.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
What confidence can we have that unilateral intervention by Russia will put an end to the terrible violence in Syria?
The Prime Minister
I think we can have very little confidence in that. Frankly, Russia and China set themselves against Arab opinion and world opinion when they set themselves against passing what would have been a strong and good UN resolution. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to push for that resolution.
What we now need—Britain will play a big part in this—is real engagement with the opposition groups both inside and outside Syria, bringing together the strongest possible international alliance through a contact group, so that we can co-ordinate our efforts with respect to getting rid of that dreadful regime. We should make sure, through the EU and other bodies, that we continue the sanctions and pressure.
The bloodshed in Syria is absolutely appalling. The Russians have to look at their consciences and realise what they have done, but the rest of the world will keep fighting as hard as we can to give the Syrian people a chance to choose their own future.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q14. Yesterday, I heard a health expert who is visiting the UK say that the NHS remains a beacon for care and effectiveness in the world, and that it needs to be improved and perfected, not changed. Will the Prime Minister accept that advice and abandon the health Bill?
The Prime Minister
What needs to be abandoned is Labour’s approach to the NHS in Wales.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I will tell him what Labour is doing in Wales. It has cut health spending in Wales by £400 million, which is a 6.5% cut; and 27% of people in Wales wait more than six weeks for diagnostic services, whereas the figure for England is just 1%. As I said earlier, one third of people wait more than 18 weeks for an operation in Wales. That is what we get from Labour: no money, no reform, no good health service.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many of my constituents are among the 337 redundancies announced by Kerry Foods, based at Europarc industrial estate, which straddles the Cleethorpes and Great Grimsby constituencies. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and I have approached various Departments for support, which I am sure will be forthcoming. One possibility is the extension of the recently announced enterprise zone. Will the Prime Minister give some comfort to my constituents by considering the proposal sympathetically?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to speak up for his constituents in this way. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is happy to consider expanding the enterprise zone and see what else we can do to help my hon. Friend’s constituents and ensure that they can get into work.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the ten-minute rule motion. As always, I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) can be respectfully heard by all who remain in the Chamber.
Petition
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition from the residents of south-east Northumberland relating to the proposed closure of the Rio Tinto Alcan aluminium smelter in my constituency.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of south East Northumberland,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth and to support the workforce and those involved in the supply chain.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001006]
Health and Safety (Amendment)
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to give health and safety inspectors the power to apply for a court order to freeze the assets, or parts thereof, of a company under investigation following a death or serious injury at work; and for connected purposes.
I start by declaring an interest: I am a proud member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.
Many in the House take our safety at work for granted. We are lucky enough to be in an environment where the risks that we are exposed to are limited, but thousands of people in our country are not so lucky. They do their jobs in dangerous situations every day. When we think of danger, our armed forces often spring to mind, but in a whole range of industries, such as construction, workers are placed in harm’s way—those who work with heavy machinery, large vehicles or electrics, for example. In these environments, there can be serious consequences if accidents happen. It is vital, then, that we have laws in place to ensure that every precaution is taken to keep people safe at work, and that employers who ignore their legal responsibilities are properly deterred and punished when they do wrong.
My reason for bringing this motion before the House today is simple: a worrying number of companies are not only ignoring the laws designed to protect their employers but exploiting legal loopholes to avoid proper punishment following a death at work resulting from their malpractice. In the brief time I have today, I want to mention two companies abusing these loopholes.
In 2007, construction worker Mark Thornton, aged 46, was killed on a building site in my constituency. A 6 tonne steel column struck him on the head and shoulders after the crane carrying it buckled and toppled over. Mark worked for Bryn Thomas Crane Hire. When the Health and Safety Executive investigated, following Mark’s death, it concluded that a
“series of health and safety warnings and procedures were ignored. The crane was simply not capable of lifting the steel column, when it was nearly 18 metres away, without it being overloaded. If the work had been properly planned, and the crane had been properly maintained, then Mr Thornton would still be alive today.”
In December 2010, shortly before the case came to trial, the company that Mark worked for went into administration, despite its paying out dividends of over £200,000 in each of the three financial years following Mark’s death. During the trial, the judge stated that he was unable to impose the appropriate fine of £300,000 for flouting health and safety legislation because the company was in administration. Instead, he was able only to issue a fine of just £4,500. While in administration, the company was bought out by two of its directors, and is now operating under an almost identical name. It is still run by the same people, and still using the same equipment. It is, to all intents and purposes, the same company. To date, inquires made by UCATT to the administrators about the moneys owed by Bryn Thomas and the huge dividends paid to the directors have not been adequately answered.
As I have said, the case of Mr Thornton is sadly not an isolated one. In February 2008, Noel Corbin was just 29 when he suffered fatal head injuries after falling from a roof in the course of installing a satellite dish for his employer, Foxtel Ltd. The ladder that he was provided with was too short and he had not received adequate training for the task that he had been asked to do. In fact, the property that he was working on had previously been visited by other installers and the job designated as impossible without a specialist team. His employer knew that, yet sent him to do the job alone anyway. Again, an HSE investigation took place and, just like Bryn Thomas, Foxtel entered administration shortly before the trial. Foxtel was found guilty of breaching health and safety laws, but because it was in administration, the court was able only to impose a fine of just £1. Just like in the case of Mark Thornton, Foxtel has since been resurrected, and continues to trade under virtually the same name.
Noel’s family were kind enough to join me in Parliament on Monday to launch this Bill. They bravely shared their tragic story and their sense of deep injustice. I can only begin to imagine how they must feel.
Mark and Noel are just two examples of people who should be alive today but are not, and I could have named more. The HSE has numerous powers to carry out investigations and inquiries where it considers that there may have been a breach of health and safety regulations. However, those cases clearly demonstrate that its powers are limited where a company under investigation for a serious breach of health and safety law goes into liquidation. The loopholes that that has created are wrong. They are exploited by negligent employers unwilling to take responsibility for the tragedies that they have caused, and they deny the victims’ families and friends the justice that they deserve. We have a responsibility, to the families and friends who have lost loved ones, to close those loopholes.
Giving health and safety inspectors the power to freeze a company’s assets when it is under investigation following an accident at work would help to prevent the sort of manoeuvrings illustrated in those cases. If the assets of Bryn Thomas Crane Hire Ltd had been frozen, it would not have been possible to run the company down by paying huge dividends to the directors while it was under investigation. Such powers would also send a clear signal to other employers that they cannot avoid being punished for breaking the law. Freezing orders are already used widely in cases of suspected fraud or drug crimes. They prevent the disposal or removal of assets before a judgment has been made. Those rules could apply equally to health and safety law.
There may be circumstances where it is not appropriate or desirable for the HSE to freeze all the assets of a company—if that would lead to its being unable to continue trading or to a loss of jobs, for example. In those cases, the Bill would allow the HSE to freeze part of a company’s assets, allowing it to continue trading, but preventing it from avoiding the correct level of punishment if found guilty.
All too often, our health and safety laws are maligned; they are attacked as pointless and obstructive, and characterised as regulations gone mad. When incorrectly applied, there could be some truth to that, but no one could disagree that Noel Corbin deserved the proper sized ladder or that the crane that killed Mark Thornton should have been properly maintained and fit for the task.
The Government have launched a red tape challenge, which they say is an attempt to cut unnecessary regulations for business. As part of that they are examining health and safety laws. I urge Ministers not to remove regulations that protect our workers. In the construction industry, strong health and safety laws save lives. If our laws were stronger, more lives might be saved. Last year, 50 people died on construction sites—that is 50 people too many.
Employers who wilfully avoid protecting the lives of the people who work for them must never be able to walk away without punishment or to continue trading and endangering others. That is why I have brought this Bill forward. In doing so, I hope that the Government will look at the issue and be persuaded that the time has come to put this modest but vital measure into law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Luciana Berger, Steve Rotheram, Joan Walley, Huw Irranca-Davies, John Cryer, Angela Smith, Mr David Hamilton, Natascha Engel, Kevin Brennan, Julie Elliott, Mr Stephen Hepburn and Jim Sheridan present the Bill.
Luciana Berger accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2012, and to be printed (Bill 305).
Police
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:46 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 228 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2012-13 (HC 1797), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
This Government inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history. The deficit needs to be reduced, which means less spending across the public sector, and the police service must play its part. The reductions we are making in police funding are not through choice; they are a direct response to the situation in which the country was left. On 8 December, I laid before this House a written ministerial statement, which set out the Government’s proposed allocations of grants to police authorities and, from this November, police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Following that, the Government held a public consultation on the proposed allocations, to which we received 21 responses.
Mark Hendrick
Will the Minister tell us why the Lancashire constabulary is losing 500 police officers?
Nick Herbert
I will come to all those issues in the course of my remarks. Naturally, I intend to address all these issues.
Nick Herbert
Let me make a little more progress, and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
Following careful consideration of all those responses, I have decided that force level allocations will remain as announced in my written ministerial statement of 8 December. Each police force in England and Wales will face an equal percentage reduction in core Government funding in 2012-13. I believe that that is the most transparent, straightforward and equitable means of apportioning the funding reductions. It is important to note that the allocations were set out last year and have remained the same.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is talking about the level of cuts and maintaining the figures as originally set out. Does he accept that although it might not be his choice, it is the Government’s choice that the reductions are front-ended, and therefore place an additional burden which is more difficult for police forces to meet?
Nick Herbert
The profile of the reductions for police forces was set by the spending review. There are larger reductions in the first and second years than in the third and fourth years, and that reflects the overall need for the Government to get on top of the deficit and build credibility in this area. The position and allocations I have announced remain the same, so there are no surprises for police forces, which have been working on that basis since the spending review was announced.
John Healey
The Minister talks about choices, but will he talk about consequences? South Yorkshire has been forced to cut more than 100 police officers since the election and will have to cut another 300. Will he rethink these Government funding cuts for the police instead of stripping us in south Yorkshire of the police we need?
Nick Herbert
I will come to the issue of police numbers, although the previous Home Secretary in the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported said just before the election that he could not guarantee the number of police officers. One of the points I will be making today is that the Opposition are committed to reductions in spending that mean they too would produce a situation in which police forces were losing officers—the question is how forces adapt to that. Anyway, I do not think we should just play the straightforward numbers game.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Does the Minister share my confusion about the fact that when police numbers in my police force in Humberside were cut by 137 in 2009 under the Labour Government, not a single Labour politician, local council or local MP criticised those cuts? Instead, they defended them, saying, “It’s not about numbers; it’s about what you do with your police officers.” Does my right hon. Friend think that is a bit weird?
Nick Herbert
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is certainly true that we do not hear much of that from the Labour party now. Some 27 police forces were reducing police numbers at the time of the last election, but that is not frequently admitted by the Opposition.
One-off funding will additionally be provided to the Mayor’s office for policing and crime in 2012 from outside the police spending review settlement. That payment will help to maintain the operational capabilities of the Metropolitan police while they are policing the Olympics, the Paralympics, WorldPride and Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee celebrations. It will help to maintain resilience during this unique period and, crucially, it comes on top of the police spending review settlement, which means that no police force will see its funding reduced as a result.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
If I heard the Minister correctly a few moments ago, he said that the cuts, while regrettable, were equitable. May I ask him to address an issue that we from the west midlands and some cities have been saying for some time? For forces that are more dependent on grant, the cuts are much greater and deeper than for other forces. Why is it that the West Midlands force is suffering a reduction of 7.3% while Surrey has an increase of 3.8%? Is that his definition of us all being in it together?
Nick Herbert
There is an equal share in the reduction in central Government funding, and the decision that confronted the Government, which we have discussed in the House before, was whether to adjust that reduction for the contribution that is made by the local taxpayer. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to make this point as a west midlands Member of Parliament, but had we followed his advice and given a smaller reduction to his force because it raises less money from the local taxpayer, we would have penalised the forces that raise more from the local taxpayer. Why should forces that have over the years increased the amount of local funding they receive be penalised more and why should their taxpayers be penalised more? Furthermore, police forces were expecting an even share of the reduction. For all those reasons, we thought that the proper and fairest course was to give an even reduction across the forces. The hon. Gentleman might not like that explanation, but it is a credible and proper response to the situation in which we found ourselves.
I appreciate that there are differences of opinion about the use of damping and I understand why some forces wish to see it phased out while others welcome its retention. I know that many police forces and authorities are keen to have more clarity about the damping arrangements for the last two years of this spending review period, and I want to reassure the House that I intend to consider this issue very carefully and will take into account the wide range of views before making a final decision later this year.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The Minister has repeatedly said that the front line does not have to be affected, but does he accept that the evidence is clear that it is being affected and that front-line officers are going each day?
Nick Herbert
The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake that I think is the mistake of the Labour party of equating the quality of the front-line service purely with numbers. I shall address precisely this issue later, and if he feels that I have not done that I will be happy for him to intervene on me again.
On capital funding, I have carefully considered the consultation responses and have decided to top-slice the Home Office police capital allocation to support the establishment of the National Police Air Service. That service will give all forces access to helicopter support 24 hours a day, 365 days year, in contrast with the current system in which some force’s helicopters are grounded for days at a time while being repaired. It will mean that 97% of the population of England and Wales will remain within 20 minutes’ flying time, and it will save the police service £15 million a year when fully operational.
The plan for the National Police Air Service has been led by Chief Constable Alex Marshall and has the full support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police service’s operational leaders and the vast majority of police authorities. The funding proposal I have set out is the right way to ensure that this key national service is established on a sound basis. Each force will face an equal percentage reduction in the previously indicated level of capital grant; this is the most transparent and equitable means of providing for the capital requirements of what will be a national service. All forces will benefit from the savings.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome what the Minister has done on the helicopter issue, especially in using the powers to mandate South Yorkshire, but what about unexpected events? Last Saturday, the English Defence League marched through the middle of Leicester at a cost to the police authority of £800,000. Where does it get that money from at a time when budgets are very tight? It cannot prevent people from marching unless there are reasons to do so, but that puts it under huge pressure.
Nick Herbert
First, I note the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the National Police Air Service, which is important given his position as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. This move is a significant step forward and shows that police forces can collaborate to improve the quality of service and reduce cost. On events that occur in police force areas and incur particular costs, there are established procedures under which police forces can apply to the Home Office for special grant. Forces and authorities are aware of the criteria for such grants and we will always consider such applications very carefully.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
In Greater Manchester, we were genuinely grateful for the moneys that flowed from the Home Office as a consequence of the riots. However, will the Minister address this point about the front line? During the riots, the Home Secretary ordered that all leave be cancelled, and the thin blue line was very stretched. Can the Minister honestly say that with the current cutbacks, if there were large-scale disorder such as that last August, which nobody wants to see, the police service could cope, even with the cuts that are still coming?
Nick Herbert
I am absolutely confident that the police service could cope in those circumstances. In such situations, police forces will always rely on additional support from other services and will take special measures, such as the cancellation of leave, to maximise the resources available to them. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the inspectorate of constabulary report on this issue did not suggest that the reduction in police spending and numbers was going to leave police forces more vulnerable in that regard. It talked about the importance of more effective and rapid deployment, and those are the issues on which we should focus.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Minister said that he did not think there was any need to lose front-line police officers, and quoted the inspectorate in that context. Has the inspectorate not said that up to 10,000 police on the beat will be lost because of his cuts?
Nick Herbert
I shall deal with precisely what the inspectorate said in a minute.
Funding for counter-terrorism policing has been prioritised in the police funding settlement to ensure that the police have the necessary resources to respond to the demands posed by the continuing terrorist threat. We have allocated £564 million to counter-terrorism for 2012-13, and that follows a considerable increase over previous years. Forces will receive their allocations shortly. Delivering a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic games is a priority for the Government, and preparations remain on track. As we indicated last year, the Government are confident that the Olympic policing and wider security programme can be delivered in full for £475 million, although £600 million remains available if required.
We have set aside sufficient funding for the election this November of police and crime commissioners, who will ensure that the police become fully accountable and responsive to the demands of their local areas. That funding is additional money, which will not come from the police settlement. [Interruption.] As hon. Members seek to interrupt me from a sedentary position, let me observe that it is very gratifying to note the number of putative police and crime commissioners on the Opposition Benches. Indeed, more and more Labour Members of Parliament are jumping from the sinking ship every day in the hope of seeking refuge in elected local office.
Yvette Cooper
Given that the Minister is so isolated as he sits there on the Government Front Bench, I think that he may want to reconsider that remark. Will he tell the House how many constables could have been paid for with the money that is to be spent on police and crime commissioners?
Nick Herbert
I have said on a number of occasions that we do not expect the running costs of police and crime commissioners to be more than those of police authorities. The only additional cost will be the cost of elections, which will represent 0.1% of annual police spend. Having got itself into the position of opposing this democratic reform over the last 18 months, the Labour party is now putting up candidates, and some would-be candidates are on the Benches behind the right hon. Lady. I think that she needs to catch up: she cannot go on criticising this policy while at the same time fielding candidates.
I believe that the challenge of maintaining and improving policing as budgets fall is manageable, provided that forces do not treat this as “business as usual”. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has set out how forces can save over £1 billion a year if those that spend more than others reduce their costs just to the average. The savings identified were in such areas as legal services, estates—buildings, maintenance and services—criminal justice and custody, training, control rooms, business support, investigations, community safety and community relations. However, it is important to appreciate that the Government and forces are identifying savings well beyond the scope of HMIC’s report.
Pay accounts for the bulk of total police spending, which amounted to about £11 billion last year, so there is no doubt that pay reform and restraint must form part of the police savings package. That is why we have asked the police—along with the rest of the public sector—to accept a two-year pay freeze, which could save them at least £350 million a year. I note that the official Opposition now support that pay freeze. The first part of the Winsor review also made a number of recommendations, and the House will be aware of the Home Secretary’s recent announcement that the Government will approve the recommendations of the police arbitration tribunal. I note that the official Opposition also urged the Government to implement the tribunal’s findings. Once they have been fully implemented, those changes will save forces about £150 million a year.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I am listening with great interest to what the Minister has to say. He said that he did not believe that front-line policing was just about police numbers, but we believe that the front line will be badly affected by the cuts that he is making, especially in such places as Halton in Cheshire. Can he give a guarantee that the front-line response to incidents will not deteriorate over the period of this Parliament?
Nick Herbert
I believe that chief constables—including, notably, the chief constable of Cheshire—are committed to maintaining the quality of their front-line service, and to finding new ways of delivering that service, in the light of the reduced resource that they confront.
The police do important, often difficult and sometimes dangerous work, and we should continue to value police officers and staff. I appreciate that changes to pay and pensions are difficult for them, but reform is necessary. The changes in police pay will not reduce basic pay, and, crucially, will help to protect police jobs, keep officers on the streets, and fight crime. Together, the changes in pay and conditions will save half a billion pounds a year on top of HMIC’s savings.
The second way in which savings beyond those identified by HMIC can be achieved is through forces working together, harnessing their collective buying power and rationalising where duplication is wasteful and inefficient. The 43 forces of England and Wales have between them 2,000 different IT systems and 300 data centres, and employ 5,000 staff, yet—as officers frequently tell me—the IT systems in forces are still not good enough. We are therefore enabling forces to introduce better, more cost- effective IT arrangements, for instance through the proposed new ICT company.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
In the context of smarter and better procurement, can the Minister give us an update on the HMIC figure, which suggested that if all the 43 forces were as efficient procurers as the most efficient, £1.5 billion a year could be saved?
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend has made a good point. HMIC savings were predicated on forces becoming as efficient as the average. One of the points that the Government have been making is that there is no reason why we should not raise force performance to the level of the best. That is not some arbitrary target; we know that some forces are already achieving greater efficiency. We believe that there is potential for at least £180 million of savings per annum through ICT. Forces have already made substantial savings. Police spend was some £73 million lower last year than in 2009-10, and there are opportunities for forces to go further. We are using the national buying power of the police service—indeed, the whole public sector—to do things better and more cheaply. We are requiring the police to procure more and more equipment together. Those changes alone could save a further £200 million per annum by 2014-15.
Nick Herbert
I will of course give way to the shadow Home Secretary, but I wonder whether she will confirm in her intervention that she supports the savings that we seek to make through collective procurement and better IT.
Yvette Cooper
We do think it right to make savings from procurement, but will the Minister explain why, if all these things are happening, 16,000 police officers are still being lost? Will he also confirm that 4,000 officers have already gone from the front line alone since the election?
Nick Herbert
All these changes mean that there will be a smaller work force. The Government have always accepted that. Some £2 billion a year needs to be saved, and most of the spending is on personnel, although a significant proportion is not. The savings that I have described can be achieved through more efficient working and, in many cases, fewer personnel. The question is, what will be the impact on the service and the performance of the forces? That is what the right hon. Lady simply will not focus on.
Nick Herbert
I will give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.
Keith Vaz
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me for the second time. Has he seen the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by Dame Helen Ghosh? We were pushing the recommendation that we had made in a previous report that there should be a catalogue—Dame Helen kept referring to it as an Argos catalogue, but something more up-market would be more appropriate—[Interruption.] I will not refer to John Lewis, for obvious reasons. The catalogue in question, which would be approved by the Home Office, would ensure that police forces did not procure separately, but obtained the best possible national deal.
Nick Herbert
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that is effectively what we are doing. We are passing new regulations—we have just introduced the latest raft—which require forces to buy certain goods and items of equipment together. The savings that they are making are accumulating, and, as I have said, will eventually reach £200 million a year. I shall be happy to provide the Home Affairs Committee with an update on that, because I think it is a good story which shows that forces can make savings by working more effectively together. I note that the Opposition have conceded that savings can be made in that area. Those savings, too, are in addition to the savings identified by HMIC.
The third way in which the police can find savings beyond those originally identified by HMIC is through transformation of the way forces work. HMIC said that savings of £1 billion a year could be found if the high-spending forces simply reduced their costs in a range of functions to the average of that spent by a similar force. However, if all forces achieved the efficiency levels of the best forces nationally, that would save a further £350 million a year. Why should not all forces be as efficient as the best?
Outsourcing can also play a major role in effecting this transformation. The Government have been supporting Surrey and West Midlands forces and authorities in a joint programme exploring the value of business partnering. Broad areas of service can be covered, including a range of activities in, or supporting, front-line policing such as dealing with incidents, supporting victims, protecting individuals at risk and providing specialist services. This is not about traditional outsourcing; rather, it is about building a new strategic relationship between forces and the private sector. By harnessing private-sector innovation, specialist skills and economies of scale, forces can transform the way they deliver services and improve outcomes for the public. Every police authority in England and Wales bar one could join in, should they choose to do so. Under its own steam, Lincolnshire is about to sign a £200 million contract over 10 years with G4S. That contract for support services is available to the other forces named on the procurement notice.
These are highly significant developments that open up the possibility of new savings across policing. The published potential value of the Surrey and West Midlands contract is between £300 million and £3.5 billion. I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition believe that such business partnering is the right way forward for policing.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I take the Minister back to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary’s point that HMIC has calculated that police numbers will fall by 16,000? Has the Home Office estimated how many of the posts that will be lost will be from the back office, because we know that 4,000 jobs have been lost from the front line in the first year of the Minister’s cuts alone?
Nick Herbert
The HMIC report said there had been a 2% reduction in the number of front-line officers. Judging by the hon. Gentleman’s face, he has not read that report, and I suggest he does so.
Taken together, these reforms will result in far in excess of a 12% real-terms reduction in central Government funding. They will save over £2 billion a year. In fact, they will save more than the reduction in central Government grant of 20% in real terms. Let me repeat the following, therefore: the savings identified by HMIC are over £1 billion; the savings from pay are £0.5 billion; the savings from collective procurement and IT are £380 million; and the savings from bringing every force’s performance up to the level of the best are £350 million. The total savings, therefore, amount to over £2.3 billion, exceeding the reductions in police funding while protecting front-line services.
Yvette Cooper
According to the Minister, everything is hunky-dory, because if his figures are to believed there will be no negative impact on services. Why, therefore, has the Lancashire chief constable now had to decide that his force will have to change its response times? He has said:
“If someone is absolutely insistent that they need to see an officer, they’ll see an officer. But…it might be that we negotiate either a delay or no deployment at all.”
That is clearly an example of an impact on front-line policing, and the service provided to people who live in Lancashire, as a result of the scale of the Government’s cuts.
Nick Herbert
I very much doubt that the chief constable of Lancashire police—who is one of the best chief constables in the country, and who heads a high-performing force—would accept the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of his decision. Her entire contention is that front-line services are bound to be damaged simply because police numbers are falling. That is the equation that Labour always makes, but the fact is that the latest official figures show recorded crime falling, and according to the British crime survey the crime level is stable. There are areas of concern, and chief constables are fully aware of that. We all need to work hard to stay on top of crime. However, the Opposition cannot claim that overall crime is rising, or that falling police numbers are causing crime to rise. They cannot claim that because it is not true.
In any case, Labour cannot attack falling police numbers as a result of these savings when it is committed to the same savings. The shadow Home Secretary backs over £1 billion-worth of savings as recommended by HMIC, but the shadow police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), has told this House that when he was in office he planned to save
“£500 million to £600 million from overtime and shift patterns”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 722.]
That is far more than the HMIC’s £90 million of savings from better management of staffing rotas and overtime. Further, 12 days ago the shadow Home Secretary finally admitted that Labour backed the pay freeze for police officers and staff that is worth £350 million, and she said that that was not just for the next year but for future years as well. To be added to the £1.2 billion of savings recommended by HMIC, the savings from overtime and the pay freeze are the £150 million of savings recommended by the police arbitration tribunal and endorsed by the Labour party. In total, therefore, Labour has backed more than £2 billion-worth of cuts to police funding. Let me say this plainly: the Opposition cannot attack the cuts when they back cuts on the same scale. They cannot go around criticising falling officer and staff numbers when their savings would result in a smaller work force, too.
Yvette Cooper
The Minister can put up all the smokescreens he wants, but he knows that we will back a 12% reduction in the policing budgets over the course of the Parliament, not the 20% cut that he wants. Will he confirm that his 20% cuts are leading to 16,000 police officers being lost, and that HMIC took into account his pay freeze and all the savings that he has outlined when it projected that 16,000 police officer posts will be lost? Will he now ditch his 20% plan, change instead to our 12% plan, and save those 16,000 police officer posts?
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady has been caught out. The fact is that the HMIC savings did not include the pay freeze or the savings from collective procurement, which just a few minutes ago she said could be made. [Interruption.] Two weeks ago, she was forced to admit that she backed that pay freeze. Her colleague the shadow police Minister tried to disagree with that, but she has confirmed that she backs the pay freeze. Those savings are in addition to the £1 billion. [Interruption.] They are in addition to the 12%. [Interruption.] It is no use the right hon. Lady just hectoring. If she pays attention for a second, she will learn that these pay restraint savings are on top of the HMIC savings. That is the whole point. The Opposition are attacking the cuts while backing the same scale of cuts themselves; it is just that they will not admit that to police officers or the public.
Yvette Cooper
Does the Minister agree that if he shifted from 20% to 12%, he could save thousands of police officer jobs across the country and improve front-line services? If he does agree with that, why will he not switch to the far more sensible 12%?
Nick Herbert
If the right hon. Lady agreed with that herself, why does she remain committed to these 20% cuts? That is what she is committed to: the HMIC savings plus the pay savings, the procurement savings, and the savings her shadow police Minister has identified through overtime. All of that adds up to far more than 12%. [Interruption.] She is shaking her head in denial, but that is the truth of the matter. The Opposition are pretending that they are not committed to the same level of cuts, but when pushed, they have to admit that they are. Police officers will know it, and the public will know it. The Opposition cannot credibly campaign against cuts when they remain committed to these levels of reductions in spending themselves.
Mr Ruffley
According to the House of Commons Library, if we take the spending review presumption that police authorities will choose to increase the precept at the level forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, there will not be a 20% reduction by 2015; instead, there will be only a 14% reduction in real terms.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. If forces choose to increase the precept, under the OBR expectation, the reduction would be less than 20%. Even if all forces froze the precept for the next three years, the reductions in police force budgets would be less than 20%. There is not a single force in the country that is facing a 20% reduction in budget. This is another way in which the Opposition either fail to understand what is going on or seek to present a different picture to the public.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the crime figures were not rising, but in York they are. According to an answer from his junior Minister, the figure for York in the last year of the previous Labour Government was 14,480; it rose in the first year of the Conservative Government to 15,199. What, therefore, is the Minister’s strategy in areas such as mine, where he is cutting £5 million from our local police force budget, even though we need additional resources to counter the increase in crime since the Conservatives came to power?
Nick Herbert
I did say that there were areas of concern that forces would have to attend to. Overall, the figures were clear that recorded crime is down. If other forces are working within the available resources, why does the hon. Gentleman assume that the solution is to increase resourcing in his area? Perhaps the solution is better policing, better partnership and a focus on driving down crime in those areas. The question he must ask is: if other forces and areas are doing it and have had the same level of funding reductions, why cannot his? Labour Members instantly assume that there is a need to increase spending, and it is precisely that attitude that got the country into this mess in the first place. They simply will not focus on how money is spent—only on the call for more money to be spent.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab)
The Minister is being incredibly generous; he has given way many times, and it is appreciated. By their very nature, police community support officers provide front-line policing and support functions to the police. What is his estimate of the reduction in the number of PCSOs? They have been incredibly popular in the West Mercia area, yet the HMIC report says that we might lose up to 90. Does the Minister think that will happen?
Nick Herbert
The Government and I are strong supporters of PCSOs, and as I will mention in a minute, we continue to provide a substantial sum of money through the neighbourhood policing fund. In future, police and crime commissioners will decide how they wish to deploy that money, which will be rolled into the police main grant. I hope they will pay attention to views such as the hon. Gentleman expressed about the importance of PCSOs in providing a visible face of policing in neighbourhoods, and in offering that reassurance. They are a valuable addition to the police work force.
Therefore, although the Opposition do not want to admit it, there is agreement about the need for savings in the police budget, and it is about time we all started to focus on how money is spent. Of course, visibility and availability of police officers matters, but that is affected by how officers are deployed, shift patterns and bureaucracy. If officers waste time filling in forms or doing a task which could be done more efficiently, they are kept from front-line duties. That is why we have announced a package of measures that will cut police bureaucracy and save up to 3.3 million police hours a year—the equivalent of putting more than 1,500 police officers back on the streets. That is why we are piloting live links technology, so that police officers can give evidence from their stations rather than wasting their time hanging around in court.
However, police forces themselves can make the changes to improve front-line services within the available resources. HMIC’s report “Demanding Times” was clear about the need to match resources better with demand. It found that, on average, police forces had more officers visible and available on a Monday morning than on a Friday night, and the best forces had twice the visibility and availability of those at the bottom of the table. By changing shift patterns, targeting resources better, reducing time-wasting bureaucracy and using initiatives such as “hot-spots” or problem-oriented policing, forces can not only continue to deliver within reduced budgets, but continue to cut crime.
Nick Herbert
The evidence from HMIC also showed that a third of the police work force, including some 25,000 police officers and PCSOs—a quarter of all police officers, in fact—were employed in the back and middle offices. There is plenty of scope to make savings while protecting the front line, even if the overall number of officers has to fall, and this is what is happening. HMIC’s most recent data show that the proportion of the policing work force in the front line is expected to rise over the spending review period. The Government’s commitment to helping to protect visible policing is clear, not least in the neighbourhood policing fund, through which we are making £338 million available to ensure that forces can continue to provide a dedicated, consistent and visible presence in their communities through PCSOs. Crucially, maintaining the fund in 2012-13 will ensure that police and crime commissioners inherit a fully functioning neighbourhood policing framework in November. From that time, the decisions about such resourcing will be for them.
I now give way to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been patient.
Julie Hilling
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been listening very carefully and I am somewhat confused. My understanding was that the Government were saying there would be no cuts to front-line services, but he seems to be acknowledging that there may be a cut to PCSO and officer numbers. My officers tell me that it now takes them much longer to deal with any case that they have to attend, because they cannot then get through to report it. Each case should take 10 minutes to report, but it is actually taking an hour because of the cuts to back-room services. What is the Minister’s view of the fact that cases are taking much longer for police officers to resolve?
Nick Herbert
I certainly think it important that forces guard against what is sometimes called reverse civilianisation—the idea that reducing the number of staff will increase the demand on officers. It is about re-engineering policing to make sure that processes are more efficient. Actually, there has been a huge growth in the number of staff in police forces over the past 10 years, and there has been scope to reduce that. The simple point is, of course, that if the number of staff had not been reduced by rather more than the number of police officers, that would have impacted on the latter. There is balance to be achieved here. Furthermore, police officers cannot be made redundant anyway.
We have to get away from the idea that the quality of a front-line service can be measured only by the number of staff or how much money is spent on it. The National Audit Office’s report on mobile technology in policing, published two weeks ago, showed that under the last Government, £71 million was spent to deliver only a “basic level” of benefits. Four years later, the scheme has still not delivered value for money to the taxpayer. The NAO found that
“not enough consideration was given to how forces would use the mobile technology, how much local spending was required or how realistic were the announced deadlines”.
Let us hear less, in the constant demand to spend more money, about the focus on inputs, and rather more about value for money and how well this money is being spent.
The fact is that across the country, forces are reducing budgets while protecting, or indeed improving, front-line services. Hampshire, for example, is saving money and reducing crime, and has made a public commitment to retaining local visible policing levels. Thames Valley has reduced business support costs such as HR, removed a layer of management and is collaborating with other forces. It has saved money and is to re-deploy officers to front-line roles in neighbourhoods or on patrol. Kent police has better matched staffing levels with demand, increased police officer availability, restructured the way it provides policing services, collaborated with Essex police, streamlined support services and is realigning some of its specialist policing functions. As a result, it has been able to deploy more officers to uniformed street patrols. It has increased police visibility with the public, the head count of neighbourhood officers and staff has increased by 50%, and public satisfaction levels have increased.
It is therefore clear that, through changing the way forces do things, they can make savings and maintain or improve the service they provide to their communities.
Yvette Cooper
The Policing Minister has been generous in giving way. He boasts about the improvements in getting more police officers on to the street and into front-line jobs. Will he therefore admit that it is a serious problem that, since the election, 4,000 front-line officers doing front-line jobs have gone?
Nick Herbert
I really think that “boasting” is a silly word to use about what I am saying these forces are doing. I am describing what chief constables have done in adjusting to reduced resources, reconfiguring how policing is delivered and protecting the front line. That is not a boast from the Government; it is an explanation of how policing services can be transformed. [Interruption.] I suggest—if the right hon. Lady will draw breath—that she would do well to meet some of these chief constables and hear how they are achieving these aims.
It is clear that forces, through changing the way they do things, can make savings and maintain or improve the service they provide to their communities. Our reforms will support this change: a police professional body, to be up and running by the end of the year, setting standards, improving training, equipping professionals to do the job and helping to reduce bureaucracy; a police ICT company to help the police deliver better value to forces for their ICT spend; and a new national crime agency, a powerful new crime-fighting force working across different police forces and agencies, defending our borders, co-ordinating action on economic crime and protecting children and vulnerable people. Police and crime commissioners will ensure that the police tackle local priorities and hold the chief constable to account, and they will drive value for money.
This is a coherent agenda to build a modern, flexible and responsive police service, delivering value for money for the taxpayer and fighting crime. I commend this motion to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Today, the Government are asking Parliament to support an 8% real cut in their funding for police forces across the country next year. An 8% cut in one year alone is more than any other service is expected to make next year. Manchester’s chief constable has said that it will be
“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.
Gloucestershire’s chief constable has said that his force now faces “a cliff edge”, and the Dyfed Powys police chief has said that he is
“genuinely concerned about how we will be able to effectively protect our communities and bring criminals to justice”.
Chief constables in Lancashire, Norfolk and South Yorkshire are all warning that the cuts will make it harder for them to fight crime—they are even warning that in some cases crime may rise as a result. Serious warnings are being sounded to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice by chief constable after chief constable, but nobody in the Government is listening. Time and again, we have called on Ministers to think again and reopen the policing budget, but time and again they have refused to do so. Time and again, they have said that the police do not need the cash.
Some £31 million has been cut from Manchester’s force, with cuts of £33 million from the West Midlands police and £13 million from the Devon and Cornwall police. Big cuts are being made to force after force next year, except in London. Three months before the mayoral election, and three weeks after the polls show Boris Johnson falling behind, the Government suddenly decide to reopen the budget for London—they suddenly decide to come up with a pre-election £90 million bung. The London Mayor has spent years cutting the Met police and the number of officers in London, yet suddenly the Conservative party has panicked and is trying to bail him out. Suddenly, the party has noticed that the public are angry about the cuts that Boris Johnson has agreed to their safer neighbourhood teams, their CID units and their police officers based in schools.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the Policing Minister if he can explain why he has suddenly decided to increase this funding just three months before the mayoral election.
Nick Herbert
I did explain why this coalition Government have increased the funding, and I should point out that both parties will be fielding candidates in the election. Will the right hon. Lady tell me clearly whether she supports the increase in funding for the Metropolitan police this year—yes or no?
Yvette Cooper
We certainly support extra funding for the Metropolitan police and for forces in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Humberside and across the country, which the Minister has abandoned because those areas do not have an immediate election where a Tory candidate is starting to struggle and fall behind.
Mr Watts
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that the Government parties are bribing the London voters because there is a crucial election, while at the same time they are cutting funding to areas such as Merseyside and to other police authorities that face major problems? Those problems are now not going to get dealt with because of the cuts.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is happening from Merseyside to Norfolk and Gloucestershire; it is happening right across the country. We have been warning that the Government should reopen the funding formula for not only the Met, but other forces across the country, because the Minister’s plans are doing nothing for those other forces, which are facing those pressures. We have to wonder what the chief constables in other parts of the country have to do to get a break. Do they have to put on a blonde wig, jump on a bike and become a struggling Tory candidate to get the money they need? The Home Secretary should be more concerned about public safety than about the safety of Boris Johnson. This is a con for Londoners, it is a rip-off for the rest of the country and it is pork barrel politics at its worst.
Andrew Percy
The shadow Secretary of State will, as ever, wish to be honest with the House. If she were Secretary of State today, would she be coming to his House to cut the budget for Humberside police, in my area—yes or no?
Yvette Cooper
As we made clear, we believe that the force should have a 12% cut over the course of the Parliament. So, yes, forces would face reductions and would have to make savings, but that figure has been supported by chief constables across the country, by work done by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and by work that the former Home Secretary did before the election. That is why we think that ours is a reasonable approach to take, as opposed to making the deepest cuts in police funding seen for a generation—cuts of 8% in one year alone and cuts of 20% altogether. The hon. Gentleman’s local force is losing 500 police officers as a result of his Government’s plans. Will he be putting that on his election leaflet?
Andrew Percy
Does the shadow Secretary of State therefore agree that it may be seen as a little dishonest of local Labour politicians, who did not oppose police cuts in Humberside in 2009, under a Labour Government, to be on the streets now campaigning against police cuts, given that she has just admitted to the House that if she were Secretary of State she would be cutting my local police force today?
Yvette Cooper
Let us, again, be clear that Labour would not be cutting by 20%—we do not think that that is right. We think that the Government are going too far, too fast. They are hitting the economy and pushing it into reverse, but they are also hitting policing. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he would be putting the cut of 500 police officers on his election leaflet, but I can tell him that we will be putting it on ours.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Lady was a Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so I wonder whether she could assist me now. Will she confirm that the £1 billion of spending cuts that HMIC recommended, which she supports, and the half a billion pounds of pay freeze and pay reform through the Police Arbitration Tribunal decision, which she also supports—that is £1 billion plus half a billion—equals £1.5 billion, which is more than the spending reduction of 12% that she claims she is supporting?
Yvette Cooper
No, we are very clear that we support a 12% reduction and not the 20% reduction that the Minister wants. I have to say to him that if his fantasy figures added up, no police force across the country would be reducing the number of front-line officers, but forces are doing that and 4,000 officers have already gone as a result of his figures and of what he is doing. All the smokescreens in the world that he puts up will not stack up, given that police officers are being lost across the country. The reason why we believe that 12% is the right figure is because we want to protect the 16,000 police officers that his Government are getting rid of. That is why we think that we should have a balanced approach to the policing funding for the future. It is true that a 12% reduction requires pay restraint, procurement reforms and cutting bureaucracy and back-office processes—all those things have to be done within the policing budget to deliver the 12% savings. That is what police officers and chief constables are doing right across the country, but he knows what the consequences will be if he pushes them beyond that 12% because we are already seeing them. Some 4,000 front-line officers have gone already and 16,000 are to go in total. Why does he still want to support that number of police officers going?
Nick Herbert
This is an important debate and I am not clear whether the right hon. Lady does not understand HMIC’s report or whether she is seeking to present the savings in a way that is not justified. She has just said that the 12% savings—HMIC’s savings, which she has supported—include pay restraint, but they do not, as is absolutely clear from reading the report. I strongly suggest to her that she goes away to read it. Will she now accept that the HMIC savings did not include pay restraint and that by supporting pay restraint of half a billion pounds, as she has done, she is therefore going further than HMIC’s savings? Why does she not understand that?
Yvette Cooper
I am afraid that the Policing Minister is living in fantasy land. His figures simply do not add up, because 16,000 police officers are going as a result of his plans. We have made it clear that pay restraint was built into the Labour Government’s proposals from the beginning and we have supported it since; we need pay restraint to deliver the 12% savings. But if we want to protect the number of police officers, we need to have 12% savings and not 20% savings.
The Minister will also know that when HMIC carried out its report that projected that 16,000 officers would be lost, the pay freeze he introduced was already in place. So HMIC has taken into account his pay freeze in saying that 16,000 officers would go and front-line services would be hit. That is happening across the country.
The right hon. Gentleman needs to get in touch with what is happening in police forces across the country, because his coalition partners and Back Benchers are. What are they saying? Across the country—from London to Lancashire, from Norfolk to Devon—MPs are campaigning against cuts and against station closures. Listen to this, from an MP campaigning to stop station closures:
“With well-known faces out on the beat, and a high police visibility, residents clearly feel safer, and crime goes down. Residents…value and cherish their local police team, and don’t want to see their numbers cut.”
That is no rogue Back Bencher straying from the line—that was the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I did not notify the hon. Lady that I was going to refer to something that she, as a Home Office Minister, had said, which is a convention I like to respect. I had expected, however, that Home Office Ministers would be on the Front Bench to support the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, but it turns out that the Home Secretary cannot even convince her own team, never mind the country, that what she is doing to the police is right.
By the way, where is the Home Secretary? Where is she, on the day that she expects Parliament to vote for the biggest annual cut to police funding for generations?
Mr Ruffley
I respect the right hon. Lady, but she must be aware—her memory cannot be failing her that much—that throughout the previous Parliament, the Minister of State responsible for policing always opened this debate and the shadow Minister, which was a post I held for a time, always responded. She knows that full well.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will also know that in the previous Parliament the Government were not introducing the biggest cut to policing for generations and not taking responsibility for it. Last year, when a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government introduced the biggest cuts to council funding in a generation, the Secretary of State came to the House to debate it and to defend it. The Home Secretary has not done the same.
The Home Secretary has a history of hiding. Yesterday, she had to be forced to the House to tell us what she was doing about Abu Qatada, and when our borders were breached, she went to ground. We have not seen her do a proper TV or radio interview for nearly six months. She is hiding from the media and hiding from this House. We miss her. We have hardly seen her since her conference fiasco with Catgate. I know she is keen on all things feline, but even Macavity used to appear once in a while. We urge her to come back. Once again, we are left with the poor old Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, with his smokescreens and his fantasy figures—hung out to dry by the Home Secretary again.
The Minister obviously has not been talking to the Prime Minister, because today the Prime Minister claimed that the proportion of front-line police officers has increased. Today we heard from the Minister that the number of front-line officers might be cut, but the Prime Minister said that the proportion has increased. That is not true, is it? I ask the Minister to confirm whether he believes it is true that the proportion of front-line police officers has increased.
Nick Herbert
I am happy to intervene on the right hon. Lady at her request. She will find from HMIC’s work—she is not on good ground here—that it is discovering, in assessing forces, that the proportion of the policing work force on the front line has increased, is increasing and will be expected to increase over the spending review period. I would not stay on this ground if I were her.
Yvette Cooper
Let us look at the published facts from HMIC, which considered the number of police officers lost in the first year of this Government. Some 4,600 police officers were lost in that year, so how many were in front-line jobs? According to the Minister, none of them should have been, but of those 4,600 officers, nearly 90% were in front-line jobs. Some 4,100 officers have gone from front-line jobs—from neighbourhood policing, CID units and traffic units. Those are the data in HMIC’s own report, and the Minister clearly has not looked at it.
Yvette Cooper
If he has looked at it, will he stand up and confirm that the HMIC figures show that in the first year of this Government the proportion of front-line officers fell and 90% of the officers who went were from front-line jobs? I ask him to confirm those facts from HMIC.
Yvette Cooper
He says he cannot confirm them, but shortly I shall hand him the figures from HMIC.
Mr Watts
Isn’t the proof in the pudding? I know from Merseyside that there are fewer police officers and will be fewer in the future. When coalition Members speak, I will bet that not one Tory MP will be able to get up and claim that police numbers in his area have not been cut and will not be cut in the future. That will be the test.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. In every force across the country, chief constables have been put in an impossible position and as a result they are saying that they have to cut front-line services. That is the impact of the Government’s decisions. The Minister is not admitting the facts. He will not stand up again and confirm the facts from HMIC, which show that in the first year more than 4,000 front-line officers have gone from front-line jobs. That is the reality of what is happening.
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of candour from the Government is having a negative impact on police morale? If the Government do not support them, they are asking, who on earth will?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. The ducking and diving from Ministers shows how out of touch they are with what is happening in police forces and communities across the country. Communities know what is happening, because they can see it. Police officers are being taken off the front line and the number of uniformed officers working in custody suites, for example, has gone up, not down. In Birmingham, uniformed officers have been taken off the front line in order to monitor CCTV and, in Leeds, police officers are having to go back into the station between incidents to type up their own case notes because the support staff have gone. Whereas those officers would previously have been able to move from incident to incident, rapidly responding, they are now having to go back into the office to do paperwork instead.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The right hon. Lady has played strongly on the fact that 16,000 police officers are leaving, with 4,000 leaving, as she claims, in the past year. How many were past retirement age and could therefore choose to go and how many were on active duty, as opposed to light duty in police stations, in which case they would not have been available for police commanders to use in proper policing?
Yvette Cooper
HMIC’s assessment was that 4,100 of the 4,600 officers who went in the first year were from front-line jobs, according to the definition of front line that HMIC agreed with the Home Office. The hon. Gentleman also raises an important issue about people nearing retirement, and he will know that in practice chief constables in many parts of the country have been forced to push officers into early retirement when they did not want to go. A Staffordshire officer whom I am meeting tomorrow has said, “I would not have finished. I am not bitter, but very disappointed. The feeling is that there is no control over the mass exodus of experience—it is just going.” That is the reality of what is happening in forces across the country.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
A number of very experienced officers in the West Midlands force have been told that they must leave, having completed their 30 years. Is it not important to bear in mind, however, what happened in August? Time and again during the terrible days of the riots, people were complaining that even with police numbers as they are there were not enough police around. They were pleading with the police to come in. If these cuts take place, if—unfortunately and tragically—we had riots once again, the situation will, as we know, be even worse.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw in the capital and major cities across the country that we needed police officers on the streets to take back the streets, calm the riots and prevent the damage that was being done, and it took 16,000 officers on the streets of London to calm the tensions and deal with the violence and the looting. Sixteen thousand officers is the number that this Government are cutting—the equivalent of every one of those police officers that it took to calm the streets of London on those awful August nights.
Julie Hilling
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only at times of riots, but on a Friday and Saturday, when knife crimes, street robberies and serious crimes of violence are occurring, that we need police officers on the front line? Not just at the acute time of riots, but week in, week out, we need officers on the streets.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Communities across the country know that. They want officers on the streets. They want to see police officers doing the job in their area. It is communities that will in the end pay the price for this Government’s decision. Time and again on Monday the Home Secretary told the House not just that there was no simple link, but that there was no direct link between police numbers and crime, yet look at the evidence from the Government’s favoured think-tank, Civitas, which said that
“there is a strong relationship between the size of police forces and national crime rates...A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”
The Policing Minister sniggers. Will he snigger, too, at the HMIC, which he quoted today, which said in research published last year that
“a 10 per cent increase in officers will lead to a reduction in crime of around 3 per cent (and vice versa)”?
That is the conclusion of the authoritative HMIC analysis of all the studies and the research that have been done, and this Government decide that they want to cut 16,000 officers at a time when personal crime is already going up by 11%.
Hugh Bayley
Under the previous Conservative Government the North Yorkshire police received not one single additional police officer, and crime in our county almost trebled. Under the Labour Government there were dozens and dozens of additional police officers—more than 140—and crime started to come down. Now the police numbers are down by almost 100 and crime is rising again. Surely that makes the case.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that we had thousands more police officers under the Labour Government. We also had a historic 40% reduction in crime.
The Conservative party used to get it. Here is what the Prime Minister himself wrote in the 2005 election manifesto for the Conservative party:
“Put more police on the streets and they’ll catch more criminals. It’s not rocket science, is it?”
No, it is not, yet now the Tory-led Government are doing the opposite. Once the party of law and order, they are cutting more from the police than from health, education, local councils or defence—more than from any other service. Personal crime, theft, robbery and violence are up by 11%, police officers down by 16,000—higher crime, fewer police, communities paying the price. This Government should cut crime instead of cutting police officers, and they should start by going back to the drawing board and voting against these plans today.
Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Speaking as a former special adviser to the Home Secretary at the time of the Sheehy reforms in the 1990s and as a shadow police Minister in the previous Parliament, I think it is worth putting on record that policing is about leadership and that leadership from the top at the Home Office has indeed been supplied by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her deputy, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. They have shown a great deal of skill in negotiating a very difficult settlement for the police. The Winsor review has been an important contribution to getting more for less from the police budget. One does not have to talk up the Home Secretary’s book on this; the facts are quite clear. Part 1 of Winsor, which went to arbitration, has gone through with the support now of the Police Federation, and that is no mean feat.
I shall not spend too much time rebutting the number crunching of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Even her own party accepts that there must be constraints on public spending, and that extends to the police force. Why? Because as a result of the economic crash in the previous Parliament, this country is now spending £120 million a day on debt interest alone. That cannot go on and public spending control is something that any responsible Government would have to put in place. The police force and the public understand that stark fact. I have yet to meet a police officer or a constituent who thinks the country can afford significant real-terms increases in police services.
On the total Government grants before us today, we see that the reduction in Government funding including specific grant allocations will be 4% in 2011-12 and 5% in 2012-13. They will be lower in 2013-14 at 2% and lower still in 2014-15 with a 1% reduction. Across local government there has been a reduction in the amount of funding allocated to specific grants, and some of the specific grants that police authorities have historically been used to receiving, such as the crime fighting fund and the basic command unit fund, have been absorbed into the police main grant.
Let us not forget that real-terms gross revenue had increased every year from 1996-97 to 2007-08. Those were very big sustained year-on-year increases. Sadly, they were spending increases that were allocated when we did not have the money on a sustainable basis. It was a boom time in the economy and the previous Government were spending money that they did not have.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend refers to the increases in spending in central Government grant, but does he recognise that much of the increase in spending locally came directly from local taxpayers through massive increases in the police precept—in my area 500% over the course of the previous Government—and that, similarly, is not sustainable and fair on local people?
Mr Ruffley
Council tax as a proportion of the total police spend that all police authorities have will be about a quarter for 2011. It was half that—12%—in 2001-02, so the statistics bear out the experience that my hon. Friend has had in his police authority.
Returning to the historical increases, there was another interesting statistic that the Home Affairs Committee calculated. Between 2000 and 2008 the real-terms increase in total police spending was a whacking 20%, so I suggest, and I am sure Government Members would agree, that the police are looking at historically high real-terms spending figures over the past 10 years, compared with what they have ever had in the past. The shadow Policing Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. Does he want to intervene?
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that there was a 43% reduction in the number of crimes and the number of victims over that time. The two might well be related.
Mr Ruffley
I do not agree with the rather heroic numbers that the right hon. Gentleman gives for falls in crime, and I would not necessarily attribute that to brilliant Government policy. I would attribute it to hard work by police officers on the ground. He claims too much for himself, but that is not untypical of Labour politicians.
Funding was made available in the spending review to help police authorities deliver a council tax freeze in 2011-12. Should every authority participate in the freeze, it is estimated that they will receive a total of around £75 million in each of the next four years to compensate for the income that they would otherwise have raised from council tax increases, and funding for this is pencilled into the settlement.
Before moving on from the national police totals, I want to touch briefly on the claim made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford that this is a 20% cut—she is obviously trying to get the soundbite off the runway. I think that she was referring to the published grant totals, but were she to look at total police spending and not just the grant figures, which means putting council tax into the equation and taking into account the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assumptions on forecast levels, she would see that the total police budget will clearly reduce spending by the end of this Parliament not by 20%, but by 14%, which is much nearer the 12% figure she coughed up for Labour’s plans. Therefore, we are not too far apart if we look at everything, rather than just the bits of the financial equation she was inducing us to look at. She gave us only half the picture.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
My hon. Friend, in making his case, properly draws attention to the 14% real-terms cut, but does he recognise that, because of the pay freeze and reforms to police terms and conditions, the actual cut to policing services will be significantly less?
Mr Ruffley
I certainly do. My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister gave a tour de force earlier when he explained in detail exactly how we might achieve more for just a little less spending. I reinforce the fact that between 2000 and 2008 there were heroic real-terms increases, and they have not gone away. We are not wiping away from the baseline the very high totals that were accrued, sadly, on the back of money that we subsequently discovered the country did not really have. Nevertheless, this is by no means some hacking-off-of-limbs strategy, and I think that it does a disservice to a grown-up debate to suggest that it is a bleeding-stump strategy.
I would like to say something about my local police force in Suffolk. Suffolk has the second lowest cost per head for policing out of the 43 forces in this country. It has an historically low crime rate, because by and large we are a very civilised and well-behaved county, which is why I am particularly proud to represent a Suffolk constituency. I acknowledge that the chief constable, Simon Ash, with whom I have a fruitful and friendly dialogue, is concerned about the effect that the spending constraints we are considering will have on his force. I do not agree with him, but it might be useful to remind ourselves of the composition of police spending in Suffolk.
The general grant from the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government to Suffolk for 2011-12 was £76.9 million. Specific grants added to that were £4.4 million. The council tax precept was £41.4 million, and fees and other charges were £6.4 million. That means that just over £129 million was spent in the current financial year on keeping Suffolk safe. The savings that the force has made in the past two years are quite instructive. The actual savings for 2010-11 totalled £2.6 million—consider that as a percentage of the £129 million spent overall last year—and the forecast annual savings for the current financial year are even higher, at £3.9 million. Projected savings for the four years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 are as follows: £7.3 million, £3.7 million, 2.3 million and £0.9 million.
Approximately 60% of the savings in Suffolk over the comprehensive spending review period will be achieved through collaborative working and better procurement, particularly with Norfolk constabulary. That really bears out the statements that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister made earlier. Suffolk is finding 60% of the savings not through vicious head count cuts to uniformed officers—over half the savings are the result of smarter thinking, which I think should have been done before now. In the last Parliament the totemic collaborative project was between Essex and Kent, which was the example everyone cited, but the Norfolk and Suffolk model undoubtedly equals that, because it is delivering the savings that should have been delivered many years ago.
What about the number of uniformed officers? This is extremely politically sensitive—some might even say toxic—and much has been made of it by Opposition Members and Front Benchers. To provide some perspective, in my police authority area the number of full-time equivalent uniformed officers, as at 31 March 2009, was 1,291. At March 2010 it was 1,246 officers, and in March 2011 it was 1,241. The next set of figures is quite instructive. The chief constable argues that by 31 March 2015, if the one-year council tax freeze grant is accepted from April this year, the number of uniformed officers will be 1,189. Even if the council tax freeze grant is accepted, he predicts a reduction from 1,241 to 1,189. He says that if a council tax increase is approved from April 2012, the reduction would be fewer than 10 officers. If we go the council tax increase route, the number will fall from 1,241 to 1,232. He is arguing, as he has said in the regional press, that there will be a reduction in the number of police officers in Suffolk.
The figures are not hugely welcome from my point of view, because I believe neither that we should increase council tax in Suffolk, nor that the chief constable needs to reduce the number of officers by the magnitude he suggests, and he argues that officers will have to be lost whichever route is taken. I firmly believe, and agree with the Government, that visible policing is not a direct function of the numbers alone. There is not a positive correlation of one between the number of officers and excellent policing.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford was perfectly right to say that we needed 16,000 officers on the streets when the London riots were at their zenith, but those were, by and large, extraordinary events. We certainly did not necessarily need more police officers in order to get 16,000 on the streets. Many of us thought that rather bad management by the then leadership of the Met meant that it took three days or so to get 16,000 uniformed officers on the street. They existed, as we have more than 140,000 uniformed officers in Great Britain, so getting 16,000 Met officers on the street was not purely a numbers game; they were there already.
Andrew Percy
The shadow Home Secretary’s local chief constable at the time of the riots said that the issue was not about numbers, and he went on local TV to say that he had no issue with numbers and had, in fact, got enough numbers to “invade a small country”. Those were his exact words, on Yorkshire TV.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
If the hon. Gentleman is so clear in his mind that the number of police on the streets does not necessarily correlate with the effective combat of crime, will he explain why the Liberal Democrat election manifesto—I realise he was not responsible for it—promised 3,000 more police on the streets?
Mr Ruffley
I am delighted to respond to both points.
First, I did not say that the number of police officers on the streets does not matter, but I will make it clear that the number of uniformed officers in any force does not equate to the number of police officers on the street; we absolutely can have more visible police hours on the street with a theoretically smaller number of police officers, and I shall explain how that comes about. Let me repeat: we can have more visible police hours on the street with fewer officers than we have now, and if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton will bear with me, I will explain to the House how that is possible.
Secondly, on the Liberal Democrat manifesto, let me say why the party political to-ing and fro-ing is not terribly productive or profitable. The right hon. Gentleman’s party is campaigning—it would appear, from today’s debate—against the reductions in policing, which, it says, are cutting the number of uniformed officers and really will not do, but I just remind him of what the previous Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said on “The Daily Politics” just before the election. When he was asked whether Labour could guarantee that the number of police officers would not fall if it formed the next Government, he replied really rather elegantly, that no, he could not guarantee that police officer numbers would not fall. Most of us have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who has one other virtue, which is clear honesty. He was not guaranteeing that more officers would be paid for if Labour won the election; he was not even promising that the same number would be retained.
I shall explain briefly what I mean by “visible hours on the street”. There is a shocking statistic from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—it was true under the previous Government and was still true last year—and it is that at any one time only 11% of the police officers in this country, of whom there are more than 140,000, are available for visible policing on the street. That is an amazing statistic: only one in 10.
The question is, how can we get more police visible on the street, given that there are more than 140,000 of them? There are two ways. First, we should reduce bureaucracy. Now, I do not suggest for one second that reducing bureaucracy will make up for the current tough public spending round, but the Government have already taken incredible steps in their first 18 months in office. They have abolished the policing pledge, the public service agreement targets, more than three dozen key performance indicators, the fatuous local area agreement targets and the stop and account form, which in fairness the previous Government had also proposed.
The current Government have also streamlined stop and search procedures. In addition, they have made changes to health and safety, and in addition to that they have abolished the quite nonsensical target, which police thought unnecessary, of drug tests for 95% of those arrested on trigger offences. That is quite an impressive reduction of bureaucracy in a first few months, and there is more.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will also bring more rigorous oversight to police budgets? From the perspective of north Yorkshire, where our local police authority spent £250,000 on legal proceedings against the chief constable, that will be a welcome move later this year.
Mr Ruffley
I am confident—it is my hope and, indeed, expectation—that with one person we will engender a greater and sharper sense of focus and accountability, which we lack under the current regime of 17-person police authorities.
Mark Reckless
Is my hon. Friend also aware that in a unanimous report the Home Affairs Committee came to the same conclusion, supported I believe by its five Labour members, that a single elected individual, instead of a diffuse police authority, will increase the focus on finding savings and is likely to drive out costs in policing?
Mr Ruffley
Yes, and to those who say that a single individual will not necessarily have the skills to provide leadership and to be a good manager and forensic accountant, the straightforward rebuttal is that one would expect someone who was going to be up for re-election after four years to have their mind focused on what the electorate wanted and to bring in people who could help with that work. At the end of the day, the mandate given to an individual, and the knowledge that they are accountable to the people, should certainly focus the mind—not the minds of 17 people in a diffuse police authority, but the mind of one individual, who will certainly be accountable as police authorities are not so accountable at the moment.
On the ways in which a smaller number—not a hugely smaller number—of officers can deliver more police hours, I must say that they will be required to spend less time during the average shift in a police station and more time visibly on the streets. I have said that reducing bureaucracy is one way in which we can square that circle, but the Government’s future work, which I know my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is driving forward personally, involves a streamlined crime recording procedure. The previous Government undertook such work, to which I shall be generous and pay tribute.
The four-force pilot involving Leicestershire, West Midlands, Shropshire and Surrey created a more streamlined and time-efficient way of recording incidents, with police officers given the discretion, over a certain range of offences, to write shorter reports. I should like to see that regime become absolutely standard throughout the 43 forces, so it would be useful to hear how many have adopted it.
There is more to be done on rolling back statutory charging. It is ridiculous that for quite a slew of offences a charging sergeant has to ring up the Crown Prosecution Service to get permission on some triable-either-way offences. It is fair to say that—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am very concerned that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of taking more time than the Front Benchers. That is not good for all those hon. Members who have waited a long time. We are on a time limited debate, which finishes at 3.47 pm and we have another 10 speakers to get in, so I hope that he is now coming to the end.
Mr Ruffley
I take note of what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, and shall bring my remarks to a conclusion; they were coming to a conclusion anyway.
The second way in which we can get the police to spend more hours visible and out there, so that people are aware that they are around, is greater collaboration. I will not repeat some of the initiatives that the Government—this Home Secretary, this Policing Minister —have driven forward, but that work goes ahead in Suffolk, delivering the efficiency savings that can be ploughed back into the front line. As I said, the savings could amount to £1.5 billion out of the total police budget if all the forces became as efficient as the currently most efficient one. That money could be ploughed back into the front line to obviate the need for any significant reduction in uniformed officers.
The message must go forth from this debate that in a tough economic climate, the spending reductions against historically high levels of police funding are not fatal to the fight against crime. The police must do more with less. The public want them to; they want the police to spend more time on the streets and less time behind their desks. In that spirit of cheerful optimism, I commend the Government’s policy and announcement today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I will now have to put a time limit on speeches. I am sorry to hon. Members waiting to speak; they must take the matter up with others. There is now to be a 10-minute limit, although that might have to be reduced.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I completely understand what you have just said, but again and again when I come to the Chamber for time-limited debates, I find that huge amounts of time are taken. The Minister spoke for three quarters of an hour in a three-hour debate. I believe that in future there should be restraint from Government Front Benchers in time-limited debates.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not want to get into an argument about either side. I understand that having a time limit is frustrating. A 10-minute time limit is being imposed. Members making speeches should take on board the fact that others are waiting to speak. I have brought in the time limit to try to get everybody in. That is the best that we can do. As I said, the limit may have to be reduced even further for later speakers.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab)
I should say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) that the Policing Minister was generous in giving way many times during his speech.
The debate is of enormous import to the people of this country. A reference was made to chief constables having said that we had enough police to invade a small country. My constituents do not want to invade small countries; they want to feel secure on the streets of central Manchester and to know that their policing is adequate for their community.
The vast majority of my constituents are decent, law-abiding people, but crime is still too high in Greater Manchester. The differential impact of the spending cuts is of itself a matter of enormous concern in a community such as mine. To be honest, the perception is that the patterning of spending on the police is being dictated more by political preference than by the objective needs of police forces. Government Members have argued that the cuts are much less, but Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s own reference points for Greater Manchester police say that we will lose 20% of our uniformed police services between 2011 and 2015.
I pay tribute to the Greater Manchester chief constable and police authority. Greater Manchester has made enormous strides in recent years. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, it is possible to make reductions in police spending, but it is not possible to make indefinite such reductions. That is our problem.
Crime has been falling. In an earlier exchange, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow police Minister, rightly made the point that crime fell by 43% during the last Labour Government. That was a function, at least in part, of the increase in spending provided by that Government. It is not possible to say that cutting out 20% of the uniformed police in Greater Manchester will not have a detrimental effect on the police’s ability to detect and deter crime. One cannot argue about that with reference to efficiency savings.
Nor is it possible always to use the sleight of hand that says that only the front line matters. If the police are not supported by proper back-room staff—sometimes uniformed police, sometimes civilian—they simply cannot properly do the job that we expect of them. It is important for us to remember that and to recognise that there are strong limits.
As it happens, and happily, crime has continued to fall in Greater Manchester. That is a great tribute to the police service and those involved. However, the real concern is this: a number of things begin to come together. For example, we have seen the continuing rise in unemployment. I do not intend to discuss the causes of that. Whatever our arguments about the economy, most people accept that unemployment, a lagging indicator, is likely to continue to rise. We are seeing the largest number in a long time of young people unable to find employment. It is not certain, but we know from historical precedent that that will place pressure on those young people in terms of the potential for a rise in certain types of crime. Faced with that, police numbers still continue to drop, and frankly that is both reckless and irresponsible.
The Policing Minister is bravely sitting alone, unaccompanied by the Home Secretary and not surrounded by his colleagues. He has had to plough through and justify the fact that the Home Office caved in to the Treasury when the current comprehensive spending review settlement was made. As a consequence, we can ask the police service to make efficiency savings, but that will begin to peter out.
In the case of Greater Manchester, we know what will happen this year and next year; the real concern is that 2014-15 will be the point when we fall off the edge of the cliff. Neither the Policing Minister nor the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister can give us any kind of reassurance that the police service will not then be in a state of enormous difficulty.
The chief constable of Greater Manchester is already on the record as having said that this year’s settlement means
“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.
If this is the most difficult year, but we continue to see cuts year on year beyond that, we have to ask the Policing Minister and others to look at the situation. I know that he is not in a position to give a commitment that the situation will be reviewed, but if that indefinite abyss is to open up in front of us, we will have to have change from the Government. There will have to be a reversal of the speed and depth of the cuts that apply to communities across Greater Manchester.
I have said before to the Policing Minister that during the riots the police force across the country was stretched. Serving police officers rightly went from Greater Manchester to help in London. However, that meant that when the riots broke out in Manchester, some of our officers were helping out elsewhere. We had the advantage of being able to call in police officers from places as far away as Strathclyde, but while the riots broke out in Manchester Central and in Salford, there were strong rumours that there was the capacity for riots to break out elsewhere in Greater Manchester that night. Had that happened, the already thinly stretched line of police officers would have been stretched to the point of there being an enormous problem, even with the capacity to back-fill from other police force areas.
I do not want to predict a repeat, but notwithstanding the Minister’s view that there would not be problems, there is a concern in Greater Manchester that if there were a repeat—the riots did come out of nowhere—we would simply not have the capacity to deal with the situation. That issue has to be taken on board. However we magic the arithmetic, of the 140,000 police officers nationwide, 16,000 needed to be deployed in the capital to quell the riots. That would have left precious little margin for the rest of the country if things had begun to go wrong elsewhere. In policing our communities we must not only think about what happens on a regular Tuesday morning, but recognise that catastrophes happen. Those are real issues for us to take on board, whether in the west midlands, Greater Manchester and other metropolitan areas, or in rural areas.
The Minister rightly paid tribute to our serving police officers. During the riots, officers were asked to confront rioters and those dangerous situations, and it is easy to say that we expect an enormous amount from the men and women who serve in our police force. At the moment, however, morale is not good across the police service for a number of reasons. The police rightly believe that they are being asked to take not a pay freeze, but a real-terms pay cut, and that problem touches on morale. Perhaps such measures are needed during this period, but when they are added to the sense of grievance and uncertainty felt by the police because of what they—and large numbers of the public—regard as the arbitrary nature of the cuts, they amount to a serious impact on morale which we must register. If we praise our serving police officers when, as expected, they take the risks that society places on them, we as a community and a society must deal with morale when it is a problem.
Julian Smith
I have had a contrary experience in my constituency. I had a meeting with Inspector Robert Thorpe in Ripon last week. He was relishing the challenge of doing more with less, and looking at productivity and at how he could play about with rotas and make his staff more productive. I pay tribute to his work, and I am sure that there are examples of such work in Manchester’s police force that the hon. Gentleman will highlight later in his speech.
Tony Lloyd
Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to my speech, he would have heard that I spoke at the beginning about the great strides that have already been made by the chief constable, the police authority and the police to make the service more efficient. There is no doubt that numbers of people have gone, and that that process has been managed so far. My argument—the hon. Gentleman may wish to ask his own police force about this—is that there is a point beyond which we cannot go. The loss of 20% of Greater Manchester's uniformed police by 2015 and a similar loss in numbers of non-uniformed staff cannot happen without its impinging on our ability to provide the visible policing that the Minister and others claim to want.
People in Greater Manchester are desperately concerned that the cuts are too fast and too deep, and that when push comes to shove, problems will emerge not in the Prime Minister’s constituency but in the inner-city areas of Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, and other equivalent areas. We are not getting the Boris bung that the Metropolitan police force has received, and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) ought to raise that issue with the Policing Minister. Historically, the Metropolitan police force has been better funded than the police in other metropolitan areas, and in a difficult financial year and when other metropolitan areas are being denied, it is hard for us once again to see London given an increase in spending. These cuts are too fast—
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I will endeavour to stay well within your time stricture for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that the debate on police funding had shifted in recent days, and that the Labour party had recognised that it supports many of the measures that the coalition Government are introducing, such as the pay freeze, reforms to police overtime and the 12% savings as recognised in the HMIC report. We have also heard that the Labour party cannot guarantee to restore any of the budget reductions that the coalition Government have had to make.
I thought, therefore, that some solutions would perhaps be deployed today, that there would be some recognition that the measures taken and the budget cuts were necessary, and that the Government and the Opposition would try to find ways of making better use of police resources. Unfortunately, we heard nothing of the sort from the Labour party. It may be that on the Labour Benches there are prospective candidates for elected police and crime commissioners. If they are elected in November, they will be responsible for police strategy and budgets. Perhaps it is down to them to outline how they would make better use of police resources, because I am afraid that the shadow Home Secretary, who has just left her place, did not do that in her opening remarks.
This debate should be about how we can make better use of the resources that there are. I will give a few examples of how that can be achieved. I make no apologies for again mentioning the Safer Sutton partnership. The Minister has been to see how that works for himself. It is a fantastic example of the police working closely with the local authority and pooling resources. A concrete example of that work, which led to a saving and a better service, was when the local authority stopped providing parks police and took on safer neighbourhood teams to work in the parks. The Met was able to police the parks more cheaply than the local authority, and uniformed officers performed the roles. That was welcomed across the board and represented a saving for the local authority.
The Government could improve policing by relying more heavily on the evidence of what actually works. Again, I make no apologies for repeating this point in the Minister’s presence. Generalisations are often made about what leads to improvements in policing and to reductions in crime. I had an interesting e-mail exchange with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place, in which he suggested that the level of crime dropped significantly as a result of a significant increase in incarceration. However, the evidence from the US is that, although it has seen a large increase in prison numbers, only 10% of the reduction in crime can be attributed to that increase. Far too many simplistic conclusions are drawn. We should develop a body of research—this is starting to happen—to look at what is and is not effective. Perhaps we could ensure that it is all held in one place. Chief constables and, when they are elected, police and crime commissioners should have to refer to that evidence to see whether it suggests that their proposals will be effective or less effective than they think.
We should focus on reinforcing policing by consent, which is central to this debate. We can have as many police officers as we want, but if there is general dissatisfaction or a collapse in discipline, as we saw during the riots, it will be difficult for the police to manage it. We need to boost people’s confidence in the police to ensure that we have policing by consent. That is why the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate, Brian Paddick—who I am sure would not be in favour of a bung to Boris, as the Labour party has put it—has focused heavily on stop and search and its impact, particularly on black and ethnic minority communities. It reduces the willingness for there to be policing by consent in some of those communities.
We need to be able to draw in other resources. There are some good examples of that. In Bonnington square, the local community has got together to self-police an area where there has been a problem with muggings. That model could be extended. It does not draw heavily on police resources, apart from there being a need for the group to have direct contact with the police. If it can be built on existing community groups, rather than requiring groups to be established simply for that purpose, which may run the risk of vigilantism, that would be a sensible model. Again, that is Brian Paddick’s proposal—Paddick’s patrols he calls them. It could help us to do more with less in policing.
We need better use of existing resources, which is what the HMIC report is about. In London, I know that our Liberal Democrat colleagues are pressing very hard to get rid of some of the rather generous police perks for very senior officers, such as chauffeured cars, which would free up some resources to be used more effectively. For instance, such resources could be used to support safer neighbourhood teams and ensure that the number of sergeants in them is maintained.
My final point brings me back to the fact that we should not always assume that a particular policy has a direct impact in another area. The Government’s work on problem families could have a much greater impact on policing issues than any other measure that they could take. A focus on the relatively small number of families who, for whatever reason, require more input than others from various services could have a really beneficial long-term impact on crime levels.
We need to shift this debate from what I now acknowledge was a rather simplistic linear link between police numbers and crime levels, and instead consider what is most effective in preventing and tackling crime.
Mr Hanson
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I take him back to the debate that we had before the election, when I stood at the Government Dispatch Box and he sat on the Opposition Benches? He argued that the settlement that I had put forward as Policing Minister was not sufficient, and said that he wanted 3,000 more police. What has changed in the subsequent years that now causes him not to want those police officers?
Tom Brake
I have answered exactly the same question from the right hon. Gentleman in other debates recently, and I will give him the same answer as last time. First, the 3,000 police officers were part of a package to be paid for by getting rid of identity cards. Of course, that element has now understandably been subsumed into dealing with the huge deficit that we inherited from his party, which is why we no longer advocate additional police. Secondly, that has rightly put pressure on us to recognise that simple police numbers are not the solution and that it is actually about effective deployment. The coalition Government have recognised that, and the Liberal Democrats are pressing for it. I wonder whether the Labour party might want to follow that approach, too.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is undeniable that under this Government, in the year and three quarters for which they have been in office, the police have suffered serious setbacks in funding and staffing, and are doomed to suffer far more. The excellent record of the Greater Manchester police force in crime reduction and detection is likely to suffer—it says so itself—to the severe detriment of our constituents, whom, in the end, this is about.
Yesterday evening, the chief constable of Greater Manchester came to the House of Commons to brief hon. Members about the situation faced by Greater Manchester police. We must consider it in the context of the crime reduction figures that it has achieved, which are exemplary, with reductions in every category. It is on target or within 10% of the target on all the main priority performance measures in the 2011-12 policing plan. There are excellent prospects of its achieving the end-of-year target for serious acquisitive crime, domestic burglary, vehicle crime and serious violent crime, and good prospects of its doing so for total crime, antisocial behaviour and theft.
Greater Manchester police’s detection rates are higher than this time last year in all priority areas, with good prospects of its achieving the end-of-year detection targets for serious acquisitive crime, domestic burglary, vehicle crime, serious sexual offences, robbery and rape. That is what it has achieved.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I will, although the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate and just came into the Chamber a few minutes ago. If he wants to intervene on me, he can do so.
Gordon Birtwistle
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but his comments led me to do so. Should we not congratulate the chief constable of Greater Manchester police on delivering what he has delivered with less money, rather than complain about what is going on there?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
The hon. Gentleman could have said that to the chief constable himself if he had bothered to turn up for the briefing yesterday evening.
The cuts that are going to take place will damage what Greater Manchester police has been able to achieve. There is a shortfall of £134 million over the four years to 2014-15, and funding is down for the predictable future. Already, there has been a fall of 4% in the number of police officers available to the force, and there will be a huge fall from 7,656 to 6,556 by 2015.
In considering what the feelings of Greater Manchester police are, I turn to Inspector Damian O’Reilly, one of the finest police officers in this country. He operates in my constituency and was the winner of the national award for community police officer of the year. He contacted me last evening and told me that I was welcome to quote him by name. He says that the cuts are
“cutting away at the muscle of the organisation, not just the fat…With cuts to pay and conditions we feel really undervalued.”
That is what one of the most outstanding police officers in the entire country has to say. He has a fantastic record of crime reduction and control, so his views are more authoritative than mine or those of anyone else in the Chamber.
Let us look at how other people are feeling about the cuts. I received a letter a few days ago from a police constable in my constituency. I will not mention her name, because I do not have her authority to do so, but she wrote:
“I have great concern in relation to the police pay and condition that I will be victim of this year, paying more in to my pension and working for longer hours for less pay…I work full time hours and have a mortgage to pay for, I am genuinely worried about my future with the police force and how it’s going to affect my financial status.”
With sentiments and misgivings of that kind, how can she and her colleagues be expected to continue to give their full heart and attention to preventing crime? Of course detecting crime is important, and Greater Manchester’s figures on that are excellent, but we need to prevent crime. If we send a police constable who feels like that out on to the streets, she will still work as hard as she possibly can. How should we feel about exploiting such people and not giving them the recompense and recognition to which they are undoubtedly entitled?
The issue is not simply police detection, but, as the previous speaker pointed out, social environment. In constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is at 10.3%, and youth unemployment is twice that, we are forcing kids out on to the streets. The overwhelming majority of young people are decent and law-abiding and will never commit a crime, but if they are out on the streets, with no facilities, having been forced out of higher education by the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, they are put in temptation’s way. It is essential that we stop that.
As the chief constable concurred in our discussion yesterday evening, although the sharp end of policing is important, so is the social background and context. He explained how his people work with social organisations both to reduce crime and to reclaim those who have committed crimes. If we shove young people into prison or detention when we could do other things to make them good citizens, they will learn how to be criminals. If they are out of prison and not committing offences, they can learn to be good citizens.
An organisation in my constituency called Reclaim does marvellous work to reclaim young people who have offended and give them socially useful tasks. It incorporates them into an organisation in which they know and respect one another. The police work with Reclaim, which is one of the most important bodies in stopping young people turning away from law and order and into crime. I very much hope that its recent application for £125,000 from the social action fund, administered by the Cabinet Office, will be favourably considered. Money spent on policing is important, and I deplore the cuts in the moneys available to spend on policing, but money to reclaim young people from potential lives of crime and make them into good, valuable, positive citizens with a social commitment is even more important.
The police, and certainly those in Greater Manchester, do a fine job. They have wonderful connections with the local population. Inspector O’Reilly does “report back” meetings, the most recent of which was attended by 600 people, which shows the extent to which the police are connecting with the people in Gorton and the rest of my constituency. They do a fine job and deserve far better.
My constituents want to feel safe when they go out on to the streets and in their homes. That is not being helped—it is being damaged—by this Government of cuts and stunts. The chief constable has said how valuable co-operation is, and I agree with him. I hope we can work together to reduce crime and to give the members of our police force the confidence that we in the House of Commons support them in the essential and often dangerous work that they do.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
This has been an entertaining and enlightening debate. I apologise for having to leave it for a short period to attend a lobby.
I have listened to the debate with great interest. My gast has been flabbered on occasion as I heard Labour Back Benchers criticising police cuts, while the shadow Secretary of State confirmed in response to my question that she would cut my police force were she Home Secretary today. She also said that she would cut the police force of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and every force in the country, with the possible exception of London—although she criticised extra funding for London, she also appeared to support it.
I was staggered to hear some of the things that Labour Members said, for precisely the reason I highlighted when I intervened on the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. In 2009, police numbers in my police force—Humberside—fell by 137. As I said, we saw not a single Labour politician criticising that reduction on the streets or in the newspapers. In fact, they made the case for reducing those numbers by stating that reducing numbers did not necessarily mean reducing the impact of front-line policing. Labour Members now have the audacity to go out on the streets in parts of my area—although not in my constituency—gathering signatures for a petition against police cuts. I suspect the petition is not quite so honest as to say, “We do not support the Government’s cuts, but we support the Opposition’s cuts of at least 12%.”
Tony Lloyd
Did the hon. Gentleman campaign for or against the police cuts in the previous Parliament?
Andrew Percy
I was obviously not a Member of the House in the previous Parliament, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at my voting record on police motions since I have been a Member.
Tony Lloyd
With respect, I asked whether the hon. Gentleman campaigned for or against those cuts. He was outside the House, but he was a candidate.
Andrew Percy
I spent 10 years as a local authority councillor, representing an area in the city of Hull where there was a huge increase in antisocial behaviour. I spent most of my time campaigning to get more police on the streets. My primary concern throughout was visible, effective policing. I suspect that we—my constituents in my council ward and I—never obsessed about total numbers; we obsessed about getting people on to the streets to fight crime. I have the same obsession today.
I note the bizarre position of Labour politicians. They oppose cuts but have confirmed in the House that they would significantly cut the policing budget. They were also very supportive of cuts before the election. In the run-up to the general election, the probation service in Humberside had its budget cut by 20%, but not a single Labour politician was on the streets in Brigg and Goole or elsewhere in Humberside to criticise that. Perhaps—heaven forbid—people say one thing in government and another when they are in opposition.
On the previous Labour Government’s record on policing, I was intrigued by the intervention of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who spoke of those glory days of policing in North Yorkshire. The beauty of being a born-and-bred Yorkshireman—I have lived there all my life—is that I remember seeing on television, during those Labour years, North Yorkshire police force condemning its traffic officers and vehicles to the yards because it did not have enough money to pay for diesel.
Andrew Percy
I will happily give way to the shadow Minister—he can tell us whether he is in line with the shadow Home Secretary on freezing police pay, because the House is entertained by that spat.
Mr Hanson
Will the hon. Gentleman check the facts when he goes to the Library of the House after this debate? He will find that there were 126,000 police officers in 1997 and 144,000 to 145,000 in 2010, which is an increase of about 20,000 police officers on the beat and on the streets. He will also find that there was a reduction in crime of 43% over the period.
Andrew Percy
I am disappointed that the shadow Minister did not take that opportunity to explain why the same Labour politicians who now criticise police cuts in Humberside failed to utter a word in 2009 about the reduction in numbers. I will gladly give way again if he wishes to explain that to the House and my constituents, who I am sure are watching.
I turn to the record of policing and the crime figures, which people often bandy around. I am a cynic when it comes to crime figures because I think that what people see on the ground is different from recorded crime, although I note that I used to criticise crime figures while in opposition and that the Labour party is now criticising this Government’s crime figures—so perhaps we are all guilty of flip-flopping on this matter.
Nevertheless, I recall that when I was a local councillor trying to deal with a significant increase in the number of recorded cases of antisocial behaviour, police precepts in Humberside rose by 500%, and our local police force spent lots of money building police stations for its so-called neighbourhood policing agenda before abandoning or having to find alternative uses for them after changing their minds again.
I also recall £6 million of Humberside’s policing budget being spent on policing overtime, despite the huge waiting list of people wishing to be specials. I remember chairing the licensing committee when 24-hour drinking came in and seeing the huge impact that it had on city centre drinking in the city of Hull, as it was known then. No resources were provided for that.
I also recall a huge amount of central control. Despite what was said about policing numbers, in the area that I represented and in many rural areas of Humberside, across east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, under diktats from central Government, policing resources were drawn into Hull city centre and other town centres, at the insistence of the Home Office, in order to deal with volume crime. That left communities such as mine with no police cover during evenings and weekends.
I question whether these increases in police numbers resulted in an increase in the numbers of front-line officers. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but people always say to me, “You never see a police officer on the street.” People said that 10 years ago when I started as a councillor, but perhaps they said the same thing 10 years before. Perceptions vary, however, so I note that Labour’s record on policing and crime might not be quite as presented by some Opposition Members.
It is interesting that the shadow Home Secretary confirmed that she would cut police budgets across the country. That might be some welcome honesty in the politics of the Opposition—we do not often hear much clarity on their budgetary policies. Nevertheless, she admitted that she would cut the policing budget significantly, so we all seem to agree that we cannot continue to invest the same amount of money as we have in the past three years, and that we must find another way forward.
As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made clear, people need to work more closely together. Over the past 10 years in one east Yorkshire community, a new fire station, a new ambulance station and a new police station have been built—nobly, perhaps—but with public money and in isolation from each other, with all the extra costs that that entails. I meet with some resistance when I talk to the police, because although they talk about wanting to work together more closely, it is always with other police forces. I am not sure that they fully understand the need to work together more closely with other emergency services and local authorities.
It always struck me as a bit bonkers that we had a chief executive for the fire authority, a chief executive for the police authority and different financial officers. Surely those back-office costs could be merged. My chief constable, Tim Hollis, is an excellent chief constable and I support a lot of his work in Humberside, but although he is open to working together more closely, it concerns me a little that that seems to be about working with other police forces, because there are real opportunities to engage with local authorities in order to reduce some of these costs.
Local authorities have a role as well. One of the two local authorities that I represent, North Lincolnshire council, which, as Members will remember, was the only council to go from Labour control to Conservative control last May—thanks to all the gains in Brigg and Goole—is considering using some of the council’s budget to support community policing across my area in order to meet the policing challenges. Admittedly, that is not new—for several years from 2000, despite the apparently fantastic settlement from the Labour Government at the time, the Labour council in Hull still felt the need to put £1 million of council tax payers’ money into policing. Therefore, there is a role for local authorities.
We have a choice. We can stand up and do the cheap politics, while also wanting to cut the police budget significantly, or we can try to find local solutions. I would love it if we could pepper money around all over the shop and put police officers on every street corner—we would all like that to a lesser or greater extent—but in reality policing budgets are under pressure, so we can either moan from the sidelines or we can engage with our local police forces and local councils, and have them come up with solutions and ways of doing things smarter and more cheaply, and, if necessary, use some of the additional resources. Local authorities employ thousands of people, and there is the potential for working together more closely than has been the case, although I accept it happens in some areas. That will be the challenge for us all as we move forward.
We might not like the position that we are in, but we know why we are in it, although I have not felt the need to remind the House of it. We have to be grown-up about this. What concerns me most is that by making cheap politics out of it, people are undermining confidence in policing, which we all know is very important.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
In August, Birmingham was hard hit by outrageous and unacceptable behaviour that saw communities terrorised, but led by our admirable chief constable, Chris Sims, police officers restored order. They were truly heroic. They were the thin blue line protecting communities from rioting and robbery.
What was absolutely wrong, however, was Conservative Ministers returning from holiday in their Bermuda shorts seeking to take the credit despite having had nothing to do with the work of restoring order to the streets. What was absolutely wrong was crazy talk about baton rounds, water cannon and bringing in the army, which would have led to a downward spiral into yet further violence. The police were right to reject such nonsense and instead defend the British model of community policing. They, themselves, have learned painful lessons from history, from Scarman, through Macpherson and onwards, that we can only police the community with the support of the community. It was Chris Sims who said that had it not been for that support, his officers would have struggled to restore order.
When Labour was in government, we, together with the police, made a real difference—they, on the one hand, evolving that unique model of British community policing, and us, on the other hand, investing in the police service, resulting in nearly 20,000 additional police officers and 16,000 extra police community support officers. The consequence was a 43% reduction in crime. We were the first Government in history to leave office with crime falling rather than rising.
What is also absolutely wrong—I ask Government Members to search their conscience on this—is to break a promise. The Liberal Democrat Leader said, “Vote for me and you will have 3,000 extra police officers on the beat.” Not one Conservative Member went to his or her constituents and said, “Vote for me and I’ll cut the number of police officers on the beat.”
The consequences in the west midlands are serious. Twelve hundred police officers are going. We have heard some creative accounting and fantasy figures, but may we return to the real world of what is happening at the sharp end? Some 634 officers have gone already, most of them forced out under regulation A19, and among them are some of the most outstanding police officers in Birmingham and Britain. There is Tim Kennedy, a detective with one of the best records of tackling acquisitive crime and a high detection rate; Tony Fisher, who put away, first, a robber who had stolen from pensioners at cash points for 13 years and then a machete-wielding robber of local shops for 17 years; Dave Hewitt, an outstanding neighbourhood sergeant; and Mark Stokes, the acknowledged national expert in designing out crime on our streets and estates. Sixteen officers are going from the counter-terrorism squad, including the head of counter-terrorism and the head of crime. All are being forced out against their will. They are some of the best officers I have had the privilege of working with—I am proud to call them friends—but they are being forced out at the age of 48 or 49.
To add insult to injury, some of the officers forced out under A19 were approached after the riots by G4S, which was brought in to help deal with the post-riots investigations, and asked whether they would like to come back and work as a police officer once again, but this time for G4S, actually costing the taxpayer more. We also had some absurdities, such as when the community in Quinton was told, “We’ll no longer be able to keep open the front office”—where the public come in and interface with the police—“but perhaps we could, if you were prepared to man the police station yourselves.” Where will it end? Next the Government will be asking local communities to arrest criminals themselves.
We have heard repeatedly from the Government—I quote the Home Secretary—that “We can make all these savings while protecting the front line.” However, let me set out what we have discovered is actually happening on the ground, right now, in the west midlands. Thirty-two front-line police officers—some of the best still serving—have been taken off the front line and put into the back room, because the police are having to cope with cuts on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented speed. As a consequence, there are two detectives in Birmingham South who are off the front line and into the back office; three in Sutton Coldfield—off the front line, into the back office; four in Birmingham South, Bournville neighbourhood—off the front line, into the back office; four in Coventry—off the front line, into the back office; eight in Dudley—off the front line, into the back office; and 11 in Solihull—off the front line, into the back office. They include one officer, in Birmingham South, Bournville, who has been taken off the front line and put into a back office to do filing, in the post-riots filing system.
Mr Ruffley
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that those movements to the back office have been made, but that is exactly the kind of thing that the Government think is wrong. I wonder whether he could share with us the explanation of the chief constable, who is ultimately answerable for that movement of uniformed officers into the back office.
Jack Dromey
With the greatest of respect—I genuinely have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—it is wrong to cut the police and then blame them for those cuts. If we impose unprecedented cuts at reckless speed, we force the very best in the leadership of our police service into a nigh-on impossible situation. They are trying to manage that deeply difficult situation well, but it is one that will inevitably lead to perverse outcomes. That is the simple reality. Instead of quoting inspectors saying, “I relish the challenge,” as was done earlier, it is about time that this House listened to what is happening at the sharp end. Indeed, one of those front-line officers contacted me just yesterday. It was heartbreaking to hear a good man who has given all his life to our police service saying, “I never thought this would happen to me. I was dedicated to the job I was doing. I feel now that I’ve got no alternative but to leave the police service.”
Let me say this in conclusion. The police do not always get it right. I think all hon. Members will have experience of having to intervene locally, in dialogue with the police, in response to pressures from the community. However, I know from my experience that what the police always do—precisely because they are champions of community policing—is respond. If, however, they get it wrong, of course we should criticise and hold them to account. However, today we should also celebrate that British model of community policing.
Back before Christmas, I addressed a rally of 500 police officers in Birmingham, together with the national chairman of the Police Federation. As they said, one after the other, not in living memory have any Government lost so quickly the support of the police service in Britain. What those officers expressed, one after the other, was utter dismay. Of course there were concerns about pay and pensions, but there was also dismay about their fellow officers—their friends—being forced out under A19, and them having to work long and hard to compensate. However, those officers also said something else, and one of them put it very powerfully when he said, “Jack, I’ve never felt so downgraded or denigrated by any Government,” because in the promotion of the notion of police commissioners, we have had a constant undermining of the police. That is why our message today is it is time for the Government to listen to what local communities are saying—to think again, to change course, to stop undermining the police. They should back the police, not sack the police.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I, too, want to quote the phrase “not in living memory”. Not in living memory have any Government inherited such a financial mess as we, this coalition Government, have. We have had to take spending decisions very seriously. Opposition Members have made the point that perhaps we ought to share the responsibility, but the point that should be recognised is that hon. Members all sides would have had to make reductions.
The Opposition paint us as though we do not care about our police forces, but that is wrong. Devon and Cornwall police force does a very good job with excellent officers, but we know full well that we cannot carry on borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spend. We also know that if we do not have a pay freeze for officers, we will have to reduce their numbers even further, because we would not be able to maintain even the current numbers. We have to grow up and say what the coalition Government are saying: yes, police forces do a great job, but we can afford only a certain amount of money. The Labour party makes much of the fact that it spent huge amounts on new headquarters across the country, but they were not paid for there and then. They are being paid for now, and will be in the future, adding to public expenditure. All those points have to be reinforced, because we could not carry on as we had been.
It is right—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made this point—that it is down to the chief constables and police authorities in local areas to make reductions where they see fit. It is also down to the chief constables to ensure that front-line policing is maintained. I went out with my local police officers before the general election, and they said that if they make an arrest, they then have to do seven hours of paperwork. I hope that we are tackling that, and if we are not, I am sure that the Minister will tackle it, because there is no doubt that we can reduce bureaucracy and make much better use of police time. We have to accept that there is not the money in the Exchequer or anywhere else, whoever had got into power, because it was all wasted by the previous Government. That is why we have to take these actions. I would much prefer it if, instead of trying to pull apart what we are sensibly trying to do, the Opposition came to this Chamber with some genuinely concrete proposals for how we can move forward together.
I want to see as many community police officers out on the beat as possible. Indeed, every time the chief constable walked into a police station and found a lot of police officers there, would it not be a good idea—I know that some chief constables are doing this—if he asked why they were there and not out on the beat, policing and catching criminals, which is what we put them there for? There is a great deal more that can be done. There are many great police officers and very good police constables in this country, but we have to find the very best practices to get value for money. In the end, that is what it is about—value for money. The last Government were not about value for money; they were about throwing money around. Some of it went to the right places and some of it to the wrong places. Now we have to pick up the cudgel and make the money we have go further.
I look forward to the police looking at how they spend their budget. I think there is no need for big front-line cuts. If it is looked at dramatically and properly, we can police ourselves in the future very well. Yes, our constituents and the residents of our towns and villages are concerned about policing and crime statistics; they are always conscious of crime. Whatever side of the House we are on, we all know that. What the Government will do is ensure that they put the money in the right places so that policing carries on and we keep the crime statistics where they are and, hopefully, lower them in future, but at a rate that the country can afford, unlike under the last Government.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke passionately about their local areas. Notwithstanding the debate over police numbers, I think we all recognise the huge amount of work being done at a local level. I shall start with a couple of local issues, before moving on to the wider national issues.
On the situation in Leicestershire, we will sadly see a reduction in the police grant of almost £4 million. When I spoke to Chief Constable Simon Cole this morning, he talked about a very complicated formula that first gave us the money but then took it away because of the damping element. He, like every police force, will struggle to meet the ambitions that he and others have to achieve the reductions that the Government have put in place.
Last Saturday’s events, when the English Defence League marched through Leicester, remind us that police authorities struggle not only because of the reductions but because of events occurring that cannot be predicted. I want to pay tribute to Simon Cole and to Leicester’s mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, for how they handled that march. The EDL is not welcome in Leicester, but it was given the opportunity to march because we believe in the fundamental principles of freedom of speech. The fact is that the 2,000 police officers who came out on to the streets will cost £800,000. With the possibility of an EDL march in Leeds, the people of Leeds—in the end, it is the taxpayer who will pay—are going to have to pay another large sum. When I intervened on the Minister, I know he said that applications for a special grant can be made, and we will ask him to help us with these costs, because these are not costs of our making; we had to police that demonstration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington alluded to the recent riots, which reminded me that local police forces have been left with a shortfall. I have figures for the Metropolitan police. I am told that costs under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 will be £198 million, with a further £78 million for operational policing costs; yet the Home Office will pay only £100 million and £52.7 million for the policing costs, so there is a shortfall of about £20 million for the Metropolitan police. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance to areas such as Birmingham, and to a lesser extent to Leicester, where there were disorders rather than huge riots, but most particularly to London, that help will be forthcoming from the Home Office, as the Prime Minister promised when I put the point to him during his statement just after the riots. He said that the Government would meet the costs of all the extra issues that arose as a result of the riots; I can give the Minister the Hansard extract if necessary.
I do not want to talk about numbers, as the issue has been well rehearsed eloquently by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, particularly by the shadow Home Secretary and the Minister. What I want to talk about is procurement, as this is an area in respect of which there will be common cause. IT procurement costs the public £1.2 billion annually. The Minister has told us that the Government are keen to ensure that savings are made. Forces currently have 2,000 separate and bespoke information and communication technology systems that are serviced by 5,000 different members of staff.
The National Audit Office recently published a report on the use of mobile phones, and I declare an interest in having a BlackBerry, although I am not certain that I use all its features. However, in my conversations with the BlackBerry people, they assure me that the BlackBerrys they have given to South Yorkshire police, for example, have resulted in savings of £6 million. This is not rocket science. It was a recommendation of the Select Committee in November 2008 when we said that sufficient funding should be
“made available as soon as possible to enable all frontline officers to have access to”
hand-held devices. We talk about waste and procurement; that would have saved a huge amount of money. We still face a situation in which police officers of different police forces are buying these services from different suppliers and are operating different devices.
I understand that the system in South Yorkshire—I am sure the Minister will be familiar with it—allows the individual police officer to access the police national computer, the warrants database, the electoral roll, command and control, case study records, intelligence briefings, crime tasking, electronic witness statements and shift briefing. That is the sort of thing we need to give our police officers so that they do not spend their time dealing with the bureaucracy of which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke. We are all against bureaucracy; who wants the police to be filling in lots of pieces of paper?
If we look at new technology—I do not know whether a mobile phone is described as such these days—I believe this is the way for us to go forward. Nineteen forces have mobile phones for fewer than 50% of their officers, and according to the National Audit Office only one in five use it effectively. We give out the equipment, but perhaps do not train officers as effectively as we should.
I am all for the Minister mandating collaboration. I know that the Home Office and central Government are reluctant to tread on the toes of individual chief constables, but police and crime commissioners are going to be introduced in November, and I hope they will have a leading role to play on procurement. We need to be in a position not to allow all 43 forces to buy their own equipment. The Minister was here for Prime Minister’s questions when my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue that four police authorities were buying Hyundai police cars. Of course, my hon. Friend’s point was about British jobs given that they come from North Korea, but I saw the issue as being primarily one of why all our police cars are not the same; I wondered why, when I went to Kent, there was a different make of police car from those I saw in Leicestershire. This is a no brainer.
I am pleased with what the permanent secretary at the Home Office said. I was glad when she was not appointed the head of the home civil service—not because I do not think she is capable, as I think she is an extraordinarily capable woman, but because I think the permanent secretary to the Home Office is a big job to do. When she came before the Committee she talked about the so-called Argos catalogue—her choice of shop; I do not know whether Dame Helen goes there regularly. We have been pushing for a long time for a catalogue with nationally agreed prices from which everyone buys. Why the previous Labour Government did not do that, I do not know. My defence is that I was the Minister for Europe so I did not have a chance to be in the Home Office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) did a great job as a Minister, but this is a difficult task, as he will tell us.
Mr Ruffley
The right hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done much under his leadership to raise awareness of the efficiencies that can be delivered by police forces from existing budgets. When he talks about mandating collaboration, is he suggesting that the whole of England and Wales should be divided up and that every force should be mandated to collaborate with a neighbouring force or neighbouring forces?
Keith Vaz
It could be that; of course legislation allows that to happen. The Minister has told us what he did about helicopters with the National Police Air Service. As I remember, South Yorkshire did not want to share its helicopters but the Government said, “You have to share, because a helicopter is quite an expensive piece of equipment.” I do not care where it is done, and I do not think we should hang ourselves on a hook as far as who should say what, but it is common sense to be in a position where we can do this. I think Dame Helen Ghosh gets it, and that is why the Committee will interview her on a regular basis about her commitment to procurement. We want to see not just the kind of savings we have had so far, but much bigger savings.
Finally, let me speak about police pay and conditions. We all have huge admiration for the police. Tom Winsor will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee shortly, and I think the Minister needs to take the temperature of the Police Federation and ordinary police officers. He meets them every day and sees them on many occasions, so I cannot lecture him about this, but morale is very low and I think that Mr Winsor has gone too far. We need to be very careful when we deal with police pay and conditions. The previous Labour Government got it wrong—Jacqui Smith got it wrong and so did my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—when they did not allow the pay rise that the police ought to have been given when the arbitration committee decided that they should have that pay rise. This time, we should make sure that we carry police officers with us in making the massive changes that the Government are putting in place. That is vital because this is the biggest change to the policing landscape we have seen in this country since Sir Robert Peel’s time.
We should remunerate the police well, we should not be mean and vindictive to them and we should not get rid of the most experienced officers. That is something we are seeing in this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned, where some of our most experienced people are being told they have to go. When I say in this House, I do not mean Members of the House, luckily, as I have been here a long time, but those who guard the Palace of Westminster. We need to value that experience. I hope that the Minister will look again at pay and conditions and will try to bring Mr Winsor under a little bit of control. We are dealing not with railways—I know Mr Winsor was the rail regulator—but with real people in real jobs who protect our constituents. They are the people we lionise in times of crisis, and we should reward them properly for the work they do.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I begin by apologising, Mr Deputy Speaker, for not being here for the whole debate, as I have had duties elsewhere in the House today.
The problem with the police settlement is that it repeats a pattern that is becoming familiar: there is a sense that a streak of unfairness runs through whatever the Government turn their hand to, and that far from us all being in it together, there are very clear sets of arrangements that favour some at the expense of others. Let me take the example of the Met, which we all accept faces enormous pressures. It is about to be given £90 million of additional funding, which is enough to recruit about 1,000 additional officers, to help with its extra responsibilities next year. I do not deny that the Met will have extra responsibilities, but neither has it escaped my attention, or the attention of a number of my constituents, that the Conservative party and Boris Johnson have an election battle to face this year. That might well be influencing some of these decisions.
I would like the Minister to tell me why we in the west midlands do not need extra money next year. We have a visit from the Queen as part of the diamond jubilee, which will require additional policing, and we have Jamaican independence day. There is a significant Jamaican population across the west midlands and many events are planned that will require policing. In Birmingham there will be an all-day market in the city centre, which will require additional policing. Birmingham is to host the Jamaican and United States Olympic athletics teams, and that will require additional security and policing. West Midlands police are engaged in the advance policing for Euro 2012, and the further England progresses in the tournament, the greater will be their commitment.
Why are we in the west midlands not entitled to some additional funding for those commitments when the Met’s position has been recognised and provided for? Why should I be told that I am wrong to draw a comparison with what is happening in the context of the London mayoral election? I ask those questions because they are the questions that my constituents are asking me. They tell me that it is not fair. They do not think that we are all in it together; they think that they have been singled out for worse treatment than the Government are prepared to give the Met. The Minister knows perfectly well—because a delegation of west midlands Members of Parliament went to see him last year—that the West Midlands force is underfunded, and that if the police formula were applied fairly, we would receive a substantially larger grant than we are receiving now.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) pointed out earlier, there is a recruitment freeze in the west midlands. According to the latest estimate, by 2015 we shall have lost about 2,764 jobs, which is 450 more than the Minister would have been aware of at the time of the original projections. That means the loss of about 1,165 officers, 122 police community support officers and 1,477 ancillary staff. By March 2012, there will have been 88 compulsory redundancies. It is simply not true that that is not a problem, or that the situation can be easily managed. It is certainly not true that the West Midlands police authority and the chief constable have not been trying to deal with the problem. They have cut £40 million from their budget, they will cut a further £38 million from it next year, and they will cut £126 million over the four-year period.
I do not know how many major organisations policing an area of the size that the West Midlands authority is required to police could easily cut £126 million from their budgets over a four-year period without making any impact on the service that they provide, but I should be interested to hear from any such organisation. What I do know is that 80% of the police budget is made up of pay, and that if cuts on this scale must be made, jobs will inevitably be cut. That is obvious to most people. The fact that a Prime Minister can stand here and pretend that there is an increase in policing on our streets when everyone’s experience is to the contrary beggars belief.
Moreover—we have put this to the Minister repeatedly—because the cuts are front-loaded, they will limit the capacity for efficiency gains and business transformation. Those things could be achieved, and, indeed, West Midlands police are working towards achieving them. As far as I am aware, there is no sense that people in the west midlands do not want change, but some change takes time, especially if it is intended to deliver efficiency gains, and this change cannot be achieved within the time scale that the Minister is forcing on those people.
It is also not true that people in the west midlands do not accept that there is an argument for cuts. Even the chairman of the West Midlands Police Federation has stated clearly that, while recognising that 12% cuts will pose a challenge, he does not believe that they will have an immediate impact on front-line policing. However, he knows from experience and from his contact with his members—real police officers on the ground—that 20% cuts will pose an enormous challenge, and that it will not be possible to make them without cutting front-line services.
We need a bit more fairness in the way the money is shared around. If there are going to be cuts, then we should all be in this together, and the people of the west midlands have as much entitlement to policing and recognition of the policing challenges facing them as do the people living in the Met area. The Minister must look again at the impact on the front line in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands. The transformations that he says he wants could be effected if he were to permit more time and space for the job to be done properly.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into the private investigator business. It is unregulated, and it is clear that as the police are forced to withdraw from certain areas of life, the private sector will move in. That could make the situation worse, not better.
Has the Minister had a chance to look at the allegations coming out of Birmingham that the private sector has withdrawn from running Birmingham prison and has handed it over to two major gangs who have transferred their business from the streets of Birmingham to the prison’s cell blocks and landings? The people of the west midlands are certainly not asking for that kind of unregulated private sector. They are not against change, but they want change that is managed, fair and reasonable, and that will deliver security and safety. We will not get it at this pace and with this level of cuts, and with unfair advantages being given to the Met because other people have other issues on their minds.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am glad that we have had this debate. As there are merely two minutes for each Front-Bench spokesman to respond, I will just reiterate the key points that have been made.
We are calling for the Government to reopen the Home Office funding settlement for police forces across England and Wales. As has been made clear in the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), we do not believe that this settlement is sufficient to meet the needs of policing in the 21st century. Speaking from the Government Benches, the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) hold a different view, which I respect but disagree with.
The Labour party supports reductions of 12%, which HMIC recognises as deliverable. We are not against collaboration on voluntary mergers, overtime reductions and procurement of cars, uniforms, IT and air support, nor are we against deployment changes or the paperwork challenge. What we are against are the Government’s proposed cuts, which will lead to 16,000 police officer posts being lost and take some £700 million out of next year’s policing budget for England and Wales—and it has been signalled that there will be still further cuts in future years. The Minister knows that that will have a dramatic impact; no amount of smoke and mirrors will hide the fact that there will be a real and deep cut in the policing grant in England and Wales.
The Minister need not listen to me; I am a Labour politician, after all—the former Minister now supporting my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. However, he should listen to the chief constable of Kent, who says:
“The cuts, if they are 20%, will take us back to 2001 so that’s quite a significant drawback into police numbers.”
The Minister should listen to the chief constable of Manchester who said that the current financial year is
“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory.”
The Minister should listen to the chief constable of Gloucestershire who said:
“Here in Gloucestershire we are potentially in the middle of the perfect storm”,
and added that it takes
“us to a metaphorical cliff-edge more quickly than others.”
The Minister should also listen to the chief constable of Dyfed Powys, who says that
“nobody should be under any illusions, we still have to cut costs significantly but at least the 5% increase in the precept would mean our situation won’t get any worse.”
When Labour left office, police numbers were at record levels—there were 16,500 more officers than in 1997 and there were also 16,000 new PCSOs—and crime fell by 43% under Labour. The Government settlement takes £700 million out of policing. This House should oppose it. The Opposition will certainly do so.
Nick Herbert
I congratulate the shadow Minister on his two-minute speech. I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary did not allow him to do more and lead the debate, as has been the tradition in this place.
I strongly agree with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), about the opportunity in respect of procurement. Last year, we put in place the first mandatory framework, covering some key services, including police cars, body armour and a wide range of commodity IT hardware and software. This will ensure that all forces use the specified frameworks—the right hon. Gentleman’s “shopping list”—so the full potential for savings in these categories, £27 million, can be achieved by 2014-15. We are consulting on going further to specify frameworks used by the service when buying further equipment, including vehicle light bars, digital interviewing equipment, translation services, mobile telephony and some e-consultancy. Savings of £34 million so far are projected to rise to £70 million by the end of this financial year, rising, as I said, to at least £200 million by 2014-15.
That is a really good example of what can be achieved, and it is noticeable that, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Leicester East, no Opposition Member talked about any of those issues. It was my hon. Friends who raised deployment issues—how well resources can be spent—and who talked about the things forces can do to adjust to the lower spending and to continue to deliver a high-quality service. Opposition Front Benchers continue to make absolutely no mention of these issues. We know now that they support the police arbitration tribunal report, the pay freeze, the overtime measures and the cuts they are criticising, but they have nothing to say about procurement, outsourcing and whether it is right to bring performance up to the standard of the best. Their mantra is—to use the shadow Minister’s words—to call on us to reopen the settlement. It is the same old story: calling on us to spend more money, and that is exactly what got the country into this mess in the first place.
Question put,
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you are aware of the fact, but one of the lifts on the Committee corridor is not working and that is leading to a long queue of Members seeking to arrive in the Lobby. I wonder whether you would consider extending the time available for this Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I certainly will take that into account before I ask for the doors to be locked. I appreciate that not every Member is as athletic as he is. He was able to sprint his way to the Chamber, but I will make allowances for the less athletic.
Local Government Finance
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
18:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 213 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps)
I beg to move,
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2012-13, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Mr Deputy SpeakerMr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we may take the following motion
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2012-13 (HC 1801), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Grant Shapps
Over recent weeks my colleagues and I have had many conversations with local government. We have spoken to individual authorities, the Local Government Association, London Councils and other representatives. They bring a degree of realism about public finances which is sometimes absent from the House. They know that local authorities account for more than a quarter of total Government spending, and that tackling the record deficit is the responsible thing to do. They know that this helps families as well.
In these tough times, as a proportion of total income, interest payments for mortgages are currently at their lowest since records began. A Labour Government would have meant more expensive mortgages, failing to tackle the deficit—[Hon. Members: “No, it would not.”] Yes, it would, because failing to tackle the deficit would have meant bigger spending cuts and higher taxes. One has only to look at Italy and Greece to see that their borrowing costs have rocketed. They are cutting local government spending, proportionally, far faster and far more than we have had to do here in Britain. Let us look at the Republic of Ireland, which has had to introduce a new property tax to try to plug the gap. The reckless calls from the Opposition to spend more money, have higher taxes and ignore the cuts would lead us to very difficult times for families across this country.
Councils have come to discussions with a positive and constructive attitude, which does them great credit. As we have seen, councils are making a huge effort to make the money that is available go further. They have innovated, done things differently, reformed and rethought their services. For example, Lichfield and Tamworth district councils are now sharing their waste collection services. Councils have tried to cut out every instance of duplication. For example, Lincolnshire is bringing county and district data together so that people have to tell councils only once when they want to get something done.
Councils have thrown open their doors to shine a spotlight on waste and drive it out. All councils across England have chosen to publish online their expenditure over £500—all councils except for one sorry exception, Labour Nottingham city council. It is disappointing that Opposition Front Benchers still support the continued arrogant and outrageous secrecy against the residents of Nottingham city, who deserve to see how their money is spent. [Interruption.] They laugh about it, but the public have a right to see how their cash is spent. If the Labour party had some mettle, it would stand up to its local authorities that are refusing to publish that information. My Department has published online every single penny of Government procurement card spending, which has helped cut such spending by three quarters.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about transparency, and Nottingham city council should indeed publish that information, but does not he understand why local government gets a little cross when he and his colleagues lecture everyone on transparency but do not apply it to information on their ministerial hospitality and gifts? Can he explain why the latest such information published on his Department’s website, which I visited yesterday, is for eight months ago, even though it is meant to be published every three months?
Grant Shapps
First, the whole House will have noted that for the first time, as far as I am aware, a Labour Front Bencher has deplored Nottingham city council’s failure to publish its information transparently. Secondly, it is absolutely right to say that we have decided to publish everything as openly as possible, including not only all expenditure over £500, but every penny of expenditure under £500. The next set is about to be released, as publication is on a six-monthly timetable.
Many councils have made excellent progress in saving cash before cutting services, but there is more to do. Last year councils in England spent £61 billion on procurement, but billions more could be saved by tackling purchasing fraud, stopping duplicated payment, improving bulk buying and joint working, using electronic auctions, negotiating harder and opening up contracts to small and medium-sized firms by cutting tendering red tape. Councils can do more for less, and part of the Government’s plan is to help them do that, not by tinkering and controlling, but by giving them certainty about what is around the corner. That brings me to the two-year settlement.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is probably the 15th Housing Minister, from all parties, who has stood at the Dispatch Box and called for more efficiency. No one is arguing that we cannot get more efficiency out of any organisation, but is not what he is saying a smokescreen for the fact that he is cutting millions of pounds from some of the poorest communities in Britain?
Grant Shapps
I am probably the first Housing and Local Government Minister in some time who has been able to discuss the matter at the Dispatch Box for two years running because, unlike the previous Administration, we have not been reshuffled every two minutes. I must say that I have just read out a long list of things councils could do, from stopping purchasing fraud and duplicated payments to improving bulk buying and joint working. Councils have begun to do that, and to do it well, and we have seen some impressive results over the past year.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
On the subject of purchasing orders, does my right hon. Friend agree that Hertfordshire county council could look at not going forward with the PFI scheme that might see a large incinerator landed on the border between his constituency and mine, as they are very poor value for money?
Grant Shapps
I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that sensitive local issue, which she will understand I cannot comment on as a Minister with responsibility for planning. It is true that councils that have used procurement wisely, for example through online procurement, competitive working, ensuring that they follow through on getting a purchase order, which is pretty basic, and paying only when they can prove that the goods have been delivered, have saved millions of pounds.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that next year he proposes absolutely no decline in aggregate Exchequer finance, which is going to be about level, and a £1 billion increase in total grants and special grants to local authorities? The Opposition are rather overdoing the gloom.
Grant Shapps
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to pre-empt a later section of this message, which is that the reduction in local government spending power is now coming down to 3.3%. Last year it was 4.4%, so it is true, and it was pointed out many times, that the reductions were front-loaded in order to allow local authorities to adjust properly.
Grant Shapps
I will in a moment.
In this Chamber last year there was an awful lot of noise and heat on the question of why we were cutting up-front in order to ensure that the changes took place, but a year later we see that the vast majority of authorities have managed the process incredibly well. The National Audit Office and others recognise that, and we were right to ensure that we made those cuts up-front.
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we should do all what we can to dispel the myth, put about by the Opposition, regarding deprived areas? Great Yarmouth includes some of the most deprived areas in the country, but its borough council has dealt with the changes and cuts, which have come through thanks to the previous Government’s financial mess, without changing or losing any front-line services. Indeed, it is going further now and looking at tripartite deals on shared services in order to give residents the best deal and to protect front-line services.
Grant Shapps
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to point out that we went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the most vulnerable areas and councils, in particular, were protected.
Grant Shapps
Before we have a barrage of interventions, let me explain to Opposition Members how we did so.
For a start, my hon. Friend’s local council had an 8.8% reduction in spending power, which was the highest of any authority represented in the House, yet he made the comments that he did. We kept the floors and damping in place, we introduced the transition fund, which continues this year, and we did something that no Government of any size or colour had ever done: we increased the needs index from 73% to 83% in the formula grants.
Grant Shapps
Perhaps when I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, he will tell us why he did not encourage his Government to increase the needs formula when they were in power.
Mr Jones
Why is Hartlepool, in the north-east of England, facing a 5.7% reduction in spending per dwelling and paying 0.2%—£5 a dwelling—into the damping fund, while Wokingham’s spending per dwelling is being cut by 1.5%? That surely cannot be fair when we compare the needs of Hartlepool with those of Wokingham.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman’s own local authority had a reduction of 3.2% this year—[Interruption.] His authority had a reduction of 3.2%, which off the top of my head is slightly less than my local authority’s. Different authorities will experience different reductions. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), whose local authority had an 8.8% reduction, yet he sent the very clear message to the House that, because his authority has made some of the right moves, it has been able to cope with the changes.
Grant Shapps
I will just make a little progress.
In reality, money is incredibly short, and we know the impact of not taking action: it is called a credit downgrading, which is what France, Italy, Greece, Ireland and so many other countries have seen. It is as if the entire Opposition are in denial about the mess that this country is in and, in particular, about how we got into it in the first place, which was by continuing to spend money that we did not have.
On the questions that have been raised fairly about why the amounts are different in this district and that district, the answer is that in different areas funding is provided in different ways. In some parts of the country, there is much less reliance on Government funding. If it means that in a particular area more funding is collected through council tax or through services that the council provides and charges for, and less through the amount from central Government, then of course, in tough times when central Government have less money to pay across, it stands to reason that the proportion of spending power may seem different in an area that is entirely or much more dependent on Government spending. The real question to be answered about the settlement is whether we have gone out of our way to ensure that areas that receive more of their funding from the Government purse are better protected. The answer is always yes, because we moved the needs index and kept the transition funds, and because of several other moves.
Grant Shapps
I have given way a few times; I will make a little progress and then take further interventions.
In December 2010, we set out a two-year settlement, and it turns out that there is virtually no difference at all between the settlement that we are discussing today and the one that we set out back then. Despite the challenges, councils have expressed their gratitude for the stability that a two-year settlement provided. I am delighted that we were able to provide that sense of stability.
As with last year, we sought to deliver a fair, sustainable and progressive settlement. As we have just discussed, we have again focused resources on the most vulnerable communities, giving more weight to the level of need, from 73% to 83% within each council, and less weight to the per capita distribution.
Grant Shapps
When I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope very much that he will have listened to the passage that I have just read out, because I am sure that it will answer his question about need. We will give it a try.
Derek Twigg
My borough of Halton is the 19th worst hit of any authority in the country and it is among the top 30 most deprived authorities. How is that fair? Furthermore, why is the cut in the Chancellor’s borough of Cheshire East less than half that of Halton?
Grant Shapps
I see many former local government Ministers in the Chamber, including one or two on the Opposition Benches. They are well aware of a phenomenon that takes place after every provisional local government finance settlement: each authority comes in to explain why it is the worst affected in the country. That reality brings a wry smile to those who have done this job before.
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, I should say that his authority receives a 3.9% reduction in spending power. That is a touch over the average of 3.3% for this year, but it is by no means impossible and nowhere near the 8.8% cut that one or two authorities, including that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, are experiencing. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, before he intervened not having listened to a word that was said, we have again given more weight to levels of need in each council and less weight—this is critical—to per capita distribution. I rather think that that goes to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman asked about.
Grant Shapps
I shall take interventions from those who have not yet had a chance to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith).
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
On the basis of what the Minister has said, how is it that the 30th most deprived borough in the country gets an above-average reduction in spending?
Grant Shapps
I explained that at some length about five minutes ago, but I shall cover it again. If an area is more dependent on money coming from a particular source, and that source is the national Government, even when we make incredible efforts to keep down the reductions it is always possible for people from that area to stand up and say, “Ah, we have a bigger reduction in spending power.” That is because more of the area’s money comes from the public purse rather than being raised locally from local taxpayers.
I would have thought that Opposition Members would understand that fairly straightforward calculation. They have never told us whether they agree that we should have increased the needs index from 73% to 83% and whether they would have put in transition funding of £96 million, I think, last year, and a further £20 million this year, to make sure that not a single area has had to have a reduction of more than 8.8% this or last year.
Grant Shapps
I will take two more interventions and then make a little progress. I give way to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Clive Betts
(Sheffield South East): Let us get this absolutely right. Despite his justifications about the details, the Minister seems to be saying that, in the end, the authorities with the greatest needs tend to be those with the greatest amount of Government grant; that the biggest amount of their spending therefore comes from the grant; and that those authorities will therefore have the biggest cuts to their spending power. Is that what he is saying to us?
Grant Shapps
The Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee knows the issue better than that. He is familiar with the numbers involved because, apart from anything else, his Committee has spent a lot of time looking into the matter. For the sake of others in the House who might be getting carried away with his argument, perhaps it is worth selecting some figures. Hackney, for example, a relatively deprived area, receives £3,050 per household. Windsor and Maidenhead, perhaps thought of as a more leafy area, receives about half that amount at £1,537—a demonstration if ever there were one that more deprived areas receive a lot more money than less deprived areas.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
It is important to set this debate in a broader context. At a time when local government has to make significant reductions, the Government have given local authorities significant powers in the Localism Act 2011, through a general power of competence, to take decisions locally and collaborate with other local authorities to reduce expenditure. Furthermore, the Local Government Finance Bill will allow local authorities to retain part of the business rate, which will help in this difficult settlement at a difficult time.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While he tries to expand his argument to cover measures such as the un-ring-fencing of some £7 billion of expenditure each year, it is revealing that the Labour party does not want to acknowledge that we are living in tough times. They do not acknowledge that we have done a series of things, including keeping councils in four different bands, each with a different floor level, and ensuring that the most dependent areas see their funding fall by proportionately less overall.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Minister’s argument totally ignores the differences between council tax bases in different authorities, and the amounts that authorities can raise from a similar rise in council tax. On business rates, he is ignoring the fact that all predictions show that even if top-ups and tariffs are uprated by the retail prices index, the gap between the wealthiest local authorities and the poorest will grow under the Government’s plans.
Grant Shapps
I will come on to cover the more detailed points about business rates. I note, however, that the hon. Lady did not mention that her own authority has suffered only a 3.1% reduction in spending power, which is below the national average.
Grant Shapps
I want to make a little progress so I will push on and then take further interventions.
I have already mentioned that an authority such as Hackney receives more than £3,000 per household while those such as Windsor and Maidenhead receive nearer to £1,500. Last year we said that no council should expect a reduction in spending power of more than 8.8%, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to stick to that commitment for the second year running. I also mentioned the £20 million transitional grant, which means that the average reduction in spending power is 3.4%—just a little higher than the figure for the authority of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), which she failed to mention when she intervened.
This settlement delivers on promises already made. It has been recognised across the House and throughout the ages that the revenue grant system needs to change. The previous Government recognised that when in power. Indeed, there were many false dawns under the previous Administration. They set up local government Green Papers and White Papers to look into the issue, and the balance of funding review—remember that? They also set up the Lyons inquiry. What did they do with those reviews? Precisely nothing. They continued with exactly the same system that we are arguing about today, and which, for all sorts of reasons, is far too complex and difficult to interpret or make much sense of.
Mr Redwood
I am sure we all welcome the £1 billion extra for schools and education, but will the Minister explain why there will be a 35% increase in environmental special grants? That looks generous given the circumstances.
Grant Shapps
I thank my right hon. Friend. One thing that every Local Government Minister knows is that there will always be a reason, a cause, a plea or a demand for expenditure to go into one area rather than another—not just geographic areas but subject matters. He tempts me down a slightly different route, but that illustrates the extent to which the current formula is bust. It is broken, and it was recognised previously that it needed to change, but nothing happened to allow that.
Rather than talking, the coalition is delivering fundamental reform of the local government finance system through the Local Government Finance Bill, which includes our proposals to repatriate business rates—a reform that will create better incentives for councils to drive growth, promote local enterprise and deliver local jobs. Councils will be in the driving seat to expand their local economy. That reform is about not just redistributing the proceeds of growth but creating the conditions to boost growth overall. It is about not just cutting up the cake differently, which is essentially the argument that we are having today, but making a bigger cake in the first place.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman tries to justify the cuts with an argument about fairness, but I am afraid that people who have seen the heat map that has been produced will see right through his smoke and mirrors. The map showing the impact of the cuts reveals that all but two of the 20 worst-hit councils are in the most deprived 20% of councils in England.
Grant Shapps
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to research that I think is in the Library, showing that the largest decreases in formula grant in the past year, 2011-12, were in the south-east. The decreases were generally smaller for the most deprived areas and larger for less deprived ones. He can look that research up for himself, along with an interesting recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which stated that local authorities were protecting the most vulnerable and making sensible decisions about services.
The picture that the hon. Gentleman paints is inaccurate and ignores the central fact that if we do not take measures to reduce our deficit, we will end up in trouble. Given that local authorities spend a quarter of all Government money, if we do not reduce our deficit they will end up bust. It seems incredible that we have not so far heard a single intervention from an Opposition Member to explain how the Opposition would deal with the reductions that are certainly required but that they never want to face.
Meanwhile, the Localism Act 2011 has put new powers in the hands of local taxpayers. They now have the right to call local referendums if excessive council tax increases are proposed. If any authority decides to increase its council tax by more than a certain level, which we are separately inviting the House to approve, it will need the say-so of its local electorate, which is absolutely right. In most cases in which a council wants to increase council tax by more than 3.5%, local people will have the chance to vote. Let the people decide—that is what localism is all about.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
In my area, Tory-run South Staffordshire council is keeping the council tax increase at 0%, and so is Staffordshire county council. The situation is not the same with many neighbouring Labour-run local authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes down to political will? Some councils want low council tax, and others do not care about their constituents.
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that where there is a will, there is a way. Where there is transparency, the sharing of services and smarter procurement, there is a way. Not a single authority is suffering a reduction of more than 8.8%, and the average is 3.3%. There is no reason for them to be increasing council tax.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that a statement put out by his spokesman last night for the Local Government Chronicle is wrong? It states:
“For a local authority, a council tax referendum is triggered only if its basic amount of council tax increases by more than 3.5%”.
Will he confirm that the Localism Act, which he has just cited, mentions the “relevant” basic amount of council tax, which excludes levies? That means that local authorities with large levies are at a disadvantage in the system and are likely to face a referendum trigger amounting to significantly less than a 3.5% increase.
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is my predecessor and has tremendous expertise and knowledge in this subject. I saw his letter to the Secretary of State in which he raises exactly that concern, but I must tell him that this once, unusually, he has got his facts in a twist—he has got them the wrong way round. It is the case that the referendum is triggered on the precepting authority’s increase only, not by taking into account the addition of levies from other organisations such as police and fire authorities. I hope that satisfies him. In fact, there should be a letter back in his office that explains in some detail precisely how that operates.
Grant Shapps
I would rather not continue the dispute on the ballot point, if only because we will descend into incredible amounts of detail. The right hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong, and I have written him a three-page letter detailing exactly why. He is welcome to come back to me, but I fear that the complexity of his argument—
John Healey
The Minister’s letter is in fact a one-page letter. It confirms that the statement made by his spokesman in last night’s Local Government Chronicle is wrong in fact because it is not consistent with the terms of the Localism Act 2011, which the Minister cites as the basis for the council tax referendum.
Grant Shapps
I have not seen the Local Government Chronicle, but I have seen the letter. It was certainly more than a page when I signed it. Perhaps it was printed in a very small font or e-mailed in a strange way. It was a detailed letter that makes the point absolutely clearly, but I want to reiterate the point now so that no Member leaves the Chamber uncertain—there is no uncertainty.
The referendum is triggered when an increase of more than 3.5%, brought about by the principal billing authority, takes place. That is based, therefore, on a district, county or borough implementing an increase of more than 3.5%. It does not include the fact that a fire or police authority, or a parish, might decide to increase its amount by more. They are not covered by the trigger point. As I have said, I have gone into quite considerable detail and I want to make sure that the House is clear that the principle is based on those authorities and those authorities only.
Grant Shapps
I would like to make a little progress.
I do not think there is any need for council tax increases or referendums at all this year. While council tax more than doubled under the previous Government, and although a Labour Government would have hiked council taxes even more in a fourth term, this—
John Healey
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has tried to help the House and said he wanted to be clear, but he has just made the fundamental mistake, which I think he needs to correct, of citing precepts and not levies in the examples he gave. He therefore underlines rather than undermines my point.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The right hon. Gentleman has got his point across.
Grant Shapps
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Most people out there would be most interested not in whether a council tax referendum triggers at 3.5% or 3.51%, or whether that includes the £20 charged by the parish council, although that is interesting and I hold by everything I have said at the Dispatch Box so far. Most people in the country would be most interested in the fact that council tax doubled under the previous Administration. If Labour Members had their way, they would have council tax going up even further. People might ask how we know that for certain. The simple answer is that they have not supported this year’s or last year’s council tax freeze. Typically, the council tax freeze in the last year saved the average family at band D £72, and we are providing a further £675 million of funding this year to councils to freeze their bills yet again.
Grant Shapps
I will give way in a moment, but I wanted to make the point that Labour Members have opposed £675 million to keep council tax bills down this year. That will give hard-working families a helping hand. That is real help now, as someone once said from this Dispatch Box.
Grant Shapps
I will give way to an hon. Member who has not intervened previously.
Andrew Gwynne
I am very grateful to the Minister. In previous years, the Government’s council tax freeze moneys were paid as part of the funding formula, but this year, there is a one-off payment. Does that mean that councils such as Tameside that decide to freeze council tax in the forthcoming year will have difficult decisions to make the following year?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that this is a one-year payment. I make no bones about that. These are incredibly difficult times.
Grant Shapps
There is no smokescreen. I have just said that this is a one-year payment. To argue that £675 million is meaningless and does nothing for people across the country is to live in a completely different world from most people out there who are struggling and delighted at the freeze.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is right about the technicalities. Significant changes to the council tax system are coming down the line for next year. Those changes, which include the localisation of business rates, provide enormous opportunities to authorities across the country, including his own, to write their own destiny when it comes to their economic future. It will cease to be based on who can prove the greatest levels of deprivation, and instead switch, rightly, to who can bring more jobs to an area, who can make their area a more business-friendly place to operate in, and who can build more homes under the new homes bonus. I make no bones about that point, and I am pleased to say that more than half of councils have already signed up to the council tax freeze.
Grant Shapps
I am disappointed, however, that a small minority of town halls, it appears, plan to reject the money, and some are going to the very limit of what they can raise without triggering a vote.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister makes great play of the council tax freeze, but does he accept that the Government’s 10% reduction in council tax benefit will actually result in a council tax increase for some of the poorest people in the country?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady seeks to bring us on to a completely different area of local financing, but we can cover some of that. The council tax benefit localisation is not a key part of the settlement today, but I am happy to talk about it.
Grant Shapps
This measure will ensure that local authorities have a stake in the economic well-being of people in their communities—the person living behind the door at No. 22 or wherever—and in whether they can get back into work and off welfare, for example. It is absolutely right to localise council tax benefit, simply because it gives the local authority a stake in helping that person back to work. At the moment, the money goes directly from the centre to the individual, and the local authority does not play a part. In the same way, the local authority currently has no stake in attracting more businesses to an area or in building more homes.
Helen Jones
Will the Minister admit that 80% of economic development is down not to what local authorities do but to what the Government do—or, in this case, what they do not do. He is making the mistake, again, of assuming that people receiving council tax benefit are all out of work. The people who will be hardest hit by his scheme will be poor families in work.
Grant Shapps
First, I think that 80% of business development comes from businesses, not from government, whether local or central, but we might just have a different view about that. Secondly, it is hard to take historical figures, such as the hon. Lady’s 80% figure, and project them forward, simply because we do not know what will happen. We have created in this country a local government finance system entirely divorced from economic realities. Frankly, under the current system, it has made no difference to councils whether businesses have survived or thrived in their local areas. That is wrong, and that is what we will turn around. It is absolutely right to do that.
Grant Shapps
I am keen for other Members to get in, but before he explodes, I will give way one last time to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Watts
The Minister wants to ensure that everyone understands the ramifications of his proposal, so will he admit that if a council accepts the freeze, the following year, the year after that and the year after that, its base will be eroded, which means that it will be worse off for having taken the freeze?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman asks a timely question, so I am grateful for his intervention. The answer is that I cannot confirm that, as we have not described from where we will take the base. It is therefore a mistake for local authorities, based on today, to think that if they ramp up their council tax, that will automatically be taken into account on transition to the new system. We have not made a decision or an announcement on that, so if councils want to go ahead and take the risk, they should first listen to the warning from this Dispatch Box. With such a big change in the way that local government finance operates coming down the line in 2013, they cannot, right now, factor in their base by putting up council tax. I cannot confirm that today, and they should think not once, not twice, but three times before putting up council tax this year.
I have to say that there are some interesting things going on out there. Some councils are going to the very limit of how much they can raise council tax by without triggering a referendum. Isn’t it surprising? I have seen increases of 3.4%, 3.49% and 3.5%—on the nose—but there they stop. Doubtless those councils will say that those figures have been reached after expert, high-minded advice from apolitical finance directors and that they have been determined as the absolute minimum required to maintain vital services. What a coincidence that such rigorous objectivity comes up with such precise numbers, rather than 3.51%, 3.52% or 3.6%. Funny that—a referendum would be triggered if it did come up with those figures. It is almost as if those councils do not think that a bigger council tax rise would win the support of their local voters.
Then it struck me. Those councils have been inspired by the bicentenary, as so many of us have: they have been reading their Dickens. And which character have they taken as their role model, dipping into their residents’ pockets with a twinkle in the eye? I think we all recognise an Artful Dodger when we see one, and if those councils will not give people a say now, woe betide them at the next local elections.
As I have mentioned, we are not proposing this year to impose a particular level for town and parish councils for a referendum. However, we are concerned at reports that some councils—just a few in the sector, but none the less enough to trigger concerns—are proposing large increases. As with the point about the base, as we move to the new system, we will seriously consider whether to make excessive parish increases part of referendums in future.
John Healey
On the new system that will be introduced under the Local Government Finance Bill, will the Minister confirm that it is a carry-over Bill and that page 640 of “Erskine May”—which says that
“the procedure should be used in respect of bills which had not yet left the first House”—
therefore applies? With the Government having forced the Bill through Committee of the whole House in three days, which means that outside organisations cannot give evidence and have not had time to get to grips with the Bill, will the Minister confirm that “Erskine May” means that this House will not have the Report stage of the Bill until after the Queen’s Speech?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that every Opposition normally spend their time arguing that Bills should not be tucked away in some Committee Room, up on the lower or upper corridor, but debated on the Floor of the House. That means that every Member of the House has the opportunity to take part in the debate and that nobody is excluded. I would have thought that that was a thoroughly good thing, so I am proud that we took such important business in Committee on the Floor of the House. It genuinely gave the opportunity to Members, as the people’s representatives, to come and make their points, and it is a good approach that should be followed.
Just as we did last year, we have pushed the system as far as we can to reach a settlement that is sustainable, fair and progressive, and that allows councils to freeze their council tax.
Grant Shapps
I hope all hon. Members would agree that I have been more than generous with interventions. I am keen for others to be able to speak.
We will continue to work closely with councils to give them the freedom, the tools and the support that they need to get every penny of value out to the taxpayer. I believe that this is a local government settlement that will be welcomed around the country.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I welcome this opportunity to debate local government finance. I am conscious that we are entering a world of strange language—gearing and damping, floors and ceilings—and the Minister did not disappoint. I was slightly surprised, however, to hear so much about Greece and Italy, Ireland and France. Unless I am very much mistaken, when I last checked, those countries were not part of the local government funding settlement, but I stand to be corrected.
Local authorities provide services on which we all rely, and what they do has a huge effect on the quality of life of the citizens we represent and on the neighbourhoods in which they live. They are now having to deal, as every Member knows, with the biggest cut in resources that we have ever seen in our political lifetime. Councils have been forced to absorb a reduction in formula grant of almost 19.3% over the two years of the spending review. The cuts have been front-loaded. What that means, as the Local Government Association has pointed out, is that local government has borne the brunt of the reductions in the spending review rather than the burden being shared equally with other parts of Government.
Having heard the Minister’s contribution, it seems that he is still living on a completely different planet from the one on which communities and their councils have to exist. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms, the total cuts to local government spending will outpace those of the public sector as a whole up to 2014-15.
Mr Redwood
We are discussing £72 billion in aggregate Exchequer finance for this year and next year, which is £1,200 for every man, woman and child in the country. That has to be taken off them in taxes in order to pay to local government. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much more his party would like us to take off every man, woman and child in the country to make that Exchequer finance bigger?
Hilary Benn
My response to the right hon. Gentleman is that we would not cut so far and so fast, as he knows. We would certainly not have distributed the cuts in the fundamentally unfair way that this Government have done.
Mr Watts
Government Members suggest that just one or two deprived councils are being hit the hardest, but the document by SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—shows that the vast majority, if not all, of the most deprived authorities are being hit the worst, while those in the most affluent areas, often represented by Conservative Members, are in some cases receiving more grant.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he anticipates some of the figures I am going to give to the House.
First, however, it is important to note that the Secretary of State lost out to the Treasury—assuming, of course, that he tried to protect local councils in the first place, and there many who would doubt whether he put up much of a fight, given the glee with which he regularly attacks councils for what they do. The consequences of all this are: one, that local government has to deal with cuts that are unfairly distributed; two, that residents are having to come face to face with the consequences of those cuts, as services they rely on change or go; and, three, looking to next year, that councils face nothing but uncertainty about their future financial position. Let me deal with each of those in turn.
Despite the Secretary of State’s claim that what he has done is fair and sustainable, the House knows that the 10% most deprived upper-tier authorities are facing a reduction in their spending power that is nearly four times greater than that faced by the 10% least deprived authorities. That is why the Minister’s argument falls at the very first hurdle. It is also undermined by his Department’s figures.
Newcastle city council has done us all a very great service by laying out the facts. It looked at data taken from the Department for Communities and Local Government showing the cuts in 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, taking account of transition and council tax freeze grants and the provisional new homes bonus allocations. What do the figures show when all that is taken into account? Basingstoke and Deane will gain—I stress, gain—£6 a person overall, while Knowsley will lose £227 per person. East Dorset gains £3 a resident, while Manchester loses £186. In Greater London, everyone loses, but some lose much more than others. The borough of Richmond is down by £2 a head, whereas Hackney is hit by a whacking great loss of £234 a head. Why is that? Those are the raw figures behind the hard-faced politics that prove that the Chancellor is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
If Ministers do not like hearing the truth from Newcastle or from their own statistics, what about hearing it from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies? Its analysis by region shows that London and the north of England have been especially badly hit. Every year it publishes the green budget before the real Budget, and the 2012 green budget shows that overall cuts in local government spending, excluding education, are largest in both absolute and proportional terms in London, the north-east and the north-west.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned Knowsley a moment ago when he was comparing figures. Does he agree that when we look at the acute levels of deprivation across the spectrum that we experience in Knowsley, those figures are even worse, because some of the poorest communities in the country are being punished severely in comparison with some of the better-off communities which are getting off almost scot-free?
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend argues the case for his constituents with great force and vigour, and he is absolutely right. This is fundamentally unfair. The reason it is happening—the Minister was remarkably reluctant to admit the truth—is that councils in deprived urban areas rely to a much greater extent than councils in more affluent areas on central grants from the Treasury, which have been cut significantly.
Brandon Lewis
Is it not important to make sure we understand the starting point for the councils the right hon. Gentleman mentioned? For example, the figure for a council such as Richmond was something like £150, but he is comparing it with that for Hackney, which was at £967 in the first place.
Hilary Benn
Of course there is a difference because there is much greater deprivation in Hackney than in Richmond. I should have thought even the hon. Gentleman would be able to work that out for himself.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the real impact of these cuts in areas such as the north-west of England where my constituency is based. May I share with him the impact of the cuts on Tameside, which saw a £38 million reduction last year and a £35 million reduction this year, and which will see a £32 million reduction next year? That will have a real impact on the delivery of services to one of our most deprived urban communities.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right. It is quite shocking that the Government have done this knowing what it will do, but at no time have they apologised, as they should, for the unfair way in which they have allocated these cuts, but it is time they did, because it is now clear that far from all of us being in it together, some are much more in it than others. This is not just about local authorities, because the same is true of funding for the fire service, which we are also discussing.
Mr Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman said that East Dorset and Basingstoke will gain money, but those districts do not get the increases for education and other county services. We are asked to approve a fall in East Dorset from £2.75 million to £2.5 million—a 10% fall—and a fall in Basingstoke from £6.74 million to £6.25 million, which is also quite a big fall because those districts will not get the other increases.
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen carefully enough to the point I made. If he has not seen the figures produced by Newcastle city council he should do so, because it has looked at the impact of the cuts over three years and has taken account of transition grant and the new homes bonus allocation. In other words, it has looked at the total effect on those authorities of all the decisions the Government have taken, and that is what the figures show.
In relation to the fire service, there are brigade areas with a very high rate of incidents, such as Merseyside, Cleveland, Greater Manchester and West Midlands. What is happening to them? They are all facing reductions in funding per head, whereas areas with a lower rate of incidence, thank goodness, such as Hampshire, Royal Berkshire, and Hereford and Worcester, will get increases in their funding per head for the fire service. What that means for the losers is that fire stations are closing, pumps are going and firefighters are losing their jobs.
Mr Watts
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most efficient fire authorities are in the metropolitan areas, and that they are the ones that are losing the most money? I thought that this Government wanted to incentivise local authorities and fire services to become more efficient, but that does not seem to be the case.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is right. Certainly the West Yorkshire fire service does an extremely good job in meeting the needs of all our constituents.
Worse is to come if Ministers insist on proceeding with the cuts that they have planned for years 3 and 4. As the Minister will know, the metropolitan fire chiefs have been so worried about the prospect that they have given Ministers a stark warning in their response to the review, in which they say:
“The Mets have already shouldered 62% of the cuts in the English fire and rescue service outside London in the first two years…The cuts planned for years 3 and 4 are unsustainable and would lead to life threatening reductions in fire cover and national resilience capacity”.
Unless the Minister has a very good answer to that, he ought to reconsider his plans for the cuts in years 3 and 4.
Last year the Local Government Association warned that the consequences of the cuts in local government finance would be felt in front-line services, although—the Minister made this point—many councils have rationalised back-office services and cut costs. The approach of the Secretary of State and the Minister is to blame councils for all this, claiming that front-line cuts are not necessary. I was interested to read what the Minister told the Select Committee back in 2010, when he was questioned by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). My hon. Friend put this to him:
“So the bottom line from your point of view, then, as a ministerial team, is that there is no need for any cuts in services in local government at all.”
The Minister replied:
“No, they shouldn’t be cutting the front-line services.”
Only a group of Ministers who were completely divorced from what was going on in the real world in local government could say such a thing in public. We know, however, that in private some of them have said something rather different. Last year the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) wrote to fellow Liberal Democrats—[Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] He cannot be locked in the Division Lobby this time, but it would have been nice to see him here. In his letter, he described the local government settlement as “very disappointing”. A year ago, Liberal Democrat councillors published a letter in The Times in which they said that local government was
“being let done by the Communities and Local Government Secretary”.
Even a good friend of the Secretary of State and the Minister, the much respected Baroness Eaton, accused Ministers of being
“detached from the reality councils are dealing with”.
Derek Twigg
May I make a point about the impact of front-line cuts on people? In Halton, adaptations for people with disabilities can no longer be obtained because of Government cuts. The Minister did not answer my question earlier, when I asked why the much more prosperous Cheshire East authority has been subject to a much smaller cut than Halton, which is one of the most deprived boroughs in the country.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and has anticipated what I am about to say about the impact of the cuts.
Andrew Gwynne
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of the Liberal Democrats. May I take him to the Stockport part of my constituency, which is Liberal Democrat-controlled, and remind him that throughout the years of the Labour Government, the council’s grant increased year on year? Year after year the council resolved that that money was not enough, but since 2010 it has faced a £54 million cut in its budget, and we have not heard a peep out of it. What has changed?
Hilary Benn
Sadly, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats, not much has changed at all. That is a pattern of behaviour with which many of us in the House are all too familiar.
We have discussed the figures, now let us turn to the consequences of all this. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he would protect Sure Start. Members may recall that he took the former Prime Minister to task for suggesting that that might not happen. What has actually happened? A reply given by Ministers just before Christmas shows that there are now 124 fewer Sure Start centres than there were when the coalition was formed. So much for the Prime Minister’s pledge.
DCLG figures show that last year 93 out of 152 councils —61% of them—cut spending on providing meals on wheels for the elderly compared with their spend in 2009-10, and 55 authorities cut spending on adult social care, although all of us know our authorities face increasing pressures in that area. Also, 75 councils reduced spending on equipment and adaptations for disabled and elderly adults, and according to another survey, 88% of councils were increasing their care charges.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend mentioned Sure Start. Conservative Hammersmith and Fulham council has cut the Sure Start budget by more than 45% in one year. Perhaps its councillors did not hear the Minister saying there should be no cuts in front-line services. I thought that all Members recognised that Sure Start is an initiative that in the long run will improve educational achievement and cut youth offending, and that it is therefore a good and efficient investment, yet almost 50% of its budget has been cut in one year by this authority.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes that point very forcefully. I wonder whether Hammersmith and Fulham will still be the Secretary of State’s favourite council once he becomes aware of what it has been doing, in marked contrast to what the Prime Minister of the party it supports said at the time of the election—but then that is sadly familiar, too.
We cannot get much more front line than making sure old people have a hot meal every day or get their shopping done, or helping people to remain in their own home by building a ramp or putting a shower on the ground floor, so whatever the Minister of State was thinking when he answered an earlier question, or whatever the Secretary of State was thinking in December when he described the draft settlement as
“enough to safeguard the most vulnerable, protect taxpayers’ interests and the front-line services they rely on”,
I would gently say to them that they must recognise the damage that such comments do to the credibility of DCLG Ministers. Every time they say such things councillors, officers and people in local communities look at each other and ask, “Don’t they have any idea of what is actually going on in the world we have to live in?”
Bill Esterson
My right hon. Friend talks about the damage being done and the reality on the ground, and that is precisely what my constituents are concerned about. They are concerned about the damage to services that my right hon. Friend has described. All that he has said is true in Sefton, which faces a 25% cut, in common with many other metropolitan boroughs.
Bill Esterson
I thank the Minister for that correction. Sefton also faces the impact of the associated job losses on local businesses that rely on the public sector, as well as the impact of the localisation of business rates. The local economy will suffer greatly as a result of the money taken out of it due to the local government cuts. Businesses will not be in a position to expand. They will also be contracting, and the council will not be able to take advantage of the changes in business rates. That will be disastrous for everybody in Sefton.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point about the impact of all this on the overall economy, and I shall say a few words about the effect on jobs shortly.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports on another area that has been affected. It says that significant reductions in expenditure on planning and economic development are being seen. Councils will need as much resource as possible to respond to the national planning policy framework, and in particular to draw up their new plans if they have not got them, or to revise the plans if they have got them, because if they do not do that, developers can come in and say, “We want to make use of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” However, they will find that the resource they need to do that work will largely have disappeared.
I am reluctant to raise this point, but I shall: it is extraordinary that although the Minister stands up and says, “Money’s very tight,” his Secretary of State has found £0.25 billion to try to persuade councils to change their minds about how to collect their rubbish. The great localist thinks he knows better than they do how it should be done, even though household recycling rates have more than doubled since 1997, thus saving residents a lot of money in landfill levy, and the majority of councils whose minds he is trying to change with his cash are controlled by councillors from his own party. It is a very expensive family disagreement.
Mr Betts
Is it not incredible that this nest egg of money has been trailed before councils, which are to put in bids for a scheme we are not sure about? No prudent council would formulate next year’s budget on the basis that there might be some money at some time coming from the Secretary of State. Also, it is completely wrong of the Deputy Prime Minister to criticise Sheffield council for not taking account of this possible money before setting its budget for next year.
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it will be interesting to see in the end how many councils choose to take it up, not least because there is a knock-on consequence over the five years for which the Government are expecting them to change their system. Frankly, £250 million could have been better spent on social care, aid and adaptations, and meals on wheels.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out a moment ago, one consequence of all this has been huge job losses. As we know, the Office for Budget Responsibility announced in November a dramatic revision of its projection of the total number of jobs that would be lost in the public sector, including in local government—up from 410,000 to 710,000 in the years ahead—in part because of what has been happening in local government, and in part because of the front-loading of the cuts.
For England and Wales as a whole, the reduction in the number of workers employed by councils between the first quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2011 totalled 129,000, of which women accounted for two thirds. In other words, women are bearing the brunt of these reductions, and it is one of the reasons why the Chancellor’s economic plan is frankly in such a mess. In 2010, he boasted in his first Budget, “Never mind about the jobs that will be lost in the public sector, because they’re going to be replaced by jobs created in the private sector”, assuring us that that would be the case. What has actually happened? In the last quarter, for every 13 jobs that went in the public sector—all 67,000 of them—just one was created in the private sector. That is why the economy is not growing, the plan is not working and the Government are having to borrow more than they said they would.
I have a couple of specific questions that I hope the Minister will respond to. On academies funding, the Local Government Association’s view is that the £265 million that the Education Secretary has finally decided to top-slice—having at one point threatened to take even more—is too high a figure because it does not reflect the actual savings that will accrue to local education authorities. I agree with the LGA. Do Ministers share that view, have they argued local government’s case with the Education Secretary, and does the Minister think that will be enough to put off a resumption of the stalled judicial reviews on this matter? Secondly, on the business rates pooling account, I should be grateful if the Minister clarified whether the Government plan to run a surplus again this year, as they did last year, and if so how it complies with the law on the account’s operation.
The third and last area I wish to turn to is uncertainty, particularly that created by the Local Government Finance Bill. Many councils have no idea, frankly, what their financial position will be next year because the Government’s policy is to localise uncertainty and volatility. As things stand, no council knows what its baseline will be next year under the legislation going through the House, what top-slice share the Government want to take, how the levy will work, how the safety net will operate or what impact, for example, the closure of a large employer in its area would have on business rate income. Nor do councils know, given the 1% average limit on pay increases, how much will be taken off them by the Treasury, although there are estimates of £200 million in 2013-14 and £400 million in 2014-15.
Furthermore, on the council tax benefit, nobody knows exactly how the budget minus the 10% will be distributed, what the take-up will be, and how councils are meant to cope with a rise in unemployment and, therefore, with an increase in applications in their areas. I gently advise Government Members to have a very good look at what this will mean for their constituents, because many Government Members represent areas where the proportion of pensioners is higher than the average. The more that is true, the greater the cut in council tax benefit or, to put it another way, the bigger the council tax bill that will have to be paid by their voters on low incomes, who have absolutely no idea what the coalition Government have in store for them.
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
Once again, I declare my interest as a member of local government. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s worries that local authorities are not in a position even to guess what the situation will be next year. Does he agree that what is even more worrying is that the Government do not have a clue about what the position will be, and that that is the problem we face?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we are talking about a change that the Government are apparently determined to push through in a very short space of time. [Interruption.] On the council tax benefit localisation, it is not a change, with the 10% cut, that I agree with. Government Members ought to listen to what council treasurers and leaders up and down the country are saying, and they should make their views forcefully known to their Front-Bench team before they find their constituents asking them, “What is it you voted for? Why did you do this to me?”
All this uncertainty has been created by the Secretary of State, because it is his Bill and his lack of clarity. What would a prudent authority do in these circumstances and faced with such uncertainty? What authorities actually do is build up reserves to guard against it, yet we know what the Secretary of State does to councils that have reserves—he attacks and vilifies them. That is a pattern of behaviour with which councillors of all political colours have become all too wearily familiar.
I shall now deal with council tax and the other motion before us. Let us remember that average council tax bills are lower under Labour-run councils than Conservative ones. No council, especially in the current circumstances, wants to raise council tax if it does not have to do so. Councils will do their best to avoid doing so, unlike the Secretary of State, who says that he wants to protect people from increases in council tax and then the next moment introduces legislation that will impose council tax increases on people on low incomes.
As my hon. Friends have said, this year’s council tax freeze grant is a one-off, unlike last year’s, and that creates a dilemma for councils. The Tory leader of Surrey county council, which I understand is not proposing to take the freeze grant, said very simply:
“The freeze would be a short-term gain for long-term pain.”
Why has he said that? He has done so because the freeze could mean that residents face bigger council tax increases next year and subsequently.
On the referendum proposal, capping powers have of course been in place since the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was passed by the previous Conservative Government. It is right that councils are accountable for the decisions they make, although if the Secretary of State were true to his “localist” principles, he would have allowed local residents to hold the trigger on any referendum. Instead, the legislation will provide that he will determine the benchmark—so he decides what is excessive. He will determine how the referendum is conducted, the question to be put, the publicity and expenditure levels to be permitted and how the votes are counted. He will even be able to direct that the referendum provisions do not apply and decree the council tax requirement that must actually operate. In effect, the Secretary of State will set the maximum level of council tax increase each year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet that had capping, whereby the Secretary of State used to set the maximum council tax each year without even asking anyone?
Hilary Benn
Indeed, with the powers having been put in place by the previous Conservative Government and having remained in place when we were in government. I was merely pointing out to the Minister the inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument: he says he is a great localiser but on bins and on referendums it appears that he knows better than everyone else.
Hilary Benn
I have been very generous in giving way and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already, so I am going to conclude to allow others to speak.
On the question of how the 3.5% is calculated, however, after the exchange we have just heard, I would say that I think councils would welcome absolute clarity about what kind of increase would trigger a referendum, not least because of the costs that would result.
In conclusion, the settlement needs to be seen for what it is. The Minister referred to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and, as he might have read, last month it talked to a number of senior council officials about the impact that reductions in local authority budgets will have on the most deprived communities. The BBC reported what one officer, who, incidentally, works for a Conservative-controlled authority, said, and I want to quote him. He said, very simply:
“This is the most unfair and unjust settlement I have ever seen”.
I agree. It is unfair to councils and unfair to local residents, and that is why we will vote against this motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. As hon. Members know, the debate is time-limited. Although I am not introducing a time limit on each Back-Bench speech, if Members go on ad nauseam I or one of my successors will have no hesitation in introducing one. That is not directed at anybody in particular. I call Bob Blackman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I feel suitably constrained by your introduction, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), not least because he is so eloquent and sets out such a strong case for local government. Of course, he knows a thing or two about it, as he was in local government before he arrived in this place.
My starting point is that this is the second year of a two-year settlement. We must consider how far the Government have departed from that settlement in this second year. The reality is that there been improvements to the financial settlement for local government. The one thing for which local government has cried out for many years is certainty over funding. Even if it is bad news, it is better to be certain about what will happen. I am one of those who praised the previous Government for introducing a three-year settlement, as it was probably one of the few things they did well. Even though the settlement for many local authorities was not good, at least it was certain and everyone knew what would happen.
I listened as many Opposition Members intervened on the Minister to ask about the reductions that their councils will suffer. When fundamental changes are made to any type of funding formula and any process of local government funding, there are bound to be winners and losers. One problem that has been associated with local government financing for so long, as the Minister rightly articulated, is the fact that the funding formula is horrendously complicated and virtually no one understands it. Figures are put in, indices are changed, the numbers are crunched and the figures come out. If those figures are not to everyone’s liking, people seek to change the indices to make the facts suit the result that they want.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long history in local government and will be aware of the old council tax resource equalisation, which took into account the needs of different councils and gave a level playing field. Does he agree that what we have now is a system that redistributes resources from poorer areas to richer areas? Even worse than that, it gets poorer areas to pay for it under the new damping system.
Bob Blackman
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. A key issue is that comparisons made year on year must consider the amount per person, per household and so on that the authority has in the first place. One problem under the previous Government was that we saw money moved from London to northern authorities; a deliberate decision was taken and it was quite clear that that was taking place. Now, the balance is being redressed. That is quite right, but the problem is that the hon. Gentleman is comparing one year with another rather than looking at the longer term issues and at how certain authorities have gained substantially over the longer term.
Mr Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that those northern councils have a different council tax base? In the north-east of England, for example, 50% of properties are in band A, whereas in Surrey that figure is less than 2%, so even if those councils wanted to raise extra finance locally, their ability is severely limited.
Bob Blackman
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about council tax base. That is a fair point. I notice that over some 13 years the Labour Government declined to review the council tax base or the underlying valuations, and I notice that the Government have agreed to continue that process of not revaluing properties for council tax purposes.
We have the opportunity once again this year for a council tax freeze. That is welcomed by local authorities and hard-pressed taxpayers. The Government are committed to that and it should be delivered. I call on all local authorities to take the opportunity of the grant and to freeze the council tax across the country so that all hard-pressed taxpayers can gain the benefit. It is true that different authorities are doing different things across the country. I shall not go into detail; I leave that to others.
Before the last election, everyone knew that local government finance would be substantially reduced. It was in the Labour party manifesto and in the Conservative party manifesto. Everyone knew that it was coming. Every local authority, regardless of its political persuasion, should have planned for those reductions and should therefore have implemented them over the past two years. A series of measures could be undertaken, and I shall mention a few. The first is to cut executive pay. It is interesting that in the past few days the Labour party, in particular, has been talking about people receiving large amounts of public money. There is no doubt that chief executives and senior executives of local authorities have been the beneficiaries of huge increases in pay over the past few years. At a time when local authority funding is decreasing, it is right that senior executive pay in local authorities reduces.
I am not a great fan of my local council, Harrow council, but I take my hat off to it for the measures that it is introducing. Its chief executive is cutting his own pay. He is cutting the number of senior executives and their pay, and he has introduced a system of pay within the local authority which means that the workers on the ground will be paid the same hourly rate regardless of when they work, but they will work a normal working week.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities should have expected and planned for reductions. I have some sympathy with that argument because it was clear, as he said, that were there to be a Conservative Government in particular, there would be some substantial reductions to local authority funding. Does he recognise, however, that the real problem for authorities such as mine started in 2010 with the in-year cuts, which took a massive amount of spending out of their budgets that they had already planned for and already started to spend?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that.
I shall come on to some of the issues that every local authority in the country should be examining. Are they using their procurement capability properly? Have they joined with other local authorities to procure services, such as adult social care, using their buying power instead of competing one on one for the private sector services that are available? Have they shared their services across the various councils that operate within their area? Very few local authorities have done that.
Have local authorities fundamentally restructured the services that they deliver, to eliminate multiple handling? The vast majority of councils handle a multitude of grant applications and applications for different services, yet that information is input for every single service, so we have a multiplicity of inputs coming from the most needy families. That means that we employ in local government far too many people to repeat the handling of those cases. Those services should be simplified so that the vulnerable in society supply their data only once and then benefit from whatever services the local authority provides. Has the local authority properly considered outsourcing its services? There are direct suppliers that can deliver those services, often at a fraction of the cost of the public sector.
Mr Betts
One of the problems with outsourcing that many councils find, including mine in Sheffield, is that when they have to make cuts to a contract that was agreed some years ago, the cost of changing it can be considerable, and they have less flexibility to adjust services under the new financial constraints than if they had employed people directly, in-house.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. One of the necessary aspects of outsourcing is making sure that local authorities work on a partnership basis, rather than just by the letter of the law as set out in the contract. Far too many local authorities are not smart enough in the way they write procurement contracts to make them fit for purpose. By ensuring that contracts are demonstrated and written in the right sort of way, flexibility can be built in and services maintained.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Surely the best way of doing that is by writing the contract in the first place with break points at regular intervals so that changes can be made.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me that one of the necessary aspects of procurement is having suitable break points and review points in a contract, so that the contract is long enough for investment to take place but can be changed or terminated by the local authority if the service is not up to scratch.
I also take issue with the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central on balances and reserves. I feel very strongly that taking money from council tax payers and putting it into reserves or balances, rather than spending it on services, is theft from the taxpayer, because it is not being invested in the services provided. In my view, local authorities that maintain large reserves or balances are fundamentally fooling their taxpayers and should be exposed for doing so. Local authorities should maintain balances, but only balances that are required for cash-flow purposes or for funding in-year hikes that might take place.
Mr Kevan Jones
When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he talked about the importance of mending the roof while the sun was shining. Given the uncertainty that the Government are bringing into local finance, is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that local councils should have no reserves at all to fall back on if their local council tax base goes down following a big closure or some other catastrophe? That is just bad business.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for pointing out the issues relating to balances and reserves. They should be precisely for funding a local authority’s cash-flow requirements, not for saving huge amounts to cushion unexpected amounts. The reality is that there are authorities up and down the country that are sitting on huge balances. I take the view that no more than 10% of council tax take should be maintained as a balance.
I want to mention three other areas. The Government have changed the whole basis behind local government finance, and that is coming forward in legislation. That will change the whole ambit of how local authorities are rewarded. We had some interesting discussions on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill about the fact that deprivation was a key driver for local authorities. The more deprived a local authority area, the more money it got. The Government are changing the whole ambit and structure of finance. We will have a situation in which house building leads to a new homes bonus, so local authorities will be rewarded for building houses and will receive finance as a result. Under the business rate retention scheme, local authorities will be encouraged to promote employment and job opportunities, so we will have an enterprise-led economy, encouraged by local authorities, and the onus will be on enterprise and not on deprivation..
I conclude by reflecting on what has happened in London this year. I applaud the fact that, after three years of council tax freezes under Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London is reducing—reducing!—his share of the council tax, not only ensuring that we have 1,000 extra police officers on the beat, but reducing crime and improving services to Londoners overall. Let us compare that with the record of the great pretender, the old pretender, who over eight years increased his share of the council tax by 152%. The comparison could not be starker. We get a better service and better value for money under the Conservatives.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I was in a bit of agreement with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), another member of the Select Committee, until he made his final comment, when we reached the point of complete disagreement.
First, the issue to which we return today is very much the issue that we debated in the House a year ago. It is about funding for local government, whereby the Government have an overall policy of cutting public expenditure by 19% but have decided that local government expenditure can be cut by 28%. That is the reality. Local government has been singled out for much larger cuts than the rest of the public services, presumably because Ministers believe that the services that local government provides are less important. That must be the reality.
Mr Betts
The Minister begins to shake his head, but, if he does not believe in that, why is he prepared to support the local authority grant reductions, which are so much larger than the reductions in other Government expenditure? That is the question to which Ministers have never really addressed themselves.
Robert Neill
The Department’s reduction in central costs and administrative expenditure is in excess of 30% and, in total administrative costs, rises to about 40%. We have put our money where our mouth is and reduced our costs more.
Mr Betts
I thank the Minister for that reply. It is certainly true that there has been a substantial loss of civil servants in the Department for Communities and Local Government, but I did not say that local government expenditure had been cut more than the overheads in the DCLG; I said that it had been cut more than the overall cut in central Government expenditure. That is the reality, and Ministers ought to be prepared to defend it if they believe that local government services are less important.
Secondly, the cuts were front-loaded. Local government itself argued that, if in the end the cuts were going to be made over a four-year period, they should not be front-loaded, because it would mean rushed cuts with a bigger impact on front-line services than if councils had the time to do more about shared services, an issue to which I shall turn in due course. That, too, is the reality.
We are also told that there has been the certainty of a two-year settlement, but local government was given to understand that there would be the certainty of a four-year settlement—an indication of the cuts over a four-year period. It appears that that is not quite the case. The advantages of front-loading, as initially sold, were that at least local councils would know the score for four years, but, now that the Chancellor has to find another £150 billion of borrowing, no doubt he will return to local government to make further cuts in years three and four. Ministers have not referred to that at all so far.
We will then have the cuts that will follow the changes in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is going through Parliament, and the cuts in council tax benefit funding—another uncertainty for local councils. The pretended certainty of last year is, therefore, beginning to unravel in terms of years three and four, and the one good part of the settlement—that councils knew where they were for four years—is apparently no longer the case.
The third point—alongside bigger cuts for local councils, and the fact that they were front-loaded and there is now uncertainty in years three and four—is the unfairness, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) amply demonstrated. The Minister could not argue when I intervened on him, because in reality the councils with the greatest need receive the greatest grant, and they are seeing the biggest cuts in Government funding. That is fundamentally unfair.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. On the point about the greatest cuts falling on those with the greatest need, I should say that next year Halton will lose £44 per head; Cheshire East, the Chancellor’s council area, will lose £19 per head. The Prime Minister’s area of Oxfordshire will lose £21 per head. How can that be described as fair?
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I certainly would not describe that as fair, although Ministers apparently would. My constituents certainly do not understand why Sheffield city council is having to cut its budget by more than 10% while other councils have to make cuts of only a tenth of that amount—in percentage terms, let alone in respect of the relative difference per head of population.
Bob Stewart
Would it not be fairer, and would it not be seen to be fairer, if we talked in terms of percentage cuts rather than using actual figures? If we looked at the cuts in terms of percentages, we would see things better. I am myself trying to clarify the point.
Mr Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to suggest, as the Minister did, that somehow an organisation such as Sheffield city council can have 11% taken from its budget without that affecting front-line services—no matter how many pot plants are consigned to the dustbin?
Mr Betts
I am sure that the Minister will provide some figures in due course.
We have heard from Ministers all the ways in which councils can save money. Of course there are many ways in which that can happen without front-line services being affected; the reality is that councils have been very good at that over the years. Through the period of the Labour Government, councils were forced to find about 2% in efficiency savings, year on year. Over the past 20 years, in fact, they have generally been much better at that than central Government. Councils have a good track record.
If the cuts were not so front-loaded, councils would have had more time to prepare and consider efficiency savings. Cuts to services cannot just be dreamed up overnight; they are often the product of complex negotiations between councils and other public bodies to make sure that the agreements are proper and genuinely deliver savings.
I have just had information about what is going on in Sheffield. Together with Government Departments and other public agencies, Sheffield city council is embarking on a look at the whole public estate—the buildings that the public sector owns or leases, and operates. With central Government Departments and agencies, the council is trying to get better value for money from the whole public estate.
That programme cannot be delivered overnight. There could be very large savings if it is carried out properly, but it must be done in a considered way, with everyone working together. The council cannot simply click its fingers and say that a certain number of millions of pounds in savings are coming next year. The process takes time. Many of us have been trying to argue that the savings can probably come about, but that they will take time.
In the meantime, front-line services are being hit. Concessionary bus fares for young people in Sheffield increased from 40p to 50p this year and will go up to 60p next year. Young people always appear to be getting the brunt of the cuts—tuition fees, the education maintenance allowance and the cuts to youth and career services. The other day, people at a school that I was visiting said that work experience has now stopped because Government funding to assist it has stopped and employers are not responding.
All those things are happening to young people. Sixty pence for a bus fare may not seem a lot, but when the Youth Parliament in Sheffield did an assessment of young people’s needs two or three years ago, buses came out as top of the list of things that are important to young people, as they mean mobility, independence and not having to rely on other people to get around.
Of course, we are seeing cuts in care services for the elderly. Let us congratulate councils such as Sheffield, which is cutting those services by only 5%, when 11% is coming off its total budget, and it is trying to concentrate on administration, management and back-room services. The council is trying to prioritise cuts on back-room services—15% in human resources, 14% in legal services and 26% in IT. But do not let us pretend that legal services, IT and other such services can simply be cut with no eventual impact on front-line services. If we are to make all the changes to the public estate that I mentioned, we will need legal officers in the council. Back-room services are important for the delivery of an efficient front line.
Sheffield council has decided to move to fortnightly refuse collections and to improve its recycling offer. That will save £2.5 million a year, and although it cannot simply exempt those services from the savings, it will try and improve its recycling. The Secretary of State has a view—presumably shared by Ministers—that such matters are all about localism until he has a particular policy or pet project that he wants to see implemented. He believes in weekly bin collection. That is up to him. The idea is that having abolished the vast majority of ring-fenced grants—and I support the Government’s policy on that—we should suddenly invent a new ring-fenced grant for this one issue. It is not quite a new ring-fenced grant, however, because the grant is not in place. Perhaps we may call it a new ring-fenced idea.
Local authorities now have to draw up budgets and decide what to do. They must be prudent, but when considering how their services will be delivered next year, they cannot take account of money that may arrive under a scheme that has not yet been announced. How on earth do Ministers expect local authorities to respond to their view of the world regarding refuse collection if they trail a grant in advance that will perhaps no longer be in place when councils start to formulate their budgets? Councils have no idea whether they will get any money, what will be the criteria for the scheme, how much money there will be in the first, second and third years, and when the money will run out, leaving them to pick up the bill.
Is it not a disgrace for Ministers to trail such a scheme, and then criticise councils—just as the Deputy Prime Minister criticised Sheffield council—for moving to a fortnightly refuse collection? Ministers say that councils should instead take advantage of Government money that has not yet been announced. That is a ridiculous way to run anything. If a parish council ran its affairs in such a way, Ministers would be on their feet, proclaiming that it was inefficient and incompetent. Labour Members can therefore say that this Government are inefficient and incompetent in their handling of this issue.
One or two other points have been raised. Of course we want to see the voluntary sector contribute, whether to the big society or to the delivery of better services for their communities. Again, I congratulate Sheffield council because it is cutting money to the voluntary sector by just 5% this year, compared with the 11% cut to the total council budget.
The voluntary sector depends on public sector employees working with it to deliver services. All the volunteers in my constituency who take part in environmental improvement schemes rely on two council officers, with a bit of seed money to provide training and materials. That is how it works. We cannot divorce the voluntary sector from the rest of the council services.
Neither can we divorce private jobs from public jobs. More than 550 public sector employees in Sheffield city council will lose their jobs, or posts will be held vacant, as a result of the council’s budget proposals. Fortnightly bin collections, however, are outsourced to Veolia, so it will be not public sector workers who lose their jobs but those in the private sector who are employed by that company. We cannot divorce the public and private sectors. The cuts that have necessarily been made by councils up and down the country will affect private sector employment as well as public sector employment. Orders from councils will be reduced as they will have less money to spend, and private sector companies will suffer as a result. The idea that private sector companies will grow jobs on the back of the cuts is fallacious. That is why the economy is heading for recession.
I conclude with one further point about the fire service. The other day, we went to see the Minister with responsibility for the fire service, who is responding to this debate. He kindly agreed to meet a delegation, and I hope that he listened carefully to the fact that the cuts to the fire service grants of the metropolitan fire authorities are twice the level of those for other fire authorities in the country. Fire chiefs are saying that if the cuts continue for a third and fourth year, they will not be able to deliver appropriate fire cover in their areas.
In my constituency, three fire stations are being closed and will be replaced by just two. That may be a more efficient way of delivering fire cover, but it will result in slower response times to some of the large industrial plants in Sheffield that still operate in the steel industry and other related industries. People are worried that if that happens, it could create greater risks at a time when we hope to see great Sheffield firms such as Sheffield Forgemasters continue. We would not want them to be put at greater risk by reduced fire cover. We hope that Ministers will listen to those concerns.
This settlement is unfair to many councils, and those in the greatest need are receiving the biggest cuts. In total, it demonstrates that the Government value the services provided by local councils less highly than other public expenditure, and I will certainly be in the Lobby with my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it this evening.
Mr Speaker
Order. In order to accommodate remaining colleagues who wish to contribute to the debate, to whose numbers, by my sight, one has just been added, making the list slightly longer than the one I had in my possession, I am imposing an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions with immediate effect.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I intend to be relatively brief, Mr Speaker.
We have to start by being clear that very tough cuts have been imposed on local government. It accounts for 25% of all public expenditure, so councils were always going to have to play a considerable role in fixing the black hole in the nation’s finances. It has been hard, given the front-loading of the cuts, but I wish to praise the many councils across the country that have approached innovatively the tasks with which they were faced. I sometimes think that central Government can learn from some local government practices, because councils are closer to the ground and have extra flexibility in how they approach things.
In my area, for example, two councils now share a chief executive, and there has been much more working together among councils, with the county council co-ordinating it. Poole’s unitary council is merging certain services with Bournemouth, which makes a lot of sense given that they are both relatively small unitary councils. A lot of action is taking place.
I am slightly frightened of getting absolute numbers and percentages mixed up, which is what has been happening all afternoon, but I point out that East Dorset council’s revenue support grant per head is £25.98, so there will not be a £200 cut. There cannot be. We therefore have to consider percentages. One might say that a more deprived area should not have the same percentage cuts as a less deprived one, but there is a difficulty with that. As we know, any organisation has certain basic costs that are the same. We need only look at schools, which need a certain number of staff whether they are big or small. That is an absolute fact.
Annette Brooke
I will not, because I want to make it clear that it is not correct to switch from numbers to percentages and to try to blur the picture. We know that the percentage cuts are large, averaging 3.3% but varying across the country. In fact, in my part of the country the percentages are towards the higher end.
One of the councils in my area, Dorset county council, is particularly concerned about the funding lost through the current formula damping. We can ask ourselves where that money goes, and we find that, probably quite rightly, it goes to more deprived areas. However, I am told that Dorset has lost a greater proportion of its grant entitlement through that formula—the Labour Government’s formula, I might add—than any authority in recent years. It will lose more than £7.4 million in 2012-13. There is great concern that the damping mechanism will become locked into the baseline for future years. I want to flag up that point as we move to a new system.
We must accept that the Government amended the funding formula to take greater account of councils’ need. Extra funding is available, for example to support adult social care, but I represent an area where the demand for social care is great in relation to resources. All Departments must give a great deal of thought to the funding of social care while we wait for the White Paper and for anything new to kick in, because here and now, councils across the country have enormous problems in ensuring that the most vulnerable people get enough support. That same situation applies throughout the country. There are pressures on that funding.
The new homes bonus is a plus, bringing in extra funding, and on balance, the council tax freeze for this year is a plus. I well remember being on the council under Labour, when the average increase in council tax in England was something like 10.4%, which enormously affected people who were just above the level of qualifying for any benefit. When I reflect back to that time, I recall that I was blamed as a councillor for that increase in council tax, which was because of Government funding. We come back to that point over and over.
In these difficult times, a council tax freeze is very good, but every council in the country is worried because of that one-off payment, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. How do councils adapt to the situation in subsequent years? It would be wrong not to point out that that is a big concern.
A further concern that I have picked up from my local councils is that they feel they have coped with planning for the cuts that they have had to impose so far, but the uncertainty of next year gives them much less lead-in time for future planning. The Government must take on board the problems that councils face.
Like the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, I believe that ending ring-fencing is a good move. It is quite painful for local councils, but if we believe in localism, it must be the right thing. Moving towards the new system is right. We surely cannot defend the old system. Nobody understood the formula and it failed the test of time.
I hope that Communities and Local Government Ministers monitor the costs that are shunted on to local councils from other Departments. Examples include the 50% cut in community safety grant; the youth justice proposal that local authorities take youth offenders into care; and full recovery for court proceedings under the Children Act 2004. I could go on, but I shall conclude exactly on time.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I shall concentrate on what the local government settlement means for my council. I have advised my colleagues many times before in the Chamber that North Tyneside council has a mayor and cabinet system. Unfortunately, it currently has a Tory cabinet and mayor, but 35 of the 60 councillors are Labour. No doubt that number will increase in May.
The mayor has decided to go for the zero council tax increase deal, which many councillors would argue means a loss of money year on year. That remains to be seen. As a result of the local government settlement, our Tory council faces a cut of £17 million, and following the fashion of the Tory Government, it wants to make savings by cutting services to the most vulnerable members of our community. They want to cease the breakfast offer for breakfast schools, remove free fruit and milk for key stage 2 pupils and increase home care charges by £50 a week—those charges rose by 51% last year and are currently £151 per week. Even before the budget is set, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and I find ourselves pleading the case for hundreds of bowlers in North Tyneside, because the council wants to increase their bowling fees by 400% over the next three years, which will put this sport out of the reach of many older people, for whom it is genuinely a lifeline.
The mayor has come up with an even more radical solution to her difficult budget problem. She and the cabinet want to outsource almost all council services to the private sector by October this year. The only services that will stay in-house will be legal services and the safeguarding of children and young people. Everything else is up for grabs. North Tyneside is no stranger to outsourcing, having outsourced council repairs some years ago, but that proved to be an inefficient and costly service for those who used it—the number of complaints that my office gets every week testifies to that.
There is no getting away from the fact that private companies need to make profits. As the leader of the Labour group in North Tyneside, Councillor Jim Allan, said, the private sector has no magic wand with which to deliver the same services at the same level but with less money. It does not work like that. Outsourcing just one service would take time. For one, there would be the consultation with the public, which is not happening in North Tyneside, and what about the human resources implications, working with the unions and the tender process? How can all that be done for multiple services in a six-month period?
Everyone from residents to staff and councillors realises that budget cuts can mean change, but this seems a change too far. The North Tyneside council that I was a councillor on for 15 years was always striving to achieve, always looking forward and always trying to work with its residents in the most positive strategic way, but now our Tory mayor and her cabinet are bowing to the pressures from the coalition Government, taking the easiest way out of managing the huge Government cuts and throwing North Tyneside on the mercy of full market forces.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I was not intending to speak in this debate, but many hon. Members have highlighted the importance of fairness, so I thought that someone should stand up and highlight the fairness to council tax payers. I speak from experience, having been a councillor for 10 years on Swindon borough council. We took control of that council off the back of a 42% hike in council tax in just three years. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about an average Labour council tax rise of just over 10%, I thought, “If only that had been the case!”
Members have highlighted their concerns about the council tax referendum, but I can assure them that the constituents whom I represented as a councillor and whom I now represent as an MP would have been delighted to have had the opportunity to hold the Labour administration to account. We must bear it in mind that those who suffered most at the hands of the council tax hikes were those on fixed incomes, including pensioners.
I want to talk about the opportunities to give local authorities greater freedom and enable them to address and protect the important front-line services that many Members have highlighted. For example, during my time as a councillor, Labour not only hiked council tax by 42% in three years, but managed to drive down standards until we were the joint worst in the country. The Government inspectors came in and said, “You need to reinvigorate the council. You need to ensure that you have an excellent top management team. You need to go out to market and get the very best council officers available. To do that, you must pay them considerably more money than they are paid now.” The council almost doubled the money on offer and re-employed pretty much the same officers—all paid for by local council tax payers. I welcome the fact, therefore, that the Government will be pulling back on the huge numbers of inspections.
I welcome developments, including in my constituency, where my chief executive is cutting his own pay for the second year in the row—we are seeing that across the country. We need greater transparency and accountability for the highest earners in the public sector.
We also saw a great disparity between the national pay settlements, where the Government would award pay rises for public sector workers, but then award the local authorities that process that money a much smaller local authority settlement. All local authorities were invariably playing catch-up before they had even started the cycle of working out the following year’s council tax.
We had endless BVP—best value performance—targets. When I first became the lead member for leisure, recreation and culture, I was particularly excited to bestow my unique “Tomlinson vision” of what I wanted to do. However, I was presented with a colourful chart setting out exactly what the Government insisted I should do as the lead member, which bore very little resemblance to the public’s priorities. All that cost considerable amounts of money, as we chased the national—and irrelevant—targets. There was also a need for endless consultations and vanity communications projects, where in some regions we had to go out and spend many thousands of pounds talking to just a handful of people to determine what we should and should not do.
We need greater transparency in how local authorities spend money, and I had an end-of-term Adjournment debate on that subject. This Government are trying to open up local government finance, so that we can embrace the potential armchair auditors—the hundreds and thousands of people out there who do not have the time to be full-time councillors, but who have good ideas or good experience of how local authorities could save money. I set out some of the challenges that local residents face in identifying financial figures and being able to make suggestions. I said that local authorities should embrace the idea, setting up their own star chambers, incentivising local residents to find savings and sharing those savings with local residents, so that the council can bank half the money. Perhaps the local residents could then suggest which front-line services the other half could be spent on improving. I would like to see a lot more of that. I was told that one of the arguments against that idea is that it would cost many local authorities a lot of money to answer such requests and understand whether local residents were right in challenging the figures. However, it is a worry if local authorities do not own their own budgets and are not able easily to answer such requests, because we would expect them to be able to do so.
A greater priority needs to be placed on capital investment in invest-to-save schemes. As the lead member for leisure, I knew that the majority of the things that we did would end up costing us revenue, which put further pressure on council tax, so we started to prioritise activities such as five-a-side football pitches. We built three 3G—third-generation—football pitches on a four-year payback scheme. They were paid off within 13 months, and then contributed money back into the council tax coffers, as well as providing a brand-new facility for local residents.
Members have already talked about the need for better procurement and shared services across borders. We were one of the first local authorities to combine the lead for adult social services with the primary care trust, so that there was one chief executive. Rather than having two competing organisations, they were working together. It saved costs and we had just one priority. Finally, the opportunities presented through the business rates scheme and the new homes bonus provide local authorities with an incentive, as they are rewarded for doing the right thing. I remember the number of times that businesses would come to us and say, “You should be doing far more to promote us,” but there was no financial incentive to do so; in fact, sometimes there was a disincentive. However, we now have a real opportunity.
Although these are challenging times, we must never forget that we are here to represent hard-pressed council tax payers. Despite the challenging figures that people have to find, there are plenty of opportunities to improve front-line services and protect the hard-pressed council tax payer.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said that all councils start on the same basis, but that is the fundamental problem: they do not. What this Government are doing in the settlement—we also saw this last week, in the Local Government Finance Bill—is rewarding the councils that vote Conservative in the south of England. They are building that into the system, possibly for the next 10 years, because the proposed use of the 2012-13 grant as a baseline for 2013-14 will mean that injustice continuing in years to come.
What we are basically seeing is an unfair system in which councils in deprived areas—we have heard some examples today, such as Knowsley and others—are paying for more affluent areas, which is the reverse of redistribution. If we look at how the system has been designed, we see three reasons why that is happening. One is the abolition of council tax resource equalisation, which ran from 1993-94 to 2010-11. It took deprivation into account, placing councils on a level playing field, yet this Government have torn it up. We saw in last year’s adjustment a cut of £473 million and for the coming year a cut of £515 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, some have had a 15% cut in local government expenditure.
The Government are trying to give the impression to local councils and local people that it has nothing to do with them. Well, it is. Durham, for example, has had to take £125 million out of its budget. The idea that it is possible to do that by cutting the chief executive’s pay is nonsense; if he worked for nothing, it would not chip away much of that. It is all part of a well worked out strategy by the Secretary of State to shift the blame to local councils.
I spent nearly 11 years in local government, and there was not a single year in which we failed to look for efficiencies. Contrary to what Conservative Members say, most councils do that. The idea that they can be turned around in one year is absolute nonsense, as is the idea that it is possible to avoid front-line service cuts in County Durham by halving the chief executive’s pay or cutting down on the number of pot plants. For the Minister to claim from the Dispatch Box that these cuts can be made in councils like Durham without any effect on front-line services is absolute nonsense. No organisation, let alone a council, could take out such an amount—something like 23% of its budget—without it having any effect.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend will be aware that Liverpool city council is one of the highest ranking in the indices of multiple deprivation, yet it suffered an 8.8% cut worth £91 million last year, it is having a £50 million cut this year and a £25 million cut next year. Can he understand the Minister’s argument that this new methodology will somehow make things fairer?
Mr Jones
Well, it will not make it fairer; it will make it more unfair. The Secretary of State knows exactly what he is doing politically; he is rewarding the people who vote Conservative.
The formula grant for children’s services is another element that puts pressure on councils in the north of England, especially if we look at the detail. That grant has been cut, and I have to tell the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that the number of children in care in councils such as Middlesbrough is huge in comparison with the number in Dorset. The cut thus has a disproportionate effect on councils in County Durham and in other northern cities in comparison with councils in the hon. Lady’s area. Another issue is the damping mechanism. Nine out of 12 councils in the north-east lose out under that process.
I must take my hat off to the Secretary of State for his clever use of percentages when what we should really look at is cash. When cash is taken into account rather than percentages, we find councils like South Tyneside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough losing money through the damping mechanism, so that they have to pay to help “deprived” areas like Windsor, Maidenhead, Richmond upon Thames and, my old favourite, Wokingham. Let us compare Hartlepool to Wokingham. Under the damping mechanism, Hartlepool pays to support Wokingham. Hartlepool faces a cut of £142, that is 5.7%, in spending per dwelling and then has to provide under the damping mechanism £5—0.2%—for every dwelling, which helps to protect Wokingham. Wokingham faces only a £27 cut per household, or 1.5%—only half what the Minister says is the average.
We heard it said in last week’s debates on the Local Government Finance Bill that the system is complex and that the Government are simplifying it, but they are not. They are putting in place a mechanism that will reward affluent areas. It takes away the one thing that equalisation did, which was to ensure there was a level playing field. That will no longer be the case under this system. Northern councils such as those mentioned in earlier examples are taking disproportionate cuts as well as having added costs in running their services because of high levels of unemployment, high numbers of individuals needing social care and the numbers of looked-after children. Those services place huge costs on those councils, which other councils do not have.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he recall the Chancellor saying:
“We are all in this together. I am not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor”?
As my hon. Friend has heard tonight in relation to Knowsley, Halton and other areas, that is exactly what the Chancellor is doing—he is hitting the most deprived areas the most.
Mr Jones
Exactly. We hear a lot of this nonsense and the soundbite that we are all in it together but we are not. The Government are protecting their own affluent areas at the expense of others. I think that under the Thatcher Government, Liverpool was written off at one time, and the current Government are clearly writing off certain areas.
The other alternative is to raise council tax. We heard earlier the new localisation of business rates being trumpeted as something that will bring in huge amounts of cash, but it is a damn sight easier to raise investment and to attract business to parts of the City of Westminster than it is to parts of Ashington in Northumberland or Seaham in Durham. The ability of councils to attract business will be limited, so the areas that will gain from that change will be those affluent councils. Similarly, the councils that will benefit from the changes regarding the new homes bonus will be those where house building is still going on. The house building market in the north-east is flatlining, thanks to the economic policies of this Government, and people are not building many new houses, so even those areas that have available sites are not going to gain.
Another issue is the ability of local councils to raise funding through council tax. In the north-east, 50% of properties are in band A, whereas the figure in Surrey is about 2%, so even if there were an equal council tax rise in both areas, Surrey would have a greater ability to raise large amounts of money than the north-east. The difference is quite stark. In addition, there is the problem that is coming down the road with the localisation of council tax benefit, which will come with a 10% cut. That is another cut for councils that have large numbers of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has made the very good point, which I keep reiterating, that people on council tax benefit are not all on benefit; many of them are in low-paid work and they will be disproportionately affected by these proposals.
The Government know exactly what they are doing. They are devolving responsibility to local councils and with it devolving the blame. They are trying to give the impression to local people that they have nothing to do with the cuts that are coming in County Durham and other northern councils because of this mechanism, but they have. Only one person is responsible for this: the Secretary of State.
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just point out that the Front-Bench winding-up speeches will begin at 6.27 pm, so we have a little under 14 minutes and two speakers remaining. I know that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) will be gracious and courteous in wishing to share his time with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)
I will try to take your lead and be as gracious and courteous as you are, Mr Speaker.
Once again, I am very disappointed. First, I have to register my interest as an existing and long-serving member of Portsmouth city council. I would have hoped that in the past month or so those Ministers in the Department who have had experience in local government would have been reading and listening to what their former colleagues in local government have been saying to them about the problems with the current settlement and with what is being stored up for the next year or two.
It was not easy for the Tory leader of Surrey county council to say that Surrey would decline to take the gimmick from the Government to keep the council tax down. I am sure that he did it with a heavy heart, but, as he rightly said—this was recounted again here this afternoon—it is better take the pain when it is evenly spread, and when one is at least in control of it, than to accept a short-term gain only to experience a very long-term pain. I think that there is something seriously wrong when a Minister, such as the Minister who opened today’s debate, can give no explanation whatsoever, and can offer no hope to local authorities such as my own which accepted the 2.5% gimmick cut. I tried to persuade my colleagues not to do it, but they chose to take the opposite view.
For us, that will pose a real problem. In my local authority, the shunted costs—the responsibilities that are being pushed down to us—amount to £1.8 million. That is the extra sum that we shall have to find to pay for services for which we never had to budget before. Examples that have been given are the full recovery of the cost of court proceedings, discretionary housing benefit payments, a 50% cut in the community safety grant, section 117 cases, concessionary fares, what is described as
“Concessionary Fares Increase Care of New Back Office System”
—which has been demanded by the Department for Transport—and the youth justice system. That £1.8 million comes on top of a 10% cut.
I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether it would be easier to explain all this in terms of percentages. I do not care how people explain it. It is painful, difficult and awkward for local authorities to do anything, and they have not acted irresponsibly. The days when Ministers were able to cite the irresponsible council are long gone. As was pointed out earlier, no council has avoided making efficiency savings. It is in our interest to make such savings, and we have tried desperately hard to make them.
Mr Ward
I will be.
My hon. Friend has mentioned percentages. I hope he agrees that the real issue is gearing. A 10% cut in an authority with an 80% gearing of formula grant to the rest of its funding will mean an 8% reduction in its overall budget, whereas if only 20% of an authority’s funding comes from formula grant, it will experience a reduction of only 2%. That is the big issue.
Mr Hancock
My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but it is falling on deaf ears. It has been made time and time again. It was made last year, for instance. It is unfortunate that no one is listening, and it is very unfair and very disrespectful to Members who serve in local government. Next year, Tory councillors who will be defending their seats in the county council elections will hope against hope that the Government will pull some sort of rabbit out of the hat to safeguard them from having to impose pretty horrendous council tax rises.
This afternoon’s debate is a fait accompli. We shall vote either for or against the motion. I shall vote against it, and I hope that my colleagues who have served or are still serving in local government will do so as well, because this is not doing the cause of local government and local democracy any good. For Ministers not to be able to answer even the simplest, most fundamental question about where we go from here is totally unacceptable and unfair. As Members have said repeatedly, this is shifting the blame. It means more responsibility, fewer resources, and indeed more blame—not for Government, but for local government.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). I think I said that in a debate about a week ago. I meant it then, and I mean it now. The Government really should listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, given his long experience of local government and of the problems that he has just described.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) cautioned the Government against blocking in the damping system. I shall make the opposite point, however. The Minister currently on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), has a long background in local government and understands why arrangements such as floors, ceilings and damping are put in place. Unless that is locked in, Knowsley, which is already suffering very badly from the current system, stands to lose £6 million. I therefore hope the Government give serious consideration to locking in that system—and in particular to locking in the floor, not least because it is especially important for Knowsley.
In order to illustrate the importance of this point, we have to mention the figures. Last year, Knowsley’s cut in revenue spending per head of population was already £156, compared with the average across England of £49.18. The added effect of this settlement will make that problem even more serious.
Let me give one more set of statistics before I address the substance of my argument. SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—represents the local authorities of several Members, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary prayed it in aid earlier. It tells a story about funding growth. The lowest ranking local authorities over the period it addresses are Liverpool with growth of 21.9%, Knowsley with 21.9%, Bury with 21%, Wirral with 21% and South Tyneside with 22.7%. These statistics are pretty meaningless unless we know what to compare them with. Perhaps the best comparison is with those authorities that will have the greatest growth. They are the City of London with a staggering 139.6%, Westminster with 90.7%, Hillingdon with 40.6%, Camden with 37.5% and—guess what—Kensington and Chelsea with 34.5%. That cannot be fair.
The Minister who opened the debate, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), engaged in quite a bit of sophistry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) exposed, as it were, the raw nerve in his argument. Astonishingly, the Minister argued that a local authority with high need will probably already have a high level of grant and therefore should expect to have more grant cut in the future. I do not think there is a better term to describe that argument than “sophistry.”
The Minister also said there was plenty of room for cuts and for reform and changes to the system. He stated that we could improve things and that lots of money would be saved. Specifically, he said he wanted to cut the red tape in tendering. The Minister is not in his place at present, but no doubt he will return at some point in the proceedings. I do not know whether he has ever sat in on a local authority tender-opening process, and I certainly do not know what he is thinking about when he refers to red tape in that regard. As several other Members present will be able to confirm, this is what happens in such a tendering process: people go into a room, the envelopes are opened, and the amount of money each contractor has tendered for the job is read out, and in the end, unless there is good reason to do otherwise, the process concludes with the declaration, “We accept tender X”—or Y or Z—“subject to checking.” The red tape is contained in precisely that term: “subject to checking.” The checking involves council officers working out whether the firm involved can do the job and has the resources to ensure that it is completed. That is what the red tape, on which we are going to save millions of pounds, consists of.
Mr Mike Hancock
I was confused when that list was being read out. Was the right hon. Gentleman as confused as I was when it was said that local authorities should do more about procurement fraud? Was it seriously being suggested that when local authorities know about such fraud, they do nothing about it? That was mind-boggling.
Mr Howarth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but the point is that unless there is a rigorous, properly policed tendering process, the potential for fraud is even greater.
I will conclude as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has plenty more to say. Whatever decision my Front-Bench colleagues reached, given the extent to which this motion discriminates against local authorities such as Knowsley, there is no way I could support it today. I am happy to join them in the Lobby because this is a despicable measure, and I suspect that the Under-Secretary, in his quiet moments—if there are any—feels the same as I do.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
We have heard numerous examples of the damage being inflicted on local communities by the Government’s slash and burn approach to local authority spending. It has inflicted on councils larger cuts than any Government Department has taken, without planning or looking at the effect on individuals, and even without any thought of the longer-term economic consequences.
My hon. Friends have highlighted the situation very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) talked about front-loading of the cuts making it impossible to plan, and the uncertainty local councils face. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) gave powerful examples of what is happening, and talked about the cuts in school food provision and the increase in home care charges. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the injustice of the cuts to front-line services in his area, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), speaking for one of the most deprived authorities in the country, highlighted how the cuts are being inflicted on the poorest communities. All have shown how people are having to live with the harsh realities of life under this Government.
Of course, the Government, far from trying to hide the fact that they are hitting the poorest most, are quite up-front about it. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), in a quote he should be reminded of again and again, said:
“Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 450.]
That’s it then—not the bankers, not the millionaires in the Cabinet; the poorest pay the price. Same old Tories, and, apart from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), same old Lib Dems: always telling us they are going to do “something”—we know not what—and then trooping through the Lobby desperate to hang on to their chance of a ministerial car. It is said that it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world—but for a Honda Civic? Really! Once again, we see the poorest paying the price and, in the second year of this settlement, the damage being inflicted on the most vulnerable people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) reminded us, the Government began with cuts in the working neighbourhoods fund and the Supporting People grant, which helped 1 million people, including victims of domestic violence and people with mental health problems. The Government have gone on to entrench that unfairness in the system and so we see, for example, that by the end of the two-year period Liverpool will have lost £235 per person in spending power, Manchester’s figure will be £186, Birmingham’s will be £155 and Nottingham’s will be £147. Those are the cities that the Government say are going to lead our economic revival. It is not even a case of one half of the Government not knowing what the other half is doing, because one half of the Department does not know what the other half of the Department is doing either.
Let us have a look at what happens in other authority areas. Wokingham council, our favourite authority, actually gains overall from this settlement. Dorset, taken as a whole, has a cut of 10p per person, while the figure for Richmond upon Thames is 80p and the figure for the Windsor and Maidenhead authority is a massive, by its standards, £2.20. What do many of those authorities have in common? They contain the constituencies of Cabinet Ministers. Does that not make nonsense of this statement from the Deputy Prime Minister:
“Our core aim is to hard-wire fairness back into national life”?
Tell that to the people who have lost their Sure Start programmes, and to the elderly people and disabled people who are paying more for home care or who are not getting that care at all because the eligibility criteria have changed.
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend will have to forgive me for not giving way, but we are short on time.
Tell that to the people whose community centres, libraries and day centres have closed. The truth, which Government Members have to face, is very simple: people who are wealthy can buy themselves out of those cuts, because they can pay for care and buy their books, but the people the cuts hit most are those who cannot do that. I am talking about the people who have paid their taxes all their life and then find that they cannot get care in their old age and that their sons and daughters are caught between trying to look after them, to work and to look after their children. I am talking about the families on low wages who go out to work every day and want their children to get on but cannot afford to buy all the books they would like and are dependent on their libraries. [Interruption.] I hear the muttering from the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and I know that the Tories are going to say, “We do not do this because we want to, but because we have to.” Let us start nailing that myth, shall we?
In the year from autumn 2009 to autumn 2010 the economy grew at 3.9% and unemployment was falling. So successful have the Tories been that the economy is now in negative growth, the level of unemployment is nearly 2.7 million and, scandalously, one in five of our young people is unemployed—and borrowing is increasing. The Government’s approach has not worked. They could, of course, have worked with local authorities on long-term savings and they could have assisted local authorities to use their spending power to help tackle those problems. Before they started their cuts, the local authority procurement budget was £34.2 billion, most of which was spent with small and medium-sized firms. Councils such as Tameside—it did this through its Tameside investment project—were using their purchasing power not only to build new schools, but to assist local firms; it put £15 million into local companies.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning “Tameside Works First”, the initiative of my local authority. Is she also aware that Tameside council had 700 young people on the future jobs fund, which was scrapped by this Government?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall be dealing with that matter in a moment. The Government could have worked with local authorities to use that purchasing power, but what they failed to understand was that when it is cut too far, too fast, those local companies do not expand—they contract or go bust. The Government, while taking that approach, have taken away every lever local authorities had to help their local economies. Nottingham alone lost £6.5 million from the scrapping of the future jobs fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has mentioned Tameside—[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene, I will be happy to let him.
Grant Shapps
Will the hon. Lady repeat something we heard for the first time in the Chamber a couple of hours ago, which is that those on the Front Bench deplore the fact that Nottingham city council will not publish its expenditure online?
Helen Jones
We believe that all councils should publish their expenditure and we would like the DCLG to set an example by not being so far behind the curve in publishing its expenditure, too.
The Government took away the community growth fund and abolished regional development agencies. Scandalously, they will not even let local authorities participate in the Work programme so that the very people who understand their local communities best and have long-term relationships with local businesses are excluded from it. That is the problem with this settlement. It is sending local areas, many of them the most deprived in the country, into a spiral of decline. People are facing cuts to services, increases in charges and a loss of jobs.
Some 129,000 local government jobs have already gone and more than 700,000 are likely to go. What happens then? Those people cannot spend money in the local economy, so private businesses lose revenue and as they suffer they lay people off. Local councils are locked in a spiral of more and more demands on their services and less and less revenue. That is why we oppose this settlement. It is unfair, it hits the poorest most and, most of all, it is economically illiterate. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose it tonight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill)
The debate has at times been a little like my experience in local government since I was first elected in 1974. There have been some serious and important contributions, some genuine commitment, and passages—particularly towards the end—of the utterly surreal. Towards the end of my local government career, I was dealing with Mr Ken Livingstone, and I have just listened to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) summing up—surrealism comes at the end. I am afraid that the official Opposition throw away any sense of credibility when they resort to the sort of rant that misses the fundamental reason why the tough settlement—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and others said that it is tough, which I accept, and the Government have never pretended that it is anything else—is necessary.
Why is it, sadly, necessary to have these reductions in public spending? Why does local government, as 25% of public spending, have to bear a share? The Labour party bankrupted the country. Its shameful failure has made every reduction necessary and the mealy-mouthed and, to many people in local government, distasteful unwillingness to accept responsibility condemns Labour Members from their own mouths. It condemns them to having no credibility and it is why, ultimately, they see the results they do in the opinion polls. It is no good blaming their leader, as it is not just that they do not listen to him but that nobody is listening to them. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition apparently recognises that there must be deficit reduction because of the mess that his Government left, and the shadow Chancellor appears to agree with that—it is about the only thing they do agree on, of course—but it never permeates down, as far as I can see, to the rest of the shadow Cabinet, never mind to anybody else. We have heard not a word about what the Labour party would have done to help local government in dealing with the inheritance that it left.
The coalition Government have faced up to economic necessity and have also given progressive, sensible tools to help local government through the immediate situation and out of it. The Government inherited the formula brought in by Labour towards the end of its period in government. We have had that formula grant for a long time and it has always, as we know, contained an element of ministerial discretion. The lack of transparency in how it operated quite rightly leads my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others to say that some people had suspicions about the objectiveness with which Labour used that formula.
Instead, what we have done is to increase the weighting given to the needs element in the formula for this year’s settlement to help those most in need, and for the longer term to move towards a more transparent system whereby local authorities can retain growth in the business rate and reward those who are entrepreneurial and go-ahead and want to do the best for their areas, rather than saying, “We must be locked for ever in a counsel of despair”, which involves grant dependency. One of the saddest aspects of this debate is the number of Opposition Members who have experience in local government but who are locked into that counsel of despair because they do not have enough faith in their own people and those who work for them.
Robert Neill
I shall give way once and once only, to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).
Mr George Howarth
I am grateful to the Minister. He is making a speech about local government finance. Has he noticed that he has not mentioned a single figure yet?
Robert Neill
Since the settlement is set out in reams of paper, I need not trouble the right hon. Gentleman too much with that, though he might like to know that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I regret to say, fell—unintentionally, I am sure—into error in his point about expenditure. The disabled facilities grant has in fact been increased this year, as it was last year. It was increased by a further £20 million. It has gone up from £167 million to £187 million, and it will go up to £207 million next year.
It is worth saying that central Government are providing £27.8 billion in all by way of formula grant to local authorities. In addition there are further specific grants. It is also worth saying, if the right hon. Member for Knowsley would like some figures, that we are providing a further £20 million in transition grant this year. That makes up for the slack in budgets that came when the Labour Government brought working neighbourhoods funds to an end, quite deliberately and in a planned fashion.
Brandon Lewis
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the figures that is most important to the people whom we are here to represent is the one that relates to their council tax? The Government have allowed it to be frozen for a second year, which is a vast improvement on the years of multiple increases under the previous Government.
Robert Neill
It is ironic that we heard very little about whether the Opposition will encourage Labour councils to take the council tax freeze. I hope they will. Following the damascene conversion of the shadow Secretary of State to condemning the lack of transparency of Nottingham city council, I hope he will say that whatever the Opposition think about the Government overall, it is necessary above all to protect council tax payers and hard-pressed families and to adopt the council tax freeze.
Many authorities are doing that and they are using the breathing space. We have said that this year, because of the economic mess that we inherited, it is a one-year payment. Last year’s payment will be throughout the spending period. It gives local authorities a breathing space in which to manage the reconfiguration of their services. Good authorities are doing that.
Better procurement is an important issue and it should not be sneered at, as some hon. Members did. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is right to remind people that smaller authorities in rural areas often have less flexibility in managing budget pressures than larger authorities. We must recognise, therefore, that we cannot necessarily draw comparisons. Our system specifically builds in fairness, and not only because we have increased the needs element in the formula. I know it is a shock to Opposition Members, because they have the intellectual arrogance to think that only they have a conception of fairness; that they have a monopoly on the subject.
That is the fundamental arrogance that got Labour into opposition after all those years. The Opposition promised the electorate in their 1997 manifesto that they would hand back the business rate to councils, and they spent 13 years not doing that. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central said that he wanted certainty. Did it take him 13 years to be certain that he would not do it? That is what he managed to do. Instead, the coalition is getting on with it. Although it is not easy to fix a broken system, the coalition is making an honest stab, and local government deserves—
Robert Neill
I have given way twice already and made it clear that I will not do so again. I am sorry, but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get too worked up about it. I want to be fair to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central by responding to his other specific point.
With regard to the top-slicing of the local authority central services equivalent grant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will of course make an announcement in due course. As always, that is being considered through discussions between Government Departments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Secretary of State, in making his decisions, has taken note of a number of recommendations and concerns raised by local authorities. We must strike a fair balance in that regard and will do so. In relation to pooling and whether there will be a surplus, I think that—
Robert Neill
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of letting me answer his party’s spokesman.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to pooling, but I think that he meant the provisions under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by which the totality of the money raised by the national non-domestic rate, the business rate, must be returned to local government. That continues to be the case. In this year, when the totality of non-domestic rate raised was more than the formula grant, the rest was returned by way of grant to local authorities outside formula grant, and that remains an option. Everything comes back to local government one way or the other, and that is the statutory requirement that the Government have consistently met.
The right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Leeds Central asked about referendums and what does and does not qualify. Referendum provisions apply to the billing authority in a two-tier area—a district or unitary council or a London borough—and to major precepting authorities: a county council, police authority or fire authority. In each case it is their own element that is subject to the referendum, so the district council cannot be forced into a referendum because of an increase by the county council, or vice versa. When we talk about levies, we are not talking about precepts, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central knows, but about the rather more technical payments that we generally get from passenger transport authorities or drainage boards—
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his reply to me this afternoon, the Prime Minister claimed that a third of Welsh patients are waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment, when it is only a fifth, and that 27% of patients are waiting for more than six weeks for direct access to diagnostics, when it is only 18%. Those are not even the targets that the NHS in Wales works towards, so the whole basis for comparison was wrong. As I am sure that the Prime Minister would not wish to mislead the House or to leave such an inaccuracy uncorrected, however inadvertently, will you say whether he has requested the opportunity to come back to the House and put matters right, as he should?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have had no such notification. As an experienced Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman will know that, strictly speaking, that was not a point of order. He has got his views on the record and I am sure that he will pursue the point if he feels that he needs to.
I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from previous days. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Manchester, the Ayes were 315 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Newcastle upon Tyne, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Sheffield, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Coventry, the Ayes were 314 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Wakefield, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to.
On the motion relating to broadcasting, the Ayes were 326 and the Noes were 198, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to electronic communications, the Ayes were 325 and the Noes were 198, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Proposed Closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition from the residents of south-east Northumberland relating to the proposed closure of the Rio Tinto Alcan aluminium smelter in my constituency.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of south East Northumberland,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth and to support the workforce and those involved in the supply chain.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001006]
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
That the draft City of Manchester (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 201 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 201 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft City of Sheffield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 201 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft City of Coventry (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 201 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 201 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order, 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 325 / Noes: 198 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I asked for this debate because for nearly 12 months I have been questioning the Department of Health about why the latest radiotherapy techniques and equipment to treat cancer patients are not being used by our NHS. I have pressed hard on this subject because, like Cancer Care UK and many other respected organisations, I believe radiotherapy is underused in the front line for curing cancer.
This country has a history and a habit of resorting to pumping cancer patients full of pharmaceuticals. Do not get me wrong, I am not knocking cancer drugs—many are highly effective and a great help to patients, and many cancer patients are alive today thanks to them. However, a lot of those drugs also have some pretty horrific side effects, and patients are often reluctant to take them for that reason. So in reality, throughout the latter part of the last century, heavy doses of drugs or death were almost the only choices that cancer patients had.
Although there has been plentiful use of drugs throughout the last 60 years, the uptake of radiotherapy as a front-line treatment has been slow. Radiologists have told me that one reason for that is they have not been as successful at lobbying as the pharmaceutical companies, but that is a matter for another debate. The main reason why there was resistance to using radiotherapy in the past was its method of delivery—single large beams of radiation being fired into the body to ensure that the tumour at which they were aimed was radiated. Unfortunately, those large beams also radiated an awful lot of healthy tissue around a tumour, especially if the tumour was moving, and frequently caused more damage than good. Patients often complained that the side effects of radiotherapy were worse than the cancer.
During this century, there have been huge advances in the delivery and accuracy of radiotherapy treatment. Around the world, radiosurgery is being used increasingly to cure cancer as a front-line treatment. Stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment, or SBRT, uses multiple very fine beams of radiation locked directly on to just the tumour. With some new technologies the beams move as the tumour moves, ensuring that the surrounding healthy tissue is not harmed and only the tumour is radiated.
Unfortunately, in the UK we are failing to embrace the new technologies that allow for the effective use of SBRT to treat cancer patients. We are falling behind both Europe and the US. On 22 November last year, I asked the Secretary of State for Health in the Chamber how many radiotherapy centres in this country were providing SBRT to cancer patients. When he told me the figure was 25%, I must admit to having been surprised—not as surprised, I would add, as some of the medical professionals I know, who found the figure unbelievable, but that was what he said.
Within a few days, the cancer tsar repeated that same figure in a letter to The Times. Thus, 25% suddenly became received wisdom for the standard of provision of SBRT in England. I therefore asked the Secretary of State in a written question on what evidence he had based his statement. “Not really sure,” was the reply. The evidence was based on an “informal study” conducted by the National Cancer Action Team. NCAT also said it believed there were more than 20 machines in the country that could deliver SBRT.
I am not a fan of Government policy making based on “informal studies” and vague beliefs, so I conducted my own, very formal study on the availability of SBRT in the UK. Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, I wrote to every hospital in the country that provides radiotherapy and asked each a series of questions about its ability to deliver SBRT. I am pleased to say that 57 replied—all but the Royal Shrewsbury hospital—and very helpful they were too.
For the record, I shall share the data with the Minister, so he can pass them on to the Secretary of State. In 2011, only seven centres in England and one in Scotland treated cancer patients with SBRT. There were no centres in Wales or Northern Ireland. Only four of the centres conducted a large enough number of procedures to comply with national radiotherapy implementation group recommendations. Therefore, 14% offer SBRT and just 8% are compliant. The total number of patients treated in those centres was just 323. That figure is not surprising when we consider that, according to the hospitals, there are only seven machines in the country capable of delivering SBRT—a good deal fewer than the number NCAT believes there are.
The Minister will not be surprised that my questioning did not stop there. I had also asked what indications the centres treated with SBRT. The data became even more interesting. Those centres using the Elekta or Varian systems treated only lung cancer. Centres using the CyberKnife system treated lung cancer, but they also treated liver, prostate, spine, breast, myeloma, sarcoma, head and neck, and ovarian cancers.
I asked the centres what their estimates for SBRT treatment in 2012 were. Again, they were very helpful in providing that information, and I place on record my gratitude to them for it. The centres estimate that approximately 725 procedures will take place in hospitals planning SBRT programmes for this year: 48 using the Varian system; 195 using the Elekta system; and 385 using CyberKnife system. The remaining 97 procedures were claimed as “estimates” by centres that have not conducted any SBRT in the past, and which do not appear—from their responses—to have suitable equipment for conducting such procedures.
I must admit that I found that last statistic, and the fact that only four centres conducted the number of procedures necessary to comply with the NRIG recommendations, very alarming. I, for one, would not wish to be treated at a centre where the team carries out only half a dozen procedures each year. How can it possibly have any expertise in such a complex treatment process if the staff so rarely conduct the procedure? For the Minister to allow that to continue would be contrary to the aims of the new Health and Social Care Bill and all that the Secretary of State has said about concentrating resources in centres of excellence to improve patient outcomes.
A number of other things alarmed me when I read the returns from the centres. On numerous occasions, the Minister has assured me that work is in hand by NCAT to establish a national tariff, or price tag, for SBRT, and yet, while the centres tell me they would welcome a national tariff, they also tell me that no progress is being made towards it. In fact, the vast majority have not even been consulted about establishing one. One of the most well known and respected centres has gone further, and said that
“a national radiotherapy tariff without SBRT would be seriously flawed and its fitness for purpose questionable.”
Will the Minister comment on that?
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
The hon. Lady is aware of a case involving Brian Withers, my constituent. He has been able to access the treatment, but has had to self-fund to do so. One reason it was not included in his clinical pathway was that it was argued that there was no clinical trial evidence for it in his situation. Does she agree that part of the problem is that SBRT is treated as a novel treatment for cancer as opposed to the development of an existing one? Therefore, without the tariff, people from other regions will not be able to access it on a routine basis.
Tessa Munt
I could not agree more. As the hon. Lady and others are well aware, I have spoken with her constituent, Mr Withers, and it is clear that radiosurgery is a well-established and proven therapy—it is just that we have to wait to get it.
In an answer to a parliamentary question, I was told that a price tag would not be set up until 2014. NCAT must be the only organisation in the NHS that believes it should take three years from the point that an esteemed committee recommends a national tariff until one can be implemented. From what they tell me, the centres do not believe it, and I do not believe it, and I do not think that the Minister believes it. The question of establishing an SBRT tariff, as recommended in the report from NRIG last April, is not just a question of the administration involved in setting up some codes so that the NHS can cost it; this lack of tariff has a direct impact on cancer patients’ lives.
Let me tell the Minister about my friend Kerry Dunn, a 42-year-old mother from Somerset who was diagnosed with cancer. Last September, her clinicians in Bristol concluded that the only treatment available that could save her life was SBRT on CyberKnife. The CyberKnife experts in London agreed. Her clinicians applied for funding from North Somerset primary care trust, but it took them two months before it refused. It said no because, according to it, there was not enough evidence to suggest that CyberKnife would work.
It is important that the Minister fully understands the train of events in this case. Kerry Dunn’s clinician in Bristol, one of the leading oncologists in the country, believed that CyberKnife could treat her, and the clinicians in London, who routinely use CyberKnife to treat cancer, said that they could treat her, but the bean-counters on North Somerset PCT thought otherwise. Kerry Dunn told me what had happened at the beginning of December. She and her family were in absolute despair over this decision. Once I had contacted North Somerset PCT and after the local press had, separately, taken an interest in her case, the PCT allowed Kerry Dunn to appeal its decision. Three weeks after the first decision, the PCT changed its mind and agreed her funding for CyberKnife.
If Members were expecting a happy ending to this story, I am sorry to disappoint them. Kerry went straight back to the CyberKnife people in London, but her tumour had grown so much that they could no longer treat her. Kerry and her family now face an uncertain future. Three months earlier, there was considerable hope that she would beat her cancer.
The Minister will know as well as I do that if the NRIG report had been implemented last April and an SBRT tariff set at that time, North Somerset PCT would not have delayed approval for Kerry’s treatment and she would be a much healthier woman than she is today. Over the past 12 months, the Department of Health has painted a very different picture of the provision of SBRT in the NHS. I must say to the Minister that I am shocked by the disparities between what the Secretary of State has told me and what all the hospitals have told me in answer to my freedom of information requests. Knowing the Minister as well as I do, I trust that it has more to do with his officials keeping him in the dark than their misleading hon. Members.
In conclusion, I would like some answers from the Minister today. Will he instruct the National Cancer Action Team to conduct a full review of the SBRT facilities available in the NHS? That review should establish whether hospitals are using technology that is fit for purpose and can treat a wide range of tumours with SBRT, and whether hospitals are conducting the number of procedures needed to comply with the NRIG recommendations. Will he commit to speeding up the process of establishing an SBRT tariff in line with the NRIG recommendations, and will he start immediately by asking NCAT to establish a costing code? Finally, I would like a commitment from him to investigate why decisions to fund SBRT by PCTs can ignore clinical opinions of medical professionals when assessing the need for treatment for people such as Kerry Dunn.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate. I want to put on the record the appreciation of myself and the whole House for the work that she has done in this important area.
Last August, the Department of Health released the first ever England-wide analysis of patient access to radiotherapy treatment. For those of us who represent constituencies outside London and the south-east, the results were shocking. The disparity in treatment levels for cancer patients living in and around London, compared with the rest of the country, is nothing short of disgraceful. Access to advanced radiotherapy should not be a postcode lottery. The data on each of England’s 28 cancer networks show that the further someone moves away from London, the smaller their chance is of receiving radiotherapy. North-west London tops the list, with radiotherapy provision at 94%, whereas the north-east—my region—came last, at 27%. In fact, the bottom five networks were all north of the River Trent.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The benefits of SBRT are well proven in many cases and clear in numerous cases. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be available more extensively across the whole of the NHS, and that it is time for the Minister to work alongside the devolved Administrations to ensure that the treatment is available for patients in Northern Ireland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom?
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree completely. All 28 cancer networks should have equal access to this advanced radiotherapy.
In practical terms, cancer patients in the Minister’s London constituency are three times more likely to receive the radiotherapy treatment that they need than those residing in northern England and twice as likely as those living in the south-west of England. Believe it or not, however, when the general radiotherapy dataset is analysed further—by that I mean looking at radiotherapy centres offering conventional radiotherapy and those offering the more effective SBRT—the picture is far worse.
The conventional method of radiotherapy delivery is unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy tissue, so the treatment is delivered in short doses—often every day for four or five weeks—to avoid too much damage to the healthy tissue. As the hon. Member for Wells said, SBRT uses small, multiple and highly focused beams of energy to deliver radiation directly to the tumour, ensuring that a minimal dose is received by the surrounding healthy tissue. Consequently, there are little or no treatment-related side effects. SBRT allows the patient to be treated over five days, as opposed to five weeks, as with conventional radiotherapy. Because of its accuracy, SBRT can be used to treat tumours that might be surgically inaccessible or in close proximity to critical organs of the body, such as the heart.
When we look at the postcode lottery that the dataset report presents, we should also ask where SBRT is available and where it is not. The Minister must understand how important the comparison is. For cancer patients in my constituency, the difference between having access to SBRT and having access to conventional radiotherapy—for prostate cancer, for example—is a 50-mile car journey every day for five weeks and the treatment lasting just five days, with a rapid return to normal life. As well as the benefits to the individual, the cost savings to the NHS of using SBRT compared with conventional radiotherapy are obvious for all to see.
Like the hon. Lady, I, too, was approached, just before Christmas, by a constituent whose cancer needed SBRT. His tumour could be treated only using the accuracy of the robotic CyberKnife system, but there are only three CyberKnife systems in the NHS, and they are all in London. However, thanks to the incredible co-operation of my constituents’ clinicians and the clinicians from St Bartholomew’s hospital in London, as well as the understanding of County Durham PCT—the commissioners, who, in a timely fashion, agreed funding —he starts his treatment here in London in two weeks. My constituent is very happy that he is set to receive the treatment in an NHS hospital, but is it not a scandal that he has to travel more than 260 miles to do so? What is equally scandalous is that the reason why there are only three CyberKnife systems in NHS hospitals is that those hospitals needed to raise the money to purchase them from charitable donations. I have since learned that in Birmingham, as well as in Newcastle, in my region, the Bear appeal is seeking to raise the money for a CyberKnife system from charitable sources.
What an indictment of the NHS under this coalition government! The NHS should not have to go begging for charitable funds to buy the latest life-saving equipment, especially when we know that the Department of Health is currently holding back £300 million in capital allocations, in Whitehall coffers. This resource is for capital equipment, but is not given to the hospitals in regions like the north-east where it is most needed. If the Minister is serious about reducing health inequalities in the north-east, and, indeed, in the south-west, we should have this equipment and not be left to linger at the bottom of the radiotherapy dataset, which the Minister himself said is the benchmark for future provision. I ask the Minister to make a commitment to investing some of this £300 million in the capital equipment needed to reduce these disparities in the provision of radiotherapy in general and SBRT in particular.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
We have had a good debate so far, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing it and on providing an opportunity for us to draw attention to radiotherapy services in the NHS. I want to try to answer as many questions as I can. I understand that my hon. Friend will meet Department officials to discuss some of her concerns further. I hope that if any issues are not covered, they can be explored further there.
Radiotherapy is an extremely important form of treatment for cancer, which often does not get the attention it deserves. This debate has, I think, helped in that regard. It is more targeted than chemotherapy and less invasive than surgery, with new, faster and more precise technologies reducing side-effects and improving outcomes for patients. Radiotherapy is a significant component in the treatment of 40% of patients cured of cancer and for 16% of cures overall. It is also extremely cost-effective in comparison to other curative cancer treatments. Spending is at around £325 million a year—just 5% of the total spend on cancer.
For these reasons, I very much welcome the opportunity presented by this debate to correct a number of inaccuracies that have appeared in the press on this subject. Claims have been made that patients are being denied life-saving treatments because of the lack of access to CyberKnife. Those claims are both inaccurate and alarming, and I think they must cause great anxiety to patients. The truth is that CyberKnife is not a form of treatment, but a brand name of a particular type of equipment that delivers stereotactic body radiotherapy or SBRT. It is not the only technology available, as I shall explain further in a moment.
My hon. Friend talked about the figures, and I repeat the fact that one in four radiotherapy centres currently has equipment—not CyberKnife in every case—that is capable of providing SBRT. I understand, and this bears out my hon. Friend’s figures—
Paul Burstow
No. Many points have been put to me, and to be fair, I now need to respond to them.
Currently, eight centres are active in providing these services, but I recognise and appreciate the work my hon. Friend has done, and we will certainly need to review carefully the information she has presented tonight.
CyberKnife can deliver only SBRT and cannot deliver conventional radiotherapy. Large, expensive radiotherapy delivery systems such as these are purchased by public tender. After vigorous and rigorous evaluation of the many different systems available to deliver this treatment, many hospitals around the country have chosen systems provided by other manufacturers, as they enable them to provide flexible, accurate and cost-effective radiotherapy and radio-surgery services. The promotion of CyberKnife over other alternatives does a disservice to other manufacturers that are successful in providing equipment to trusts, and distorts the nature of the debate.
Let me be clear: timely access to high-quality radiotherapy for cancer patients in this country should improve cancer outcomes and survival. That is why we have made a commitment to expand radiotherapy capacity by investing about £150 million more over the next four years. That will increase the utilisation of existing equipment, support additional services and ensure that all high-priority patients with a need for proton-beam therapy get access to it abroad.
Significant progress has been made in improving radiotherapy services since the publication of the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group report in 2007. The collection of the radiotherapy dataset, which the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) talked about, has enabled us to establish more accurately than ever before the measure of the number of patients being treated with radiotherapy, and to identify and address unacceptable and inexplicable variations around the country. Almost all patients referred for radiotherapy treatment receive that treatment within the waiting time standards. This improvement in waiting times, compared with historical waiting times, saves lives each year. New modelling tools have been developed that allow local services to model the needs of their populations and to predict demand and ensure that they have capacity to treat all patients who will benefit from the treatment without unnecessary delay as demand changes over the years.
However, there can be absolutely no room for complacency, and we realise that more work needs to be done to identify why the variations that the hon. Member for Easington has talked about in terms of referral rates in some parts of the country have existed. The dataset shows that some variations in access rates between cancer networks persist, and there is currently lower uptake in certain parts of the north that cannot be explained by variations in cancer incidence. That new dataset allows local commissioners to examine their referral practices in detail, and I understand that networks in the north-east are looking at capacity and travel times to start to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House tonight.
Access to advanced radiotherapy techniques needs to be improved, particularly intensity modulated radiotherapy. Experts estimate that around a third of all treatments given with the intention of cure should be delivered by IMRT. Some centres are already delivering at that rate, but many are far below it. All centres have equipment that is capable of delivering that technique and a national training programme has been rolled out. We now need to ensure that IMRT, as well as image guided radiotherapy, is offered to all patients who might benefit.
As we have heard, radiotherapy treatment involves the delivery of a dose of radiation to a cancer tumour. That dose is delivered to each patient in fractions or treatments and the number of fractions delivered varies with the type of cancer. The ultimate goal in radiotherapy is to deliver the treatment to the tumour with pinpoint accuracy, thus sparing surrounding tissue and requiring as few fractions, or treatments, as possible—in other words, to treat and cure more cancers with shorter courses of radiotherapy and fewer side effects. For that reason, radiotherapy is continuously evolving with innovations and the development of new techniques and technologies that move us increasingly closer to that goal, but those new developments need to be evaluated in clinical studies.
It is a challenge for providers and commissioners to keep up with the evolving nature of radiotherapy treatment and to ensure the evaluation and adoption of new techniques. The royal colleges and other professional bodies provide guidance to their members to assist the continuous update of clinical practice. Commissioners in turn need to ensure that they are aware of sources of updated guidance. The radiotherapy community in this country can be rightly proud of its ability to deliver clinical studies and explore the use of delivering radiotherapy in fewer fractions. Indeed, the role of the Royal College of Radiologists and the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group in producing such guidance is absolutely crucial.
Let me come back to stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is an important example of specialist radiotherapy technique. It allows radiotherapy to be given to smaller target areas in higher doses with fewer treatments. Its greatest potential is in its possible use as an alternative to surgery and, because of its precision, to treat and potentially cure cancers that would otherwise be untreatable. However, as has been mentioned, it is regarded as a novel technique and it provides a very high dose of radiation per treatment. With conventional radiotherapy, a patient might receive their dose over 20 to 25 visits, but with SBRT that dose is delivered in five or six. More treatments need to be delivered within clinical studies so that clinicians can carefully follow up in both the short and long term to confirm the efficacy of the treatment and study any side effects. Side effects have been mentioned in the context of drugs, but we need to be conscious that there can also be side effects from radiotherapy and not be so anxious to expose people to risks if we are not confident. We should apply the standards of clinical trials to this area. It would be wrong for this Government to promote any form of treatment before the evidence has been collected. Evidence is about more than just making speeches in the House—it is also about looking at the clinical evidence.
All new techniques, including advanced radiotherapy, need to be justified on the grounds of cost and clinical effectiveness. Last year, the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group, published guidance, which has been mentioned, on the use of SBRT, including a clinical evidence review, and concluded that there is a substantial evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of SBRT in early stage lung cancer for patients who are unsuitable for surgery.
There are about 1,000 patients in the country who would benefit from that sort of procedure. There are ongoing clinical trials examining the use of the technique for other cancers, but they have yet to confirm its benefits for those cancers. For that reason, the national radiotherapy implementation group recommended that any patient receiving SBRT should receive it in a clinical study to enable the evidence to grow, and at specialised centres treating high volumes of patients with the necessary quality assurance safeguards in place. The implementation of the recommendations cannot be rushed, and the welfare of patients should be paramount in the introduction and use of novel techniques. Staff must therefore be thoroughly trained in this technique.
My hon. Friend asked me to consider a number of issues. I will certainly undertake to examine the tariff programme to establish what more can be done to expedite it, but I should point out that it is no small task to introduce new tariffs in the NHS. In 2012-13 we are mandating the use of the necessary resource groups and currencies in regard to contracting for external beam radiotherapy, and that is an essential first step. I hope that when my hon. Friend has a chance to sit down with officials, they will be able to talk in more detail about the work that is being undertaken to make progress with the implementation of tariffs.
It is possible that there will be a significant increase in demand for this treatment in the coming decades, but many tumours will continue to be treated better with conventional radiotherapy, and in particular with intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy techniques.
Tessa Munt
May I clarify one point? I understand that the group recommended the setting of a tariff, but that the Department of Health will not set it until 2014. There is an acceptance of the technology, but there is also a delay of two years, and in that time people might die.
Paul Burstow
There are already local arrangements for the contracting of these services. Specialist centres can use the opportunity to include people in clinical trials, so that we can demonstrate that this is a worthwhile treatment for many cancers. At present, the evidence suggests that it is beneficial only in the case of inoperable lung cancers. I hope that, as we progress, we shall be able to demonstrate that this is not the only technology, and that CyberKnife is a brand, not—
Westminster Hall
(12 years, 9 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
British Exports
(12 years, 9 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
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Good morning, Mr Turner. It is an honour and a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also an honour to have secured today’s debate. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting the subject, because I think it will provide an important opportunity for hon. Members to discuss matters that are critical to our economy and growth agenda. I take the opportunity to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), on his recent promotion. It is good to see him here, and we look forward to hearing from him and the shadow Minister. I want to express my gratitude to colleagues and friends for turning up at the debate today. There is huge enthusiasm and energy for the subject, and I am sure there will be some stimulating contributions.
I declare an interest up front. I am a member of the all-party group on China, and I will explain why that is relevant. In December, I was fortunate to go to China for the first time on the all-party group’s visit to Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu. It would have been difficult not to be impressed by the incredible growth in that country. I was told that 45 airports had been built in the past five years. The subway system in Shanghai, which is bigger than London’s entire tube network, was built in 15 years. In the UK, we would just about have got round to having a conversation about the possibility in that time. There has been real growth. We also went to Chengdu, which I confess I had never heard of before the trip. It is a small, second-tier town with a population of a cool 14 million and staggering growth of 63% over the past three years.
Capitalism is very much alive in China, as is growth to boot. During the week of my visit my world view changed completely, and I came back with enthusiasm for the subject of this debate. That underlines the fact that now is the time for UK plc to go east—just as China is taking forward its “go west” strategy—to try to unlock the opportunities in the vast interior as it becomes exposed to wider economic development.
In terms of context, Britain has a rich history in international trade. It has often been led by daring entrepreneurs looking for new markets, but during the last half of the 20th century, British traders somehow lost their enthusiasm, their sense of adventure and their pioneering spirit for searching out new opportunities. The irony is that that was at a time when the world economy was becoming more of a global economy. Successive Governments and businesses started to look for safe options in Europe and north America, and that must change.
As far back as 1961, parliamentarians were expressing concern about those trends. In a debate, the Earl of Bessborough said—this may sound familiar to hon. Members:
“We live on an island, and the concept of exporting does not come easily to the people as a whole; nor does the man in the street recognise that we live or die by our international trade. To overcome this it has seemed to many of us that there must be support for a national crusade to excite the spirit, to revivify and stimulate every facet—I repeat, every facet—of the export drive.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1961; Vol. 229, c. 1155.]
They don’t make ’em like that any more. I love the word “revivify,” but unfortunately all that sounds a bit too familiar.
Not so long ago, we could boast a truly diverse international trade base. In 1910, our exports to India and China took up 11% of our traded goods. Today, that is 4%. Our challenge is to drive up much-needed exports, and to rediscover Britain’s trading talent.
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con)
I am sorry to intervene so early. I speak as someone who owned a manufacturing company that won two Queen’s Awards for Export in the 1990s, and which exported to 49 countries around the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem for small and medium-sized enterprises is the equity gap between what the banks will lend—usually up to £100,000—and what venture capitalists will lend—over £5 million? The in-between gap is the problem.
David Rutley
My hon. Friend is right. There is an equity gap, and I will talk about SMEs, which are the main thrust of my speech. From his experience, he knows more about the problem than I do, and I welcome his intervention.
There are some encouraging signs. We have seen a steady fall in our trade deficit from 4% of gross domestic product in 2007 to about 1% in early 2011, and that is beginning to help to rebalance the economy towards international trade. A recent article in The Economist reported that there are also signs of success in the motor industry. It was estimated that in 2011 the UK manufactured 1.5 million vehicles, and we exported three quarters of those. That is an important statistic, and I understand that Tata is considering expansion of its Land Rover factory at Halewood, and that Nissan will be looking to increase its production and capacity in Sunderland. It also exports to many countries around the world.
There is export success not only with motor vehicles and automobiles, but with life sciences. AstraZeneca manufactures many leading-edge pharmaceuticals, and we are seeing real success in Macclesfield where its major manufacturing plant accounts for 2.2% of the UK’s exports, which is a huge contribution. The Government’s life sciences strategy was announced in December, and sets out an approach by which we can obtain extra focus on the sector. One aim in the strategy is to create new partnerships in translational medicines and biopharmaceuticals between the UK and China so that those partnerships can enhance trade, investment, and research and development that will help us to have greater export success in that area.
Many hon. Members here can talk about, and will probably want to boast about, the export success of companies in their constituencies, but before they do, I want to take the opportunity to do the same. When I was preparing for this debate and when I spoke to more businesses in the Macclesfield area in north-east Cheshire, it became clear that there are some real export success stories. Plastic Card Services manufactures an innovative, biodegradable credit card, and is seeing huge success in Scandinavian markets. Its exports to foreign countries have risen from nothing to 25% in just a year. Over the past 10 years, Ukash, which is a provider of online payment services and has received the Queen’s Award for Enterprise for international trade, has increased its trade to 50 countries. It has a completely different international focus from many of the SMEs that, as a parliamentarian, I work with in Macclesfield.
Although there are success stories, it is important to come back to the challenge that has been alluded to. It is to improve our export performance across the piece, but particularly among SMEs, which is where the challenge is most marked. A short look at the statistics shows that in the UK, only one in five—25%—of SMEs export and are involved in international trade, compared with the European average, which is 25%, and in Germany it is above 30%. We must make a step change. As I said, the problem has existed for a while, but the size of the prize is huge. If we increased the penetration of exports by our SMEs up to the European average, we would wipe out the trade deficit in one fell swoop.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He referred to China. Does he agree that with the weakness of the eurozone market at the moment, UK Trade and Investment should try to focus more resources on emerging markets, such as south America and south-east Asia, so that our businesses, particularly manufacturers, have greater access to the fast-growing markets of the world?
David Rutley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The good news is that UKTI has in recent months started to focus more efforts on emerging markets. I cannot speak about South America, but I know that more resource in terms of headcount is being pushed into markets in China and India, which I will mention later. It is good to see the Government responding to that good point.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. In a recent statement, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said:
“Securing…long-term economic growth is the Government’s highest priority. Helping entrepreneurs export to new markets and get access to the finance they need are critical to making this a reality.”
Considering the Asian market is estimated to be worth about $42 trillion by 2030, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that small businesses get access to finance and that confidence is recreated in those small companies?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He raises a vital point—access to finance has come up again as a key dimension. The sad fact is, and I will mention this again later, that too many companies do not even want to export and are not aware of the opportunities, so there is a more fundamental problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have debated this problem for some time, but now is the time to get on and do something about it. We will talk about that and I am sure that the Minister will welcome further contributions from hon. Members.
How can we raise awareness and ambition, and the confidence that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) mentioned, to reap the rewards in eastern markets or, for that matter, South America? The Government and the business community—it is not just about the Government—can help SMEs to achieve their aims through three areas of focus: education, financing, which we have talked a bit about already, and, most importantly, access to new markets and customers.
On education, it is vital to get SMEs in touch with the best know-how on exports, and that will be one of the most important ways to help them to gain the confidence to want to export. UKTI has an important role to play, and its “passport to export” service gives a free capability assessment to businesses, which can help them to work out how they can be better prepared for the export work they want. However, I return to the point that only 20% of SMEs—one in five—are aware of the available services. It is a huge job just to make people aware that information is available.
One of the most important things that needs to happen is a lot more business-to-business mentoring to pass on experience from one company to another. I am pleased that the CBI’s pathfinder projects, which focus on mid-sized companies, are helping companies to build greater networks and opportunities. UKTI is building an export portal with Yell.com to connect first-time exporters with businesses that have experience in the area. I know, as I am sure other hon. Members do, that lots of local businesses want to pass on their experience to other businesses.
On Monday, I wrote an incredibly well-read article in The Daily Telegraph, which I am sure all Members have read several times over.
David Rutley
Thank you.
I have had great feedback from at least one constituent, but it was a good response and it is the quality, not the quantity that counts. A gentleman from Fibrevision, which creates dynamic measurement tools for textile yarns across many countries, particularly developing countries, got in touch with me to say that he would be retiring soon and wanted to spend time passing on his experience to others in the community, and I am going to tap into that. With Lord Green’s work, there are lots of opportunities now to hold export seminars in our constituencies, and I hope that many Members here will participate in such events. It is important to welcome the energy that Lord Green has brought to the task. He is doing a fantastic job as Minister for Trade and Investment, and has given a lot of focus to his task. He has been travelling tirelessly across the country to raise the profile of this work, and he deserves our support.
Transferring knowledge and educating people will go only so far; without the finance to back it, it will be much more difficult for British business to see the success that we want them to have. Let me cite a different example to show what they are up against—or perhaps where we could start heading. In 2010, Germany’s export credit agency supported SMEs in the German market by facilitating €23.7 billion in exports. In the same year, only a small proportion of the £2.9 billion of business that UK Export Finance underwrote went to SMEs. Furthermore, the CBI survey shows that SMEs and other businesses are simply not aware of the available finance. To address the situation, UK Export Finance will now send trade finance experts into UKTI’s regional facilities and the regional network to bring the expertise closer to business, which is good to see. No doubt, the Minister will want to respond to the concerns raised by hon. Members about finance, but it comes back to awareness and building confidence. It is not only about money being available.
It is good to see that the Government are also building bridges to bring the east to Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent announcement of greater co-operation between financial centres in London and Hong Kong will help the City to become a hub for the Chinese renminbi currency market. It will also give SMEs an advantage over the competition, because they will be able to forge stronger links with the new market on their doorstep and get a step closer to customers in China.
In filling the gap in export finance, we should look not only at what is happening with the Government, but at what the banks should do, because it is clear that they, along with professional advisers, have a vital role in encouraging confidence and building momentum in exports and international trade. A poll of small manufacturing businesses found that 51%—just over half—believed that banks were not helping to support their export ambitions. We see that lack of confidence in other areas, but no doubt confidence in banks on this issue needs to be improved. As the Federation for Small Business has highlighted, banks need to promote better, more tailored products to help SMEs in their export ambitions.
I also welcome the Government’s allocation of £45 million to promote exports in other markets. As I said earlier, it is important to get front-line staff working in the new export markets, because what has to happen after education and finance, is that we must roll out the red carpet for our SMEs—make them feel welcome in such markets and to have worthwhile trade visits, particularly in their first forays into foreign markets. Although large companies are well equipped to take on this task, it is pretty clear that smaller businesses lack the know-how, contacts and network to see success in these endeavours, and we must support them.
For too long, UKTI and other Government bodies have spent too much time doing desk-based research, instead of getting out, knocking on doors, finding opportunities and bringing packaged solutions to big infrastructure problems or other projects in those markets. It is great to see the Government working in that area.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I feel like I am in an exports master class, so I am enjoying everything that the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him about the need for UKTI to get out from behind their desks and knock on some doors, but does he agree that the balance of UKTI’s recent work has been very much towards bringing in inward investment, perhaps at the expense of exporting and encouraging outward investment?
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a very important point. Of course we need inward investment. We have seen success in that area and we need to continue to see success, but now, the focus needs to be on exports and driving success in that area. I know that she has made important contributions in debates on the subject.
On my visit to China, it was good to see people realising the importance of exports. We met the British consuls from Shanghai and from Chongqing. They are getting out and starting to knock on doors. There has been too much focus on research and, for that matter, paid-for research. I am much more interested—I think that others would agree with me—in knocking on doors. Any of us who have been involved with business know that it is about building relationships. People do business with people, not with pieces of paper.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, to achieve his goal, UKTI needs an injection of private sector talent into the organisation? That would enable it to meet some of the targets that he has set.
David Rutley
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That point is vital. It is true for many areas of Government interaction with businesses, but it is particularly true for the area that we are discussing today. There is a huge and staggering opportunity. I think that it has been calculated as being worth $43 trillion. Whatever the number is, it is pretty big. We have to redouble our efforts in that respect. We are certainly putting the headcount on the ground. There are 50 more people in China and 30 more in India, but my hon. Friend makes a good point about the balance of expertise there. Perhaps the Minister will also reply to that, because many of us who have had experience in the business world would suggest that it is time to get people with that experience involved.
Understanding the local cultures is also important. I have not spent a huge amount of time in China, but there are many Chinese-speaking individuals in the UK with business experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for example, has spent a lot of time in Asia. That is the type of experience that we need to bring to bear to help us in this export drive.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. There is something that I do not think we understand and that certainly Government have never used to maximum effect. There are 220 languages spoken by British people in this country. We constantly talk about the language issue, but we have people who may be the first, second or third generation from certain parts of the world and we do not use them effectively as the right cultural interface, the right linguistic interface or, more importantly, as the people who are respected by business people in those countries, as opposed to the people who do not speak those languages being sent out as heads of trade missions.
David Rutley
That is a vital point. I met a friend of mine who is a Chinese speaker and has an MBA. I do not think that she really understood the power that she has at the moment in helping to foster export opportunities and to build relationships. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have to say that, as I think about this issue more and more, I increasingly wonder why our children are learning French at school. [Interruption.] This is not meant to be an opportunity to bash—[Interruption.] I think that the debate should be called to order, Mr Turner.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
I can assure my hon. Friend that I have read his article in The Daily Telegraph, as has at least one of my constituents, so that is half a dozen of us in Cheshire. The question that interests me and that I would like to ask him is this. We talk about France and Italy. Both France and Italy export more per head worldwide and to the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—than we do, and they are doing that at a time when our exchange rate has depreciated by about one quarter and the Italian exchange rate has apparently been pegged to the euro and therefore is too high. Is there not an opportunity—the Minister might also wish to respond to this—for us to think as a country about what the Italians do in this regard that we do not?
David Rutley
It is an important point that we should learn from our international competitors and look at their success. We have been too complacent. We think that historical ties should automatically bring business to us. Well, I think that we are waking up to the fact that that is not the case any more—as we see—and we should not rely on those historical links. I think that we are too lazy. I can just about speak English and have a conversational understanding of Danish. As I was about to explain when I was so rudely interrupted by my hon. Friends, it is vital that more of our children learn Chinese at school. That has to happen.
I shall finish my speech shortly so that many of the hon. Members present can speak, because I know that they are enthusiastic to do so. We also need big businesses to want to include SMEs in their trade delegations. This is not only about what Government can do. Big businesses have to wake up and bring their supply chain in when they go on trade delegations to China or India. Helping to increase the international attitude of SMEs is vital.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, I want to draw his attention and that of other hon. Members to a specific issue. He has not mentioned the UK’s largest manufacturing sector—food and non-alcoholic drinks. It should be put on the record that, during the past six years, exports have grown year on year, that, in 2011, the figure for those exports hit £11 billion and that many SMEs are involved in that sector.
David Rutley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to our attention. It is an important area. I can say with confidence that if my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is called to speak, he will be raising awareness of it as well, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to it in the debate.
I know that there are huge and major trade initiatives that the Minister and Lord Green will be involved with in the year ahead and that will take up a huge amount of ministerial time. I am thinking of the India-EU trade summit, Russia’s World Trade Organisation accession and the Doha development agenda. All those things are very important. I trust that, in dealing with those issues, Ministers and officials will continue to focus on, and will give just as much focus to, the needs of SMEs. As today’s interventions show, that is a huge priority.
I believe that, in the end, Britain’s SMEs must go east, so that selling in Chengdu and Chennai is just as natural as selling in Cheshire. However, that cultural change will not happen overnight. The Government and the private sector must continue to build on the foundations that have been laid, so that SMEs make the full contribution that we believe they can make to our country’s growth agenda.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
As far as I can see, there will be six speakers in 43 minutes. I call Nick de Bois.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing this vital debate. I also congratulate and welcome to his post the Minister. He may be interested to know that yesterday, by coincidence, I received an e-mail out of the blue from a very old girlfriend who happens to live in his constituency. Having finally realised after 18 months that I was an MP, her first words were, “We have the lovely Norman Lamb.”
I am conscious of the time and the need for other hon. Members to speak, so I shall just highlight a few points. The recent euro debate focused on the fact—many people thought that this was a reason to tread very cautiously with Europe—that more than 40% of our trade is with the eurozone. My argument is that that trade is something to be respected, nurtured, looked after and, of course, developed if possible, but the reality is that no one would try to run a business with an over-dependence on one business partner for 40% of their trade. Therefore, it is vital that we look elsewhere.
I noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield about history. I do believe that we have relied on history, but I feel that we have failed to capitalise on a number of unique opportunities that reach far outside the eurozone and not just to the east. There are many countries that are growth economies where Britain is uniquely positioned to capitalise on its relationships, whether through historical links, the extensive diaspora that we have in this country from those countries or current strategic and political links. We need an analysis of where those factors merge with prevailing growth economies and economies that are deemed to grow in the future. We should take a snapshot of how we are doing and then realise the potential of what we can do.
Let me share one or two examples based on information from the Library. Britain is one of the few EU states arguing for active support for Turkey’s membership of the EU. However, the fact remains that the UK’s share of overall exports to Turkey is 1.2%, compared with Italy at 2.4%, France at 1.6% and Spain at 1.9%. If we start to analyse where we have links that go beyond just trade, we can capitalise on that for the benefit of trade. In a Commonwealth country such as India, it is surprising to note that we are being outperformed by the USA—that is perhaps not so surprising—and Argentina, with Germany and France close behind, according to House of Commons statistics.
I have more examples, but the trend I am trying to highlight is that we are now forced to look outside Europe. There is a wealth of opportunity not just in the east, but in the countries that fall within the criteria that I have mentioned. For example, on a recent trip as part of a delegation to Kuwait, I was intrigued to find out that more than 95% of the population is employed in the public sector. The country is about to embark on a large nationalisation programme—[Interruption.] Sorry, a privatisation programme—I stand corrected by the look on the face of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who clearly welcomed my mis-statement. However, the UK has unique experience and expertise. Kuwait is embarking on major power plant construction and massive infrastructure development, and our recent links with it should set us apart from many other countries, given that it wants to do business with us, shares a history with us and is open to our companies knocking on its door. That is a place we can look to go to.
How can we do that? The Government have a role to play, as do parliamentarians. What does business actually want from Government? Essentially, businesses faced with the prospect of exporting immediately face a number of barriers, and I experienced them myself. Those barriers will deter even many of the most hardened and determined individuals from reaching into export markets. Although I support the comments of UKTI, we need to be candid and to recognise, as the CBI said in “Winning overseas” in November 2011, that businesses see UKTI as having the Marmite effect: for some, it has been absolutely marvellous, but for many others it has not fulfilled its role or managed to match businesses’ needs with the services provided by the Government. However, that is something that we can improve and build on, and I refer Members to the CBI’s document, which I found extremely constructive and helpful.
From the Government, we are now seeing a commitment to leading trade delegations and opening doors in regions that have been ignored, and the Gulf countries are a good example. However, we cannot do these things through just one visit; we have to maintain a consistent, permanent and ongoing relationship, and I welcome Lord Green’s work, as it is a major start. With all due respect, however, there is a wealth of talent across the Lords and the Commons that should be put to use in helping consistently to develop regions at a lower level. That should be done in a way that carries with it the respect and authority not only of the individual’s heritage, but of the country that is opening its doors to them, as it sees them conscientiously rebuilding relationships.
Let us be candid: when we get to these other countries, we will need to break down the barriers to exports. We as politicians can reduce some of those barriers, such as customs and complicated legislation, in ways others cannot; we can fight our corner and support British companies. We also need to bring in contacts. I would be proud to say that I am a salesman for Britain and that I am opening doors by using the levers at our disposal, as that will allow us to have influence and to bring delegations along, whether from prime contractors or from SMEs riding on the back of prime contractors. We can show companies what they can achieve and give them the contacts.
However, more needs to be done. I welcome Lord Green’s initiative, and our job, in our country and in our constituencies, is to start emphasising the opportunities to export, while explaining how we can offer practical help. I do not want to be the same business man I was 20 years ago. When I first started, I wanted to export to Switzerland, although I will not bore Members with the details. I rang the embassy for advice, and the first thing I was told was, “The markets here are very good for ball bearings.” That still sticks with me as the most useless piece of information that I received, because I could have found it out during my geography O-level all those long years ago. I want to feel that the Government can put in place people who have worked in business and who can actually help businesses to reach out, break down barriers, make contacts and sell. That, crudely, is what it comes down to, and that is how we can help.
I hope the Minister will take on board the fact that the Government are setting the right direction and starting to break down doors, but let us do that consistently and permanently. Relationships are not born out of one visit, but out of a commitment to a region over a period of time. We need patience, and we need to use it to help businesses to meet the cultural and business demands of a variety of regions and to take on markets where we are being beaten, when we should actually be streets ahead.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for securing this extremely important and prescient debate. In many ways, we will have a challenging time over the next 10 years generating growth domestically in the UK and across the eurozone. Our international trade and inward investment—the responsibility of UKTI—will be crucial in ensuring that we keep ahead of the game and deliver growth for the UK.
My experience is pretty varied. In many ways, I was a very small exporter. I have worked for the Peruvian Government and the Georgian Government, and I had an office in Istanbul. I also did quite a lot of work in Africa and central Asia. I have therefore seen a lot of these issues from the UK, the intrepid traveller and the travelling salesman perspective, arriving in a country and not necessarily knowing who the key players were or how to make things happen.
If we are to support the system, there are probably three big challenges that need to be met by the Government, as well as by large exporters, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) rightly said. One is getting more SMEs to think about exporting. The initiative developed by Lord Green and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), which sees us, as constituency MPs, generating interest in exports, is crucial.
There is, however, something interesting about how we look at exporting, particularly in relation to SMEs. Everybody I speak to says they are going to do an export mission and to take people out to country X, Y or Z. Very few people say that the most important thing for an SME is not going abroad, but having the first sale abroad or the first inquiry from somebody who is quite interested in their product. The internet is a big platform for that. I spoke to UKTI on Monday, and I was a little concerned that it was not looking at helping SMEs to translate one or two of their webpages into two or three different languages. That is very simple; people do not need to get on a plane or to do market testing. SMEs could also put their price list into euros and include export duties for three or four different markets that might be useful for their product. We can do a lot without getting the SMEs to take that leap of faith—to jump on that plane or pay UKTI to organise an event.
The other issue with it, which people, and particularly Government, do not understand about small businesses, is that time is money. If I have to spend three or four days in a market where I do not know anybody and I do not know whether it will be successful and I have three or four customers back in the UK or in Ireland, where will I put my focus? Let us start helping these smaller companies market-test. The internet is a good way. There are brochures and there are different ways of us doing this, but let us not always think that we have to send people out for those initial stages.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but we do have to send people out to these developing countries at certain times. If we are going to capitalise on the BRIC countries and some of the other developing markets that people have talked about, must we not improve our aviation links? If we do not, there is a danger that we will lose out to central Europe on this.
Laura Sandys
My hon. Friend has a good point. Of course one has to encourage people to go abroad. One also has to encourage them to understand how these countries work in terms of culture and not just language. Experience in these countries is crucial. My hon. Friend’s point about aviation is well made and has been made particularly in relation to China, where we do not have those links and where we have to go to Europe to access some of those growing markets.
The second point I want to make is about the cultural side. I cannot emphasise it enough: there are 220 languages already spoken in this country. People already have these links. In this country, there are small and medium-sized companies that are run by people who have cousins, relatives, uncles and aunts who have equivalent companies in the countries of their origin. We are not using that. We are trying to expend a lot of money teaching a lot of fantastically able Foreign Office officials lots of different languages, but we already have the languages in this country and we have the business communications. Having been in small business myself, I know that small businesses have a similar language around the world. I would possibly find it easier to talk to a small business in China than a scientist in England. We understand each other; we have the same rhythm. Please, let us use the assets that we have.
The third point, which in many ways has been covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North, but which is also crucial, is: are we incentivising large exporters to bring their supply chain with them? That is not just on trips, but as part of the overall offering. In many ways, it is a little bit of a waste of our resources when we have big trade missions and we take Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems and all these fantastic companies. They can afford the air fare. They already have operations based in these countries. If they led a trade mission that had their full supply chain and their full level of SMEs and medium-sized manufacturers, I can see why we would be doing it. We have, however, to start focusing on delivering, as the Germans do, in that middle market of entrepreneurs, giving them the confidence, ensuring that we are out there making the business contacts and securing the confidence that those SMEs need, because they are our best advert for recruiting new SMEs.
I welcome what the Government are doing. There is a new emphasis and a new impetus, but let us use the assets that we have and let us get out there and sell and know that selling is a grubby, but very important and worthy business. Sometimes Governments do not necessarily enjoy getting involved at that sharp end.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
First, I welcome the Minister to his post. We look forward to what he has to say later. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing an important debate. We do not talk about these issues enough in this House. It is vital to the future of our country that we get out and sell both manufactured goods and the services that we produce, because that is the only way that we will remain a first-class economy.
Poole, although it is a place with sandy beaches and is pleasant to live in, has a lot of industrial estates and a lot of small companies that are successful. It has a large number of people employed in manufacturing. When I go around, all the companies that are involved in exports seem to be very busy. If the trade figures have not turned yet, I am sure that at some point they will. All the evidence that I see on the ground is that the devaluation and the rebalancing is taking place and will eventually show results.
One of my biggest companies is Sunseeker, which employs nearly 2,000 people. It exports nearly all the yachts that it produces. There are not many people in this country who can afford a £20 million, £30 million or £40 million yacht. It is a great exporter. We have companies such as Siemens, which, although it came in for some criticism recently on the rail contract, is a great British company. It may be German-owned, but it has been in this country for a century and in terms of exports and investment is important to the UK. Siemens in Poole exports to China, the United States and all the way around the world. It produces a lot of the technology for the congestion zone and a lot of signalling technology and it is cutting edge. There is a whole array of businesses.
I want to pick up on a few concerns. There is an equity gap. There are some small successful companies that want to grow and they face a dilemma: they either have to sell, or, if they do not sell and remain owned by their existing directors, they cannot raise the equity or the loans from banks to be able to expand. I have come across a number of companies in Poole that say that they could double or treble their turnover—a lot of it by export—but they cannot raise sufficient funds from the banks. That is the main area where they are being held back. It is not that they cannot sell the products; it is that they cannot raise the capital. That is a big issue.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome this debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the business growth fund—not the regional growth fund—set up by the banks precisely to put equity into such businesses should look at companies that are slightly smaller than the current benchmark? There are plenty of businesses employing 30 or 40 people which could double their employment and vastly increase turnover if they had access to that particular fund, where the limit is currently set a little high.
Mr Syms
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We still need to zero in on the small growing companies to see how we can help them with equity and loans.
The other thing is the supply chain. When one hears of a big export order that requires offset, that often means British suppliers down the line losing the ability to supply a big export order. What frustrates many small companies in my constituency is trying to get on the tender list of Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace. I went to see one company that was convinced it had the best product at the best price, but it could not get Rolls-Royce to buy its product. Rolls-Royce bought a German product and that same company beat the German company to supply the Germans with the same product. That was supplying the air tanker project in Germany. It was that frustration. We need a speed-dating process, so that small companies can marry up with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, which have been tremendously successful, to see whether we can supply some of these big companies, which are used to getting their supplies from all over the world when there are people in Poole, Macclesfield and, no doubt, Penrith who could produce the goods. There could be a degree of import substitution, simply because we marry up British skills and British companies. That needs to be considered.
The other area I want to touch on, which affects a lot of companies in Poole, where we have communications and quite a lot of military stuff, is the licensing regime for exports. I get a lot of moans from British companies when they have to go through the export licensing process. The difficulty is that it goes into Whitehall and weeks go by. It is difficult when someone is trying to promise the person they are supplying a delivery date for a product and they do not know what is going on. I think that the Government need to go back and look at this. Of course we must have proper safeguards and licences for some of the equipment that we export, but at the moment I am not sure that the system is helping those exporters.
Northey Technologies, a local company in Poole, was supplying the Chinese nuclear programme and had two export orders approved, but the third, for an identical product that they were selling, was held up for three or four months while the Government decided what assurances they needed. I repeat that the third order was identical to the first two, which were approved. Eventually, the Chinese went elsewhere.
The other day I visited AB engineering, another great local company in Poole, which produces robots for defusing bombs—one of two companies in the UK producing those. Of course, because of our experience in Northern Ireland we produce some good robots for doing that. That company exports all the way around the world. I said to the managing director, “You’ve asked me to visit your company. I’m impressed with what you do. Do you have a message for me to take back to the Government?” He said, “Yes, it’s the export licence regime. It’s frustrating. We find it difficult. We can’t find out what’s going on and there are occasions when sometimes we lose exports.”
My main message for the Minister is this: being new to his post, will he please go back and have a look at this area and see whether we can make it a little more efficient? Perhaps we could, at least, have a card system so that people can know when they will get a decision. The most frustrating thing is when people have an order for a good product but find that the Government are not getting on with the process of licensing it when it should be properly licensed. Anecdotally, people think that, since the Arab spring, the Foreign Office has got a lot more involved in exports, which has made things a lot worse.
We have some great British companies and some enterprising people. Going around the world, people will find some Scotsman on top of a mountain trying to sell British products. The reality is, though, that if we could do what we do well a little bit better, we could get better outcomes.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
There is six minutes for each speaker if Lorely Burt takes over.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I will adhere to that, Mr Turner.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing this important debate and my hon. Friend the Minister on his elevation; I am sure that he will make a brilliant Minister.
I think that the need for growth is driving every hon. Member in this Chamber. Growth is the engine that will get us out of the financial difficulties that we were left in when we came into coalition government. I attended a Federation of Small Businesses dinner last night at which our Chancellor was speaking. He talked about the importance of exports and the key role of small businesses in driving exports. Small businesses have a pivotal role to play in leading the recovery, because they are flexible and responsive to changing circumstances and to opportunities which can arise even in difficult times.
I am proud of this coalition Government’s approach to international trade. I am told that no Minister is allowed out of the country without a trade brief in his or her briefcase. It is important to recognise the value of emerging markets, not just our traditional European trading partners: in parts of Europe there are a lot of opportunities, but in other parts it is not so good. Colleagues have mentioned China, India and Brazil, which are important areas that we need to exploit.
UKTI provides a wide range of help and services to business. A number of colleagues have mentioned small business help and the need for more of it. On export credit guarantees, I would much prefer to see the help going to small companies rather than to some of our larger companies—perhaps those that are selling quite a number of arms at the moment. For example, why not extend the supplier credit finance facility to small businesses—the guarantee to a bank for a loan for sums larger than £25,000?
We could do more. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has already mentioned that we do not punch at our weight in respect of exports, compared with other European countries. There are things that we can do. Consider UKTI, for example. The hon. Gentleman talked about getting people out from behind their desks and knocking on the doors of local businesses. I berated the regional development agencies for being far too insular and expecting small business to come to them. The whole emphasis must change. We must be far more outward looking and inclusive.
I was particularly impressed by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) talking about the internet. It is so obvious, but we do not often talk about that as a mechanism for encouraging and enabling exports, particularly for small businesses.
The hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) mentioned speed dating. Why not have business-to-business mentoring? I mean speed dating in the strictly business sense, of course. Perhaps I am just compounding my error. I will change the subject quickly. We can do a lot of things. Our local enterprise partnerships can help as well, as can the chambers of commerce.
Manufacturing is playing and will continue to play a key role in exports and in attracting inward investment, because we have all the tools and abilities in this country. The coalition Government are seeking to rebalance the economy. The west midlands, which is my area, is excellent at high-end, advanced manufacturing. Sadly, manufacturing shrank under the previous Labour Government from 20% to 12% of our gross domestic product. That is shameful.
We have major export opportunities. The hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned Jaguar Land Rover. Automotive is our No. 1 manufacturing export. Jaguar Land Rover has already expanded its Solihull plant and the i54 plant and it is taking on 1,000 people. There are a great number of things that we can do. We have aerospace, chemicals, agri-food and energy, so it is up to us to have a multifaceted approach to ensure that all of us—Members of Parliament and every facet of Government, as well as employers’ bodies—work together to increase that emphasis and ensure that small businesses, particularly, get their fair share of the pie.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
I had hoped to be called earlier, Mr Turner, by currying favour with you on the basis that I was at college with you some 35 years ago, but I was disappointed. However, I am delighted to be called now.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing this interesting debate. I shall keep my comments to two points, because we are short of time.
On the export market generally, on the face of it, our performance is not as bad as it appears. For example, our exports as a percentage of GDP, if invisibles are included, are much the same as France’s and Germany’s. The 2010 figures, according to the Library, show us at 29% of GDP, Italy at 27% and France at 25%. However, those figures are just the surface, beneath which we have a culture in this country, developed over many years, which means that many young people do not even consider going into business, let alone the export sector. There have been other debates, both here and in other parts of the Palace of Westminster, about that culture, and I believe that part of the problem is cultural.
I am sure that if I were to go to the equivalent of a Watfordian sixth form in Germany and ask, “Who wants either to go into their family business or to start up a business?” the number of young people answering, “It’s business for me,” particularly with exports in mind, would be significantly higher than in Britain. Very few of our contemporaries at Oxford, Mr Turner, went into business, and I am sure that very few people nowadays even think about that. At university, people are pushed towards professions and careers such as ours—to which I am a recent recruit, in later life—which, good or bad, certainly do not benefit the economy or assist growth in the rest of the country in the same way as being in a business, particularly an export-led one, does. The issue is very much a cultural one.
One learns to take things as one finds them, and in my travels, both in my constituency and abroad, I have found UKTI to be of almost no help whatsoever to prospective exporters. I will give just one example, because time is limited. A few weeks ago I was asked to go to Mainz, a town in Germany that is twinned with Watford—obviously Watford in many ways is far superior to Mainz, or to anywhere else in the world, but for some reason it is twinned with it. I spoke there at an inward investment conference about investment in Hertfordshire. I was very embarrassed that the UKTI rep in Mainz—which is obviously not in the middle of Africa—did not even speak German. I found that absolutely appalling. When I questioned Lord Green, for example, at a recent Conservative China group breakfast, he could not even say what exports we make to China.
Whatever the Government say, there is no real hardcore business culture in this country as far as exports are concerned. Yes, everyone tries—politicians, the previous Government, this Government. The Foreign Secretary makes speeches saying that we are going to turn the Foreign Office into an organisation that supports business. It is nonsense. On recent visits to five African countries with the International Development Committee, I asked the ambassadors who the main importers into those countries from Britain were, and they did not know. Our ambassador to Burundi, which is a small country with a very small population, said that there was almost no British trade there, and so I had to tell him that one of my constituents, who is also a friend, exported products there. The culture exists in the minds of politicians and some other people, but the reality is very different. People do very well in business in this country without even considering exports. Exporting is not part of the culture. I accept the points that Members have made about the credit and equity gaps, and about financing. That is all well and good, but there is no burning desire to export. The view is it is very difficult, and hard to make money out of—it is just not in our psyche.
There are exceptions. My good friend and fellow Watfordian, Dr Rami Ranger, has a business called Sun Mark Ltd, which exports to 160 countries. Despite all the talk of our lack of efforts in the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—he has recently exported his Bullet energy drink to such countries as Venezuela, Honduras, Belize and Surinam. He is the Burundi man, the Rwanda man—he exports to 160 countries. He has not even heard of UKTI. He does not need to go to seminars held by Lord Green, or anything like that, because he is someone of Indian origin who thinks internationally and is used to driving for business and exports, despite the obstacles put in his way by the 50% tax, national insurance and everything else. He is loyal to this country. He could locate his company anywhere in the world but he has it in Britain, and we need a lot more of that kind of thing.
Our international development efforts are very commendable, and are supported by both sides of the House, but because of tied aid, which used to be something whereby arms were sold from countries that gave aid, there is a fear on the part of the Department for International Development of getting British companies involved in its activities, when there are perfectly benign contracts all over the world for cars, agricultural products and so on—so many worthy things. I am sure that it is against European law to show favouritism to British companies, and it would not be the right thing to do, but there is no mechanism whereby our companies are informed, encouraged and invited to tender. Why do we buy 100 Toyota Land Cruisers in Africa, without even pushing British companies to bid?
Everywhere we go with the International Development Committee—other members of the Committee are here today—we see so much money being spent. I am not saying that we should have favouritism, but there is no real feeling that this is British taxpayers’ money, and we have to try to help British companies, providing the objective is right, that money is not spent where it should not be, and that it is not more expensive. These things have to link together, and that is what I ask the Minister to consider—it is what the Government should be doing. We are proud of our international development efforts, but they should be linked to trade in the nicest possible way.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) for securing this debate.
I want to touch briefly, in a very short time, on the ramping criticism of UKTI and the British Government. The point is, of course, that the situation of British exports is extremely complex. Germany is doing well not because the German diplomatic service is far better than the British one. In fact, the German diplomatic service is in many ways not half as well supported or prestigious within the German administrative system as the British one is. Nevertheless, there are some small things I believe we could do to improve our exports. We do not have a silver bullet. No consul-general in Istanbul will alone be able to double UK trade and investment with Turkey by 2015, but it is important to understand what we can and cannot do with this funny network of embassies.
We first must understand that the business of trade, at least regarding the embassies, is very long term. Britain’s calamitous failure in Brazil is not about a lack of short-term energy from individual British Governments, but about decades of lack of focus. The reason that countries even such as the Netherlands are well ahead of us in their trade with Brazil, and why Germany, France and Italy are doing better than us, goes all the way back to French investment in and support for the first universities in Brazil and German investment in its first industrial plants in the early 20th century. We have already heard about Italian success in Turkey, and that considerable success—Italy is a long way ahead of Britain in trade with Turkey—has been built up over decades, since the first Fiat investments in the 1960s, and it means that there are now 18 flights a day from Milan into Turkey, and an enormous range of small and medium-sized Italian businesses on the ground in a way that our businesses are not. If Britain is now to be serious about that kind of thing, we need to do three things. We need to look at unexpected countries, look at unexpected products, and change the culture of UKTI.
Regarding unexpected countries, a focus on BRIC countries might turn out to be a bit misguided in the long run, and in a sense we have missed the boat, I am afraid, with countries such as Brazil. However, one reason that we cannot become so centred on insulting the Foreign Office and demanding privatisation and a commercial focus is that often our diplomatic missions turn out, in the long run, to be very useful.
Take, for example, Mongolia. There was huge pressure 15 years ago to close our embassy in Mongolia, with people saying, “Why do we bother having an ambassador there? Who cares about Mongolia?” and then the country turned out to have an extraordinary range of assets—natural resources—which are about to make it the country with perhaps the largest gross domestic product per capita in that entire area of Asia. Our diplomatic network, therefore, is partly an investment in low-probability, high-impact events, exactly such as that one. The investment is, as some people have pointed out, less than our investment in the winter fuel allowance, and it pays off again and again through such unexpected opportunities. The same, if I were to be bold, could be extended to a whole series of peculiar countries. The Falkland Islands, if they continue to discover 500 million barrels of oil in the northern reaches, seem set to become a sort of Dubai with penguins.
Those are extraordinary opportunities for us, and we might take them even further. It is not just about second-tier countries such as Indonesia; we should even be looking at countries such as Pakistan. We tend to see Pakistan simply as a failed state, but it is a potential market, within the next generation, of 300 million people with an extraordinary focus on IT. Of course, we also have 1.5 million British people of Pakistani origin who can help us trade there.
Places such as Cumbria show us the astonishing range of unexpected products that we have. Innovia in Wigton, with 1,000 employees, exports 90% of its products. We have Steadmans, designing glittering gold roofs for the Bahrain air show. We have people making forges in Alston winning Queen’s export awards and people selling used photocopiers to China. We sell gluten-free food products into the Balkans.
Let me finish with sheep. The agricultural export market is massively untapped, and that is exactly where an embassy can be useful. The reason that our sheep are not in Saudi Arabia is not that New Zealand is outcompeting us but that we have been denied health certificates throughout the middle eastern market. It is an enormous market. The Arab appetite for sheep is almost unstoppable. Britain is just beginning to go into surplus. Our sheep industry employs 130,000 people. Agricultural exports should be a good example.
The key to all those opportunities in unexpected products and markets is the energy and culture in UKTI, in order to give people the drive and leadership to want to explore those opportunities. We in Britain should look back not at our Victorian past but at our Elizabethan past, when a buccaneering, trading, earring-wearing rogue state took its goods all the way around the world.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. This debate is important, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley). I have a lot of affection for Macclesfield. My big hero is Ian Curtis of the band Joy Division, who lived, died and is buried in Macclesfield. I also congratulate the Minister on his new position. I wish him well in his role. Given the turnover of Liberal Democrat Ministers, I am confident that he will be Secretary of State by Christmas.
Today’s debate has shown that there are huge opportunities for British export, but that we do not tap into our full potential. The world’s economy is expected to double in size by 2050. Much of this debate has focused on BRIC countries. There is some scope to expand our opportunities into BRIC countries, especially as China moves from an export-led production and manufacturing model towards internal domestic consumption, but I think that the second tier—the N11 or next 11 countries such as Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, Nigeria and Vietnam—are exactly where we need to focus. I agree with the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) that we have often missed the boat. We need to be at the forefront of trade with N11 countries.
The UK has world-class sectors. Our automotive sector, which has been mentioned, contributes about £40 billion of turnover, and 80% of its production is exported. The oil and gas sector, which is strong in my area, exports about £32 billion of goods, services and project management skills. Just this morning, I was at a breakfast meeting with ADS. The UK aerospace, defence and security sector exports about 70% of its output, or about £23 billion of products. The quality, reliability and innovation of those products are seen throughout the world, and we should be proud of them.
However, this is not just about traditional manufacturing sectors. The UK video games and interactive entertainment sector is worth £3 billion to the national economy at the moment, and global demand is expected to rise by about 10% year on year. We lead the world in that sector. “Batman: Arkham City”, produced by Rocksteady Studios in north London, sold 2 million copies in its first week of release. No CD or record—not even by Joy Division—has ever achieved that. We should be exploiting it as much as possible.
We have much to be proud of, but we cannot be complacent in this modern, competitive world. We cannot say that our exports have performed to their full potential in the post-war era. Given the intense competition of this arms race—I do not think that that is too strong a term, considering the issue’s importance and intensity—Britain needs to compete with optimum efficiency.
I agree with the CBI when it says:
“We are not alone in seeking growth through exports—other advanced economies are facing similar constraints and are looking to boost their export performance. We cannot spend another decade simply playing catch-up: we need to be bigger and bolder in our ambitions.”
The CBI concludes:
“We are not being ambitious enough with our choice of markets and our decline in goods exports is unsustainable if we want to lead an export-orientated economic recovery.”
It has been mentioned that the UK is far too dependent on traditional, slow-growing economies. Some two-thirds of all UK exports go to the US and the EU, but in the next decade, those markets will probably not grow at all. There has been much talk of balancing the economy. I hope that the House would agree that it is necessary to rebalance trade policy towards new and emerging companies.
I stress that exports and trade policy do not operate in a domestic or an international vacuum. We cannot consider exports and trade performance in isolation from the rest of Government policy. I urge the Government to implement an active, co-ordinated industrial strategy. I fear that we are a long way from that at the moment, but everything that the Government do must be considered in terms of its impact on our trade performance.
The Government’s economic policy is having an effect on business confidence and growth. The business confidence index published this week shows that confidence in negative territory. By all accounts, we are back in official recession. Turnover is depressed, there are no export growth areas and exports are not bouncing to take up the slack left by subdued domestic demand. I hope that the Government will address that.
David Mowat
The shadow Minister is discussing the present lack of industrial policy. In the decade between 2000 and 2010, we went from being the fifth biggest exporter in the world to being the 13th, way behind countries such as Italy. In his judgment, why did that happen?
Mr Wright
That is a consequence of the world growing in different ways and a symptom of the long-term decline in our export performance. As I said, we need to make a concerted effort to do something about it. Many of the invisibles kept up well during that decade and levels stayed similar. However, the thrust of my argument is that we need to raise our game.
Every Minister—not just Business Ministers—and every aspect of Whitehall should be charged with promoting British exports, but all too often, policies are not joined up. The immigration cap indicates that Britain does not want to act as a beacon for the world’s best and brightest, and there is a perception among foreign businesses that it will act as a brake on export growth.
Aviation policy was mentioned. A recent report suggests that a lack of direct flights from the UK to emerging markets might be costing our economy £1.2 billion a year in lost trade. Firms naturally trade where there are good and co-ordinated transport links. In my area of the north-east, the Emirates service between Newcastle and Dubai has tripled trade between the two areas in the four years since it started. The hon. Member for Macclesfield mentioned Chengdu. There are no direct flights from the UK to Chengdu, but there should be. British Airways does not run a service from the UK to Seoul in South Korea, although I admit that other carriers do. The Government should work closely with airlines to address that.
I turn to last week’s disappointing announcement that the Indian Government might place an order for fighter jets with French manufacturer Dassault, rather than with Eurofighter Typhoon, in which the British BAE Systems plays a huge part. The Prime Minister paid a lot of political capital with regard to that. The Opposition do not want to do anything to compromise the deal. We will support the Government in ensuring that Britain can be successful, and we think that there is still considerable scope to succeed, but I hope that lessons are being learned within the Government. Frankly, as has been touched on in this debate, the Prime Minister jetting off for a one-off PR stunt is no substitute for deep and meaningful Government-to-Government relations.
The French are particularly adept at this, and President Sarkozy’s courting over many months of Prime Minister Singh seems to have reaped rewards. Will the Minister outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that the Eurofighter stays in the game? On a wider point, what will the Government do differently to ensure more meaningful and therefore more successful contact to secure trade for Britain?
On UK Trade & Investment, I do not want to focus on cuts, but the context is important. UKTI’s budget over the next four years has been cut by 17%. In contrast, Ubifrance’s budget saw an increase of 14.2% in 2011, while that of Germany Trade & Invest increased by 10%. The Minister, fresh with his red box, will no doubt spout the lines that tough choices need to be made and that austerity is required to clean up the mess that we left behind, but does he really believe that reductions to this country’s foreign trade organisation, at a time of acute global competitiveness and when our main competitors are increasing their budgets, are sensible and will not hurt Britain’s export drive?
In the time remaining to me, I want to touch briefly on one of the key barriers to trade, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, namely access to finance. Will the Minister update us on progress made on the actions outlined in the plan for growth, which was published almost a year ago? How many SMEs have been helped as part of the UKTI’s passport to export initiative? How many firms have taken advantage of the export enterprise finance guarantee? The plan for growth produced three new products designed to mitigate the risks for exporters and potential exporters. How many have taken that up?
Britain has a long history of trade across the globe over many centuries. I liked what the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) said about the need to look not to our Victorian past, but to think further back to our buccaneering in Elizabethan times. We need to address the intense competition. I would hate to see our successors in 50 years’ time lamenting the failed and missed opportunities of the first half of the 21st century in relation to the expanding global economy. The Minister is fresh in office and could make his mark by ensuring a competitive and co-ordinated policy across the Government and with business, so that we can sell British goods and services across the world, thereby creating jobs and wealth for this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Norman Lamb)
I thank hon. Members for their kind good wishes, including the encouraging words from my own constituent—it was a relief to hear them—quoted by the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). I congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on securing this important debate. He made some incredibly important points and focused in particular on the role of small and medium-sized enterprises. It is critical to address how we can get more SMEs exporting, and I will return to that point in a moment.
We have heard about a large number of success stories and we need to go out and argue the case for what is already happening among many companies in our constituencies. Many Members have also highlighted barriers that need to be challenged and tackled. The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) focused on cultural barriers. We have to encourage our youngsters to think about becoming entrepreneurs and exporters. That needs to be seen as a good thing to do. The hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is correct that long-term investments need to be made to win new markets. We have strong cultural links with many countries. As the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) has said, 220 languages are spoken in this country and they link people to their countries of origin. We need to exploit those links to our advantage, and I think that they are there to be taken.
This debate is timely—tomorrow is the first anniversary of the trade and investment for growth White Paper. Published early in the Government’s tenure, the White Paper made clear the importance of rebalancing our economy. Growth over the past decade was based too much on debt and consumption, and we need to refocus on export. If we are to rebuild our economy, exports are critical, and I think that there is agreement throughout the House on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) made the essential point that the need to rebalance our economy, build sustainable growth and create jobs through international trade and investment must be a priority for us all.
We are a trading nation with a rich heritage to which many hon. Members have referred. We have looked outwards, but in recent years there has been a sense of complacency about our role in the world—it is almost as though we have had a sense of entitlement. We need to challenge that, be hungry and show the buccaneering spirit that has been mentioned. We need to position ourselves to take advantage of the new opportunities for growth, particularly in respect of the non-traditional trading partners. We need to work with renewed energy to ensure that all parts of our economy are working together to get the message across that Britain is open for business. The global economy is highly dynamic and very competitive. We need to be more energetic to win new business.
In response to the points that have been made, I want to focus on three key issues. First, how can we get more companies, especially SMEs, to export? Secondly, I want to outline some of what the Government are doing to help ease the flow of export credit to exporters. Finally, I want to say something about what the Government are doing to help more British companies into the fast-growing markets of the east and the south.
Many hon. Members have focused on the first priority. A vital part of increasing exports is to get more companies exporting. My colleague the Minister for Trade and Investment, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, has set out an ambitious programme for increasing the number of SMEs that export. As I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield has mentioned, only 20% to 23% currently export, compared with the European average of about 25%, and the figure is higher in Germany. We need to get an extra 100,000 SMEs exporting over the next four years to reach the European average. That is a bold, ambitious, but achievable goal, and one on which we must focus.
Achieving that increase in the number of exporters is not something that the Government, through UK Trade & Investment and UK Export Finance, can do alone. Last November, at the IMAX at Waterloo, the Prime Minister launched the national export challenge. This major partnering event brought together all those organisations and trusted advisers that can reach out to companies with messages about trade and exports.
The banks face a big challenge. They have the contacts with businesses, but a recent poll showed that many small manufacturers do not feel that they are getting the support that they need from their banks. Banks and other organisations need to reach into the business community that provides a direct route to the decision makers who really matter—the directors and managers who live day by day with decisions about how to maintain and build their competitiveness.
Lord Green is also overseeing changes to UKTI, about which there have been many comments. The changes are bringing in private sector expertise, which has been mentioned, to strengthen UKTI’s leadership, and outsourcing services to private sector deliverers. That, coupled with an extra £45 million secured by UKTI in the autumn statement, has set it on a course to double the number of companies that it helps from 25,000 to 50,000. Lord Green has also overseen the launch of new packages of export credit finance from UK Export Finance that now meet the specific financing needs of SMEs.
Companies that start to export show increases in productivity. They are exposed to new ideas and better use of resources. Their competitiveness and business sustainability also improve. UKTI and UK Export Finance can help those companies with advice and support, but the Government recognise that other partners and intermediaries have a crucial role to play.
Following on from November’s launch of the national export challenge, UKTI and UK Export Finance have held a series of seminars around the English regions. The most recent was in Yorkshire and Humberside on Monday this week. I encourage all Members—this point has been made; there is an enormous amount of expertise in and experience of business in the House—to get involved in such events and encourage businesses in their communities to think about the export opportunities that are available.
As Lord Green has said on many occasions, to reverse the decline in the UK’s trade balance is a marathon, not a sprint. We now have in place the ground work on which to build, including the active engagement of UKTI and UK Export Finance with support networks, and the targeted support of SMEs at trade fairs and on missions overseas.
Broadcasting of Court Proceedings
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to hold a short debate on the subject of the broadcasting of court proceedings. I should perhaps make it clear at the start that I am not a lawyer. I have appeared in court, but only in the jury box—never as counsel and not yet in the dock.
However, during the past few months, both in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and as Chair of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, I have had dealings with many lawyers. In respect of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, I read the report of the committee on super-injunctions recently prepared by the Master of the Rolls. I want to quote the opening section, in which the Master of the Rolls states:
“It has been a fundamental principle of the common law since its origins that justice is conducted, and judgments are given, in public.”
He then goes on to quote the Lord Chief Justice, who said only last year:
“Justice must be done between the parties. The public must be able to enter any court to see that justice is being done in that court, by a tribunal conscientiously doing its best to do justice according to law…In reality very few citizens can scrutinise the judicial process: that scrutiny is performed by the media, whether newspapers or television, acting on behalf of the body of citizens. Without the commitment of an independent media the operation of the principle of open justice would be irremediably diminished.”
I could almost end there, but I want to go on to say a bit about the background to the matter.
The ban on television cameras stems from a section of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, which I understand was passed to prevent the distraction caused by exploding flash bulbs of cameras in court. Of course, at that time television had not even been invented. Since then, there has been a long debate about whether our courts should be opened up to allow greater access to the media.
The debate about television cameras has been going on for more than 20 years. In 1989, Jonathan Caplan on behalf of the Bar Council produced a report that came out broadly in favour of allowing television, subject to certain very strict controls. Nothing then happened until 2004 when, after discussions between the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the broadcasters, it was agreed that a pilot scheme would be allowed to operate for a few weeks in the Lord Chief Justice’s court and then in the Master of the Rolls’s court.
That pilot scheme was never broadcast, but it demonstrated that the televising of court proceedings could be done without causing great distraction or disruption, or creating the dangers that people had spoken about. The broadcasting of proceedings could be done very discreetly and, most importantly, it could be completely controlled by the judge. During the pilot scheme, on a couple of occasions the judge pressed the button he had to shut off broadcasting. A large number of people have seen the results of that pilot and, as far as I am aware, it is generally regarded as a success. The pilot scheme did not lead to any great concerns being expressed and most people felt that it was a step forward both in allowing people to see the workings of the court and increasing understanding of the judicial procedure.
Although the pilot scheme was generally deemed to have been successful, nothing then happened. However, there have been one or two developments outside the English and Welsh court system. For instance, the Scottish courts have allowed very controlled broadcasting, but because anybody can object, it has not been used very much. When the Supreme Court was established, it allowed some televising of its judgments. Despite the fact that those are largely fairly detailed legalistic debates, I understand that the streamed feed from the Supreme Court made available by Sky has had a lot of viewers. Indeed, there have been around 50,000 this year, with 14,000 recently watching the ruling on the Assange case.
There have been other judicial procedures during which television cameras have been allowed, such as the Chilcot inquiry, the Hutton inquiry and, of course, most recently the inquiry carried out by Lord Justice Leveson. Given the fact that I am involved in considering similar material, I have been watching the proceedings of Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry with great attention. Those proceedings have been carried in considerable part on both the Sky News channel and the BBC News channel. There are also plenty of examples in other countries. In fact, Britain is one of very few countries left that does not allow any televising of its judicial proceedings. Most comparable countries in the developed world allow broadcasting; indeed, even China and Russia allow broadcasting of their court proceedings.
So if the arguments are so strong, why has it not happened? There have been objections. A long-standing objection is that broadcasting proceedings might lead to grandstanding and that people will play to the cameras and want to become celebrities in their own right. I was not a Member when television cameras were introduced in the House of Commons, but I was active in politics and I remember precisely the same arguments being made then about what would happen with MPs’ behaviour and that they would similarly perform to the cameras. In large part, that has not occurred. Indeed, I think most people regard the broadcasting of Parliament as having been a great success.
There have also been objections that somehow the media might distort coverage, presenting a slanted view, and that there will be a loss of objectivity. Of course, any televising of court proceedings would be subject to the same restrictions on court reporting that exist at the moment for other forms of media—for example, not revealing the identity of jurors or of potential rape victims. Those rules would apply equally to television cameras as they do to newspapers. One has to say that in general—not just in terms of the coverage of judicial proceedings—television has a better record than newspapers for impartiality and objectivity because it is governed by strict rules requiring it to be impartial and objective.
I shall illustrate a recent case where the televising of proceedings certainly had a beneficial effect for me. I had read a great many fairly lurid accounts, particularly in the tabloids, of the Amanda Knox case and the murder in Italy. Many people felt such reports were not entirely objective and, indeed, that they suggested very strongly that Amanda Knox was guilty. I happened to be away at the time of the appeal hearing in the Italian courts, which was carried in large part on Sky News, and I watched much of the proceedings, including the broadcast of Amanda Knox appearing in the witness box. At the end of the proceedings, I had considerably more doubt about the case. Therefore, when the court delivered its verdict that she should be released and was not guilty, it came as less of a surprise than it would have done to those people who had only read about the case in the tabloid press. That is an area where broadcasting can increase understanding and serve justice well.
It is easy to think of cases that will obviously be attractive to the broadcasters. Such cases will not only be sensational, lurid murder trials, although I have no doubt that some of those will be broadcast. I shall give three recent examples where there would have been real merit in having broadcast coverage. The first—this is a painful subject for all of us in this place—is that of the recent trials of MPs for abuse of their expenses. There was a huge public interest in people who were paid from the public purse, and it was very important that it was shown that nobody should be above the law. If those trials had been broadcast, they would have received a lot of interest and coverage.
Secondly, there were the riots, and the cases involving those who were convicted of rioting last summer. Again, there was a very big public interest. There was, perhaps, a lack of understanding about some of the sentencing policy. If people had had the opportunity to see the judge deliver a sentence and explain why he had reached that decision, that would also have increased understanding.
Thirdly and most recently, there was the Stephen Lawrence case. The fact that justice was finally done received huge coverage in the newspapers. It would have been even more powerful if the case had been broadcast and people had had the opportunity to see justice finally being done.
I was therefore extremely pleased to hear the announcement by the Lord Chancellor last September that the Government intend to move towards allowing the televising of court proceedings. Of course, there should be a step-by-step approach.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I agree with the thrust of his argument. It is important that justice is not only done, but, as he says, seen to be done.
On the step-by-step approach, does he agree with the points made by the Master of the Rolls in his speech to the Judicial Studies Board on 16 March 2011? He asked,
“from a public interest perspective might there not be an argument now for its hearings”—
that is, the Supreme Court—
“and some hearings of the Court of Appeal, being televised on some equivalent of the Parliament Channel, or via the BBC iPlayer.”
Broadcasting court proceedings could start there. We could then see how that goes, and extend it later.
Mr Whittingdale
I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. The pilot scheme started in the Court of Appeal. In their review of the pilot scheme, the broadcasters said that they would have liked it to have gone further, and that it should have been allowed to cover Crown court proceedings, and perhaps to have shown witnesses as well as the counsel and judge. That needs to be done in a step-by-step way. There are genuine concerns and to allay them, we need to proceed gradually. I hope that in due course we will have much greater access, but let us start, as the right hon. Gentleman and the Master of the Rolls say, with the Court of Appeal. That would be a major step forward and is, I think, what the Government hope to do.
The obstacle is the requirement for primary legislation. There is no doubt that it will take time for the rules to be worked out, and secondary legislation will probably be needed to set out in detail how this will work. However, none of that can begin to happen until there is primary legislation. The broadcasters—in a letter that was sent this week by the head of BBC news, the chief executive of ITN and the head of Sky news: a joint letter from all three of the main news broadcasters in this country—have stated that they are very keen for the process to get under way, but that primary legislation would be required in the Queen’s Speech. My request and plea to the Minister this morning is not just to confirm the Government’s intention to move gradually and carefully down this road, but to do so at the first opportunity—the Queen’s Speech.
In conclusion, this is a reform whose time has not just come, but is long overdue. I hope the Minister agrees and is able to provide us with more details this morning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who is the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on securing this timely debate. In an impressive and knowledgeable speech, he presented a view that is fairly close to that of the Government.
Open justice is a long-standing and fundamental principle of our legal system. Justice must be done as much as it must be seen to be done if it is to command public confidence. As my hon. Friend set out, the Master of the Rolls said last year:
“Public scrutiny of the courts is an essential means by which we ensure that judges do justice according to law, and thereby secure public confidence”.
Very few people have direct experience of court proceedings. In principle, our courts are open to all members of the public who wish to attend, but in practice very few people have the time or opportunity to observe what happens in our courts in person. For many, the criminal justice system is still seen as opaque, remote and difficult to understand. We need to make it a reality that our courts are open and accessible to as many people as are interested in seeing them work.
Media coverage is often the prime source for public understanding of the criminal justice system, and many people base their views of the courts on their portrayal on television or film. Those dramatised accounts inevitably do not give an entirely accurate portrayal of what happens in a court case. The Government and the judiciary are committed to improving the public’s understanding of the criminal justice system through increasing transparency. The more informed people are about the justice system, the more confidence they will have in it.
Our evidence shows that a key element of confidence in the criminal justice system is how fair the public believe it is. People want information that has not been spun about what happens to criminals and why. The majority of respondents to the Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation on broadcasting in courts in 2004 believed that broadcasting could increase understanding of court processes and make courts more accessible. That is why the Government believe that removing the current ban on filming in courts will improve public understanding of the justice system.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice announced last year that the Government plan to allow judgments and sentencing decisions in cases before the Court of Appeal, in both the criminal and civil divisions, to be broadcast. We intend to introduce legislation to give effect to those reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows, although I cannot, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon appreciates, pre-empt the Queen’s Speech. We are working very closely with the judiciary to take that work forward.
My hon. Friend made a case for the eventual full recording of all trials. That is not being reviewed at the moment, although I appreciate that he understands that a step-by-step approach, which was how he put it, will be required. Over a longer period, we expect to extend broadcasting of sentencing remarks to the Crown court, given a reasonable time after the introduction of broadcasting in the Court of Appeal.
All hon. Members will remember the media furore over the O. J. Simpson trial in the United States of America, and, more recently, the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor. My hon. Friend mentioned selected excerpts from the Knox case. The Government and the judiciary will not permit our courts to become show trials for media entertainment. We therefore have no current plans to allow the broadcasting of trials from the Crown courts, other than sentencing remarks.
Currently, the Criminal Justice Act 1925 prohibits anyone taking, or attempting to take, a photograph in any court except the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits the use of a tape recorder, or other device, to record the audio of the court proceedings. Primary legislation, as my hon. Friend made clear, will be required to amend that legislation, and any proposals the Government bring forward will be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
With certain limited exceptions, most courts are open to the public, and journalists are allowed to be present in court and report what they see and hear, subject to reporting restrictions. At the end of last year, the Lord Chief Justice published new guidance for journalists wishing to use live text-based communications, including Twitter from mobile phones, in courtrooms during the conduct of a court case. Journalists and legal commentators no longer need to apply to use text-based devices to communicate from a court during a case, although the presiding judge always retains full discretion to prohibit such communications in the interests of justice.
Broadcasting of court proceedings is not without precedent in this country, as my hon. Friend made clear. We already allow broadcasting of live footage of the UK Supreme Court, and many people watched Julian Assange’s appeal to the Supreme Court last week. All hearings in the Supreme Court can be viewed online from anywhere around the world through the live stream on Sky’s website. Figures from the first three months of broadcasting from last summer show that that stream was seen 139,000 times, proving there is a public appetite for watching court proceedings. Limited televised excerpts from inquiries—my hon. Friend mentioned the Hutton and Leveson inquiries—have been broadcast, and have engaged the public as they have progressed.
We must remember, however, that the courts deal with very serious matters that can affect the liberty, livelihood and reputation of the parties involved. It will be vital that proper safeguards are introduced to ensure that the parties are treated fairly, and that their rights are respected. Our paramount concern in opening up our courts to broadcasting must remain the proper administration of justice.
We are very clear that television must not give offenders opportunities for theatrical public display. Offenders will not be allowed to be filmed, and we are clear that the judge will have the right to stop filming in the event of any demonstration or disruption in the courtroom. We will also not allow victims, witnesses or jurors to be filmed. Victims and witnesses will be protected, and we will not introduce any measures that would make their court experience even more difficult or make them even more reluctant to give evidence. We are seeking the views of victims’ groups on our proposals, and potential safeguards to ensure that the identities and rights of victims, witnesses and jurors are protected.
Mr Whittingdale
I accept, of course, that this will be a step-by-step process, but I hope that the Minister will not close his mind completely to the suggestion that eventually witnesses should be allowed to be televised. I know that it is not the same, but I chair televised hearings, one or two of which have achieved quite large audiences. I know that appearing before a Select Committee may be intimidating, but I do not think that it makes a great deal of difference if it is broadcast. The fact that witnesses are appearing in a parliamentary forum may be intimidating, as it might be in a court, but the cameras are very discreet, and people are largely unaware of them.
Mr Djanogly
Such an inquiry may be similar to a criminal trial, but often it is not. The circumstances and sensitivities may be different, as may the outcome.
Existing reporting restrictions on cases will continue to apply to broadcasting, and in all cases the judge will have the final say on whether proceedings should be broadcast. We are considering how to ensure that any use of the footage is appropriate to the dignity of the courts as part of the legislative framework. This will not happen overnight. The 2004 pilot of filming in the Court of Appeal, which was not for broadcast, demonstrated that it is possible for cameras to be allowed into courts without disrupting the administration of justice. However, before any plans can be agreed, we must take into account the views of a wide range of interests, and we will have discussions with the judiciary and others to ensure that we have considered the complex legal, practical and technical issues.
Allowing the broadcasting of judgments and sentencing remarks is one of a number of measures intended to open up the court process to the public, including to those who do not have the occasion or opportunity to attend court in person. The Government are committed to providing the public with information on the operation of public services in their area, and the justice system is no exception. We are taking significant steps to open up the courts to the public, and to get as much information as possible about their performance at local level into the public domain.
On 24 November last year, we published anonymised, individual-level sentencing data by court so that the public can see what sentences are being handed down in their local courts, and can compare different courts on a wide range of measures, such as timeliness. At the beginning of this year, on 12 January, we published performance data for individual courts that enable local communities to find out how their local court is performing on a range of measures. The data include, among other measures, information on case timeliness in criminal, civil and family courts, and the proportion of cracked and ineffective trials at the Crown court. That represents a significant step forward in keeping the public informed about how the courts are operating in their area. In May, we will go a step further and provide justice outcome information on police.uk. That will enable the public to see what happens after a crime is reported—police actions followed by justice outcomes—and will reinforce the link between crimes being committed and justice being delivered.
In addition to the new data we have published on court performance, the Government have taken other steps to provide the public with information on how the criminal justice system works. For example, our release on court-level sentencing data in October 2010 was made available in a user-friendly format on the “Making sense of criminal justice” microsite, and was significantly more popular than normal statistical releases. Crucially, the data were released alongside the award-winning “You be the Judge” tool, which aims to promote public understanding of the sentencing process. The Government believe that providing adequate contextual information to increase public understanding of the criminal justice system is key to making data meaningful to the public, and we plan to provide such information with every transparency-data release.
I believe that the crime and justice sector is at the vanguard of transparency across Whitehall, and good progress has been made to date. However, we are committed to making the justice system more transparent, and I am confident that we will continue to make good progress in this area. The Government believe that television has a key role to play in increasing public confidence, and that is why we plan to introduce broadcasting from courts. However, although it is important for justice to be seen to be done, it is more important that justice is done. The administration of justice remains our primary aim, and our proposals to permit broadcasting from courts will not be allowed to affect that in any way.
Rural Schools
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)
Today is not the first time that we in this House have discussed the future of small rural schools and I do not believe that it will be the last. I have to make it clear—this view will be shared by colleagues—that I am not interested in listening to any redundant polemic. Instead, I want to illustrate the plight of small rural schools, particularly the crisis facing Captain Shaw’s Church of England school in the village of Bootle in my constituency, and suggest some potential policy solutions for small rural schools, which I hope that the Government will be minded to support. The Minister will state that such decisions are for local education authorities and he would be right in part to identify that accountability, but I hope that pressure can and will be brought to bear by him and his Department, not only on this policy area, but on Cumbria county council with regard to its treatment thus far of Captain Shaw’s school and the community of Bootle.
My constituency of Copeland is the English constituency most remote from Westminster. Whether by plane, train or car, it is a minimum journey of six hours from Whitehaven, the constituency’s largest town, to Westminster. As the Minister knows, Copeland sits within Cumbria, the second largest county in the country, with a population just below 500,000 people, 50% of whom live in rural communities. This poses unique policy challenges in every area, from health to economic development, and many of those require unique local solutions, which a Government of any colour are required to get behind. However, none of that removes the Government’s obligations to the people of Cumbria and, in this instance, the people of Bootle.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister was in Cumbria this week. I hope it is not the last time that we see him there.
Bootle is an outstanding community. Situated within the Lake District national park, it is a truly beautiful place. The village—I use that word despite some residents telling me that it was essentially given town status by Edward III with the granting of a market charter in 1348—is an incredibly beautiful place that was described by the renowned writer and social campaigner, Doreen Wallace, in her landmark book, “English Lakeland”. She stated:
“To see Bootle is to love it.”
She was right, but Bootle has seen huge change in recent decades. Its employment base has been threatened and it has faced the same challenges faced by other rural areas throughout the country, but these have been amplified given the unique nature of Cumbria and Copeland.
Right now, Captain Shaw’s school is the centre of Bootle: it is its beating heart, its focal point and, in many ways, its pride. If Captain Shaw’s school is taken away from Bootle, the consequences will be profound. Not only will the village suffer a huge blow in terms of status and civic pride, but the message given to the pupils at that school will be one that is frankly cruel, even brutal. The message is, “We don’t back you, we don’t believe in you, we don’t share your aspirations, we don’t understand your ambitions; you are on your own.” I cannot accept that, the people of Bootle cannot accept that and the children should not be subjected to the psychological impact of that.
The reality is—I will touch on this issue again later—that we see the ambitions, aspirations, qualities and hopes of our communities in our schools. I have visited Captain Shaw’s on a number of occasions. It is a unique school: the smallest school in the country’s second largest county, in the furthermost English constituency from Westminster. It currently has a roll of 16 pupils from 4 to 11 years old. Every time I have visited the school I have been impressed by it. There is a genuine warmth and passion about the school and the pupils demonstrate a tremendous sense of pride and belonging. The building that they occupy is more than 180 years old, yet it is in very good repair inside and out. It has excellent ICT facilities. It is modern on the inside and has a good play area outside.
The school, as I have mentioned, mirrors the community. It is doing more than simply getting by. It is handsome, notable and unique. It is supported by an indomitable community spirit and is proud of its past and ready to take on the challenges of the modern world. I could wax lyrical about the school for a long time, but the independent Ofsted evaluation puts it even better than I ever could.
In the latest Ofsted report, Captain Shaw’s school is rated as a good school. In fact, the inspector noted that,
“this is a good school which has an excellent ethos of care, guidance and support. It is a highly valued member of its local community, with which there are excellent links benefiting pupils. On leaving Captain Shaw’s, pupils are confident, independent and self-assured young people. They possess excellent social skills which contribute to their outstanding behaviour and positive attitudes to others”.
The report is glowing in other areas too, rating the school as outstanding in the effectiveness of its care, guidance and support for pupils, but it is in lead inspector, David Byrne’s, letter to pupils and parents after his inspection that the true nature of Captain Shaw’s school and its place within the Bootle community is revealed. He wrote:
“Your school is quite special. It is very much at the heart of your village and local area and makes a vital contribution to the lives of many, not just those learning or working in the school.”
I really could not put it any better than that.
Despite the school’s small roll, it is viable. Development plans are already under way, supported by the national park, to develop Bootle sympathetically with new housing, including some affordable housing, which would make the school even more viable. In addition, the pupil-teacher ratio at the school is very good indeed, at a level that many people around the country would choose to pay for in an independent school. I do not hold independent schools in higher or worse esteem than our other schools, but it is perverse that anyone would seek to remove from a community such as Bootle the kind of provision that would be valued, privately paid for and even envied in other parts of the country. This really is the worst kind of policy-making myopia. With that in mind, it is entirely relevant to mention that the decision to close Captain Shaw’s school has been taken by a county council that is headquartered 62 miles and a one and a half hour drive away from the community in question.
Before issuing its closure notice, Cumbria county council undertook a consultation on what it called
“proposed changes”.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Julia Morrison, Cumbria county council’s director of children’s services, who has begun to make a real difference in Cumbria since her recent arrival, but I think I speak for everyone in Bootle when I state that nobody believed that this consultation was ever going to result in anything other than the closure of Captain Shaw’s.
I speak as a former press officer for Cumbria local education authority. There have been a number of attempts to close Captain Shaw’s over the years, none of which has ever been successful because the case for closure—I have seen this from the inside—could never be made.
My first request to the Minister is as follows. The Government have a presumption against the closure of rural schools and have stated that they want to protect them. I share that ambition. Captain Shaw’s is strong and viable and I call upon the Minister to put this policy into effect and intervene in this instance. Even in its closure consultation, Cumbria county council recognised that the number of pupils at Captain Shaw’s is likely to rise and euphemistically acknowledges that
“village life would clearly not be enhanced by its closure”.
Small rural schools can be outstanding. The outstanding St Bridget’s school in Parton, also in my constituency, is proof of that, as are many others. I pay tribute to the work done at St Bridget’s and, in fact, to everything that that school does, not just for its pupils and their parents and some pupils’ carers, but for the village of Parton as well. Once again, the case is made that schools like this are the key to the success of the communities that they are based in.
In one of its final reports, the Commission for Rural Communities published “Small school: Big Communities —Village schools and extended services”, which I commend to hon. Members, including the Minister. The report focuses upon extended provision as a key policy solution with which to help sustain rural schools. It is right to do so. It also mentions that extended services help to break the link between poverty and poor educational outcomes.
The report states that rural poverty is often hidden. I should like to dwell upon that for a moment, because despite its obvious beauty and despite some obvious individual affluence, Bootle is not a rich village. Poverty exists in parts of Bootle and is magnified by its rurality and peripherality.
I am sick and tired of redundant notions of rurality running riot across the House, in all political parties. In the mind’s eye, some in the House see rural areas as occupied by corpulent farmers chewing blades of grass and leaning on gates and, moreover, as simply a playground for those who have wealth and who have left urban areas to gentrify the countryside with large homes and Range Rovers. They never see the young farmer struggling to stay afloat and they rarely consider what it means for people who have no access to public transport and, as a result, to the schools, hospitals and other services that their taxes pay for as much as anyone else’s. They never see the struggling villages that are fighting every day to stay alive, which have never known affluence, and the pensioners, parents and children who occupy this forgotten country.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
In that context, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that some of the public debate about planning policy has suggested that people in rural areas do not want to see any building or development at all, whereas actually having some houses that local people can afford—usually to rent—so that we have children in the schools is very important to them?
Mr Reed
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern. All too often, people—especially those who live in or adjacent to national parks—are treated almost as living museum exhibits. That policy attitude has to change and to change fundamentally.
That viewpoint, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, must change. As the economic squeeze worsens, as the public sector and the state retreat further and as areas of market failure become ever more prominent, all of us need to pay urgent attention to the plight of ordinary people in that forgotten England, because they need our help and they have little or no interest in the colour of our rosettes. That is why village schools are so important. They can act as the lynchpin for extended services in a community, through the provision of other public services such as general practice, citizens advice, tourist information or even banking. By doing that, they give us the best possible chance of reaching all the people I have mentioned and more, but particularly those most at risk of social exclusion.
The CRC report states:
“Small village schools are in close contact with families and have a track record of providing good outcomes for children. Based in isolated communities, small schools may hold the key to engaging the most disadvantaged families, but their numbers are decreasing.”
Ultimately, that is the crux of the issue. The closure of small rural schools such as Captain Shaw’s is perhaps not seen as a problem for those with private transport and steady employment, but delivers another significant contradiction with regard to the statutory responsibilities of the local education authorities and others in relation to child poverty.
The Child Poverty Act 2010 creates a duty for local authorities to reduce child poverty. As the CCR report points out:
“If poverty is to be tackled effectively, it must be a priority to identify and consult with those families who don’t know about or are prevented from accessing services.”
Village schools have a critical role to play in supporting individual families in need, or as a hub for activities that will promote learning, economic well-being and social cohesion. More than that, it is clear that the choice is becoming binary. Maintain small village schools such as Captain Shaw’s in rural areas and extend their provision of services, and we can tackle the problems of poverty, aspiration and lack of economic opportunities in those areas. Close the schools, and the evidence would seem to be clear that we cannot do any of that. Closure is effectively a choice to worsen the lives and life chances of the people in any community facing the loss of its school. As the report points out, that loss is “felt to be irreparable.”
I therefore make three specific requests of the Government today. First, to intervene in the process to close Captain Shaw’s school. Allowing the smallest school in the country’s most beautiful national park to close would destroy any credibility of the Government’s presumption against the closure of rural schools—it could scarcely be more symbolic. Secondly, to ensure that local education authorities and other responsible bodies in the case of academies or free schools, nationwide, are acting in a manner consistent with the statutory obligation to reduce child poverty laid out in the Child Poverty Act 2010. Thirdly, to bring forward as a matter of urgency a streamlined process whereby small rural schools can provide extended services, whether public, private or both, so as to secure the viability of those schools and to reach the most excluded people in our communities.
While I have the Minister’s attention, it is only right that I raise the issue of school investment more broadly in west Cumbria. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I hope that he or the Minister will be able to meet me as a matter of urgency. Some of west Cumbria’s secondary schools, which had been allocated more than £60 million by the previous Government as part of the Building Schools for the Future programme, are reaching crisis point with regard to their physical fabric and infrastructure. That affects standards, attainment levels, teaching and the aspirations and ambitions of their pupils. We urgently need major funding for the fabric of our schools, whether from a public or private source, or the consequences for education and my community as a whole will be dire.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate case. Does he agree that it is not only the capital funding that is important, but the ongoing revenue funding for schools? A fairer funding formula, which does not discriminate against rural areas, is vital to keeping small rural schools viable.
Mr Reed
The funding formula does need to be looked at and, given the inconsistent definition of rurality to which I alluded, we need to have a more sophisticated approach to the funding of pupil places, rather than the blanket, catch-all provision for rural areas and the blanket, catch-all provision for urban areas. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which needs urgent attention. Whether it is as simple as introducing a one-size-fits-all approach for rural areas, I am not so certain—we would need to look at the evidential base.
I was about to conclude. We are an ambitious community, as I am sure the Minister is aware, with an incredibly prosperous future before us if we make the right decisions, but we require the reinstatement of the money that the Government took away. I hope that the Minister will meet me as a matter of urgency to explore how and when that can be done.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for securing the debate and for all his leadership on Cumbria. Central to the issue is rurality and sparse population, and if he represents the constituency in England furthest from London, I represent the constituency in England with the most sparse population. We have about 1,200 square miles and some 1.5 million sheep, but not many people.
The central issue to do with rural schools is simply an aspect of the central problem of rural communities. That problem is the relationship between population and area. Since 1997, we can see a consistent pattern throughout almost every area of rural life: a steady push and a clear, unstoppable trend towards the hollowing out of rural areas.
We have two hospitals in northern Cumbria serving 350,000 people. That is normally difficult for the Treasury to justify, and our Cumbrian hospitals have been in receipt of emergency funding from the Government every year for 19 years, bailing out that fundamental structural problem. Our ambulances in Cumbria find themselves drifting endlessly south, towards the population centres. In fact, every morning the ambulance sets off bravely from Brough, but because it is obliged to pick up the nearest possible case and that always tends to be further south, it is somewhere south of Blackpool by the time it has to turn around and go back up to Brough in the evening. The same extends to old people’s homes, post offices, pubs, farms and broadband—we have some of the slowest broadband in Britain—and to issues such as flood protection, which I discussed with the hon. Member for Copeland earlier.
Since 1997, therefore, we have seen a cataclysmic hollowing out of rural areas throughout the country. Nationally, there are now 2,200 fewer schools in Britain than in 1997, 550 fewer clinics and hospitals, 350 fewer police stations and, famously, almost 10,000 fewer pubs—mostly gone from rural areas. It is, therefore, something of a miracle that our rural areas survive at all, when so much of the structure in the modern world seems to be set against them. In the Pyrenees, one can walk through abandoned village after abandoned village, and the same is true in the central United States. It is a miracle that Governments have managed to fight the endless centralising power of the market that tends to drive people out.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some powerful arguments. Is not part of the problem—it certainly is in my region—that small rural communities are classified as unsustainable by their local authorities and local development plans, so they cannot expand and support local schools, post offices and so on? The problem is that communities in such areas want to expand, but are not allowed to, and the unsustainable tag becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Rory Stewart
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The slogan of sustainability is used to cover up a whole series of crimes perpetuated against rural areas by local authorities. Local authorities imagine that there is an incredibly unfair structural system whereby rural areas are continually subsidised by more densely populated areas, and they demand to know why that should be. The reality, of course, is that rural areas are often in receipt of less funding than urban areas, despite higher costs. For example, education provision in Cumbria is £4,840 per pupil, compared with a national average of £5,140, despite the structural problems that the hon. Member for Copeland mentioned, and which I shall continue to discuss. Our communities put incredible energy into trying to keep those assets open, providing volunteer time and free land, but that is swept aside by the centralising tendency.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My hon. Friend seems to be talking about small schools receiving more than other schools in Cumbria, but the schools that receive much more are those in towns and cities. It is not a Cumbrian fix; it is a national fix.
Rory Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Perhaps I was not clear enough. The national average of school funding is £5,140 per pupil. Cumbria is in receipt of £4,840, so the point is exactly the one that he makes. If sparsely populated rural areas such as Cumbria are compared with urban areas, we receive less.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and I endorse it by pointing out that we have exactly the same problem in Gloucestershire, where there is the same funding difference between rural and urban areas. Gloucestershire is launching a campaign to put that right, and rightly so.
Rory Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend. The point about Gloucestershire is key. There are many reasons why things tend to get bigger, and why small shops give way to supermarkets, small dental practices give way to bigger dental practices, and small schools give way to larger schools. That is partly because of the regulations that we impose on such institutions, and partly because of pupils expectations and the variety of teaching that they can receive. That is difficult to deliver in small schools. When I look out of my window in Cumbria, I see a school in Bampton that had run continuously since 1613, but has had to close because it was considered to be unsustainable. It is an odd world where something that was affordable 400 years ago is no longer affordable when we are spending so much more per capita on our government.
The problem is size, and we have extremes. Samuel King school in Alston has only 161 pupils, making it the smallest high school in Britain. Why should it remain open? It remains open because it is more than 20 miles from Penrith, across a pass that is closed for many days during the winter. One simply cannot get to Alston, which is the highest market town in the Pennines. A school is necessary there, because students would otherwise not be able to get to school at all. Kirkby Stephen has the smallest high school in the country. It has 406 students, but only 70 are in the high school. Its catchment area covers 400 square miles of countryside, and whatever some fantasist would like to do in the name of rationality, that school provides an essential service.
Such schools face difficulties, because the lack of affordable housing, and the limited demographics mean that it is difficult for them to increase their numbers. Kirkby Stephen school breaks even with about 410 students. It makes money with 415 students, and if the number drops below 400, it loses an enormous amount of money, but it has little control over that because its catchment area is so limited in terms of population, although its size is large.
Almost every one of our outstanding schools in Cumbria—those that I mentioned are predominantly rated as outstanding by Ofsted, and are eagerly signing up for the Government’s academy programme—have continual financial problems. They have generally had to be bailed out by the county council year after year, and are in an uncomfortable position. When they become independent as academy schools, the funding they take on is the base level that they received from the county council, and does not include the emergency bail-outs that they received year after year, so they find themselves running up increasing deficits. That is so in Alston, and in Kirkby Stephen, where the debt is approaching £500,000—the £140,000 a year that it used to receive from the county council was discontinued at exactly the time it embarked on its, hopefully positive, future as an academy school.
I want to make two requests of the Minister. One is that we address seriously the issue of the rural funding formula. We should not allow that to be seen as a selfish attempt by sparsely populated areas, such as Cumbria, to steal money from more deserving people. It is consistent with our general attitude towards rural areas, and our general desire that rural areas should not be seen as places that we want to be hollowed out in relation to health care, transport or education. It is a fundamental commitment of our civilisation to rural areas.
My second request, which is smaller and technical, is that I would like the Minister to provide someone from the Department for Education to work with the boards of governors, particularly at Kirkby Stephen and Alston, on their budgets. They have launched themselves to academy status, and they have great governing bodies with great head teachers, but they could do with a lot of help to understand the budget. They are in a difficult situation because they hear one thing from the county council, and another with their new academy status. They need someone to compare their per capita funding with that of other schools around the country, and to provide technical advice on what would be reasonable reductions. That would be of enormous assistance to our schools.
On those two notes, and with acknowledgement to the hon. Member for Copeland, I thank you, Mr Weir, for calling me.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on securing this debate on the future of rural schools.
I represent a constituency in Suffolk, and when I moved to the constituency, I was impressed to discover how many small rural schools were able to survive. In my patch, I have seven schools with a roll of fewer than 50, and the smallest has about 20 pupils. A further six have a roll of fewer than 100. I have been impressed by the head teachers’ leadership in doing what they can to ensure that they keep the schools going in the communities. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not a question of the rich rural message. People in urban places are often surprised at how many of our small rural schools have upwards of 40% of pupils receiving free school meals, which reflects the fact that poverty is spread throughout the country and not concentrated in urban areas.
Suffolk has managed to survive. I believe that it was the county council’s policy to try to keep as many schools as possible open. That is different in one of our neighbouring counties, where a deliberate attempt was made to close as many schools as possible and to consolidate primary schools. An interesting way that schools have got around that is by starting to share head teachers. I point to Peasenhall and Middleton schools, which have 56 children between them and share a head teacher, and that seems to work.
I grew up in Liverpool and went to a classic primary school, which had 30 or 60 kids a year and was all one school. When I lived in Hampshire and was a school governor in a rural area, I was introduced to the concept of mixed-age classes—combinations. I then went to schools, such as Peasenhall, where key stage 1 pupils were together and all the key stage 2 pupils were together. Trying to differentiate pupils—admittedly a small number —across a wide range of abilities and progress creates challenging teaching conditions.
I am sure that it is a great pleasure to step out of school and, instead of the hard concrete that I remember playing netball and other things on, have a view of beautiful fields and playing fields. That natural environment is impressive, and perhaps I did not share that experience where I grew up in Liverpool.
There are also financial aspects. We heard the eloquent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). Funnily enough, I have a village called Brampton in my constituency as well, which also has a very small primary school that suffers similar challenges to those that he mentioned. We get even less money than Cumbria does; the county of Suffolk gets £4,676.
I hope that the Minister recognises the challenges of sparse population, which include the costs of school transport. Shipping children around is expensive, and towns or cities in particular do not have those costs. I remember getting the bus to school and it was fine because there were buses every 10 minutes or so, but those of us with rural constituencies know that that just does not happen in those areas, and nor would I expect it to. I am not suggesting that someone who lives in the country should have the same public transport service as someone who lives in the middle of the city, but the additional cost pressures are a challenge for rural schools.
It would interesting to hear the Minister’s understanding of the progress on educational challenges for rural schools. People are hugely surprised to hear that somewhere such as Suffolk is pretty low down in its progress towards GCSE targets. That is not unique to my county, but is also true in other rural counties. I hope that the Minister and his officials are working on something to ensure that children across the country get the same support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) eloquently pointed out, there definitely seems to be a bias towards urban schools, which is perhaps tradition given the more conventional aspects of social deprivation and the indices. He pointed out to me that there are ongoing revenue challenges, because children with additional languages are not being identified quickly enough. More people are coming from eastern Europe with their children and settling in parts of rural and agricultural England, and that is not recognised. Some of the indicators are a few years old, so the revenue is not keeping up quickly enough.
I do not intend to detain the House for much longer. Plenty of right hon. and hon. Members want to stand up to ensure that rural schools get a fair share of the funding, but I encourage them, especially the hon. Member for Copeland, to encourage parents in their areas to find out whether a free school is possible. [Interruption.] Perhaps his nodding indicates that that has already happened. It has certainly happened in Suffolk. West Suffolk is going through a schools organisation review, which I fully support—I support the move towards a two-tier model, because it has been statistically shown that children can make more progress that way—but understandably, significant communities would have their schools removed, and we all know that when a school is lost, an element of vitality is lost as well.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, a lot of countryside villages want more building because they want more families. They want a viable community, not to lose a school and see children transported 15 miles. A child transported to school has one minute to get on the bus, which significantly limits their opportunities for after-school activities. There is something to be said about hearing a positive message from the Minister, who I am sure, in his constituency in West Sussex, is constantly asked to ensure that the countryside is not forgotten.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate that the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) so helpfully introduced. I must tell him that my constituency is even further from London than his and at least as sparsely populated as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). It is therefore an area with a lot of very small schools, and I have several with fewer than 12 pupils.
Sir Alan Beith
I commend the east coast train service in that respect.
As I said, quite a number of schools in my area have fewer than 12 pupils. There is a unique school on Holy island that much of the time is combined with a school in Lowick on the mainland, but when the tide is over, the children are educated in a little village school on the island itself. That arrangement must continue or they would not be able to go to school without boarding at the age of five—of course, they board later in their educational career.
When a previous Conservative Government were in power and there was grant-maintained status, the county council threatened one school with closure. It went grant maintained and saved itself, and is still there to this day. It made a rather shrewd move. That was an exception to the pattern, and I will explain how school closures come about.
In my constituency, we have lost 10 rural schools in 10 years. Villages such as Kirknewton, Millfield, Chatton and Eglingham have lost their schools. Two schools are threatened at Cornhill and Brampton, and in both cases there are very small numbers of children at each school—just three or four. In the past, we lost schools in the Cheviot hills that served the communities of shepherds at places such as Windyhaugh and Southern Knowe.
The current policy of the county council is certainly not to bring about school closure, even though, like other authorities mentioned today, it gets much less per pupil than some urban communities, despite the high costs of educating pupils in a much larger number of schools scattered over many communities and the high costs of transport for children in rural areas, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) referred. Closures in rural Northumberland have invariably happened because the governors have concluded that a school is no longer viable. That view is not always shared by the local community, which sometimes disagrees with the governors and would like to see a school retained.
In all cases, closure is to be regretted because of the impact on the community. The school is a meeting place. Some places where schools have closed have managed to retain them as community meeting places, but the loss of children from the village during the day is serious. They no longer put on the events they used to in the villages where the schools were situated—dramatic activities, re-enactments and so on, and music at church and chapel events. Many people prefer to see children in the village, morning and afternoon, going to and from school. The village becomes very quiet when there are no longer children going to and from school or voices from the playing fields at break time. That takes something out of a village.
The problem, in Northumberland at any rate, is not some bureaucratic and draconian policy of getting rid of schools, but a shortage of children and young families. Young families cannot afford to live in many of our villages; with low local wages and the price of houses, property is well beyond their reach. Houses are attractive to people coming to retire and those who want second homes and so are beyond the reach of local people.
Of course, many rural council houses have also been sold over the years. We therefore need to replace housing stock for young families in our villages. I repeat the point that I made in my earlier intervention: we must not let a sudden panic about planning policy lead people to the conclusion that no development can take place in rural areas. We need communities to have a life in the future, and that means having affordable housing for young families in villages, as well as workshops and other places where trades and activities can continue. It also means ensuring that we have other housing in villages, because we want communities to be mixed. Newcomers often bring life to a village and are often among the most active supporters of local institutions. We need to sustain our villages.
There are always a few children left—those of farmers and farm workers—but life becomes that much more difficult for them when there are no other children in the village, and the village is almost devoid of young families.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I entirely share my right hon. Friend’s analysis that we cannot allow our rural communities to become fossilised and our villages to stop moving forward in time. Does he agree that the Localism Act 2011 and the community right to build represent an avenue that some villages will enjoy exploring as they grow? The register of assets of community value is another important provision that local communities can use in safeguarding some of the services, in addition to schools, that hon. Members have talked about.
Sir Alan Beith
Those measures, which the Government have introduced, are very welcome. People in the villages in my constituency are actively pursuing all those angles to ensure that local services continue to be provided. They have put a lot of effort into improving village halls, turning former schools into village halls and putting together schemes to help remaining schools, to work closely with them and to use community assets jointly with them. An awful can be done, but there need to be people to do it and young families to participate.
Let me give one salutary warning. The school in one village in my constituency closed many years ago. Later, there was some housing development. As a result, a busload of children now go from the village to another one five miles away because there is no school. Circumstances change, and we should think more often, when the situation allows, about reopening schools or even opening new schools in village communities that show real growth. That will be the exception, not the norm, but there are cases where such measures are appropriate. However, we need to try to sustain villages, so that our schools can continue.
Even in an area such as Northumberland, where no policy is being pursued directly to the detriment of village schools—that has been the case for some years—village schools are under serious threat. The threat comes from the decline of villages and the way in which the average age in villages is increasing year by year because of a shortage of young families. Safeguarding our village schools is therefore not just important, but part of a wider policy towards rural communities, and it will require great effort in years to come.
The Minister would be surprised—he can see what is coming—if I did not finish by referring to the high school that serves a large rural area of my constituency. Children go to the Duchess high school, in Alnwick, from villages from many miles around. I simply remind him that we are all waiting with bated breath for the school capital programme announcement. We are determined that the school—it is on a split site and in an appalling physical state, but it is a good school—can benefit from that programme as soon as possible.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I did not come to the debate expecting to make a contribution, and I am grateful to you, Mr Turner, for allowing me to do so. I want quickly to refer to several points, which sprang to my mind while I was listening to the debate.
The first is that the Government are consulting on school funding, and that is absolutely right. It is important that rural school supporters, of which I am one, make absolutely sure to get across the point that these schools should be able to spend their budget with few prescriptions. We also need to sort out the argument over equality between rural and urban schools and, indeed, in rural areas. That is a fundamental issue, and the Government are rightly alive and alert to it.
The second dimension to the question about the future of rural schools is that some wish to expand. In my constituency, that is, to some extent, a pressure. The Government need to make it easier for schools to understand how they can expand and what mechanisms they might use to rise to the challenge of providing extra classrooms. The second issue, therefore, is letting existing schools expand.
The third point that we should discuss is the scope academies have in terms of primary schools and small schools. Giving schools additional independence and autonomy from local authorities addresses some of the issues that have arisen in the debate. It is critical that we send out the message to small rural schools that academy conversion is a way forward.
That leads to me to a point that struck me while I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). She was talking about shared heads, and that is very much a direction of travel. Academies should be thinking very much about federalising structures, where appropriate, and about sharing facilities.
Stephen Gilbert
In my constituency, some very innovative academy chains are being created. That is allowing exactly the kind of economies that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, with a chief executive overlooking a number of primary schools. I therefore endorse his point.
Neil Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much—I do like to be endorsed every now and again, and that was firm and fair.
Let me reiterate the point about free schools, which are obviously an alternative when a local authority is unwilling to countenance the continuation of schools. It is essential that local communities take hold of the powers and opportunities that the coalition Government have given them to voice what they want.
Mr Reed
The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points, but one issue underlying a lot of the contributions that hon. Members have made is that school failures, for want of a better term, occur in areas of market failure. That is a fundamental problem, and we need to grasp it. It has been evident in England’s rural areas since the war, and it has been accelerating since then. These areas of market failure often have little, if any, real social capital. Are we really telling them, “You either have a free school or an academy, or we withdraw provision”? I do not think that we are, are we?
Neil Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting intervention—I do not think that it was an endorsement. I am challenging the old way of doing things, with local authorities providing schools and everything that was necessary. We have to take a step away from saying, “The local authority must do this, because it’s always been there, and that’s the way we like it.” We have to move towards a situation where we encourage communities to decide for themselves what they want and to move in the appropriate direction, seizing the opportunities and the tools that the coalition Government are providing. I am saying we should think of a different way of looking at this problem; we should not just go back to the local authority and say, “You must do this.” Instead, we have to go down the academy and the free schools route, if that is what communities want, because a sustainable community will be even more sustainable if it is in charge of its destiny. That is the point that I would make in response to the hon. Gentleman.
I am a great supporter of rural schools. They are absolutely important. They are a part of the rural fabric, make villages work, encourage farmers to be farmers and encourage local people to stay in local areas. However, we need to be more alert to changes that are already in train that will make it easier for many schools to prosper. We also need to address the fundamental and clearly most important question, which I raised initially, about the funding formula.
I support small rural schools. I have plenty in Gloucestershire and I want to see them thrive. The critical point that all of us must understand—I will end on this—is that all schools must strive to be really good schools. It is not good enough to say, “We have a rural school. Great.” Rural schools must provide first-class education. That must be the key test. That is what governs me and that is what I always think when I go around schools in my constituency of Stroud.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on securing today’s interesting and important debate and on making a powerful case. He told us about the proposal to close Captain Shaw’s school in Bootle in his constituency, which has 16 pupils. I think we would all agree that, in bringing the matters before the House today, he has represented his constituents with great passion. Such decisions can be made only at a local level, but it is right for my hon. Friend to seek to raise the profile of the issue by securing today’s debate. The points that he has raised here should be fully considered by the local authority before making any final decision.
We also had interesting contributions from a number of hon. Members today, including the hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and—in a rather impromptu manner, but no less interesting and important —the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael).
Before I start, I should set out my own credentials and declare that I live in a distinctly urban area of Newcastle upon Tyne, and it takes me only three hours to arrive here by train. None the less, there is a strong case to be made here in today’s important debate about the issues that face rural communities, especially in relation to schools.
Contrary to the assertions made by the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, Labour had, within a year of coming into government, introduced a presumption against closures of rural schools. The year in which the number of rural school closures was the highest was 1983, when 127 were closed. The rate of closures continued at about 30 a year until 1997. The measures taken by Labour reduced closures to an average of seven a year throughout the period we were in government. Furthermore, under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the presumption against closure was strengthened by requiring that the closure of rural schools must take the effect on the community into account and look at alternatives.
Mr Andrew Turner
Will the hon. Lady tell me whether the closure of schools under the Labour Government could have been stopped at the national level?
Catherine McKinnell
That is a point to be debated. I think the hon. Gentleman was asking whether the Secretary of State could have intervened to stop the closure of state schools.
Rory Stewart
I do not wish to debate statistics, but I am afraid that the idea that the average rate of school closures since 1997 is seven is a severe underestimation. I could name, off the top of my head, seven schools in my own constituency that were closed in the past five years.
Catherine McKinnell
No, but I agree that the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful case for the concerns in the area, regarding the decline that he feels he has witnessed in his area. I feel that all hon. Members today have made a powerful case for state intervention, particularly in such areas, and for serious consideration to be given to how the state can intervene in the market to try to ensure that rural areas do not suffer disproportionately, particularly in the cuts environment that we are facing at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the concerns that have been raised today.
Neil Carmichael
I do not think I was making a case for state intervention. I was making a case for empowering our local communities to take charge of their own schools and to take hold of the opportunities given by the Academies Act 2010, autonomous schools and active, vibrant communities.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. The overall impression that I got from hon. Members’ contributions today is that there clearly is a powerful case for concern about a purely market-led approach to education and the impact that that can have on rural communities.
Mr Reed
There is a world of difference between allowing communities to flourish and determine their own future, and throwing areas of market failure further to the forces and whims of the marketplace. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are all struggling with the following point? We are all debating different notions of rurality, and we are not considering some things that she will be aware of—as this is writ large in her own constituency—which are issues and notions of peripherality? They are the big issues that are driving the problem.
Catherine McKinnell
That is something we have witnessed not just in rural areas, but in urban areas. We need to ensure that taxpayers’ money and state support goes to all areas and all children—at the end of the day, they are what we are talking about today—that they benefit equally, and that that support is distributed equally across the country. We are debating that important wider issue.
Sometimes, when we consider all the factors, including the cost of additional school transport and the extreme case that was mentioned, in Alston in Penrith and The Border, it can make the case for closure of a small rural school more marginal. We were clear about the need to presume against closing rural schools when we were in government. In January 2008, the then Schools Minister, Jim Knight, now Lord Knight of Weymouth in another place, wrote to local education authorities. He said:
“Over the last 10 years, we have made it a statutory requirement for councils to presume that rural schools should stay open. There is not, and never has been, any policy for closing rural schools...We require councils to assess the full impact of closure on rural communities and allow every single parent to have their voice heard—and I am writing to local authorities to underline their legal duty to protect popular rural schools. This is not about funding. This is caused by falling birth rates coupled with families moving from rural to urban areas, which leaves some communities with falling numbers of pupils.”
He also said that local authorities should think creatively about their future planning and look at forming federations or consider collocating with other services to ensure that their buildings are viable.
Labour’s record was to reduce significantly the rate of rural school closures and to make it more difficult for failing ones to automatically lead to the seemingly easy option of closure.
One way of keeping rural schools open is to ensure that there are more opportunities for them to collaborate in an imaginative way. Despite the rhetoric that the Government sometimes spout, no school is an island. In the case of rural schools, that is particularly important—a point that has been highlighted by hon. Members today.
Under the previous Government, the Department for Children, Schools and Families undertook a research study in 2009 to look at case studies of formal collaborations between small rural primary schools in ways that could improve their services and viability. We saw examples of that occurring in sharing business managers and head teachers, creating patterns of executive leadership and sharing governance through federations and shared trusts. The study found a rich variety of informal collaborations but less awareness of formal collaborative models. It found that many of the 2,500 or so small primary schools in the country could benefit from more formal collaborations.
The main recommendations of the report include: producing better information and guidance of statutory models of collaboration; local authorities should develop strategic plans to promote formal collaborations; local authorities and Church of England dioceses should co-operate more closely; and local authorities should advocate formal collaborations more effectively through governing bodies and local communities.
One of the collaborations that was looked at involved shared trusts. In the unbalanced debate that there is at the moment because of the obsession with free schools and academies, not enough attention is being paid to the potential of trusts not only to keep open small rural schools, but to provide a coherent and integrated model of education in rural areas.
One of the most exciting developments is the spread of co-operative trusts. There are now more than 150 co-operative schools across the country. Particularly in areas such as Cornwall, there is real interest in that approach. Supporting co-operative models was a policy of the previous Labour Government and a commitment in “The Children’s Plan,” launched in 2007. By embedding what is essentially a social enterprise ethos in schools, co-operative schools can be based on values of collaboration and partnership, rather than the negative forms of competition between schools that the Government sometimes seem to advocate.
I shall put to the Minister questions that follow on from the points that I have raised and that respond to the points highlighted by other hon. Members. What are the Government doing to promote and encourage co-operative schools, particularly in rural areas? What are they doing to permit resources to promote the co-operative school model in the same way as they have earmarked funds for their pet project of free schools? How much money in total has the Minister allocated to the free schools policy? To what extent could that be diverted to other proposals? How much does it work out at per pupil? How many rural school closures could be prevented if money allocated to free schools in areas where there is a shortage of pupil places were diverted to small rural communities such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland is so concerned about? Will the Minister retain the previous Government’s presumption against closing rural schools? Will he guarantee that the current Government will ensure that the rate of rural closures does not go up on his watch? I have concerns and, indeed, there are many concerns among Labour Members that an over-focus on peripheral projects means that the Government are in danger of forgetting about the real issues that face rural schools. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) on securing this important debate. Cumbria in general and his constituency in particular are clearly among the most beautiful parts of the country. It was a pleasure to be in Cumbria this week, visiting schools—they were not in his constituency, but in a neighbouring one. There were times during this debate when I felt that there was an almost Mr Bounderby-esque competition to represent the constituency that was the furthest from London and the most sparsely populated. Of course, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) conceded that she would be in last place in such a competition.
The Government share the hon. Gentleman’s views on the importance of small rural schools. We recognise the contribution that they make, and that often they are at the heart of their communities. Rural schools play an important role in our education system. Of the 18,500 maintained schools, 5,400 are rural schools. As of this month, there is a total of 312 rural academies, including converters, and 1,294 urban academies.
Small schools are classified as state-funded primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils and state-funded secondary schools with fewer than 600 pupils. There are 57 small academies, of which eight are rural schools, and 2,800 maintained small schools, of which 2,300 are rural schools. Of those, 525 schools have fewer than 50 pupils on their roll, of which only 14 are not rural schools.
There are many high-performing rural schools that are popular with parents, and the Government want to see good and accessible schools in every community. However, as we have debated today, schools in rural areas face particular challenges, including smaller pupil numbers, budget and resource pressures, greater difficulty in recruiting head teachers and teaching staff, the technological challenges of ensuring adequate broadband, and less peer support from schools in neighbouring areas. All those pressures can lead, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), to the hollowing out of rural areas. He made a powerful speech in defence of rural areas.
However, although it is true that some rural schools are isolated, there are good examples of effective collaboration —something referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North—and a growing trend towards federation, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Some schools in her constituency share head teachers. That helps to preserve the focus of education within the locality, while allowing the operation of a larger management unit and offering some economies of scale.
There is also a growing trend for good and outstanding rural schools to convert to academy status. We encourage such applications, in line with the Government’s overarching ambition for all schools to become academies—that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael)—so that more children can benefit from the improved standards and autonomy that academy status brings. To support that intention further, the new academy presumption in the Education Act 2011 requires local authorities first to seek proposals for an academy or free school where they consider that there is a need for a new school. The Government’s free schools policy supports rural school provision, as it can respond directly to local parental demand—that was also pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—and it adds diversity, innovation and commitment to the school system. Again, we encourage rural groups and parents to consider applying to establish a new free school where they think there is a need. There are already three small rural free schools, with a further 18 in the pipeline.
Home-to-school transport will invariably be part of any discussion about rural schools, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. That will be the case particularly where a school is proposed for closure and the pupils will need transportation to a different school in a different village. We know how crucial transport is to rural communities. The Department for Transport has provided £10 million of extra funding for community transport in rural areas. Of course, local authorities need to consider transport costs when they consider the projected savings from closing a school.
I was struck by the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) about a rural school in his constituency. It was a village school that closed. Later, a new housing development was built, which required all the children from that housing development to get on a bus to a village several miles away, at considerable cost to the local authority.
Mr Reed
The Minister is making a very informed and intelligent series of comments, but how can we expect academies and free schools to flourish in the areas that we are talking about? The areas facing these difficulties and problems with school closures are typically areas where there is no social capital and where civic society has either withered or largely gone, yet we are expecting the people in those areas to take up the cudgels and run schools. There is a tension and a problem there. How do we get around that?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but there are very determined parents in all communities in all parts of the country. We have seen that. Many people have been surprised by quite how much demand there has been to set up free schools. The number of applications has been in the hundreds, and although there is a very rigorous vetting procedure that needs to be gone through before people can continue on to a business case, those applications have come from a wide variety of parts of the population—rich and poor, north and south and rural and urban—so if I was the hon. Gentleman, I would not be too pessimistic about who might come forward with such a suggestion. Also, some of the academy chains may wish to establish new free schools in areas where they perceive that there is an educational need, particularly in areas of deprivation, which can of course, as he and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North point out, be rural as well as urban.
Local authorities are responsible for the maintained schools in their area and as such they can propose changes, including closures, to those schools. Where changes are proposed, the local authority must follow a statutory process that includes consultation of those likely to be affected by the proposals. The proposals are then decided on under local decision-making arrangements by the authority. The Government have repealed the so-called surplus places rule, which obliged local authorities to remove surplus places in their school estate above 25%. Of course, local authorities are still obliged to ensure value for money. When considering whether to approve proposals to close a school, local authorities must have regard to DFE guidance for decision makers. That includes the presumption against closure for rural primary schools. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, such arrangements were introduced by the previous Government, but in answer to her specific question, this Government continue to support such a presumption. Although it does not mean that rural schools will never close, it does ensure that a local authority’s case for closure must be strong. Of course if local authorities are under a regulatory duty to eliminate surplus places, that would—and did—act as a countervailing pressure to close schools. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made an important point about how circumstances can change.
Rory Stewart
Will the Minister explain what is happening with this long-term trend? Contrary to the claims of the shadow Minister that an average of seven schools a year were closed during that 13-year period, the Department’s figures suggest that the number of schools nationally has fallen from 26,362 in 1997 to 24,605 in 2010. If all these safeguards and formulae are in place to prevent schools from being closed, why have nearly 2,000 gone?
Mr Gibb
I stand to be corrected, but I think that my hon. Friend is citing the figure for schools overall. There was a considerable number of school closures, and we were concerned in opposition about the number of Titan schools that were developing. The average size of a secondary school, and indeed of a primary school, increased during that period. Much of that was driven by the regulatory statutory requirement on local authorities actively to eliminate surplus places beyond 25%. That has now led to problems. The birth rate has risen and there is an increasing demand on primary school places, and we now have to rebuild, purchase or expand primary schools to cope with the rise in numbers.
There is a case for saying, “Why don’t we mothball classrooms, because in several years’ time we could see an increase in the birth rate?” However, that comes at a cost, which local authorities must take into account when they make such decisions. As far as rural schools are concerned, my understanding is that the introduction to that presumption did reduce the numbers of rural school closures from about 30 a year to an average of 11 in recent years. None the less, I stand to be challenged by my hon. Friend at any point.
Rory Stewart
I am so sorry. I hesitate to quote, but the Conservatives’ own manifesto on rural areas based on freedom of information requests to local councils established that more than 400 rural schools were closed between 1997 and 2010.
Mr Gibb
I am rapidly trying to calculate 400 divided by 13. I will come back to my hon. Friend when I am sure that I have all the mathematics absolutely correct, that we are both defining rural schools on the same basis, and that we are not conflating rural and small. I will write to my hon. Friend because I want to know the answer to this question as well.
The protection for rural academies lies in their seven-year funding agreement with the Secretary of State, which requires his consent before it can be terminated.
Let me turn to the issue of school funding. The main funding issue faced by rural schools is that, as they are generally much smaller than schools in urban areas, they do not benefit from the same economies of scale. Our analysis shows that it is small primary schools in particular that need additional support to remain viable. The hon. Member for Copeland and my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border pointed out the discrepancy in funding that Cumbria receives—£4,828 per pupil compared with £5,082 on average nationally. That puts Cumbria 105th out of 151 local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) has taken an active role, as part of the f40 group—the Campaign for Fairer Funding in Education—in trying to address these issues.
Mr Robin Walker
I thank the Minister for his kind words and for giving way. Given that the Government are preparing to respond to their consultation on the funding formula and that the previous Government recognised that the funding formula was in need of reform, would he agree to meet me and other MPs representing f40 constituencies to hear the concerns of the group ahead of the Government’s official response?
Mr Gibb
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are part of the f40 group to discuss their concerns about the funding. We do want to address these disparities in our funding system. That is why proposals in the “Consultation on School Funding Reform: Proposals for a Fairer System,” which we undertook in 2011, looked at how small schools could be better protected, as well as at the underlying discrepancies and unfairness that are in the current system. We would like to address the disparities in the rural schools either through a sparsity weighting or, in the case of primary schools, through a lump sum figure. The lump sum suggested in the consultation—I emphasise that it is only a consultation at this stage—is £95,000.
We have published a summary of responses that we are considering and we will make a further announcement in the spring. We had better arrange this meeting with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members before that response; otherwise, the meeting might seem a little superfluous.
In the interim, for 2011-12 and 2012-13, we have set a cash floor of minus 2%, which means that, in practice, no local authority will see a drop in its dedicated schools grant allocation of more than 2% regardless of pupil numbers. That is to protect local authorities that have falling pupil numbers.
I understand the local community’s passion for Captain Shaw’s school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Copeland. I can see why it is the “beating heart” of the community and why it is supported by an “indomitable community spirit.” As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed pointed out, people prefer to see village children attending their local school, being heard at playtime and being seen walking home instead of arriving home half an hour or an hour later on a school bus. I understand that the local authority in Cumbria has provided small school support through its funding formula and that the school has received a one-off schools in financial difficulty allocation to protect its budget concerns.
Mr Gibb
It is nice to be back after that short interlude to vote in the main Chamber. I see that we are now a little more sparsely populated than earlier, but I understand the pressures on hon. Members, and their commitments in the House.
I want to finish by commenting on the local authority and Captain Shaw’s school. It is concerned that the school has a capacity for 56 pupils but is now teaching only 16, which indicates issues about the popularity of the school. The local authority undertook a consultation on the proposed closure of Captain Shaw’s school and on Monday, after consideration by its scrutiny committee, it took the decision to go ahead and publish statutory proposals for the closure. Now a statutory process must be followed, and that will be decided by the local authority. As a voluntary school, Captain Shaw’s has a right of appeal to the independent schools adjudicator if it does not agree with the local authority’s decision.
The hon. Member for Copeland asked whether Ministers can intervene in the closure process. The Secretary of State cannot normally intervene in closure processes, but can do so under the general powers, where the local authority has not performed the statutory duty or has behaved unreasonably in that judicial review legal sense. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this, general funding issues for schools in rural areas and the other matters that he referred to in his speech.
Finally, I can confirm that the Department for Education is very committed to and ambitious for rural communities and their schools. We recognise the importance of preserving access to a local school for rural communities, and that is why we will be contributing to the Government’s rural statement, recognising the importance of ensuring that rural communities thrive, benefit from and contribute to sustainable economic growth, and are able to identify and address local needs. As part of that, we are working to ensure that there is greater choice in rural areas, that standards are improved by increasing the number of academies and free schools, and that the number of rural school closures is kept to a minimum.
Haemophilia
(12 years, 9 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
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am delighted to serve under you today, Mr Weir, and I am pleased to have secured this debate on an issue that I know is of interest to a number of Members from all parties. I pay tribute to the Minister present, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who has taken a keen interest in this area, and with whom I have had a number of meetings. I am a little disappointed that the debate is a short one and that I can give only the headline figures. There are many issues to raise, but I will try to concentrate on just a few.
I pay tribute to my constituent, Glenn Wilkinson, and to his family, who first came to see me in 2010 to tell me their story, and to raise the scandal of how he and thousands of others had received contaminated blood products as part of their treatment as haemophiliacs. There are two main parts to what I want to say today: the first is on the ongoing treatment for haemophiliacs, and the second is on the care, support and treatment offered to people who have contracted viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C through NHS treatment for haemophilia. I also want to pay tribute to the work, over many years, of the Haemophilia Society, and of campaign groups such as TaintedBlood and the Manor House Group, and also to the work of the Newcastle initiative, which was born out of a multidisciplinary workshop on haemophilia care held in the city in autumn 2010.
Turning first to treatment, I want to concentrate on the need to ensure that the care and treatment of people affected by bleeding disorders is addressed in the NHS reforms that are currently before Parliament. The haemophilia community has been the subject of what Lord Winston described in his evidence to the Archer inquiry as the
“worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”.
There has been much progress in haemophilia treatment over the past decade, but it is now under threat, as is much else, from the Health and Social Care Bill, and I will go on to explain why. Standards of care vary considerably around the country, and there is the risk that the new commissioning arrangements for specialist services will result in a levelling down, rather than up, in haemophilia care.
Haemophilia services are currently commissioned by 10 regional specialist commissioning groups, with funds pooled from their constituent primary care trusts. The Department of Health has also injected extra funding for haemophilia care, which rose to £88 million per annum between 2003 and 2006, to finance the provision to all patients of recombinant rather than plasma-derived clotting factors. That money remains important to the quality of care, but has more recently been absorbed into PCTs’ baseline budgets, and I seek reassurance from the Minister that the money will still be available for haemophilia care post the NHS reforms. I understand that from April 2013 specialist services will become the responsibility of the NHS Commissioning Board rather than of the 10 specialist commissioning groups. That could mean that best practice is spread across England, but equally, there is the danger that under financial pressure standards will be levelled down.
I also want to raise with the Minister the question of where responsibility for haemophilia policy will sit. Because of the contaminated blood scandal, the Department of Health has taken a leading role in the development of that policy, and it is unclear whether after the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill that role will be maintained, or all responsibility will pass to the NHS Commissioning Board. It would help if the Minister could set out her understanding of where that responsibility will sit. Also, will the twice-yearly liaison meetings between the Department and the Haemophilia Society continue? Those meetings were established in direct response to the Archer inquiry’s recommendation that a statutory committee be established to advise the Government on clinical, financial and other provisions for people with haemophilia. There is also a call for a new national policy statement on haemophilia care to replace health service guidance (93) 30, which is now nearly 20 years old and no longer reflects best practice. Can the Minister confirm that that will happen at this stage?
Does the Minister agree with the need to support the development of robust haemophilia networks to combine the best of local care with access to tertiary expertise 24 hours a day? For example, in a recent survey by the Haemophilia Society, only 15% of respondents were aware of having been offered a care plan. In both the report of that survey, entitled “Fit for the Future: Haemophilia Services in the New NHS”, and in the Newcastle initiative’s paper, “Learning from the past to inform the future”, it was found that standards of treatment and care were generally high, which is very encouraging, but that access to the provision of associated services, including dentistry, physiotherapy and psychological support, required significant improvement. The reports also concluded that patients must be given a comprehensive care plan, that they must be able to access home treatment, and that they must be involved in all decisions about all their treatment. Those goals are partially but not consistently met under the current system, and we would, of course, like to see consistency across the whole country.
All Governments have said that lessons about treatment have been learnt from the contaminated blood scandal and that there is a need to maintain the highest standards of care so to avoid any repetition of it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. Is she concerned about the level of support given to haemophiliacs who have received blood contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C? Should an additional level of care and assistance be given to those who suffer through no fault of their own but because of the blood?
Diana Johnson
I will come on to deal with the financial support that is available to individuals who have had contaminated blood products and now have HIV or hepatitis C, because that is an important issue.
To finish this first section on the treatment of haemophilia, may I ask the Minister to confirm that there should be continued research, for example into sterilisation in areas with a high risk of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease contamination, in order to support the need to ensure that a contaminated blood scandal never happens again?
The second part of my speech relates to contaminated blood. In recent months, along with many other Members of Parliament, I have been raising the issue of care and support offered to victims of the NHS contaminated blood scandal, as it has come to be known over the past 30 years. My constituent Glenn Wilkinson has campaigned tirelessly for proper support for those who have received contaminated blood products as part of treatment for haemophilia or via other medical treatments, such as blood transfusion in childbirth.
This week, Glenn and other campaigners established the contaminated blood campaign. The treatment of people who contracted hepatitis C from NHS-administered blood products has been particularly unfair, and many of those people have, unfortunately, died already. The campaign set up by Glenn is also fighting for an independent public inquiry on the same lines as the report in Ireland and the Scottish Penrose inquiry, which I believe is due to conclude shortly.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this excellent and timely debate. I have worked closely with her on the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. Her constituent was instrumental in setting up the new contaminated blood campaign. It would be good if the Minister could pledge to meet leaders of the new campaign to discuss some of the issues and move forward. I know that the Minister has met regularly with some victims of the contaminated blood scandal. This would be a good opportunity to pledge to meet those campaigners and to keep that good communication going.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful for that intervention. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his involvement in and hard work on behalf of the all-party group. He makes an excellent point in asking the Minister whether she will find time. I know that she has a busy diary, but she has made time in the past to meet victims and Members of Parliament. I hope that that will happen in future as well.
On compensation for those infected by contaminated blood products, the Macfarlane Trust was set up in 1988 for people infected with HIV. In 2004, the previous Labour Government established the Skipton fund. In 2010, the incoming Government undertook to review the support available to individuals. Some progress was made, but unfortunately, there are still problems with the system.
In particular, I am concerned about the fact that the Government have introduced a two-stage payment for hepatitis C, but the criteria for determining the second stage are still fraught with difficulties for many. As I understand it, only about 20% of those people with hepatitis C are eligible for assistance via the second stage payment. That must be looked at. My constituent Glenn has produced evidence that removing the artificial distinction between stages 1 and 2 could be achieved and would cost about £22 million, which I am led to believe could be reallocated from the under-spend of other available compensatory pockets of money.
Welfare reform is an issue for the group of people we are discussing. We have had a lot of discussion in the House of Commons about the impact of welfare reform on cancer patients, but there is a special case to be made for people with hepatitis C.
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. She speaks powerfully for her constituents, as well as for my constituents, Fred Bates and Peter Mossman, who will be grateful.
The core theme of my hon. Friend’s powerful speech is trust. The trust of that community was shattered by their experience. This Minister is trying hard to restore that confidence, and her work is important, but is it not the case that the needs of our constituents with haemophilia who have been infected with hepatitis C and other infections should always come first now, not last, after the dreadful experience that they have had?
Diana Johnson
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about trust and the need for us all to work together to ensure that those people do not suffer further, and that they get the compensation and support they are clearly due.
I want to concentrate on hepatitis C sufferers for a minute. I believe that they will be unfairly penalised by the Government’s plans in the Welfare Reform Bill. In a debate in October 2010, I asked the Minister whether it would be possible for people with hepatitis C and HIV to be passported on to the new system. The Haemophilia Society has also asked about people with fluctuating medical conditions, such as bleeding disorders, particularly those with viral infections from contaminated blood products. People suffering from fluctuating medical conditions such as haemophilia, HIV and hepatitis C tend to have good days and bad days.
The Haemophilia Society recommends that the work capability assessment be suspended for people with fluctuating conditions until Professor Harrington has considered the representations of the Disability Benefits Consortium. Many people living with hepatitis C in particular have been placed in the work-related activity group of the new employment and support allowance, rather than in the support group, where benefits will continue indefinitely. That has two consequences: it means that sufferers will have to have annual assessments, and that, after 12 months, their benefits will become means-tested. That is effectively penalising people for prudent behaviour and hard work while they were well enough to be employed.
People diagnosed with hepatitis C know that they are unlikely to be able to continue working until normal retirement age. Furthermore, people must currently wait up to 11 months for a tribunal appeal. It is to be noted that appeals for hepatitis C sufferers have a particularly high success rate. Automatically moving contaminated blood product victims into the support group would save patients stress and the Government money.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her graciousness in giving way. Many haemophiliacs have suffered from poverty and discrimination because of contaminated blood. Does she not feel for that reason that the Government must urgently address those still suffering from such maladies?
Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes that point powerfully. To quote from the report “Fit for the Future”, to which I referred earlier, an individual was asked what could be done to improve their quality of life and said:
“I think the most obvious thing to do would be to be spared the ordeal of having to do battle with the Government for financial security and not having to justify my right to sickness benefit”.
Let us keep working on compensation and related issues to improve life in the longer term for haemophiliacs and all innocent victims of contaminated blood products. In the shorter term, when considering NHS and welfare reforms, let us ensure those people’s lives do not get any worse.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Weir. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the issue. I also thank her particularly for her comments about the contact that we have had. I will continue to keep in contact with her and many other Members who continue to highlight the specific issues suffered by their constituents. I know that Glenn Wilkinson and others, some of them not still with us, have worked tirelessly on the issue.
I was interested to hear about the new campaign. Of course I will meet its representatives, as I continue to do. This is an opportunity to say that Whitehall can be distant from the rest of the population. As a Minister, I will, as all Ministers should, use the opportunity that Back-Bench and Opposition Members have given us to ensure that we stay in touch and do not become insulated from what is happening in people’s lives.
I wish that I could make up for what happened. It is a very long and sad saga. I can do only what I can do starting from here. I am also aware of the fact that it will never really be enough, because I cannot turn back the clock, but what matters is that we keep contact going.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about future commissioning arrangements and specialised services for haemophilia and other related bleeding disorders. As she has rightly said, those services are currently commissioned at a regional level by specialist commissioning groups. We are working with the NHS to produce a list of specialised services to go in a new set of regulations for the NHS Commissioning Board. At the moment, we are not able to produce a final list, but a list of services currently set out in the Specialised Services National Definitions Set—the titles that the Department of Health and others come up with are extraordinary—will form a basis for the Commissioning Board’s final list. I expect that we will be in a position to announce that list of services in the coming months, at which point it will be subject to consultation.
The hon. Lady is right to say that that will be an opportunity to share best practice. I get frustrated when I hear that some areas do things well, while others do not or do not adopt the same sort of best practice. The hon. Lady has voiced her concerns and fears that this could lead to services being levelled down, but I think there will be an opportunity—I was born an optimist—to share best practice. The financial arrangements for this particular group of people affected by contaminated blood will remain an issue for the Department of Health. What matters on services, however, is that we ensure that best practice is shared.
The hon. Lady mentioned care plans. As somebody who trained as a nurse and who worked in the NHS for 25 years, I get frustrated about this issue, because everybody should have a care plan and everybody should be involved in it. The plan should involve all the different agencies, including the local authority on housing and social services on social care. It could also involve the voluntary sector for people who are isolated. A number of agencies can improve the quality of life and ensure that people’s lives are fulfilling and meaningful.
Today, treatment for haemophilia is much improved. On the issue of blood safety, which the hon. Lady raised, some haemophilia patients still need to be treated with products that have been manufactured from human plasma, but those products are manufactured under very strict safeguards. Many haemophilia patients are now treated with synthetic products, and both types of product are extremely safe. Lessons have been learned. The shadow of what happened all those years ago continues to hang over us and everybody involved with the safety of blood products.
Synthetic and plasma-derived clotting factors are procured nationally by the Department, with commissioners and clinical and patient representatives involved from an early stage. That means that the NHS buys products that are not only cost-effective, but reflect what patients and doctors actually need. In turn, manufacturers and suppliers can better understand what matters to the people who use those products. At the end of the day, that is what should matter to us.
To further improve patient involvement, the Department of Health has brought the Haemophilia Alliance into discussions on all the issues that affect haemophilia patients. The alliance is made up of patients, clinicians and other professionals involved in haemophilia care, and I am grateful to those who give up their time to involve themselves in it so positively.
A decontamination research funding initiative worth about £2.4 million over four years was announced in 2011. It will address the decontamination of surgical instruments, improving the effectiveness of washer disinfectors and exploring contamination and novel technological approaches to the decontamination of endoscopy scopes. These products will also have wider applicability to human prion diseases, such as CJD, and other health-care-associated infections. Some issues are unresolved, because the proven and effective technologies needed to address them do not yet exist. There will continue to be money in research until we are absolutely sure that we have done all we can.
When people were infected with hepatitis C and HIV, it also had a significant effect on their families. We often forget that such issues have a massive ripple effect, not just on immediate family but on distant family. In January 2011 the Secretary of State announced that we would provide additional support, not just for haemophilia patients, but for anyone infected with HIV or hepatitis C by NHS blood transfusion. That support includes ensuring that the annual payment for those infected with HIV is linked to inflation; introducing a similar payment for those most seriously affected by hepatitis C; and increasing the value of the lump sum. The support will also make £300,000 available over three years for counselling services. I find it interesting to look at the uptake for such things, because it lets us know when we have hit the target. It is so important that I continue to get that feedback. The combination of fixed and discretionary payments provides flexibility to enable them to be tailored to meet individual personal needs.
I know that there is concern that insufficient support is available for people who have developed hepatitis C, particularly the Skipton Fund stage 1 recipients. The scientific and clinical advice that we received during the review that we conducted in autumn 2010 did not support regular annual payments to everyone infected with hepatitis C, many of whom go on to clear the virus. I was delighted to hear from one such person, who has campaigned actively. New treatments are available, improving the prognosis for some infected patients, but I know—I think the hon. Lady was at the same meeting as me recently—that concern remains about the cut-off.
I know that one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has worked out the potential cost of removing the distinction between stage 1 and stage 2, but the current system of payments for hepatitis C is itself based on expert clinical and scientific review, which continues to support the two-tier system. Evidence, however, evolves and it would be arrogant of a Minister to say, “That’s it for ever.” It is terribly important, as I hear about the experiences of the constituents of individual Members, that I continue to receive advice, so that what we do is relative to the current expertise.
I apologise to the hon. Lady for not responding to her e-mail about my meeting with the expert group, but I was delaying my response while departmental officials worked out the details of the meeting. I am pleased to say that I will write to the relevant patient groups, asking them to nominate two people—I think that seems about right—to represent them at the meeting. I think that will be important.
The hon. Lady is probably aware of the Caxton Foundation, which provides support tailored to the needs of those affected. All payments made by the foundation are for the trustees to decide. I have met the trustees and their feedback is important in enabling us to see how the support works. The charity’s objectives are laid out in its trust deed, and it is accountable to the Charity Commission. I do not have any powers to direct it, but it has to be kept under review.
Paul Goggins
On the Caxton Foundation, in future will the Minister take particular notice of the needs of carers? It is important that that fund is in a position to support carers as well as those directly affected.
Anne Milton
Yes. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. The discretionary ability to distribute funds is important. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of carers, who are all too often forgotten.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North mentioned the capability assessment. She might want to initiate a similar debate on that issue. Health conditions are not automatically a barrier to work, but we recognise that they are for some people. Indeed, some people will never work and we must make sure that we support them. It would probably not be right—this is certainly not in my gift—to give automatic exemptions, but I urge the hon. Lady to raise the issue with the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible.
Diana Johnson
It would be powerful if the Minister made representations to a fellow Minister. Has she had the opportunity to do that with her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions?
Anne Milton
As the hon. Lady rightly states, in my ministerial role, my responsibility is the health and well-being of the population. I will always continue to make representations, which often taken place—although sometimes they do not happen in the public eye. Just a word about the Lord Penrose inquiry: we will give assistance, but we will not be commenting on that. I have had a few letters about that. I will comment at the end of the inquiry.
The issue of trust has been raised. I will finish by saying that I know a lot of trust was damaged and that that has flavoured many things since then for good but also for ill. That is an extremely difficult issue and I would not presume to say that I can ever get anyone’s trust back for what has happened and what successive previous Governments have done or failed to do. I hope that we will continue to work constructively with other hon. Members to ensure that this group of people get the help and support that they need.
Human Trafficking
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I must first thank the Speaker for granting a very important debate on the need for a national rapporteur on human trafficking.
I am delighted to see that the excellent Minister for Immigration will be replying to the debate. He is well known for his commitment to fighting the evil of human trafficking and, along with the Prime Minister, he has the desire to put the United Kingdom at the forefront of that fight. Sometimes it is like pushing at an open door, and I am really grateful that he is here. I would also like to thank James Newhall, my special adviser on human trafficking, and Tatiana Jordan, who is working in my office as an intern. She did much of the research and drafted this speech.
At the beginning of any human trafficking debate, thanks must be given to Anthony Steen, the former Member for Totnes. If he had not raised the issue of human trafficking in the previous Parliament, we would not be where we are today. Anthony has helpfully made a number of suggestions that have been incorporated into this speech.
As chairman of the all-party group against human trafficking, I would like to say that there is one small area where the Government could move the cause forward, improve the fight against trafficking and, at the same time, save taxpayers’ money. One of the problems surrounding human trafficking is the lack of reliable information and data analysis permitting us to assess the scope of the problem in our country. The solution in the UK to that challenge is to establish an independent national rapporteur.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the debate and on the excellent work he is doing as chairman of the all-party group against human trafficking. Does he agree that a positive example has been provided by the Dutch national rapporteur in this area, who since 2000 has made some 200 recommendations to the Dutch Government, many of which have led to improvements in Government policy in the field of human trafficking in that country?
Mr Bone
I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend who is, of course, a very worthy colleague of mine on the all-party group. She is absolutely right about the Dutch rapporteur, about whom I will say a bit more later in my speech.
An e-petition on the subject reads as follows:
“Human trafficking is serious, international, organised crime. The money generated from it (an estimated $32 billion per annum worldwide) is only marginally less than from arms dealing and drug smuggling. Tackling it is a priority for all political parties and the current Government. Much effort is expended by NGOs, Police, Social Services and other key Government agencies, to tackle human trafficking in the UK and protect its victims. However currently there is no independent monitoring system to ensure that work is effective and coordinated. We call on the Government to establish an independent watchdog, in line with the recommendations of the CoE Convention on trafficking in human beings, to which the UK is a party, to monitor the performance of key agencies ensuring that victims’ needs and experience are central. The watchdog should report to Parliament on a regular basis to ensure transparency and accountability.”
Like many other e-petitions, once it reaches 100,000 signatures, the Backbench Business Committee can consider it for a debate. I am on the Backbench Business Committee, too.
I am pleased to be able to say to the Minister that that e-petition is well on the way to succeeding. This morning, I checked how many signatures there were and I am pleased to say that there were 116. That highlights the problem of the issue. Human trafficking is evil, wicked and underground. It is modern-day slavery, but so few people know about it. A national rapporteur would unite all our anti-trafficking efforts under one roof and guide us through the main challenges, making recommendations on measures that might be required on a policy level to protect victims’ rights and prosecute the traffickers.
As stated by our gutsy Home Secretary in “Human Trafficking: the Government’s Strategy”:
“The UK has a good record in tackling human trafficking...We need to do more to stop this horrific crime…By applying to opt in to the EU Directive on human trafficking, we have demonstrated our commitment to working with other countries in Europe to drive up standards across the continent in tackling trafficking.”
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. May I put on the record my appreciation and that of the people of Northern Ireland for his attendance at a conference last Friday night in Northern Ireland that brought a lot of groups together? We would like to put on the record our appreciation for his attendance and for his speaking at that debate. I am sure that he will agree that we need to do something drastically, whether through a rapporteur or whatever, because, as he has highlighted, there are 116 signatures and we have a long way to go to get 100,000.
Mr Bone
I say this deliberately: my hon. Friend is being very modest. He set up a conference on human trafficking in Portadown last Friday. Some 150 people were there. There were four main charities: Women’s Aid, A21, Stop the Traffick and the other important one I have just forgotten—[Interruption.] Against Child Trafficking. Senior police officers from Northern Ireland did a presentation and there was a short speech from me. We heard from Kate, who is a 21-year-old who rowed across the Atlantic with four other young women to raise awareness of human trafficking. Let us imagine what it must have been like rowing across the Atlantic, throwing up in the boat and all manner of other things. That shows the guts of those young people. I was delighted when my hon. Friend presented an award to her. He is a shining example of what Members can do in their constituencies. I have said to him—I genuinely mean this—that it was the best presentation I have seen. As usual, he is being unduly modest.
To return to the issue of having a rapporteur, the EU directive calls for the establishment of a national rapporteur or, as the Minister is probably going to remind me, an equivalent. I consider most of what the EU does to be wasteful, anti-democratic and not to be touched with a bargepole. However, in this case, the EU did not make the directive compulsory; it was something that member states could opt into. It was absolutely right for the Government to take their time to consider whether we should opt in. The all-party group urged the Government to opt into the directive, and then they decided to do so. That is exactly how we should consider EU directives. If it is in the interests of the country to opt in, we should do so. The crucial point is that, having opted into it, we have to implement it in full. If we accept that we must opt into the directive, then we must do so in full.
What we are doing? Maybe we should be looking at what gaps there are—that is probably better. There is currently no independent oversight of the human trafficking situation. A national rapporteur, or equivalent mechanism, must be independent from Government. If they are not independent, their work will not be considered authentic, as it will always be felt that the Government have somehow rigged the figures, and that whatever view is expressed will represent a spin on Government policy. No Government organisation will criticise its own Government.
What do we have at the moment? We have the Government’s interdepartmental ministerial group—something Jim Hacker might have thought up. It is considered to be the national rapporteur’s equivalent mechanism in the UK. This august body has only met twice in the past 18 months. However, the good news is that it has 20 Ministers on it—fantastic. All these Ministers getting together to discuss human trafficking—first class. There is only one slight problem. At the two meetings that have occurred, two thirds of the Ministers have given their apologies. I really do not think that we can claim that that is working in any way whatever.
The Minister for Immigration kindly wrote to me on 1 February, recognising the failure of the current system. He said:
“I will be reviewing the role and remit of the IDMG to ensure that it can effectively carry out the Rapporteur function in line with the requirements of the Directive.”
Well, I can solve the Minister’s problem. I can make his work load less. I can make his day happier. Instead of trying to bring together lots of disinterested Ministers and meeting once every nine months to be the equivalent of the national rapporteur, why not just have a national rapporteur?
The Netherlands, where a national rapporteur was established 10 years ago, has got a grip on the scale, variety and changing face of human trafficking, and can target their resources accordingly. The Dutch rapporteur is a former judge with a small professional team. She is independent from Government and her mandate and authority is recognised by every parliamentarian. Her annual report to Parliament includes information from various sources, such as the police, immigration service, border agency, social services, NGOs, churches and civil society.
Here is the latest Dutch rapporteur’s report, full of statistics, analysis and recommendations. It is debated in the Dutch Parliament. It is recognised by the Government, NGOs and media as the authentic guide to trafficking in the Netherlands. When I first met the Dutch rapporteur a few years ago, her office consisted of her and one researcher-secretary operating from a small office and costing next to nothing to run. Today, the Dutch Government have recognised the huge advantage of having a national rapporteur and have extended her remit twice. She now investigates not only human trafficking, but child pornography and sexual violence against children. The Dutch rapporteur fulfils the EU requirement and is cheap. More importantly, she has caused a step change in the Dutch fight against human trafficking.
How would a rapporteur help here? We have no idea of the scale of modern-day slavery in the UK. However, every so often, new information raises its head above the parapet. For example, it was in the news recently that at least 32 men, who were trafficked to six European countries, including Sweden, Norway and Belgium, to work on building sites, were duped, deceived, had their passports taken away and were not paid. Another example is from Bedfordshire. A group of Englishmen were abused by other Englishmen. The vulnerable victims, some of whom were starving, had been lured from soup kitchens, benefit offices and hostels with the promise of paid jobs and shelter.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he recognise the urgency of the situation, given that we have the Olympics this year and the Commonwealth games in Glasgow in two years’ time? During such international sporting events, there is an increase in organised crime and an increased risk of human trafficking. Therefore, we need a coherent strategy from the Government, working alongside the Scottish Government, to deal with the Olympics and the Commonwealth games in 2014.
Mr Bone
The hon. Gentleman is spot on when he says that this is organised crime. Where they see a big venue, they see money, and of course it is a danger. The Government are working to prevent that, but I still have my concerns about what might happen.
The latest example of human trafficking, which we discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), was revealed last week. For the first time in Northern Ireland, there was a conviction for human trafficking. A legitimate restaurant owner from Hungary brought young girls from eastern Europe into Northern Ireland, with the promise of paid work in his restaurant. They arrived all very happy. They then had their passports and documents taken away, and were forced into a brothel. When I say a brothel, it is a house in a road where they were locked in a room for 24 hours a day. Some 70 women were trafficked. I use the word “women”, but I bet that some of them were actually technically children.
I am conscious that I am eating into the Minister’s time. I wanted to say a little about the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which has not worked as well as it should have done.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. There is slightly more time because of the earlier Division. If the hon. Gentleman would like to continue for a minute, I will not stop him.
Mr Bone
Thank you, Mr Weir. Do not encourage me.
The UKHTC costs £1.6 million a year and employs 30 people. Support for victim care, which the Government have increased, costs nearly £2 million a year and services nearly 1,500 people. There seems to be a little discrepancy there. We could take a fraction of that £1.6 million— perhaps, at most, £250,000—and establish a national rapporteur. It would do all the things we want at the fraction of the cost. The Minister could then go back to the Chancellor and say, “By the way, Chancellor, here is £500,000 back that I have found.” I know his career prospects are good, but that would be an added incentive for the Prime Minister.
Three components are required for a national rapporteur to make an effective contribution to combating human trafficking, as opposed to simply writing reports that gather dust: independence from Government; unlimited and direct access to all relevant information, not just Government information; and annual reports that should be made public, with their recommendations debated in Parliament. It is important to keep in mind that, while a report by the national rapporteur on the status of human trafficking is designed to cover the scope of the problem and the changing trends as well as the appropriate responses, it should not lose sight of the ultimate goal: to end this vicious modern-day slavery.
The UK Government’s human trafficking strategy clearly states its main four objectives and how to achieve them. If established in the UK, a national rapporteur could gather and synchronise the information to assess the Government’s progress on its timely and efficient implementation, make recommendations on where more attention and action were needed, and ensure the adequacy and appropriateness of services provided to victims of trafficking.
Another point that was brought to my attention is that the Dutch Government discovered that having a national rapporteur actually helped them. When outside bodies said that the Dutch Government were not doing enough, they could point to the rapporteur’s report and say, “Yes, we are doing the job.”
In conclusion, not only am I being a good European today, and not only am I making the Minister’s life easier—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says that there is a first time for everything. Not only am I saving the taxpayer money, but I am arguing for a big step towards ending the evil of human trafficking.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
I cannot call the hon. Gentleman unless he has the permission of the initiator of the debate and the Minister. Does he have the permission of both?
Michael Connarty
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, I find that quite appalling.
The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)
I am happy to assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that I will be generous in allowing interventions, even though I am restricted by time, because I appreciate his contribution and his long-standing interest in this subject.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on making a uniquely Europhile speech, on securing this debate and on his work for the all-party group. I am grateful for his kind remarks, although I am deeply worried when he says that lobbying me is like pushing at an open door. I make it clear to all non-governmental organisations that that should not be taken as precedent.
There is, rightly, a lot of interest in this issue. Everything that my hon. Friend said about its seriousness and the importance of having an effective anti-trafficking strategy is, of course, true. The one point where I would slightly disagree with him, apart from on the central argument—I will come on to why I disagree with him about that—is on the lack of public awareness. It has struck me, over the past few years, not least through the actions of the all-party group, NGOs and successive Ministers in both Governments, that there is consciousness throughout the country of the evil of trafficking and the fact that it is present not just in our inner cities and the sex industry, but in many small communities, including rural communities, and all parts of the United Kingdom, as we have heard. Indeed, it is everywhere. That consciousness has grown in recent years, which is good, because we will be much more effective in fighting trafficking if, out there, the general public knows about it.
In that context, it is fair for me to outline some progress that we have made since we published the human trafficking strategy in July last year, which focuses, as my hon. Friend said, on four key themes: improving victim identification and care; enhancing our ability to act early; smarter action at the border; and more co-ordination of our law enforcement efforts in the UK.
Officials have been working across the Government to build a more collective and collaborative response to fighting human trafficking, bringing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. Equally importantly—I take the point that there must be collaboration between the Government and extra-governmental bodies—this response is specifically supported by stakeholder groups on specific themes, attended by a range of NGOs. The current groups are focusing on five key areas within the strategy: raising public awareness; working with the private sector; working with child victims; tackling demand; and international engagement. Those groups have already instigated action to support the aims of the strategy. For example, they are considering how we can expand the awareness-raising initiative with airlines—something that I helped to launch with Virgin Airlines as part of the activities on the most recent national anti-slavery day.
We have already provided additional information to posts in other countries to raise awareness of trafficking and to support collaborative working with NGOs in those countries. Part of that work includes gathering information from posts, so that we have a better understanding of their challenges and issues to help inform how we might best support anti-trafficking efforts around the world. We recently agreed an awareness-raising campaign with a major supermarket in Lincolnshire to provide information to potential vulnerable workers in the agricultural sector.
Officials continue to review and refine the national referral mechanism to ensure that victims can be identified appropriately and to ensure that the picture on the extent of human trafficking within this country is clearer.
My hon. Friend was disapprobatory about the UK Human Trafficking Centre. Clearly, it can get better and is doing so, but improvements can always be made. That is what we are trying to do in respect of its intelligence function and organised crime group mapping, which will help inform the Government’s view of the priority areas to combat human trafficking.
Michael Connarty
I am reminded of the adage that a camel is a horse designed by a committee. On 18 January, the Minister said in his response to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s special representative and co-ordinator for combating traffic in human beings:
“Progress is monitored by a strategic board of cross-Departmental officials which meets on a six-weekly basis. This board reports to the biannual Inter-Departmental Ministerial Group…on human trafficking.”
That seems to be a larger number of people than is required to do a job, which, as the chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), said, is done by a co-ordinator—a proper rapporteur with a single purpose, independent of the Government.
Damian Green
Let me move directly on to the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough about whether we need a rapporteur added to our armoury. Obviously, this matter arises from the directive that we have now opted into. I am grateful to him for his support, not just for our opting in, but for the way that we did it—at the end of the process when had we ensured that it was appropriate and helpful to this country to do so.
We have given much thought to how we implement the directive. We are about to make changes to primary legislation, with amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill, to ensure that we are compliant with those parts of the directive to which our laws are not compliant at the moment, and we are making an initial assessment of where we may need to introduce secondary legislation. We are determined to ensure that everything is in place by April 2013, which is when we need to be completely compliant.
Article 19 allows the setting up of a national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism. I am unpersuaded by my hon. Friend’s example. He was mildly humorous about the inter-departmental ministerial group. I think that I am entitled, in return, to note that of the 27 nations in which he could have found examples of people being inspired to greater efforts on anti-trafficking by having a rapporteur, he adduced precisely one. I am disappointed on behalf of Finland, which is the only other country in the European Union that has a national rapporteur. I note that my hon. Friend did not come up with any great advantages from the Finnish system.
Mr Bone
On that important point, the Minister is right; of course there are two countries that do it, but the Prime Minister wants—I hope that the Minister would want to support the Prime Minister—to make the UK the leading country in the fight against human trafficking. With a rapporteur, we could take that lead.
Damian Green
I share the ambition to make the UK a leading beacon, showing people how we can effectively fight trafficking. So let me get to the point of why I think that a rapporteur would be a fifth wheel on the coach.
The interdepartmental ministerial group, which meets every six months, is effective with support from the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which is the central repository of data—my hon. Friend made that important point—and it can effectively perform the national rapporteur function, because apart from the ministerial meetings, officials from across Whitehall meet once every two months to support the ministerial group, to inform it and to provide an update.
I agree that the current structure is not perfect, and I intend to make some improvements, so that it can become more effective. First, I will consider my hon. Friend’s point about the frequency of the group’s meetings, so that it can maintain effective oversight across the Government of the work on combating human trafficking. Secondly, I will review the group’s membership to ensure that we have the right people in the room discussing the issues across the Government. I recently wrote to group members emphasising the importance of their regular attendance: I take the point that my hon. Friend made in that respect, as well. Thirdly, I will revise the terms of reference for the group to reflect the required functions of the rapporteur role, so that it can effectively assess trends and measure the actions taken to address them.
As part of the existing arrangements, the group receives information on human trafficking trends from the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which informs our approach. If particular issues are raised, the group will be able to commission further data from the HTC. To that end, my officials are working with the centre to establish consistent data requirements to support the group in carrying out that role. In line with the requirements set out in article 19, the group will publish an annual report on the assessment of trends in human trafficking, as well as on anti-trafficking activities, and will work with the NGOs to achieve that.
In recent debates, as well as in this one, questions have been asked about the independence of the ministerial group and about the requirements of the rapporteur role. To be clear, the directive does not stipulate that the national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism must be independent of the Government. Indeed, we already have in the UK a vast array of extremely effective organisations independent of the Government that produce assessments of human trafficking inside the country and internationally. We of course consider proposals and recommendations in each report, and we will strengthen our response accordingly. In carrying out the rapporteur function, the group’s report will not only consider trends but will take account of assessments and recommendations from other reports and of the Government’s progress in delivering their strategy.
To make those pledges concrete, I intend that the group will produce an initial report following the first anniversary of the publication of the strategy, after the Olympic games, to ensure that the progress made on the strategy and any learning or experiences gained from the games can be captured and inform our assessment of such work.
As the problems that might come about because of the Olympics have been brought up, let me say that of course we have a threat assessment of the Olympics, including the possibilities of trafficking. I am pleased to say that, at the moment, there is no evidence of extra trafficking activity as a result of the Olympic games, which would have been intuitively plausible because there has been evidence of trafficking at previous World cups, but they attract a different kind of audience from the Olympics. We are now over the construction phase—the venues are built—which is another time that people were worried about, and I think that the sort of people who attend the Olympics will provide less of an incentive. More to the point, so far the police detect no evidence of any large-scale increase in trafficking activity related to the games.
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing concern with and commitment to the fight against human trafficking and others present in the Chamber today. The appropriate structures are in place and will get better, and they provide the right oversight in this area. It almost goes without saying, but I can assure hon. Members that the Government continue to recognise the importance of fighting such a terrible crime and ending the plight of far too many vulnerable adults and children. I will bend all my efforts to ensure that we are as effective as possible in continuing that fight.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Ministerial Statements
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Freedom of Information
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I have today given the Information Commissioner a certificate under section 53 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”). The certificate relates to the Decision Notices dated 12 September 2011 (ref. FS50347714) and 13 September 2011 (ref. FS50363603). It is my view, as an accountable person under the Act, that there was no failure by the Cabinet Office to comply with section 1(1 )(b) of the Act in these cases by withholding copies of the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR) from 1997 and 1998.
The consequence of my giving the Information Commissioner this certificate is that the Commissioner’s Decision Notices, which ordered disclosure of most of the DSWR minutes, cease to have effect.
A copy of the certificate has been laid before each House of Parliament. I have additionally placed a copy of the certificate and a detailed statement of the reasons for my decision in the Libraries of both Houses, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
This is only the third time the power under section 53 (otherwise known as the “veto”) has been exercised since the Act came into force in 2005. In that time, central Government have released an enormous amount of information in response to FOI requests—including in October 2010 the minutes of the Cabinet discussion of the Westland affair.
My decision to exercise the veto in this case was not taken lightly, but in accordance with the Statement of Government Policy on the use of the executive override as it relates to information falling within the scope of section 35(1) of the Act. I have placed a copy of that policy in the Libraries of both Houses.
In line with that policy, I have both assessed the balance of the public interest in disclosure and non-disclosure of these minutes, and considered whether this case meets the criteria set out in the Statement of Government Policy for use of the veto.
I consider that the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that disclosure would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government. I have concluded, in light of the criteria set out in the Government’s policy, that this constitutes an exceptional case and that the exercise of the veto is warranted. A detailed explanation of the basis on which I arrived at the conclusion that the veto should be used is set out in my statement of reasons.
Parliamentary Questions
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
The Treasury has conducted its annual indexation exercise of the cost of oral and written parliamentary questions so as to ensure that these costs are increased in line with increases in underlying costs. The revised costs, which will apply from today, are:
Oral Questions £450
Written Questions £164
The disproportionate cost threshold (DCT) for written questions will increase to £850.
Terrorist Asset Freezing
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Following consultation with other relevant Departments and agencies, the Treasury is today publishing the Government’s response to David Anderson’s first report on the operation of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010. This will be laid before the House today as a Command Paper.
Terrorist Asset Freezing
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)
Under the Terror Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (“TAFA 2010”), the Treasury is required to report quarterly to Parliament on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
This is the fourth report under the Act and it covers the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2011. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN-Al-Qaeda asset freezing regime.
Follow up to independent reviewer’s report
Following recommendations made by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer, in his report on the operation of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 published on 15 December 2011, the Treasury has revised the content and format of the quarterly report to provide additional information.
This report has been revised to take account of the independent reviewer’s recommendation to publish more information about the operation of the domestic asset-freezing regime. This information can be found in the table and text below. In accordance with the recommendation at paragraph 11.5 of the independent reviewer’s report, the lists at the end of this statement provide a breakdown by name of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373.
The Treasury has also decided to report more fully on the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under the EU Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements the UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU. Under this regime, the EU has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.
The Treasury has published its response to the independent reviewer’s report today (8 February 2012) and the next quarterly report will provide an update on implementation of other recommendations which impact on the operation of the asset-freezing regime in the UK.
Additional information, where available, is also provided for the al-Qaeda regime in the revised format adopted to meet the independent reviewer’s recommendation.
The following table sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter ending 31 December 2011:
TAFA 2010 | EU Reg(EC) 2580/2001 | Al-QaedaRregime UNSCR1989 | |
|---|---|---|---|
Assets frozen (as at 31/12/2011) | £33,000 | £11,000 | £72,0001 |
Number of accounts frozen in UK (at 31/12/11) | 70 | 10 | 39 |
New accounts frozen | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Accounts unfrozen | 4 | 0 | 2 |
Number of designations (at 31/12/11) | 42 | 51 | 343 |
(i) new designations (during Q4 2011) | 5 | 5 | 1 |
(ii) Delistings | 1 | 1 | 1 |
(iii) individuals in custody in UK | 15 | 0 | 3 |
(iv) individuals in UK, not in detention | 5 | 0 | 7 |
(v) individuals overseas | 14 | 26 | 242 |
(vi) groups | 8 (0 in UK) | 25 | 91 (2 in UK) |
Renewal of designation | 1 | n/a | n/a |
General Licences Issued in Q4 Amended (iii) Revoked | (i) 0 (ii) 5 (iii) 0 | ||
Specific Licences: | |||
(i) Issued (ii) Revoked | (i) 4 (ii) 9 | (i) 0 (ii) 0 | (i) 1 (ii) 2 |
1 This figure reflects the most up-to-date account balances available and includes approximately $64,000 of suspected terrorist funds frozen in the UK. This has been converted using exchange rates as of 04/01/12. |
The key areas of activity during the quarter were:
The Treasury made five new designations under TAFA 2010. These were in respect of Hamed Abdollahi, Manssor Arbabsiar, Abdul Reza Shahlai, Ali Gholam Shakuri, and Qasem Soleimani; and were the first new designations made under TAFA 2010. The five individuals were subsequently listed under EU Regulation 2580/2001.
Two reviews of existing designations were completed during the quarter, which resulted in the delisting of Ismail Bhuta and the renewal of designation of Bilal Abdullah.
Nine licences were revoked following the delisting of Ismail Bhuta.
The decrease in balances since the last quarter follows delistings made and licences issued (under which frozen funds have been released).
The Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011 were introduced in November to replace the Al-Qaeda and Taliban (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2010, following the split of the al-Qaeda and Afghanistan regimes agreed by the UN in June 2011.
Legal Challenges
Two legal challenges against designations made under both the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2009 and TAFA 2010 were ongoing in the quarter covered by this report. There were no specific developments during the quarter in the cases brought by Zana Rahim and Ismail Bhuta. No new challenges were made against the Treasury during the quarter.
Proceedings
In the quarter to 31 December 2011, no proceedings were initiated in respect of breaches of the prohibitions of the Act or the Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011.
(i) Designated persons under TAFA 2010 by name2
INDIVIDUALS
Hamed ABDOLLAHI |
Bilal Talal ABDULLAH |
Habib AHMED |
Imad Khalil AL-ALAMI |
Abdula Ahmed ALI |
Abdelkarim Hussein AL-NASSER |
Ibrahim Salih AL-YACOUB |
ManssorARBABSIAR |
Selman BOZKUR |
UsamaHAMDAN |
Nabeel HUSSAIN |
Tanvir HUSSAIN |
ZahoorlQBAL |
Umar ISLAM |
Hasan IZZ-AL-DIN |
ParvizKHAN |
Waheed Arafat KHAN |
Osman Adam KHATIB |
Musa Abu MARZOUK |
GulamMASTAFA |
Khalid MISHAAL |
Khalid Shaikh MOHAMMED |
Ramzi MOHAMMED |
Sultan MUHAMMAD |
YassinOMAR |
Hussein OSMAN |
Zana Abdul RAHIM |
Muktar Mohammed SAID |
Assad SARWAR |
Ibrahim SAVANT |
Abdul Reza SHAHLM |
All Gholam SHAKURI |
Qasem SOLEIMANI |
Waheed ZAMAN |
entities
1. basque fatherland and liberty (eta)
2. ejercito de liberacion nacional (eln)
3. fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de colombia (farc)
4. hizballah military wing, including external security organisation
5. holy land foundation for relief and development
6. popular front for the liberation of palestine - general command (pflp-gc)
7. popular front for the liberation of palestine (pflp)
8. sendero luminoso (sl)
2For full listing details please refer to: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/terrorism.htm.
(ii) Persons designated by the EU under Council Regulation (EC)2580/20013
Hamed ABDOLLAHI* |
Rabah Naami ABOU |
Maisi ABOUD |
Abdelkarim Hussein AL-NASSER* |
Ibrahim Salih AL YACOUB* |
ManssorARBABSIAR* |
Kamel ARIOUA |
Mohamad ASLI |
Rabah ASLI |
Mohammed BOUYERI |
Noureddine DARIB |
Abderrahmane DJABALI |
Sofiane Yacine FAHAS |
Hasan IZZ-AL-DIN* |
15. Khalid Shaikh MOHAMMED* |
FatehMOKTARI |
FaridNOUARA |
HoarlRESSOUS |
19. Noureddine SEDKAOUI |
Abdelghani SELMANI |
Sofiane SENOUCI |
Abdul Reza SHAHLAI* |
All Gholam SHAKURI* |
Qasem SOLEIMANI* |
Mohammed TINGUALI |
Jason Theodore WALTERS |
Abu Nidal Organisation (ANO) |
Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade |
Al-Aqsa e.V. |
Al-Takfir and Al-Hijra |
Babbar Khalsa |
Communist Party of the Philippines, including New People’s Army (NPA), Philippines |
Gama’a al-lslamiyya (a.k.a. Al-Gama’a al-lslamiyya) (Islamic Group— IG) |
Islami Büyük Dogu Akincilar Cephesi (IBDA-C) (Great Islamic Eastern Warriors Front) |
Hamas, including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem |
Hizbul Mujahideen(HM) |
Hofstadgroep |
Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development* |
International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) |
Khalistan Zindabad Force (KZF) |
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) (a.k.a. KONGRA-GEL) |
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) |
Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army)* |
Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) |
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)* |
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command (PFLP-GC)* |
Fuerzas armadas revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)* |
Devrimci Halk Kurtulu Partisi-Cephesi—DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Army/Front/Party) |
Sendero Luminoso (SL) (Shining Path)* |
Stichting Al Aqsa |
Teyrbazen azadiya Kurdistan(TAK) |
3for full listing details please refer to: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/terrorism.htm.
*EU listing rests on UK designation under TAFA 2010.
Armed Forces Pension Scheme
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
Changes to the armed force compensation scheme introduced in May 2011, and armed forces redundancies as a result of the strategic defence and security review, have increased the resource annually managed expenditure (AME) and net cash requirements for the armed forces retired pay, pensions etc. estimate in a manner which could not have been foreseen at the time of the main estimate in April. Parliamentary approval for additional resource AME of £1,340,000,000 has been sought in the supplementary estimate for armed forces retired pay, pensions etc. laid before the House today.
However, the rate of spend under this vote has also been faster than anticipated at the start of the year, for example, because payment of the retrospective additional compensation payments as part of the implementation of Lord Boyce’s recommendations for reform of the AFCS, has proceeded more quickly than expected. The Department therefore needs to make arrangements to ensure the financial obligations of the armed forces pension scheme can continue to be met up until the supplementary estimate is approved. Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,340,000,000 is sought in the supplementary estimate for the armed forces retired pay, pensions etc. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £340,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
EU Energy Council
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry)
In advance of the forthcoming Energy Council in Brussels on 14 February, I am writing to outline the agenda items to be discussed.
The first substantive item on the agenda will be a debate on the proposal for a regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructure. The UK welcomes proposals to reduce investment barriers for energy infrastructure development and to build on best practice to help streamline permitting processes across the Union, particularly for cross-border projects. We recognise that considerable investment in energy infrastructure will be needed between now and 2020 to meet the agreed EU and UK core objectives of competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply as well as meeting the 2020 targets on renewables, energy efficiency and CO2 reduction. However, we have some concerns that in some areas the proposals and time-schedules appear overly prescriptive.
The council will also hold a debate on the Europe 2020 strategy, which will form the Energy Council’s contribution to the European semester exercise (the EU initiative to improve economic policy coordination). The council will consider the contribution of energy efficiency and renewable energy to growth and jobs.
The presidency will then report on the progress of negotiation of the draft directive on energy efficiency. Over lunch, Ministers will discuss the remaining potential areas of concern in the draft directive in terms of scope, requirements and implementation of the proposal and how they can be best addressed before negotiations begin with the European Parliament. We support the general level of ambition in the draft directive although we have concerns over the level of prescription. We are pleased with the direction of discussions in council, which reflects these concerns.
There will be reports by the presidency on the progress of negotiations on the draft decision on an information exchange mechanism on intergovernmental agreements and on preparations of the Rio+20 UN conference on sustainable development. The commission will report on the activities of the Electricity Co-ordination Group and on a number of international energy relations issues.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food (Jim Paice) represented the UK on agriculture matters at the Agricultural and Fisheries Council on Monday 23 January. Stewart Stevenson MSP and Alun Davies AM were also in attendance.
The meeting opened with a presentation of the Danish presidency’s priorities for the first half of 2012. Progress on CAP reform negotiations and political agreement on the common fisheries policy were the two main objectives, with simplification of food legislation, the technical alignment of legislation with the Lisbon treaty, and a focus on animal welfare also mentioned.
The main agenda item was a CAP reform discussion focusing on the Single Common Market Organisation (SCMO) proposal. The Commission stated that the proposal would refine existing market intervention measures, enabling the EU to react more effectively to agricultural crises, and introducing a new off-budget crisis reserve. The Commission called for Producer Organisations (PO) and Inter-Branch Organisations (IBO) to be allowed to benefit from clearer rules on competition law allowing them to plan effectively and adjust their production. The Commission also announced the creation of a high level group to examine the EU wine sector.
The UK acknowledged the requirement for a safety net but stressed the need to differentiate between market volatility and a genuine crisis; and disagreed that a crisis reserve should be off-budget. The UK welcomed the end of certain market measures such as the sugar quota, but restated the need for a balanced sugar market which allowed the EU sugar beet and cane refining industries to compete on a level playing field. Finally, the UK stated that the existing Producer Organisation model had been difficult to implement in member states and needed clarification.
Member states accepted the requirement for a safety net for farmers, but were split over the best ways to achieve this. The major wine producing member states regretted the proposed end to vine planting rights, but welcomed the formation of a high level group. A large group wanted to continue with sugar beet quotas. The Producer Organisations and Inter-Branch Organisations proposals were generally well-received, although many member states rejected the idea of compulsory recognition.
There were two items under any other business. The first saw a Commission presentation of its strategy for the protection and welfare of animals 2012-15. There was some reference to poor implementation of the ban on conventional cages for laying hens, and to the importance of maintaining the deadline for compliance with the sow stall ban in 2013.
The second any other business item was information from Holland on discovery of the Schmallenberg virus in Holland, Germany and Belgium. Holland called for a monitoring plan and EU funding to tackle the disease and for it be classified notifiable. The UK also reported discovery of four cases of Schmallenberg but stated that while EU-wide monitoring, research, and co-ordination was important there was not enough evidence to make the disease formally notifiable. The Commission stressed the need to act proportionately and avoid unnecessary disruptions to the market and trade.
Firearms
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
Today I am launching a consultation on whether we need to change existing legislation or sentencing powers in relation to importation and supply of illegal firearms. The consultation will run until 8 May 2012 and a consultation paper is available on the Home Office website. A copy of the consultation document will also be placed in the House Library.
The United Kingdom has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, sending a clear message that society will not tolerate gun crime. However while gun crime represents only a small proportion of all recorded crime, it has a serious impact on the communities affected by it. We believe that individuals who, while not using the firearms themselves, are responsible for making them available to other criminals should face tough and appropriate sentences.
That is why in our “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report, the Government committed to undertaking further work to assess whether it is necessary and proportionate to introduce new offences for the supply and importation of firearms. The Government want to ensure that appropriate offences and sentences are in place to address gun crime and support practitioners in their work. Before committing to any action we want to ensure we have correctly identified whether the existing legal framework is sufficient.
We are therefore seeking views on whether current laws are robust enough to ensure that those who import, or supply firearms to criminals face tough and appropriate sentences for their crime.
Supplementary Estimates 2011-12
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Department for International Development’s departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be reduced by £13.0 million from £7,880.3 million to £7,867.3 million.
Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are as set out in the following table:
Voted | Non-voted | Voted | Non-voted | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource DEL | -309.0 | 31.9 | 5,341.3 | 867.9 | 6,209.2 |
Of which: | |||||
Administration budget | -11.6 | 0 | 111.2 | 0 | 111.2 |
Depreciation budget | 21.0 | 21.0 | |||
Capital DEL | 264.1 | 0 | 1,658.1 | 0 | 1,658.1 |
Total DEL | -44.9 | 31.9 | 6,999.4 | 867.9 | 7,867.3 |
The change in the Resource element of DEL arises from:
Voted
Transfers out to other Government Departments, including those relating to the jointly managed conflict pool. This sits on Department for International Development’s baseline but is shared between Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence. Budget transfers relate to expenditure managed by these other Government Departments.
£4.5 million transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of the tri-departmental conflict pool. This was funded from the original conflict pool allocation of £256.0 million, and £4.0 million was funded from DFID RDEL (given unforeseen pressures in Libya);
£4.0 million transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of the tri-departmental conflict pool. This was in addition to the £4.5 million outlined above and was a result of unforeseen pressures in Libya;
£2.1 million transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of approved funding to the returns and re-integration fund;
£2.6 million transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in respect of approved funding for DARWIN project;
£1.9 million transferred to the Home Office in respect of approved contribution to ODA-eligible UK Border Agency (UKBA) funding;
£0.9 million transferred to DEFRA in respect of the technical contribution fund for the International Atomic Energy Agency;
£10.0 million transferred to DEFRA in respect of DFID in respect of the overall ODA and International Climate Finance management strategy. An ODA/GNI target of 0.56% was set out in DFID’s CSR10 settlement letter, as was a climate change spending target of £275.0 million;
£7.1 million transferred to Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in respect of the overall ODA and International Climate Finance management strategy;
£3.0 million transferred from the Department for Education to DFID in respect of a forecast underspend on ODA eligible budget.;
£247.0 million transferred internally from DFID’s RDEL budget to DFID’s CDEL budget in order to facilitate the deposit of the IDA 16 £300.0 million promissory note. This represented the first deposit towards the 16th replenishment of the International Development Association, the arm of the World Bank whose funding provides people with education, health care, clean water and access to economic opportunities in around 80 of the world’s poorest countries. The UK has pledged £2.664 billion to cover the period from July 2011 to June 2014.
Voted Summary | |
|---|---|
Net RDEL transfer to OGDs | -£30.1 m |
Transfer to non-voted RDEL to support EC attribution | -£31.9 m |
Transfer to DFID CDEL from DFID RDEL | -£247.0 m |
Subtotal voted | -£309.0 m |
Non-voted
Adjustment to the total of EC attribution
Based on updated information of 2009 outturn made by EU directly on behalf of the UK the figure for the outturn of the 2009 EC attribution was £31.9 million higher than outlined in the 2011 main estimate. As such, an adjustment is required to reflect the new estimated amount for the non-voted EC attribution total.
£31.9 million transferred from DFID in respect of a forecast underspend on ODA eligible budget.
Non-voted summary | |
|---|---|
Increase in EC attributed aid | £31.9 m |
Subtotal non-voted | £31.9 m |
Total reductions in RDEL | £277.1 m |
The change in the capital element of DEL arises from:
Voted
Internal transfers from DFID RDEL to DFID CDEL, and transfers of CDEL from OGDs as part of previously stated RDEL to CDEL swaps.
£10.0 million CDEL received from DEFRA in respect of the overall ODA and International Climate Finance management strategy;
£7.1 million CDEL received from DECC in respect of the overall ODA and International Climate Finance management strategy;
£247.0 million internal transfer from DFID RDEL to DFID CDEL. The majority of this internal swap is used to partly fund the £300.0 million promissory note to IDA 16, summarised earlier. DFID’s contribution to IDA, like many other donors, is made by way of promissory note to enable the organisation to enter into commitments with the support of the promissory note but ensure effective cash management and avoid large unutilised cash balances.
Voted Summary | |
|---|---|
Transfer to DFID CDEL from DFID RDEL | £247.0 m |
Transfer from OGDs to DFID CDEL | £17.1 m |
Subtotal voted | £264.1 m |
Non-voted
No CDEL non voted adjustments
Non-voted Summary | |
|---|---|
Subtotal non voted | £0 |
Total increases in CDEL | £264.1 m |
DFID’s Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) budget is used to fund amendments to provision requirements and also fair value adjustments to financial instruments, notably DFID’s existing loan portfolio. DFID’s significant provisions include contributions towards the International Finance Facility for Immunisations (IFFIm) and Advance Market Commitments (AMC).
Voted
Adjustments have been made to reflect updated expectations of provision requirements and utilisation of provisions based on revised information. The most notable of these are in IFFIm and AMC provisions. DFID’s provision requirements for IFFIm represent the net present value of committed payments to cover the UK share of currently issued bonds. This year bond issues are expected to be lower than originally forecast, due to lower anticipated demand for bonds as a result of the global economic circumstances. AMC’s provision represents committed payments to fund supplier agreements signed to produce vaccines to meet demand. The value of agreements signed in the year is now lower than forecast at main estimate stage and a reduction in AME is expected for this reason.
These reductions are offset by an expected increase in AME to cover fair value adjustments in loans, which are now treated as AME by way of the Clear Line of Sight reform. The majority of DFID’s loan debtor represents DFID’s share of a euro-denominated portfolio of loans given to developing countries which is administered by the European Investment Bank (EIB). It is expected the valuation of this outstanding balance will reduce due to a combination of exchange rate movements, recognising the weakening of the euro against sterling, but also to reflect doubts over the recoverability of certain balances where the countries are in default or are expected to be given debt relief status.
Expected net income from the sale of assets disposed of in the financial year is £1.6 million, and is capital AME. This is included below.
AME voted summary | |
|---|---|
Increase in utilisation of provisions | -£10.9 m |
Increase in provision | £3.4 m |
Income in AME Capital | -£1.6 m |
Subtotal voted | £9.1 m |
No AME non-voted adjustments have been made
AME non-voted summary | |
|---|---|
Sub total non-voted | £0 |
Total decrease AME | £9.1m |
Supplementary Estimates 2011-12
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)
Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the Scotland DEL will be increased by £361,773,000 from £27,987,779,000 to £28,349,552,000. Within the total DEL change, the impact on resources and capital is set out in the following table:
£’000 | Change | New DEL |
|---|---|---|
Fiscal RDEL | 114,616,000 | 24,955,969,000 |
Ring-fenced Depreciation within RDEL | 9,500,000 | 544,257,000 |
Ring-fenced Student Loans within RDEL | 16,109,000 | 87,487,000 |
Capital DEL | 221,548,000 | 2,761,839,000 |
Resource DEL + Capital DEL | 361,773,000 | 28,349,552,000 |
Less Depreciation | 9,500,000 | 544,257,000 |
Total DEL | 352,273,000 | 27,805,295,000 |
The increase in the Scotland DEL takes account of the following adjustments to the Scottish Government provision:
A DEL carry forward of £130,000,000 (£30,000,000 resource and £100,000,000 capital);
Barnett consequentials of £90,194,000 (£69,206,000 resource and £20,988,000 capital);
Increase of £15,970,000 (£15,410,000 resource and £560,000 capital) in lieu of Barnett consequentials in settlement of the Olympics dispute;
£50,000,000 towards the upgrading of the ScotRail sleeper services;
A pre-payment transfer for the Forth replacement crossing of £50,000,000;
An increase in the student loans subsidy of £16,109,000; and
Additional depreciation of £9,500 for Highlands & Islands Airports Limited following
its change from a public corporation to a central Government body.
Search and Rescue Helicopters
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)
On 13 July 2011 the Department for Transport commenced a procurement competition for search and rescue helicopter services to replace the existing contracted Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) capability. The procurement process has now concluded, and I wish to inform the House of the results.
A contract has been signed to operate search and rescue services from Stornoway and Shetland with Bristow Helicopters Ltd. A separate contract has been signed with CHC Scotia Bristow Helicopters Ltd to operate search and rescue services from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency bases at Portland and Lee-on-the-Solent. Operations under both contracts will commence by the time the existing MCA service contract expires, and will continue until June 2017. Both contracts will be managed by the MCA.
As I announced on 28 November, procurement is now under way for longer-term arrangements that will see search and rescue contracted nationally. Operations will commence under these longer-term arrangements during 2015 and the future contractor for the UK will assume responsibility for the MCA capability during 2017.
Supplementary Estimates 2011-12
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mrs Cheryl Gillan)
Subject to parliamentary approval of any necessary supplementary estimate, the Welsh Government’s (WG) total departmental expenditure limit (DEL) will be increased by £123,401,000 from £14,688,541,000 to £14,811,942,000.
Within the total departmental expenditure limit (DEL) changes, the impact is set out in the following tables:
Fiscal RDEL | £’000 |
|---|---|
Provision at Main Estimates | 13,348,774 |
Changes in Supplementary Estimate | |
Transfer from DEFRA (Animal Health) | 1,200 |
Transfer to BIS (Public sector Mapping) | -2,081 |
Resource to capital switch | -97.,000 |
Reserve Claim: Olympic settlement | 8,622 |
Barnett Consequentials: Council Tax | |
Freeze | 38,895 |
Barnett Consequentials: Fee Advice | |
Services | 967 |
Sub-total changes | -49,397 |
Revised provision (Supplementary Estimate) | 13,299,377 |
Ring-fenced Student Loans in RDEL | |
|---|---|
Provision at Main Estimates | 52,820 |
Changes in Supplementary Estimate | |
Switch from Ring-fenced Depreciation | 37,868 |
Reserve Claim: Student Loans | 25,600 |
Sub-total changes | 63,468 |
Revised provision (Supplementary Estimate) | 116,288 |
Ring-fenced Depreciation in RDEL | |
|---|---|
Provision at Main Estimates | 378,329 |
Switch from Ring-fenced Student Loans | -37,868 |
Transfer to DEFRA (Environment Agency depreciation) | -1,650 |
Sub-total changes | -39,518 |
Revised provision (Supplementary Estimate) | 338,811 |
Capital DEL | |
|---|---|
Provision at Main Estimates | 1,286,947 |
Changes in Supplementary Estimate) | |
Resource to capital switch | 97,000 |
Reserve Claim: Olympic settlement | 241 |
Barnett Consequentials: Growing | |
Places | 12,089 |
Sub-total changes | 109,330 |
Revised provision (Supplementary Estimate) | 1,396,277 |
Summary | Opening Position | Changes | Current Position |
|---|---|---|---|
Fiscal RDEL | 13,348,774 | -49,397 | 13,299,377 |
Ring-fenced Student Loans in RDEL | 52,820 | 63,468 | 116,288 |
Ring-fenced Depreciation in RDEL | 378,329 | -39,518 | 338,811 |
Capital DEL | 1,286,947 | 109,330 | 1,396,277 |
Total DEL (RDIL + CDEL) | 15,066,870 | 83,883 | 15,150,753 |
Total DEL (RDEL + CDEL-Depreciation) | 14,688,541 | 123,401 | 14,811,942 |
The net effect of these and other changes is to reduce the grant payable to the Welsh Consolidated Fund by £45,076,000 from £12,910,867,000 to £12,865,791,000. Full details are set out in the table below.
Original Position | Changes | Revised Position | |
|---|---|---|---|
£’000 | |||
Expenditure Classified as DEL1 | 15,066,870 | 83,883 | 15,150,753 |
Expenditure Classified as AME | 318,789 | 111,439 | 430,228 |
Total managed Expenditure | 15,385,659 | 195,322 | 15,580,981 |
Less: | |||
Non-Voted expenditure: | |||
LA Credit Approvals | 120,211 | 0 | 120,211 |
Other Non-Voted | 6,078 | 0 | 6,078 |
Resource Ring-fenced Non-Cash | 431,149 | 23,950 | 455,099 |
AME Non-cash | 164,726 | 122,077 | 286,803 |
TOTAL NON- VOTED TME | 722,164 | 146,027 | 868,191 |
TOTAL VOTED TME | 14,663,495 | 49,295 | 14,712,790 |
Voted receipts | |||
Contributions from the National Insurance Fund | -886,953 | 8,629 | -878,324 |
NDR Receipts | -867,000 | -103,000 | -970,000 |
Total | -1,753,953 | -94,371 | -1,848,324 |
Timing Adjustments | |||
Increase / Decrease in Debtors and Creditors | 1,275 | 0 | 1,275 |
Use of Provisions | 50 | 0 | 50 |
TOTAL GRANT TO WELSH CONSOLIDATED FUND | 12,910,867 | -45,076 | 12,865,791 |
1Resource and capital DEL inc. depreciation. Includes Budgetary Changes as a result of the implementation of Clear Line of Sight |
House of Lords
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dogs: Microchipping
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce the compulsory microchipping of dogs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, we are close to finalising a package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog owners, and intend to make an announcement soon. In putting the package together, we have considered and set out the pros and cons of various approaches towards compulsorily microchipping dogs. The final package will cover future government handling of the issue, as well as plans to improve standards of dog ownership.
Lord Hoyle
I thank the Minister for that reply. It is very helpful in itself. Taking the old adage that there are no bad dogs, just bad owners, microchipping would certainly make for more responsible dog ownership. It would also make it easier for dogs that have strayed to be found by their owners. It would cut down on the number of stolen dogs. As a Government who are seeking popularity, it would be highly popular, as 83 per cent of the public who have been surveyed support this.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his support for what may indeed be included in the package. It might help the House to know that the cost of rehoming each stray is £1,100. The economic cost to this country of irresponsible dog ownership is enormous, let alone the human damage that can be caused by out-of-control dogs.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, is the Minister aware that attacks on guide dogs are now running at over seven a month? The person who first drew this to my attention said, “What on earth are they doing putting a tax on guide dogs? Whatever next?”. But actually it is a very serious problem. It can mean a vulnerable person being left alone, in need of assistance, and without a dog for a considerable period of time. The dog may need to be treated, retrained or even withdrawn from service altogether. As each guide dog costs £50,000 over its lifetime, this has huge financial implications. Will the Government consider making attacks by dogs on assistance dogs a punishable offence in the same way as attacks on human beings?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I assure the noble Lord that we take this very seriously. It is an increasing problem. As the noble Lord said, there seven attacks a month on guide dogs. Sometimes, of course, the dogs carrying out these attacks are out of control; they are not even on a lead. The whole purpose of the policy will be to try to encourage responsible dog ownership. I am very pleased with the contribution the noble Lord has made to the issue by asking his question today.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, the number of stray dogs in this country has risen to 126,000 and has been steadily increasing for the past four years. Does my noble friend agree that compulsory microchipping would help local authorities with the spiralling costs of kennelling, and help them reduce the number of healthy dogs they have to put down each year, which was 6,000 in 2011?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, my Lords, I drew the House’s attention to the enormous economic cost of stray dogs; £57.5 million is spent by charities and local authorities in caring for and finding new homes for stray dogs. That is part of the thrust behind our proposals, which, as I say, we will be announcing shortly.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I think that the mood of the House is that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has been waiting. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Renton might speak after her.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if all puppies were microchipped before they were eight weeks old, it would ensure that they could be traced to their breeders, which would prevent much of the iniquitous practice of puppy farming?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is certainly a proposal that we are looking at, and I thank the noble Countess for her contribution.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry
My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that the Government consider very carefully before insisting on the compulsory microchipping of dogs. Many dogs take badly to having a chip in them; they get very sore and so forth. Surely anyone who cannot control a dog should not have one; that should be the course.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not sure that the respondees to the consultation share my noble friend's view on the matter, and I am not sure that the Government share it, either. We see microchipping as one measure we can take to address an increasing problem. The cost of stray dogs is something that we have discussed. The human cost of dog attacks is another matter that the House should bear in mind in considering these measures.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the House has heard many times before from the noble Lord that these matters will be dealt with soon. May I press him again on when “soon” may be? I was told that microchipping had already started and that six databases were up and running. The information on the databases will be useful only if it is up to date and accurate. What plans do the Government have to ensure that this will happen?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Some 58 per cent of dogs are already microchipped on a voluntary basis. The noble Lord asks about timing. When I say “very shortly”, I do mean “very shortly”, but the timing is not within my gift. I have clearly flagged up the possibility of an expansion of microchipping in the responses that I have given today, and we are working with everybody to make sure that this will happen.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, will the new compulsory system apply to dogs coming to this country? If not, what will the Government do about that?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, my Lords, the pet travel scheme requires that all dogs coming to this country are microchipped.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, as a former chairman of the RSPCA, perhaps I may point out that it has been the wish of that society and many others that there should be compulsory registration for dogs, as this is the only way to deal with manifold problems. May I remind the noble Lord—although he will probably not know—that in the House of Commons I tried twice to get this introduced, well over 20 years ago?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This House always provides noble Lords with the opportunity to fulfil their ambitions, and it may be that my noble friend will achieve just that.
Gaza
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contact they have had with the Government of Israel regarding the effect of Israel’s blockade of Gaza on children’s health.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the UK Government are very concerned about the impact of movement and access restrictions on the health of children in Gaza. We regularly press the Israeli authorities on the need to ease restrictions and to address the humanitarian situation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development raised these issues during his recent visit.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that only 5 per cent of the water coming out of Gazan children’s taps is drinkable and the rest is not? Gastroenteritis is endemic among children in Gaza, about 70 per cent of whom are anaemic. Is she also aware that doctors working in the main hospital claim that about 500 people have died as a result of the shortage of basic medication, many of whom are children? Can we not approach the Israeli Government with a greater sense of urgency to secure a change in the situation of these children who are being collectively punished?
Baroness Northover
I have been replying to the noble Lord on the issue of water so I am extremely well aware of the situation. We are very concerned about the situation in Gaza and it is a tragedy that people are living in such circumstances. Thirty-eight per cent of Gazans live in poverty, 66 per cent depend on food aid, and, indeed, 90 per cent of mains water is unfit to drink. We are pressing the Israeli authorities all the time to try to address these problems.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, last week representations about this were made even by the UN Secretary-General, which demonstrates once again the futility of all efforts by the international community to alleviate, let alone to resolve, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Can my noble friend tell the House what replies we have received to our repeated representations to the Israeli Government? In particular, will the Israelis facilitate the onward delivery of $1.5 million-worth of medical supplies which were landed in the port of Ashdod by a Turkish aid agency last Saturday?
Baroness Northover
My Lords, the important thing is to seek a political resolution. It is only following that that some of these problems will properly be addressed. My noble friend is right to highlight some of the problems that are occurring at the moment. We have to emphasise yet again that it is in Israel’s future interest to make sure that these problems are properly addressed and that it will never be secure while this situation continues.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, is the Minister aware that medical supplies for Gaza are shipped by Israel to the Ministry of Health in the West Bank, which then has to deliver them to Gaza? There is considerable mistrust and poor communication between the two ministries of health, and that is one of the main causes of the delay in the transfer of medical supplies. Is she aware of that?
Baroness Northover
I am aware of that. The noble Lord is right that the division between Gaza and the West Bank, both geographically and politically, is indeed playing a part here. We urge all sides to co-operate together to ensure that medicines get across and do get into Gaza.
Baroness Deech
Is the Minister aware that around 300 Questions have been tabled during this Session on Israel, Gaza and the associated areas, with, sadly, little effect? We have had only around 20 Questions on Iran, 30 on Syria and only one relating to the Arab spring. Is the Minister confident that this House is seeing the widespread crises throughout the Middle East in perspective and that British representations on Gaza are set in the context of the whole area? I find it very odd—maybe other Members do as well—that we have not had a debate on the Arab spring.
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness is right to flag up problems in other areas across the region. All these issues need to be addressed, and of course what happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians also plays out in those other areas. It is extremely important that we seize these issues right across the region.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, in her reply my noble friend referred to representations that the British Government have been making to the Government of Israel on this issue. That frequently is the form of reply which is given on many other issues relating to Gaza and Israel. Does Israel give assurances in response to those representations, and do Her Majesty’s Government ever follow up any undertaking given by the Government of Israel? When are we going to have any positive action to redress this wrongdoing?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord is right: there is a lot of communication all the time. There have been some shifts—some of the restrictions on crossings have been lifted to some extent—but it is nowhere near what is required. Therefore, constant pressure is needed. However, I come back to one of my original points. It is necessary for both sides to see that it is in their long-term interest to find a political solution. It is only when we get people on to that path that we will start to crack some of the other problems.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, is there not a ready solution available to hand? All that needs to happen in order for the remaining restrictions to be lifted is for the Hamas regime in Gaza to accept and adopt the quartet conditions; to accept existing agreements, including the Oslo accords; to recognise the state of Israel, and to abjure violence. Do the Government think that any of those suggestions are unreasonable; and if not, even though we do not have any relations with the Hamas regime directly, will they find a way of communicating that thought to it?
Baroness Northover
The noble Lord’s premise of a simple route rather defies the current situation. We welcome the reconciliation between the Palestinians, Hamas and Fatah, which we are monitoring very closely, and we welcome the moves towards elections. However, as the noble Lord and others will know, you have to take a balanced approach and recognise that one side will feel that you are not being fair if you demand X of them, and the other side likewise. That is why it is extremely important to try to bring the parties together and to seek a political solution which is in everybody’s best interests.
EU: Structural and Cohesion Funds
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Vinson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to seek the devolution to the United Kingdom of regional spending under the European Union structural and cohesion funds so that the £9 billion the United Kingdom currently receives from its £30 billion budget contribution to those funds can be self-administered and effectively targeted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)
My Lords, the Government will seek significant cuts to the EU structural fund’s budget from 2014, aiming at reducing it to zero in richer countries after 2020. The United Kingdom will achieve substantial savings from the EU budget only by not contributing to the structural fund budgets of all wealthier member states, but that would require unanimous agreement by all 27. No other countries want to go down this road and we cannot unilaterally opt out of our treaty obligation to contribute to the EU budget.
Lord Vinson
I thank the Minister for her reply and hope that we might eventually see some of her words turned into deeds. Meanwhile, does it really make sense to continue with this farcical monetary subsidy merry-go-round? Surely we as a great country are perfectly capable of running our own regional policy without the help of others. Would it not make sense to repatriate these powers, albeit unilaterally, and thereby save billions of pounds which could be directed in a much more positive and worthwhile fashion into exercises that would create the many millions of jobs that this country so badly needs today?
Baroness Wilcox
In the current EU budget period, the United Kingdom has already spent almost half its allocation. If we stopped drawing down the remainder, we would forfeit approximately £1.6 billion and have to break live contracts with costly consequences. We would then not receive back 100 per cent of the unclaimed funds—only two-thirds—due to the rebate process, which, of course, is a preferential deal for the United Kingdom that was politically hard-fought-for and must be protected by us. Any rebated funds to the United Kingdom would not necessarily be available for economic development, so this important area of activity would suffer as a sharp drop in funding occurred.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, would the Minister give an assurance that if this money was repatriated, those areas within the United Kingdom now benefiting from European structural funds—such as a large part of Wales because of the low level of income per head—would continue to receive the benefit needed to stimulate their economies?
Baroness Wilcox
In saying “if this money was repatriated”, I presume that the noble Lord follows on from the previous question asking us to repatriate it now. The answer is: no, we won’t. Is that not what the noble Lord asked? I am sorry.
Lord Wigley
With the leave of the House, that was not what I asked. If it is repatriated, can assurances be given? If they are not given, it is in the interest of these areas to continue to get those funds from Europe.
Baroness Wilcox
I apologise for not understanding the question at first. The answer is yes.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, at the special summit last month, a large sum of money—I do not recall how much—was made available for tackling youth unemployment in the European Union. Will the UK apply for some of that money, or will it be spent only in the 25 states that have signed up to the new treaty?
Baroness Wilcox
Interestingly, I do not have the answer to that question with me. I do so wish I did. I would be delighted to respond to the noble Baroness by letter.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, more worryingly, did we not send £10.2 billion in net cash to the European Union for it to waste last year? That should be compared to the mere £6.2 billion of our own public expenditure cuts. Why do we need any of the 75,000 fat Eurocrats in Brussels, who have little to do but strangle our economy with their endless regulations and waste our money which could be better spent at home? Surely the answer from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, should be that if we want to do what he so sensibly suggests, the only way is to leave the European Union.
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Lord has his own agenda which he is free to pursue. Fortunately, Her Majesty’s Government do not at the moment agree with him.
Lord Swinfen
My Lords, how much is lost in administrative charges as our funds pass through Europe on their way back to this country?
Baroness Wilcox
I do not happen to have the figures to hand on how much it costs us. I will happily write to the noble Lord.
Lord Harrison
Is it not in the British interest that we support the help to poorer countries of the European Union so that they can participate in the single market actively and bring their standards of living up so that eventually British firms and services can be provided within the European Union for our benefit?
Baroness Wilcox
I completely agree with the noble Lord. The aim of the structural and cohesion funds as set out in the EU treaty was to reduce disparities between regions to create a more cohesive single European market. Structural funds have helped to underpin enlargement of the European Union, opening up new markets in central and eastern Europe to British companies. We have done very well by that.
Cyclists: Accidents
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the number of serious bicycle accidents in London.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that every road accident is a tragedy. With regard to the roads in London, under devolution it is for the mayor and Transport for London to decide their cycling priorities and allocate their budget accordingly. We will of course continue to work closely with them to improve safety.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
Is the Minister aware that more women cyclists are killed or suffer very serious injuries on these junctions than men? The reason, it is believed, is because the women wait at the red lights and the men go through them. Large vehicles turning left have a degree of difficulty in seeing people. For that reason, I would like his comments on the so-called “Trixie” mirror—not named after me, and nothing to do with me, I might add—which is proposed for large lorries. Will he also suggest that the Government look into the possibility of the system just being introduced in Paris whereby at dangerous junctions they will have specific lights for cyclists?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me about the male/female ratio. We are aware of the hypothesis. The figures for accidents are mercifully low but, unfortunately, increasing. It is difficult to extract measurable data to formulate policy or make effective regulations. The noble Baroness also talked about “Trixie” mirrors; these mirrors are placed on traffic signal posts and help HGV drivers to see cyclists on their near side in the blind spot at signalised junctions. The department provided approval to TfL to extend the use of these mirrors across the cycle superhighway network, and it will consider further requests for “Trixie” mirrors by other authorities. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the situation in Paris.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the present mayor’s time in office accidents have actually increased? It is thought that he has increased the free-flowing of cars and lorries through the junctions, and reduced the time for pedestrians and cyclists to go across. He has also reduced the amount of space on the road for cycle lanes, and things like that—in spite of bringing in the new “Boris bikes”, which of course we all welcome. Could that be looked at? Do the Government think that the idea of a £200 million fund from the Campaign for Better Transport in London to help cycling facilities would help to reduce deaths?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is true that, in 2011, 12 out of the 16 cyclist fatalities in London involved a goods vehicle, with seven involving construction vehicles, but it is too early to see whether there are any undesirable trends. Both Transport for London and my department will study these matters very carefully indeed.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
Will the Minister indicate what proportion of these accidents are caused by people jumping the red lights, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, suggested, and what the Government are doing to encourage the police to enforce the provision?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the last point is the important one. It is an operational matter for the police how they enforce the law. Clearly, the mayor and other authorities will look closely at the police’s performance in driving down road traffic casualties generally, but in particular those of cyclists, because they are vulnerable road users.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, the “Trixie” mirrors to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred, have to be fitted on traffic signals and have to receive the assent of the Department of Transport under present regulations. Most authorities that wanted to use them would have to submit a form to the department for the Secretary of State or his representative to sign. Would the Minister look at that bureaucracy? He mentioned that the Government were re-examining the regulations with a view to improving them by 2014, but I do not think that comes under the definition of “soon” that we heard on an earlier Question.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about the need for the department to approve traffic signs. It is important that the traffic signs are consistent right across the United Kingdom to avoid a plethora of different designs of traffic signal, which would be very confusing to motorists.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, without trying to lay blame on cyclists or lorry drivers, we want to promote safer cycling and a greater awareness among lorry drivers? I venture to suggest that the problem is not just in London, although I cycle practically every day so I am aware of it. For the Minister’s benefit, I can say that the Paris experiment is about allowing cyclists to go through red lights where the situation is safe, so that will be interesting. Finally, could he give us any information on the number of accidents where wearing a cycle helmet would have improved the chances of a fatality not occurring?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Government encourage the use of cycle helmets but we think it undesirable, as did the previous Administration, to make them compulsory because this could have the unintended effect of reducing cycling despite its undoubted health benefits. On the question of turning left, my noble friend Lord Spicer has an Oral Question about left turns coming up shortly. As part of my research on that, I have just had a working lunch with the chief examiner of the Institute of Advanced Motorists.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, would the roads of London not be less congested and safer for cyclists, and indeed for us all, if there were restrictions on the hours in which delivery vehicles could operate?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a slightly wider question. There is a freight operator recognition scheme—FORS, a membership scheme—that aims to improve freight delivery in London. It is free, voluntary and open to any company operating vans or lorries in the capital. It has been developed by TfL and is a reward and recognition scheme with the aim of improving safety and operational efficiency.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:34 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 240 - Amendment 1 agreed.
Lord Owen
My Lords, before the House agrees that the Report should be received, I would like to raise some important constitutional questions. On 4 April, the day the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister embarked on their “listen and explain” experience and the legislation was paused, I wrote to the then Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O’Donnell—now of course the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell—and raised with him the fear that, because of the long drawn-out legislative process, discussion of the Bill in this House could be pre-empted. I also told him that I had consulted the clerks in Parliament and it appeared that there was no written convention that guides the Government on what is or is not acceptable to take in advance of Royal Assent. Obviously they cannot implement the legislation in full.
Many of my concerns since then have been more than justified. I received a letter on 7 April from the then Cabinet Secretary that said:
“The Treasury guidance on ‘Managing Public Money’ sets out how, in some circumstances and if … conditions are fulfilled, departments can incur expenditure on the measures contained in a bill prior to Royal Assent. In addition, a department may take steps to prepare for implementation using existing statutory powers. I have therefore discussed your concerns with Una O’Brien, as Accounting Officer, in the light of this guidance. She has confirmed”—
this is important—
“that the work currently underway is taking place under the broad powers of the Secretary of State and NHS bodies under existing legislation. For example, the arrangement of PCTs into management clusters and the creation of pathfinder consortia are possible under existing powers in the National Health Service Act 2006. In addition, some of the changes currently taking place would be required regardless of the Health and Social Care Bill. For example redundancies in PCTs reflect the longstanding challenge, which pre-dates the Bill, to deliver up to £20bn of efficiencies across the NHS over the next four years for reinvestment in frontline services”.
As a result of that, there has been broad acceptance in this House that on these controversial questions, some of which are already agreed, the Government are proceeding under existing legislation.
On 16 September I was informed by the chairman of the Constitution Committee that that committee had briefly discussed the pre-legislative disappearance of PCTs, and had in front of it my correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary, which I had made available to Professor Tomkins, one of its advisers. I was asked whether I would provide more information about changes that had been introduced following Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill but prior to it coming to the House of Lords. I enclosed an up-to-date document in great detail that had been sent out for consultation by the Midlands and East Strategic Health Authority, which I thought gave a pretty clear indication of the anticipated massive changes to the whole architecture of the NHS, many of which seem as if they will be introduced despite the fact that the full legislative process was continuing.
I also drew attention to a speech that had been made in the other place by a Member of Parliament that had again raised the question of whether it was proper to stop the legislation when so much was already being done and so much pre-emption had occurred. Today I have written to the Constitution Committee on this question because an MP drew my attention to a letter that says that people,
“are absolutely terrified of the chaos that will apply if the Bill is dropped altogether now. Restructuring is a nightmare, un-restructuring could be even worse!”.
On today’s “World at One”, the chief executive of the Foundation Trust Network warned of a no-man’s land if the Bill did not go through.
This raises pretty big questions for legislation that is still to go through all its stages in this House, and it is a matter of great concern to this House when it considers reform. These conventions will become very much more important if we have an elected House of Commons—which of course we have—and an elected House of Lords, which I personally would like to see. There is no question that these conventions are important.
There are two important points here. First, the House should be aware of the fact that the Constitution Committee is seized of the problem and may well wish to make judgments on it. Secondly, we should not feed the idea that legislation can reach us but we cannot do anything about it because it has already been pre-empted. Whatever our views on the Bill, and it is controversial, it is important on democratic grounds that we maintain the position that legislation does not have full authority until it has gone through all its processes. That point needs to be reaffirmed. We should give no comfort to the opposite view in what we say in this House in the remaining stages of the legislative process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, had no obligation to give the Government advance notice of the issue that he has just raised. Nevertheless, I am sorry that he did not. I just say to him that everything that has happened to date in my department’s implementation of the transition programme has been done under the Secretary of State’s powers under the 2006 Act. This is all proper and lawful. However, this can go only so far. It is not a permanent solution, hence the need for the primary legislation that we are now debating.
It has been the practice of successive Governments, once a Bill has passed through the other place, to do as we have done and make preparations for that Bill’s implementation. The previous Government did it on a number of occasions and we are doing so as well. Furthermore, we are doing so in a measured and structured way. It is not an overnight process—it never could be. It is being done over a period of years. It in no way pre-empts the will of this House, which has made its views, to which the Government have listened very carefully, known on a number of issues.
While thanking the noble Lord for raising this concern, which I shall of course consider very carefully, as I always do, I hope the House will feel that it is unconstrained in how it presents amendments to the Government and how it argues for them. We, in our turn, will respond in a constructive manner, as I hope always to do.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I think the noble Earl has answered the question as far as it goes, but he raises several points. First, this Bill did not need to be in front of us at all because many of the changes that are taking place do not need primary legislation. Secondly, his colleagues in another place have constantly said that the Bill cannot be dropped because it has gone too far. We are not in the same place now as we were at the end of Committee; millions of people in the health service have now expressed their view that this Bill should not happen at all. Given that, do the Government have a plan B in case they need to withdraw the Bill? Do they have people working on that in case the Bill has to be dropped?
Lord Warner
My Lords, before the Minister responds to that question, will he consider later—if he cannot answer now—the budgets for clinical commissioning groups? I understand from a meeting of the national Commissioning Board, which was held in open session on 2 February, that Sir David Nicholson is reported as having said that clinical commissioning governance is, in effect, moving on apace, and that more than 95 per cent of clinical commissioning groups have now agreed their constituent practices and geographies and are already seeing benefits in their services from the work that they have been doing. At the high level, around 50 per cent of the commissioning spend is already delegated to clinical commissioning groups from PCTs under various delegation schemes. That seems fair enough, but there is a final point on which I would welcome the noble Earl’s clarification. It says that the ambition is for all this to be so delegated to clinical commissioning groups by 1 April 2012. Will that delegation still be part of the present powers, or is it in anticipation of the legislation being passed in time?
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Owen, not drawn our attention to a particularly egregious example of a problem that is, however, long-standing? Have successive Governments not taken the will of Parliament for granted following Second Reading of measures and begun to spend money and implement transitional arrangements on that basis? Has it not always been improper, and should Governments not be particularly careful when they are well aware that the policies embodied in their legislation are highly contentious? I hope that we may hear some considered reflections by the Government on the generality of this practice, as well as on this particular incidence. It may be that the relevant Select Committees of both Houses of Parliament will want to consider this problem.
Earl Howe
My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, there is no suggestion that the Bill could be withdrawn. We are clear that it is the right thing to do. Reform of the NHS is necessary and in the national interest, and the measures in the Bill represent the best way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked me about the powers of delegation. All I can say to him is that the delegated budgets to which he referred are delegated under existing powers, so there is no issue in law if that is what he was implying. However, I will endeavour to write to him if I have any further details for him on the subjects that he talked about.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, suggested that the Government were beginning to spend money. In one sense he is right because there have been redundancies in the NHS, but in another he misses the point. We have started to save a great deal of money. These measures will save £1.5 billion every year from the end of this Parliament and around £3.2 billion during this Parliament. We have begun to implement efficiencies and improve patient care at the same time. I hope he will look at these issues in the round.
Lord Patel
Lord Patel
My Lords, it is a dubious privilege to speak to this amendment. I say “dubious” because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is on a well-deserved rest and recreation leave and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is better qualified than me in this area, is unfortunately also detained on a lecturing commitment in Rome. However, I am pleased to say that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, whose name is also to the amendment, and who is much more knowledgeable on these matters than me, will no doubt speak later.
The House will remember that when we discussed this issue in Committee there was widespread sympathy for and acknowledgement of the need to recognise mental illness and accord it a similar importance as that accorded to physical illness. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who tabled this amendment, wrote a note to me to say he was sorry that he would be away when it came up for consideration. He said that some time ago he was travelling with a lawyer colleague who had been a chairman of mental health tribunals for many years. He asked his colleague what was his impression of progress in this field. The reply was that it was not great compared with that in other health fields. The noble and learned Lord’s view is that it is desirable to emphasise the importance of mental illness and its treatment for the well-being of our people, and that it is wise to do so through this amendment to this comprehensive Bill. He feels right at the start of the Bill is the vital place to do so. Thereafter, the definition clause will carry this meaning where appropriate. The noble and learned Lord does not agree with the objection that if the provision is inserted at this point in the Bill, it must be inserted everywhere the issue arises. In his view, the definition will carry that burden and make later repetition unnecessary.
The amendment would place an explicit duty on the Secretary of State to promote parity of esteem between mental and physical health services. The duty would sit within his or her existing duty to improve the quality of health services. It also clarifies that the Secretary of State has a duty to promote a health service designed to secure improvements in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of both physical and mental illness. The amendment would put the Government’s own commitment to parity of esteem between mental and physical healthcare on a statutory footing and make it clear that the Secretary of State is fully committed to improving the nation’s mental health services and the prevention and treatment of mental and physical illness and expects the NHS board and the CCGs to do the same.
When the Government launched their mental health strategy, No Health Without Mental Health, in February 2011, the Minister for Care Services stated that he wanted to see parity of esteem between mental health and physical health services. This was a recognition of the fact that, despite the prevalence of mental illness—one in four people experience a mental health problem during their lifetime—mental health has never received the funding or attention it needs. Progress in improving the quality of commissioning and services has been much slower for mental health. Parity of esteem is not defined in the document itself. However, it would be reasonable to expect that this would mean a recognition of the equal importance of mental and physical health and the need to consider both aspects of people’s health when they present with either physical or mental illness. I would expect this recognition to be evident in terms of access to mental health services and funding for services proportionate to the disease burden. However, this has not been the case.
Over the past 10 years things have begun to improve. For example, we have seen significant and very welcome investment in talking therapies under both the present and previous Governments—£173 million in 2007-10 and £400 million from 2010-14. However, given that mental health services started from a very low baseline, we simply cannot afford to go backwards—and talking therapies are only one aspect of mental healthcare. During previous spending squeezes—for example during the financial year 2005-06—mental health services have been unfairly and disproportionately targeted for cuts, perhaps because they do not enjoy the same level of public support and understanding as other services. I admit that I often push for cancer services and maternity services, so I pay regard to that.
However, mental illness is a leading cause of suffering, economic loss and social problems, and it is time to recognise and act on the plentiful evidence that good mental health underlines all health. Poor mental health is associated with diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes; and poor physical health increases the risk of mental illness. In the current climate of scarce resources, expenditure reduction, welfare reform and cuts to legal aid—I might as well get all that in—mental illness and mental health problems are likely to increase. However, while mental illness represents 23 per cent of the disease burden, it accounts for only 11 per cent of the health budget. It is therefore vital that mental health spending should be proportionate to the need, and mental health must not be the poor relation of physical health.
More than one-fifth of the population in England experiences a mental disorder at any one time. An even larger proportion experiences sub-threshold mental disorder. Almost half of adults experience at least one episode of depression during their lifetime. Only a quarter of affected individuals receive any intervention, except those with psychosis. Compared with people with no mental health problems, men with severe mental illness can expect to live 20 years less, and women, 15 years less. A combination of lifestyle risk factors such as smoking and diet are higher, as are unnatural deaths such as those caused by suicide and accidents. Poor physical healthcare contributes to this premature mortality. If such a disparity of mortality rates were to affect a large segment of the population with less stigmatised characteristics, we would witness an outcry against the socially unacceptable neglect of that group.
While the amendments cannot solve all this, creating an explicit duty on the Secretary of State would set a clear expectation that commissioners need to give full consideration to the mental health of those with physical health problems, and to the physical health of those with mental health problems—and to give full consideration to mental as well as physical health. It is simply not acceptable for the mental health needs of children and adults to continue to be neglected.
There is an imbalance between mental and physical health in both healthcare and health promotion in many places. A better balance could bring a number of benefits to people living with, or facing the risk of, mental ill health. Health and social care policy should be developed with mental as well as physical health needs in mind. A duty to promote equality should encourage policymakers at all levels of the system to consider mental health alongside physical health, rather than making policy for the latter, and later adjusting to fit the former.
I know that the Minister is very involved with people in the area of mental health because I know that he has been a patron of several charities related to it, and he therefore has great sympathy towards recognition of mental illness and its treatment. I hope that his answers to the amendment will be such that there will be no need to seek the opinion of the House, and I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has characteristically underplayed his own grasp of this important area, but, as noble Lords have heard, he has on his own behalf and on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, presented an elegant, informed and very persuasive case for the amendment, to which I have put my name. In many ways, there is not much to say other than to support him. However, when noble Lords say that in your Lordships' House, it is often because they actually have quite a lot to say, and I shall say a few words.
On 2 November last year in Committee, your Lordships debated three amendments which would have placed the responsibility on the Secretary of State, the national Commissioning Board and all clinical commissioning groups to regard mental health on the same basis as physical health. That is to say that they should give full consideration to all those suffering from mental illness in the same way as they would those suffering from physical illness.
One reason for trying to insert such a commitment into the Bill was that, despite the efforts of the previous Government—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is quite right to pay tribute—to address the needs of people with mental illness by allocating more money for talking treatments, on which the coalition Government have substantially built, as the noble Lord said with reference to the legal friend of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, out there in the real world, mental illness and problems of mental health do not get the same attention and concern. As we said in the debate in November, many people think of mental illness as a subset of illness, like cancer, diabetes, or whatever, but it is not. It is a quite different aspect. When you fall ill with something physical, something happens to you but your personality and your self are not affected; but when you fall mentally ill, the very essence of your self is affected. That is a very different business. It frightens people. They often turn away from paying attention to it because they are so troubled by it. The provision required is different. Often, much more than is the case with other illnesses, a whole range of services has to come together to provide treatment and support.
Our concern in that debate—which was supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House; no one spoke against—was that all the efforts until now have been less than fully successful in building up the regard and esteem in which mental health and mental illness is held. So the proposition for the amendments was not a belief that there was a particular technical flaw in the Bill which meant that mental illness would not be addressed; we are very much aware that it is addressed in the Bill. That is not the problem. The problem is: how do we find a way continually to bring mental illness to the attention of commissioners? The noble Lord, Lord Patel said, as was said in the November debate, that in times of financial pressure and austerity, the tendency is to pull back financial commitment from those areas where there is least pressure. When people are physically ill, they can often nevertheless continue to exert pressure; but when people are mentally ill, they often do not give due regard to themselves, never mind press for the needs of others who are suffering from similar disorders.
Our concern is not about those three specific amendments but the principle. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, went away and produced a single amendment. The noble Earl was kind enough to give a considerable amount of time to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to discuss the question. A concern was expressed by him and some people in the department that if one included this in one place, one would have to put it in every place because otherwise the implication would be that it applied only to the issue to which it refers directly. I have to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was wholly unimpressed with that argument. As he is a former Lord Chancellor, I think one takes that pretty seriously.
The point is that we must find some way in which to make it absolutely clear beyond peradventure that concern for those who have mental health problems is every bit as great and the responsibility on commissioners is every bit as great to ensure the proper provision of services. One reason why this comes up as the very first amendment Report is that we want to ensure that in all aspects of health care, mental health care is attended to: no health without mental health and indeed, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ report said, no public health without public mental health.
It is regrettable that the Royal College of Psychiatrists, of which I am a member, has over the past few days been saying that the whole Bill should be set aside. That is not really a helpful way of engaging in these kinds of questions. The college knows perfectly well that the Bill is not going to be set aside—in fact, it would not be at all helpful if it were. I have seen these kinds of situations in other places, with people polarising in an unhelpful way. I appeal to the Minister, to the Royal College of Psychiatrists and to others who are interested and concerned in this field to find a way to get together again before the completion of the Bill to ensure that the concerns that we are expressing are reflected in a cast-iron fashion. It is a question not of these particular words or of this particular amendment but of receiving solid assurances so that we and those who care for people with mental illnesses, as well as those who suffer from such illnesses, can be confident about the new NHS.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, in rising briefly to support the amendment so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Patel and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I ask the Minister one very simple question. In Clause 1(1)(a) the Bill talks about the,
“physical and mental health of the people of England”,
and says that the health service must be “designed to secure improvement” in that health. What on earth could the objection possibly be to inserting in paragraph (b) at line 6 the unexceptional words listed in the amendment? They simply stress the crucial importance of mental as well as physical illness. How on earth could this be construed as doing any damage whatever to the Bill? It is something that I hope very much the Government can be persuaded to accept.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I should like to say a word on behalf of those who have had to care for family members—often a young member of the family—who have suffered from severe mental illness. Those who have suffered that experience—and I am one—know how marooned they feel when they find that someone in their family has a serious mental illness. If somebody has a broken leg, you can locate the leg and take the medicine. If somebody has even cancer, it may not be curable but at least you have the knowledge of the location or locations of the cancer and the topical treatment that is to be applied to it.
The problem for families who experience in their midst mental illness is that no medicine can be applied topically to the place where the hurt or illness is taking place. The prognosis is uncertain, the mortality rate is depressingly high and usually at the hands of the sick person, and accessing good health service facilities is quite chancy, I am afraid. There is a real postcode lottery with mental health treatment. If, for example, you live in a remote rural area, only some therapies will be available and they may be the wrong therapies, particularly if the patient is a child or adolescent suffering from serious mental illness. Therefore, I simply say to the Minister who, as has already been said, cares deeply about these issues, that the adoption of this very simple amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, rightly described it, would send out such a telling message of support to families who have to care for people who suffer, perhaps temporarily, from mental illness that it would be seen as a declaration of purpose by this Government.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, briefly, from a lay perspective, I urge the Minister to take this amendment very seriously. I will not rehearse what I said at Second Reading from my experience on the board of the Tavistock and Portman clinic or from other walks of life about how widely damaging and destructive it is not to have parity, and how it needs to be explicit parity to change culture and to erode the stigma and the neglect associated with mental ill health. If the Government are rash enough not to accept the amendment—and I am quite sure that the noble Earl is not like that—I hope that there will be a Division. If the debate lasts until five o’clock, when I am committed to chairing a meeting, I hope that the House will accept my apology but I will return to vote.
Lord Newton of Braintree
I have two excuses for speaking. First, I have chaired two mental health trusts and, although I no longer do so, I have a continuing interest of a non-financial kind. Secondly, before my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay left for what was described as his well earned rest and recuperation, I was the nearest thing to anybody he anointed to take care of his interests while he was away, which includes this amendment.
I do not need to speak for long because I think that this is a no-brainer. Everybody agrees on the importance of mental health and endorsed the Government’s No Health Without Mental Health strategy. We are all keen on that—even the Government. Yet the little birds tell me that the amendment will be resisted on the grounds that it is not necessary and does nothing to add to the 2006 Act. I spent a lot of years as Leader of the House of Commons and I got fed up with Ministers who came to me on Private Member’s Bills and other things and said, “It’s not necessary—we are going to do this anyway”. They then proceeded to immolate themselves on a bonfire for an amendment that would have cost nothing and done no harm—it certainly would not have added anything—but would have pleased a lot of people. That is idiotic. It would not cost the Government anything to do this and, as my noble friend said, it would please a lot of people, so we should simply get on with it. If my noble friend has been told to resist it I will sympathise with him, but frankly if the noble Lord, Lord Patel, feels that he should push it, I will push it with him.
Baroness Meacher
My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly and shall speak extremely briefly. Others have spoken most eloquently and very much made the case. My fear, too, is that the Minister will regard it as unnecessary. I have absolutely no doubt at all about the Minister’s commitment to mental health, but I believe that this is necessary because of the context in which the amendment is being posed—in other words, the Bill itself. What I mean is that the Bill is designed more than anything else to introduce privatisation of the NHS—slowly, slowly. It will not be done overnight, but in 10 years’ time we can be sure that a substantial proportion of our NHS will in fact be in private hands. If we look across the world to the US, Germany and other countries, we find that privatised health services do not support mental health to the degree that we in the NHS have supported it in the past. That is the most fundamental argument in my view. We have to protect our mental health services, albeit that they have been a Cinderella relative to the acute sector, but not to the degree that mental health services are Cinderellas in other countries where private health dominates.
That is my most important point. The only other part of the context is that the Bill will do nothing to make the changes that we need in the NHS, such as closures of redundant acute hospitals and redundant acute departments. I hope that this Government, unlike many previous Governments of whatever hue, will take the leadership role and show that they support mental health. I appeal to the Minister not to say that this is unnecessary. I appeal to him to agree that it is necessary and to give and show the Government’s commitment to equality of parity of mental health and physical health in this country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alderdice made the strong point that in the real world mental health is not regarded as being on all fours with physical health. For the reasons presented by my noble friend Lord Carlile and others, clearly in the real world mental health is often hidden. It is often an issue that people do not freely address and it is vital that we send a clear signal from this House that mental health is absolutely equivalent in significance and importance to physical health, and that we believe that.
I shall briefly say what has already been said. Will the Minister at the very least consider taking this debate back and looking at whether there could be an agreed amendment that would meet his difficulties? There may be drafting difficulties, but it would not in any way resile from the statement that this House believes that mental health is vital and we want it on the face of the Bill. I plead with him to consider doing that.
Lord Ribeiro
My Lords, I follow the noble Baroness in saying that I am speaking not because I see this as an amendment that should be pushed to a vote, but rather because I see it as a probing amendment that would allow the Government and the Minister to listen to the arguments being put today.
The whole thrust of the reforms is to provide care right across the community—secondary care, primary care and, let us not forget, social care. The mental health institutions started to be closed some 30-odd years ago, and care moved into the community. The ability to identify, diagnose and treat patients admitted into accident and emergency departments, often with psychotic diseases, is a major challenge. It certainly is for surgeons—for me in particular. As more psychiatrists are diverted to care in the community, the diagnosis and treatment of patients who appear in A&E departments is a challenge. It is quite difficult for those of us who have not had psychiatric experience. I was very fortunate that my house officer rotated through a psychiatric firm, so I had the benefit of somebody who was able to identify patients with psychotic illnesses and could advise me how best to deal with them.
It is important to identify the difference between physical and mental illnesses. I feel that this amendment would make a difference by clearly stating that there is physical illness and mental illness in this section. I very much hope that the Minister will listen to the strength of the debate and come back with some answers.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to break away from his brief and accept this amendment, because it is critical. As my noble friend Lord Walton has pointed out, the first part of the amendment talks about physical and mental health, but the second part implies that prevention, diagnosis and treatment are of illness, and there is a real danger of reading that as physical illness. The most tragic situation is where physical illness is misdiagnosed as mental illness or mental illness is misdiagnosed as physical illness. The consequences of that for patients can be disastrous.
In primary care, patients present with a completely undifferentiated picture. The general practitioner has to start from scratch, sort out the different parts and then refer to or consult other parts of the service, as appropriate, if he needs to. My noble friend Lady Meacher suggested that those services are in imbalance, and I agree with her that there is a danger when funding is short that you will lose the mental health component of services and that the culture change that this Bill is meant to bring about will not happen. A culture change is needed. Stigmatising labels have been attached to people with mental illness for many years. People with learning difficulties do particularly poorly in services overall. If we are going to take the opportunities of this Bill, we have one with this amendment: to flag up that there are mental and physical components to illness that need and deserve accurate diagnosis, the one as much as the other, that they are interrelated, that one affects the other and that we cannot provide a comprehensive health service without due regard to the totality—to the holistic person who is the patient in front of us.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I too support this amendment very strongly, and I think the Minister knows why.
In my dealings with people with ME/CFS, I have found that many of them have been sectioned and put into wards that I can only describe as barbaric. There was one recent case where the man had a very clear physical illness and he spent nearly nine months in a hospital in Torbay—Torbay, the hospital that has been praised left, right and centre; but its mental ward is not worthy of praise. If the funding is equal for mental and physical treatment, this will somehow redress the balance.
My mother was mentally ill for 17 years and she was treated barbarically by psychiatrists. She was hooked on barbiturates and she was given a leucotomy. I thought those days had gone but we are not far from them with the things that I have seen with ME patients.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, we have listened to many powerful and persuasive speeches. I am tempted to go all the way with those who have advocated the inclusion of this amendment in the Bill, but I take up the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who referred to the need for a cultural change. I think all noble Lords would agree that there is the need for a cultural change. I only question whether it is right to try to achieve that change through legislation. Surely what we are seeking to do is to change attitudes and get people to understand that there is no difference between physical and mental illness. For that reason, I think we need to hesitate before including words in legislation. What we need to do is to make people throughout the health service and everyone associated with the administration aware of the fact that there is no difference between physical and mental illness, and that those with mental illness need to be treated on an absolutely level footing with those with physical illness.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we on these Benches liked this amendment the first time round and we have not changed our minds. It may be symbolic in its effect—in fact, we think it all the better for that. Legislation should be the expression of policy and this amendment flows from important policy commitments by successive Governments about the parity of policy-making at all levels of the system to consider mental health alongside physical health. We give our very full support to the mover of this amendment and we urge the Minister to accept it.
I have two other remarks to make. First, I always listen extremely carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Frankly, if he says it is good enough for this Bill, that is good enough for me. Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that it is a no-brainer. To the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Alderdice, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I say that we are on Report. This is not the time for probing amendments. This is the time for taking decisions about what we want in the Bill. The Minister had the opportunity to take this away and consider it after Committee, when the House was as united in its view about this matter as it is today. Today I urge the Minister to accept this amendment but, if he will not, the House needs to express its view about this matter if at all possible.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate to mark the start of Report and I am very pleased—and, I must say, unsurprised—that the spirit of our debates in Committee has continued. I am particularly pleased that we have started with a topic as important as the parity of esteem between mental and physical health.
Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would ensure that the reference to “illness” in the description of the comprehensive health service refers to mental as well as physical illness. I am grateful to all noble Lords for the powerful case they have made for this amendment. I very much understand why this issue is of such importance to noble Lords, and why they believe that there is a declaratory value in inserting these additional words at this point in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will be aware from our recent mental health strategy, achieving parity of esteem for mental illness is a priority for the Government. Therefore, I do not dissent in the slightest from the central principle being argued for here.
The question I have asked myself since Committee is whether the addition of these words would achieve what noble Lords intend, and whether they would add real value. In a strictly legal sense, they will not add value because legislation already makes it clear, through the definition in Section 275 of the National Health Service Act, that any reference to illness in the Act shall include both mental and physical illness. Therefore, wherever in the Bill the word “illness” appears, it already refers to both mental and physical illness. However, as my noble friends Lord Eden and Lord Alderdice said, what is required here—what really matters—are not words but concrete actions that will result in changes in attitudes and behaviours.
Before I tell the House which way I am leaning on the amendment, I will set out the steps that the Government have taken to that end. First, we are using the Bill to enhance the role of the NHS constitution. This plays an important role in emphasising the prominence and importance of mental health. It already contains a strong opening statement about mental and physical health. It declares that the NHS is there,
“to improve our health and well-being, supporting us to keep mentally and physically well, to get better when we are ill and, when we cannot fully recover, to stay as well as we can to the end of our lives”.
Current legislation requires all NHS bodies and providers to the NHS to have regard to the constitution. The Bill creates new duties on the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups not just to have regard to it but to promote it. This is why we feel that NHS bodies, staff, patients and the public will in future be much more aware of, and hence responsive to, the NHS constitution and the parity of esteem that it champions. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot agree with noble Lords who implied that the Bill is silent on parity of esteem. We are giving greater prominence to the NHS constitution precisely because we want to see greater awareness of the values, including parity of esteem, that it contains.
Secondly, we have used a range of operational levers to drive forward the importance of improving mental health. Mental health is featured prominently in the NHS operating framework. We have updated the NHS outcomes framework to include indicators for mental health outcomes in a holistic context. The public health outcomes framework has a set of key mental health and well-being outcomes identified for national and local action.
Thirdly, our mental health outcomes strategy makes it crystal clear that mental health services should have parity of esteem. We said in the document that it is our ambitious aim to mainstream mental health in England. Furthermore, as noble Lords know, we titled the strategy, No Health Without Mental Health. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we are going further still by looking to publish a full implementation framework for the strategy in April this year. This will be co-produced and jointly owned by national mental health organisations in partnership with government. Work is under way to develop the content of the framework, including consultation with a wide range of partners. My conclusion is that much work is afoot, as well as levers already in the Bill, to deliver the parity of esteem between mental and physical health that we all want to see in clinical practice.
I turn to the amendment. Should the noble Lord, Lord Patel, invite the House to add these words to the Bill? I am afraid that I have concluded that the noble Lord should resist the temptation. Having reflected very hard on these words, I believe that they could be positively unhelpful to his case, as well as to the business in which we are jointly engaged, which is the drafting of clear, economical and unambiguous legislation. “Illness” is already defined in the Act and, for me, these words are not only legally superfluous, they also suggest that there is a divide between mental and physical illness rather than a convergence.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I may say that if it was me who my noble friend was referring to as being on his left, I am thrilled to bits by his rather more constructive response. I congratulate him.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I wish that I did not need to speak at this point because I am really quite torn. I know how sincerely all those who have spoken feel about this amendment, and about emphasising the need to promote mental illness as having the same parity as physical illness. At the same time, I know how sincere the noble Earl is, and therefore it is difficult not to accept what he has said and the promises he has made. None the less, the comment made by my noble friend Lord Walton is the one that has affected me most: what is the key objection to putting these two words at the front of the Bill to signify that mental illness is as important in its management as physical illness?
In my professional life I have dealt with physical illness, but I was always deeply affected whenever I had a patient suffering from postpartum depression or antenatal anxieties and sometimes psychosis; they were the most difficult to deal with. I would then have to seek the assistance of my psychiatrist colleagues.
Lord Elton
The noble Lord said that his noble friend was awaiting an answer to his question as to what was the objection? I have understood my noble friend to say that the objection was that it could actually make things more difficult because it would imply that there is a distinction between the two forms of medical treatment, which is exactly what we wish to negate.
Lord Patel
I did hear what the noble Earl said and I cannot say that I can accept that it would create difficulties if we included mental illness with physical illness. I do this with a very heavy heart, but I know that if I do not push the amendment, others will do so. On that basis, I think we should resolve the issue by seeking to test the opinion of the House.
“(c) in the education and training of health care professionals”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses education and training as part of a comprehensive health service. The Government have given the Secretary of State,
“a duty as to education and training”
that is now Clause 6. This is a welcome amendment to the Bill that we originally saw, and I warmly welcome the Government’s amendments, particularly Amendments 61 and 104, which will embed a duty to promote education and training in the core duties of the board and the clinical commissioning groups.
My Amendments 63 and 105 are very similar. They specify that all providers, whether NHS or private, must train clinical staff adequately. They seek to ensure that private providers of services for NHS patients cannot undercut NHS providers by failing to provide adequate training for their staff. All providers should ensure that clinical and other skills are kept up to current standards and that future generations of clinicians are also trained. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to provide assurances that that will be spelt out in regulation, if it is not already clear. I expect that he may say that the Government’s amendments cover the points of my amendments as they refer specifically to Clause 6 and its comprehensive scope. If I am right, it would seem that my amendments are not needed, as the point is covered—but, as I said, I would appreciate clarification. I hope, too, that the Minister can confirm that training must involve staff at every level, whether professionally qualified or not.
Let me turn to the lead amendment in this group, designed to place a duty on the Secretary of State to secure improvement,
“in the education and training of health care professionals”.
There are currently almost 1.2 million staff in the NHS, of whom 52 per cent are professionally qualified. We have been told, in debating this Bill, that the intention is for professional leadership in the NHS. These 600,000-plus staff must be able to take on that responsibility. Let me explain why this strategic overview and responsibility is needed at Secretary of State level. The rationale behind the Bill, we have been told, is to drive up quality and put patients at the heart of the NHS. There is a need for all healthcare services to be learning organisations, constantly reflecting through audit on whether they are reaching the required standards, ensuring that their staff are up to date with technical and scientific aspects of care delivery, and having a constant drive to having good attitudes and a culture of responsibility and care for those who are vulnerable—the patients and their families. These are fundamental to the ability to deliver a comprehensive health service.
Clause 1 has the Secretary of State’s duty to,
“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England”,
and now,
“in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of”,
physical and mental illness. It is impossible to achieve these without securing ongoing improvements through the education and training of all professionals. In his letter of 12 January, the Minister wrote outlining four key elements of the new system proposed for education and training, covering the plans for Health Education England, local education and training boards, the transparent funding of the system and transitional arrangements. We will debate these later in detail, and this amendment in no way detracts from the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Patel, which is coming up later on in proceedings. All those amendments are compatible with putting the education and training of health professionals at the very top of the Bill, in Clause 1, as they are part of the comprehensive package that the NHS uses to deliver the best care to patients.
There are almost 98,000 medical and dental staff in the NHS. Medicine and medical care is underpinned by science. Medicine bridges the gap between science and society. This science is constantly evolving; its appropriate application to human health is a crucial aspect of clinical practice and care to achieve better outcomes for patients. Medicine is distinguished by the need for judgment in the face of uncertainty. Much of medicine’s unpredictability calls for wisdom as well as technical ability. Everything flows from accurate diagnosis. A commitment to quality improvement allows crucial skills to be passed on to the next generation.
We have heard much about the merits of competition. Doctors and those in many other disciplines in healthcare are almost inherently competitive, and they generally want to be providing high quality service with better outcomes and to be rated highly by their colleagues. That is the competitive spirit that the Government should be able to exploit to drive up standards. Good attitudes are bred from good role models.
There are core values, behaviours and relationships that underpin professionalism in relationships with each patient, and these were exposed in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, Doctors in Society, on behalf of the Royal College of Physicians. The attitudes and values that healthcare professionals must be committed to in their day-to-day practice involve integrity; compassion; altruism; continuous improvement, which means always learning; a desire for excellence; and an ability to work in partnership with others in the wider healthcare and social care team.
Patients certainly understand the meaning of poor professionalism and associate it with poor care. The public are well aware that an absence of professionalism is harmful to their interests. There have been too many reports into inadequate care in recent years. They repeatedly catalogue a lack of standards and poor quality processes and repeatedly recommend education and training of staff at all levels. The NCEPOD report, Emergency Admissions: A Journey in the Right Direction?, said that trainee doctors,
“need to have adequate training and experience to recognise critically ill patients and make clinical decisions. This is an issue not only of medical education but also of ensuring an appropriate balance between a training and service role; exposing trainees to real acute clinical problems with appropriate mid-level and senior support for their decision making”.
The Healthcare Commission report into the substandard care in Mid Staffs states on page 45:
“From April 2008, there was only one permanent consultant, virtually no education and only limited supervision”.
On page 46 it says:
“Senior members of the department said that there was a ‘non-existent culture’ with regards to education and training. Additionally, several interviewees specifically mentioned that three-quarters of dedicated teaching sessions for junior doctors were cancelled, usually by managers on operational grounds”.
There is a virtuous spiral of education, integration and quality improvement. Learning across professional boundaries has been shown to foster integration as healthcare professionals understand better what others can offer in care, thereby driving up quality. They also learn the limits of their own experience and different ways of doing things, to the benefit of all.
If we are to have a constantly improving NHS, education and training must be at its heart. If we are to expect GPs to commission properly, they will need training to recognise poor commissioning advice. If we expect better care from the staff, we must ensure that they are in a system that is driven constantly to improve. I beg to move.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 12 but I have shifted my allegiance to Amendment 13, along with other noble Lords. However, I want to speak to the other amendments in my name in this group. In doing so, can I say how much I, too, very much appreciate the government amendments in this group?
At the end of the day, education and training have to be provided within hospital trusts, in general practice and—a slightly separate issue—in local authorities for public health consultants. At this level, local education and training boards are to be given responsibility for overseeing the provision of all this education. Here, local employers are to play a key role in the trusts. These local employers clearly have an interest in being able to plan for their manpower needs and in having an influence on what sort of training their employees should have to do the job that they want doing. However, they are not in the best position to decide the educational content of the programmes that the trainees go through. They are not best able to design the training or education of an orthopaedic surgeon or cardiologist, for example.
Furthermore, they may have a conflict of interest when they are asked to make sure that the facilities for training are adequate to their trusts’ needs. Is there a full range of patients coming through the hospital to give trainees the necessary experience so that a specialist trained in one area can practise somewhere else? Are there enough staff to enable trainees to have the time they need for education? Will they have the time to attend courses? Will it be in the trusts’ best interests to allow the rotation of their trainees to other trusts? In all these areas employers may have different priorities. For this reason, it is vital that we have the input of those with particular expertise in and knowledge of education and training, and enough independence to ensure that the training needs of the trainee are met.
Hitherto, specialist postgraduate training has involved the medical royal colleges in designing the curricula and educational programmes for trainees, and in setting and running the postgraduate exams and assessments, while the postgraduate deans are responsible for ensuring that local conditions are right for trainees—that training posts are available and for funding those posts. With the dissolution of the strategic health authorities, the postgraduate deans and deaneries are left in the air and the local education and training boards are to be taken over by the employing authorities. The amendments in my name try to redress that balance by ensuring that the training boards have in their membership the independent voices of those—namely the universities—whose prime role is to help them with the activities. To this I would add the postgraduate deans and colleges. Furthermore, it is important that the local education and training boards, while quite reasonably including local employers, should not be led by them. Boards should have sufficient independence to keep employing authorities focused on meeting the needs of trainees. That is why I have tabled these amendments.
I know that the Minister has given some reassurance from the Government along those lines in the letter that he has written to some us. He said in his letter, which I hope he will not mind my quoting back to him:
“This framework will be maintained in the new system, with the LETBs assuming responsibility for the quality management role at local level”.
That bothers me a little. Quality management should be independent of the employers themselves. We now need to see something in the Bill that will give us the confidence that it will happen.
My name is also attached to Amendment 105. Here we are concerned specifically that private providers should not be able to shirk their responsibility for training. There is no doubt that training requires more time and money. If private sector providers are able to avoid training, they will have an unfair advantage over NHS providers. Of course, there is much valuable experience and training to be gained from private practice. For those reasons, I am happy to support this amendment, too.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, I support government Amendments 61 and 104. As regards Amendment 2, which the noble Baroness has introduced, Clause 6 adequately describes the duties of the Secretary of State in relation to education and training. My noble friend the Minister has done an incredibly important job in recognising the real anxiety that existed at Second Reading about education and training. Indeed, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for withdrawing his amendment at that time as that has enabled major discussions to take place on the issue.
Government Amendments 61 and 104 bring us to the heart of who will be driving much of the education and training—that is, the national Commissioning Board and the local commissioning groups. In fact, neither of these groups seems to have any responsibility for education and training, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, rightly says, they will be right at the heart of commissioning the healthcare required, whether it is in an NHS setting or a private, approved setting. That appears to be an omission in the Bill.
Although I have much sympathy with Amendment 109 of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and he is right to point out that there is a requirement on private sector providers or, indeed, third sector providers, to engage in training, I hope that when the Minister winds up on this group of amendments he will point out the advantages to those providers of engaging in education and training. Indeed, he has privately assured many of us that they are more than willing to do so because they cannot become qualified providers unless they are engaged in cutting-edge training and education.
In Amendment 109, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, raised the important issue of the involvement of universities. It worries many of us that the universities which have been very much at the heart of education and training, particularly postgraduate education and training, appear to be sidelined in the new architecture of the Bill. Frankly, that is unacceptable. It should not be for local employers to decide whether or not they want a university to be involved; it should be a requirement for universities to be involved. We must not have a situation where universities are regarded as predators in relation to education and training, as they are fundamental to it. If research is a fundamental part of the architecture of the Bill and of improving patient care, frankly, it is absurd to have universities outside that remit. Therefore, I hope that when the Minister responds he will assure us that universities are part of the solution—as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, rightly said—and are not seen as part of the problem.
Lord Walton of Detchant
My Lords, I have just counted that in the course of the past few weeks and months I have attended 28 seminars, group discussions and personal meetings with Ministers, the Bill team and others. That was extremely useful. We have spent a lot of time discussing education and training. I pay warm tribute to the Minister—the noble Earl, Lord Howe—and his team and colleagues for the way in which they have responded and listened to many of the concerns which we have expressed about these problems. The Government have tabled a number of very helpful and constructive amendments. However, I seek to ascertain whether they meet all our concerns.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, will say that our earlier concerns about research and its role in the NHS have been completely met. I agree with him entirely. We are satisfied on that point. However, in relation to education and training, I said at Second Reading that since the health service began, undergraduate training of doctors, medical students and dental students had always been the financial responsibility of the universities, but that it had always been the responsibility of the NHS to provide the clinical facilities in hospitals and general practices of the United Kingdom for the training of those undergraduate students. Of course, in more recent years, the newer universities—the former polytechnics—have played a major role in the training of other healthcare professionals such as nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and others. That commitment has been totally accepted.
However, postgraduate training of doctors, as the noble Lords, Lord Turnberg and Lord Willis, have said—those who are training to become physicians, surgeons, psychiatrists, and specialists in any branch of medicine—is the financial responsibility of the National Health Service and has been from the very beginning of the NHS. At the same time, the NHS has employed postgraduate deans who have been very helpful and responsible in helping to provide that training. It has also been monitored throughout by the royal colleges and faculties that have provided the content and curricula for the training of these groups of specialists. It is crucial that that interrelationship of all these bodies be enshrined in the Bill, even when Health Education England comes into being. I am mildly surprised that all the amendments grouped with Amendment 2 deal with education and training, but so too do Amendments 13, 16, 62 and 106 that are equally important and crucial to this whole programme.
I therefore ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that in the amendments that the Government have tabled, or in regulations that he can assure us will follow, the responsibilities of the universities and other institutions of higher education will be enshrined and clarified. Is he satisfied that through the postgraduate deans and the clinical senates—wherever they are housed, or whether they are housed with the National Commissioning Board and its outreach into parts of the country—the responsibilities of the royal colleges and faculties will also be enshrined, and the postgraduate deans will thereby continue to supervise the programmes? Is he satisfied—and this is crucial—that independent foundation trusts and any qualified providers that are providing NHS services will be required to accept responsibilities for the training and education of healthcare professionals, just as NHS hospitals, general practices and other NHS institutions are?
It is crucial that these issues are confirmed, and I trust that the noble Earl will be able to tell us that in the government amendments, and in regulations that may follow, all our anxieties about these major issues will be accepted and covered to the benefit of the healthcare workforce and the National Health Service overall.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I rise briefly to pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his colleagues for giving this most important issue such great attention since the Bill arrived in this House.
I wish to look at the experience in social work, where there has been great deterioration in the attention given to the professional development of social workers. I remember reading a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he sat on the Front Bench a few years ago, acknowledging the fact that newly qualified social workers were being placed in situations where they had too large a case load and were not being properly supervised. Fortunately, some steps have been taken to address this, but there is clearly still a long way to go on supervision of social workers, and the culture and state of morale of social workers has for many years been eroded by the lack of attention to their professional development. There was a time when there was good professional development; so it can happen, and it could happen in the medical professions.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the experience of teachers in Finland. This is particularly relevant to the Minister’s and the Government’s desire to increase autonomy within the health service and devolve responsibility down to the professionals closest to the front line. About 20 years ago, Finland reviewed its education system and decided to emphasise the professional development of its teachers. It decided to select its teachers very carefully, and now all practising teachers have a masters qualification before practising with children. Only one out of 10 applicants for teacher training places is accepted: there is huge competition to get on those courses. A few years ago, when PISA started publishing league tables of education system performance across the world, the Finns came out top of the numeracy, literacy and science tables, not just in one year but in successive years. Teachers are given a huge amount of respect within their society, very good professional training and development, and are well recruited. There is no inspection of the education system—teachers are so well trusted to do the best for children.
I pay tribute to the noble Earl and colleagues for giving this the best possible attention in the course of proceedings in your Lordships' House.
Lord Patel
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Earl for how he has met our concerns in the Committee debate on education and training. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned Amendments 13 and 16. To me, Amendment 13 is crucial. The reason I degrouped them is because Clause 6 addresses the Secretary of State's responsibility for education and training. I hope that we will have the debate about the issues that he raises when we debate Amendment 13. I agree with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg—Amendment 16—which provides that universities need to take a greater part in education and training than they have hitherto.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, as this is a new stage of the Bill, I should declare a number of interests which are also listed in the register; I am chairman of the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections, president of the British Fluoridation Society and of the Royal Society for Public Health.
I put my name to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which has perhaps not received as much enthusiasm as I would have wished from noble Lords, who have pointed to Clause 6. Behind her amendment is real concern to ensure that we will train enough health professionals in the years ahead and that they will be of sufficiently high quality. There is some history here. I very much support devolving as much as possible decisions about the commissioning of training places to local NHS organisations. I warmly welcome the work of Dame Julie Moore and her team, who have produced the report. She is chief executive of the UHB Foundation Trust in Birmingham and brings a lot of expertise to that position. Some noble Lords will have been to a seminar where the report was debated. I have no argument with its general thrust, but we know from experience that when money is tight, the NHS reduces the number of people that it trains and its training budget. That always happens and, a number of years later, the NHS then pays the consequences. If we are to have a highly effective National Health Service in future, we need to recognise that the quality of our professional staff goes to the core of what we seek to do. Therefore, it is right that the Secretary of State should be seen to have major responsibilities enshrined in legislation. That is the essential point of Amendment 2, whatever the technical deficiencies to which noble Lords have kindly drawn our attention.
In that regard, let me say that I welcome the government amendments in this area and the work of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Of course, he is also responsible for research in the department, and I think that he well understands how the education and training of our professionals very much ties in to the research agenda. I know that we will come to research later tonight.
In relation to the other amendments in this group, I have already welcomed the government amendments, but perhaps I may pick on Amendment 63. It is right that the national Commissioning Board should have regard to the promotion of training of clinical staff in any provider from which it commissions services. There is essentially a parallel amendment—Amendment 104—which applies to clinical commissioning groups. The whole point here is to ensure that there is a level playing field. If, regrettably, the Government persist with this lunatic idea of a competitive approach within the health service, it is essential that when it comes to commissioning decisions all qualified providers contribute to education and training. It would be an absolute disgrace if clinical commissioning groups and the national Commissioning Board started to commission services from organisations that did not play their full part in education and indeed research. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will make it clear that that is what his Amendment 104 means when it says, in parliamentary counsel terminology, that clinical commissioning groups must,
“have regard to the need to promote education and training”.
I take that to mean that the amendment does not permit CCGs to place contracts with qualified providers who do not make a contribution to education and training.
Overall, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, regarding the work of postgraduate deans and his question about their future. Where are postgraduate deans going to lie in the future? Are they going to lie in the local branch offices of the national Commissioning Board; are they going to be aligned with the clinical senates; or are they going to float free? I think we should be told.
I also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, regarding the role of universities. It should not be an option; they need to be round the table. It needs to be what I would describe as a “hard partnership”. I think we are all well aware of the issues and concerns surrounding the quality and outcome of nurse training. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, himself has often commented on issues such as dignity, nutrition and so on, where matters have been raised by patients and there is concern about whether today’s nurses are getting the kind of training that is required. It is very important that those who commission from universities do so in as vigorous a way as possible and hold those universities to account. However, equally there has to be a partnership. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will know about the intention to expand academic clinical science networks. That is a very good example of universities and the health service coming together, and we need to encourage that in the future.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised a point about the duty on any willing provider regarding training or research. I think that I have covered that, but he also mentioned NHS foundation trusts. I am not aware of any situation in which NHS foundation trusts are ignoring their responsibilities but I certainly agree with him that, as they are more independent of the Secretary of State than other parts of the NHS, some assurances from the noble Earl in that regard would be welcome.
Lord Northbourne
I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify a point for me. In his Amendment 62 he speaks of the “healthcare workforce”, whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in her amendment talks of “healthcare professionals”. Are these identical groups of people? I am particularly interested in whether nursing staff are included in one or both of those terms.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that is a very good point. As I say, it is always helpful when noble Lords point out errors and omissions in the drafting of amendments. Amendment 2 refers to “health care professionals”, and I am clear that nurses must be embraced within that definition.
On Amendment 62, I would not detract from the use of,
“education and training of the healthcare workforce”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has kindly reminded me that we are not debating Amendment 62. It will be debated in a later group, which allows me a little time to reflect on the point raised.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate. Perhaps I can begin with a clear statement that the Government are committed to the education, training and continuing development of the healthcare workforce. This is fundamental in supporting the delivery of excellent healthcare services across the NHS. I am pleased that so many noble Lords share that view.
We are, however, in the rather odd position of having before us two groups of amendments on education and training. Given that we still await a further debate on the subject today, I should like to reserve some of the detail of my remarks, if I may, for that debate, when I address one of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. However, to begin with, and for now, I think that it will be helpful if I set the scene.
First, I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that we made it clear in Liberating the NHS: Developing the Healthcare Workforce—From Design to Delivery, which was published recently, that we are committed to a national framework for education and training, with Health Education England providing national leadership and being directly accountable to the Secretary of State.
Health Education England will ensure that the healthcare workforce has the right skills, behaviours and training, and is available in the right numbers to support the delivery of excellent healthcare and health improvement. It will work with a range of key partners, including the medical royal colleges, professional regulators and the academic and research sectors. The national input and oversight will be there in all the areas which, rightly, the noble Baroness is concerned about. Health Education England and the wider education and training system will, as I said, remain accountable to the Secretary of State, who will have a duty to secure an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training in the NHS. Employers and healthcare professionals will play a leading role in workforce planning and development through the establishment of local education and training boards, working with the education and research sectors. I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
I can reassure noble Lords straight away that postgraduate deans will continue to be a critically important part of the medical training arrangements. The Government listened to the concerns expressed in Committee by a number of Peers that the Bill did not go far enough in safeguarding the future education and training system. In this group of amendments, which I shall speak to shortly, we have tabled a number of proposals designed to address the gaps that noble Lords identified.
On Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the Government have already introduced a duty for the Secretary of State to maintain an effective system for education and training. Our duty is more comprehensive than this amendment in that it applies to the whole healthcare workforce and not just doctors. The noble Baroness asked about the scope of Clause 6. Our duty applies to people who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in an activity which involves or is connected with the provision of services as part of the health service in England. This covers healthcare professionals at the centre of delivering healthcare, including doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, healthcare scientists and the allied health professions. It includes registered and unregistered professions. It also covers non-clinical staff who are involved in, for example, the commissioning or administration of services. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel reassured to some extent and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I am most grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled on behalf of the Government, and for all the listening. This short debate has demonstrated just how far we have moved, how much he personally has taken on board and committed to improving education and training, and that the amendments that are there for us to approve later provide a scaffolding throughout the Bill for education and training that was not there before. I fully accept that the amendment in my name is probably in the wrong place in the Bill and that to restrict it to professionals is too narrow—it is the whole workforce. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“(2) The Secretary of State must for that purpose provide or secure the provision of services according to this Act.”
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we originally put down Amendments 3 and 4 in Committee back in the autumn. It has to be said from the outset that this is actually still a very bad Bill. Since Committee, the context in which we are discussing this Bill has without doubt changed. It seems that it has no support from anywhere except in the Department of Health—and possibly not even from everybody there. It still has no mandate.
Going back on previous commitments to,
“no more top-down reorganisation of the NHS”,
the Prime Minister and his Health Ministers, including the noble Earl, have adopted what we on these Benches would like to term the “Attlee defence”, in deference to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—and I mean the Government’s Earl Attlee, not ours, as it were. Last March, during a debate on the Building Regulations (Review) Bill, in trying to explain the Government’s position, the noble Earl came up with:
“I gently remind the Committee that I answer for Her Majesty's Government, not for the previous Opposition”.—[Official Report, 4/3/11; col. 1352.]
That is a remarkable statement. Perhaps the Minister could gently remind the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary of their coalition agreement.
It is significant that the Prime Minister has had to come to the Bill’s rescue today, not least because a Downing Street source yesterday was reported to threaten the very life of the Secretary of State—I think that the words used were “taken out and shot”—for his failure to communicate the Bill and the Bill’s policy. We in the Opposition have never advocated such a thing. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on this particular version of the Secretary of State’s ultimate responsibility in his job.
The Prime Minister’s words were also revealing in that the Government intend to push this Bill through. I do not believe that that is a respectful way of referring to the remaining stages in your Lordships’ House. It begs a question that I should like to ask the Minister early in Report stage, which arises from what happened recently as regards the Welfare Reform Bill. Will he give the House notice now as to whether the Government intend to use the financial privilege mechanism to strike down any amendments that this House might agree during the remaining stages of this Bill?
I have searched in vain for a precedent of legislation that is so unwelcomed by those who have to deliver it, so incomprehensible to those on whom its consequences will be wreaked and so difficult to explain in simple terms. But even the Minister, who is acknowledged by the whole House to be an outstanding performer and someone who can normally enlighten us about most matters in clear, plain English, has had to resort on many occasions to seeking to justify points of this Bill in the managerial jargon of his boss, Mr Lansley, which is as dense as the Bill itself. If any noble Lords doubt that, I suggest that they need only to peruse the record of the Committee stage.
We do not work in a sealed bubble in this Chamber and I appreciate that the Government might prefer it if that were the case. But the public’s view of this Bill has shifted and hardened since we completed the Committee stage before Christmas. The views of those who have engaged with this Bill for more than a year have changed and we need to hear their voices throughout Report stage.
As we all know, the discussions around the role of the Secretary of State have been of great significance. What has emerged is that the reasons for changing the role have never been made clear. As has been pointed out, there is a continuity around the role of the Secretary of State which goes way back to the founding of the NHS. I will not rehearse all the arguments that we heard in Committee and at Second Reading, and which some of us have been rehearsing during the months between those stages and up to last week. The reality is and always has been that the legal duty on the Secretary of State is to provide services. Even securing the provision of services has been delegated to organisations which deliver that duty on behalf of the public. Public accountability is and always has been vital to maintaining public confidence in the NHS. Ultimate political accountability exists in the person of the Secretary of State.
In no way can the Secretary of State argue that any failure to provide necessary NHS services is not his or her responsibility. The argument that if there is an issue the Secretary of State must work through failure regimes, regulations and directions to others is not good enough. As the Health Select Committee and many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, said in Committee, it would not be believed anyway.
We will be moving to the alternative wording in the next debate. We on these Benches have supported the process that has led to that wording. However, I should like the Minister to explain—I would be very happy to hear that explanation when he responds to the next debate—the difference between these words and those that are before the House. I am giving the Minister notice that this remains a bit of a mystery.
As with so much else in this unloved Bill, we are left with the question: why? Why on earth did the original Bill propose a radical change to the role of the Secretary of State? The Minister in the Commons, Simon Burns, was ready to die in a ditch for the wording. It was a liberation ideology for him. Why, throughout the scrutiny in the Commons, was the line rigidly held by coalition Ministers and MPs, and why is the Secretary of State—I really do think the House needs to know the answer to this question, but again I am quite happy to wait—now briefing royal colleges saying, “Actually, the changes that noble Lords have agreed in their Chamber will make no difference to the Bill”?
Our amendment and the others that deal with the role of the Secretary of State are important and we have undoubtedly prised improvement out of, if not a reluctant noble Earl in this Chamber, certainly out of a reluctant Government. Many of these issues are proxy arguments about what kind of NHS we want. During the rest of the Report stage we will focus our energies on the many other things that need to be changed, particularly in Part 3. These are part of the argument about why we do not want a full market, why we do not want regulation along the lines of that for the utilities or for the banks, and why we need to protect and preserve the tradition, well established and well understood, of the role of the Secretary of State.
I will be withdrawing the amendment, as I promised the Minister I would, but I would like some answers to the questions that I have posed in these remarks. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, perhaps I may respond very briefly. The real argument that we should be having is almost certainly on the next group of amendments, and I have no intention of taking away from that debate in which, as we know, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords—although unfortunately not my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay today—will take part. It is an important debate that symbolises for me something of crucial significance, and that is that in this House we have moved towards all-party agreement on the constitutional underpinning of the National Health Service; that is a great achievement.
I shall not take further from what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will want to say—except that perhaps I shall follow her on this issue—beyond saying that I am deeply saddened that over the past day or two we have seen what I believe to have been a far-reaching and radical attempt in this House to try to present an all-party consensual underpinning for the National Health Service being turned into what one can only describe as the most petty of political rows whose seeming intention is to try to acquire political balance for one side or the other. That is a great shame.
I think that many of us believe that the wording which has been accomplished—although I note the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to the word “provide”—means that we can be satisfied with the constitutional group. We do not need to change the wording and what is now set out in the Bill after this long exercise is in fact legally watertight. I say that because some of the most distinguished lawyers in this House were part of the drafting process, including on the Labour side the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. On the Conservative side we had the outstanding figure of the former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and on my side, among others, my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. All these lawyers put their heads together in order to establish a basis on which we could agree, and I would suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that if the word “provide” did not surface during that exercise, it is because it is to a great extent at odds with the facts at the present time as to who actually provides services for the NHS, and of course that has changed radically in recent years. It has changed radically because of steps taken not only by the present Government but also by the previous Government, when a great deal of provision came from newly established elements in the private sector, including intermediate treatment centres. Efforts were made to bring about an extensive network of hospitals to look at how far private treatment could be accepted and it was done on the basis of trying to bring new providers on the scene, which the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, among others, has talked about. I am probably one of those who are more “old-fashioned” in their view of the privatisation of the NHS, which I certainly would not support. That is not the same as talking about the competitive providers who under the previous Government and the present one have made some contribution to the services of the NHS.
I say with great respect to the noble Baroness that this pair of amendments is unnecessary. I think that, legally, the existing wording now stands up and has the precious boon of having been supported by all parties in this House and those who sit on the independent Cross Benches. We should therefore move on to the next group of amendments and be able, among other things, to celebrate our achievement, which I hope will enable the National Health Service to flourish and survive into the rest of this century.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as my noble friend has correctly reminded us, the next debate will give us the opportunity to discuss the package of amendments designed to clarify the Secretary of State’s accountability for the health service. I recently completed a series of meetings with Peers from across the House to understand their concerns about this and related issues. Thanks to the efforts of so many here today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I am pleased to say that we have sufficient consensus to table a series of amendments on this matter. I very much look forward to discussing them when we reach subsequent groups.
Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seek to reinstate the duty to provide. I do not wish to dwell too long on what I have said on previous occasions, but the noble Baroness will be aware that we are retaining the wording of the NHS Act 1946, where appropriate. For example, the Secretary of State retains his duty to,
“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service”,
and his duty to,
“secure that services are provided”.
The reason for our removing the 1946 duty on the Secretary of State to provide services himself is that it fails to reflect the reality of the way that NHS services are delivered. In general and for many years, the Secretary of State has not himself exercised functions of providing or commissioning services. The functions are delegated to SHAs and PCTs. Under the Bill, however, this function will be conferred directly on a dedicated NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs.
Indeed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has pointed out previously, there has never been a straightforward duty to provide services. The requirement was framed as a duty to,
“provide or secure the … provision of”,
services. In practice, Ministers or the NHS bodies responsible for exercising the Secretary of State’s functions have usually exercised the second option, securing the provision, rather than the first, actually providing. The Secretary of State—that is, the Department of Health—has not provided NHS services directly for many years. Our policy is that the Secretary of State should neither provide nor commission NHS services.
It is clear from these amendments that the Opposition are harking back to a centralist, top-down approach. They sometimes say that they want clinical commissioners, but these amendments contradict that. They would not create a system of clear responsibility but instead one where Richmond House was always right. That model has been tried to the point of exhaustion and has been found wanting. In contrast, the Bill establishes a framework in which the Secretary of State no longer has the powers to provide or commission NHS services. Instead, those functions are conferred on other bodies in the system. An amendment to Clause 1 to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to provide services—or a duty to exercise his functions so as to provide them—is simply not consistent with that framework.
When this issue has been debated previously, one of the main arguments against losing the duty to provide was that it would result in reduced accountability to Parliament for provision. Although that has never been our intention, we have, as I said, tabled amendments to put beyond doubt the matter of ministerial accountability. Given that the Secretary of State does not provide services directly, and that the amendments we will debate shortly clarify beyond doubt the Secretary of State’s continued accountability to Parliament, it is not clear what an amendment to reinstate the duty to provide would achieve in practice.
If these amendments are about ensuring that the Secretary of State takes the steps required to secure the proper provision of NHS services, I simply reassure the noble Baroness that the Bill already does this. It requires the Secretary of State to,
“exercise the functions conferred by this Act so as to secure that services are provided”.
That is a strong and onerous duty, sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State discharges his responsibility for the NHS.
In explaining these amendments, the noble Baroness repeated her call for the Bill to be withdrawn on the grounds that nobody supports it. I acknowledge that there are opponents of the Bill but she must also acknowledge that many in the medical community and in the wider public support our reform programme. We know that clearly from the listening exercise last year when many thousands of people contributed their views. Those views about the principles of what we are trying to achieve came through loud and clear. In the main, the concerns revolved around implementation. We believe that we have addressed those concerns in amendments to the Bill and in other announcements that we have made that are non-legislative in nature. We continue to believe that our plans for modernisation are essential if we are to put the NHS on a sustainable long-term footing. I will explain a few ways in which that is true, and will try to do so in clear, layman’s language without resorting to departmental technical speak.
Without the Bill, Ministers would remain free to continue to micromanage the NHS. There would be no legally enforceable duties to tackle health inequalities as the Bill introduces such duties for the first time in this country. There would be no legally enforceable duties on quality improvement because it embeds quality improvement throughout the system. There would be no duties on NHS organisations to involve patients in decisions about their care. Failing organisations would continue to be propped up using taxpayers’ money—the Bill tackles that problem in a creative way. Governments would be able to prioritise the private sector over the NHS—the Bill ensures that such behaviour is prohibited. Patients would continue to lack the means to hold the NHS to account because the Bill gives patients real power by establishing HealthWatch so that the interests of patients and the public can be championed throughout the NHS. Withdrawing the Bill would cause disruption and chaos at a time that the NHS most needs certainty about the future. As has been said today, the NHS is already in a state of change. That cannot be sustained indefinitely because it puts additional strain on management capacity and creates additional cost.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
Does my noble friend agree that one of the vices in the amendment is that it would encourage judicial review proceedings and legal uncertainty? I say that as somebody who has taken advantage of the old wording to bring successful judicial review proceedings in Northern Ireland. The advantage of what we now have in the Bill is that it will not place judges in the position of seeking to run the health service, instead of Parliament, Ministers and the health authorities themselves.
Earl Howe
I defer completely to my noble friend, who is right to point out that one thing that we wish to avoid is a charter for a legal action and judicial review. I believe that we have avoided that because of the way in which accountability is now described in the Bill—or will shortly be described, when the amendments are passed. It is accountability primarily through the Secretary of State to Parliament. I thank the noble Lord for his observations.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
The Minister has clarified the difficulty that I was in, partly because of the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but also because of what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. As I understand it, all their remarks are posited on the basis that the subsequent amendment, Amendment 5, will be accepted by the House. When they refer to the terms of the Bill, they are referring to the Bill as it now stands and not as it will, I hope, be amended in the conclusion of our next debate.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who is of course quite right.
I have been handed a note which says that when I said that there would be no legally enforceable duties on quality improvement, I should have clarified that that would have a follow-on. I should have said, “across the NHS system”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to potential privilege responses from the Commons. My noble friend the Leader of the House made a Written Statement last Thursday about the financial privilege of the House of Commons in which he drew attention to a paper by the Clerk of the Parliaments, available in the Library. I think that questions about procedure may be best directed to my noble friend, but I shall do my best to assist. The Clerk of the Parliaments makes it clear in his paper that,
“until the Commons asserts its privilege, the Lords is fully entitled to debate and agree to amendments with privilege implications”.
That is what we should do. I would much regret it if the House thought that I was trying to restrict its role of revision. The Marshalled List sets out more than 100 amendments in my name, tabled in response to debate in Committee, and if the House agrees to those amendments I can assure noble Lords that the Government will encourage the other place to accept them.
The essence of the noble Baroness’s question is about privilege reasons for the Commons rejecting amendments proposed by this House, and on that I can say two things. First, any amendment with implications for public expenditure might involve privilege, but that is a matter for the Commons alone. Decisions on financial privilege are for the Speaker of the Commons on advice from the Clerks of that House. If the Commons reject a Lords amendment in which the Speaker has determined that privilege is engaged, the only reason that it can send this House is a privilege reason. There is no discretion.
Secondly, this debate is by its nature premature. I hope that our debate and dialogue will lead to this Bill being sent to the Commons in a form that that House will accept. Until we see how Report unfolds, it is too early to speculate on the reaction from the Commons. One cannot have a reply to a question until the question has been asked.
Baroness Thornton
My question was actually about the Government’s intentions. That was a very enlightening and helpful remark about privilege. The Speaker of the Commons will not presumably, by and large, take a view on privilege unless the Government ask him to. So my question was about the Government’s intention on this matter.
Earl Howe
I have taken advice on this, and I believe that what I am about to say will not mislead the House as I have been given this advice on authority. It is not for the Government to do anything; it is not within our power to do anything. The noble Lord, Lord Martin, who spoke last week on this matter, is par excellence an authority on this. A view is taken by the Clerks in another place on the amendments passed in this House as to whether privilege is engaged. The Speaker is then advised. The Government have no role in that process at all; it is a Commons privilege, not the Government’s privilege.
I hope that what I have said will persuade your Lordships that the course down which the Opposition would wish to take us is the wrong one. The Bill, once amended—if that is your Lordships’ wish—through the amendments that have been jointly agreed on a cross-party basis, will therefore be fit for purpose in clarifying beyond peradventure the Secretary of State’s accountability for the health service and the exercise of his powers. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that response. I made it clear in my opening remarks that I would not seek to push the amendments to a Division, although the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the Minister made me wonder whether I ought to do so, because certain things that were said were not justified.
First, the noble Earl took us through a list of things that without the Bill would not be happening. On almost every single one, I thought that without the Bill you could do all those things. You do not actually need this Bill to do most of the things that the noble Earl listed as being desirable objectives. I am sure that we would agree about most of them being desirable objectives.
The noble Earl mentioned the listening exercise as being proof that this is not the unloved Bill that I would suggest it is. Only yesterday, a former special adviser to Downing Street said that the listening exercise was a tactic as part of managing the Bill. Frankly, I was horrified by that. If I had been Professor Steve Field or one of the 40-odd people who, with every good intention of doing a public service unpaid, gave their time to take part in that listening exercise, I would think that it was really shocking. So I think that the noble Earl should be careful about praying the listening exercise in aid in explaining how loved or unloved this Bill is.
It is time that we moved on. I intend to reserve my praise for the next debate and leave my criticisms in this debate. I intend to withdraw my amendment, even if the noble Earl will not withdraw the Bill.
“( ) The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”
Earl Howe
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 5. As noble Lords will be aware, and as I stated during our discussion on the previous group of amendments, a number of concerns were raised in Committee over the clauses relating to the Secretary of State’s accountability for the health service. Since our collective discussion in November to withdraw amendments on this issue, pending a period of discussion and reflection, I have been meeting noble Lords to understand their concerns. Alongside the conversations that I have had with Peers, both individually and in groups, we have held two all-Peers seminars to try to reach consensus on what changes might be made to bring clarity. I am very grateful to all those who invested time and effort in this matter, which I know so many are passionate about.
I would particularly like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her colleagues on the Constitution Committee, who articulated their concerns about ministerial accountability so coherently in their two reports and proposed amendments. I believe, as had been suggested already, that the process that we have gone through has revealed the House of Lords at its best—working together to improve the Bill and achieve common ground. This amendment deals with the overarching accountability of Ministers for the health service, as set out in Clause 1. At this stage, we are taking this amendment on its own, but there are further amendments on related themes to follow. We should perhaps look at this amendment in that context.
However, I think I am right in saying that Clause 1 has attracted the most attention from Peers, and quite rightly so. It gives the Secretary of State a duty to,
“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service”,
wording that can be traced back to the original 1946 NHS Act. Amendment 5 makes it clear that the Secretary of State will retain ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the health service. It has been this question of ministerial responsibility that has been such a cause of concern, and I am sincerely grateful to the noble Baroness and the Constitution Committee for drafting this amendment which, I hope, should serve to put everyone’s minds at rest on this issue.
Noble Lords will recall the original suggestion made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, which used “ultimate responsibility to Parliament”. I should explain that we have gone with the formulation “ministerial responsibility to Parliament” because it more clearly refers to the constitutional principle of ministerial responsibility. That is to say: Ministers are responsible, accountable and answerable to Parliament for their policies, decisions and actions—and, indeed, those of their departments. The principle is recognised by Parliament and the courts, and, as the Constitution Committee notes, in the Ministerial Code. The amendment reflects the position that as a result of the principle and the duties and powers imposed by NHS legislation, the Secretary of State for Health is responsible and accountable to Parliament for the health service in England, even if he or his department do not directly provide or manage NHS services. It has never in fact been the Government’s intention to diminish ministerial responsibility to Parliament, so I can offer my wholehearted endorsement of and support for this amendment. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to do so as well.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he introduced this amendment because, as he graciously expressed, this is not really a government amendment but an amendment by the Constitution Committee, which it invites your Lordships to agree. Of course, with a government Minister at the head of those supporting the amendment, I hope that will in itself be unarguable. It is right that the Constitution Committee’s position should be explained a little more in the context of this first amendment in relation to the Secretary of State's responsibilities, and I am glad that it has been put in a group on its own. It is a very significant amendment, and not just because it alters fundamentally the expression of the Secretary of State's responsibilities from the original Bill. It is also significant because of the process by which it has been reached—the Minister has already alluded to this, and I certainly express my enthusiasm for the process—and in which the House has undertaken this work.
The terms of the amendment are simple but very powerful:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision”—
that is always the difficult word—
“of the health service in England”.
It is simple but powerful because, frankly, so is the concept of ministerial responsibility, although we argue about it all the time. It is a basic concept which, as the Minister has said, has been expressed in all NHS legislation, and quite rightly in my view, since the first Act 60 years ago. Without wishing to appear to give a civics lesson to the House, it is worth saying that the Constitution Committee has agreed that, in its terms, individual ministerial responsibility means that Ministers must be accountable and answerable to Parliament for their—and their departments’ and agencies’—policies, decisions and actions. I think that is widely accepted. There is no constitutional distinction between ministerial responsibility, accountability and answerability; they are all aspects of the same constitutional fact.
This Bill was worrying, because it was the first in which there was not an explicit provision on political and legal accountability. The Constitution Committee, as the noble Earl said, raised serious concerns about this in the initial report that we gave to the House before Second Reading. There we said that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, risks,
“diluting the Government's constitutional responsibilities”,
for the NHS. It is worth reminding your Lordships that those responsibilities which the Minister should retain embrace the accountability to Parliament for the vast public expenditure that the NHS undertakes, and the provision of its multitude of services.
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, I assure the House that I rise only briefly. On this occasion, unlike two amendments ago, I have three excuses for doing so, not just two. The first is that I do not always want to be a troublemaker. The second is that I and my noble friend Lord Mawhinney expressed the view at an earlier stage that resistance to an amendment of this kind would be absurd because the amendment reflects the reality of the world. The third I have already referred to: that in the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, I feel that I need to say a word not quite on his behalf—that would be lèse-majesté—but at least in his interests, as he has been referred to a lot. I congratulate the noble Baroness and her committee on what has been a remarkably productive role since the endless debates on these matters that we had at the beginning of Committee. It is a great tribute to her. She will not have been able to do this on the whole of the Bill, as she implicitly acknowledged just now, but to have produced this degree of sweetness and light on this issue is a near-miraculous achievement for which she deserves our thanks; she certainly has mine.
Along with that go thanks to others, including my noble and learned friend and many others who have taken part in those meetings, not least—as the noble Baroness has said and as I want to say—the Minister, who has successfully shifted people, who seemed two or three months ago to be dug in a trench in which they were going to die, to accept the terms and the realism of the amendment. That is a great credit to him and ultimately to the colleagues at the other end of the corridor who allowed him to persuade them.
As the noble Baroness said, we can regard this as a real success for the collective wisdom of this House. I just hope that that will be sustained during the rest of the discussions on the Bill.
Lord Owen
My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships, but the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has asked me to speak on his behalf. I find no reason to disagree with anything that has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
The Minister and I are going to disagree on substantial parts of the Bill—and a profound disagreement it is—but right from the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and I negotiated with him, he always accepted that this was an important constitutional and parliamentary point. He expressed readiness to enter into a novel arrangement, which we very nearly reached, but instead it has come around by another mechanism. At all stages, he has treated all of us, Peers and the House itself, with the greatest respect, courtesy and diligence. For that, I thank him on behalf of everyone.
Lord Mawhinney
My Lords, having taken up your Lordships’ time both at Second Reading and in Committee, I want to chip in at this significant point in this particularly significant clause. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, dealt beautifully, succinctly and with clarity with the constitutional importance and relevance of the amendment. I pay tribute to the work that she and her colleagues have done and the clarity with which she was able to persuade us in her contribution.
Colleagues will recall that I did not take the constitutional high ground in my concerns about what was originally expressed. I started from the other end of the spectrum. Whatever we may say constitutionally and whatever the professorial advice, my former constituents did not believe a word of it. They expected the Secretary of State and Ministers to be responsible. That was the argument from the grass roots that I tried to deploy to persuade the Minister to look at this again. I think that I was maybe the first—I was certainly one of the first—to suggest that all this should be taken away from Committee, we should not be tempted into a vote and we should think further about it.
I am delighted with the outcome on behalf of all my former constituents and indeed everyone else in the country, because we are now all on the same page. We are all now saying the same thing. Some of us have arrived there by high constitutional means, others from the grubby reality of the streets. The Secretary of State is the boss and is held accountable. He gets some credit for the successes and all the blame for the failures. That is how it has always been and, thanks to this amendment, it is how it will continue to be. Everyone will think that this is a great outbreak of success and common sense.
I pay tribute to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Newton has just said that the Minister’s colleagues will also have had to have been persuaded to this point. I hope that I will not diminish the sense of satisfaction in the House if I say that perhaps the Minister will have had a more important part to play in that process than the debates in this House.
Whether or not this is your Lordships’ House at its best, I do not care to judge. However, I will tell those of your Lordships who have not had the privilege of serving in the other place that this could never have happened there—never have happened. That is because the other place is infected with a degree of party political commitment that is frequently, though not always, spared at this end of the Corridor. Incidentally, for those who do not share my view and would like to see an elected Chamber, I gently point out that if what I am saying is true, this amendment today would never have been possible in the new, so-called “modernised” Chamber that is envisaged.
I refer to the introduction of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to the previous set of amendments. I pray in aid the fact that she said that she would take responses in this debate rather than in the previous debate. She mentioned me by name and I thank her for that. She reflected accurately what I have just explained at some length. However, I will give her something else that she can quote accurately in the future. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister. He has done an excellent job, not for the benefit of the party, the Government or even the health service, but for the country. I am among those who feel indebted to him for what he has done and the spirit that he has adopted. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will realise that her introductory three minutes of an extremely party political nature were seriously out of sync with the consensus mood of the House at this time.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, may I, too, say a word or two about this brilliant process? It is important to say that at the moment we are discussing Amendment 5, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has a large and commendable share of responsibility. However, the constitutional agreement that we have reached goes a great deal further, embracing Amendment 6 and the amendments to Clauses 4 and 12, which we will discuss a little later.
We are discussing much more than even Clause 5. A whole range of substantial constitutional amendments go a long way to sustaining what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, expressed wonderfully when he spoke about this constitutional move a long time ago. In particular, the amendments put the concept of the NHS constitution at the centre of the future of the NHS. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, used a phrase about the 1946 Act that I thought was absolutely right. He said that it was as close to institutionalised altruism as we have ever come. “Institutionalised altruism” is a wonderful phrase. It reminded me—my memory goes back this far—of another phrase used by another great warrior for the NHS, Professor Richard Titmuss of the London School of Economics. He gave a book that he wrote about blood donation the wonderful title The Gift Relationship.
It is appropriate to say to those who talk about society that a good society must be underpinned by the concept of mutual altruism within it. Nothing represents that more clearly than the National Health Service has done. I very much hope that all those who share that view will, within their own parties, make it clear that there is a greater responsibility on us than to indulge in party back-slapping and bickering; and that is to make sure, between all of us, that the NHS thrives and looks after the health and care of the people of England, and of Britain more widely.
However, having said that, I want to say two further things. As the follow-up report of the Constitution Committee indicates, there was a distinct gap following the letter that was originally sent by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the constitutional changes. Subsequently, on 2 November, when we were in the early stages of Committee, there was a substantial shift by the noble Earl and the department, away from a somewhat small-scale response to this much more generous and widespread response on all the constitutional issues, some of which we have still to debate later this evening. The reason why it was so important—and the reason why the House of Lords should not sell itself short—is that in that gap between 10 October and 2 November, the very imaginative House of Lords moots were held, with all Peers invited, led by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. These shifted the whole situation further towards the concept of a constitutionally shared settlement. That was a contribution by many Members of this House of all parties and, including the Cross-Benchers, of none. It was significant. It expressed the serious attempt to reach a conclusion that was based on consensus in this House. I hope that consensus will last.
In passing, I mention that we need to look at the whole package to see just what an amazingly substantial and imaginative idea it is. Although we will no doubt go on to argue, as we should, about the issues that remain out there—such as competition, conflicts of interest and others on which we have strongly held views—we should, in sitting down this evening, be very pleased to be able to say that we have achieved this much with the great help of the Constitution Committee and others. Those who took part have every reason to feel that they have been part of a substantial experiment that I hope will be followed further in Parliament, not least in this House.
Lord Laming
My Lords, may I briefly add my thanks to the Minister and the Constitution Committee? Its second report was particularly helpful. To follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is right to see Amendment 5 in the context of some coherence over how this accountability will work, not just at ministerial level but at board level. There will be further amendments. At this stage, suffice to say that the Constitution Committee looked at these matters in the broadest possible way to ensure that—whether in terms of autonomy or commissioning—there would be a coherence to the way in which accountability would continue to be established in the National Health Service; and, in particular, that those responsible for commissioning and other important work follow through their tasks in relation to ministerial accountability to Parliament.
The second report of the Constitution Committee was a model of how such matters can be dealt with coherently, succinctly and very clearly. We are indebted to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to consider that more carefully; and to the Committee for its work, which took us forward enormously and has brought us to where we are today. I am grateful and I support the amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, far be it from me to cast a pall over the House of Lords at its best. I join others in being glad about the consensus and in congratulating the Constitution Committee. I also congratulate the Convenor on the part that he played in getting the consensus. It is a privilege to follow him.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in hoping that the consensus can continue but I have to remind the House of how the Bill is viewed out there. It is deeply unpopular with many of the people who will be required to make it work. They will make it work because that is what the workforce of the health service does and always has done in the most difficult of situations. However, it is looking to us to make those difficulties as few as we possibly can. Therefore, in congratulating ourselves on reaching where we have on this issue, let us remember the task before us.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I am afraid that I will be even more discordant. I do not want to denigrate the congratulations that have been offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her colleagues and the process that has been gone through to reach agreement on this amendment. However, I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, that we must not forget not only how deeply unpopular the Bill is but that it is flawed.
I had not intended to speak on this amendment but I cannot let the moment pass as I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to a spirit of improvement that she was seeking in moving this amendment. However, we have to remember that the improvement is a bit like trying to paint the face of a harlot; at the end of the day, it is still the face of a harlot, no matter how improved. We are seeing real impacts on healthcare in this country as a result of the Bill, as we speak. I come from a background of having run health services for 20 years. I have also been the regulator for health and social care and am now part of a patients’ organisation. Patients are telling me that we are seeing the fragmentation of responsibility for the commissioning of healthcare and that services are suffering as a result of the financial squeeze; for example, diabetic specialist nurses are disappearing and patient education is being cut. The things that are important for the quality of care are being removed.
I am experiencing a huge loss of momentum in getting any change implemented in the care for people with diabetes. Whenever I speak to the Secretary of State, he tells me that it is no longer his responsibility and that I should talk to the NHS Commissioning Board. However, when I speak to the NHS Commissioning Board, staff say, “We are still working out how we do this”. When you talk to clinical commissioning groups, they are still not clear about the framework in which they are operating. Therefore, we are losing one, two or three years of headway on issues where there needs to be real improvement for patients.
Because of the preoccupation with reform, we are seeing a lack of real focus on the task in hand, which is how we make the health service more efficient. The Minister and the Secretary of State have repeatedly told me that these reforms will deliver that necessary improvement in care and efficiency. However, my experience over 40 years leads me to believe that that is not the case. In saying that, I am not making a political point; I speak from my knowledge of what is happening in healthcare. We will continue to try to improve the Bill because we are good and honest toilers in the House of Lords, but we are trying to improve something that is deeply flawed.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, we must be thankful to my noble friend Lady Jay and the Constitution Committee for their initial work and their second report, which has enabled us to reach the point that we have. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for saving us from the gloopy treacle of self-satisfaction into which we were sinking, to which my noble friend Lady Jay referred.
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, for chairing the seminars that have been referred to. We all know that chairing seminars attended by opinionated Members of this House and lawyers is not an easy task. He did an excellent job and led us gently towards the consensus that has resulted in the amendments being tabled that we are discussing. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lords, Lord Hennessy and Lord Owen, whose wisdom brought the great importance of this issue to the attention of the House.
We support this amendment as it is clearly an improvement on what was in the Bill originally. We are still perplexed as to why we could not simply have kept the 2006 wording, but we are where we are. However, I wish to repeat the question that I have already put to the Minister. The Secretary of State has let it be known that he does not think that this measure makes a difference. That shows no respect for the work that we have undertaken and the place in which we find ourselves. Therefore, I should like clarification on that point. We need to know why that is the case. This measure constitutes a significant change because, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, it will have repercussions on other parts of the Bill. I welcome that and hope that it is the case. We need to look at the changes proposed in this and the following amendments as they should make easier our job of testing other parts of the Bill against them.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that this is still a very political Bill. The noble Lord’s party and the Liberal Democrats pushed the original drafting on the Secretary of State’s powers through the Commons. I have tried to keep my remarks about the highly politicised nature of the Bill separate from this debate because I thought it was important that we should also recognise the work that has gone on and the consensus that we have reached in this House. That is due to a combination of clarity, wisdom and our consideration of the Constitution Committee’s report. I compliment noble Lords on my own Benches because we were determined not to accept the well meaning and imaginative original proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We had very trenchant support from noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Owen. The Minister, in his wisdom, took these clauses off the Floor of the House and we are now where we are. That is a great credit to everybody concerned, including my own party. Therefore, we are very happy to welcome this amendment and hope that it bodes well for our future discussions on Report.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think that it only remains for me to thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I listened with care and respect to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Young, as I always do. I understand their concerns. I think that some of them are misplaced but they are right that any transition brings with it uncertainty and a certain amount of disruption. That is regrettable but all I can say is that the picture painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not representative of the whole of the NHS. She is right; there are difficulties. However, we are very confident that they can be resolved in short order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me whether the Secretary of State believes that this amendment makes a difference. Yes, he does because he recognised that this House perceived a lack of clarity in the Bill. He welcomes the fact that this situation has been resolved by means of consensus. Therefore, I reassure her on that point. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so supportively in favour of this amendment, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, whose work, along with that of her committee, proved so indispensable to the consensus to which I have just referred. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Owen, for all that he said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his contribution not just today but in his role of chairing the all-Peer seminars that brought us to this conclusion. I thank my noble friends Lord Newton and Lord Mawhinney and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their wise and generous observations; and, indeed, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, once again. I commend the amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 255A. Both amendments relate to quality standards.
The Government must ensure that the newly structured NHS delivers high-quality care to all patients across England. The much disputed reforms must not create a situation that amplifies the differences in quality of care that patients receive in different parts of the country—that is to say, an amplified postcode lottery would be intolerable. Clear national guidelines, such as the quality standards being produced by NICE, are urgently needed to define the quality of care that local authorities and clinical commissioning groups should achieve.
However, the delayed development of NICE quality standards for prostate cancer, as well as recent decisions not to recommend new treatments for men at the end stages of the disease, threaten to leave prostate cancer behind and increase the variation in the quality of care that men receive across the country. Historically, men with prostate cancer have suffered from a legacy of neglect. Although recent improvements have been made in the quality of care that men receive, this progress is at risk, and that is unacceptable. Patients should receive the same high-quality care regardless of where they live. I am, as ever, grateful to the excellent Prostate Cancer Charity for its help and support.
The Bill presents an opportunity for NICE to establish national quality standards that set out the quality of care that patients should receive across England. Having these standards in place for prostate cancer and other conditions will ensure that clinical commissioning groups and cancer networks will be able to benchmark the services that they commission and evaluate the quality of care that they provide. The standards will also help local authorities to scrutinise health services effectively and allow patients to check that they are receiving higher quality care. The quality standard for prostate cancer was prioritised for development in 2011 in the Government’s Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. However, this has been delayed by NICE and the quality standard for prostate cancer will now not be published until the end of 2013 at the earliest. I am extremely concerned that development of quality standards is already being delayed for priority areas, and this could be an indication of future delay and barriers to driving up the quality of care within the new NHS.
When guidelines on prostate cancer care have been delayed in the past, it has led to men with prostate cancer reporting a significantly worse experience of care than men with other common cancers. We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes, particularly in the light of the new localised approach to healthcare set out in the Bill. The Minister’s response to my amendment in Committee was disappointing, given that he said it will take five years to develop the full set of quality standards. While the six months suggested in that amendment is a tight timescale, five years is too long to wait for these crucial benchmarks of quality care.
This amendment to Clause 2—which outlines the Secretary of State’s duty to improve the quality of services—would require him to report annually on the progress towards the development of quality standards. This would help. It is not an onerous requirement and would help ensure that the standards are prioritised and that Parliament could scrutinise their progress. Quality standards are meant to be patient-facing documents and an amendment to Clause 233 that would require the NHS Commissioning Board and/or the Department of Health to maintain a publicly available information source of each quality standard would also help. This would allow patients and professionals to see real-time information and scrutinise the progress of these important standards. I beg to move.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Yesterday, I went to a meeting on prostate cancer, a disease that 10,000 people a year die from unnecessarily because of late diagnosis. I should like to tell noble Lords a small story about a friend of mine. He went three times to his local surgery in north Yorkshire and was sent away. His son was worried because there were symptoms, so he took him down here to London. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer straight away in a private clinic, but it had gone through to his bones because of late diagnosis. The treatment is much more expensive, so if only there was a standard throughout the country. Therefore, this is a very important amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, I also support the amendment on prostate cancer, which is a very important area. However, I wish to support the government amendments in this group—Amendments 68, 112 and 144, to which my name is also attached. These amendments all relate to reducing health inequalities and, in a nutshell, create a new duty on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and the clinical commissioning groups to report annually on their progress in tackling health inequalities.
As this is Report stage I will not rehearse the stark statistics on life expectancy that we heard during earlier stages of the Bill. We also heard compelling accounts of what needs to happen to improve health outcomes for those particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups whose patterns of usage of the health service often take a different form from those of other sections of the population. These groups include the homeless, those with mental health problems and others whom we heard about earlier.
As I recognised in Committee, the explicit duties on health inequalities which the original version of the Bill placed for the first time on the Secretary of State, Commissioning Board and CCGs were landmark duties. They certainly represented a major shift from the current position. However, as a number of noble Lords, me included, argued in Committee, those duties did not go far enough, and we called for their strengthening, particularly so that CCGs and other parts of the structure would be required not simply to “have regard” to the need to reduce health inequalities but to act to secure real improvements in terms of access to health services as well as outcomes. It is also critical that those bodies should account publicly for their progress in so doing.
I thank very much my noble friend the Minister for listening and acting. The nub of these amendments is that they shine a clear spotlight on health inequalities by introducing real transparency and accountability at national and local levels. I very much hope that the amendments will be instrumental in changing the culture so that things such as sharing good practice in tackling health inequalities become a key part of workforce training and very much part of the currency of everyday language in the NHS.
These amendments have the potential to make a reality of the words in the public health White Paper that spoke of,
“improving the health of the poorest, fastest”.
It is for those reasons that I support these amendments, and I thank the Minister for tabling them.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group because I believe that it is important that we look at the mechanisms that will be embedded in the Bill, assuming that it eventually receives Royal Assent in some form, and that will in practice drive change in the direction that we all want. That includes improving the quality of the care offered, and it means addressing the issues of health inequality to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred.
One of the omissions from the Bill is that, apart from placing some general duties on the various bits of the NHS, there is very little about demonstrating how those duties will then be exercised or creating a mechanism for assessing that. The amendment, which talks about reporting annually to Parliament on the progress made, seems an essential first step in making sure that that happens.
The reports on inequalities will be increasingly important in this area. However, Amendment 112, dealing with CCGs’ annual reports on how they have discharged their duty to reduce inequalities, raises another question, and this comes back to the issue of what will be the catchment areas of individual CCGs. Unless there is far more central direction than I have understood—and perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that—it seems likely that there will be, to use an unpleasant term, ghettoisation in some CCGs.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I support all the amendments. I am glad to read the government amendments, which will obviously be accepted across the House, but the other amendments are also important. I draw attention to one aspect. I do not understand how we can expect GPs to do it all. We are expecting them to lead on commissioning. I have been asking about that extensively and have had conversations with the Royal College of General Practitioners but have not been able to find a clear example where general practitioners have led commissioning across a comprehensive range of services for some time and that has been demonstrated to be successful. I would be very grateful to hear that I am completely wrong; that would be reassuring to know; but I am worried.
As I said earlier, patients present completely undifferentiated to general practitioners. The diagnostic burden on GPs to get it right is huge, because they are the point of entry. They are either the gatekeeper or the gate opener. Their role should be the gate opener, and there are real conflicts if they are charged with being the gatekeeper at the same time. Unless the diagnosis is accurate, everything that follows fails. I am concerned that the inequalities and range of standards to date will not be improved by the increased workload burden on general practitioners. I wonder if that, in part, is behind some of the objections emerging from GPs who have previously been quiet about the Bill, because they are becoming frightened that they cannot fulfil their clinical duty as well as their managerial commissioning duty.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the government amendments on health inequalities are welcome. I take this opportunity to ask the noble Earl about clinical commissioning groups. Has he given further consideration to the links between health and well-being boards and clinical commissioning groups? He will recall the debate in Committee, when what I thought was a persuasive argument was made that to ensure that the links between clinical commissioning groups and local authorities taking on public health responsibilities were as strong as possible, it would be a good idea if a local authority nominee from the principal local authority served on the board of the clinical commissioning group.
My noble friend Lord Harris suggests in his comments about population coverage by clinical commissioning groups that there will be a grammar school-type impact, a creaming off of patients by some clinical commissioning groups so that the remainder will be left in other clinical commissioning groups. There will be areas of a city or locality where the health inequalities and morbidity and fatality ratios will cause a great deal of concern. It would be good to hear some assessment of that from the noble Earl. We have seen mapping of clinical commissioning groups in different parts of the country and they look weird and wonderful. They are not aligned to electoral wards and it will be very difficult to plan sensible provision of services because there is no geographical alignment.
I also ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to follow on from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We hear very little about primary care performance in our debate, but when I think back to the original speeches made by Mr Lansley, the whole purpose of the reforms is about GP performance. The argument is that GPs are responsible for most expenditure through referrals or prescribing, and that if you give them the budget, they will therefore be much more responsible in their behaviour. We have yet to be told how a clinical commissioning group will influence the behaviour of GPs within it. I know that that is a concern among the leaders of clinical commissioning groups.
If, for example, a clinical commissioning group has reached an agreement with providers, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, on a shared risk approach to demand management—which I hope will be the outcome of most of these agreements—what on earth do you do if some GPs do not exercise responsibility over their referral or prescribing performance? We know that the variation in quality among GPs is very wide. What are the levers that will bring poorly performing GPs to the table? The leverage that clinical commissioning groups have is very limited. On balance, I think it would have been better if they had had the contracts of GPs. I know that there is an issue about Chinese walls and conflicts of interest, but the fact is that the contracts of GPs will be with the branch office of the national Commissioning Board. Therefore, the levers that the clinical commissioning groups have are likely to be very limited.
Then we come to the issue of, for example, prostate cancer. I very much agree with and support my noble friend Lady Royall on the need for quality standards and I hope that NICE will get a move on in relation to this. However, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, underpinning an argument about prostate cancer is the question of how you make such a standard work at the local level. If there is to be a quality standard, I doubt very much whether it will simply be confined to what an NHS hospital, a clinical commissioning group or a GP is expected to do. The quality standard will look at an integrated approach at the local level which will straddle various features of the architecture of the NHS locally. It might even have some regional aspects too where an input needs to be made.
Therefore, the question is: who on earth at the local level is supposed to sign that off? Who is going to take the leadership role? The clinical commissioning groups will be far too small to do that within a locality, so either they will come together and agree a strategy that will cover a sufficiently large population or, as I suspect, the national Commissioning Board will have to do it itself. I think that we will come on to these debates when we deal with the role of the national Commissioning Board. We have all been highly entertained by the paper produced by Sir David Nicholson showing the less bureaucratic approach that the Government have adopted in relation to the health service with the various layers of bureaucracy that are being brought in. However, I am still left completely clueless about who at that sub-regional level, where so many critical decisions have to be made, is going to take responsibility. We know that in relation to prostate cancer much more needs to be done.
The noble Earl will remember the debates that we had on prostate cancer 10 years ago. He will remember the controversy over testing and how noble Lords were very keen to put their point of view across. That has rather gone away and I think that it has been replaced by a much more informed debate about a cancer on which we know we could do very much more and on which we know there has to be education in the public domain.
I very much support my noble friend in what she is seeking to do but it also raises the issue that the noble Earl’s amendments touch on—that is, the architecture surrounding how a quality standard is implemented in the future, assuming that NICE is able to produce that standard as quickly as possible.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for some very valuable contributions to this debate, which has ranged quite widely. I think that the first thing we can all do is agree on the importance of reducing health inequalities and developing NICE quality standards, which was where we began with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. She is right that the Bill presents a major opportunity to drive up quality in the NHS, not least through the development of NICE quality standards.
The noble Baroness expressed her concern about the time that it is likely to take for this library of quality standards to be rolled out. I completely understand her desire to have NICE working quickly and effectively in producing quality standards. Against that, I simply say that we have to balance the need for speed with the need to produce standards of a high quality. We have already set NICE a challenging programme to produce the quality standards and we have to recognise that, if it is to do the job well, it cannot be done in a hurry.
However, we continue to believe that the programme is ideally placed to deliver a steady stream of quality standards over the agreed timescales. That will lead to a comprehensive library of quality standards, to which she referred, within five years. Of course, I understand that that timescale is disappointing. However, I simply say that, while the quality standard for prostate cancer, in particular, is clearly important, there are many things that we can do, and are doing, to improve the care of cancer patients in the NHS, and we have recently debated some of those in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I just want to make sure that I understand the point that the Minister is making. Let us compare two localities in London. I mentioned Tottenham, so compare that with, say, the residents of Totteridge. They are very different socioeconomic groupings with very different health outcomes. What is the mechanism for addressing health inequalities between Tottenham and Totteridge? Who will be responsible for addressing inequalities between areas that are just a few miles apart but which have very different characteristics and very different social outcomes? The health and well-being boards are borough-based. Tottenham is in the London Borough of Haringey and Totteridge is in the London Borough of Barnet—neighbouring boroughs that are very different in composition. What will be the overarching structure that addresses those inequalities?
Earl Howe
Localism lies at the heart of our approach to these issues. Although I have no doubt that conversations and comparative analyses will take place between different health and well-being boards and different local authorities, in the end it is the responsibility of health and well-being boards to look to their catchments. As I said, the outcomes that are published, both in terms of the NHS performance and public health and social care, will in themselves incentivise improvement, if the local authority and the health and well-being board work together as they should. This is a joint enterprise between public health, social care and the NHS.
We shall no doubt experience the effect of comparative work between local authorities once the early implementer groups have bedded down and begun their work. Both the board, however, and the Secretary of State will have duties in relation to inequalities. They overarch everything that happens and I suggest that that will ensure that a system-wide and strategic approach is taken, for example, through setting objectives in the board’s mandate in relation to inequalities. These could feed down very easily to CCGs through commissioning guidance issued by the board. I hope that that gives the noble Lord a summary, or at least a flavour, of how we envisage this working.
Lord Harris of Haringey
May I just clarify? Will there be nothing between the board at national level? Will it look right across the country and say, “We will address these inequalities”? Will there be nothing, for example, at the London level, to address inequalities between different parts of London or will it simply be driven nationally? That is a recipe for not necessarily making the best decisions in particular areas.
Earl Howe
The noble Lord will know, because the NHS Commissioning Board authority has published its proposals, that the board will be represented sectorally. There will be field forces in all parts of the country. My vision of this, and that of Sir David Nicholson is that in the areas in which the board operates it will take a view across a region and look at how outcomes vary between local authority areas. The board will be very powerfully placed to influence the kinds of inequalities that the noble Lord has spoken of. It is important for noble Lords to understand that the board will not be a collection of people sitting in Leeds. The majority of its staff will be a field force. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Rea
Does the noble Lord accept that to smooth out inequalities costs money? Therefore, the CCG in Tottenham should get more per capita than the CCG in Totteridge. At the moment allocation is made according to an index that takes deprivation into account to some extent, but not enough. How will that be administered under the new system?
Earl Howe
The advisory committee for resource allocation which exists at the moment will advise on the allocation of resources according to a very detailed formula. That applies to the NHS and public health. There will be a separate ring-fenced budget that specifically takes account of deprivation. That budget will be held by Public Health England and passed down to local authorities to use at a local level. We are very clear that deprivation and health inequalities must be reflected in terms of the budgets that CCGs and local authorities receive. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord on that point.
Government Amendments 68, 112 and 144 set out a requirement for the Secretary of State, the board and CCGs to report annually on their work to reduce health inequalities. We had a great deal of helpful and interesting discussion on reducing health inequalities in Committee and as a result of those discussions, we felt that it was important to bring forward three amendments on the reporting requirements. Amendment 144 requires the Secretary of State to include in his annual report an assessment of how effectively he has carried out these duties, meaning that Parliament will hold him to account. I have tabled parallel government Amendments 68 and 112, which require the commissioning board and CCGs to report on how effectively they have fulfilled their inequality duties. We believe that this will ensure that our objectives to reduce health inequalities and improve quality of care are embedded throughout the system from top to bottom. I hope that noble Lords can support those amendments when I move them.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
I wonder whether the Minister could clarify something for me. I very much support the line of argument around the amendments. However, I am interested to know whether, if the Secretary of State has a duty to report back on the exercise of these duties, does that say anything about the importance of reporting on his other duties? Is a hierarchy being created? That is a point for clarification.
Earl Howe
There is no hierarchy but the Secretary of State will be bound to report to Parliament and, in doing so, he must show that he has exercised his functions in a way that fulfil his statutory duties under the Bill. Parliament will no doubt hold him to account for having done so. He must demonstrate across the piece that he has had regard to those duties.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his reply, and for the support for my amendments around the Chamber. I have a couple of comments. First, in terms of quality standards, like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I wonder about a GP’s ability to fulfil his duties both as a clinician and a commissioner. Currently GPs often find diagnosis quite difficult and I am concerned about them having to commission as well as diagnose. If they do not fulfil their tasks as both clinicians and commissioners, the patients will suffer.
My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Harris asked who takes the leadership and responsibility for ensuring that quality standards are adhered to when they are brought forward by NICE. The Minister said that localism is one of the answers. I find that a frightening prospect rather than a reassuring one. I think it is a recipe for chaos rather than quality, but perhaps that is a personal view.
I pay huge tribute to NICE, which I think does excellent work, but I recognise that it is very stretched. It has immense burdens and responsibilities. I hope that this very short but excellent debate will be a catalyst for swifter action in terms of quality standards, but I recognise that there is always a balance to be struck between quality and speed. However, in five years, an awful lot of people can die while waiting for quality standards. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Gaza
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what arrangements they have in place to monitor the impact on humanitarian aid for the population of Gaza of the blockade by the Government of Israel; and what representations they have made to the Government of Israel about the blockade.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have extraordinarily tight timing for the dinner-hour debate. I remind noble Lords that when the figure “2” appears on the clock, that is the end of their time for a two-minute speech. I am told that the European Parliament has entire debates where everyone makes two-minute interventions, but I am sure the House of Lords can do better than that.
Lord Warner
My Lords, it gives me no pleasure this evening to be raising the issue of Israel’s blockade of Gaza and its consequences for the 1.7 million Palestinians who live there, 50 per cent of whom are children. Three years ago, the Israeli military was conducting Operation Cast Lead that took the lives of over 1,000 Palestinians, razed whole neighbourhoods to the ground in East Gaza and destroyed many Palestinian factories. I have seen at first hand the devastation caused by that operation and heard locals’ accounts of the military behaviour towards unarmed civilians on my two visits to Gaza. Since Cast Lead, Israel has occupied Gaza’s territorial waters, leaving only three nautical miles for Palestinian fishermen, although the Oslo agreement provided for 18 nautical miles. Fishermen who approach the boundary are liable to be shot, detained or sprayed. Israel has also created a military buffer zone on Gaza’s northern and eastern borders which it is estimated has confiscated 30 per cent of Gaza’s arable farming land. People are regularly shot at and sometimes killed in this buffer zone. Israel has addressed its security concerns by confiscating Gaza territory rather than use its own land in order to create the buffer zone.
Israel has seriously restricted the flow of goods and people in and out of Gaza. According to UN figures, during the first two years of the blockade, 112 containers on average entered Gaza from Israel daily, compared with 583 before the siege. Even after Israel said it had eased the siege in May 2010, the daily number rose to only about 150. Apart from the Rafah crossing from Egypt, where the Egyptian military has effectively imposed its own controls, as I have experienced twice, Israel controls all other border crossings. I am informed that Kerem Shalom is now the only functioning crossing point and that the Israelis have started to demolish Kami, which previously had the largest capacity. This may encourage more materials and goods coming through the illicit and primitive tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, which I have also seen in operation. These tunnels regularly collapse and kill people. It is estimated that about 250 adults and something over 50 children have been killed or seriously injured in the tunnels.
Israel has imposed a tightening blockade on Gaza that has effectively created the largest open-air prison in the world and represents a collective punishment of Gaza’s civilians. My understanding is that this is in direct violation of Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention, but perhaps the Minister can confirm that and say whether he disagrees with any of the facts I have given so far. I would also welcome any light he can throw on the current situation on Israel-Gaza crossings and on whether there have been any improvements in the flows through Rafah since I went through there last July.
What has all this meant economically and socially? A flourishing fishing industry has been brought to its knees, and farming has been unnecessarily restricted. After destroying some 1,300 Palestinian factories, Israel now prevents the import of machinery and raw materials to enable the Palestinians to rebuild their manufacturing capability, particularly in textiles and furniture in which they specialised. Businessmen have spoken to me about the difficulties of establishing the banking services that would support an export trade. An industrial sector that used to account for 40 per cent of national income in Gaza now employs about 15,000 people.
Gaza’s infrastructure is falling apart. Rebuilding the homes, schools and other public buildings destroyed by the Israeli military is seriously curtailed by Israeli restrictions on the importation of cement, steel and other building materials. Governments and private donors see their aid efforts frustrated by these restrictions. Gaza’s water, sewage and healthcare systems are on the verge of collapse. Only some 5 per cent of the water coming out of Gaza’s taps is fit to drink. Sea water is filling the gaps in the Gaza aquifer and could soon wreck it. Waste water projects are being delayed, so huge amounts of sewage have to be pumped into the Mediterranean Sea. Lack of fuel means that eight to 12-hour blackouts are common. Nitrate levels in water are rising dangerously and are said to be causing an increase in cancers. Gastroenteritis is now a way of life for Gaza’s children, 70 per cent of whom are said to be anaemic.
A visit to Gaza’s 650-bed main hospital is deeply depressing. It reveals crumbling and unfinished buildings, poor equipment and doctors who have run out of surgical sutures, gloves and disposables. Surgery, including heart operations, is interrupted by power cuts and the lack of fuel for emergency generators. Doctors have told me that about 500 patients have died unnecessarily in recent years from lack of medication, including many children. On my visit last July, I saw people to whom this would happen, including children with sickle cell anaemia. On that visit, the Gazan Minister of Health estimated that the hospital regularly lacks 150 to 200 basic drugs, including things as simple as paracetamol. The latest figures I have been given are that Gaza’s hospitals are at “zero stock levels” for 178 of 480 essential drugs, with another 69 at low stocks. Not all these problems in Gaza’s healthcare system can be laid at the door of differences between Ramallah and Gaza, regrettable though they are.
In 2000, only about 10 per cent of the population was dependent on humanitarian aid. Now it is about 75 per cent. Over half the households face food insecurity defined as inadequate physical, social or economic access to food. Since the blockade, the number of Palestinians living in abject poverty has tripled to 300,000, and I know from having seen some of those households, that it really is abject poverty. The unemployment estimates vary from about 25 per cent to 35 per cent for the whole population and rise to somewhere between 40 per cent and 60 per cent for young people, but the aid dependency figures that I have just given suggest that the higher estimates may be nearer the mark. UNRWA has done and continues to do a fantastic job, but it is now struggling to secure the resources needed from donor countries.
I have set out these data to give a picture of what Gazans face day in, day out. Half the population are children who have done nothing to justify this treatment by Israel, whatever their genuine security concerns. As the Israeli columnist Gideon Levy said,
“this time we went too far”.
I carry no torch for Hamas but it did win a fair and democratic election in 2006. It also looks as though Fatah and Hamas may have reached agreement in recent discussions in Qatar on a unity Government. Does the Minister not think that the time has come for the international community to take a more robust stance with Israel over its conduct in Gaza? Its behaviour is self-defeating. Young Gazans are growing up with no hope. Why should they not turn to the extremist elements in Hamas for their role models, to match Israel’s own extremism? What further action are the Government prepared to take with international partners to get the Israelis to change course and how much worse do things have to get in Gaza before the international community acts decisively?
In his speech to the European Court of Justice on 25 January, the Prime Minister said that he supports,
“the spirit of freedom … across the Arab world”.
Gaza is part of that world, so what tangible and effective support can it expect from the UK and its EU partners while the United States seems self-preoccupied and unwilling to focus on Palestine?
Lord Trimble
My Lords, I was attached as an international observer to the Israeli Turkel commission, which considered the “Mavi Marmara” flotilla incident. The House of Lords Library note on this debate omits reference to the Turkel commission, but it mentions the Palmer panel, which considered the Israeli and Turkish investigations for the UN. Palmer said:
“Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was ... a legitimate security measure ... and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law”.
Palmer says the flotilla “acted recklessly” and that there are,
“serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organisers”.
Israel was entitled to stop the flotilla, but Palmer is right to criticise the plan. However, he is on weaker ground in criticising the use of force by the IDF. In an annexe, we examined each use of force by IDF personnel and found them prima facie justified, except for a handful of cases where there was insufficient material. Unfortunately the annexe was classified. It should be published.
The blockade was an extension of the land crossings policy to prevent military supplies entering Gaza, and wages indirect economic warfare, limiting Hamas’s ability to attack Israel. This affects the civil population but is legitimate unless it causes a humanitarian crisis. We spent 40 pages examining this. I will give noble Lords a few quotes:
“The Gaza Strip Economic Committee (a representation of the Palestinian Authority) ... receives requests from private market forces and importers in Gaza ... Ordering the goods and determining priorities between the parties requesting the entry of goods is done by representatives of the Palestinian Authority”.
Lists of goods are then delivered to the Israeli authorities.
“Between the various requests, the order of priorities for entry is as follows: (1) medical supplies and medicine; (2) requests by international organisations ... (3) agricultural materials; (4) the balance of supply capacity for the private market … No evidence was presented before the committee to the effect that Israel prevents the passage of medical supplies apart from those ... prohibited for security reasons … when the relevant Israeli authorities are notified of a shortage of any medical supplies, there is an organised system for replenishing those supplies … there is no quota limiting the amounts of foods that are allowed to enter the Gaza Strip”.
Strictly speaking, there is no humanitarian crisis.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I do not think I need to argue at length that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is unlawful because it violates Israel’s general obligations as an occupying power; that it is unethical because it is causing immense hardship to a large number of people, including ordinary civilians, and amounts to collective punishment; and that it is counterproductive because it only builds up hatred and animosity and damages the long-term interest of Israel. Therefore, Israel needs to be thinking more in terms of generosity and better understanding of the aspirations of the people of Gaza. There are large numbers of people in Israel who are already thinking along those lines.
We think in terms of putting pressure on Governments. My own experience of India’s policy in Kashmir, to which I was strongly opposed, convinces me that no Government can put pressure on another Government. There are limits to what any Government can do. Therefore, I have more or less completely given up on our own Government, the quartet or the international community putting pressure on Israel. Even if they did—I do not think they will, but even if they did—I do not think they have much chance of success. They would simply force the Israeli Government to become more intransigent and more uncompromising.
Ultimately, the pressure has to come from within the country itself and from those of us outside who wish Israel well and whose record of standing up for it from time to time is beyond reproach. Therefore, it is the friends of Israel abroad, outside, who ought to be persuading the Government of Israel that this is not the way to go, trying to make representations, and through newspaper articles and in other ways making it clear to the public opinion here and in Israel that this is not the way to go.
Once again taking the Indian treatment of Kashmir as a guide, ultimately the pressure came from Indians settled abroad. In the same way, in the case of Israel, ultimately it is not only those of us who are well disposed to Israel but the great Jewish community, with its enormously impressive record of fighting against all forms of injustice, which will have to make its voice more loudly heard than seems to have been the case so far.
Lord Bew
My Lords, first, will the Minister confirm in his reply that it is now the view of Her Majesty’s Government that there is not a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? That was the view stated in the other place last summer, confirming the view expressed at a high level within the Red Cross in Gaza just a few weeks before the Statement in the House of Commons. Of course, there is a case for continuing humanitarian aid to be delivered to Gaza, which the Government support and indeed I strongly support.
This is the second time today we have discussed Israeli-Palestinian relations in this House, and we will have an opportunity to discuss them again tomorrow afternoon. As chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association, in principle I can only welcome this interest in the region. None the less, as is so often said in this House, there is an issue in the Middle East about proportionality and, quite rightly, I have heard many Members of your Lordships’ House raise issues about the proportionate nature of Israel’s response. However, to be proportional is also a requirement on this House. Since 2009 there have been 200 Questions asked about Israel, predominantly critical; not one in which the lead Question even mentions Hamas or displays any curiosity about Hamas, still less about the role of Iran in the region.
Those of us who support strongly a two-state solution think it is essential to engage with mainstream Israeli attitudes and opinions, not to be too focused on this or that particular personality at a high level in the Israeli state. The difficulty here is that the House is in danger of becoming essentially an echo chamber on this matter, and not doing what we need to do, which is to face up to where mainstream Israeli opinion is and to look at the dilemmas that Israel faces in the struggle to bring about a settlement in the Middle East.
Lord Patten
My Lords, while I certainly do not assert that I see no blockades, I certainly see some facts. In 2011, Israel issued 3,893 medical permits for Gazan children to go to be treated in the West Bank or Israel itself, according to parental choice. On aid and trade, 2012 opened with more than 85,000 tonnes of civilian goods being delivered to Gaza through the Kerem Shalom crossing between 1 and 9 January alone. On average, about 47,000 tonnes are delivered each week, with horticultural and agricultural goods of high quality such as flowers, strawberries and tomatoes going in the other direction—and that is good.
Civilian goods do flow but they flow in parallel with a real blockade against arms, munitions and some dual-use materials that can be misused, exactly the kind of blockade we would be employing to protect the United Kingdom if we suffered persistent attack from some near neighbours—I guess.
Gaza is experiencing poverty and needs much help. However, those needs are best addressed by the international community working with Israel to better meet those ends while at the same time explicitly and publicly appreciating what seem to me at least to be Israel’s somewhat understandable security needs in the region. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government agree with this and I equally hope that my noble friend will make that clear at least in his response to this debate.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I welcome the improvement in access to Gaza to provide humanitarian aid. However, the facts are clear: the people of Gaza are suffering greatly because of the blockade and have to fall back on humanitarian aid, rather than providing for themselves and their families through normal economic activity. In other words, a vicious circle is at work here. The people of Gaza are unable to obtain building materials to repair and maintain their homes, or to reconstruct the seriously damaged infrastructure. They are unable either to import or export enough goods to sustain anything like a normal economic life. As a result, unemployment is greatly increased. Around half of young people are out of work.
My noble friend Lord Warner mentioned fishing. Some 85 per cent of fishing waters, which are an important source of food in Gaza, are inaccessible as a result of the blockade. Such fishing as there is takes place in polluted waters as a result of a deteriorating waste infrastructure. In turn, that has a serious effect on health, including the health of children. Existing treatment plants are inadequate, so large amounts of sewage are discharged into the sea. Nearly one-third of houses are not connected to the sewage network and have to rely on totally inadequate cesspits.
This environment can lead only to an embittered people and, in particular, to large numbers of embittered young men who are denied some of the most basic requirements for human needs. It cannot be conducive to the long-term security of the Israeli people, which I and many others in this House of course want to see, to force these appalling conditions on the Palestinians of Gaza. I ask the Minister in his reply to say what Her Majesty’s Government are doing—of course, working with Israel and the international community—to seek a change in this policy so that vital improvements to the infrastructure, which continues to deteriorate, can be secured.
Baroness Morris of Bolton
My Lords, I never know quite where to start with the plight of the remarkable people of Gaza, except to say that my visit there in 2010 made a profound impact on me. I declare an interest as president of Medical Aid for Palestinians and other interests as set out in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for this debate.
I well remember visiting an UNWRA food distribution centre. Queuing for their quarterly ration of basic goods were proud men, women and children. Among those to whom we spoke were graduates, skilled people and many who had run small businesses. They were not queuing because there had been a famine, a flood or an earthquake. There had been no natural disaster. They queued because they belonged to around 800,000 people in a population of some 1.7 million, of which more than half were children, who depend on the international community for food aid.
The collective punishment of the blockade means that people cannot lead the sort of economic lives, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, that most of us take for granted. Eight out of 10 men, women and children now rely on some form of international assistance.
The powerlessness of the Palestinians in Gaza to work, manufacture, import, export and travel freely is a shocking waste of human ability. We should be spending our hard-earned tax money on human development and not on subsistence for people who are clever, well skilled and entrepreneurial, and who have so much to offer to the world. Add to that the long-term issue of critically low medicines and medical supplies, the worsening situations around power cuts and voltage fluctuations, which disrupt life-saving equipment, and you can only marvel at the amazing resilience of the Palestinians.
I do not know one person who does not wish to see a secure Israel but the effective siege and occupation of the Palestinian people is no way to achieve it. A young woman from Gaza whom I recently had the pleasure of meeting said to me, “All we want is to be able to play our part as global citizens”. I hope that that day is not too far away but in the mean time I hope that we will do all that we can to ensure the decent and fair treatment of Gaza’s people.
Lord Ahmed
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Warner for providing this opportunity, even though we have only 120 seconds. The right honourable David Miliband, the former Foreign Secretary, wrote recently that,
“Gaza has become the land that time—and the wider international community—forgot”.
I do not want to mention the UNRWA figures of high unemployment and poverty. My noble friend has already mentioned the 300,000 people who live on less than $1 a day. While Israel put forward proposals to ease the blockade, it was estimated that only two trucks per day were allowed to leave Gaza between November 2010 and May 2011, which was nowhere near Israel’s commitment of nearly 400 trucks per day. It was worse still between May and November 2011 when no trucks left the Gaza Strip to export any goods from the territory.
The crux of the matter is that, while we can hope for the prosperity and peace of the Palestinian people, this will remain an impossible target if the blockade continues to imprison the Gazan population. The UK Government pledged £26.8 million after Operation Cast Lead; yet three years later there has been little improvement in the lives of the Gazan people who struggle to find employment, rebuild their houses and export their goods. Simple day-to-day tasks, such as the quality of schooling, remain impossible and the population is still reliant on the UN for so many of its needs. However, these problems can be alleviated if the illegal blockade is removed and people could develop naturally into prosperous partners in the Middle East. Without its removal the blockade will continue to ensure that all life is suffocated out of the territory and its inhabitants.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, this Question for Short Debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is like many questions and referenda. It is significant not only for what he asks but for what he does not ask and for the way in which the question is phrased—rather like the First Minister of Scotland’s suggested referendum question. The question seeks to put any blame on the state of Israel. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will also address the real sufferings of the peoples of Gaza because of the policies and belligerence of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Israel’s actions are a reaction to a real threat to Israel’s security by groups in Gaza which deny Israel’s right to exist and threaten the lives of Israeli citizens—Jew and non-Jew alike—on a daily basis. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza six years ago, withdrawing and removing from Gaza every single Israeli settler, terrorists have fired more than 7,000 rockets and mortars into Israel. Almost 1 million Israeli citizens are under threat from Quassam rockets, Grad rockets and mortars, which terrorise cities, schools and hospitals.
Do not get me wrong: there is suffering and deprivation in Gaza. But it is wrong to blame only Israel. The problem is not only of Israel’s making, as suggested by the Question of the debate. The people of Gaza suffer—and they do suffer—because of the belligerence and extremism of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. These organisations are not only anti-Israel; up until now they have also been anti-Fatah and anti the Palestinian Authority. When Hamas took control, they murdered and injured supporters of Fatah. So we look with interest at the agreement this week of a unity government, which could not even find a prime minister as well as a president. It is against this background that a large part of the problems exist.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, after the tragic death of eight Turkish humanitarian workers in 2010 our Prime Minister David Cameron said in Ankara that the situation in Gaza has to change and that humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. He further commented that Gaza must not be allowed to remain a prison camp. Yet nearly two years later, there still remain crude restrictions to the flow of humanitarian goods and people. Gaza experiences chronic shortages and innocent women and children are suffering. For example, Al-Shifa hospital lacks basic medicines and essentials such as baby milk.
Last month, the United Nations submitted its annual report on the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories. The report describes the continuing desperation, including chronic food insecurity, isolation, and failing health and education services, all directly linked to the ongoing blockade imposed by Israel. The report states that the blockade amounts to collective punishment of the population and affects every aspect of life in the Gaza Strip. The blockade has not prevented attacks against Israel; its only success is in creating a stark reminder of the impotence of the international community.
It is time for the UK to take a lead in developing a clear and open strategy for the lifting of the blockade of Gaza. We cannot continue to believe ourselves to be a just and moral actor in the international arena until we play a role in helping to arrive at a settlement to the Palestinian issues. The rival factions Hamas and Fatah have now agreed to form a new unity government in West Bank and Gaza, which I believe will help to achieve a peaceful settlement. Israel is a mighty military power, but it must now be magnanimous and arrive at a two-state solution whereby it has a guarantee of security and nationhood, but in return it must ensure that Arabs are fairly treated and have full independence.
Lord Turnberg
My Lords, I fear that this debate has too readily become polarised and has clearly depended on what sources of information you rely on to form your views. However, there is little doubt that the Palestinians in Gaza are under considerable stress and the dilemma for Israel is how it can help relieve that burden, so far as it is in its control, and at the same time prevent the terrorist activities of Hamas. Despite that background, over the past year Israel has in fact opened up its crossings to all but a limited number of items, and now over 30,000 tonnes of civilian goods are delivered every week; and while it is true that there is a shortage of drugs and medical supplies, the causes of that shortage are rather more complex.
I understand that the Ministry of Health in the West Bank has the task of distributing medical supplies to Gaza and that there is distrust and a disconnection between the two ministries of health in Ramallah and Gaza. Internal conflicts and poor communication seem to be at least part of the problem. Dr Nabil Bargouni, the director of the emergency room at Al-Nasser Hospital in Gaza City, has confirmed as much; and Tony Lawrence, head of the WHO in Jerusalem, has said:
“Israeli authorities are not blocking the entry of drugs and disposables into Gaza. They recognise these are priority items for humanitarian needs”.
Of course the results are the same and these shortages are devastating, but an Israeli blockade cannot always be made the culprit, and meanwhile sick children from Gaza flood into Israeli hospitals at over 700 a month, with very few permits being refused. When I visit Israeli hospitals I see a large number of Palestinian children with their parents in the wards; it is hard to miss them.
No one doubts that the citizens of Gaza are having a terrible time, but Israel cannot be held wholly responsible for this unhappy situation.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I have visited Gaza twice in recent years and there can be no doubt that health is now the top priority. This turns on supplies of water, food, drugs and medical equipment. Also, it is essential that Israel should never delay, turn back or arrest the sick so that they die before reaching hospital outside Gaza. We can say with confidence that the blockade of Gaza is an illegal collective punishment contrary to the fourth Geneva Convention, and in fact it is now being challenged by Turkey in the International Court of Justice.
Her Majesty’s Government have been pressing for an end to the closure since June 2010 under UN Security Council Resolution 1860. This is all the more necessary since the exchange of Corporal Shalit. When will the Government achieve what they are asking for? EU sanctions on Israel could surely speed up the process, and of course we recognise that a prosperous Gaza is in Israel’s real national interest.
Viscount Eccles
My Lords, I am sure that the key to the future lies in economic development because at the moment the level of such development in Gaza is very low. I am grateful to DfID for some statistics. In 2006, there were some 100,000 jobs in the private sector, but there are now 30,000. Exports of horticultural products have recommenced to Israel and the West Bank, but they are at a tenth of what they were in 2006. So the challenge is to redevelop the small business sector and export performance which Gaza has achieved in the past. If there is a longer-term future, perhaps it lies in a switch of development finance investment and aid investment by engaging multinational companies sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and acceptable in the region to set up subsidiaries in Gaza. That may be a dream, but it has been done many times before. The people of Gaza have the skills and the education to play their part and the finance is there. It only needs a switch from aid to development finance investment. The future could be positive, but it requires the cessation of both violence and the threat of violence from wherever it comes.
Lord Janner of Braunstone
My Lords, does this House recognise that Israel is the only long-standing democracy in the whole of the Middle East? In my view, it continues to play an important role in the international community. It is a bridge between Europe and the Middle East, and the instability of the region has always been a major problem for Israel. Last year, Israel’s Government continued to relax their restrictions on the Gaza Strip, and this has significantly improved the humanitarian situation there. Gaza’s economy has begun to grow and Israel continues to allow Gaza a greater availability of food, medicines, consumer goods and construction materials. Humanitarian support is vital to the suffering citizens of Gaza, and in July last year, Israel’s Government approved 13 new projects, including four new clinics and the restoration of five existing hospitals and clinics.
This House must remember that Egypt also has border controls on the Gaza Strip and only reopened its Rafah border crossing on 28 May last year, but there are hundreds of illegal smuggling tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border that the Hamas regime uses to rain terror over Israeli citizens. Until Hamas denounces terrorism, it must be treated as the supporter of such actions. Israel’s security must remain paramount, and it cannot and should not be expected to put its citizens at risk.
Humanitarian aid is vital, and I acknowledge what other noble Lords have said. Some Members of this House will no doubt place all the blame on Israel. Indeed, some have already done so and some who will be speaking after me probably will do so too. That is an easy, unfair and simplistic view to take. We should continue to support the work of the quartet and other international organisations, but let me make it clear to this House: Israel does not target citizens, unlike Hamas, which sadly does target citizens in many parts of Israel.
Baroness Tonge
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, said that this debate was becoming polarised, and indeed it is. It is dividing between those who have been to Gaza, some of us several times, and those who have not and therefore have not seen for themselves what is going on. I would say to those noble Lords who complain about rockets “raining” down on Israel—in fact, there are very few at the moment—that if they want to stop those rockets, lift the siege of Gaza, stop the blockade and recognise the legitimately elected Government of the Palestinians, which includes Hamas.
Huge damage has been done to agricultural land in Gaza. Fifty thousand acres have been laid waste and what land is left is largely polluted and without irrigation. Even the food that it manages to produce cannot be exported in many cases to Israel or the West Bank. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, two trucks a day go out to the European Union; and $50,000 a year is being lost to the Gaza economy.
We have heard about the problems created by the fishing limits. Two fishermen were killed and 12 injured recently trying to catch food. Fish within the three-mile limit are poisoned and too small. Catching them wrecks their health and future stocks.
As a consequence of these actions by Israel and other effects of the blockade, Gaza is dependent on aid from the EU and our country. This country alone spends £86 million per year in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. It is morally right to help the people of Gaza, but it is morally wrong that we should have to do it as a result of the actions of the allegedly friendly and democratic state of Israel. We are subsidising the blockade and colluding with Israel in breaking international law. I hope that our Government are aware of this.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, there is a desperate need to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to ensure everlasting peace across the region.
On the plight of the civilian population in Gaza, I like other noble Lords welcome the easing of elements of the Israeli blockade in June 2010. It has resulted in some visible signs of recovery in Gaza, but is it enough? There remains a desperate need for the further easing of restrictions to movement and access for the sake of the Gazan economy but, more importantly, for its people.
However, achieving what is desired by the majority of citizens, be they Israeli or Palestinian, which is a permanent lasting and peaceful resolution, requires a courageous effort on both sides. I therefore call upon my noble friend the Minister to use his good offices to raise with President Abbas, in his new role as leader of the unity coalition across the West Bank and Gaza, the need to ask Hamas to lay down its weapons and acknowledge that peace can be achieved only if it recognises Israel’s right to exist as a nation. At the same time, I ask my noble friend to raise with the Israel Government the desperate need to raise blockades and restrictions, not just on the borders of Gaza but on the West Bank, to facilitate a fluid access of materials. The freezing of settlement-building also remains an important step forward in building bridges, both literally and in terms of political dialogue.
The easing of restrictions in Gaza has paid some dividends, as I have said. We are seeing hospitals being constructed and schools appearing, as well as a 50 per cent increase in employment, albeit from a low base. I have visited the West Bank and there is hope. It is on that that we should focus. When one sees towns emerging such as Rawabi, near Ramallah, one feels hope for a new dawn. Perhaps I may end with the words of Rabbi Menachem Mendel, who said of the crisis:
“Our only way out is to learn compassion without cause. To care for each other simply because that ‘other’ exists”.
Lord Judd
My Lords, there is nothing much more fundamental to life than water. We have heard of the disastrous state of water supplies in Gaza, with only 10 per cent of the water coming from the Gaza coastal aquifer, the only source of fresh water in Gaza, being drinkable.
The Strategic Foresight Group pointed out in May 2011 that, at the current rate of depletion, the Gaza aquifer will become unusable by 2016 and damage will be irreversible by 2020. Against this, Israel has approved the entry of materials for only four water, sanitation and hygiene projects in Gaza, with a total value of $3.75 million. A further 13 projects, worth $74.5 million, which would benefit more than 1.4 million Palestinians, are still awaiting approval.
We also know of the damage being done to health, the impact on life expectancy and the disease affecting children. We also know of the stunting of education. We know of the catastrophic effects on production and on trade, and the consequences for employment.
We hear about the constant bombardments of Israel being carried out by elements in Gaza. These cannot be condoned, but every day there is ruthless aggression against the people of Gaza—that is the reality. How is that going to promote moderates in the Government of Gaza who will work constructively for peace? How does that help the people of Gaza to be self-confident? Aggression in any form is not acceptable, but we must recognise that we cannot be held to ransom by the repeated veto by the United States of anything effective which would help bring about a solution. We need to work very hard with our European partners in circumventing the intransigence of successive US Administrations.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, people outside this House may be puzzled at the fact that, as the latest example of appalling state violence in the Arab world continues in Syria, noble Lords are yet again debating criticisms of Israel. We do this with astonishing regularity; we do it even though Israel is one of the few countries in the world, and certainly the only country in the Middle East, which protects freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the rule of law and democracy for all its citizens.
These criticisms are made, as we have heard today from many noble Lords, simply without any recognition that Israel is a country whose enemies are seeking to bomb its civilians into oblivion. Such a country is entitled to defend itself by seeking to prevent, as Israel does, the transport of weapons.
A more relevant Question, if I may respectfully say so, than that posed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would be to ask the Minister whether he will make representations not to the Government of Israel but to the leaders of the unfortunate Palestinian people living in Gaza. Will the Minister say to those leaders that it is time for them to abandon the futile attempts to secure the destruction of Israel? Will he say to those leaders that it is time for them to focus on improving the education, the health and the prosperity of their people? Will he tell them that it is not Israel which is the obstacle to improving the living conditions of the people of Gaza?
Lord Triesman
My Lords, there is understandable, tangible concern about the blockade. Provision of only goods defined as,
“vital for the survival of the civilian population”,
was always too narrow to provide for a viable society and the needs of a normal life. It is difficult to build a democratic and sustainable society in those circumstances capable of fulfilling any kind of realistic role in a peace process.
The increased movement in recent months of goods and services in and out of Gaza is welcome, but I accept that it is not enough and there is a need for an accelerated programme for step change.
However, your Lordships should feel uncomfortable if that was all that was concluded tonight in relation to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Israel’s security cannot and will not be wished away on this basis. We know that food, fuel, construction materials, people, cash and even livestock were moved through the network of smuggling tunnels, but they were also the route taken by significant quantities of weapons, particularly many thousands of rockets. Those rockets are routinely fired into Israel. Candidly, neither this Government, the Israeli Government nor any Government could allow such assaults to continue without trying to deny the enemy access to those munitions. No population would ever tolerate having to shield their children or themselves night after night in air raid shelters.
It is of course tragic that preventing these attacks will never easily be focused on the people firing the weapons without there being an impact on the wider population, but I do not accept that taking steps represents a policy of collective punishment. I simply do not accept that that is a credible definition.
We require a balance of these decisive factors. First, a relaxation of the blockade and far greater sophistication in weapons interception is important if the quartet is to be successful. Secondly, every international pressure is needed to ensure that Hamas does not succeed in prosecuting violence against the people of Israel, whose right to a secure state Hamas denies. The peace process will only work if it reaches in both directions.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on promoting this important debate. As has been remarked on, this is the second time today that we have addressed the issue and we will address it again tomorrow. No one can accuse your Lordships of lack of focus or interest. I know that for many speakers it has been a rushed job but it is amazing what punch and wisdom can be put into two minutes. Many wise and effective points have been made—of course, not all of them agreeing with each other. I will make some points in a general context before coming on to details.
The Government agree that the restrictions on movements of goods and people, including access to agricultural and fishing areas, do tremendous damage to the economy and living standards of ordinary people in Gaza. As a result, industry in Gaza is currently a quarter of what it was before the restrictions and agriculture a half. We recognise and welcome the fact that the volume and range of goods entering Gaza has increased somewhat over the past year but much more still has to be done. In close co-ordination with our European partners and the Office of the Quartet Representative, we will continue to press the Israeli Government at ministerial and official levels to ease access restrictions. When I say we will continue to press them, we maintain an almost daily and continuous pressure and seek responses. In particular, we want an increase in imports of construction and raw materials, both for private sector and international projects; an increase in exports; a relaxation on movement of people, particularly between Gaza and the West Bank; and an extension of the fishing zone from three to 12 miles, which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and other noble Lords mentioned.
I make this quite clear to those noble Lords who made the point: we understand Israel’s legitimate security concerns over Gaza. One could not fail to understand the facts when one sees the amount of rocketry that continues. However, the current restrictions are ineffective in stopping the flow of illicit goods into Gaza. As was graphically described, these goods enter anyway through the tunnels and thereby generate income for Hamas. There are advantages for Israel in reducing the restrictions. In the Government’s view, any easing would strengthen the moderates in Gaza and lower the dependency of the population on Hamas. It would provide better opportunities within Gaza for education, jobs and legitimate interactions with the outside world. It is in Israel’s long-term security interests to have a stable and prosperous Gaza, which we have certainly not got at the moment with unemployment well over 28 per cent and youth unemployment at 38 per cent. The figures may well be higher than that.
Like your Lordships, the Government are obviously concerned at the broader human costs of the current situation. We are deeply concerned about the horrific reported shooting of 29 children between March 2010 and December last year near the border fence between Gaza and Israel. We have raised and continue to raise these issues with the Israeli authorities. We are concerned about reports of abuses carried out under Hamas rule in Gaza, including arbitrary detention, mistreatment, intimidation of civil society and the use of the death penalty. As I have already intimated, we are also very concerned at the all too frequent exchanges of rocket fire and air strikes between Gaza and Israel. We consistently urge all sides to show restraint and work to reduce tensions.
I obviously cannot physically cover all the many points raised in the time available. I read with great interest the report of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on his visit last July with the Council for European Palestinian Relations. It painted a very grim picture. We are concerned at the deterioration in the quality of healthcare in Gaza as a result of Israeli movement and access restrictions, and political and institutional separation between the West Bank and Gaza. The shortage of essential drugs is now critical. We have urged and will continue to urge Israel to enable uninterrupted access for medical supplies, personnel and patients from and into Gaza. The World Health Organisation confirmed the detrimental impact of movement and access restrictions on children’s health. There has been an increase in stunting in children under five resulting from malnutrition. Some 65 per cent of mothers of pre-schoolers report a negative impact on their children’s mental health.
What are we doing about that? This legitimate question comes up again and again. UK financial assistance has supported the Palestinian Authority to the tune of £87 million in 2009, 2010 and last year. About half of that goes into Gaza to support services there. We work with the UN Relief and Works Agency to provide primary healthcare and hospital care to Gazans. The Relief and Works Agency is delivering real improvements in children’s health. That includes 100 per cent immunisation of the under-fives and progress to reduce child mortality. We also support the UN Access Co-ordination Unit to facilitate the transfer of medical equipment and personnel into Gaza. Of course, we work with the European Union and the World Food Programme. I am told that DfID helps 24 UN agencies and 132 non-government agencies. The activity from the United Kingdom to support the people of Gaza in the challenges they face in all those aspects is considerable. I am sure we can always do more. We are always searching for new ways to develop our programmes.
The House can be assured that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to work extremely hard with our partners to encourage Israel to ease the restrictions further. We will also continue our important support through DfID for the people of Gaza, as I have just described, including our work to address the key access constraints, promote economic growth and provide support to the poorest and most vulnerable parts of society. Of course, all these actions are overshadowed by the bigger fact that the longer-term answer to the problems faced by the people of Gaza, and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, lies in reconciliation.
That includes reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, resulting in free and fair elections in 2012 and the formation of a new Palestinian Authority composed of independent figures who will continue the excellent work on state-building and uphold the quartet principles. We welcome recent moves in this direction. We are aware of reports that Fatah and Hamas have agreed and that President Abbas will become Prime Minister. It is a bit too early to make a detailed assessment of these changes but in our view it is important that any new Palestinian Authority should be composed of independent figures, will uphold the principle of non-violence, is committed to a negotiated, two-state solution and accepts the previous agreements of the PLO. We also look to the Palestinian Authority to continue the important progress on state-building achieved in recent years. We have made it consistently clear that we will engage with any Palestinian Government who show, through their words and actions, that they are committed to the above principles.
We also welcome the aim of reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. That is what we must work for. We encourage both sides to build on their recent talks in Jordan. We will continue to do all we can to support and encourage negotiations which lead to a sovereign, viable and contiguous Palestinian state, living in peace and security alongside a safe and secure Israel and its other neighbours in the region. When those conditions develop, the people of Gaza and their present condition can really, tangibly improve. Until we have those conditions, we will be prevented from moving in the right direction. I do not have time to go into the wider issues of the Middle East peace process or the many problems that trouble your Lordships, such as the settlements issue that continues to be, in our view, an illegal operation. I hope that I have indicated our determination and hands-on approach to the problems. This is one of the sores and tragedies of the modern world that can be resolved with determination, if we really work hard to do so.
Health and Social Care Bill
(12 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“The Secretary of State’s duty as to the NHS Constitution
After section 1A of the National Health Service Act 2006 insert—“1AA Duty as to NHS Constitution
“(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the NHS Constitution.(2) In this Act, “NHS Constitution” has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2009 (see section 1 of that Act).””
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
I shall speak also to Amendment 150, which is in my name on the Marshalled List. These amendments are a product of the conversations chaired by my noble friend Lord Laming, designed to bring the highest possible level of consensus to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, calls the suite of clauses dealing with the accountability of the Secretary of State. I am very grateful to my noble friend for his sensitive chairmanship of the discussions and to the Minister for generously accepting the argument—that the special essence of the National Health Service as distilled in the NHS constitution be enshrined in the Bill.
With this new status, the NHS constitution will shine even more, both as a beacon for all involved in healthcare, whatever their place in the proposed new mixed economy of service provision, and as a statement of enduring values, which occupy such a central place in how we wish our services to be undertaken and how we conceive of ourselves as a people.
I shall not detain your Lordships long, as I am confident that these amendments, for all the friction and division that other clauses have generated, are ones that embrace the views of the vast majority of your Lordships as they do the country they serve. But I must also express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and his colleagues in the last Labour Government, for commissioning the wide consultation whose streams of thought fed into the NHS constitution when it first appeared in January 2009. It managed to contain the key principles in seven well worded paragraphs, which I shall not recite as your Lordships have the text to hand and will be familiar with its ingredients.
The Bill, when an Act, will take a great deal of bedding down, and it will take the second coming for the rifts between the political parties and the anxieties expressed by so many health professionals to be assuaged—and perhaps not even then. However, with the NHS constitution in its prominent place towards the top of the statute, we shall have a touchstone, not just for aspiration and inspiration but for behaviour and conduct, a shared talisman for the tougher moments when the implementation of this Bill throws up its inevitable problems and controversies. When we find a lustrous patch of consensus on the NHS’s road from 1948, as represented by the NHS constitution, we should cherish it through thick and thin, for we are never better as a country than when we concentrate on those things that unite us rather than divide us. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I am very pleased to put my name to this amendment and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, on his tact and diplomacy in getting us to this point, and in getting agreement to have the constitution mentioned in the Bill, and in such a prominent part of it. In preparing a few supportive remarks, I had a look at the constitution because I was working for my noble friend Lord Darzi in a similar role to the one the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has—as his support and his Whip—when we were working towards the constitution, and when it was discussed and adopted across government and Parliament.
The importance of having it in the Bill is there in various key parts of the constitution, which are worth mentioning on the record here because we need to remember them as we move forward to discuss this Bill in all its glory in the next five or six weeks, or however long it takes us. The constitution says:
“The NHS is founded on a common set of principles and values that bind together the communities and people it serves—patients and public—and the staff who work for it”.
It goes on to say that it,
“establishes the principles and values of the NHS in England. It sets out rights … and pledges which the NHS is committed to achieve”.
It says:
“All NHS bodies and private and third sector providers supplying NHS services are required by law to take account of this Constitution in their decisions and actions”.
That is a very important part of why this needs to be in the Bill.
The final part which I would like to draw to your Lordships’ attention is point 6 of the guiding principles in the constitution, which is a commitment,
“to providing best value for taxpayers’ money and the most effective, fair and sustainable use of finite resources. Public funds for healthcare will be devoted solely to the benefit of the people that the NHS serves”.
That is exactly right. It is not the shareholders of companies and not individuals who might seek to make a profit but the people whom the NHS serves, and the taxpayer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for tabling these important amendments and for the eloquent way in which he introduced them. As he said, they seek to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the NHS constitution when exercising his functions in relation to the health service. I say to him in all sincerity that I very much welcome his contribution throughout this debate. I identify myself entirely with the enthusiastic remarks that he addressed towards the constitution itself, which is a most succinct and inspiring document, and I agree with him that we have reached a very workable and satisfactory outcome to the question that he originally posed to me and to the House.
I fully support these amendments. It is right that we continue our commitment to the principles set out in the NHS constitution. I hope that these amendments together provide noble Lords with reassurance of the Government’s continued commitment to the core principles and values to which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have referred. I commend them to the House.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their kind remarks. Earlier, a noble Lord—I forget who—thought we were mired in the treacle of consensus. All I can say is: long may we be stuck in this particular pot of treacle.
“, and(b) the Secretary of State should by regulations set out a clear system of recourse for patients, or other concerned individuals, who do not believe that an equitable service is being commissioned either for their condition or in their locality, or both.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that there is a system of recourse for patients or other people who are concerned and who do not believe that an equitable service is being commissioned either for their condition or in their locality. One of the difficulties that patients have is to challenge decisions once they have been made without a prohibitively expensive legal challenge. As a result, many decisions are made by commissioners that are effectively unchallengeable, for example on service configurations where the public are not consulted properly or in fact feel that they have not been consulted at all.
Some clear system of recourse is required that will give patients a meaningful chance to challenge decisions that they think are wrong, poorly consulted on or inadequately evidence-based, or that might even have ignored the evidence that is there or the guidance that goes with it. In such an instance, a system of recourse would be to allow people to challenge where they believed that services had not been provided fairly or equitably. I expect that the Minister will say that there is always healthwatch and that they could go to their local one, but how is that loop closed? What are the powers to influence the commissioning decision? How are patients who feel that they have really not been provided with the service that they need able to appeal, be listened to or have a fair hearing? They may be refused or their points may be accepted, but that loop for patients needs to be closed and there need to be clear pathways.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s amendment, particularly because it extends the implicit obligations under Clause 3 from the individual to the locality. It includes individual access, of course, but it speaks in terms of an equitable service being commissioned either for the individual patient’s condition or in their locality, and that enhances to a considerable degree the provision of Clause 3 and its proposed amendment to the 2006 Act. The drafting of proposed new Section 1B is a little odd, it might be thought. The intention is clearly good, but,
“have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between the people of England”,
is a slightly curious phrase. It might be asked, between the people of England and what? The drafting could be improved by the time we get to—actually it will not, as we are on Report. Perhaps it is capable of being improved, let us say.
The noble Baroness has touched on the broader issue of the locality, which raises issues of how the Government might pursue their objectives, which are shared by all sides of the House. There are different organisations in the new structure that will have a responsibility to promote equality, which will include the clinical commissioning groups and the health and well-being boards. Some mechanism ought to provide accountability for both those bodies. In particular, the need to promote equal treatment in a patient-centred service ought to be very much part of the joint strategic needs assessment that should be undertaken by the health and well-being boards, and ought to influence the commissioning. We hope that these regulations will establish that connection and, as the noble Baroness has suggested, lay down a clear structure, though not one that is too prescriptive—a pathway, as she usefully put it, for patients, individually or, as it were, collectively, to raise the issues that concern them through healthwatch.
There is another route that I hope the noble Baroness will agree would be helpful. Local authorities retain the duty of scrutiny of local health services. For that matter, inequalities can arise on the social care side of the health and social care world. Local authorities therefore provide an additional route that would repay further consideration. It ought to be feasible for a health and scrutiny committee, and I serve on one in my own authority, to have regard to the level and type of complaints regarding not only equitability but the standard of service in all parts of the health and social care services in that locality. Therefore, it would be useful if the Minister could liaise with the Local Government Association, perhaps to produce some kind of working model for dealing with this aspect. For example, it may be that the Centre for Public Scrutiny could, in conjunction with the department, the LGA and HealthWatch itself, representing patients, come up with a model that authorities could adopt and promote among their populations to provide clear recourse for dealing with difficulties and complaints about either individual treatment or collective provision that is a matter of local concern.
I hope the Minister will accept the thrust of the amendment and, even if it is not built into the Bill, that action can be taken to fulfil the aspirations that the noble Baroness has outlined.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, briefly, I should like some clarification on this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide just that in summing up. There seems to be a real difficulty here. The architecture of the Bill says that we should have a Commissioning Board and local commissioning groups, and that those local commissioning groups will have a great deal of autonomy over the services that they commission—for example, the drug pathways that they permit—in treating particular patients. This amendment appears to say that if the treatment given through the commissioning pathway of one commissioning group is different from that of another commissioning group, you would therefore have recourse to action if you felt, for instance, that the drug regime in one group was unacceptable. Perhaps I could have clarification on that. It is important because there will be that sort of difference in provision, regardless of whether we agree to the local commissioning group position.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because I believe that there will be real problems. The immense complexity of the Bill will lead to tremendous delays and a great deal of misunderstanding among people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have failed to get the service or treatment to which they are entitled. I hope the Minister can say something about the possibility of some sort of short-circuit response, whereby people who feel that they have been ill treated can, if necessary, have some kind of help and encouragement to make contact with the right people to resolve their problem.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a very useful short debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, her amendment seeks to provide appropriate recourse for individuals who believe that the commissioning of services for either their condition or their locality is inequitable. It would insert a new paragraph in the Secretary of State’s inequality duties. The noble Baroness spoke with considerable persuasiveness on this amendment but I will suggest to her that it is unnecessary and explain why.
The Bill and existing legislation already provide a number of mechanisms for exactly the kind of recourse that the noble Baroness seeks. She foresaw that I would talk about local healthwatch and I will. Local healthwatch, which will replace local involvement networks from April 2013, will provide local people with the opportunity to have their views on their needs and experiences made known to commissioners and providers of health and social care services and others. One of the roles of local healthwatch will be to make reports and recommendations about how local care services could or ought to be improved. To ensure that these have real clout, the Bill requires the people who receive such reports and recommendations, such as the NHS Commissioning Board, to have regard to them in exercising any function relating to care services.
We then have a further avenue for recourse because HealthWatch England will also provide the NHS Commissioning Board, among others, with the views of people on their needs for, and experiences of, health and social care services and on the views of local healthwatch and others on the standard of provision of services and on whether or how the standard could or should be improved. Where the board is provided with advice, it must inform HealthWatch England of its response, or proposed response, to the advice.
However, if an individual feels that a CCG, or the board, or any other body in the future health service, has neglected their responsibility with regard to tackling inequalities, they can do several things. They may raise the matter directly with the organisation itself, specifically by pursuing a complaint through the NHS complaints procedure. Where not satisfied with the response at a local level, they may refer the matter to the Health Service Ombudsman. As a last resort—I emphasise “last resort” because I do not want noble Lords to feel that this process would be run of the mill—as the NHS constitution makes clear, should an individual feel that local resolution has not been possible, and in the event that the Secretary of State or an NHS body is failing to comply with its legal duties, there would be a right to seek legal redress by means of a claim for judicial review.
There is a central issue here. CCGs will be under a statutory obligation to arrange for provision of care to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom they have responsibility. The local authority’s health and well-being board, the membership of which will include the CCG or CCGs, will assess local population needs, and will develop a strategy to meet those needs. Local healthwatch will also be a member of that board and be able to input into the strategy. There will be a duty on the CCG, the local authority and the NHS Commissioning Board to have regard to the relevant assessment and strategy when exercising functions. This would include the function of preparing commissioning plans. The NHS Commissioning Board will have a duty to perform an annual assessment of how well each CCG has fulfilled its duties in the previous financial year. This will include, in particular, an assessment of how well it has taken account of assessments and strategies under Section 116B of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.
My noble friend Lord Willis rightly said that we should expect that there will be differences between CCGs in their commissioning policies. Of course he is right, because each CCG will be bound to formulate policies for commissioning that reflect the needs of their constituent populations. I do not think that we should shy away from variation that is considered and that genuinely reflects that diversity in population. What we do not want, clearly, is postcode and random variations which have no relationship to the needs and requirements of local patients.
We should not forget either that the Health Service Commissioner has power to investigate complaints that are not resolved locally and to make recommendations as a result of those investigations. It is very rare for those recommendations not to be implemented but, in extremis—and this is not often done—the Health Service Commissioner is able to lay a report before Parliament.
We believe, therefore, that there is already a clear system of recourse where patients are concerned that an equitable service is not being commissioned either for their condition or their locality, and the Bill strengthens the ability of patients to make their views heard. The Bill also introduces, for the first time ever, duties on the Secretary of State and commissioners to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities, and amendments we have tabled would ensure that they would have to report on how they had fulfilled those duties.
With those remarks in the round, I hope that the noble Baroness is perhaps more reassured than she was at the outset of the debate, and that she will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jolly
Before the Minister sits down, will he clarify whether the same processes that he has just outlined would apply to people in receipt of specialist services that are commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board, not by local CCGs?
Earl Howe
My Lords, where a service is commissioned by the NHS Commissioning Board—and let us imagine that it is a specialised service—the patient’s recourse should be to the board. However, of course, the board will be represented at a local level rather than only centrally, and we expect that the board will be represented in health and well-being boards and in the discussions that take place there. It would therefore be possible for a patient to address their concerns, in the first instance, to the health and well-being board, which would have the ability and power to communicate directly with the NHS Commissioning Board, if that was felt to be appropriate. However, as I said, the patient would be able to go straight to the board in those circumstances.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I appreciate that this is very bad manners, given that I missed most of the debate. The Minister has just said—although perhaps I misinterpreted him—that the NHS Commissioning Board will have a representative on every local health and well-being board. If so, how will those individuals be known or accountable? Is that not the most extraordinary bureaucracy? He seems to have made a most extraordinary statement.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are at Report stage and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not reply at length. The point I was seeking to make was not about representation on the board but involvement in the health and well-being board’s wider deliberations. It is entirely open to a health and well-being board to invite a member of the Commissioning Board to be a permanent member, but I am not saying that we are prescribing that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Perhaps I may seek a tiny bit of clarification. The noble Earl spoke about the ombudsman as being almost a final port of call. Will the Minister confirm that the ombudsman would have the ability to investigate any organisation that is providing services to patients if it is in receipt of any NHS money whatever—not only if the care for an individual patient is commissioned from it but if it is receiving a block grant? In particular, I have in mind services such as those provided by hospices that may be receiving a block grant but do not have a specified contract per patient, and it may be that its patients want to question what is going on or that they have a concern that they wish to express and take further. Apart from the local complaints service within the organisation, it is really important that such patients have the same ability as other patients to have oversight through the ombudsman. I know that we have discussed this previously, and I am seeking clarification today on that issue.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
This is Report; I do not want to and fro. I will assume that that covers part-funding of care by charities as well as where care is fully funded by the NHS, so the same will apply.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the processes so clearly. It will be very helpful for patients, patient groups and charities in particular to see that laid out. For clarification, of course there will be local variation, different drug regimes and different ways of doing things. Equipoise is around the evidence base. The problem is where there is no provision or gross differences. That is where patient groups are concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 9, 34, 53 and 54.
This group of amendments deals with the role of the Secretary of State in the health system. As noble Lords will be aware, our proposals for the NHS involve a fundamental shift in the balance of power away from politicians to patients themselves and to doctors and other professionals. Greater local autonomy is one of the key things that will enable local front-line services to become more responsive and innovative, in turn delivering greater efficiency and quality. The Bill makes clear that Ministers are responsible, not for direct operational management, but for overseeing and holding to account the national bodies in the system—backed by extensive powers of intervention in the event of significant failure.
The amendments we are debating here cover some of the key concerns raised by the Constitution Committee and Peers from across the House, as part of our wider discussions about ministerial accountability. These are the autonomy duties on the Secretary of State and the Commissioning Board and the link between the functions of clinical commissioning groups and the Secretary of State’s duty to promote the comprehensive health service. I will speak to each of the amendments tabled in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seek to remove the duties of autonomy on the NHS Commissioning Board and the Secretary of State.
Amendments 8 to 10 and 52 to 54 concern the autonomy duties placed on the Secretary of State and the board. Government Amendments 8 and 53 re-phrase the duties of autonomy on the Secretary of State and the Commissioning Board as duties to,
“have regard to the desirability of”,
autonomy, rather than duties to,
“act with a view to securing”,
such autonomy. The desirability of autonomy is therefore a factor for the Secretary of State and the board to consider when exercising their functions, rather than an end which they must seek to secure or promote. That should allay the fears of those who felt that the autonomy duties would prevent Ministers and the board intervening when they needed to.
In addition, changing to a duty to have regard necessarily means that the autonomy duties are subsidiary to the primary duties of the Secretary of State in Section 1 of the NHS Act: to promote the health service and to exercise his functions so as to secure the provision of services. To that extent, there is no further need to state that the duties of autonomy are “subject to” his Section 1 duties. However, government Amendments 9 and 54 make a further change to address this point. Rather than simply say that the autonomy duty is “subject to” the duty of promoting the comprehensive health service, they set out an explicit test, which makes clear that promoting the health service and securing the provision of services takes priority over autonomy, if there is ever a conflict between the duties. We think that this more clearly indicates how the Secretary of State and the board should resolve any tension between autonomy and the interests of the health service. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this provides helpful clarity and avoids any possible doubt.
Having said that I would address the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I think that on reflection it would be discourteous of me to do so before she has introduced them. I shall therefore retain my remarks for later in the debate if she chooses to speak to those amendments. Meanwhile, I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, perhaps I may explain why I support the Government’s amendments on the autonomy clauses to which I have added my name—that is, Amendments 8, 9, 53 and 54.
The autonomy clauses were at the heart of the Government’s consultation with other noble Lords about the Secretary of State’s duties. During Committee and thereafter, at the very helpful discussions that we have had with my noble friend the Minister and with Peers across the House and, indeed, at the meeting of lawyers in which I took part with my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the lawyer advising your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, a substantial consensus was reached.
The concerns that we sought to address, which I regarded then and still regard as significant, were twofold. The first was that I believed there would be an inherent conflict between, on the one hand, the Secretary of State’s duties under Clause 1 to promote a comprehensive health service and to exercise his functions so as to secure services and, on the other hand, an unfettered duty to promote the autonomy of others. Secondly, if the Bill went unamended, there would exist a risk that a Secretary of State who was unwilling to intervene when things went wrong would be handed a justification for inaction. Such a hands-off Secretary of State could say, “I will not intervene because I am bound by my duty to promote autonomy”. In my view, with the Bill as it stands it would be very difficult to mount a successful legal challenge to such a failure to intervene.
Those were the two flaws in the Bill that the amendments were required to address. In relation to the board, the unamended Bill was flawed in exactly the same way as it is in relation to the Secretary of State.
The consultations that we held outside the Chamber during Committee led to the formulation of the Government’s amendments. As the Minister has pointed out, the effect of Amendments 8 and 53 is that the duty to act with a view to securing autonomy is reduced to a duty to have regard to the desirability of securing it. That is still subject to the limitation that the duty applies only so far as it is consistent with the interests of the health service. Therefore, what is currently an absolute duty to follow the autonomy line is to be replaced with a more nuanced and, I suggest, a more appropriate obligation to accord to the desirability of autonomy its proper place in the balancing exercise which all discretionary decision-making involves.
However, it is Amendments 9 and 54 that are decisive in addressing the concerns that we identified. Those two amendments provide that in the case of conflict between the Secretary of State’s or the board’s duties in relation to autonomy and their overarching duties under Clause 1 or the board’s overarching duties to secure the provision of services, those overarching duties will prevail. Those four amendments taken together fully address the two flaws of which I spoke and, I suggest, completely resolve the issues that they pose.
I turn now to the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, directed at deleting the two autonomy clauses. Indeed, at the earlier stages of this process, I believed that the autonomy clauses could and should be deleted from the Bill. However, my view now is that with the problems that they presented having been addressed, we should support the government amendments and retain the two clauses as amended. Promoting autonomy is, in principle, to be welcomed as many who have spoken from all sides of the House both on Second Reading and in Committee have stressed. It is fundamental to the architecture of the Bill, and its great merit that it establishes a clear, decentralised structure for the health service. It is entirely welcome that future commissioning decisions, in particular, will be made locally to meet local needs, locally assessed.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, the House will be aware that the second report of the Constitution Committee on this Bill suggested amendments in this area, precisely for the reasons well outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and as expressed by the Minister. We were concerned that the way in which the Bill was originally framed would dilute that line of responsibility through the Secretary of State and that the provisions on autonomy were such that that link would be broken, or at least threatened.
I wish to explain briefly why, although the committee produced amendments that are very similar to the ones tabled by the Government and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I have not put my name to them. That is simply because the wording of the government amendment is not as simple as the one that the Constitution Committee supported and wished to see in the Bill. We suggested:
“Subject to sections 1(1) and 1(3)”,
which we discussed on government Amendment 5,
“and so far as is consistent with the interests of the health service, the Secretary of State must, in exercising functions in relation to that service, have regard to the desirability of securing”,
et cetera. Clearly that is very close to the wording of the amendment tabled by the Government. The Constitution Committee is particularly grateful for the phrase “having regard to”, as the Minister has explained. We were not in a position to discuss the change in formulation that has occurred, and we have yet to listen to my noble friend Lady Thornton, but as there were members of the committee who, like me, would prefer to see this clause deleted, I have not put my name to this amendment although I understand that it is very close to the one that the committee originally suggested.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I wish to raise some questions because I have put my name to the amendment suggesting that Clause 4 be deleted. The Government’s guidance notes published with the amendment that has been tabled appear to make the duty of autonomy subject to the Secretary of State, but there is ongoing concern that there remains the risk that the clause could be used by clinical commissioning groups to justify not providing a full range of services or putting inappropriate services out to tender. While local organisations should have the freedom to respond appropriately to the health needs of the population, local commissioners should not be able to act totally autonomously and commissioners must have regard to national guidance. In his closing summary, the counsel to the chair in the Francis inquiry pointed out that there is a need for far greater standardisation of operating and quality standards in the NHS and close monitoring of compliance.
Concern about the inclusion of Clause 4 continues to lead to some uncertainty, confusion and concern about how competition would be applied in the new system. Phase 2 of the Future Forum recommended that the Government clarify the rules on choice, competition and integration. The concern is that if the restraint on autonomy is not as tight as it possibly ought to be, services could fragment. The Government need to clarify that integration will trump competition. I ask the Minister to clarify that the national Commissioning Board will be prepared to intervene if clinicians feel that the type of competition that is being proposed could fragment services. We have heard quite a lot about commissioning along whole-care pathways, such as musculoskeletal services and mental health services, and in whole-function areas, such as community services. There is concern that where this has happened in the east of England with musculoskeletal and respiratory pathways, there is a sense that they should have been put out to tender more than they have been. There is concern that there are times when whole-care pathways should not be subject to competition. The difficulty with the clause is that it leaves in doubt how much integrated whole-care pathways, which may not leave complete autonomy to different parts of the system, will trump competition between different parts of the system.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this group of amendments, but I want to make a couple of points and leave a question with the Minister. I have always been in the camp that feels that Clause 4 was misguided and should be abandoned. I can see the case, which was put very well by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for retaining Clause 4 with these more controlled features. Listening to this debate, I have a number of concerns.
There is genuine concern that there might be a really rogue clinical commissioning group, but listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has revived my concern that somewhere along the line, if we are not very careful and are too controlling, we will stop the initiatives that we want from commissioners as the NHS faces considerable challenges. As the House knows, I do not have the same fear that other Members of your Lordships' House have about third-sector or independent-sector providers, so I would not want anything in the peace that we see breaking out here to inhibit creative clinical commissioning groups setting off on new paths for new types of services simply because major people in the NHS have not woken up to the need for significant change. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that, in accepting this more nuanced version of Clause 4 on autonomy, we are not really inhibiting the creativity of clinical commissioning groups to bring in new players, even if it may seem a rather radical idea when they start to do it.
Finally, as the Minister knows, I have a mild obsession with the whole issue of a pre-failure provision in this legislation, which we will come to later. One of my continuing concerns is that we do not want to end up with a situation where we are restricting the ability of the National Commissioning Board to begin to intervene—to tackle failure at the local level—simply because autonomy requires people to flounder along as long as they like on the grounds that it is all about localism. I hope the nuanced version of Clause 4 that we are getting is still accepted as something that would enable the National Commissioning Board to intervene when there was a total failure by providers and commissioners at the local level to tackle the problems of clinical and financial unsustainability.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, every time I look at Clause 4—[Laughter.] I cannot understand what my noble friends find so amusing, but every time I look at this particular clause—if that makes it easier for them—and particularly listening to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I have been confused as to what problem the Government think they are solving by the clauses on autonomy.
There is apparently a concern about micromanagement. There is a desire to have local innovation, flexibility and local responsiveness. What is it about the current arrangements in the NHS that necessarily prevents local innovation, flexibility and local responsiveness? Why are we having these discussions? If there is a concern from the Government that they are micromanaging, they have a solution—they stop micromanaging. Again, what are we trying to do here?
However, once you include,
“the desirability of securing, so far as consistent with the interests of the health service”—
or whatever form of words you choose to have—this principle of autonomy, you are setting up an automatic conflict. If the form of words that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, have put their names to was in the Bill, does this mean that the Secretary of State will be intervening when there are clear cases of postcode lottery? That presumably is the implication. Or is the Secretary of State now going to say that in fact a postcode lottery is what this legislation is designed to create? We should be clear about what these clauses are trying to prevent. What is the problem that they are trying to solve?
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was moving in his description of how the Secretary of State would weigh these difficult issues of the possible conflict between,
“the desirability of securing, so far as consistent with the interests of the health service”,
autonomy and the priorities of the fundamental role of the NHS. This is a balance that has to be weighed. He talked about this line of accountability that will exist between the NHS Commissioning Board and the CCGs—these tentacles that the NHS Commissioning Board will put throughout the NHS. They will be unaccountable and anonymous, and individuals will be operating at regional or at local level.
There will be an army of people operating as the tentacles of the NHS Commissioning Board. They will be informing the Secretary of State so that he can exercise his judgments about the balance between autonomy and meeting the principles of the NHS. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is creating the most extraordinary bureaucratic monster to solve a problem that could be easily solved simply by resisting his tendency to micromanage.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I support the government amendments in this group, which are also in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks. They represent the last in a suite of 10 amendments which came out of the process so eloquently described by many noble Lords in earlier debates today, and which take us from the Secretary of State right through the board to CCGs, accountability and micromanagement, tentacles and all.
Like everyone else I should like to state my thanks, and on my Benches there are two people to whom I owe particular thanks. My noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Marks worked very hard from last March to make this happen. In association with many others, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who is no longer in his place, they worked extremely hard at getting these amendments together. I hope that the noble Lord feels comfortable and confident about the expression he used in Committee about the DNA of NHS Bills, and that he feels that that DNA is now weaving through this suite of amendments—from the 1940s to the 21st century. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the Constitution Committee played such a vital role, and my noble friend the Minister smoothed the way. As I say, however, I thank in particular my noble friends Lady Williams and Lord Marks.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, when we were having our negotiations on this part—on which I was very happy to take part, even if I was regarded on some issues more as grit in the oyster than as co-operative help—they were about these issues, including autonomy. I have not changed my view. I shall speak to Amendments 10, 36 and 52.
We have no problem with the concept of autonomy. In principle our position is that autonomy has to be earned, and that it should be able to be taken away as well. That formed the principle and the basis on which the foundation trusts were established. However, we part company with the Government on their view of autonomy, and we are not completely convinced by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. On first sight of the Bill it seemed that autonomy was to be presumed and that each part of the service would be subject to less interference from the other parts in a way which could be detrimental. There would therefore be less performance management, and giving various bodies more powers with less need to sign off an agreement could mean that there would be less co-operation. Bodies acting in their own interests via a market process will mean that the motivation could be something that does not have the NHS and patients at its heart, and that there is less planning and system management, which sometimes actually is required. That is how you deal with things like postcode lotteries. You have to collect the information, compare it between different parts of the country experiencing different levels of deprivation, and then you have to take decisions which are about planning how to use your resources to ensure that people are not disadvantaged. So there are some very good reasons why planning and systems need to be in place.
The original briefing on the Bill stated that CCGs would not have PCTs or SHAs above them to performance manage them and that the commissioning bodies were not meant to performance manage but only to step in if there was a danger of failure. Again, that was the original briefing. It is not surprising that when we first discussed this in Committee there was general agreement across the House that the Bill would be better off without Clause 4 and what was then Clause 10 but is now Clause 12.
Since then the Constitution Committee has done what I think is really rather a good job. Although I was not deliriously happy about it, I was prepared to live with the draft produced by the committee. However, I do have problems with the draft that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the Minister have brought to the House. The provisions are not strong enough and some of the dangers that we originally expressed about problems with the autonomy clauses still exist. Furthermore, I take very much to heart the questions that both of my noble friends have raised. From different points of view they have asked pertinent questions and shown up the problems with the autonomy clauses. That is why, certainly in the process of our negotiations on Clause 4, I reserved my position to come to the House and explore whether what we actually wanted to do was delete it completely at this stage. On Clause 12, for the sake of consistency we feel that it should also be deleted. However, I have to say that because of the amendments that were accepted in the process of our negotiations, we feel less strongly about it.
I am not any more convinced as a result of this debate that our original position is not the right one—that if we cannot have the Constitution Committee’s version of Clause 4, we should delete the whole clause. Obviously I will listen to the Minister’s summing up of the debate, but at the moment I remain convinced that our position is indeed the correct one.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has spoken to Amendments 10 and 52, which, as she has said, would remove altogether the autonomy duties on the Secretary of State and the board. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked me what the problem is that the Bill is trying to solve in this regard. The duty is intended to promote a culture of fostering local autonomy rather than to outlaw specific practices; but without a focus on autonomy, it is possible that the mandate from the Secretary of State to the board or the framework document from the board to CCGs could impose disproportionately burdensome requirements on the system. The Government believe that local operational autonomy is essential to enable the health service to improve the outcomes of care for patients, provided that autonomy is within the framework of clear ministerial accountability.
The noble Baroness will be aware, because I have said it before, that we are aiming to free those closest to services to take decisions that are right for patients, free from central micromanagement by either the Department of Health or the NHS Commissioning Board. The amended duties, with the caveat that the interests of the health service take priority, achieve the right balance between autonomy and accountability. Without the clause, a future Secretary of State could choose to ignore one of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which is that those closest to patients are best placed to take clinical decisions. Without the clause, a future Secretary of State would be free to use his extensive powers to micromanage the NHS. The autonomy duty is a necessary part of the Bill, placing a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the expertise of those in the health service while recognising that there will be circumstances—
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, the noble Earl seems to be saying that you cannot trust your own Secretary of State not to micromanage unless they are effectively forbidden from doing so. We have all talked of the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament. Surely the principle is that an accountable Secretary of State will be under enormous pressure from Parliament not to micromanage. If it is such a central issue of policy, Secretaries of State should simply be told not to do it, rather than requiring an Act of Parliament.
Earl Howe
I challenge the noble Lord to think of one Secretary of State, with the distinguished exception of my right honourable friend Mr Lansley, who has not succumbed to the temptation of micromanaging the NHS. No Secretary of State has been able to resist that temptation because, frankly, Parliament expects them to do it. That is what the system has expected of the Secretary of State. This is a burden on commissioners and clinicians, and, in the end, it does not well serve the interests of patients. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say, “Well, just stop”, but the system encourages it and the duties on the Secretary of State are there to encourage it.
Baroness Thornton
I cannot resist saying that the noble Earl’s right honourable friend Mr Lansley has dabbled and intervened on at least 12 occasions since the Bill started. He is on the record as saying on one of those occasions that certain managers should be sacked. Is the noble Earl saying that that will cease when this Bill is on the statute book?
Earl Howe
I am saying that the Secretary of State will not have the ability to micromanage the health service as he does at the moment. Whether the examples cited by the noble Baroness constitute micromanagement, if my right honourable friend is just expressing a view, I rather question.
The autonomy duty is a necessary part of the Bill because it places a duty on the Secretary of State to consider the expertise of those in the health service while recognising that there will be circumstances in which they must be able to step in to protect the interests of health service patients. That is the balance that we are trying to strike.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether the autonomy duty would allow a clinical commissioning group to justify not commissioning the full range of services. The autonomy duty does not apply to CCGs; it is a requirement on the board and the Secretary of State. If a CCG chooses not to commission services and the board considers that this is not consistent with the interests of the health service, the board can intervene to direct a CCG. If the board fails to intervene when necessary, the Secretary of State has power to intervene. Finally, the Secretary of State can set out services which CCGs must commission, and he can do that in the standing rules if he considers it necessary. The CCG’s key duty is to arrange services as it considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements of the population that it is responsible for, and the amendments do not change that in the slightest.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
The noble Lord may be surprised to hear me ask this question because, as he kindly said, I have been very determined that the provisions on accountability and parliamentary responsibility et cetera should be strengthened in the Bill. However, I listened to what my noble friend Lord Harris said about what he described as the “increasing tentacles” of these links between the various providers and the Secretary of State. Is the Minister not becoming concerned—as I would in his position—that all this new accountability and these links undermine the basic policy positions of the Bill? That is why, for example, my noble friend Lady Thornton suggested that it would be cleaner—if that is the word—to remove the whole of Clause 4 from the Bill. The complexities that are being set up and strengthened, as the Minister has agreed, make the whole thing so incredibly complicated and bureaucratic that the underlying policy positions are being totally distorted.
Earl Howe
I do not share that view at all. I do not think that the autonomy and accountability arrangements are as complex as the noble Baroness seems to suggest. Autonomy and accountability are two sides of the same coin; one confers autonomy in exchange for accountability. That is the model that we have adopted and the one that I would hope that Parliament would wish us to adopt, given that substantial sums of public money will be at the disposal of commissioners throughout the NHS. I therefore do not see that the metaphor of tentacles employed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is actually very appropriate. It implies that there is an organisation holding those in the health service in a grip. That will not be the case. The role of the board is to support local commissioners; it is to be there as a resource to promote guidance, supported by the quality standards that we were debating earlier. It is not—I repeat not—a replica of the kind of line management that the NHS has seen to date.
“( ) If, in the case of any exercise of functions, the Secretary of State considers that there is a conflict between the matters mentioned in subsection (1) and the discharge by the Secretary of State of the duties under section 1, the Secretary of State must give priority to the duties under that section.””
Earl Howe
My Lords, we come to an issue that exercised us on more than one occasion in Committee—the issue of health-related research and the use of research evidence in the health service. My noble friend Lord Willis and others urged me to look again at the Bill’s drafting, having expressed a concern that there was a need to strengthen the duties on the Secretary of State, the NHS Commissioning Board and CCGs to promote research, and the use in the health service of evidence obtained from research when exercising their functions.
Government Amendments 11, 60 and 103 are a response to that concern, and I hope that they will be welcome. The Government are absolutely committed to promoting research throughout the health service. By tightening the wording around the duties, we believe that the amendments send a powerful signal of that commitment. I beg to move.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
My Lords, it is a very pleasant duty to know that amendments proposed in Committee have been accepted by the Government in their totality. I thank the Minister for doing that. Amendment 11 removes from the Secretary of State the idea of “having regard to the need to”, and gives a clear duty to promote research—and that is the case in Amendment 60, with commissioning boards, and in Amendment 103, with the local commissioning groups.
The broader research community—from the Wellcome Trust; the Academy of Medical Sciences; and members of the organisation that I chair and declare an interest in, the Association of Medical Research Charities—is incredibly grateful to the Minister for persuading his colleague, the Secretary of State, to accept far stronger policy on the duty to research. I also put on record my thanks to noble Lords on all sides of the House, including Cross-Benchers and Front-Benchers, for supporting this. It is very rare that you get such an area, which will clearly make a fundamental difference to patients, bringing the latest research to the bedside as quickly as possible—and to get the whole House to support that.
The result of this, if we make it work, will be the only research-led health service in the world. That is an incredible achievement in your Lordships' House and in many ways surpasses some of the debates that we have had about other areas, which frankly will not make a great deal of difference. I include the debate on Clause 4, which we have just had. I know that Members on the Labour Benches like debating Clause 4; it gives them a feeling of déjà vu. However, in reality, for us as a nation to say that we have a research-led health service, where we can bring our huge clinical research base very quickly to patients, gives us an opportunity not only to deliver wonderful healthcare but to use that as an economic generator right across the world, and to bring high-quality healthcare to people who desperately need it. In fact, they need it a great deal more than we do.
In order for that to work and for these to be more than simply words in a Bill or rhetoric in this House, there have to be mechanisms to ensure that the duty which we have now agreed for the Secretary of State—or which I hope we will agree—concerned with the commissioning board and the commissioning groups, is actually brought to bear. There is nothing left in the Bill which gives me the comfort of saying that is going to happen.
We asked in Committee whether the commissioning board, and indeed the commissioning groups, should have to include in their commissioning plans what activity is taking place in research. If we get the health research authority up and running—I commend the Minister for all that he has done in terms of the special health authority—and if we start to get the 70-day permissions for clinical trials in, we will have a Rolls-Royce system, if I may use that analogy, for bringing research programmes right through into our hospitals for our patient development. However, unless we are able to have that built into the commissioning plans, and unless the commissioning board and the Secretary of State drive that—and this House and another place hold him accountable for that duty—quite frankly, it will be a hollow gesture.
We also sought in Committee a requirement to report on that activity. How telling it would be if patients asked the commissioning groups or their local GP, “What is the activity in the cause that I have?”? We had that wonderful debate earlier on prostate cancer. That is the way in which we will get research developments brought into the clinics and into GPs: by patients being able to query what is happening in research. In thanking my noble friend the Minister, I ask him whether, in responding to this short debate, he will outline to the House very clearly how we are going to make this work. How will we make that duty to promote research into having an NHS that is world-class in terms of its research? How will it work?
Lord Warner
My Lords, I intervene briefly to echo everything that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said. We should not rest on our laurels as regards research. I do not want to go over the ground of micromanagement, but the NHS is very quick indeed to forget its responsibilities on research—and I say this as a Minister who was responsible for NHS research and development under the previous Government. We do not want to go back over the micromanagement debate, but the mandate is a critical issue if the NHS is really to keep research at the forefront of its thinking.
That is because at local level, too often on the provider side of the NHS research is forgotten. It is a Cinderella service which comes second to service delivery, and we end up seeing that people at senior levels and at local level absolve their responsibilities in this area. Nothing is a better example of that than the way in which local ethics committees and the people around them have inhibited the advance and the speedy development of research. I do not think that the Secretary of State can absolve himself of these responsibilities here with just this duty. Year in, year out, he will have to use the standing rules and the mandate to make sure that the NHS’s nose is kept to the research grindstone in the very way that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said. I hope that the Minister will be able to convey some of that back in the department as well as on the Floor of the House.
Lord Patel
My Lords, my name was on many of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, in Committee about promoting research. As someone who has been involved in or trying to do clinical research for many years—I declare an interest as a member of the council of the Medical Research Council—I commend the Government and welcome the amendments. They open up the possibility for commissioning groups to promote research in many ways, such as promoting clinical trials and encouraging the development of tissue banks, proper bioinformatics and proper audit and record-keeping. That will open up the field of stem cell therapy, bioinformatics, regenerative medicine and genomics, which will be very good for the NHS.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
My Lords, I, too, put my name to the amendments in Committee that have helped to precipitate this very welcome government amendment and the support of the Minister. I do not want to repeat what has already been said but I want to make one point: we in the House of Lords have worked hard to promote the importance of research in the NHS, and we will take a strong interest in the mechanisms that I am sure the Minister will describe in a moment, and indeed later on Report, to see how this duty will be promoted and evaluated. There are also important mechanisms in this House through the Science and Technology Committee, and I hope that many of the noble Lords who are on that committee will bear that in mind when it comes to looking at how this welcome duty is put into practice.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I would also like to formally record an enormous welcome to these changes to the Bill. What has been said in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Warner, is very pertinent regarding the need to keep questioning. The one thing now that can happen is that those who are actively involved in research can actually question if they get blocked, in a way that they could not before. I think that they will be very bright and questioning people who will make it known if they are not able to do the research that they see needs to be done for the improvement of clinical services.
Indeed, if we can speed up the processes, perhaps we can create an environment in which all patients and relatives understand that a research-rich environment is one that drives up standards of care, and therefore that they are not being experimented on but are being invited to participate when there is equipoise in the highest standards of monitoring that they could possibly have. The governance around research processes in this country is potentially second to none. We may then regain some of those external trials that up until now have, sadly, been bleeding from our shores. The amendments are incredibly important and their universal welcome is very appropriate. The Minister is to be personally congratulated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, from the opposition Benches we too welcome the amendments, which very much reflect the debate that we had in Committee on the importance of research. The Chief Medical Officer has paid a visit to Birmingham over the past two days; he gave a lecture at Birmingham University and visited my own trust to discuss research and the role of the NHS in it. My noble friend Lord Warner has put his finger on it: the question to the Minister is how we make sure that the NHS makes a sufficient contribution in future to the development and support of research. The Minister will know that the Chief Medical Officer is a passionate advocate of research and excellence in the NHS, and that is to be warmly welcomed.
There are some issues that need to be tackled. We have already heard about the issue of getting approval for clinical trials. We still have the problem, which has been with us for many years now, of local committees taking far too long and repeating work by other committees. I understand that there are some issues around the fact that, because foundation trusts are separate legal entities, they have to go through the process themselves, but if they join a clinical academic network some of that work can be reduced. I know that there is to be an announcement at, I think, the end of March about how these clinical networks are to be developed in the future. That is a very important way of enhancing research.
There is no question that the more we do in research, the better the outcomes not only for patients but for the UK’s reputation and economic well-being. Healthcare research is surely an area to which we need to give great priority. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is of course responsible and we are very glad that he is leading this work. However, there is no doubt that, welcome though these amendments are, we should be given some assurance that the Government will now take them forward into the new situation with enthusiasm.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I begin by saying how much I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There are two very good reasons why research needs to be promoted in the NHS. The first is that it is for the good of patients. The other is that it is potentially for the good of UK plc. If we can attract investment in translational and clinical research to this country, it will be a major advance. The sad truth is that in recent years the UK has been slipping back in the international league table as a location for clinical research. The Government are determined to reverse that trend, as were the previous Government. We are trying our best to build on the foundations that the previous Government set.
Noble Lords have asked me to explain how the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research will work in practice. I shall try to do so in a few words. The Secretary of State will use the mandate to set priorities for the health service, based on his legal duties. One of those duties is to promote research within the health service, which is shared by the board and CCGs. What are the tools at the Secretary of State’s disposal? The National Institute for Health Research—the NIHR—which is headed by Professor Dame Sally Davies, provides transparent, competitive funding to support clinical and applied health research, the training and development of health researchers, systems to support research and the NHS infrastructure for research. The NIHR will continue to be part of the Department of Health. Its budget of £1 billion is held centrally by the department. The Chief Medical Officer will remain responsible for the NIHR and its budget.
The second main route that the Secretary of State uses, and will continue to use, to support research, is through the NHS. Since the NHS was established, its patient care budget has funded the patient care costs of patients who are taking part in research in the NHS, as set out in existing guidance. In the future, the NHS Commissioning Board and clinical commissioning groups will ensure that these costs continue to be met through these arrangements. The research costs of these studies are paid by the Government and charity research funders such as the Medical Research Council, the NIHR, Cancer Research UK and the Wellcome Trust. The NHS benefits greatly from the evidence provided by this research.
Let us not forget, too, that the Secretary of State will be held to account for what he does. He must report annually to Parliament on the performance of the health service. There is an expectation that he will report on how he has fulfilled his statutory duties.
That brings us to the duties placed on the board. In the document we published, Developing Clinical Commissioning Groups: Towards Authorisation, we set out the early thinking on the authorisation process. The document highlights that as part of the process CCGs will need to demonstrate how they will exercise important functions, such as the duty to promote research, and the NHS Commissioning Board will seek consistency in the way in which CCGs exercise these duties. Furthermore, a CCG’s commissioning plan, and its annual report, as well as the board’s annual assessment of the group’s performance, will cover the exercise of all the CCG’s functions, including the duty to promote research.
I hope that that has given noble Lords a clear outline of how this is all going to work. We regard these duties as extremely important. These amendments are extremely important, as my noble friend said. I am in no doubt that both the health service and its patients will be better off as a result of them.